File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_1999/anarchy-list.9912, message 960


Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:45:05 +0000
From: joel ng <joel.ng-AT-uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Top Anarchist Events of the Century


Chaos912-AT-aol.com exercises some convenient snippages thusly:
> Sure, OK, it was against property.  I guess we shouldn't feel sorry for all
> those people that woke up the next morning and didn't have a job to go to?

How many people was that?  100?  Some rich corporate CEOs?  How I
mourn.  I may actually just shed a tear.  Their jobs are still there
mind you (they just can't "go to" their jobs for a few days), not like
millions of ordinary workers who got laid off due to "globalisation" and
"free trade" caused by the WTO and their structural adjustment programs.

> Don't just say it was "mindless corporations" or something like that.  I work
> for a corporation.  Does that make me evil?

No.  But you are evil.

> Does that give someone else the
> right to take away my job?

No.  But they will if you were unprofitable.

> What would be my correct retaliation?

Something along the lines of N30 Seattle.

> Lets not
> look at this as a war on the government.

Exactly.  But it demonstrated how the government is squarely on the side
of big biz.  That was what the protestors were against: big
multi-nationals who think nothing of destroying people's lives, the
environment, societies and fleeing at the first sign of worker
resistance to make money.

>  It wasn't by any means.  It was a
> war on the people and I think it was absurd.

Which people?  The people who daily exploit little children in
sweatshops round the world at below-subsistence wages?
 
> <How many people died in Seattle,
> compared to when comrade Clinton decided some cruise missiles in
> downtown Baghdad would bolster his image?  Or is it alright as long as
> the State isn't shooting at *you*?>
> 
> So are we fighting fire with fire again? I think it's hypocritical.

Ah.  Convenient snippages.  I was asking you who was more violent. 
Anarchists, or the state?  You did say after all you were choosing the
less violent side.  You still haven't answered the question.
 
> <The right to do what?>
> 
> Go against beliefs peacefully.

Have you ever heard of the state going against beliefs *peacefully*? 
Why else do they have COINTELPRO and the School of the Americas and so
forth?  To gently persuade everyone how liberalisation saves jobs?
 
> <Tear gas and rubber bullets are only temporary compared to
> broken shop windows.  Locking up peaceful protestors after first gassing
> them and shooting them doesn't sound too bad.>
> 
> I believe the tear gas and the rubber bullets were necessary after the first
> window broke.

Unfortunately, it seems that you have sucked up mainstream media and are
utterly clueless at this point.  Rubber bullets and tear gas were used
long before any broken windows, and it was indiscriminately used...
Maybe you should read Josh's excellent rebuttal to your insignificant
attempt at a response.

>  Protesting peacefully and breaking shit are totally different.

Exactly.  Which is why we are against the state.

>  I don't respect the no protesting zones, but it doesn't make me want to
> destroy anything.  A lil immature no?

Yes you are.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005