Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[Death Aflame]

The fact that there has always been hegemony on a large scale might lend credence to the fact that human nature is inclined to it, I'd say.

How can you take an essentialist position like this seriously (aren't you a philosophy guy?), as postmodernism thought has pretty much destroyed any idea of this across the board.

No doubt there is some truth in that statement, but it does not end the discussion, not even close.

 

[Death Aflame]

You're completely ignoring what I've stated at least twice before. Anarchism is only possible on a small scale, not in a relatively small area containing millions of people.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html#seci38

They answer this question better than I could.

That, at least, is how they would begin. All this hypothetical stuff is impossible to answer in an empirical way--I only can repeat what is in history (those societies) and in the abundance of theory on the subject.

 

[Zephyrus]

How can you take an essentialist position like this seriously (aren't you a philosophy guy?), as postmodernism thought has pretty much destroyed any idea of this across the board.

No doubt there is some truth in that statement, but it does not end the discussion, not even close.

My position is that history has proven that over millennia of cyclical revolutions and tyrannies we have gotten nowhere. The only difference is the scale at which we are competing, from tribe vs. tribe, to city-state vs. city-state, to nation vs. nation.

 

[Death Aflame]

Which are...so incredibly motherfucking different from America, Canada, etc. that they really do nothing for your "the entire world should just be anarchy" thing. I think the punks thought this out better than you are, and the dadaists before them. Goddamn.

Obviously new versions would differ, this goes without saying. I am merely using them as potential models from which to build off of.

And of course the society would be different from current neoliberal states as they are, for lack of a better term, radically different.

 

[Death Aflame]

lmfao. How can you fucking NOT? Are we supposed to somehow read your mind and know you mean it in another way?

Yes.

 

[Cythraul]

Between freedom and security.

I'm very interested in some of your political theories.

Well, when I speak of freedom in these sorts of discussions I'm talking about the freedom for an individual to do or not do various things consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. This precludes the freedom to, for instance, kill people without justification. It's possible in theory for the existence of a minimal state, one which provides protection for all, to be consistent with freedom as I conceive of it (some have theorized that such a state could arise through no rights violations whatsoever; this conclusion, if correct, would seem to rob anarchist viewpoints of their bite).

You might be thinking of some cases where the question of whether freedoms ought to be scaled back for considerations of security arises. That's a pretty difficult issue. Answers to that question will depend on what moral theory you accept. I tend to think of inviolability as constitutive of rights, so my answer to the question of whether it's okay in some cases to violate rights/liberties for reasons of security would be 'No.' I don't pretend to have an iron-clad argument for my view on this matter though.

I should make it clear that I have little to say about whether a legitimate minimal state is workable or desirable in practice. That's beyond the scope of my expertise; I'm just a philosopher.

 

[Zephyrus]

My theory is that there's no space left on this planet for a radical new political movement to gather enough power to challenge the prevailing system. It worked back in the 18th century when there was an entire continent to try out liberalism, but now that globalism has touched every corner of the Earth, there is no space free of its influence. Thus, anything rising up to significance will be snuffed out by the powers that be.

 

[Death Aflame]

My theory is that there's no space left on this planet for a radical new political movement to gather enough power to challenge the prevailing system. It worked back in the 18th century when there was an entire continent to try out liberalism, but now that globalism has touched every corner of the Earth, there is no space free of its influence. Thus, anything rising up to significance will be snuffed out by the powers that be.

If not snuffed out, it will be recuperated by the dominant no doubt (see dick hebdige on this one).

Anyways, neoliberal capitalism is ephemeral, like anything else--and what will most likely happen is that it will collapse, instead of a new system pushing it aside.

That doesn't mean that trying to theorize and advocate for a newer, hopefully better society in the meantime is a waste of time, however.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

you said dick

 

[Zephyrus]

Anyways, neoliberal capitalism is ephemeral, like anything else--and what will most likely happen is that it will collapse, instead of a new system pushing it aside.

Kind of like how Marx thought that the real Apocalypse was in fact the time when capitalism collapsed and communism governed the new age that followed. Right...

 

[Death Aflame]

you said dick

I meant Dick if you know what I mean...

 

[Zephyrus]

That doesn't mean that trying to theorize and advocate for a newer, hopefully better society in the meantime is a waste of time, however.

We have to decide if we're more miserable accepting the state of things as they are or continually escaping to an esoteric fantasy realm, only to return to return to reality, hung over.

 

[Death Aflame]

Kind of like how Marx thought that the real Apocalypse was in fact the time when capitalism collapsed and communism governed the new age that followed. Right...

Yes that is exactly what I said...

I mean it will collapse by the very real fact that we will exhaust our own resources at some point in the near future. It should be obvious that when resources are depleted, capitalism can no longer function.

 

[Death Aflame]

We have to decide if we're more miserable accepting the state of things as they are or continually escaping to an esoteric fantasy realm, only to return to return to reality, hung over.

I guess all of philosophy is waste of time then, by this logic, since it is not 'real' in the material sense, correct? Just an escape from 'reality', whatever that is...

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Are you drunk? Please be drunk...please........

 

[Zephyrus]

Yes that is exactly what I said...

I mean it will collapse by the very real fact that we will exhaust our own resources at some point in the near future. It should be obvious that when resources are depleted, capitalism can no longer function.

Not at all.

1.) The corporations are milking every last dollar out of non-renewable energy resources. Once those resources are exhausted, then they will capitalize heavily on alternative energy and maintain their globalistic hegemony.

2.) People are just going to die in mass numbers from lack of food and medicine. The Earth can only sustain X number of people, a function of however many resources the Earth can provide for our race, and we are surpassing that. Capitalists have no pity for all the millions of starving people, since there will always be plenty of people to exploit below the sustainability cap that nature has set upon us.

 

[Death Aflame]

Are you drunk? Please be drunk...please........

As stated before I am sick, but not drunk.

I don't get these accusations of being drunk, just because you don't agree with what I am saying? I was merely following Zeph's line of thought.

 

[Zephyrus]

I guess all of philosophy is waste of time then, by this logic, since it is not 'real' in the material sense, correct? Just an escape from 'reality', whatever that is...

One reason I'm a Latin major, it helps me escape from this miserable world. I know that's selfish because I have the privilege to make such an escape, but that's how the system works and I'll take advantage of the privilege which I'm afforded.

 

[Death Aflame]

Not at all.

1.) The corporations are milking every last dollar out of non-renewable energy resources. Once those resources are exhausted, then they will capitalize heavily on alternative energy and maintain their globalistic hegemony.

2.) People are just going to die in mass numbers from lack of food and medicine. The Earth can only sustain X number of people, a function of however many resources the Earth can provide for our race, and we are surpassing that. Capitalists have no pity for all the millions of starving people, since there will always be plenty of people to exploit below the sustainability cap that nature has set upon us.

Even if this situation is the case, I don't understand how we can assume that capitalism would still survive after a mass genocide like that. I suppose we can't assume it would collapse either, but it most likely would not be the same as it was before.

 

[Zephyrus]

Because the people with all the money aren't the ones dying in mass quantities.