100 replies to this topic

[cage]

ideally i believe in anarchism and communism but i realise both of these aren't really possible so realistically im a liberal socialist, im a complete pacifist and believe in direct democracy so the people get the say on issues instead of having to vote for some corrupt asshole who will almost never properly represent them  

[Punk Rock Geek]

cage, on 28 December 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:

ideally i believe in anarchism and communism but i realise both of these aren't really possible so realistically im a liberal socialist, im a complete pacifist and believe in direct democracy so the people get the say on issues instead of having to vote for some corrupt asshole who will almost never properly represent them  

Why do you say they're not possible?

[cage]

Punk Rock Geek, on 28 December 2010 - 09:46 PM, said:

Why do you say they're not possible?

human nature stops both anarchism and communism from being possible on a large scale people are too lazy and selfish for anarcho-communism sadly  

Edited by cage, 29 December 2010 - 02:45 AM.

[Renan]

cage, on 29 December 2010 - 02:44 AM, said:

human nature stops both anarchism and communism from being possible on a large scale people are too lazy and selfish for anarcho-communism sadly  

There is another problem about human nature, we find thousands of excuses for why something went wrong or because it will never happen.

I'm not saying to be utopian and also not to be disillusioned.

For a revolution really happens, it should be done by the workers themselves.
So do not place all your hopes on an individual, small group or party.

Well I'm not a fan of Che Guevara (He had admiration for Stalin and was a little tyrant) but at least this phrase fits this situation: "Be reasonable, demand the impossible"

[FreedomFighter]

I am a Liberal. Like many already said, punk is a great style of music that can get you interested in politics. That was the case for me as well.

[AaronRhodes]

I would also consider myself Liberal if anything although I have some of my own opinions (as one should) and I don’t completely fall in line with  all other Liberals.

[Punk Rock Geek]

cage, on 29 December 2010 - 02:44 AM, said:

human nature stops both anarchism and communism from being possible on a large scale people are too lazy and selfish for anarcho-communism sadly  

In response to laziness, there would be no use for marketing or banking jobs in an anarchist system, and so a great deal of the labor force would move to the primary and secondary sectors, significantly reducing the average amount of work per person there.  

In response to selfishness, participating in an anarchist community would be a voluntary decision. You reap the benefits of the community (security, a minimum standard of living, workplace democracy, direct political representation) in exchange for your labor.  It's not altruism.

[John]

cage, on 28 December 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:

ideally i believe in anarchism and communism but i realise both of these aren't really possible so realistically im a liberal socialist, im a complete pacifist and believe in direct democracy so the people get the say on issues instead of having to vote for some corrupt asshole who will almost never properly represent them  

Direct democracy is flawed as communism or anarchism. The main argument against communism might be something like "People are corrupt/power hungry/greedy" and then the person cites degenerated workers' states as the argument. Then a similar argument against anarchism could be "People can't take care of themselves/Not everyone will contribute/We've evolved to support hierarchies."

The best argument against direct democracy is even more cogent, however. People are stupid. And unfortunately, in much of the world, especially the USA, stupidity has become a new sacred cow. We thrive off of it, even the intelligent indulge in it sometimes, and it's so ingrained into our culture that actually freethinking, well read, thoughtful people are an oppressed minority at best.

Some people like Mike Gravel, who I do respect and consider to be intelligent, make a strong case for direct democracy, but it wouldn't work in this setting, in the year 2011. We'd need decades of changing our attitudes on thinking itself for a direct democracy to be something that works.

Direct democracy in America right now probably would be a Teabagocracy. No thanks.

[Punk Rock Geek]

John, on 02 January 2011 - 01:56 AM, said:

Direct democracy is flawed as communism or anarchism. The main argument against communism might be something like "People are corrupt/power hungry/greedy" and then the person cites degenerated workers' states as the argument. Then a similar argument against anarchism could be "People can't take care of themselves/Not everyone will contribute/We've evolved to support hierarchies."

The best argument against direct democracy is even more cogent, however. People are stupid. And unfortunately, in much of the world, especially the USA, stupidity has become a new sacred cow. We thrive off of it, even the intelligent indulge in it sometimes, and it's so ingrained into our culture that actually freethinking, well read, thoughtful people are an oppressed minority at best.

Some people like Mike Gravel, who I do respect and consider to be intelligent, make a strong case for direct democracy, but it wouldn't work in this setting, in the year 2011. We'd need decades of changing our attitudes on thinking itself for a direct democracy to be something that works.

Direct democracy in America right now probably would be a Teabagocracy. No thanks.

"Freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved."

~Immanuel Kant (In defense of the French Revolution, and the "unintelligent" peasants.)

[John]

Punk Rock Geek, on 02 January 2011 - 02:39 AM, said:

"Freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved."

~Immanuel Kant (In defense of the French Revolution, and the "unintelligent" peasants.)

Kant also was famous for his deontology ethics, so its natural he'd adapt such a position.

I, on the other hand, am a utilitarian, so I don't think non-consequential ethics work very well applied to politics.

[Punk Rock Geek]

John, on 02 January 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

Kant also was famous for his deontology ethics, so its natural he'd adapt such a position.

I, on the other hand, am a utilitarian, so I don't think non-consequential ethics work very well applied to politics.

It's not an ethic though.  It's a relationship.  If the working class doesn't have the freedom to make mistakes -- to actively participate in society in a meaningful way -- then how are they ever going to be responsible and self sufficient?  A person doesn't learn how to run an organization by simply donating money to it, just as common citizens don't learn how to run a society by giving their money (or votes) to a politician.  

Of course, direct democracy is flawed under today's institutions.  Even Mike Gravel spoke of this, when he noted that the corporate media would rally propaganda in its own favor, pushing people to vote against their own interests.  His response was to limit such corporate influence using direct democracy, but noted that there could potentially be many victories for big business up until that point.  (Which would be exactly what happens today.)  

Yes, I believe that direct democracy will never reach it's full potential under capitalism; that doesn't however, mean that it is negative or should not be encouraged.

[cage]

John, on 02 January 2011 - 01:56 AM, said:

Direct democracy is flawed as communism or anarchism. The main argument against communism might be something like "People are corrupt/power hungry/greedy" and then the person cites degenerated workers' states as the argument. Then a similar argument against anarchism could be "People can't take care of themselves/Not everyone will contribute/We've evolved to support hierarchies."

The best argument against direct democracy is even more cogent, however. People are stupid. And unfortunately, in much of the world, especially the USA, stupidity has become a new sacred cow. We thrive off of it, even the intelligent indulge in it sometimes, and it's so ingrained into our culture that actually freethinking, well read, thoughtful people are an oppressed minority at best.

Some people like Mike Gravel, who I do respect and consider to be intelligent, make a strong case for direct democracy, but it wouldn't work in this setting, in the year 2011. We'd need decades of changing our attitudes on thinking itself for a direct democracy to be something that works.

Direct democracy in America right now probably would be a Teabagocracy. No thanks.

yeah i know what you mean about stupidity being praised and intelligence being ridiculed and clever people being oppressed i left school a few months ago and can remember i seemed to be the only person who gave a shit about politics and whats happening in the world while everyone else only cared about the x factor and bloody call of duty and i was a fucking outcast because of it. it shows how fucked up western society is really

[John]

Punk Rock Geek, on 02 January 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

It's not an ethic though.  It's a relationship.  If the working class doesn't have the freedom to make mistakes -- to actively participate in society in a meaningful way -- then how are they ever going to be responsible and self sufficient?  A person doesn't learn how to run an organization by simply donating money to it, just as common citizens don't learn how to run a society by giving their money (or votes) to a politician.  

Of course, direct democracy is flawed under today's institutions.  Even Mike Gravel spoke of this, when he noted that the corporate media would rally propaganda in its own favor, pushing people to vote against their own interests.  His response was to limit such corporate influence using direct democracy, but noted that there could potentially be many victories for big business up until that point.  (Which would be exactly what happens today.)  

Yes, I believe that direct democracy will never reach it's full potential under capitalism; that doesn't however, mean that it is negative or should not be encouraged.

Gravel is saying the only way to kill the snake is to let it bite us multiple times first. If that is the only option then fine, but if we can find an alternative we should look for it.

[Punk Rock Geek]

John, on 03 January 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

Gravel is saying the only way to kill the snake is to let it bite us multiple times first. If that is the only option then fine, but if we can find an alternative we should look for it.

It's not that we're "letting the snake bite us", because the snake will bite regardless.  That is, even when you're searching for a different solution, the snake continues to bite.  It's not as if representative democracy is immune to this.

[nocareever]

around the same time i started getting into anti-flag and other punk i had an english and history teacher that challenged all her students political views. she got me educated as to what was happening in our world and nation and took me from just some happily ignorant kid to someone who actually cared to learn what was happening to this world. left or right, it doesnt matter. i just try to adhere to the truth and whatever's in the best interest of the people. anarchy just isnt the avenue to produce the most good socially, like it or not a formal government does provide the best chance for the most positive social change. however, it should be a government truly of and for all people. Rousseau spoke of a government in which the people and the sovereign were one in the same, thats what we need.

[Punk Rock Geek]

nocareever, on 04 January 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

around the same time i started getting into anti-flag and other punk i had an english and history teacher that challenged all her students political views. she got me educated as to what was happening in our world and nation and took me from just some happily ignorant kid to someone who actually cared to learn what was happening to this world. left or right, it doesnt matter. i just try to adhere to the truth and whatever's in the best interest of the people. anarchy just isnt the avenue to produce the most good socially, like it or not a formal government does provide the best chance for the most positive social change. however, it should be a government truly of and for all people. Rousseau spoke of a government in which the people and the sovereign were one in the same, thats what we need.

Anarchy doesn't actually mean no government.  It just means highly decentralized government from the bottom up, sans hierarchy.  Rousseau, while not an anarchist, shares many ideas with anarchists, including the description of government that you have noted.

[xriotgrrrlx]

I'm an anarchist, I guess. I'll register Democrat so I can vote in primaries (we have a closed primary here), but I have issues with a lot of what political parties have to say, and I'm yet to find one that I could ever support. I got into politics when I was 15. I went to my first concert which was a bunch of different local bands for some kid's grad project, one of the bands playing was a skacore band screaming about all these issues I hadn't heard expressed that way, before. A couple months later I saw the band again with another hardcore band, and something just clicked. I started listening to punk and hardcore, felt my social isolation and anger expressed, and never looked back since.

[klenole]

Tbh, I'm not completely sure where I stand politically. I'm most definitely left wing, and I agree with a lot of anarchist ideals. But I also contradict myself on many things. For example, on one hand, I disagree with most violence and like peace. On the other hand, I can be a very violent person at times and if nothing peaceful will work then I'm perfectly fine with violence.

[HenryCaulfeild]

Anarchist socialist, but i do believe that there should be tribes, or clans which self rule, the Native Americans governed themselves that way for thousands of years, so no state, just unruled socialist communes (the name tribes would not be popular)

[antiflagtuzo]

total liberation... so anarchy. no matter how "impossible"