Michael Lorrey <email@example.com> wrote:
> The incongruity is even more pronounced when you consider that these
> people are invariably claiming to be some flavor of anarchist or
> libertarian-socialists while at the same time advocating the US
> equivalent of a Soviet State to accomplish their political aims (and at
> the same time saying the Soviet Union was an aberration, not 'real'
> socialism, etc). They claim they oppose people like Kazinski while
> fawning over his Manifesto. I've been embedding myself in their online
> communities, and its rather baffling, still, at how illogical,
> irrational, and emotionally motivated they all seem to be. They have a
> fundamental inability, typically, to carry on a rational debate: they
> either launch into foaming at the mouth or else dismiss your arguments,
> claiming its covered in the Anarchism FAQ (especially when it isn't).
> When you actually counter their points they get all flustery claiming
> that that venue is not a place for debate, that all anarchists have
> always been socialists and anti-capital (typically because they kick out
> anyone who isn't), and that you don't belong there.
> What they are are big government totalitarian socialists.
So why not make use of them? The revolution needs shock troops...
-- ====================================================================== Michael Wiik Principal Messagenet Communications Research Washington DC Area Internet and WWW Consultants http://messagenet.com firstname.lastname@example.org ======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT