22 replies to this topic

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

Fightin_da_Man, on 23 June 2009 - 11:16 AM, said:

Or perhaps we should abandon this system of government altogether.  But that's a different debate for a different thread.

So tell me perhaps what form of government will work and corruption will not become an issue. I am very curious.

[Fightin_da_Man]

No Pax Without PaxWarriors, on 23 June 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

So tell me perhaps what form of government will work and corruption will not become an issue. I am very curious.

I'm an anarchist.  So I think the way to avoid corruption is to not give people power to make decisions.  When decisions are made by the community as a whole, and when the economic system is set up in such a way as to prevent enrichment from production, there can be no corruption.  Nobody has the riches to make bribes, and nobody has the power to do anything if one were given.

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

Fightin_da_Man, on 23 June 2009 - 11:35 AM, said:

I'm an anarchist.  So I think the way to avoid corruption is to not give people power to make decisions.  When decisions are made by the community as a whole, and when the economic system is set up in such a way as to prevent enrichment from production, there can be no corruption.  Nobody has the riches to make bribes, and nobody has the power to do anything if one were given.

Yes I tottally agree with the Ideal of Anarchism, but how would things get done. how would the people create laws, how would the nation be able to declare war to defend itself, how would the country deal with other nations that have a strong central government. Anarchism is a beautiful concept but the fact that the people would need to vote all the time to do something is just impractical. It takes a massive amount of effort and orgainization to conduct just one vote for the presidencey, how would the nation be able to do this 15-20 or even more times a year. I simply do not see it being possible. Thats the problem, there is no perfect political system and the one we live under now would be more enjoyable to the masses than one that would need their political activity at all times.

[Fightin_da_Man]

No Pax Without PaxWarriors, on 23 June 2009 - 11:54 AM, said:

Yes I tottally agree with the Ideal of Anarchism, but how would things get done. how would the people create laws, how would the nation be able to declare war to defend itself, how would the country deal with other nations that have a strong central government. Anarchism is a beautiful concept but the fact that the people would need to vote all the time to do something is just impractical. It takes a massive amount of effort and orgainization to conduct just one vote for the presidencey, how would the nation be able to do this 15-20 or even more times a year. I simply do not see it being possible. Thats the problem, there is no perfect political system and the one we live under now would be more enjoyable to the masses than one that would need their political activity at all times.

Here's the thing though, Anarchism HAS worked.  In Spain in the 1930s, anarchist communes sprung up during the civil war.  They were able to provide for the needs of the people, and fight a war.  Of course, they were ultimately defeated because they had 3, that's right 3 major world powers working against them (Germany and Italy were assisting Franco's rebellion; the USSR was assisting the Republican government, but also trying to squash the anarchists at the same time).

Another example is modern-day Chiapas.  While the Zapatistas are NOT anarchist, they operate using many similar theories.  Representatives are appointed to councils which handle day-to-day administrative tasks and help resolve disputes.  Major policy issues are put to a full community vote.  These local councils are EXTREMELY effective.  Representation rotates so that all serve in the position and representatives are subject to recall if the community feels they are abusing their power in some way (which doesn't generally happen, because these positions are seen as public service).  These councils do such a great job that even community members who are NOT Zapatista supporters (most actual towns/villages are mixed, with some individuals and households among the Zapatista support base and others not) will take their disputes before the Zapatista councils rather than go to the "official" government.  The Zapatistas are successfully operating schools (including regional secondary schools), hospitals, various collectives which produce goods for sale to the outside world, etc.

The problem is that you're thinking of the United States (and other countries) as single units.  So yes, it seems impossible to have an anarchist USA because how could you get everybody to work together.  The point that you're missing is that the United States would not be (and in reality is not now) a single community.  It is made up of many much smaller communities (towns, neighborhoods, etc), and it is in these places where decision-making powers would lie.  Regional deliberative bodies could be formed to discuss issues which would have a wider impact, but most issues would be local.  And if you think this is hard to do, it's not.  Many communities in New England to this day have vibrant local politics with regular town hall meetings where decisions are made via direct democracy.

And I challenge you to support your position that most people enjoy our current state of affairs.  Most people have to work very long hours to support themselves and their families while a few enrich themselves.  The majority of eligible voters don't vote for one reason or another.  What makes you so sure that everybody is so happy with what we have now?  Maybe the problem is that they think like you.  Or they feel that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

[AWalKer]

Fightin_da_Man, on 23 June 2009 - 12:10 PM, said:

Here's the thing though, Anarchism HAS worked.  In Spain in the 1930s, anarchist communes sprung up during the civil war.  They were able to provide for the needs of the people, and fight a war.  Of course, they were ultimately defeated because they had 3, that's right 3 major world powers working against them (Germany and Italy were assisting Franco's rebellion; the USSR was assisting the Republican government, but also trying to squash the anarchists at the same time).

Another example is modern-day Chiapas.  While the Zapatistas are NOT anarchist, they operate using many similar theories.  Representatives are appointed to councils which handle day-to-day administrative tasks and help resolve disputes.  Major policy issues are put to a full community vote.  These local councils are EXTREMELY effective.  Representation rotates so that all serve in the position and representatives are subject to recall if the community feels they are abusing their power in some way (which doesn't generally happen, because these positions are seen as public service).  These councils do such a great job that even community members who are NOT Zapatista supporters (most actual towns/villages are mixed, with some individuals and households among the Zapatista support base and others not) will take their disputes before the Zapatista councils rather than go to the "official" government.  The Zapatistas are successfully operating schools (including regional secondary schools), hospitals, various collectives which produce goods for sale to the outside world, etc.

The problem is that you're thinking of the United States (and other countries) as single units.  So yes, it seems impossible to have an anarchist USA because how could you get everybody to work together.  The point that you're missing is that the United States would not be (and in reality is not now) a single community.  It is made up of many much smaller communities (towns, neighborhoods, etc), and it is in these places where decision-making powers would lie.  Regional deliberative bodies could be formed to discuss issues which would have a wider impact, but most issues would be local.  And if you think this is hard to do, it's not.  Many communities in New England to this day have vibrant local politics with regular town hall meetings where decisions are made via direct democracy.

And I challenge you to support your position that most people enjoy our current state of affairs.  Most people have to work very long hours to support themselves and their families while a few enrich themselves.  The majority of eligible voters don't vote for one reason or another.  What makes you so sure that everybody is so happy with what we have now?  Maybe the problem is that they think like you.  Or they feel that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

Your point seems to be that yes, pure anarchism cant exist, but communalism can. And I agree with you, if we take some of the policies of Anarchy, but acknowledge that pure anarchy does not exist. In my opinion, anarchy requires the lack of conscientiousness, it requires a people without the capability to decide, basically a state of nature. But, we are conscious beings, and we feel the need to install people or systems of people that make decissions. Once a decision is made that effects a community, regardless of how it is made, anarchy ceases to exist. (pure) Anarchy seems to be more of a transitional policy, and less of a lasting one. Maybe I missed the point completely, but that is how i view anarchy, as a means to an end, but not an end unto itself.

Now, on the subject of a more perfect government. I believe that the word, and the concept, "perfect" is what is holding us back. Perfection does not exist, struggle and improvement is part of the human condition. When we are perfect, we cease to be human. I think we need to work towards making our current government to work for us, or reshape our government such that it is a more just system that can remove corruption when it appears. And I truly believe that we have that power, but we have to A) decide that we actually want to and make a clear plan of how to, and B ) not look for perfection.

[Fightin_da_Man]

AWalKer, on 23 June 2009 - 12:25 PM, said:

Your point seems to be that yes, pure anarchism cant exist, but communalism can. And I agree with you, if we take some of the policies of Anarchy, but acknowledge that pure anarchy does not exist. In my opinion, anarchy requires the lack of conscientiousness, it requires a people without the capability to decide, basically a state of nature. But, we are conscious beings, and we feel the need to install people or systems of people that make decissions. Once a decision is made that effects a community, regardless of how it is made, anarchy ceases to exist. (pure) Anarchy seems to be more of a transitional policy, and less of a lasting one. Maybe I missed the point completely, but that is how i view anarchy, as a means to an end, but not an end unto itself.

I think your problem is that you are thinking to hard on "anarchy."  You're assuming that anarchists want something like Burning Man or some other kind of no-rules hippie love fest.  That's not the case.  When you talk about a community where decisions are made directly, by the people, without institutional hierarchy, and where those decisions which are made do not infringe upon individual or collective freedoms then I think you're talking about "pure anarchism" or whatever you want to call it.  Anarchism isn't about lawlessness or chaos or disorder.  Nor does it need to be about spontaneity (that is, things just happening to work out rather than being planned and systems being put into place).  There's been a lot of anarchist theory and not much of it finds a problem with communal decision making.

So yeah, I think you missed the point.

Quote

Now, on the subject of a more perfect government. I believe that the word, and the concept, "perfect" is what is holding us back. Perfection does not exist, struggle and improvement is part of the human condition. When we are perfect, we cease to be human. I think we need to work towards making our current government to work for us, or reshape our government such that it is a more just system that can remove corruption when it appears. And I truly believe that we have that power, but we have to A) decide that we actually want to and make a clear plan of how to, and B ) not look for perfection.

I'm not looking for perfection or utopia, so drop the straw man.  But as to the issue of reform instead of radical change, I ask you to look carefully at our system.  Is there a way that you can concentrate power in a few individuals and not have problems of corruption and greed?  Is there a way that you can take a capitalist economic system and make it NOT exploitative of workers but rather fair?  I don't think you can.  I think that authoritarian government invites corruption and abuse of power.  I think that privately-held means of production invite exploitation, mindless consumerism, unsafe products, and all the other problems of modern capitalism.

Modern republics and social democracies are bizarre hybrids.  Their historical roots are in systems of institutionalized inequality and hierarchy, where some were born to rule and others to be ruled (that is, European kingdoms and states).  Grafted on to these in pieces were various ideas: first that the "ruled" had some rights, then that they had a right to some participation, and finally they should be equal participants (that is, no longer "ruled" but "citizens").  But despite that, the old authoritarian structures are still there.

I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that we can continue to tinker with systems which were not designed to do what we want them to do.  It seems to make much more sense to get rid of them and build a new one from scratch that does what we want.

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

I do agree with you and I hope your right, but I am cynacle and just dont believe there will be support for this. So many americans couldnt give a shit about politics and just mindlessly say "America is the best bro". No one I know even pays attention to whats going on, out of my 10+ friends I talked to today only one of them even knew about the Iran riots. It just seems too great to get this amount of people to buy into the communal system. And for one reason the that whole Communist Jimmy Jones cult dude, when you mention Communes people think of that and then they think of bad bad shit. But maybe your right maybe I think like this because I think on a more grand scale. I hope a society that you describe could be created because that would be amazing. Also People would consider themselves reasonably comfortable, yea they have to work a shitload and that sucks but they feel that they might have to work harder in a communal system and thats another reason why someone would not want total overhaul. But yea you have great Ideals and boy I hope your right.

[AWalKer]

I am not going to address the issue of anarchism anymore (as i feel arguing over that is too much of a digression from the purpose of this thread.) The reason I propose reform, instead of a complete wiping of the sleight, is because i see no way in which we can abolish our system of government without it getting violent. And, even if we could, should we? Is not the purpose of government to work for all people? Don't suffering and terrorism both come from corrupt unjust governments? Personally, I believe they do.

We often cite republicans/neocons for the terrible things they say and do, and we can all admit that the CIA's actions embody the concept of American Imperialism. The concept of trying to wipe the sleight clean is a very "conservative" idea. Let's look at Chile. Allende was democratically ellected. Unemployment was drastically cut, various businesses were nationalized, and public wealth was increased. The CIA installed Pinochet, and unemployment and inflation drastically rose, and public wealth dropped. Under Pinochet, the government of Chile was completely rewritten and all positions were refilled.

I would love to be able to completely wipe the sleight clean, rewrite our government, and have everyone be cool. But, when you look at it practically, do you really think that could happen? I am not talking about reforming capitalism or American Imperialism. Both of these things need to removed. However, the practices of democracy and the ideals of the constitution are hospitable to fairness. Is anarchy more "fair"? Yes, but it cannot work on a mass scale, and as such is not really a form of government. Socialism and democracy would get along well, and would be more conducive with the ideals of the constitution. It is not that we cannot change our government and aim for a more fair world. But, in my opinion at least, a government that "will work and corruption will not become an issue" cannot be created by the burning of any political structure.

EDIT: I would like to add that, if i am wrong, and you can create your ideal government/society, please tell me, as i would be glad to live their =)

[Fightin_da_Man]

AWalKer, on 23 June 2009 - 04:40 PM, said:

I am not going to address the issue of anarchism anymore (as i feel arguing over that is too much of a digression from the purpose of this thread.) The reason I propose reform, instead of a complete wiping of the sleight, is because i see no way in which we can abolish our system of government without it getting violent. And, even if we could, should we? Is not the purpose of government to work for all people? Don't suffering and terrorism both come from corrupt unjust governments? Personally, I believe they do.

We often cite republicans/neocons for the terrible things they say and do, and we can all admit that the CIA's actions embody the concept of American Imperialism. The concept of trying to wipe the sleight clean is a very "conservative" idea. Let's look at Chile. Allende was democratically ellected. Unemployment was drastically cut, various businesses were nationalized, and public wealth was increased. The CIA installed Pinochet, and unemployment and inflation drastically rose, and public wealth dropped. Under Pinochet, the government of Chile was completely rewritten and all positions were refilled.

I would love to be able to completely wipe the sleight clean, rewrite our government, and have everyone be cool. But, when you look at it practically, do you really think that could happen? I am not talking about reforming capitalism or American Imperialism. Both of these things need to removed. However, the practices of democracy and the ideals of the constitution are hospitable to fairness. Is anarchy more "fair"? Yes, but it cannot work on a mass scale, and as such is not really a form of government. Socialism and democracy would get along well, and would be more conducive with the ideals of the constitution. It is not that we cannot change our government and aim for a more fair world. But, in my opinion at least, a government that "will work and corruption will not become an issue" cannot be created by the burning of any political structure.

Perhaps you should consult the author of the thread before declaring what its purpose is.  Anarchism was my answer to the OP's question, so it seems that it is integral to the threads purpose.

That aside, you make no sense.  In your post you have succeeded in a) labeling all revolution ("wiping the slate clean") as conservative because the CIA overthrew Allende b)ignoring all of the arguments I made about the problems with trying to reform the system and just went ahead with labeling my position as "impractical."

So despite the fact that you've completely ignored my points (and thus will probably do the same in your next reply), let me address a few things.

1. Revolutions (what I'm talking about) and Coups (what happened in Chile) are not the same thing; don't confuse them.
2. Anarchism doesn't happen on a "large scale"; it must be fundamentally local.  Even if the entire world were "anarchist", its operations would take place at the LOCAL level.
3. The system is violent, perhaps not to you, but to many.  Is violence in its destruction wrong when it is fundamentally in self-defense?
4. Meaningful change rarely happens without violence.  It may not be achieved totally through violence, but it is rarely absent.
5. Legislating capitalism away is unrealistic.  In order to do so, you would need a critical mass of support to elect enough socialists into office.  What makes you think that the forces of global capital would allow this to happen?  What makes you so sure that they won't bring violence to your doorstep?

[klenole]

I say we all go out and find some sort of ilsand in the middle of the ocean, and make our own little country. There we can have a great anarchist system thing going.  

[AWalKer]

I stopped talking about anarchism not to say your points arent valid (they are very valid and interesting) but so as to allow myself to discuss my own view more clearly. And maybe it was incorrect to label revolution as a conservative thing. And I said, we could wipe out, not legislate out, capitalism. Seriously, feel free to burn something down, just try to make sure not too many people burn with it . Furthermore, I think I may be at fault for making this too practical, and not theoretical enough. However, I don't think you need to take it so personal, but its cool, i mean no offense.

On my point of the wiping of the slate etc etc, Naomi Klein makes a similar point far more clear than i did, probably because she doesn't watch Glenn Beck while writing. I'll try and find the passage.

Back to anarchy, this is more a question. Firstly, lets define anarchy as society without law, and an anarchist as a person who believes in a society without law. My question is, is anarchy really a valid suggestion for an ideal government? Isn't that like an atheist saying that an ideal god is no god? I dont know why I have to know this, probably because I am a prick. I guess I am just curious how you, as an anarchist, would answer this question =)

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

klenole, on 23 June 2009 - 06:16 PM, said:

I say we all go out and find some sort of ilsand in the middle of the ocean, and make our own little country. There we can have a great anarchist system thing going.  

You obviously have a computer, so thats my answer.

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

Im done arguing I should have realized that arguing with FDM was a bad idea especially after you flamed me last summer about something. lol

[klenole]

No Pax Without PaxWarriors, on 23 June 2009 - 07:32 PM, said:

You obviously have a computer, so thats my answer.

Um.. it was sorta a joke..

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

klenole, on 23 June 2009 - 07:52 PM, said:

Um.. it was sorta a joke..

oh I know I was making some sort of humor myself lol

[AWalKer]

No Pax Without PaxWarriors, on 23 June 2009 - 07:33 PM, said:

Im done arguing I should have realized that arguing with FDM was a bad idea especially after you flamed me last summer about something. lol

This thread has taught me not to fuck with someone who has a gun in their avatar. lesson learned . <3 FDM

[James]

FDM's fanclub thread.

[AWalKer]

James, on 23 June 2009 - 10:19 PM, said:

FDM's fanclub thread.

START IT NOW

[No Pax Without PaxWarriors]

FDM deserves great respect he is the most informed and smartest person on this forum. Hey I though FDM was an moderater last summer when I was on these boards?

[Fightin_da_Man]

No Pax Without PaxWarriors, on 23 June 2009 - 10:30 PM, said:

FDM deserves great respect he is the most informed and smartest person on this forum. Hey I though FDM was an moderater last summer when I was on these boards?

Well I don't know about that, but thanks.  I was a moderator on the old boards before they got merged with Anti-Flag's website.  Since I wasn't really a big contributor at the time I decided to resign the position.  Funny how I've become more active now that they've moved.