Tuesday's Presidential Election

[JCC]

I understand the difference between right and left perfectly well. It's what gives people the illusion of voting for something different to vote for the party that claims to be the exact opposite in the US' fucked up two-party democracy. Take Obama's speech to AIPAC. Exactly the same as every other administration, left or right.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

you can't appreciate the differences between "right" and "left"

There's no politician in this elections that were "left"
Now, I disagree with both of you.
PSPH, Obama being a president won't even challenge the system of exploitation that is in place in the world.
JCC, believing that Obama is not a step further rather than back is entirely wrong, even if it comes down to a simple revision of NAFTA

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

PSPH, Obama being a president won't even challenge the system of exploitation that is in place in the world.

I'm not saying he will. I'm saying that I want Obama's regime to bring prosperity back to this nation. I also want him to enact some soft socialist policies that will help people in the middle and lower income brackets.
I have no illusions about Obama overturning corruption in the world, nor of him crusading on behalf of the downtrodden.

I just want the opportunity for me to grab a piece of the pie big enough to live comfortably on. I don't want to be rich, but I do want the freedom from fear that comes with secure lines of supply as far as food, medicine, and income goes. Especially the first two. If that means taking some resources away from the upper classes, fine by me. Some minor redistribution of wealth won't go awry, not in my eyes. But I'm certainly not advocating sweeping revolution, especially not a sweeping, violent revolution.

[KontanKarite]

Pinstripes... You almost sound like in some way that if there was an anarchist revolution, that the violence that may take place is in some way the fault of Jillian and JCC.

Everyone's mettle would be tested in such a time, not just those two.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Pinstripes... You almost sound like in some way that if there was an anarchist revolution, that the violence that may take place is in some way the fault of Jillian and JCC.

Everyone's mettle would be tested in such a time, not just those two.

That part of my comment comes from having argued the idea of anarchy with them before. I'm not going to get into it again here, but, if you read what they both say, there's no way that the revolution they're advocating could be anything but violent. There's no "may" about it. I'm not saying that they'd be solely responsible, but they certainly are the ones I'm talking to here.

[KontanKarite]

Though I'm inclined to agree with them, I understand that there would more than likely be a degree of violence in said revolution, but that violence isn't the fault of any anarchist here.

Maybe I'm wrong, but those that believe anarchy can work, can and will work, because they're already ready to do what it takes for it to succeed.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

if you read what they both say, there's no way that the revolution they're advocating could be anything but violent.

You know what's funny? Or sad?
When we talked about violent revolution, we were talking about the inherent theories and expectations of Marxism, which can be attested perfectly by the famous epilogue of the Communist Manifesto.
Marxism is not anarchism.
In other words, you still don't even understand anything you're trying to argue against.

[Saya]

Anyway, anarchy would have to be chosen by the masses, its not going to be a minority group trying to stage a bloody coup. There will probably be some violence, yes, between the government and basically everyone else, but for anarchy to work the vast majority of people have to chose it. Its not like other systems which by and large are forced onto the masses.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Some violence would be the fault of an anarchist here if they perpetrated it, except in self-defense.

That's the problem with anarchy: if you don't want it to work, or can't recognize that just because you can legally do anything you want doesn't mean you should, it won't work.
We would need different areas of the world that used different political/social theories, and some sort of magic that would send people to wherever they best fit. >.<

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

We would need different areas of the world that used different political/social theories, and some sort of magic that would send people to wherever they best fit.

So the alternative is not do anything to promote anarchism and let most of the world be unhappy in the place they already are..?

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So the alternative is not do anything to promote anarchism and let most of the world be unhappy in the place they already are..?

That's not the alternative. That's the only option. But I believe I've stated my beliefs elsewhere.

Of course, were there an anarchist revolution, I would do my level best to amass a group of violent people to enforce my will on others.

As Dogbert says, "If no one else had any weapons, I could conquer the whole planet with a butter knife."

[Godslayer Jillian]

I can't fucking believe it. You really are one of those people that would fuck over every other human if you could get away with it?

[KontanKarite]

Apparently just to prove a point to you. Weird.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I can't fucking believe it. You really are one of those people that would fuck over every other human if you could get away with it?

In an anarchic situation? Absolutely.

What, you think I'm the only one? That's humanity, at its very deepest inner core. It is murder, violence, power.

Now, if you were to put me in an utterly ideal, anarchic state, where I would be utterly sure that no one would try to inflict violence or their will on me...

Yeah, I'd still try to impose my will on others, if I could get over my religious qualms about it. It'd be in my self-interest, after all.

[KontanKarite]

You know, I find that hard to believe, Ionic. If you were at all honest, one would think you'd be attempting something like this anyway.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You know, I find that hard to believe, Ionic. If you were at all honest, one would think you'd be attempting something like this anyway.

You find it hard to believe that I'd try to enforce my desires on others, or that my religion might keep me from doing so?

From a rational standpoint, an organism that exists for itself should only do that which benefits it most.

While I might think that the idea of an anarchic paradise is utter foolishness and ignorance, it doesn't stop me from realizing that - as well off as I might be in such a state - I'd be even better off trying to turn it into my personal little paradise.

Why wouldn't I? The only rational reason, from my perspective, is if I am responsible to some other being. And responsibility to fellow human beings isn't exactly my strongest motivation - or most human's motivation, for that matter.

[ionic_angel]

Oh, and I'm assuming that in this idealized future there's no opiate of the masses or politics. No organization, right?

So, yeah. I'd just straight out try to get everything I could. Why not?

And no, I wouldn't do it to prove Jillian wrong. How shallow do you think I am? I'd do it because it would be fun.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

You find it hard to believe that I'd try to enforce my desires on others, or that my religion might keep me from doing so?

From a rational standpoint, an organism that exists for itself should only do that which benefits it most.

While I might think that the idea of an anarchic paradise is utter foolishness and ignorance, it doesn't stop me from realizing that - as well off as I might be in such a state - I'd be even better off trying to turn it into my personal little paradise.

Why wouldn't I? The only rational reason, from my perspective, is if I am responsible to some other being. And responsibility to fellow human beings isn't exactly my strongest motivation - or most human's motivation, for that matter.

That implies that humans are entirely solitary animals. I'll make my response short and sweet: they aren't.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

That implies that humans are entirely solitary animals. I'll make my response short and sweet: they aren't.

No, it doesn't. Your logic would also make an ant queen a solitary insect. You can be at the top of the heap and still be social. In fact, dominating everyone else will probably make everyone want to interact with you, either to get something, hurt you, or avoid you doing something to them.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

No, it doesn't. Your logic would also make an ant queen a solitary insect. You can be at the top of the heap and still be social. In fact, dominating everyone else will probably make everyone want to interact with you, either to get something, hurt you, or avoid you doing something to them.

I thought that "From a rational standpoint, an organism that exists for itself should only do that which benefits it most." was an attempt to explain your own hypothetical actions. Thus, attempting to conquer everyone when you're already in paradise is not acting for one's own benefit, but merely one of rebellion. Plus, unless you were completely stupid, you'd realize the attempt would probably fail and result in your death.

[KontanKarite]

Case in point. I doubt one could ever take over paradise, in that hypothetical situation.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I thought that "From a rational standpoint, an organism that exists for itself should only do that which benefits it most." was an attempt to explain your own hypothetical actions. Thus, attempting to conquer everyone when you're already in paradise is not acting for one's own benefit, but merely one of rebellion. Plus, unless you were completely stupid, you'd realize the attempt would probably fail and result in your death.

I was using the term "paradise" in sarcastic terms. Even Jillian is not foolish enough to think that adopting Anarchy would end disease, or famine (i.e., freak crop failures), or environmental disasters. He just thinks it would be much better than the system we have now, which he believes is basically a predatory system.

Now, from what he has argued, in his ideal state there would be no army, no government, no organized system of governance at all.

Which means I would be perfectly free to get a few people together and go enforce whatever I wanted on the rest of society. And yes, I might get killed, but considering the reward, it's worth it.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You know what's funny? Or sad?
When we talked about violent revolution, we were talking about the inherent theories and expectations of Marxism, which can be attested perfectly by the famous epilogue of the Communist Manifesto.
Marxism is not anarchism.
In other words, you still don't even understand anything you're trying to argue against.

Really? Is Marxism what I'm talking about?

Here's what JCC said, in defense of one of your posts:

Originally Posted by JCC

1. The Anarchist relief effort was decentralized, entirely democratic and entirely voluntary. Anarchic.

2. You said that an Anarchist community wouldn't know what to do and wouldn't be able to react to such a situation. That Anarchist community (and they are a community, albeit a small one) did.

Here's my response to JCC.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

So you're going to extrapolate, from the actions of a tiny, tiny political minority, a justification for how the world at large should work? Why not all just go live in a fucking hippie commune, then? Honestly, do you even THINK about the repercussions of such a change in the sociological current of events?

How many people would starve in the mass transition from our current system to anarchy? How much rioting, looting, and violence would take place once authority was decentralized? Who would stop all of that violence? Lack of medicine? Destruction of transport and national infrastructure? All of it, how would your "society" cope? What about the people who don't share your ideals? What do we do about them?

You seem to be, de facto, advocating a sacrifice of many, many people simply to see your own ideal, decentralized agenda put into place. After all, if anarchy reigns, and we revert to some fucking ridiculously narrow regional economy, thereby destroying the network of infrastructure that ties the world together, what could possibly result but mass death and suffering?

If you need a refresher, just go back to "Anarchy, it doesn't sound like what I'm told", messages 183-185. There are a few other spots you might want to check out also, like where JCC explained to me the ideal government structure of small, independent communities living separate but simplisitc economic and political equality.

Is it obvious yet that I'm here not talking about Marxism? Is it possible that one can look at your arguments and then make a logical leap from your conclusion, to this conclusion?

Yes, yes I think it is. And that is what I was referring to when I talked about you and JCC advocating a revolution that can be nothing but violent.


You know what's funny? Or sad? That you refuse to acknowledge there to be consequences beyond the fuzzily defined anarchism you preach.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

That should be: "There are a few other spots you might want to check out also, like where JCC explained to me the ideal government structure of small, independent communities living lives of separate, simplistic economic and political equality."

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That part of my comment comes from having argued the idea of anarchy with them before. I'm not going to get into it again here, but, if you read what they both say, there's no way that the revolution they're advocating could be anything but violent. There's no "may" about it. I'm not saying that they'd be solely responsible, but they certainly are the ones I'm talking to here.

And here is the comment that sparked from GJ the reply that I am replying to in my most recent post on this thread. Complicated enough?