I think you mean Stalin, since Trotsky had more to say about countries developing from feudalism. Stalin blamed social democrats for more ills than he did the fascists, and like other revolutionaries of the time he had more in common with the law-and-order types than he would with Anonymous. One hundred years ago the main stripes of radicals agreed on only one thing: their side should be in dictatorial control. Whether it was Bolshevik, nationalist, Rexist, monarchist, Spartacist, Kluxxer, etc. Someone like Stalin would only be concerned about the fact that the cops are fighting for the âwrongâ side, not the tactics they are using. Mostly, Stalin would be mad that the cops hadnât massacred everyone, especially the journalists, in service to central authority. Trotsky simply would shrug his shoulders at the violence in the U.S. and turn instead to the problems of Mexico or Russia.
So yeah, ideologies often seem interchangeable so long as they donât give a shit about democracy, due process, and transparency. This is why the Civil Rights movement was the death of authoritarian forms of leftism (actual authoritarian, not bullshit exaggerations from red-state morons) while the right wing happily picked up the Little Red Book and has cultivated analogues of communist organization for the past 50 years, hoping to duplicate the success Bolshevism had during the early 20th century. Theyâve had some success with those tactics, too, but that doesnât make it any less the kind of disgusting tripe it is.
The explicit threat to abortion providers is vigilante violence, given the limited amount of security spread out across the providers who are not actually breaking any laws. The explicit threat to Brownâs killer/murderer is of public censure and public scrutiny of any administrative/civil/criminal actions taken. The abortion providersâ legal activities should be protected by law, while the extrajudicial killings of police arenât. @zikzakâs comment to the contrary, the Anonymous/ACLU position in this case is actually the moderate one, while the rush to excuse the cops or use the incident to start a race war and dissolve the federal government is actually the kind of cynical move of a brutal would-be Stalinist.
And how did that Mexico thing work out for Trotsky? Georges Danton would be another apt example.
Including the wife and daughter of the officer â if the doxxing was accurate â is an appropriately moderate part of that public censure?
Extrajudicial killings by police should not be protected, by law or otherwise. But vigilante justice is frowned upon for a reason. Itâs seldom accurate, and almost always an expression of passion, not justice. Possibly worse, once âjusticeâ has been served, that passion evaporates, leaving the real perpetrators to perpetrate again.
I really donât give a damn. My point is that your invocation of Trotsky was propos of ĂĄ nuttin. And you still equate transparent, democratic-republican processes with vigilante justice. More than being simply incorrect, your position is profoundly dishonest fake outrage.
5% says itâs the old west now. The government has failed there. Failed. Not almost failed. Failed failed. We can address that moving forward. It can be set right.
My government should defend these men, but protect them? No fucking way.
Heard any stories about even a single local officer refusing to go along with all this?
Necessary to run them the fuck out of town and make sure their spirits are crushed just a little, or just a lot, like their daddy -and all his friends- do to other people, for a living? Yes, sadly yes. Authoritarians speak only fear. Anonymous just brought a bigger LRAD.
Anonymous remind me of crows. Never piss off a crow.
I hope nobody dies. I do hope some fearmongers shit their own pants for a change.
Well, fearmongers with guns are kind of dangerous when they are afraid. This is all the more reason for them to start shooting right?
So I agree vigilante justice is a bad idea. But on the other hand, as I say above and further to your point, the police are the ones who murdered an innocent man. Doxing is a nasty thing to do but it is not killing someone, imprisoning someone, or even giving them a black eye. This is not vigilante justice, itâs recklessness that may or may not end up facilitating vigilante justice. Meanwhile, a young man is very, truly dead.
Exactly. The worst has -already- happened. The very fact that they even HAVE CS gas says the police already live in fear. And the killing could happen again and again, and will if the balance of power isnât addressed by someone.
Anonymous really should be one of the last lines of defense for this. Theyâre really much better with animal abusers.
More to the point, when the individual represents a powerful institution, doxxing (assuming the doxxing is accurate, which we donât know yet) become a more moral act than just a ânastyâ thing. Itâs a vital part of democracy. If itâs inaccurate, then itâs a clusterfuck, but politically itâs a moderate, middle-of-the-road act, uncontroversial (if a bit brave/foolhardy, depending on accuracy) and not radical.
That said, plenty of moderates are incompetent morons. At least Anonymous are people who are are willing to err on the side of incompetency without also erring on the side of cowardice.
Well, to be honest I really donât know what anonymous did in this case, and itâs important to remember that anonymous doesnât have a strict central control, but by saying ânastyâ I mean saying âPerson A murdered Michael Brownâ when they did not do so. Your word, âclusterfuckâ might be a better choice.
Thatâs what I like about Anonymous. Of course they know they can get things wrong (at least many of them must be aware of this) but they still do things. People want to apply a 100% even-Socrates-would-agree standard of proof to releasing this information, as if police who are currently perpetrating or at least abetting the situation in Ferguson are entitled to an infinitely higher standard of protection from name-calling than Michael brown was given for his life.
A military force has occupied the streets of a small town to oppress the populace in order to cover up a murder. If we lived in a sane world Obamaâs speech would have been, âI spoke with the governor today and he asked me to authorize use of the the military if necessary to oust the Ferguson police force and restore liberty to the city and allow a proper investigation into Michael Brownâs death.â
You could literally release the name of every single one of their officers in alphabetical order, and theyâre going to tell you that every individual name is the wrong cop. Does anyone actually think the Ferguson PD is going to say âHey, good job, thatâs the guy!â?
If the officers being falsely accused donât enjoy it very much, maybe they could tell the rest of the world which one of their coworkers executed an unarmed kid in the street.
Iâm confused. In one post, you agree that the doxxing tactic is an invitation to murder; but you think itâs fine and dandy to bring wives and daughters into the fray, if it will get the we-hope-heâs-the-one-repsponsible-but-who-knows-guy out of town?
How is an (lower-case) anonymous doxxing of guaranteed-not-involved people (wife, daughter) a transparent, democratic-republican process? Even if the doxxing of the officer is accurate, youâre now indulging in collective punishment.
So people understand how Anonymous proceeded with their doxxing:
First they posted," the home address and phone number of St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, as well as a photo of his house."
Then a tweet from an Anon member posted,
Jon Belmar, if you dont release the officerâs name, weâre releasing your daughterâs info. You have one hour. #Ferguson
RT so he sees this.
Half an hour later they posted:
30 MinutesâŚ
(Somebody better tell him. #Ferguson)
(So they started by doxxing the police chief to prove theyâd do it, and then threatening his daughter.)
Then they backed off.
It was this morning that they came back and doxxed the officer they had info on. The reply was, âThatâs not the officer who was involved in the shooting. Thatâs not even a Ferguson officer.â
No, itâs 100% wrong under all circumstances. Stochastic terrorism is not how we enforce the law in this country, and itâs not an acceptable way to advance a debate. If you donât trust the state to execute the right people - and I donât - then why would you trust Anonymous? So far I think their track record for doxxing the right people is a whole lot worse than our biased, negligent courts.
And dear God I hope youâre wrong about the wild west. I hope the State Troopers can be more professional and calm things down over there. Time will tell.
Itâs incompetent, like everything Anonymous, but itâs a long way from vigilante murder or even suborning murder. Itâs pretty clearly a matter of public shaming. And yet you still deliver the false equivalence, that itâs literally vigilante homicide, because you have chosen a point of cowardice to plant your flag and declare your fanaticism. And there is no talking to a wall. Enjoy your time with figurative Stalin, or Trotsky. Pick your new favorite murdering hero because youâre definitely holding their book.
It shouldnât be, but subverting the rule of law and putting guns in the hands of violent fanatics isnât what Anonymous is doing. Thatâs actually what the right wing has been doing, and what they always will continue to do so long as people donât stand up to them. Low-level harassment of criminals who hold power has always been a component of civil disobedience.
