|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2002 : 02:47:47 [Permalink]
|
RE anarchy, I'm not sure what you mean… unfortunately, for lack of a government at all, the heaviest fist (whether the Russians, Chinese, whoever) would promptly step in and fill the vacuum as was mentioned. That makes at least some laws necessary, of course. What happened to the mentioned Spanish transunion- any variation would be destroyed here before it left infancy. For lack of police, people would organize into groups of thugs who'd wield control, and eventually we'd end up back where we are.
My political orientation: "Whoever feeds the people," or provides them with a lifestyle that keeps them healthy and happy (as that translates to today's world) sums it up. Not the top 10%… how well are the people living, say, a standard deviation about the mean? I don't think either of our prominent political parties are addressing the important issues necessary to accomplish this, say, several decades down the road, as opposed to just patching the boat to hold the mess together until "the next guy" takes the helm. Despite all of the hoopla about ideologies and fringe issues (e.g. ownership of handguns… except for a minority who's motivations are questionable, how significant is that nonsense in the big picture? Yet the NRA influences people's votes, and our lawmakers decisions) economics are mainly what it's all about.
That's what really drives all of these guerilla movements in less wealthy countries- few are Marxist fanatics or hardcore capitalists, should that be the case; usually these movements are associated with some form of these ideologies-) either way, the people just reach a point at which they refuse to take the economic exploitation. That couldn't happen here- the control mesh is too strong (and getting stronger,) as is our dependency on the technological infrastructure. I don't advocate socialism any more than capitalism, only ethical and honest leadership. Maybe power just corrupts in too general of a sense, so possibly it can't happen. I'm not sure that if the Soviet Union had better leadership and/or wasn't spending 50% of it's GNP on bombs and submarines to keep up with us, both systems couldn't have worked.
Ron White |
 |
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2002 : 04:40:26 [Permalink]
|
I am President of the Anarchists of America. If you need any info or want to join let me know.
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2002 : 05:22:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who's saying it's the "best of all possible worlds"? I'm just saying it may be that things are the way they are because people are the way they are. I'm not saying that's absolutely true, but it is a definite possibility. I also think you need to make a stronger case than picking an anecdote out of a history book to make a strong case.
An anecdote? Hardly - the Spanish Revolution/Civil War lasted between 1936-39, and there were a whole variety of leftist organisations involved, from anarchists to hard-line Soviet communists. Many of those organisations existed for decades before the conflict, and there is a massive body of written history about them. Search the ineternet, or go to your local library and you'll find them. I mean, if you can be bothered, of course.
Frankly, my case seems a whole lot stronger than merely asserting that "things are the way they are because they're the way they are."
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2002 : 09:29:09 [Permalink]
|
You should keep in mind that this organization existed within a greater society that still exists today while the organization you refer to laster a whole 3 years. And from what you say it was eliminated by the system we have now.
I think what you are talking about might work for small organizations and small populations. We have no working example of anything else. Or do we?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2002 : 12:13:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You should keep in mind that this organization existed within a greater society that still exists today while the organization you refer to laster a whole 3 years. And from what you say it was eliminated by the system we have now.
If you read my post correctly, you would have noticed that I said that these organisations existed for decades *before* the conflict in question. I don't have the founding date of the CNT to hand, but I'll find it for you when I have a moment.
As to being wiped out by the "current system", they were wiped out by General Franco, who was a Fascist and supported by, amongst others, Hitler.
But you're right, we don't have any really large-scale examples to go by. I wonder why? It might almost be because *some* people in society don't want us to, say, the government? But I'm just taking a wild guess there...
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 17:18:06 [Permalink]
|
Xev> From where I sit Gorgo is right. The Democrats would be considered right-wing here in Denmark. Certainly not “middle-of-the-road”.
I'm also in the Anarchist department. Not the anarchy=chaos room, where most people place anarchists, not on the floor that says this system relies on the goodness of man either. I just agree with the definition given on page two on Anarchy.
300 years ago the aristocracy laughed at the idea of giving the vote to the peasants. It would be chaos, they said. So just because something might seem impossible, does not mean it really is.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 04:10:43 [Permalink]
|
"I'm also in the Anarchist department. Not the anarchy=chaos room, where most people place anarchists, not on the floor that says this system relies on the goodness of man either. I just agree with the definition given on page two on Anarchy." (Omega)
You are?! So what are you doing arguing for the Bolsheviks on that other thread? (Winks conspiratorily).
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 05:09:15 [Permalink]
|
I'm so sorry, but my feeble little uneducated mind is swimming in circles trying to figure out a way to put anarchy and reality in a single uncontradictory clause. If anarchy is supposed to be something akin to government without government, where we all govern ourselves, and are free to do as we please, as long as we do not harm another, how do we enforce this high ideal? Do we create a government to govern our lack of government? I'm so confused......
I agree that government should be as unobtrusive as possible, but it must also be capable of protecting it's citizens. Unchecked capitalism can be as oppressive as complete socialism. Wide open liberalism is can be as destructive as paranoid conservatism.
I like to look for the middle ground, and realize that with some exceptions, society will take care of itself. 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.'
I do have one firm rule when voting, however. If a candidate says something like, "I'm seeking this office with God at my side," or "The Lord will guide us through this campaign," I don't vote for that person. I don't want anyone blaming God when they f*-# up. I want that person's head, because I don't have the slightest idea how to take a god's head.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 08:57:51 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> I'm talking about the events leading to Stalins taking of power in Russia. Where does that show any political preferences? Other than a bored-to-tears attitude towards the strong belief that Stalin was inevitable in the Soviet.
Tim> Your sentiment that the political idea of anarchy and reality are incompatible, is based on the way society is currently run. If we suddenly switch off the institutions we've been raised to believe are necessary, then we would have chaos.
The “high” ideal. Why is that so high in your view? Do you see it as inherently impossible for humans to live together, or do you again project today's society onto one without police?
Anarchism does not have a government. Simple as that. We don't have anyone telling us what to do, from the idea that people are perfectly capable of governing themselves and the society they live in.
So you look for the middle-ground. Do you think that's what we have now?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 09:43:29 [Permalink]
|
"I'm talking about the events leading to Stalins taking of power in Russia. Where does that show any political preferences?" (Omega)
It doesn't - I was joking, hence the "wink". Sorry, my sense of humour can be a bit odd at times.
"Other than a bored-to-tears attitude towards the strong belief that Stalin was inevitable in the Soviet." (Omega)
Do you mean you're bored with that? You sort-of admitted that it might have been true though in one post, didn't you?
Quote: "So while Stalin was in a way almost unavoidable, I see the reasons for the isolation of the revolutionary government as important factors." (Omega).
OK, it can be quite boring I agree, but I feel there is a valid distinction to be made between what I might call libertarian socialists and authoritarian socialists (of which I would class myself as the former). Politically (and historically) they tend to use different arguments and methods about organisation and the process of change.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 10:58:30 [Permalink]
|
"If anarchy is supposed to be something akin to government without government..." (Tim)
I usually describe "anarchy" as being "without hierarchy", rather than "without government". For me, the term has too many ambiguities to be very useful, but this definition might help a bit.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 15:37:10 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> (laughs) Oh, dear. Or maybe my sense of humour is “Out of Order” on Sundays?
I actually see socialism as one of the ways to anarchy, to the hierarchy-less society (a very good term actually).
Okay, I can see why choice of words could cause confusion. Considering what happened in and around Russia following the revolution I think Stalin or “A” Stalin-type would have been pretty much unavoidable. My point is, that had circumstances been different, no invasion, no civil war, no loss of Ukraine, no drop in industrial output, things may've been different.
In debates concerning Stalin's rise to power these circumstances are sometimes omitted, as if socialism inevitably leads to Stalinism or a dictatorship of his kind.
So there are two discussions: 1) Was Stalin an unavoidable consequence of the Russian Revolution considering what happen in Russia at the time and the form of socialism being used? 2) Will socialism inevitably lead to a dictatorship? (When the two get mixed up I need my handkerchief :))
Hence the quote you quoted. As you yourself point out, there are quite many different opinions on how to form a socialist government, from the almost elitist “we must lead the masses” to the “the masses can lead themselves”.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 02:59:14 [Permalink]
|
"1) Was Stalin an unavoidable consequence of the Russian Revolution considering what happen in Russia at the time and the form of socialism being used? 2) Will socialism inevitably lead to a dictatorship? (When the two get mixed up I need my handkerchief :))"
Two very good questions that many people far better informed than I have spent years trying to answer. I suppose we have at least scratched the surface in these two threads, however.
One interesting, but negative, consequence of the whole Soviet "experiment" is that many people in the West equate socialism (of any kind) with dictatorship, material scarcity and a "grey uniformism" of society. For myself, and my own particular brand, I equate it with freedom and equality, material well-being for all, and enormous human creative variety. Might be worth starting a thread along those lines...
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 04/08/2002 03:03:56 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2002 : 18:25:46 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> I didn't see a t(h)reat on the subject “What is socialism?”, I might get around to start one next days.
But I agree completely that Stalinism (and to a degree) Maoism, both have been confused with socialism and communism. The media constantly speak of communist China, and formerly communist Russia. It's of course a good deterrent. “Is this what you want?” I always get asked, when muttering about another way of running society, and people point to the tyranny of Soviet state-capitalism.
As I wrote I see socialism as the way to anarchy. Both seek a class-less or hierarchy-less society. Strange, in a way, that today's society is called “free”, when it boils down to “freedom to chose between five brands of the same product if you have the money.”
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 07:25:09 [Permalink]
|
"Strange, in a way, that today's society is called “free”, when it boils down to “freedom to chose between five brands of the same product if you have the money.” (Omega)
And those brands are all but identical. Car adverts are the worst for me, a whole bunch of similar looking, similar performing eco-nightmares, and this is "choice"?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 04/12/2002 07:28:19 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
