File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2004/anarchy-list.0408, message 134


Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:17:38 -0500
From: dan combs <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: re: Zapatistas and drugs (here we go again...)



At 05:57 PM 8/20/2004, andrew robinson wrote:

>"Real conditions" can be a good excuse for not having principles.
<snip>

This piece of shit post was completely meaningless drivel.   No one around 
here has been defending the Zapastistas "statist" tendencies.   Tell me you 
just reposted some slobbery screed you had written earlier for some other list.

But for what it is wirth, pipsqueak, not everyone on this list revels in 
the term "anarchist" and fewer still try to be pure in deed as well as 
ideology.  Your dismissal of "real conditions" allows you to be quite the 
armchair revolutionary.  However, most of the people on this list and in 
anti-authority movements anywhere have to make certain concessions to The 
Apparatus in order to survive.  No one denies this and since we admit it, 
we are living a relativist position--whether pure in ideology or 
not.  Taking this "real condition" in a logical procession we can then see 
that the anit-authoritarian nature of our politics allows us to support 
revolutionary movements all around the globe.   I support the Zapastistas, 
somewhat, because they are ("were" may be a better tense) in revolt against 
the status quo of the state.   It may be a relativist position but it is 
based on reality and not some book you may have read.

Stirner?  Whoop-dee-friggin-doo.   I'm sure that impressed a lot of 
us.   The only things I've read ar eBob black's "Abolitioon of Wirk" 
(WIRK?) and Tad Kepley's "Fear of a Tad Planet."

But I wander, the relativist resistance to the state will garner my 
anti-authoritarian support right up until the Zapastistas win (not likely), 
at which point I/we start supporting those in resistance to the new state.

This support does not extend to all resistance movements as some are really 
quite counter-revolutionary, but for those that incrementally push towards 
the goal of libertarian socialism or anti-authoritarianism, what would you 
have us do, stand idly by waiting on The One True Revolution(t) and that 
revolution only and abandon those who are actually confronting The 
Beast?   Your leap into ideological pathos is to suggest that since little 
can be accomplished, noting should be attempted.

You, my dear, are a moron.

carp






HTML VERSION:

At 05:57 PM 8/20/2004, andrew robinson wrote:

=93Real conditions=94 can be a good excuse for not having principles. 
<snip>

This piece of shit post was completely meaningless drivel.   No one around here has been defending the Zapastistas "statist" tendencies.   Tell me you just reposted some slobbery screed you had written earlier for some other list.

But for what it is wirth, pipsqueak, not everyone on this list revels in the term "anarchist" and fewer still try to be pure in deed as well as ideology.  Your dismissal of "real conditions" allows you to be quite the armchair revolutionary.  However, most of the people on this list and in anti-authority movements anywhere have to make certain concessions to The Apparatus in order to survive.  No one denies this and since we admit it, we are living a relativist position--whether pure in ideology or not.  Taking this "real condition" in a logical procession we can then see that the anit-authoritarian nature of our politics allows us to support revolutionary movements all around the globe.   I support the Zapastistas, somewhat, because they are ("were" may be a better tense) in revolt against the status quo of the state.   It may be a relativist position but it is based on reality and not some book you may have read.

Stirner?  Whoop-dee-friggin-doo.   I'm sure that impressed a lot of us.   The only things I've read ar eBob black's "Abolitioon of Wirk" (WIRK?) and Tad Kepley's "Fear of a Tad Planet."

But I wander, the relativist resistance to the state will garner my anti-authoritarian support right up until the Zapastistas win (not likely), at which point I/we start supporting those in resistance to the new state.

This support does not extend to all resistance movements as some are really quite counter-revolutionary, but for those that incrementally push towards the goal of libertarian socialism or anti-authoritarianism, what would you have us do, stand idly by waiting on The One True Revolution(t) and that revolution only and abandon those who are actually confronting The Beast?   Your leap into ideological pathos is to suggest that since little can be accomplished, noting should be attempted.

You, my dear, are a moron.

carp



 


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005