|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Jun 2, 2005 0:37:19 GMT -5
Just a very quick reply to WC, then I have to get back to work. (Rest assured, everyone else will get a response eventually...) Righto, this about the EU, but in any case... 1) Yes of course, the Communists were able to maipulate the Popular Front more and more as the Civil War continued, and internal dissensions between all players certainly weakened the Republic. But, do you think that the individual groups would have done better alone?? Do you think that if the anarcists had fought alone during the Spanish Civil War, they would have won??? Me, I thought that a major reason for Franco's virtory was the support he got from Hitler and Mussolini, but you're right, I'm sure that Franco's battle-hardened legions, armed with the latest artillery, bombers, fighters, guns and tanks as they were, would have been no match for a few thousand impassioned Anarshists with dodgy rifles and high morale. Sure. So, let me get this straight, you seriously maintain that, but for the Anarchists aligning themselves with the Poular Front, they would have won the war??? WC, let me ask you, if you were a Jew, homosexual, or hey, even an anarshist, living during the Second World War, are you telling me that you wouldn't have supported those "corrupt and power-hungry" Western Democracies against Nazi Germany?  Becuase, surely, the threat of climate change and civilisational collapse is every bit as real as the threat of Nazism was. 2) Your allusions to my Catholicism are funny, but way off the mark. I don't think there'll ever be a literal second coming of Christ, no. There's many theological and logical reasons why, but I won't go into them here. Furthermore, I don't think that humans are "petty little shits" as some have said. Humans are much more than that. However, I do think that the evidence of the irrationality and selfish short-sightedness of humanity is almost beyond argument, but of course, this is not the argument for this forum. Nor is on topic for me to say that I think Ratzinger is killing the Church, corrupting its mission and slowly turning me away from it, but you'll have to excuse me for saying it anyway. Anyway, I'll have to leave it at that, but I'll be very interested to see WC's response (and that of anyone else that's interested) to the question I posed in point 1 about aligning with others against mutual enemies such as Franco and Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Jun 2, 2005 0:45:54 GMT -5
Let me just clear up one point before you all respond. I don't think that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I do however think that if any given threat is grave enough, and if other groups are reasonable enough, I would support a temporary alliance over that specific issue. Hence, I wouldn't support joining forces with al qaida (I think that's spelt right...) against the US, or with the far right, such as Le Penn against the EU constitution. The threat is not that grave, and in any case, those forces are worse than what is being fought against. I also think that its interesting that anarchists that are otherwise anti-voting, such as your good selves, would be happy with the result. I mean, don't many of you think that all voting is a betrayal? |
|
|
|
Post by allers on Jun 2, 2005 7:27:37 GMT -5
Let me just clear up one point before you all respond. I don't think that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I do however think that if any given threat is grave enough, and if other groups are reasonable enough, I would support a temporary alliance over that specific issue. Hence, I wouldn't support joining forces with al qaida (I think that's spelt right...) against the US, or with the far right, such as Le Penn against the EU constitution. The threat is not that grave, and in any case, those forces are worse than what is being fought against. in the case of Al qaida,en de US,this is for me the chicken and the egg story ,but in this case it is obvious that the US was the chicken against the "red chicken" I also think that its interesting that anarchists that are otherwise anti-voting, such as your good selves, would be happy with the result. I mean, don't many of you think that all voting is a betrayal? Well i'm for direct democratie see the topic i open in this forum for it and my commentaire over it,you will then understand that for once(i'm 37 and this is the second times i can say what i think) the people are asking their opinions overwhat in my opinion is a dangerous constitution. Knowing that after reading and debating with people around i choose to vote against.like i did for Masstricht treaty...i dont vote for a lesser bad,i vote in all conciousness,keeping in mind that the way to direct democratie will be long,and i think soon a bloody and chaotic one..... So why note vote for your ideals knowing that what as been tried didn't work,and doesn't work..while what has not been tried(excepted Spain or Makhno or Krondstad and in our time the Zapatista,but i remind you all of then have been crush under iron fist,That's why it's history now the Zapatitas will be the next) is always seen as to be dangerous for the elites? he righty i like your avatar  |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Jun 4, 2005 7:01:52 GMT -5
Hey Righters, looking forward to your reply on the other thread. 1) Yes of course, the Communists were able to maipulate the Popular Front more and more as the Civil War continued, and internal dissensions between all players certainly weakened the Republic. But, do you think that the individual groups would have done better alone?? Do you think that if the anarcists had fought alone during the Spanish Civil War, they would have won??? Me, I thought that a major reason for Franco's virtory was the support he got from Hitler and Mussolini, but you're right, I'm sure that Franco's battle-hardened legions, armed with the latest artillery, bombers, fighters, guns and tanks as they were, would have been no match for a few thousand impassioned Anarshists with dodgy rifles and high morale. Sure. So, let me get this straight, you seriously maintain that, but for the Anarchists aligning themselves with the Poular Front, they would have won the war??? Check my signature. ;D I actually never said anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out that the Spanish anarchists were a particularly bad example to use if you wished to convince me of the effectiveness of siding with one's enemies in order to defeat a greater threat. Why do you think this tactic would be any more effective today regarding Europe? For the record I've no idea what would have happened if the anarchists hadn't joined the communists and it would be pointless to speculate. Also I don't want to go to off-topic. However I'm a hypocritical bastard so I'm going to anyway; do you not think if the republican side had won, a communist dictatorship might have been the most likely outcome? Would fighting for such a government have been worth it meant preventing any possibility of a marginally worse fascist one? It's a difficult question and similar to the debate we're having concerning the EU but I'd personally say no (although I don't pretend this is a case of black and white). I really don't think you can compare the two Righters, except not on anything but a very simplistic level. For a start, Europe is not at war with America and I think this is a pretty important difference (you may disagree). Obviously I don't know how I'd have behaved if I had been an anarchist during WW2, but no I don't think I would have 'supported' Britain, Russia and America as you put it. However in opposing Nazism we would have found a common cause, although I would never give them my blessing. This is the difference; the anarchists in Spain were fighting alongside the communists in a common cause, but they were not submitting to their authority and giving their blessing to the establishment of a state under their control. If I were to vote yes to the EU constitution I would effectively be doing that. In your second post you said you would not 'join' with Le Pen in order to defeat an EU constitution: is that what you think I'm doing?! As I said there is a difference between striving for similar things to a group of people (often for different reasons) and submitting to their authority. How come you are so sure Europe will make such a better super power than America? You may point to positive-sounding plans about the environment etc. in the constitution but how do you know they're going to follow through with them? The American constitution used to have some decent ideas in it too. Y'see, as nations get larger, richer, more powerful and further removed from the people they claim to represent, they do have this rather annoying tendancy to fuck us over. It's not their fault, they HAVE to do it as their superpower status depends on it. Especially when they're in competition with another superpower for resources (as Europe obviously would be). What reason have you to think that the European superstate would buck this trend? Perhaps you think the European bureaucrats would be able to rise above their 'irrational, self-centered' human nature with it's obsession with short-term personal gains and become marvellous, benevolent leaders but if they're capable of this feat, why isn't everyone else?  (This is a question I think Michelaccio and I have been hinting at for a while, if human nature is so selfish, why should we allow ourselves to be ruled by an oligarchy of selfish individuals? Do your views on human nature not extend to politicians?) I'd imagine they're are many 'logical' reasons to discredit much of what's said in the bible. I don't think you can arrive at catholicism through 'logic' alone, you kind of have to rely on personal conviction, sometimes in the face of recieved wisdom or supposed empirical evidence. I have no problem with this of course but what I was trying to say was that it is slightly hypocritical to criticise anarchism for being implausable when you yourself subscribe to a belief system which requires an imeasurably greater leap of faith. Why is it you believe the existence of a creator, a virgin birth, a messiah and an afterlife is more plausable than a society without such modern irritations as a capitalist economy and a government? But so is our rationality and selfless far-sightedness. Is the catholic church worth saving? What mythical golden era are you harking back to when you say Ratzinger is 'killing the church'? The inquisition? Its support for Hitler? John Paul II? I was under the impression that it has always been a dogmatic, bigoted, patriachal, moralistic, corrupt and oppressive institution myself. |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Jun 4, 2005 7:31:28 GMT -5
Let me just clear up one point before you all respond. I don't think that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I do however think that if any given threat is grave enough, and if other groups are reasonable enough, I would support a temporary alliance over that specific issue. Hence, I wouldn't support joining forces with al qaida (I think that's spelt right...) against the US, or with the far right, such as Le Penn against the EU constitution. The threat is not that grave, and in any case, those forces are worse than what is being fought against. But voting yes to an EU constitution wouldn't be a temporary alliance over a specific issue would it? It would be signing away what little freedom I have forever. I'm with Allers and Michelaccio on this one, there's a difference between direct and representative democracy. And as for voting for candidates, as Michelaccio said there's a variety of views on this topic on these boards. Personally I do vote in elections, however unlike your good self I also respect the rights of individuals not to vote if they don't want to. |
|
|
|
Post by allers on Jun 6, 2005 15:44:07 GMT -5
Nop ! but i'll try to trace it.
Anyway the new british governement doesn't want to know about it since, they decide it was not needed for the people to speak about it(the french and holland people voted against for a lot of reason,may be blair doesn't want to be confronted with it),no referunda,the elites decided again,What an elite circus!
|
|
|
|
Post by allers on Jun 7, 2005 12:13:51 GMT -5
|
|
Becuase, surely, the threat of climate change and civilisational collapse is every bit as real as the threat of Nazism was. 
