Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Richard Barrett]

If you believe that anarchists and the hard left in general are supporters of the police and of "authority" in general, why not just say so?

I don't - which was one of my main points.

So we don't really know who is being described as "anarchists and the hard left in general" here, and it seems that Simon isn't going to tell us. At the same time, though, we don't really know what a "supporter of the police" is. Someone who stands outside police stations waving a scarf or blowing a vuvuzela? (I suspect the police would take a dim view of this kind of support.) Someone who approves of everything that the police do? Even if they murder someone in cold blood? What about if they make up a vindictive story about a Tory MP calling them "f***ing plebs" and peddle it to the news media?

It all comes down to a question of making a critical appraisal of the things the police do. It makes no sense either to approve uncritically of everything they do, or to disapprove uncritically of everything they do. Therefore, Simon is mistaken in his belief whoever he means by "anarchists and the hard left in general".

if I'm wrong, then I'll admit it

The floor is yours.

[Thropplenoggin]

... Yes.

Tho' I noticed at the Syon House garden centre yesterday that they were labelling their pelargoniums as "geraniums", the old word, and the one I still tend to use. I was looking for some of these (tho' in the end they didn't have the ones with exceptionally dark small leaves and vermilion flowers I was looking for... ) - while Mme V was looking for some true 'geraniums', the newer word for that old hardy plant. Not all of the staff understood what we were seeking...

I believe this sort of agony is now classed as a First World Problem. :whistle:

Another example might be: "I feel guilty drinking this bottle of Cheval Blanc '56 all by myself."

[Simon]

I'm sure Simon would think the two words were synonymous when it comes to art.

Are you really? What a very silly thing to write. <sigh>

[amateur51]

Are you really? What a very silly thing to write. <sigh>

O dear. He's in pre-mod and manages to heave up a trifle like that. Hardly worth the effort, I'd say :smiley:

[Flosshilde]

Are you really? What a very silly thing to write. <sigh>

Yes I am, really and truly. It might be silly, but no less true.

[DavidP]

The usual tactic of those without argument - resort to "define... define..." :laugh: The other tactic is to ask further questions instead of answering. So you've managed both, DavidP. Well done.

As I stated, generalisations are only unjustified if they are inaccurate. So instead of diversions, how about a counter-argument? I'll show you how to do it...

Example:
To succeed in defeating my point, you need to show that my generalisation that "Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed" is incorrect.

This means that you need to find instances of anarchists and extreme left-wingers supporting the police and making favourable comments about authority.

The anticipation is almost thrilling... :smiley:

I'm not the one coming on here making absurd generalisations culled from the comments section of Mail on-line so the onus still falls on you. I notice you have yet to offer any definition of either the "extreme left" or "anarchists". Maybe you haven't the intellect. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the (justified) kicking you got from the rest of the posters on here.

[scottycelt]

I'm not the one coming on here making absurd generalisations culled from the comments section of Mail on-line so the onus still falls on you. I notice you have yet to offer any definition of either the "extreme left" or "anarchists". Maybe you haven't the intellect. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the (justified) kicking you got from the rest of the posters on here.

No, what you mean by 'justified kicking' is the usual personal abuse directed against one particular member. It is not clever, serves no purpose and ruins proper debate.

People talk about the 'Far Right', 'capitalists' etc in pejorative terms. Also, many on the Left use words like 'racist', sexist', 'toffs' and much worse on this forum alone.

Anarchists are anarchists. They tend to wave red and black banners and wear masks on demos. I'm rather loathe to yet again incur the scorn of amateur51 by suggesting a proper definition may well lie in a dictionary, but it is all I can suggest in the circumstances.

The Extreme Left consists of those who are not prepared to work within the capitalist system but simply wish to destroy it by exploiting its weaknesses, and the most extreme of those by any means. There are various ideologies, but Marxism, to which some members here clearly adhere, is the most obvious.

Would anyone here have any real difficulty in easily identifying the Far Right and seriously wonder how to describe the politics of Nicholas John Griffin or members of the English Defence League?

[Bryn]

Oh yes, that Henry David Thoreau was ever to be found marching around, waving his red and black banner. Oh, and that Hatton chap who ran (down?) Liverpool, he's totally turned his back on the capitalist system, hasn't he? That's the trouble with vacuous generalisations.

[scottycelt]

Oh yes, that Henry David Thoreau was ever to be found marching around, waving his red and black banner. Oh, and that Hatton chap who ran (down?) Liverpool, he's totally turned his back on the capitalist system, hasn't he? That's the trouble with vacuous generalisations.

Are you saying there is nobody to be found marching around with a red and black banner and it's all a figment of our 'vacuous' imaginations ... ?

People do change. There have been a few top government ministers who were former members of the Communist Party including Denis Healey and John Reid.

That doesn't mean we are now unable to tell what a communist is as you appear to be suggesting.

[jean]

Oh, and that Hatton chap who ran (down?) Liverpool, he's totally turned his back on the capitalist system, hasn't he?

A very poor example, if I may say so. I have no respect whatsoever for Hatton in either of his incarnations, but his wholehearted embrace of the capitalist system should not be taken as typical of anything at all.

What's been missed I think in the course of this focussing on definitions of anarchism and hard/extreme left is that while anarchists would generally(!) claim to be against authority of any kind, sections of the Left have accepted authority of their own - just not that of the societies they've seen themselves as fighting against.

[Bryn]

As I wrote, that's the trouble with vacuous generalisations. Treat with the particular without resorting to such I'll-defined generalisations and we might get somewhere.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Anarchists are anarchists. They tend to wave red and black banners and wear masks on demos. I'm rather loathe to yet again incur the scorn of amateur51 by suggesting a proper definition may well lie in a dictionary, but it is all I can suggest in the circumstances.

Which dictionary defines "Anarchists" in this way?

It is a crass misrepresentation of what any Anarchist I have ever met believes in or how they behave. Try "Catholics are Catholics. They tend to wave incence, wear red cassocks and abuse children in Foster Homes" - your caricature was as offensive as that, scotty. Anarchists are people from a vast range of backgrounds who believe that individuals are quite capable of making their own decisions and do not need elected "representatives" to speak for them. They respect rules (where these are formed by groups people for the benefit of people) but despise the idea of "Rulers" (by which I don't mean measuring implements no matter what your dictionary might say) because no individual has the right to tell any other individual what is best for them. That is what "Anarchy" means: "without a leader / without leaders" - look it up!

Of course, there are some people who behave as you suggest and call themselves Anarchists, just as there are Catholics who behave in the caricatured way that I suggested above. But the popular misconception of a profound socio-political array of beliefs is perhaps why we might be having such difficulty understanding each other on this Thread.

[amateur51]

Which dictionary defines "Anarchists" in this way?

It is a crass misrepresentation of what any Anarchist I have ever met believes in or how they behave. Try "Catholics are Catholics. They tend to wave incence, wear red cassocks and abuse children in Foster Homes" - your caricature was as offensive as that, scotty. Anarchists are people from a vast range of backgrounds who believe that individuals are quite capable of making their own decisions and do not need elected "representatives" to speak for them. They respect rules (where these are formed by groups people for the benefit of people) but despise the idea of "Rulers" (by which I don't mean measuring implements no matter what your dictionary might say) because no individual has the right to tell any other individual what is best for them. That is what "Anarchy" means: "without a leader / without leaders" - look it up!

Of course, there are some people who behave as you suggest and call themselves Anarchists, just as there are Catholics who behave in the caricatured way that I suggested above. But the popular misconception of a profound socio-political array of beliefs is perhaps why we might be having such difficulty understanding each other on this Thread.

Excellent post, many thanks ferney.:ela::ok:

Your reference to 'popular misconception' might be improved by 'willful misconception', that's all :biggrin:

[Serial_Apologist]

Excellent post, many thanks ferney.:ela::ok:

Your reference to 'popular misconception' might be improved by 'willful misconception', that's all :biggrin:

Ferney's was a great reply, wasn't it! :ok:

From what I recall, coming into political activism in the early 70s, anarchists differed from us in prioritising individual and lifestyle option-making over the overarching political and economic system as the main locus and focus of change. What in my memory anarchism gave us was the notion of the personal being synomymous with the political; where we felt it lacked was in the idea of subgroup capacity for instituting lasting change spontaneously without alternative means of accountability, centralised organisational power being necessary to counter that of the (very much centralised) character of ruling class state power. In the anarchist prescription we would all get picked off one-by-one.

[Richard Barrett]

From what I recall, coming into political activism in the early 70s, anarchists differed from us in prioritising individual and lifestyle option-making over the overarching political and economic system as the main locus and focus of change. What in my memory anarchism gave us was the notion of the personal being synomymous with the political; where we felt it lacked was in the idea of subgroup capacity for instituting lasting change spontaneously without alternative means of accountability, centralised organisational power being necessary to counter that of the (very much centralised) character of ruling class state power. In the anarchist prescription we would all get picked off one-by-one.

Indeed.

And while I'm here, this other pearl of wisdom:

"The Extreme Left consists of those who are not prepared to work within the capitalist system but simply wish to destroy it by exploiting its weaknesses, and the most extreme of those by any means. There are various ideologies, but Marxism, to which some members here clearly adhere, is the most obvious."

... apart from being crassly inaccurate makes very little sense at all. It is passing strange that someone who apparently sets such store by dictionaries comes on here and delivers himself of offensive caricatures in place of definitions. Mark Twain's comment springs to mind: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."