SimonF Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 So I read someones grumbles about Stef and Adam charging for an anarchist convention recently, apparantly anarchists are supposed to do events for "free". I don't believe the event in question is even organised by Stef and Adam, they are just speakers. But critics rarely worry about such details. And then I got to thinking that Stef alone produces more free material in a week than all the red and black factions combined produce in a year. I spent some of my adolescence around red and black anarchists, at the time they were the anarchist movement as such. They occassionally put down their beer and tobacco long enough to escape their parents house, squat or state subsidized accomodation to organise some flag waving or exchange dusty books amongst themselves at free book fairs. If not that, then it's busting up someone elses property, cos that is theft, and then going back to their well locked up abodes. This speaks volumes to me at a chasmic difference between the capitalistic and communistic mentality amongst the anarchist factions. The only time commies will produce a "revolution" is when the state helps them, no wonder. Way to go.
Alan C. Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 What were they complaining about? Travel is expensive.
SimonF Posted February 23, 2013 Author Posted February 23, 2013 What were they complaining about? Travel is expensive. I think they are supposed to cover costs themselves, because it's "for the cause".
VforVoluntary49 Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 Just because people label themselves "anarchist' doesn't make them that. I can call myself a dragon but no matter how much I believe it I am actually not a dragon. Trying to debate or even talk to an "anarco-syndicalist" or libertarian-socialist etc. is so frustrating because they are like a Frankenstein monster-espousing some ideas of merit combined with some of the most irrational stuff ever that denies human nature. I try to not even refer to them as anarchists because they can't be, at least not in any of the true definitions. It's just communism/socialism by taking a different road. As you said, anracho-capitalism is really the only logically consistent and moral path to a stateless society-it's the only one that doesn't require guns pointed at people to arrive at.
Rick Horton Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 As you said, anracho-capitalism is really the only logically consistent and moral path to a stateless society-it's the only one that doesn't require guns pointed at people to arrive at. Anarchists wouldn't need guns?
VforVoluntary49 Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 I meant to arrive at a stateless society-we can have and use guns in self-defense but to get to a stateless society guns are not "required" to be used to get there. To arrive at an anarcho-syndicalist society, guns/violence would (I believe) be needed, which is why I don't consider it moral or just, or sustainable in any long run sense. I mean guns with violence/aggression/violating the NAP.
Recommended Posts