UK Police Call on Citizens to Spy on Anarchists

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Why wouldn't citizens want to spy on anarchists? anarchists, by definition, don't want to be part of any society that actually has rules - if you DO want to be part of a society that has any rules whatsoever then they are you enemy.

Do your homework:

anarchism.pageabode.com...

1984 = 1012= 2012 you still have time to learn that you have lost your rights , your freedoms, your free will, and the freedom to speak, do so and you know what you get, 20 to life for doing it, speaking out against the establishment is all it will take. you can not fight them with bats they have guns you do not, you can not fight them with words, for they made a law, you still can vote but then that is for show, so now where does the leave you, enslaved, trapped and all tied up.

Destruction of property has always pretty much been an accepted form of protest amongst Anarchists. Along with shop lifting, supergluing the locks to exploitative businesses etc. It's a way of hurting the capitalists in the best way, their bank accounts full of money stolen from the people.

It only seems bad to people who are still not fully de-conditioned from the state and its control of you.

After all Anarchism was traditionally a political system that came about in opposition to private property (capitalism), just as socialism and communism was. It is the stateless version of socialism (Marxism, Leninism etc., being the state version).

Michail Bakunin Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

I'm an Anarchist, I'm proud to be an anarchist and if anybody at all starts discussing politics with me I tell them what I am, BUT shockingly I have never thrown a bomb, petrol bomb or missiles (stones bricks etc) at the police, I have never killed anybody I'm not a thief and strangely enough abide by all the laws that are morally right. I pay my taxes (I've paid more than the majority of the population over the years) and agree that we need taxes to support necessary infrastructure (hospitals, fire brigade, roads etc) but what I am against is the sheer amount of my taxes that pay the wages of the many layers of bureaucrats (that have never been elected) and politicians from town councils, county councils and central government. I live in England so why do my taxes pay for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments ?

As an anarchist all I want to do is live my life quietly in my own way with as little interference from "authority figures" as possible. If people want to watch me and report my actions they can because they'll get seriously bored in a very short time

disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my peaceful stance if I feel the action is necessary to preserve and protect my loved ones and way of life

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
Like the article says, this wreaks of Orwellian rule. It seems that with the recent protests against the excessive cuts in the UK, the police feel we should be watching out and snitching on those who actually do something about the injustices were faced with. It's pathetic.

Don't the UK citizens do this already? I mean to say that they are known as 'busy bods' aren't they ? I wouldn't worry too much about it if you have nothing to hide. It could be fun. Basically given a free ticket to spy on others. The next James Bond.

So what?

Why is this even news at all? Police in all countries commonly ask law abiding citizens to keep watch for bad guys and report them. Ever heard of Neighborhood Watch? This is no big deal and nothing that doesn't happen all the time and has for centuries.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So what?

Why is this even news at all? Police in all countries commonly ask law abiding citizens to keep watch for bad guys and report them. Ever heard of Neighborhood Watch? This is no big deal and nothing that doesn't happen all the time and has for centuries.

Haha, exactly. But that doesn't jive with the self-perpetuating paranoia that is prevalent on these boards.

Oh the horror! The Police ask people to report persons planning to or having actually broken the law? Oh, the humanity! It's 1984, we're doomed! Oh no! Wouldn't happen in the USA, we're number 1 and Land of the Free! Woooot!

Idiots.

Maybe if "Anarchists" (read idiot youngsters with nebulous idea's on how we should live our lives) didn't go trashing city centres, molesting shoppers, vandalising property (private, commercial or Police) or generally being douch bags during their protests, then they wouldn't be under so much focus and then the Police wouldn't want to know if they were planning anything.

reply to post by franspeakfree


Are we?

How about you say where you're from so I can generalise and take the piss out of you?

Originally posted by ANOK
Destruction of property has always pretty much been an accepted form of protest amongst Anarchists. Along with shop lifting, supergluing the locks to exploitative businesses etc. It's a way of hurting the capitalists in the best way, their bank accounts full of money stolen from the people.

It only seems bad to people who are still not fully de-conditioned from the state and its control of you.

After all Anarchism was traditionally a political system that came about in opposition to private property (capitalism), just as socialism and communism was. It is the stateless version of socialism (Marxism, Leninism etc., being the state version).

Michail Bakunin Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

I always learned anarchy as belong the populist option. If we want to compare it to political ideology like Marxism, then let's discuss the Russian revolution. There were three major factions: the White Army (Imperialist state), the Black Army (the populist anarchists) and the Red Army (Bolsheviks).

Lenin constantly criticized the populist Black Army because they were not rational. Basically, they were just uneducated masses up people lead by the most radical speakers that somehow formed a hegemony and ranks to this "Black Army". Lenin saw them as "infantile" because instead of having a serious political ideology that could unify a country, all they believed in was deconstructionism and decentralization of the state.

You know, I guess this isn't too far off from what the current "Black Armies" are like, such as Anonymous or anybody willing to wear a baraclava and riot on the street.

Now the big irony here is that during the Russia revolution, the Imperialist government saw the populists as its main enemy and focused on crushing them (just like in modern times). In fact, the imperialists even allowed Lenin to continue pumping out manifestos and ideology because he to was against populist ideologies ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").

The Red Army, aka the bolsheviks, had a political ideology that specifically played both sides by using whatever opportunity there is to advanced their own influence and power, even if it meant teaming up with some elements of the state or the populists. Lenin's revolutionary theory also specifically requires a vanguard party to lead the whole ideology, as opposed to random and anonymous "leadership" like in populist ideology. In the end, the Soviets basically rose to the top because of the fallacies of the imperialists and the populists.

This is important now as it was a century ago. The populists seems to be rising in all imperialist AND Eastern totalitarian countries. The only thing that seems to be missing is a third major faction to exploit the fallacies of both of these two groups. Is this decimation of the leftist struggle the actual result of the fall of the Berlin Wall? Or is the fall of the leftist movement all within our heads, and still a possibility within our hands?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Why wouldn't citizens want to spy on anarchists? anarchists, by definition, don't want to be part of any society that actually has rules - if you DO want to be part of a society that has any rules whatsoever then they are you enemy.

I am by no means an Anarchist however it is an example of a political ideology hi-jacked and twisted for ambition. Like any set of principles they always end up hi-jacked. from my reading of it it's pure aims are the dignity of the individual above the centralised aims of government ( that should sound familiar to Americans), and those using violence to achieve an end are the result of the twisting of it's aims and are usually eschewed by the purists.
The best example was the Spanish Civil War.

Many people would agree that the anarchist principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is a nice idea. A self managed society with everyone having a real say in how things were run is a lovely ideal. They might nod along to the lyrics of "Imagine" by John Lennon but then equally shake their heads and tell you that such a thing could never work "in the real world". You would probably be told that people are just naturally greedy and self-centred and such a thing would end in chaos. However throughout the history of the 20th century ordinary working people have succeeded in taking things into their own hands and making a go of it. Nowhere, however, has come closer to a fully self-managed anarchist society then large areas of "republican" Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Here, for a short space of a few years, both on the land and in the factories workers and peasants demonstrated that far from chaos anarchism was an efficient, desirable and realisable method of running society.

So we go from quite an American view of Liberty into what is to me unpalatable communism. However their differing take on communism is a little more Cooperative in it's nature if still paradoxically still tending towards centralism. More of a kibbutz/commune mentality. Both the left and right in Spain sought their destruction as the collectivisation tended to be at a more local level. It's fault is that of all political ideologies in that once one starts any centralisation it takes on a life of it's own.
Of course they were stepping outside of the maintained left right paridigm as they hated Stalinism as much as Capitalism so whatever merits may have been taken from their conduct of applying order (just a different sort of order), out of the chaos of civil war is lost.
Anarchist has been stolen by semantics which obfuscates it's true politics.
Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by goldentorch

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Why wouldn't citizens want to spy on anarchists? anarchists, by definition, don't want to be part of any society that actually has rules - if you DO want to be part of a society that has any rules whatsoever then they are you enemy.

I am by no means an Anarchist however it is an example of a political ideology hi-jacked and twisted for ambition. Like any set of principles they always end up hi-jacked. from my reading of it it's pure aims are the dignity of the individual above the centralised aims of government ( that should sound familiar to Americans), and those using violence to achieve an end are the result of the twisting of it's aims and are usually eschewed by the purists..

Well, it sounds like you are describing Libertarianism.

Basically, when it comes to the state, Libertarians believe in having a government ONLY for the purpose of protecting the right to private property and to counter injustice. So basically, they see the government as only being judges and policemen (and a military for a national stance). [almost sounds like modern Western capitalist governments who all follow national policies based on economic growth, eh?]

However, Libertarianism is really only for those who see themselves as aristocracy. In the differentiation of a libertarian society, those best at exploiting others rise to the top and their government protects them against those who got stuck on the bottom and must work for the aristocracy. There is no collectivist notion in Libertarianism, just the notion of elite supremacy. I guess that is what separates them from true anarchists who don't believe in anything other than a natural aristocracy (as opposed to economic).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I'm on this side of the pond but could it possibly be said that Libertarians to a greater extent already have? I don't feel that the fiscal policies from 1776 and an emerging country and economy are necassarily pertinent to a mature economy.
As you say they are creating an aristocracy and as here the rooting out of any voice of protest begins. Both sides of the Atlantic acting like paranoid dictatorships for some reason. Or is that the only part that isn't an act.

reply to post by ANOK

-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

Can't we see a little of the Anarchist in that.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

Are we?

How about you say where you're from so I can generalise and take the piss out of you?

(Your not a politician are you?) carry on using that sort of language and you will find yourself in a position you would not be fond of. If I were to generalize the UK citizens I would indeed use something along the lines of Vickie pollard, all for one and none for others and to top it off;



Now clean up your language and retort god damn it!

reply to post by stumason



To disagree.

Most anarchists don't get involved with any violence or destruction what so ever. I know a good bunch from London and they are very peaceful people.

Just because the media tagged the recent rioters as anarchists, does not mean that every rioter is an anarchist or every anarchist is a rioter.

Don't let the media tell you what to think - go out there and meet these people. I have. Many of them are pacifists, intelligent types who refrain from the 'typical' imagery of stone throwing crowds.

That's not anarchism, that's violence. Any side of the political spectrum can be violent or have vandalistic tendencies.

Real anarchism is about thought, philosophy and debate.

I think there are two issues here.

The spreding of more disinformation about what an anarchist is, and what they may stand for is one. One which seems to have sucked in a lot of ignorant poeple who are posting on this thread.

More importantly it highlights the stupidity of people who respond with "No Way" because they don't like the police!! OMG If it were not so sreious it would be funny. We don't like the police and we don't trust them so we won't give them aany info! These people are stupid because they actually beleive both lies.

In reality, what is being said here should not even need to be said. If you see folks about in your neighbouhood, or hear come accross some information about unrest or violence, then tell the authorities.

It is simple. If you see bad people do bad things tell the cops!

The sad part about all this: The article which reinforces the ignorance surrounding anarchists, and the idiots who lap it all up. Can no one see the bigger picture?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
(Your not a politician are you?) carry on using that sort of language and you will find yourself in a position you would not be fond of.

Not sure if that was supposed to be a threat of a homosexual proposition!

reply to post by mr-lizard


I am sure of it, there will be those who are actually articulate and can hold themselves in reasoned debate about social issue.

I am also sure the Police are not faintly interested in these.

The "anarchists" they want are the very ones you say are not. Whatever you want to call them though, these are the people being targetted. I think for clairyt, the Police and everyone else should just call them what they are, Twats.

reply to post by stumason


I think the more seasoned anarchists would agree with you there my friend.

I think every group attracts the wrong people occasionally. The police too.

Originally posted by ANOK
After all Anarchism was traditionally a political system that came about in opposition to private property (capitalism), just as socialism and communism was. It is the stateless version of socialism (Marxism, Leninism etc., being the state version).

Michail Bakunin Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

edit on 8/2/2011 by ANOK because: typo

I had always been under the impression that Marxism, as commonly perceived, is actually a stepping stone into stateless socialism. A way to prepare a country for a fair anarchism. I haven't read Marx myself, but I'm sure my father taught me that, and I'm pretty sure my roommate's girlfriend who studies Marxism and related fields did too.

reply to post by franspeakfree


So, saying "I find that offensive, how about if I called you a Kansas Hayseed" isn't a retort?

And taking that as deeply offensive as you seem to be shows a pretty lax understanding of the UK in the first place... en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

I'm on this side of the pond but could it possibly be said that Libertarians to a greater extent already have? I don't feel that the fiscal policies from 1776 and an emerging country and economy are necassarily pertinent to a mature economy.
As you say they are creating an aristocracy and as here the rooting out of any voice of protest begins. Both sides of the Atlantic acting like paranoid dictatorships for some reason. Or is that the only part that isn't an act.

In this day and age, it is hard to tell if what we see is real or just shadows of what is real (Plato's Cave analogy).

In my opinion, Western governments have been hijacked and they now serve a higher order than national views. These governments are supposed to represent us, but they've disconnected from their own people and joined together with the governments of other countries. If we consider this as class war, then it seems as if there is a new global class of high aristocracy formed from government leaders of capitalist countries.

It's as if this class dictates the actions of countries under this class; for instance, the US government can seemingly direct Canada to send troops to Libya, or Canada is commited to putting Israel ahead of Canadian interests (the words of Harper himself).