|
|
|
|
Zeno
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2002 : 05:29:46
|
Hi, I'm new around here. I noticed this and just had to reply:
I'm an Anarchist. To be honest, I don't know if I will remain this way, but being Canadian, not even the Green Party holds any water to what I would like to see done in my country.
My question is then this.....
What are you?
I think it was Plato who said that anyone who supports the complete freedom of men to do as they please, is really the enemy of freedom, because where men are completely free there is nothing to stop the strong from enslaving the weak, and all freedom may come to an end.
So anarchy can open the way for totalitarianism, which is a bad system not just because our freedoms are restricted, but because without critical appraisal of policy in the public arena, problems are identified too slowly, and policies may be continued with even where they (or their unforseen consequences) are having injurious or socially destructive repercussions.
So, the kind of society we need must allow for the untrammelled assertion of conflicting views, and the permanent possibility of real social change in light of public criticism. And, because major changes in policy nearly always require changes in personnel, we also need societies in which anyone is free to organise and constitute themselves as an alternative form of government, and there must be institutionally garaunteed means (such as regularly held free elections) of replacing our rulers without bloodshed.
In short, we need democracy! But the view of democracy as the "rule of the general will" or "rule by the majority" is also incoherent, as it falls foul of essentially the same paradox that destroys anarchism. What if the majority vote for someone who wants to destroy democracy, tyrannise over the weak, and surpress all criticism?
The solution is simple. We redefine democracy, as that system which stands for the preservation of free institutions - and in particular those which allow us to effectively criticize and change those in power. A man who views democracy in this way can without self-contradiction defend it against attack, even from its enemies on the inside - and by armed force if necessary.
Hope this gives you food for thought,
Paul Hayward.
Paul Hayward.
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 06:14:37 [Permalink]
|
I don't see your point about redefining democracy. Technically non of us live in a real democracy as there are institutions and mechanisms to protect minority and conserve the basic ideals of the state everywhere.
Legally the majority can't vote for enslaving a minority and they can't vote to crown a new emperor either. Not in the US not in Canada not in any country in Europe that I am aware of. Not even in the Weimarer Republic was it legal to do so. When Hitler rose to power in Germany he did it with the backing of the majority but against the law and the constetution of the Weimarer Republic. The problem was that nobody cared to enforce or defend these laws.
The othere problem I have with your idea is that you assume that freedom for everyone is a good thing and that a form of democracy is the bestway to ensure them. I have come to the conclusion that people in general are Idiots. The more people you get together the lower the IQ of the collective will become. A country full of people actually ruling would be a very bad thing in my opinon. Thankfully in most cases it is filtered through the apparat of established parties, the media and the rich and powerfull making campaign contributions, so that the actual will of the people hardly comes into the equation anymore.
If you let everyone vote about every single issue you would only get chaos. Direct democracy would not really work in todays society.
|
 |
|
|
Zeno
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 07:34:06 [Permalink]
|
I don't see your point about redefining democracy. Technically non of us live in a real democracy as there are institutions and mechanisms to protect minority and conserve the basic ideals of the state everywhere...
Exactly! You are saying here that none of us live in a "real" democracy because there are mechanisms which protect democracy in place. But democracy as pure "rule by the general will" is not practical at all, hence the need for redefinition. If we DON'T have such mechanisms, then democratic institutions are at constant risk of being overturned by reactionary groups who want to arrest the process of change, which is a dangerous thing indeed.
Legally the majority can't vote for enslaving a minority and they can't vote to crown a new emperor either.
But extreme groups who have the surpression of civil liberties as part of their agenda, CAN and have been voted for by a majorities in free elections (consider Le Penn in France, who denies the holocaust ever happenned, and who's views on asylum seekers and minorities betray a deep Hegelian nationalism).
> When Hitler rose to power in Germany he did it with the backing of the majority but against the law and the constetution of the Weimarer Republic. The problem was that nobody cared to enforce or defend these laws.
Exactly - and not JUST because of simple indifference, I would venture. Some prominent figure who's name I can't remember said that, because of their "democratic" principles, they would accept Le Penn with "great sadness in my heart" (or something like that). This attitude is common - and misguided.
On a related note, we also need controls in place to protect ECONOMIC freedom - currently being hijacked by globalising corporations, which suck money
out of the developing world and defeat the only logical purpose of having a free market in the first place: to extend the
range of choice open to individuals...All in the name of "fair competition?" - I think not!
But that's for another thread ;)
Paul Hayward. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 10:07:23 [Permalink]
|
Hasn't the redefinition you're talking about been done, and is being called a "republic"?
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2002 : 03:51:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it was Plato who said that anyone who supports the complete freedom of men to do as they please, is really the enemy of freedom, because where men are completely free there is nothing to stop the strong from enslaving the weak, and all freedom may come to an end.
I think you're misunderstanding what the political philosphy of anarchism is. What you describe sounds more like untrammelled individualism to me.
Like most political labels, there are many different varieties of anarchism (just as there are with socialism). Classical anarchism (as developed by Bakunin et al) has far more in common with Marxism than it does with the "total freedom" you describe. Put simply, it advocates the abolition of the economic system we know as Capitalism, and the political system we call the State. In their place it advocates communitarian living where production is for need and not profit, and society is organised on a non-hierarchical basis.
In fact, ironically given your point, people have argued that this would lead to <i>less</i> individual freedom, not more. The point is moot, of course.
This only a summary, of course, but I think it's fair to say that it would represent the mainstream view in broad terms of most anarchists historically.
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
