> A ballistic test performed in 1961 suggested that the pistol found on Sacco was used to commit the murders,[7] though later commentators have questioned its reliability and conclusiveness, given questions about the chain of custody and possible manipulation of evidence.[8]
they found one guy who disputed it, and the author convincingly refutes it immediately in the same article. yet another wikipedia citation that when I read it suggests the opposite of what wikipedia implies. nearly every time.
0 Boosts
1 Like
@toiletpaper I don't know if they're guilty or not but the wiki article is dripping with little bias tells and
@toiletpaper it is indisputable though that they were followers of an advocate of violent revolution so I mean that's not proof of anything but it also means...it's not out of the question that they committed violent revolutionary acts but everybody (not just the article) is like, must be italian immigrant hate.
@sun
Yep. Presentism is real, as is insurrectionist anarchism (aka: propaganda by the deed). The modern example of the latter today would be Antifa and black-bloc (a protest tactic, not a group).
Can't sweep that shit under the rug, and unfortunately that's become the prevailing image of anarchists to this day. To the point that even other anarchists try to distance themselves from it by adopting alternate names like "mutualist", "minarchist", "libertarian <xyz>", and so on.
I'm admittedly still a fan of Emma Goldman, and used to live a half a block from the apartment she lived in in Toronto, but she was part of that ilk too at least for a time. It comes with the territory, and I can't blame people for the stereotype because it's been largely self-inflicted.
Yep. Presentism is real, as is insurrectionist anarchism (aka: propaganda by the deed). The modern example of the latter today would be Antifa and black-bloc (a protest tactic, not a group).
Can't sweep that shit under the rug, and unfortunately that's become the prevailing image of anarchists to this day. To the point that even other anarchists try to distance themselves from it by adopting alternate names like "mutualist", "minarchist", "libertarian <xyz>", and so on.
I'm admittedly still a fan of Emma Goldman, and used to live a half a block from the apartment she lived in in Toronto, but she was part of that ilk too at least for a time. It comes with the territory, and I can't blame people for the stereotype because it's been largely self-inflicted.
@toiletpaper anarchism is the only moral system when I investigate it. not like, how it's done by any existing group. nor can it survive in nature, but conceptually the closest I can think of.
@sun
> anarchism is the only moral system
I agree.
> nor can it survive in nature
I don't know about that. It's based on natural law to start with. For example the circle-A symbol represents (paraphrased) "anarchism is order" with the circle being the "O" in order. That refers to the spontaneous order which arises in things like flocks of birds, schools of fish, economic systems (e.g. free markets), social networks, free software, etc. If you look at international politics, that's anarchism. There's no overarching world government [yet] which can impose a hierarchy from on high, so instead you have a loose ad-hoc system of quasi-consensual relationships, polycentric law, in a near constant state of flux and renegotiation. In fact most of the world arguably functions like this because government and law can only insert itself so far into people's every-day lives in the absence of a totalitarian panopticon. Government and law are always downstream of culture and operating behind the times relative to the prevailing societal ethos.
That's why for instance an area approximately 2.5 million km² across Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, India, Bangladesh, and China, and home to roughly 100 million ethnic minority peoples (aka: Zomia) is considered defacto anarchist, because it's beyond the practical reach of any government. It might be enclosed within national borders, but it's not practical for the governments of those regions to actually impose themselves on the local population in any meaningful way. Tip of the iceberg. When you remove the apparent veneer of government control from how people actually conduct themselves in most of the world, then it's glaringly obvious that anarchism is actually the most widespread style of socio-economic and political organisation, even while it does not in itself have a set form of protocols to dictate how people necessarily conduct themselves. In the words of Karl Hess, "It is simply a statement. We can be free.", or perhaps even better, it's simply the recognition that we always are.
> anarchism is the only moral system
I agree.
> nor can it survive in nature
I don't know about that. It's based on natural law to start with. For example the circle-A symbol represents (paraphrased) "anarchism is order" with the circle being the "O" in order. That refers to the spontaneous order which arises in things like flocks of birds, schools of fish, economic systems (e.g. free markets), social networks, free software, etc. If you look at international politics, that's anarchism. There's no overarching world government [yet] which can impose a hierarchy from on high, so instead you have a loose ad-hoc system of quasi-consensual relationships, polycentric law, in a near constant state of flux and renegotiation. In fact most of the world arguably functions like this because government and law can only insert itself so far into people's every-day lives in the absence of a totalitarian panopticon. Government and law are always downstream of culture and operating behind the times relative to the prevailing societal ethos.
That's why for instance an area approximately 2.5 million km² across Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, India, Bangladesh, and China, and home to roughly 100 million ethnic minority peoples (aka: Zomia) is considered defacto anarchist, because it's beyond the practical reach of any government. It might be enclosed within national borders, but it's not practical for the governments of those regions to actually impose themselves on the local population in any meaningful way. Tip of the iceberg. When you remove the apparent veneer of government control from how people actually conduct themselves in most of the world, then it's glaringly obvious that anarchism is actually the most widespread style of socio-economic and political organisation, even while it does not in itself have a set form of protocols to dictate how people necessarily conduct themselves. In the words of Karl Hess, "It is simply a statement. We can be free.", or perhaps even better, it's simply the recognition that we always are.
@toiletpaper I really just mean if it comes into conflict with an organized national force it will always lose. it can work in smaller cases where it's not in conflict with national power
"some commentators" I mean also in primary school we learned that vague terms like this are used to bullshit you in a media literacy class.
> Even the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was convinced of their innocence and attempted to pressure American authorities to have them released.
Wow. At least that much is true. The guy who kicked off the fascist movement unironically came to the defence of a couple anarchists.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260909095607if_/https://files.libcom.org/files/Mussolini,%20Sacco-Vanzetti%20and%20the%20Anarchists.pdf