On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:32:05PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> 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?
Unqualified, one may think that you 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).
Read the next paragraph in my response.
> > 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.
You can portray protesters as both violent people randomly destroying
stuff and passive sign-wavers and still bias things in favor of the
capitalists. I bet they biased things by saying stuff like "the
protesters *believe* that free trade is bad". That is a often used
tactic which subtly but signficantly downplays opposition to things
like the FTAA.
> > 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?
Marxists in general oppose the abolition of government control before
free trade (and capitalism in general) is abolished. Anarchists just
view authority and exploitation and intrinsically linked and that you
can't just fight authority and that you can't just fight
exploitation. They must be both fought and defeated together, not
separately. Anarchists oppose corporate globalization because
corporate globalization is the path towards total unrestricted global
capitalism; total domination and total exploitation. The elimination
of trade barriers is freedom for only the corporations; it strengthens
corporations' domination and corporations' exploitation.
> > 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?
It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am
correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after
the beginning of the NATO intervention.
> > 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?
What happened is a transition from a supposedly socialist autocrat to
a capitalist elected president. Not much has really changed except
that now the US and NATO supports the Serbs instead of opposing the
Serbs.
> > 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.
No, I just said if I *must* pick one of the three, I would pick the
Democrats because they are a little less evil than the other two
parties! I never picked them because they are against capitalism
(they aren't).
> 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!)
The Democrats are capitalists (didn't I say that they are liberal
capitalists)!
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
PGP signature
