On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat.
> > Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free?
> > Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making
> > that statement?
>
> You're "anarcho"capitalist, not anarchist, for you do not reject the
> capitalist notion of property (and replace it with possession/use
> rights). If you did reject the capitalist notion of property, you'd
> probably be categorized as an individualist anarchist.
I wasn't referring to myself.
> You are not explicitly supporting Congress, but you do somewhat imply
> that you like Congress better than President Bush. However, you don't
> imply that the U.S. is free by saying that.
I would like Saddam Hussein to kill Dianne Feinstein. Do I like Saddam
more than Dianne?
> One of the main things about the corporate media is that they often do
> not completely hide something, but instead distort and downplay it.
This is a dubious allegation (anyone could forward it).
> While the first approach seems to have been favored at and after the
> "Battle of Seattle" and throughout year 2000, the second two
> approaches seem to be now favored. Because the protests at the
> American presidential inauguration could not be ignored, they were
> downplayed to appear to be a whole bunch of passive sign-waving (the
> fact that protesters had forced security forces to retreat and then
> smashed their way through the security perimeter was almost completely
> ignored). On the other hand, it seems like the corporate media is all
> but completely ignoring the massive mobilization in Quebec City to
> crush the Summit of the Americas and the Free Trade Area in the
> Americas.
So CNN is not the corporate media? Their coverage of the protests
recognized both the violent aspects and the
sign-waving/freedom-of-association aspects.
> the inclusion of Cuba if Cuba becomes capitalist). Of course, one
> thing that they do not at all tell you about the FTAA is that it will
> include the privatization of all services currently carried out by
> governments and the elimination of all trade barriers, including all
> labor and environmental protections, and the elimination of the last
> vestiges of labor power. The FTAA is the capitalist Death Star; it is
> of the last steps toward total unrestricted global capitalism. The
> corporate media is helping this sneak up on everyone; when most people
> realize what is happening it will probably be too late. Of course,
> the only thing that can save us now is social revolution (which is
> quite unlikely at the present).
So anarchists in general oppose the abolition of government control before
free trade is abolished? Why?
> One thing that really didn't get reported is that the first reports of
> "genocide" which sparked NATO intervention in Kosovo were probably
> actually fake. A whole bunch of bones were found in the ground, as
Are you saying there was actually no genocide, or that it started after
NATO intervened?
> this was used to say that genocide has occurred, which was used as a
> convenient excuse to justify NATO intervention. In addition, NATO
> intervention in Kosovo really wasn't about protecting Kosovars from
> retaliatory attacks by the Serbs, but rather about increasing western
> capitalist control of the rich mineral deposits in Kosovo (this is
> something that the corporate media didn't even slightly mention).
Were the Serbian people better off under Milosevic's regime? Was NATO in
the wrong?
> I hate all three of these groups, and I would avoid having anything to
> do with any of them. If I was forced to choose one of these three,
> with no option for not choosing any of them, I would probably have to
> choose the Democrats because they are a *bit* less reactionary than
> the other two. Even still, that would be a hard choice (the Dems are
> at least partially responsible for stuff like the DMCA (something than
> only a reactionary could love) and the FTAA (this *was initiated* by
> Clinton - and is essentially for the purpose of "all power to the
> capitalists")).
Thus, capitalism is so undesirable that you support a regime that you hate
in order to prevent it. These capitalists must really be evil.
In what ways do the Democrats fight off the capitalists? Have they been
effective? (I still see Walmart and McDonalds thriving under the
democratic regime!)
--
"...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense
and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves."
Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
