DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Are there any "liberal" anarchists in Bristol?

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 17 2004 22:33
Are there any "liberal" anarchists in Bristol?

Not Liberals! Just anarchists who don't believe in violent protests and shit. Anyone?

wheresmyshoes's picture
wheresmyshoes
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
May 18 2004 18:04

hohoho probably like 2 Mr. T

munkeeunit
Offline
Joined: 10-03-04
May 19 2004 11:08

What violent protests?

What do you mean by shit?

Maybe by 'violence and shit' you mean talking loudly, assertively challenging police aggression, damaging property, etc. None of which constitute a legal definition of violence, as violence necessarily means an act against a person.

Maybe I'm making my own assumptions now, but if you are one of these people who spend their time undermining, criticising, debasing and demonising legitimate and necessary acts against state agression, then 'whose side are you really on?' is a question worth asking.

Would you class the acts of the 'Fairford Five', and others like them as 'violence and shit' (or do you really mean violent shits!?).

http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com/

Just asking.

PS: No, I'm not an Anarchist, are you?

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 20 2004 10:07

I consider riots and the like to be counter-productive in the long run. I believe that using direct action to physicly stop others from doing what they want is an act of authority, or at least an attempt at authority. Do I call myself an anarchist? Well, yes, but does it matter what word you use for it? I believe in a world without government or law, that such a world is possible and that we should try to achieve that. I believe in live and let live as being the only way to run a society without authority or rules. I believe that the state is unfortunately necessary at the moment, and that we must make it unnecessary. I believe in a lot of things. Elsewhere on these forums, I have posted a link to a non-manifesto I have written with the help of a few friends, which will give you a better idea of what I believe in if you are really interested (hint: its under beginers T&T). That is the side that I am on!

I do not try to stop others doing what they want to protest, but if you accept my theoreys (and I know thats a big IF), then you have to accept that riots get us nowhere and only divide us further from the public. As such I will NOT take part or directly support them. I do not consider these acts to be necessary as you seem to.

You ask what side I am on, but really this isn't about sides. Again and again in history terrible things have happened because people thought only in sides. Well, you can pick a side and follow it if you want, but it strikes me then that all you want is a different form of government, not an alternative to it!

munkeeunit
Offline
Joined: 10-03-04
May 20 2004 11:23

WHAT RIOTS IN BRISTOL!?

Are you referring to 1831, 1980, 1984?

All of those riots were a spontaneous response to various issues, including police brutality, and none of which were specifically anarchist.

SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT!?

munkeeunit
Offline
Joined: 10-03-04
May 20 2004 11:52

QUOTE "I believe that using direct action to physicly stop others from doing what they want is an act of authority, or at least an attempt at authority."

So, you think that those people who attempt to prevent B52's from taking off are morally equivalent to those people who ordering the B52's into action? As you make clear that you will not support these types of Direct Action, then it is clear that you are on the side of the B52's, by default.

QUOTE "As such I will NOT take part or directly support them."

I've come across people like you before, and yes, you are more concerned with undermining & condemning those people who resist crimes against humanity, than those people committing it.

Usually it transpires that people like yourself will also disrupt meetings with constant demands that people adhere to patronising breeds of subjective etiquette, the origin of which can be found in phrenological etiquette, which as an off-shoot, later became scientific rascism.

What you are concerned with is etiquette. Etiquette is what needs to be challenged, as etiquette is what has always caused division, which is why it was created by the ruling classes. Etiquette is inherently hierarchical, condescending, and untrustworthy, and easily identified within your own depiction of direct action as mere "violence and shit."

wheresmyshoes's picture
wheresmyshoes
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
May 21 2004 16:03

You ask what side I am on, but really this isn't about sides. Again and again in history terrible things have happened because people thought only in sides. Well, you can pick a side and follow it if you want, but it strikes me then that all you want is a different form of government, not an alternative to it!

again and again in history terrible things have happened because people couldnt decide who's side they were on,sitting on the fence is not a good place to be.if your commitment and loyalities are blured then how do you expect people and to trust and respect you?

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 22 2004 11:37
munkeeunit wrote:
WHAT RIOTS IN BRISTOL!?

riots in general, not necessarily in bristol...

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 22 2004 11:56
munkeeunit wrote:

So, you think that those people who attempt to prevent B52's from taking off are morally equivalent to those people who ordering the B52's into action?

No, cos I'm not trying to kill anyone. But if I protest against people using force to exert their will over others, how can I have the moral right to do the same in return?

Quote:

I've come across people like you before, and yes, you are more concerned with undermining & condemning those people who resist crimes against humanity, than those people committing it.

Usually it transpires that people like yourself will also disrupt meetings with constant demands that people adhere to patronising breeds of subjective etiquette, the origin of which can be found in phrenological etiquette, which as an off-shoot, later became scientific rascism.

What you are concerned with is etiquette. Etiquette is what needs to be challenged, as etiquette is what has always caused division, which is why it was created by the ruling classes. Etiquette is inherently hierarchical, condescending, and untrustworthy, and easily identified within your own depiction of direct action as mere "violence and shit."

I don't try to undermine people carrying out ANY kind of direct action. However, I don't take part in it. I'm not trying to stop you or anyone else from doing your thing - go ahead. I don't disrupt anyones meetings! If I don't agree with a group's actions I don't get involved with that group because they don't represent me - that's precisely my point. The reason why I started this discussion was to see if there are any people out there who support my stance on this so I can do my thing (perhaps with some help) and you can do yours. Are you suggesting that by leaving you alone to do your thing, I'm undermining you? Do you think I should commit acts that I don't agree with just because a lot of other people are? Sorry, but I think thats a load of crap.

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 22 2004 12:22
wheresmyshoes wrote:
again and again in history terrible things have happened because people couldnt decide who's side they were on,sitting on the fence is not a good place to be.if your commitment and loyalities are blured then how do you expect people and to trust and respect you?

So it's all or nothing? No grey areas? No reasoning or cooperation? No middle ground? So, bearing in mind the diversity of the human species, exactly HOW do you think the world can work without government? You seem to be bashing my ideas just because they are different to yours, which will never achieve anything.

You question my commitment and loyalties and it seems to me that the only reason you do so is because I don't go with the crowd. I make my own mind up, shameful as that may be! I reach my own conclusions and I decide my own actions. I consider this to be part of the very nature of subversion. If you don't trust me, then fine. If you don't respect me, then great. You won't be the first or the last. But others DO trust me. Others DO respect me. Many of these people don't agree with my views at all, but at least they respect my right to have my own ideas and do my own thing. That is the kind of respect that the anarchist movement as a whole does not get from the public but its the kind of respect that a free world can work on.

munkeeunit
Offline
Joined: 10-03-04
May 22 2004 21:30

QUOTE: "I don't try to undermine people carrying out ANY kind of direct action."

Demeaning DA by calling it 'violence and shit' is a clear cut case of intentional undermining. You haven't in anyway attempted to generate a debate. All you have done is condemn everything in relation to DA in wholly crass, superior and unintelligent manner.

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 24 2004 22:38
munkeeunit wrote:
Demeaning DA by calling it 'violence and shit' is a clear cut case of intentional undermining. You haven't in anyway attempted to generate a debate. All you have done is condemn everything in relation to DA in wholly crass, superior and unintelligent manner.

Well, I didn't mean to insult you or your DA, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. This topic was targeted at those (few) people who agree with my stance - it wasn't meant to be (or to start) a debate on DA. If you want a debate on it, then fine - I'm sure I have made several references to my views on the main forums which I assumed people would pick up on if they wanted all the arguements. The ONLY purpose of creating this topic was to try and start a relatively peaceful anarchist group in Bristol. So sorry again if you feel that I insulted you, but that was NOT my intention.

NosebleedII
Offline
Joined: 25-05-04
May 25 2004 20:45

The tone of the original poster seems to be making a suggestion that anarchism and violence has some kind of intrinsic connection. Just the type of thing that the rich, the state and their media whores (no disrespect to the honest prostitute) would have the 'public' believe.

All of the violence I have witnessed and been involved in in Bristol and elsewhere has been caused by the Police and other fascists. All the anarchist I know are peace loving people but will defend themselves by any means necessary if attacked by anyone.

The original post is a classic piece of demonification of the protest movement and the poster is (probably unwittingly) a MI5 or Special Branch operative.

MH
Offline
Joined: 11-12-03
May 26 2004 22:15

Probably a bit harsh to suggest the original poster is a state operative, even if unwittingly so! Although I agree the terminology used in the original post did seem to imply a preset mindset!

There are loads of peeps in bristol who are into non-violent protest (Fairford 5 being a case in point), but as to whether they are anarchists or not is another matter. IMO anarchists are by the nature of their beliefs accepting of the likelihood of violence in achieiving any real change, because they know that the powers that be will not just rollover and go belly up without fighting to hold onto their power. That doesn't mean anarchists like/want violence at all though. And in my experience over some 20 odd years I have yet to see a 'riot' that wasn't sparked off by one or more instances of state/capitalist violence, in it's many forms.

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Jun 1 2004 11:50

I don't claim to know who starts what, but on the demos I've been on there have been plenty of cops around and very little if any violence. Maybe I'm going to the wrong demos, then. In any case, whatever type you label me as, I would like to start a peaceful anarchist group in Bristol and thats what this forum was created for. Would anyone who is interested please post here or PM me? Thanks.