Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Richard Barrett]

Just so that everything is clear (not much chance of that with some of the muddled thinking that goes on around here though), the word "Marxist" refers not merely to Marx but to the entire tradition of political thinking that effectively begins with his work and indeed continues developing to this day, as we see from the work of David Harvey and others. And at no point in this tradition has any approval of bombing innocent people occurred: crucially, though, socialists are opposed to bombing innocent people whoever and wherever they are and whoever is doing the bombing. This isn't hard to understand, but somehow gets twisted into grotesque shapes like scottycelt's "definition" of the "extreme left".

[anotherbob]

crucially, though, socialists are opposed to bombing innocent people whoever and wherever they are and whoever is doing the bombing.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the decision to bomb Dresden was taken by Clem Attlee (in Churchill's absence). It had been requested by the Soviets. I can't be sure (unlike so many people here.)

[Richard Barrett]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the decision to bomb Dresden was taken by Clem Attlee (in Churchill's absence). It had been requested by the Soviets.

That may well be, but isn't very relevant since neither Attlee nor the Soviet Union could rightly be described as socialist in the sense of the Marxist tradition.

[anotherbob]

That may well be, but isn't very relevant since neither Attlee nor the Soviet Union could rightly be described as socialist in the sense of the Marxist tradition.

So perhaps your earlier assertion should have read.... "crucially, though, socialists in the Marxist tradition are opposed to bombing innocent people whoever and wherever they are and whoever is doing the bombing.

[amateur51]

His dictionary didn't have the word in it, of course.

:laugh::blush:

[Richard Barrett]

So perhaps your earlier assertion should have read.... "crucially, though, socialists in the Marxist tradition are opposed to bombing innocent people whoever and wherever they are and whoever is doing the bombing."

I thought it was obvious enough without any extra qualification, but clearly things don't work like that around here. :sadface:

[anotherbob]

I thought it was obvious enough without any extra qualification, but clearly things don't work like that around here. :sadface:

Obviously not. Sorry to be such a disappointment to you.

[scottycelt]

The good news is that the English language is not so imperilled. If a Communist believes in Communism (and a Catholic in Catholicism), an Anarchist believes in Anarchism, not 'anarchy' (which is a state or condition, like 'Heaven').

And if someone wants to know what Communism is (or Catholicism), they read a book on Communism (or Catholicism, depending which they want to know about): they don't consult a dictionary. Furthermore, teaching a foreign language demonstrates students' propensity for misusing dictionaries: Just because a dictionary defines a word in more than one way, it doesn't mean that, in every context, every definition applies. In similar vein, there are many shades of meaning to Anarchism: it is not necessary, in every case, for someone to wave a flag, daub symbols - or even engage in violence: they can be pacifists. Which is why fhg (forgive me if this was obvious) chose to define 'a Catholic' in a very narrow, derogatory way, to show that your definition of 'Anarchist' was similary narrow and derogatory.

There are loads of articles on Wikipedia about Anarchism, the History of Anarchism &c. which provide more information than a dictionary.

I never said every anarchist waved red and black flags. Read my original post. I merely mentioned that some were prone to do so to advertise their anarchism and apparently this was considered 'offensive'. I also encouraged some confused members to consult their dictionaries, not mine. To equate that with defining all Catholics as child-abusers is absurd and genuinely offensive . Child-abuse is wholly against Catholic belief. Waving red and black flags and wearing masks is not against anarchist belief as far as I know. Unlike child abuse, there is absolutely nothing wrong with waving flags of any colour(s) and wearing masks and this is certainly not offensive to most people, certainly not myself, though I do find it all rather silly. If I said all anarchists are bomb-planters now that would be truly offensive.

A few members here seemed uncertain how to spot an anarchist and this appeared to me to be the most obvious route to recognise those who publicly advertise the fact. In the same way one might immediately recognise a man of religion by his dog-collar. Not everyone who wears a dog-collar believes exactly the same. It's a symbol of core belief just like a red and black flag is to some anarchists.

Oh, silly old simpleton me ... :laugh:

[french frank]

Oh, silly old simpleton me ... :laugh:

Well, quite. The point is that you bandy the word 'anarchist' about much as others describe their boss, university professor or others 'a fascist' without it meaning much. It is apparently for you a vague term of opprobium whereas for others it has a very specific, and serious, political meaning; and not in any general sense something to be condemned.

[Beef Oven]

I never said every anarchist waved red and black flags. Read my original post. I merely mentioned that some were prone to do so to advertise their anarchism and apparently this was considered 'offensive'. I also encouraged some confused members to consult their dictionaries, not mine. To equate that with defining all Catholics as child-abusers is absurd and genuinely offensive . Child-abuse is wholly against Catholic belief. Waving red and black flags and wearing masks is not against anarchist belief as far as I know. Unlike child abuse, there is absolutely nothing wrong with waving flags of any colour(s) and wearing masks and this is certainly not offensive to most people, certainly not myself, though I do find it all rather silly. If I said all anarchists are bomb-planters now that would be truly offensive.

A few members here seemed uncertain how to spot an anarchist and this appeared to me to be the most obvious route to recognise those who publicly advertise the fact. In the same way one might immediately recognise a man of religion by his dog-collar. Not everyone who wears a dog-collar believes exactly the same. It's a symbol of core belief just like a red and black flag is to some anarchists.

Oh, silly old simpleton me ... :laugh:

Scotty, Anarchism is a serious political movement and should not be used as a term of abuse.

http://i.imgur.com/nzI3UU1.jpg

[eighthobstruction]

Well, quite. The point is that you bandy the word 'anarchist' about much as others describe their boss, university professor or others 'a fascist' without it meaning much. It is apparently for you a vague term of opprobium whereas for others it has a very specific, and serious, political meaning; and not in any general sense something to be condemned.

....Yeah....put another log on the fire Scotty....:star::laugh:

[Padraig]

Scotty, Anarchism is a serious political movement and should not be used as a term of abuse.

http://i.imgur.com/nzI3UU1.jpg

If that is a kind of lifeline to scotty, I'm with you Beef Oven.

I have to say that I, for one, find it quite repulsive to witness what appears to be another surge of group hysteria, like playground bullying; where one after another members line up to have a go at one of their group. Is this now the norm?

[Beef Oven]

If that is a kind of lifeline to scotty, I'm with you Beef Oven.

I have to say that I, for one, find it quite repulsive to witness what appears to be another surge of group hysteria, like playground bullying; where one after another members line up to have a go at one of their group. Is this now the norm?

:ok:

Yes, the smug and self-satisfieds are picking on Scotty again. It's called bullying.

Let's all say a big NO to bullying :ok:

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I have to say that I, for one, find it quite repulsive to witness what appears to be another surge of group hysteria, like playground bullying; where one after another members line up to have a go at one of their group. Is this now the norm?

A little over-emphasized, I think, Padraig; scotty's insults directed at Anarchists was rather amusing, but hardly "hysterical". And whilst I respect BeefO, I hardly feel that his own and scotty's low opinions of deeply-held political beliefs (and those who hold these beliefs) constitutes "playground bullying".

[vinteuil]

Well, quite. The point is that you bandy the word 'anarchist' about much as others describe their boss, university professor or others 'a fascist' without it meaning much. It is apparently for you a vague term of opprobium whereas for others it has a very specific, and serious, political meaning; and not in any general sense something to be condemned.

:ok:

Yes, the smug and self-satisfieds are picking on Scotty again. It's called bullying.

Let's all say a big NO to bullying :ok:

... I don't think French Frank wd normally be considered to be among "the smug and the self-satisfieds". And up until now, noöne has ever called her approach "bullying" :erm: