Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justin Michael

The goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society (note the word "regulating"), not disorder. I don't really care if you agree with that goal or not, but if you want to argue against particular political ideas, you need to argue against the actual ideas. And for that, you need to know what those ideas actually are.

I ask this question in all honesty:
If you think that "the goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society," why don't you promote direct democracy?
 

James the Hunter

Oh lets get this straight. So people in China who stand up against Communism are bad and Mexicans who stand up against a corrupt leader who is a member of the best gang in Mexico are murderers?!? People who stand against a government are technically anarchists!!!IF YOU THINK FOR A SECOND THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE EVIL ANS THE GOVERNMENT IS PERFECT IN THESE COUNTRIES ARE GREAT, THEN GO JUMP OFF A BRIDGE OR SLIT YOUR WRIST!!!! People who stand against
 

pimentel

Hey james lets face it you are one stupid idiot! You are a ignorant *******! Give the world a break & kill yourself jackoff!
 

James the Hunter

Hey when did this turn into a dissing contest? And how am I an idiot? Wtf did I do? I just say what I believe in. If thats a law that I broke, then go execute me you *******!
 

Virginia

Hey james lets face it you are one stupid idiot! You are a ignorant *******! Give the world a break & kill yourself jackoff!

Hey, what the heck! If you can't discuss politics with out being a total jerk, you need to go to debate class. Not everybody has to agree with "pimentel", okay?! I'm not saying that your wrong in your views, or that james in right - all I'm saying is chill!
 

David Schofield

Random word time! Chicken nugget!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Schofield

random word time! Panda!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Violette LeDrunc

I ask this question in all honesty:
If you think that "the goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society," why don't you promote direct democracy?

Firstly, I'm not promoting anything. I have simply been providing information as comments made have been referring to anarchism while seeming to have no understanding of what it actually is.

Direct democracy can be something that fits with anarchist philosophies, but if you are referring to direct democracy on the level of nations, I would think most would not find that satisfactory as it provides no decentralisation. The are a variety of models of management which work with anarchism (as said previously, both socialist and capitalist systems are possible, for example, as are councils or communes or collectives) but decentralisation is considered necessary as the larger the group, the greater the number of infringements on individual choice for the benefit of some at the expense of the others.

Obviously, for communities to work, people need to choose to act against their own wishes sometimes. And people do that all the time, in their families, at work, and in their communities, because there is a mutual benefit from working together. But on an enormous scale, if you're talking about millions of people, a 50% majority (for example) just means you still have some nameless, faceless force legislating the behaviour of millions of others. There is nothing mutual about that.
 

intreker05

I should have known it was a waste of time to rejoin this flamey thread.

What I have written is not a modernisation of anything. It is based on the original thinking of anarchist political philosophers from the 18th century which has continued through to this day. Historically, anarchism has been one of the least violent political creeds.

Dafur is not an Anarchy. Iraq is not an Anarchy. If you want to critique examples of Anarchies in action, try parts of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Try parts of the Ukraine after the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took over. If you want to know how people who are Anarchists behave, look at Ghandi and much of the non-violent direct action which took place around the world during the last century.

Try reading something other than a dictionary which contains only a simplistic, unnuanced translation of the original Greek word which bears no relationship whatsoever to what Anarchist political philosophy is and what it always has been since it began.

The goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society (note the word "regulating"), not disorder. I don't really care if you agree with that goal or not, but if you want to argue against particular political ideas, you need to argue against the actual ideas. And for that, you need to know what those ideas actually are.

A dictionary isn't going to help you.

OK, we're going to take this slowly. Don't worry, I'll try to make it so that you can keep up. I don't expect you to, but that's OK. First of all, you're not guilty of the same thing that you're accusing me of. Anarchy, or anarchism, isn't a single set of ideas. So it's impossible to say, Anarchists are this, or their goal is that. That may be the case of the wikipedia article you read, but it isn't that simple. I still stand by my point, though, that it is a flawed system, and that it will lead to the type of anarchy (the chaos which you disdain so much) because people aren't capable, for the most part, of self-regulation. It was Thomas Jefferson who believed that a direct democracy was a mistake because most people were too ill-informed to make good decisions for those around them. I agree. The idea of self-regulation is laughable because it requires certain restraints of the human race which I don't believe most people have. It requires people to not seek social hierarchies and to get rid of class systems, which is impossible because people, at least some people, are always going to seek out power and to maintain powerful positions within society.
It also requires people to work for the good of society, which I don't believe people will do without motivation (normally monetary) unless they live in a society small enough for them to directly see their influence on their life and the lives of those around them, which I also believe is a flaw of communism. Anarchism relies on people doing the right things for the right reasons, right thought, right action, right reasons. I don't believe that, overall, people are capable of that.

Oh, and you might want to get rid of that idea that those that disagree with you are "flamers" because it really makes your arguments look silly. If you're such an "enlightened thinker" you should be able to accept that people come from different backgrounds with different ideas. I mean, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someday anarchism will work. But I don't think it will based on the things I've seen from the human race.
 

James the Hunter

I agree with you. You have a good point. I believe different but still! People can live together and disagree with each other. If we didn't, America would be at war with everyone and the same with every other country. So now, I ask Gem to lock this cause it's getting out of hand.
 

Gem

Yeah, going to lock this. This has got out of hand - it's not a debate forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top