Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bot 6
    Bla bla bla
    24 Mar '11 08:15
    All form of government have ultimately failed.
    thats all! tee hee
  2. 24 Mar '11 09:07
    Originally posted by bot 6
    All form of government have ultimately failed.
    thats all! tee hee
    Or maybe we have just misunderstood their purpose?
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    24 Mar '11 09:11
    Originally posted by bot 6
    All form of government have ultimately failed.
    thats all! tee hee
    Perhaps you just haven't understood what government is actually there to do?
  4. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    24 Mar '11 16:44
    Originally posted by bot 6
    All form of government have ultimately failed.
    thats all! tee hee
    Well, just do away with governments and build an anarchist society.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Mar '11 17:49
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well, just do away with governments and build an anarchist society.
    Well strictly is it not the idea that we do away with government and enable anarchism to emerge in its absence as the natural form of social arrangement? After all, who gets to build it otherwise?

    A history of the Spanish Civil War persuaded me that Anarchism is a seriously flawed basis for organising anything whatever - especially a civil war. There is something gloriously doomed in the Spanish Anarchists. A bit like early Christians volunteering for the Roman arena.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    24 Mar '11 18:46
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well strictly is it not the idea that we do away with government and enable anarchism to emerge in its absence as the natural form of social arrangement? After all, who gets to build it otherwise?

    A history of the Spanish Civil War persuaded me that Anarchism is a seriously flawed basis for organising anything whatever - especially a civil war. There is ...[text shortened]... doomed in the Spanish Anarchists. A bit like early Christians volunteering for the Roman arena.
    I fail to see why the Spanish Civil War would dissuade you from anarchism. If anything, it demonstrated that an anarchist society can be built. The fact that they lost the war does not invalidate that.
  7. Standard member bot 6
    Bla bla bla
    24 Mar '11 21:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Or maybe we have just misunderstood their purpose?
    i understand their purpose this way: make it seem like they work hard for the country, and big talk about making things better. while the government lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, argue, fight, talk, talk, talk...
    i wonder if they expect respect?
  8. 24 Mar '11 21:57 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by bot 6
    i understand their purpose this way: make it seem like they work hard for the country, and big talk about making things better. while the government lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, argue, fight, talk, talk, talk...
    i wonder if they expect respect?
    Couldn't you say the same about corporations? After all, large corporations are just mini governments.

    The scary thing about Big Brother, however, is that everyone is subject to his edicts, including the mighty corporations. There are no checks and balances.

    A better thing to say is that all people lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, argue, fight, etc, etc. Therefore, those that do these things with impunity within a given society are the cancer of such a society.
  9. 24 Mar '11 22:28
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well strictly is it not the idea that we do away with government and enable anarchism to emerge in its absence as the natural form of social arrangement? After all, who gets to build it otherwise?

    A history of the Spanish Civil War persuaded me that Anarchism is a seriously flawed basis for organising anything whatever - especially a civil war. There is ...[text shortened]... doomed in the Spanish Anarchists. A bit like early Christians volunteering for the Roman arena.
    Anarchy has to be enforced, which by so doing defeats it.
  10. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    25 Mar '11 00:38
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well strictly is it not the idea that we do away with government and enable anarchism to emerge in its absence as the natural form of social arrangement? After all, who gets to build it otherwise?

    A history of the Spanish Civil War persuaded me that Anarchism is a seriously flawed basis for organising anything whatever - especially a civil war. There is ...[text shortened]... doomed in the Spanish Anarchists. A bit like early Christians volunteering for the Roman arena.
    The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists had to reckon with the combined opposition of fascists and communists; but nonetheless they held out for some time and had a well-functioning economy. In my view anarcho-syndicalism or some related form of decentralized, community-based economy (a loose confederation of communities, I mean) is the way to go. Maybe a better term would be libertarian socialism.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    25 Mar '11 00:42
    Originally posted by JS357
    Anarchy has to be enforced, which by so doing defeats it.
    Anarchism, as opposed to anarchy, largely means devolving governmental authority down to the municipal level. No centralized bureaucracy. Bottom-up, not top-down.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    25 Mar '11 01:24
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists had to reckon with the combined opposition of fascists and communists; but nonetheless they held out for some time and had a well-functioning economy. In my view anarcho-syndicalism or some related form of decentralized, community-based economy (a loose confederation of communities, I mean) is the way to go. Maybe a better term would be libertarian socialism.
    Yes they had opposition especially from the Communists. The way in which the Republican factions operated was soul destroying and rendered their cause futile. I am not sure there was significant support for the idea of democracy and a Republic as such. Stalin had no special wish to actually win in Spain, assuming he had the power, and a lot of evidence says that he and the Communists actually wanted the Republic to fail and worked to that end. I feel that Britain, France and America were also content to see Franco win, despite the popularity of the Republican cause in their electorates. Franco was an idiot, the Falangists were just unpleasant and out of their depth, but they made up in violence for what they lacked in imagination. The Germans had to run the war for them but did so in all seriousness and were allowed to by the other powers.

    In many ways the Anarchists were admirable and within their own areas had a best shot, if you like, at implementing their ideas before being over-run by events. But they seem like innocents when dealing with the issues of their time. They gave their enemy a hard time but strategically they were only ever going to be defeated.

    I like the Anarchists in a romantic sort of way but I suspect their ideas are just too limited to be a sufficient model for any society except in very favourable and hence unlikely circumstances. I am reminded of a book I have never read, but I like its title - "In Defence of Lost Causes." We need Anarchists, but they can't be in charge!
  13. Standard member bot 6
    Bla bla bla
    25 Mar '11 02:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    Couldn't you say the same about corporations? After all, large corporations are just mini governments.

    The scary thing about Big Brother, however, is that everyone is subject to his edicts, including the mighty corporations. There are no checks and balances.

    A better thing to say is that all people lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, argue, fight, etc, etc. ...[text shortened]... ose that do these things with impunity within a given society are the cancer of such a society.
    yup. corp. are an entity in themselves. as soon as they become corporated, they become the monster. void of morality, managed by no-one and everyone.
    will slice their mothers throtes to make a dollar.
    and ya all people lie... but shouldent government lead by some sort of example to gain respect from the masses?
    its simple psychology. set a good example for your children, treat them good and theyll respect you.
    dont, and... well...
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    26 Mar '11 09:42
    Originally posted by bot 6
    and ya all people lie... but shouldent government lead by some sort of example to gain respect from the masses?
    its simple psychology. set a good example for your children, treat them good and theyll respect you.
    dont, and... well...
    [/i]
    Government should do nothing of the kind! It is not your mum and dad.

    Politics is a substitute for violence and much to be preferred, though it lacks the good old manly virtues as a result. Politicians have their own ambitions and values, which voters are invited to examine; nobody gets far who simply wants to serve humanity.

    Politicans are diverse and not dissimilar to the population that elects them. There is no evidence that people want to give the positions to people of virtue, nor that telling too much truth gets anyone elected - usually it gets people kicked out of office.

    Too much time in office or too little real opposition is bad for them. Typically, the very fact of being in office becomes a good enough reason for voters to want a change.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    26 Mar '11 21:24
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well, just do away with governments and build an anarchist society.
    How do anarchists handle large scale organized violence?