Most Members Here Are Left Wing-Don't Let The Right Fool You

[sgreger1]

i can now see that none of you really know what anarchism is. Anarchism is true democracy in my mind. anarchism seeks to push aside, violently if necessary, centralized government structure and global capitalism in favor of people helping people and a more local government that is more in touch with what that locale requires. So instead of one government that caters to whoever is the majority(usually the rich and elite) in a whole country you have a community or set of communities that, according to their needs, will make decisions that benefit and affect them in a rotating council where everything is voted by the whole community/communities. in other words instead of proxies that are "voted" based on lies with only themselves in mind the actual people have a large hand in what effects them

hardly the bullshit "no rules" stuff that 15 y/o kids who just want to smash windows for the sake of smashing things use as an excuse to take the blame off themselves

do i think its possible in my generation? hell no.
am i going to fight so that my children may be one step closer? you can bet on it

I certainly have never heard that description of anarchy but it that is what you propose than I am with you brother! lol. It obviousely wouldn't work ina large country like ours unless we broke it down into much smaller groups, kind of like how it used to be where each state was it's own entity and made rules specific to the state, this was back before teh federal government came around and tried to standardize everything across all states.

The problem that I have with consensus democracy, as you propose above, is that there ar e alot of stupid people and by allowing everyone a direct vote, it leads to populist decisions, which are not always good in the long run. In theory a republic works better because you have people who think more long term and understand large systems like nationwide economies, global trends etc, thanperhaps your average joe the plumber would. The problem is that republic also leads to the nation being run by lawyers which is likely more evil than having the janitor run things to be honest.


I like your idea, though I could see several places where it would get bumpy if actually implemented, but I am glad to see your not one of the people I routinely come across where I live (the 15 year old "don't want to listen to my rich parents" type anarchist). If we could break the nation down into smaller districts, and each district have a council or something of that nature that makes their own rules that are specific to their district alone (without federal standardized legeslation) than I think we would be a lot better off. Though, I still maintain that what you are proposing is neither true anarchism, communism, or any combination of the two, but is a great idea.


But just to clear up the "none of you seem to know what anarchism is" comment, I was going by the official definition:

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[3]

This is the problem with anarchism, it's like libertarianism (there are too many dissenting opinions of what it should actually be):

Much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain [10] supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[8][11] Still some individualist anarchists, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, were also socialists.

It's the "supporting a market economy and private property" part that makes me see this as nothing even resembling communism. (Keep in mind that as an American, communism is the root of all evil, at least that's what I was taught in school lol)

[Trolltind]

This is the problem with anarchism, it's like libertarianism (there are too many dissenting opinions of what it should actually be):

that much is true. but the definition is purposely left to form your own opinion of what it is imo. most modern anarchists who actually form small communes, organize marches, hand out pamphlets subscribe to the definition i laid out. like all other political ideologies we just want what we feel would lead to better lives for the people and the children we will have.

the original idea of communism is everyone owns everything pretty much. it requires cooperation of the highest degree by everyone involved. everyone works to better the community itself instead of bettering only their lives. Communism itself has never been implemented. every "communist" country is actually socialist. from the ones that have worked successfully (cuba*though thats debatable to some* and early USSR) to the utter failures (late USSR and North Korea)

[sgreger1]

that much is true. but the definition is purposely left to form your own opinion of what it is imo. most modern anarchists who actually form small communes, organize marches, hand out pamphlets subscribe to the definition i laid out. like all other political ideologies we just want what we feel would lead to better lives for the people and the children we will have.

the original idea of communism is everyone owns everything pretty much. it requires cooperation of the highest degree by everyone involved. everyone works to better the community itself instead of bettering only their lives. Communism itself has never been implemented. every "communist" country is actually socialist. from the ones that have worked successfully (cuba*though thats debatable to some* and early USSR) to the utter failures (late USSR and North Korea)

I always understood it as: Socialism is where the state owns all property and means of production, and it issues it out to the public. Whereas communism is where everyone owns a stake in everything. The problem in both of these systems is getting anyone to actually produce anything or invent anything new, since there is no reward for working hard towards those accomplishments.

I know what you are talking about, like hippie "communes" type communism. This works in small groups but I don't think it would ever work in any nationwide capacity. Would be a cool experiment though.




I was thinking of the second definition of communism, while you were referring to the first:

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production


The problem is that anarchists always seemed to me to be big proponents of private property, but that must be a different kind of anarchism.



Conversely, socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



My problem with all of these is that I like the idea of private property and owning the fruits of my labor, since I know there is someone who is lazy that will gladly take from me while putting nothing into the system. This leads to equal mediocrity and equal poverty as opposed to our current system in which at least most can do good for themselves if they try.

[SnusoMatic]

we need less politics and more justice. justice is good rewards good and bad rewards bad. courts don't serve justice by the way.

one example of bad is, someone is breaking into your house. you use the muzzle of your 12 gauge to push them back out the window. bad they broke into your house and you reward them with some bad. I am not set on them having to be shot, the reward could be jail as long as the reward comes immediately.

example of good, you work hard all your life, treat everyone you come in contact with good. then other people treat you with respect. that is good for good. another example of good, a man works for a company for years and gets sick or too old. that company not only treats him right, they WANT to treat him right.

whatever term is used to describe that idea is what i want.

but i know that will never happen and no matter what i am forced to live under someone else's rule, left, right or center.

[danielan]

courts don't serve justice by the way.

Courts don't serve justice because we are bad jurors.

You don't HAVE to listen to jury instructions. 12 people determine guilt or innocence within their own consciences.

This is not illegal, but court decisions have allowed the courts to not mention it and to give jury instructions that preclude it.

Google "Jury Nullification". Unjust laws require jury nullification in order for justice to prevail.

This is also a good topic to bring up if you don't want to perform jury duty.

[tom502]

So the Red-Black alliance would see the Amish type communites as anarchist?