[QUOTE=asteroidrules;40873080]Why do people make this argument? Are you familiar with the term "lesser evil"? Something can be better than something else without being perfect. Compared to the stuff China pulls (Tiananmen, forced sterilizations, child limits, massive censorship) the US running one prison is preferable, not perfect, but definitely better.[/QUOTE]
it's certainly preferable. does that mean the us government has any moral authority to say that china is oppressing its people? not really when the usa not only oppresses people here but is complicit in oppression abroad(esp. in asia).
like i said before, any comforts and privileges we enjoy in the usa are built upon the backs of exploited laborers around the globe.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40873096]it's certainly preferable. does that mean the us government has any moral authority to say that china is oppressing its people? not really when the usa not only oppresses people here but is complicit in oppression abroad(esp. in asia).
like i said before, any comforts and privileges we enjoy in the usa are built upon the backs of exploited laborers around the globe.[/QUOTE]
Your statement is confusing because you're saying that we shouldn't speak against oppression because we're capable of ignoring it. being complicit to oppression is not a reason to continue being complicit to it, quite the opposite, a history of compliance is grounds for change, and calling out oppressors is certainly a start of that.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;40873080]Why do people make this argument? Are you familiar with the term "lesser evil"? Something can be better than something else without being perfect. Compared to the stuff China pulls (Tiananmen, forced sterilizations, child limits, massive censorship) the US running one prison is preferable, not perfect, but definitely better.[/QUOTE]
It's true that the US is preferable to China.
Even if us in the western world are being controlled, not with guns but with methods of shaping the public opinion and the such, it is definitively better living here because here we can hope someday to be able to make people realise and see the deceit they have internalised.
In China we'd likely be killed on the spot.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;40873122]Your statement is confusing because you're saying that we shouldn't speak against oppression because we're capable of ignoring it. being complicit to oppression is not a reason to continue being complicit to it, quite the opposite, a history of compliance is grounds for change, and calling out oppressors is certainly a start of that.[/QUOTE]
it isn't a start when the reasoning for calling someone else out is for your own public image.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40871316]it's the main reason. that's why just about every communist or anarchist society has failed.[/QUOTE]
Well both the soviet union and china failed to be properly communist due to their own internal politics before capitalist powers did anything if I remember correctly. The Bolsheviks themselves decided to set up the insular and centralist governing body that Stalin would later play to create his near-autocracy. China's attempt to implement their idea of the socialist system killed millions.
I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples such as vietnam and probably a bunch out of a dozen or so states which formerly at least identified as communist that I don't have the time or interest to read up on specifically.
I'd be more down with the whole "removing capitalism" thing if we could get an assurance that some asshat couldn't come along and turn it into his own personal dictatorship; because even if capitalist intervention is the primary reason for the failure of communist states, failures to prevent a new horribly oppressive regime seem to not only be the second in line, but also accounted for one of the first failures.
Most communist and anarchist writing I've seen, such as the kind that you posted later in the thread, doesn't really go into specifics of how such a system would operate once it's actually up and running. Most of this requires you to assume ahead of time that people, placed in a situation in which no government exists, would quickly and almost automatically form an unspecified non-coercive socialist system. Maybe I'm just too cynical in that respect, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be better to plan out beforehand rather than come up with later as a hasty set of decisions that could lead to another soviet union. I understand that a huge part of anarchism is that it can't have a single central idea of "This is the exact way to go about this." because everyone who ascribes to anarchism must be free to do their own thing so to speak, but you'd think that there would be a lot of social theory, thought experiments, and interchangeable organizational ideas thrown out there as possibilities. I'll admit that's the point where I get hung up the most, though I'll admit I'm not particularly well read on the subject. If there is information like that, it would be interesting to see.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40872636]For a society to became a true working example of socialism or communism, it must slowly emerge from the ashes of capitalism. Not directly off the bat.[/QUOTE]
Most, if not all countries that have embraced communism have been poor, backwards and agricultural. The vast amount of cheap commercial goods and freedoms capitalism brings insured capitalisms triumph. Communism has only been able to take power in countries with false promises and force. In the end communism ended up exploited the workers and the farmers the most.
The only socialist countries to be considered successful are being held up by oil money and decades of economic prosperity created by unrestricted capitalism. Norway being the best example.
[QUOTE=froztshock;40873476]Well both the soviet union and china failed to be properly communist due to their own internal politics before capitalist powers did anything if I remember correctly. The Bolsheviks themselves decided to set up the insular and centralist governing body that Stalin would later play to create his near-autocracy. China's attempt to implement their idea of the socialist system killed millions.
I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples such as vietnam and probably a bunch out of a dozen or so states which formerly at least identified as communist that I don't have the time or interest to read up on specifically.
I'd be more down with the whole "removing capitalism" thing if we could get an assurance that some asshat couldn't come along and turn it into his own personal dictatorship; because even if capitalist intervention is the primary reason for the failure of communist states, failures to prevent a new horribly oppressive regime seem to not only be the second in line, but also accounted for one of the first failures.[/quote]
that's why i'm an anarchist and not a bolshevik. i'm opposed to marxism, bolshevism, leninism, and any other form of communist methodology that includes a tyrannical state socialist system to bring about revolution.
marx wasn't the only communist. libertarianism is an alternative to marx that believes that the state should not grow into some force capable of oppressing people.
[quote]Most communist and anarchist writing I've seen, such as the kind that you posted later in the thread, doesn't really go into specifics of how such a system would operate once it's actually up and running. Most of this requires you to assume ahead of time that people, placed in a situation in which no government exists, would quickly and almost automatically form an unspecified non-coercive socialist system. Maybe I'm just too cynical in that respect, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be better to plan out beforehand rather than come up with later as a hasty set of decisions that could lead to another soviet union. I understand that a huge part of anarchism is that it can't have a single central idea of "This is the exact way to go about this." because everyone who ascribes to anarchism must be free to do their own thing so to speak, but you'd think that there would be a lot of social theory, thought experiments, and interchangeable organizational ideas thrown out there as possibilities. I'll admit that's the point where I get hung up the most, though I'll admit I'm not particularly well read on the subject. If there is information like that, it would be interesting to see.[/QUOTE]
anarchism is very well thought out and nuanced. people have been thinking of a revolutionary society and post-revolutionary society for over 150 years. not knowing what will replace capitalism has more to do with your own ignorance on the subject, not necessarily that people don't already have alternative ideas. anarchists aren't nihilists, we believe in an alternative.
i suggest you go look at some literature on the subject. maybe it will give you a greater understanding what people envision the post-revolutionary society will look like.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40873594]Most, if not all countries that have embraced communism have been poor, backwards and agricultural. The vast amount of cheap commercial goods and freedoms capitalism brings insured capitalisms triumph. Communism has only been able to take power in countries with false promises and force. In the end communism ended up exploited the workers and the farmers the most.
The only socialist countries to be considered successful are being held up by oil money and decades of economic prosperity created by unrestricted capitalism. Norway being the best example.[/QUOTE]
critics of places like the ussr and china(the two main examples of "communist countries that have failed"), even from the marxist field, generally classify both nations as "state capitalist". instead of workers owning the means of production collectively, the state becomes the main land owner and uses the means of production for its own profit. instead of a decentralized capitalist system like in the usa, the ussr was a centralized capitalist system.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;40871330]If you're against people working for their pay, what do you suggest they do all day?[/QUOTE]
By Dr. Seuss.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40873606]that's why i'm an anarchist and not a bolshevik. i'm opposed to marxism, bolshevism, leninism, and any other form of communist methodology that includes a tyrannical state socialist system to bring about revolution.
marx wasn't the only communist. libertarianism is an alternative to marx that believes that the state should not grow into some force capable of oppressing people.
anarchism is very well thought out and nuanced. people have been thinking of a revolutionary society and post-revolutionary society for over 150 years. not knowing what will replace capitalism has more to do with your own ignorance on the subject, not necessarily that people don't already have alternative ideas. anarchists aren't nihilists, we believe in an alternative.
i suggest you go look at some literature on the subject. maybe it will give you a greater understanding what people envision the post-revolutionary society will look like.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter how "well thought it is," because the minute something happens that doesn't line up with your perfect dream system, it has failed. If a government doesn't act the way it's supposed, to it can always be reformed and improved, but a group of people all acting by themselves don't manage to create your Utopian society, there's nothing to blame but human nature. And that can't be changed.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40873722]It doesn't matter how "well thought it is," because the minute something happens that doesn't line up with your perfect dream system, it has failed. If a government doesn't act the way it's supposed, to it can always be reformed and improved, but a group of people all acting by themselves don't manage to create your Utopian society, there's nothing to blame but human nature. And that can't be changed.[/QUOTE]
"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."
[QUOTE=Aurora93;40870885]the united states' atrocities are, while inexcusable, pale in comparison to that of the chinese govt.[/QUOTE]
Go read the lovely cold war history of south america.
China has still a long way to go
USA can go fuck themselfs with their hypocrisy, maybe if Guantamo prison didn't exist then they [I]might[/I] have some right to say anything about China.
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone;40874178]Go read the lovely cold war history of south america.
China has still a long way to go
USA can go fuck themselfs with their hypocrisy, maybe if Guantamo prison didn't exist then they [I]might[/I] have some right to say anything about China.[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly certain America doesn't even compare to China when they have the record for THE largest amount of deaths ever recorded in the Great Leap Forward. You're deluded if you seriously think China is the better country. If I were to speak out against my government here in America I would not get kidnapped in the middle night to have my organs harvested and thrown out of a vehicle in the middle of nowhere. America doesn't even rate a spot on the map compared to the atrocities China has inflicted on itself and others.
Go take some basic history classes before you open your mouth saying how America is the big bad meany and China is here to save the day. The government is so bad they managed to destroy several THOUSAND years worth of culture and progress within half a century. Not even Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo COMBINED killed this many people and destroyed so much. Since you live in Finland then I'll put it like this, China killed enough people to fill your entire country at least nine times over being the lowest estimates and 13 at the most. If you seriously think America can even TRY to reach this amount of death then something is seriously wrong with your thinking.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40873760]"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."[/QUOTE]
You still didn't answer the question.
What sort of safeguards does Anarchy possess that help defend it against tyrants from within?
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40874464]You still didn't answer the question.
What sort of safeguards does Anarchy possess that help defend it against tyrants from within?[/QUOTE]
the great thing about true anarchy is that it sucks so bad everyone is too busy being robbed blind to have a chance to rise to power
[quote]"We urge the US side to discard political prejudice, correctly treat China's development, immediately rectify its wrongdoings and stop interfering in China's internal affairs so as not to sabotage China-US relations," he said in a statement carried by the Xinhua state news agency[/quote]
[i]US: All right, tell ya what. We'll make it economically viable for production jobs to come back to the states. It isn't difficult, all we have to do is put a 100% tariff on any goods made in China or Chinese territories. We do that and within five years there won't be a single American company outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China, because at that point it's cheaper to build the shit here than it is there. Our economy will boom, yours will take a huge hit, and we'll just sit back and laugh.
You wanna rethink your stance before we hit the button?[/i]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40871128]you have freedom to do literally whatever you want as long as it isn't something that the state finds questionable(like protesting or self-sufficiency, for example).
[/QUOTE]
Any state where I have to rely on someone else for [i]everything[/i] is a state I never want to visit, much less live in. If there's one freedom I demand above all else it's the right to be self-sufficient. If I can't be self-sufficient that state can go suck a stiff one.
[QUOTE=TestECull;40875196]
Any state where I have to rely on someone else for [i]everything[/i] is a state I never want to visit, much less live in. If there's one freedom I demand above all else it's the right to be self-sufficient. If I can't be self-sufficient that state can go suck a stiff one.[/QUOTE]
Wait. You think you are self-sufficient now?
how delusional.
[QUOTE=TestECull;40875196][i]US: All right, tell ya what. We'll make it economically viable for production jobs to come back to the states. It isn't difficult, all we have to do is put a 100% tariff on any goods made in China or Chinese territories. We do that and within five years there won't be a single American company outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China, because at that point it's cheaper to build the shit here than it is there. Our economy will boom, yours will take a huge hit, and we'll just sit back and laugh.
You wanna rethink your stance before we hit the button?[/i]
[/QUOTE]
The US economy would take a big hit as well - a lot of what's sold in the US is so cheap because it was manufactured in China. Poor people would probably get employed, but their wages would be pretty damn low. The higher cost of living because of more expensive wares would probably smash the lower class through the bottom.
Not that I'm an economist in any way, but this seems logical to me.
[QUOTE=butre;40874527]the great thing about true anarchy is that it sucks so bad everyone is too busy being robbed blind to have a chance to rise to power[/QUOTE]
No one is able to stop you from being fucked over so guess what the irony is... depending on how bad it is, people work together to make a government to get outside of the anarchy
I would rather be fucked over by a government, then fucked over by other people with no government to help. At least the government has the decency to give me a reach around and use a condom.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40873760]"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."[/QUOTE]
Okay, what does your Shakespeare quote got to do with anything?
i'm the kind of person to be of the opinion that no governmental or economic system is going to be without some form of oppression or poverty. at the end of the day, human beings do not handle power and wealth very well, and often will work to give as much to themselves as possible, if placed in said position of power. since nearly any position of power can be abused, and there is no way to level the playing field without giving someone the power to do so, it seems like we're just going to be fucked, no matter which direction we point our ass in.
that being said, i don't think this is a motivation to stop from [I]attempting[/I] to find a working system, because i could just be wrong.
but if i had to take an opinion, i would go for a regulated social democracy. in other words, the government gives you the option to have some of your essential needs provided to you (bare minimum food, water, healthcare, shelter), but you still have to provide your own needs for sanitation and, of course, pay your own taxes. as a result, you're still going to work for a private firm (or start your own) to have a comfortable life, you're just not going to be in [I]danger of losing your life[/I] over economic conditions. this can be achieved through things like universal healthcare and social welfare.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40874464]You still didn't answer the question.
What sort of safeguards does Anarchy possess that help defend it against tyrants from within?[/QUOTE]
well what safeguards does any system possess to help defend it against tyrants from within? the people are the only defense against tyranny and anarchism is an ideology that seeks to empower the people above all else.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877614]well what safeguards does any system possess to help defend it against tyrants from within? the people are the only defense against tyranny and anarchism is an ideology that seeks to empower the people above all else.[/QUOTE]
So basically some sort of tribal rule where people with the biggest guns and most manpower control everything. You'll probably say that's what government is but thats what anarchy will probably lead to.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40877707]So basically some sort of tribal rule where people with the biggest guns and most manpower control everything. You'll probably say that's what government is but thats what anarchy will probably lead to.[/QUOTE]
"tribal rule" is a completely statist system. anarchism is a relationship of equality and cooperation between people, not domination.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877781]"tribal rule" is a completely statist system. anarchism is a relationship of equality and cooperation between people, not domination.[/QUOTE]
You are hoping that everyone has the same set of social and moral rules, and that nobody will want to step up and take a leading position.
[QUOTE=T553412;40877818]You are hoping that everyone has the same set of social and moral rules, and that nobody will want to step up and take a leading position.[/QUOTE]
no i am counting on the idea that no one will let other people step up and take the leading position freely. the potential tyrants aren't the concern, the people who vote them in are.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
but that means the worst an anarchist system can get is that it becomes a system like the one we are in currently.
i don't see how that's an argument from a statist's perspective. "anarchism can never work, it will always fail and turn into the current system again!"
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877842]no i am counting on the idea that no one will let other people step up and take the leading position freely. the potential tyrants aren't the concern, the people who vote them in are.[/QUOTE]
And what do you propose to do with the people who vote them in? Or the people that support them?
[quote]
i don't see how that's an argument from a statist's perspective. "anarchism can never work, it will always fail and turn into the current system again!"[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, even the most basic societies in human history had some kind of leader to run everything. Hell, even the animal societies have leaders.
The difference is that we can chose our leaders through force or election.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877842]
but that means the worst an anarchist system can get is that it becomes a system like the one we are in currently.
i don't see how that's an argument from a statist's perspective. "anarchism can never work, it will always fail and turn into the current system again!"[/QUOTE]
Well I prefer this system to being ruled by a local warlord and being fearful of armed bandits.
[QUOTE=T553412;40877875]And what do you propose to do with the people who vote them in? Or the people that support them?[/quote]
nothing? if people want a state again, they can construct a state. anarchism doesn't mean to restrict people's will.
[quote]Last time I checked, even the most basic societies in human history had some kind of leader to run everything. Hell, even the animal societies have leaders.
The difference is that we can chose our leaders through force or election.[/QUOTE]
if leadership is necessary, it should be chosen by the people with direct democracy. any authority exercised should be done with the direct consent of everyone being affected.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40877909]Well I prefer this system to being ruled by a local warlord and being fearful of armed bandits.[/QUOTE]
i think you might watch too much tv.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877614]well what safeguards does any system possess to help defend it against tyrants from within? the people are the only defense against tyranny and anarchism is an ideology that seeks to empower the people above all else.[/QUOTE]
The people are the tyrants. They wouldn't be obvious, they would intelligently and stealthily come to be a tyrant, and when that happens, no one would be able to do anything
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40878319]They wouldn't be obvious, they would intelligently and stealthily come to be a tyrant, and when that happens, no one would be able to do anything[/QUOTE]
Congratulations you just described the current state of the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
