It's easy to defend communism as an IDEAL way to live. It's quite another thing to defend ways to actually bring it about. The fact is, humans aren't that generous or good-natured. It's not going to get to that utopia where everybody works for the good of other people, so that they may have the goods they need. The process of going to communism is going to stop somewhere, due to some power-hungry person then taking control at a pivotal point. Because that humans really are, weak-willed and selfish creatures who crave power. Those who refuse to realize that the masses are like that, are doomed to repeat the failures of the Soviet Union.
Originally posted by DMCDidn't we already have this discussion in another thread a couple months ago?
I don't know... I'm sorry if we did. It kinda came up in another thread, so I moved it over here. Oh well... if it's old news, the thread will simply die off. I don't think anyone posts in the Politics forum regularly anyhow.
As for you, BoromirMark: I don't think it's even an *ideal* way to live. I attend a state school, and I would not have a problem with sterilizing 90% of the people I see on a given day, so that they don't breed more like them. There's no way in hell I'm going to work for their betterment.
Drawing further on my college experience... I was in class today (entitled "Democracy and Discourse"), and our professor was more or less trying to make the case that the government needs to regulate the internet. His reasons, more or less, were that there are too many pop-ups, and service providers are too free to censor comment. He suggests that the government allot every citizen free webspace.
My problems with this are multiple, and I think they tie in nicely with my problems with any collectivist government. First, who creates this webspace? Who builds the computers and administers the networks? CRZ? Government workers? Who pays them? If we governmentalize everything like this, eventually we'll just stop producing wealth entirely.
Basically, I don't want anyone telling me that I have to work for the betterment of every slug I meet. I don't have a problem helping people I like. I would have a problem aiding and abetting complete idiots. For example... Were I a farmer, I would gladly share my milk with you, Boromir. DMC ain't getting shit, though.
No, kidding. Anyway, there's my two cents.
The man's talking about logic. We're talking about universal Armageddon! --Bones
Spain wasn't an anarchist state. Franco was well instilled as a leader, and just because there were still RESISTORS, doesn't make that a "anarchy". Was the United States in anarchy during the Civil War? No. Anarchy means no authority whatsoever, people just going willy-nilly. The very defintion of a state requires a government and a national/regional identity, something which is the very opposite of anarchy. Hence, oxymoron.
"Socialism is the way to go."
To be honest, I'd go with socialism as well, if again it weren't for the fact that people are inherently corrupt. You probably wouldn't get things as bad as under Hitler, but you'd get megalomaniacal jerks and scenarios happening right out of the book "1984".
"As for you, BoromirMark: I don't think it's even an *ideal* way to live. I attend a state school, and I would not have a problem with sterilizing 90% of the people I see on a given day, so that they don't breed more like them. There's no way in hell I'm going to work for their betterment."
Which is exactly why it won't work. We can't get people to give two shits about the person next time, it doesn't happen. But yes, it would be ideal, everyone actually generous and polite to each other, working just for others and not for soul-corrupting money, etc. Maybe we'd finally kill off that other scourge of modern times, pop culture.
Aside from that, I completely agree. I know about...well, 90 percent of the people I know, I wouldn't work to better. I'll continue to hold doors open and have manners and such with them, but they can rot in hell, really. One stole a girl that might've potentially dated me, another is an arrogant pompous ass, and the list grows. Wheefun!
the anarchists controlled parts of Spain, including Barcelona. It is not people going all willy-nilly either. While it may idealistically believe in the inherent goodness of people, and thus strike many as impossible, it was put into practice and did work until someone with bigger bombs came along. So, no, the U.S. wasn't in anarchy, mainly because anarchists did not seize control of the South.
::Sighs again:: Anarchists don't control anything. The very idea of control is ABHORRENT to anarchists, that's WHY they are anarchists. Maybe the resisters to Franco had militarily secured areas in Spain, but they no more controlled them than friggin France did.
The problem with socialism/communism is a problem of scope as I see it. I don't believe a nation of 300 million people can ever be an effective socialist state, because there is no personal stake in the well-being of others.
Look at the smallest units of human interaction and see what sort of model they operate on. Married couples, friendships, parents/children, friendships, none of these operate in a capitalistic mindset generally. They are far more collective and unconcerned with personal gain than the general society. You can see this exist in larger units where there is some sort of common bond able to be felt. People raising funds for their local school teams, local charity drives, etc. However, even at that level, already cracks begin to show, due to the divided loyalties and priorities caused by being part of a larger grouping with different motivations.
I believe that eventually the nation-state will collapse. Probably not in our lifetime but eventually. I think you will see the units be small, I'd guess somewhere around 2500-5000 max. And you will see Town Hall style democracy as the order of the day in most of these. Every member of the community has a vote in what goes on. And every person has enough of a bond with each other to make that person's well-being of equal importance to your own.
For an interesting idea about how a world like this might look, check out "Woman on the Edge of Time" by Marge Piercy.
"You used it to shove your miserable daughter down our throats week in and week out...not anymore!" - Ric Flair gives me hope, Raw 3/18/02
"I thought it was cool how HHH just tossed Jericho out of the ring and made him vanish, possibly into another dimension, at the end of the match." - Dr. Unlikely says the funniest thing I've ever read on Wienerville
"I believe that eventually the nation-state will collapse"
Ech. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, at least not unless it's because we've thought up a newer, better way to run things...because, honestly, I hold the notion of the nation, the state, the homeland over most things and it's my indentity, of a sort. But that's my personal reason to not see it go away.
"maybe you should go read some real anarchist political thought. It's a lot more than some moron in high school with a circle A shirt told you it was."
So instead of listening to the pothead with the circle-A shirt tell me about anarchy, I should go read the liberal-college educated pothead circle-A shirted doofus tell me about anarchy?
I'm done, as you seem entirely against the idea of actually learning about anything other than what you've gathered from South Park episodes and FOX news. I guess I shouldn't have expected any informed political discussion on a wrestling board.
Dude, there's no crying in baseball, and there's no pouting in this forum. It's the friggin politic's forum on a wrestling board for chrissakes! I'm just happy nobody has come in here and started a topic about why Hogan is always playing backstage politics. Anyway, come back, talk a little. No flames, just try and point out what you're saying.
Now, when I personally think of anarchism, I think of something without any Archist structures, and that an anarchist state would come about through the destruction of all those archist structures (I can say archist! Whee!). So I would think that the term 'anarchist state' isn't quite an oxymoron... more of a misnomer (hey you english guys, am I using that right?) because the state I'm using here is like a 'state of denial'..... errr.. right, lost my head again...
Anyway, please feel free to point out some Anarchist literature that would open my eyes to your perspective a bit.
/edit DAMN! I didn't even talk about what a commie/socialist I'd love to be. Anyway, I've said exactly what Spf said many times before, so I'll simply state that I agree with him. There's too many damn people. For it to work, you need to build a small community of people you like and go from there. I also believe that many of the nation/states that exist today will collapse, but whether they are replaced by small towns/villages/cities where everyone gets along (happy!) or large uncaring corporations (sad!) or something entirely different is up for debate. I personally think that humans as individuals can be pretty freakin' cool, and that humans as a species are almost too stupid to exist.
(edited by Jaguar on 10.5.02 0042)
"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."
"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."
"Who do you love?"
-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
I feel like a moron for trying to turn people onto a political ideology that I don't agree with, but read some Bakunin or Emma Goldman. Anarchism is a viable political means, it's just that 90% of the country seems to think it's nothing more than smashing windows, including many self proclaimed anarchists. Lenin's view of communism ended in an anarchic state, one in which people worked together making what they needed for the good of the community as a whole.
"Lenin's view of communism ended in an anarchic state, one in which people worked together making what they needed for the good of the community as a whole."
I would just wonder if what you are describing more closely matches what most people consider some form of socialism or communism than anarchism. I think you may be having a problem with defining terms here, eviljohn, at least as they are most commonly used. In anarchist thought, is there really any rational reason given for why one should follow the administration of the community and work to help others?
Communism was a mechanism that led to anarchy, at least theoretically. Read about what is supposed to happen after "Dictatorship of the Proletariat (sp?)". The dictator is supposed to step down and remove the central government, which is no longer needed. We just have never seen a government progress past this stage and most likely never will.
The point that has been labored at here though is that if there is no more central government, then people essentially would be free to do whatever they want, including killing, looting, causing havoc, etc. Once you strip away the features of a society which hold these things back (i.e. any kind of lawful government or even organization), how can you ever stop them from happening? This state just seems to be the most logical extension of anarchist thought, and proves why, well, it just SUCKS.
Here is a very good FAQ on anarchism. While I have some problems with the philosophy myself (I also think it relies too much on the premise that people not inherently assholes) it's interesting, makes you think, and is a pretty good read regardless of your political leanings. The main drawback is that it's really think, and can be tough to follow in parts. I can also say from personal experience that this "people aren't assholes" philosophy leads to anarchists generally being some of the nicest, and also some of the most frustrating, people to hang out with.
Essentially the big difference between anarchism and other social structures isn't that anarchism is against structure. Anarchists are actually really into social structure. Anyone that has been involved with a co-operative (which are really the backbone of anarchist sociatal structure) can attest to that. They just thing that these structures should be egalitarian and voluntary. Is this realistic? Maybe not. But to say that anarchists are against any kind of social order or structure is simply not correct.
(edited by MoeGates on 10.5.02 1422)
Expressing myself EVERY day!
"They just thing that these structures should be egalitarian and voluntary. Is this realistic? Maybe not. But to say that anarchists are against any kind of social order or structure is simply not correct."
And to me, to say that this view is anything other than self contradictory, chaotic, and not worthy of serious investigation and my personal attention is also not correct.
Yes, because the party as a whole is more moderate than the leaders would have you think. Mccain wouldn't have gotten the support he did is they were as religously and socially conservative as the Democrat leadership would have you believe.