Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "ideal" would either be a world without any states(not to be confused with open-borders), or a world consisting of only one state.
The evils of a "one-world government" seem obvious to most people. A one-world government is simply too big to govern without mass-propaganda and greater limits on freedom, and it would become more despotic in time because there would be no outside "power" to check it.
As George Orwell wrote.... "The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
Without a rival, the government would have little interest in "excellence" or "advancement". Instead it would focus on stability and integration. And its hierarchy would become increasingly aristocratic, promoting loyalty/trustworthiness over ability.
And a world without states(IE anarchy) is impossible. Anarchy is simply incapable of defending itself from states. Anarchy has been crushed everywhere it has been tried. And even if it wasn't completely crushed, it has been undermined, and will ultimately cease to exist.
Power rules the world. The only way to defend yourself from power, is more power. The only thing power wants, is more power.
I would love to abolish power, but it will never happen. In this video the best part starts at ~10:15, but you should watch the whole thing if you have time.
It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Damned.
And as the world becomes more economically/socially-integrated and interdependent there will eventually be something like a one-world government, if we don't blow ourselves up before that(I'm kinda hoping for the latter).
That’s depressing. You could be right, but still...
Power had natural limits before the age of empire when invisible control of property (private property) and labor (slavery) was codified.
If we can form a society where material is temporary (and as such, ownership or power is limited) in terms of control, people would be forced to work together and pool together resources to create a comfortable life for everyone while no one would be able to accumulate power as it would be limited by their own physical and mental capacity.
And unlike tribal societies every group (federation) would be interconnected with modern technology (telecommunications) to form one decentralized body.
If we can form a society where material is temporary (and as such, ownership or power is limited) in terms of control, people would be forced to work together and pool together resources to create a comfortable life for everyone while no one would be able to accumulate power as it would be limited by their own physical and mental capacity.
And unlike tribal societies every group (federation) would be interconnected with modern technology (telecommunications) to form one decentralized body.
I really enjoy talking to you, but before we continue this discussion, would you please do me a favor? Read this entire essay by Mikhail Bakunin, because it is probably the most-important work I have ever read. And Mikhail Bakunin is probably the most-famous anarchist ever, so he is "on our side" so-to-speak.
If I was teaching a class, the only two things I would consider "required-reading", are that essay, and this one by Lysander Spooner, written in 1868, called "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
It would take you a few hours to read both of them. And I would be very interested in your thoughts.
But let me repeat what I said in the other thread, I think you believe humans want to cooperate more than they actually do. And if you set-up a system of coercion, well-intentioned or not, that is all there will ever be. And the extent of this coercion will necessarily be arbitrary, and will tend to centralize with time. Eventually, you'll be right back where we are.
Either you must get rid of power entirely, or we are wasting our time. And you can't get rid of power.
"Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems (endless). Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free." - H.L. Mencken
"Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." - Alexis De Tocqueville
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-06-2018 at 05:09 PM..
I really enjoy talking to you, but before we continue this discussion, would you please do me a favor? Read this entire essay by Mikhail Bakunin, because it is probably the most-important work I have ever read. And Mikhail Bakunin is probably the most-famous anarchist ever, so he is "on our side" so-to-speak.
If I was teaching a class, the only two things I would consider "required-reading", are that essay, and this one by Lysander Spooner, written in 1868, called "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
It would take you a few hours to read both of them. And I would be very interested in your thoughts.
But let me repeat what I said in the other thread, I think you believe humans want to cooperate more than they actually do. And if you set-up a system of coercion, well-intentioned or not, that is all there will ever be. And the extent of this coercion will necessarily be arbitrary, and will tend to centralize with time. Eventually, you'll be right back where we are.
Either you must get rid of power entirely, or we are wasting our time. And you can't get rid of power.
I will, I just finished watching your video with David and I found myself agreeing with much of what he said. I’ve always had an affinity with left wing anarchists (which is why I am one).
He seemed more positive than your impression on the future, but his comparison between now and before WW1 did ring true.
He seemed more positive than your impression on the future, but his comparison between now and before WW1 did ring true.
I thought he articulated the "problem" with anarchy pretty well. Anarchists cannot fight wars. And honestly, they can't defend themselves from much of anything.
His hope for the future is derived from the fact that he, like most other people, cannot foresee another major war breaking-out. But why? What actually led to the end of large-scale war?
Three things...
1) Nuclear weapons and "mutually-assured destruction".
2) Nuclear-Armed superpowers who act as "policeman" who can prevent their satellites/protectorates/dependencies from going to war. And who can stabilize governments threatened by revolution/Civil War/insurgency with "police-actions" if necessary.
3) Increasing economic-interdependence, which makes trade far more-profitable than war.
Problem is, anarchists would have to get rid of all nuclear weapons. They would abolish the Armies necessary to put down insurgencies/revolutions(see Shay's rebellion for some context). And there would be far less economic-interdependence. In fact, I think anarchy would lead to almost no trade, with almost all production/consumption being local only(which is fine by me).
So anarchy would erode the foundations that could make it possible.
He was also speaking in a time when America was basically the only superpower left. With China continuing to rise, and Russia asserting itself geopolitically, I don't think the future is quite as peaceful as David hopes.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-06-2018 at 06:15 PM..
I really enjoy talking to you, but before we continue this discussion, would you please do me a favor? Read this entire essay by Mikhail Bakunin, because it is probably the most-important work I have ever read. And Mikhail Bakunin is probably the most-famous anarchist ever, so he is "on our side" so-to-speak.
If I was teaching a class, the only two things I would consider "required-reading", are that essay, and this one by Lysander Spooner, written in 1868, called "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
It would take you a few hours to read both of them. And I would be very interested in your thoughts.
But let me repeat what I said in the other thread, I think you believe humans want to cooperate more than they actually do. And if you set-up a system of coercion, well-intentioned or not, that is all there will ever be. And the extent of this coercion will necessarily be arbitrary, and will tend to centralize with time. Eventually, you'll be right back where we are.
Either you must get rid of power entirely, or we are wasting our time. And you can't get rid of power.
"Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems (endless). Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free." - H.L. Mencken
"Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." - Alexis De Tocqueville
Ok, I'm done reading Bakunin's essay.
I never considered myself one with Bakunin in the sense I didn't agree with his mutualist political philosophy, I nonetheless decided to read this essay at face value, and not of the person who wrote it.
From the first part I can understand his point on liberty in the absolute, if regulations are put on people then that is the end of liberty regardless of scale.
insofar as that goes for each person to act independent of some lawful force, I can understand that to a greater extent. It's not that people shouldn't be stopped from acting a certain way, it is just that such an infringement on ones actions shouldn't be produced by 'rightful' power.
I can also understand then, if one were to live in a community, they shouldn't be enforced by the majority (or minority) to restrict their own behavior in a systematic way. Ok, in that case I could see things ranging from different external threats like building a faulty house or poisoning a river (that the community gets water from) a case of property, not authority. People can't do what they want in your house, because you operate that house and lay claim to its space. In the same way a plot of land in the middle of a town (like a road way) that is used by multiple persons is owned by multiple people. As multiple people cannot each use something with indifference to the next (same as a family living in a house) they must come to a democratic agreement in as much to how and to what capacity it is used.
Speaking of democracy, I once again express democracy as a voluntary action of those involved. If democracy were applied to centralized power then the same problems applied to state power apply to democracy. If democracy is limited to only those who participate in it, the nature of the agreement is held at a more personal level.
That being said, all involved in the direct utilization of something must agree on its terms mutually. If three people live in a house (use a road, work on a farm, etc.) and a fourth person comes in, just by nature of the fact others are using what they are now a part of, they're are participating in this mutual democracy.
On a side note, I don't believe real anarchy would have capitalism, as for people to truly practice liberty, the nature of material ownership must be based on function and usage, as it was before the period of empire. Value isn't derived by some artificial number, but from the function it gives to each individual (on a case by case scenario). Further I can't see how making an object makes it yours, the greatest claim to what you have is what you use. The neanderthal tribes never held property that wasn't personally theirs, and paperwork with state backing does not make such discarded items retain ownership by its maker. Anyways all material is part of earth, not created by humans in any technical sense.
Where I do see myself disagreeing with you is in possibility. Yes, states, as the essay suggests, are formed from power and wish to retain that power, but while power can not be eliminated, it can be controlled through natural means.
If you look at societies before modern times (even early agrarian societies for the most part) goods were not able to be stored, and as such could not be accumulated. People then formed groups, provided for each other freely, and all mutually benefited from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island
And before I move on, it seems I hit another one of Bakunin's point. If a group of people form, would not an individual feel threatened by the greater numbers and want to form their own group breeding conflict? I guess.
That is one of the many flaws of tribal societies, and in retrospect I can see why. My only answer would be that if people organized as such but through location, not identity, would it not like a city model form a greater area (country) were all the different localities are interconnected (but not under one authoritative state). I'm not sure, but the possibility to limit access to goods is possible without turning the clock back. If ownership capacities were limited to the individual, then accumulation of wealth too would be severely limited. Along with no money to control capital, people would be forced to group together to provide in greater size. Then the question of what about those not in those groups (unions, workplaces)? I still retain like Kropotkin that as industrial means formed greater production abilities, all excess production would become a public good as not all the producers involved can take/consume all within their own personal capacity to carry and store (which is not extensive). Even if they stored all their production together, that space would only be additive of all their abilities, leaving the same level of excess production for everyone else.
And federation (local) structures, besides helping to facilitate this level of distribution, would enact other positive forces that are not authoritative like a state. Creating something new doe not infringe on the liberty of others the same way taking something away does. Federations (a platform for people in the community to voice their opinion, even in the thousands, like David in your last video mentioned) could only organize voluntary labor, but they couldn't jail, tax, or regulate others. Only the leveling of sanctions by member syndicates could their be a majority agreement (and majority rule is the basis of participatory agreement) in the case of bad behavior (so called crime).
I know you believe human nature to be opposed to such order, but my question to you would be why the animal kingdom, without the same level of expressive intelligence as humans, almost without failure has an instinctive behavior to share with others and not act in terms of radical greed (as mutual aid is still self-beneficial)? Ants for example exile other members that refuse to share their part of the pie when ask to from another member. Bee colonies share similar traits as well as more advanced species like birds, stags, and even predators like wolves.
With all that being said, I can't really find myself disagreeing with anything said in the essay.
And more than that your phrase "on-your-side" (intentionally or not) did get me thinking. I feel perhaps I too closely put value towards political identity rather than the claims being brought forth. You have a tendency (which I think is a good one) to quote from a wide arrange of people, each with their own piece of truth, and it probably helps bring a clearer understanding about what one believes rather than just picking a side, that becomes too oppressed under dogma overtime. If anything I think I've learned that much from your posts. So thank you for that.
edit: I'll read Spooner's piece tomorrow when I have time.
The only resources they needed were National will, grit, determination, courage and the knowledge that if they hung in there, the Americans would have to eventually go home anyway. It was a stunning defeat for the United States.
Let's not get crazy here, Vietnam had MASSIVE resources from China and the Soviet Union. Their abilitiy to wage war was limitless with the allies they had at the time. But yes, they were absolutely finished with foreign powers meddling in their country and they were not going to let America dictate the direction of their government.
It also didn't help that we were propping up and supporting the worst, corrupt, evil, incompetent, and oppressive South Vietnames politicians of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X
WW2 was the world vs a common evil that was obvious to us. Vietnam was "why are we here again?"..
Because we were dumb enough to think Thailand and the rest of SE Asia was going to fall to communism, we wanted to keep China in check, and the Korean war inflated our egos as the world's police.
The French warned us not to go into the mess and we did not listen.
Exactly. Every major power in WWII was an imperialist power with the same basic objectives. There were no good guys. Nations do whatever is their national-interests. Nations do not have morality. They don't recognize good or evil as concepts, except insofar as they can use them to justify their actions.
Bingo. It wasn't good vs bad. It was lets see who can last longer.
Hell the Soviet Union won and there is hardly any American that would call them a "good country."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
Yep, I know a Canadian guy who is pretty damn conservative...but he is the first to say it was the Russians who defeated Hitler. Of course, we'll never know for sure but the Russians probably deserve more credit than many of us would like to admit.
The Russians deserve a ton a credit, first for demoralizing Hitler during Operation Barbarossa then for demoralizing the Japanese Empire when they found out of the impending Soviet Union invasion.
Ofcourse that kudos was all forgotten during the Cold War but nevertheless, they ironically did alot during WW2 to make the world a 'better place.'
The Russians deserve a ton a credit, first for demoralizing Hitler during Operation Barbarossa then for demoralizing the Japanese Empire when they found out of the impending Soviet Union invasion.
Ofcourse that kudos was all forgotten during the Cold War but nevertheless, they ironically did alot during WW2 to make the world a 'better place.'
The Soviets - the bulk of which Russians - deserve credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany as it was Soviet soldiers that killed/captured the lion share of the Wehrmacht. But it was a team effort for sure, remove the UK or the USA and I'm not sure if the USSR would have pulled through, especially in those critical early years.
That being said, USSR vs Nazi Germany are two entities that were both a blight to humanity, I have trouble moralizing between them. The UK was as well.
Ironically, while I give the USA a lot of flak these days, back then it was the most moral of the large powers.
The Soviets - the bulk of which Russians - deserve credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany as it was Soviet soldiers that killed/captured the lion share of the Wehrmacht. But it was a team effort for sure, remove the UK or the USA and I'm not sure if the USSR would have pulled through, especially in those critical early years.
That being said, USSR vs Nazi Germany are two entities that were both a blight to humanity, I have trouble moralizing between them. The UK was as well.
Ironically, while I give the USA a lot of flak these days, back then it was the most moral of the large powers.
They deserve credit but there is no way the US would have wasted soldiers the way the Soviets did. They got possibly millions of their own soldiers killed from sheer incompetence. Just because they died like flies does not mean they won the war. It was a win/win for the US when Germans and Russians were killing each other at that time. Would be like North Korea and ISIS at war for us today.
That being said, USSR vs Nazi Germany are two entities that were both a blight to humanity, I have trouble moralizing between them. The UK was as well.
The UK ??
What, that's like saying what have the Romans ever done for us
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
