Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
Ah. Anyways I think I have exhausted this debate for the time being, I need to finish an essay on the politics of dominant cinema and then go to bed and try to sweat out this fever.
nice chatting with you guys.
bffs?
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Saying shit like "reality...whatever that is........" sounds like you're just wallowing in random alcoholic despair.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
lol, I guess can see that, but honestly I am not. I just thought it was a somewhat relevant point that problematizes the assumptions of our entire discussion.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
My inability to grasp the basic difference between their/there/they're being irrefutable proof of this.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
You were? A few comments seemed a little weird but over all you were pretty coherent.
The article is stupid, Death Aflame is ridiculous, and Dakryn's comments are particularly dumb. We do not yet live in a police state. Another 8 years of Bushesque rule might have put us in one, but I do not believe the US will become one. As for the union dissolving, that's ridiculous. Why the fuck would it dissolve? Not only would there have to be nothing holding it together but there would have to be an advantage to dissolving it.
I think it'd be badass if New England and New York seceded and were annexed by Canada, though.
The article is stupid, Death Aflame is ridiculous, and Dakryn's comments are particularly dumb. We do not yet live in a police state. Another 8 years of Bushesque rule might have put us in one, but I do not believe the US will become one. As for the union dissolving, that's ridiculous. Why the fuck would it dissolve? Not only would there have to be nothing holding it together but there would have to be an advantage to dissolving it.
I think it'd be badass if New England and New York seceded and were annexed by Canada, though.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
That will never happen. But Maine is useless enough that if it seceded then the rest of the country wouldn't care beyond its lobster craving.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
If I am ridiculous, then I suppose the political positions I have tried to express here are 'ridiculous' also. At the very least one should investigate something thoroughly (such as Anarchism) before calling it ridiculous. Don't just take what I have said as the bible of the political philosophy, as I am still new to it myself, and am highly likely to make many mistakes in trying to represent it to others.
For instance, my assumption that anarchist communities would simply be comprised of small autonomous zones is quite simply incorrect:
"So what do anarchists make of the assertion that we aim for "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production"? Simply put, we think it is nonsense (as would be quickly obvious from reading anarchist theory). Indeed, it is hard to know where this particular anarchist "vision" comes from. As Luigi Fabbri noted, in his reply to an identical assertion by the leading Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin, "t would be interesting to learn in what anarchist book, pamphlet or programme such an 'ideal' is set out, or even such a hard and fast rule!" ["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49, The Poverty of Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 21]
(http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html#seci38)
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
I don't know much about Somalia, but if by anarchy you simply mean the pejorative that that term connotes such as a literal lack of government and the chaos that would erupt in such a 'state of nature' then I suppose that would fit.
However, anarchism (in general) as a serious political philosophy, in theory and practice, is not, nor has it ever claimed to be a 'state of nature', or 'primitivist' politics.
Granted there is a more obscure branch of thought within it that privileges this fantasy of returning to a primitive lifestyle. Though I am not too familiar with its intricacies, so take that summary with a grain of salt.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
This analogy is quite simply false, and very misleading.
Just take a look at wikipedia's definition of political philosophy, for starters,
"Political philosophy is the study of questions about the city, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever."
Note the 'if any' statements littered throughout that definition--this questioning of power/authority is perhaps the defining feature of anarchism as a political philosophy. If authority is deemed to be illegitimate than the anarchist position is to remove it. Superfluous authority is tyranny, in the anarchist's view.
Chomsky on anarchism:
"Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic."
In other words, it is not simply apolitical, like atheists are to theists, but an alternative still clearly within the political philosophy sphere.
The alternative proposed by anarchists to authoritarian governments (from socialism to neoliberal 'democracy' to facism) is essentially 'self governance'--the state or 'top down' rule in general is seen as negatively infringing on individual liberty, and is removed in favor of a 'bottom up' system. And an anarchist society still has a series of systems to be sure, but in theory and practice these are much less intrusive on the individual's everyday existence.
Edit: if you are really interested in learning more about anarchism, beyond how it is mislabeled and mis-framed by the hegemonic media, check out this FAQ:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
MasterOLightning
Optimator
That FAQ is the definition of tl;dr. I'm not against reading things, but holy fuck, they couldn't have cut out a word here and there? Whatever, nothing that I did gather made that seem like a remotely pragmatic way to run things in a world composed of actual humans nowadays. I think libertarians are silly for their lack of pragmatism, and "anarchists" are in another league entirely.
Dak
mentat
This statement assumes that Obama is somehow different. Have you looked at who he is picking for his key personnel? Americans are too damn oblivious to shit that is in open view.
The Heartbreak Kid
Afterimage
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
It is an expansive subject of thought that has been around for over 100 years, so to do it any justice, I think, the depth of discourse has to be there.
And also, libertarians are anarchists in the truest sense. Though, I do realize that the former term has been hijacked by the hyper-capitalists of the US as a way demanding freedom to own the world (which limits the freedom of most others significantly). Let it be known that this is not the original meaning of the word, however.
Anyways there is a whole section on building the anarchist world including how the economics would work, here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html.
And finally, as I have mentioned before anarchist societies have been quite successful in history, that is, in practice. It is not merely a 'pie in the sky' politics, it is quite 'real'.
Matt
Active Member
Mathiäs;7835524 said:
.
I dunno if you remember, but Obama said that thing where we wouldn't be at war anymore. Now, I dunno about you, but I have an awfully hard time imagining how someone would maintain a police state without a real or imagined external threat; reducing the perceived threat is hardly another step on the road towards fascism.
Similar threads
