Please discuss political ideas, goverments (or lack thereof), religion, ideologies, and current events here! Also, if you want to give criticisms to the mod that aren't exactly constructive, put them here. I want to hear all you have to say, so don't be shy.

{Do Not Post Rascist, Sexist, Prejudice Statements Here! I will notify the moderator if you get ugly like this.}

Feel free to post some angry statements, just don't break the above three rules, and don't cuss or swear insanely.

Hello
I have a problem with religions : Just after starting the game, you have alerts saying for exemple "Syndicalist Committee has founded Christianism" !!!
It would be better that factions not found religions, but something else...
Does anybody have an idea ?
If you want I can work on this part...

this will be fixed in 2.0, and is already mostly fixed in the alpha stage.

but please, lets keep this thread for people who want to argue abstract politics and put this kinda discussion in the main discussion thread, if you would. just trying to organize this forum :)

i am a leftist syndicalist "existentialist" and do not support america's current regime, nor the regime of nearly all of the modern countries in this world.

Personaly I am a center left educationist. I.E. I belive that all the worlds ills can be "cured" throught propper education and social enginering.

Personaly I am a center left educationist. I.E. I belive that all the worlds ills can be "cured" throught propper education and social enginering.

i happen to be anti-educationalist, in the sense that i was "educated" in america, where all we were taught turned out to be lies.

but i would support someone who thought they could reform the system of teaching to bring honesty and ethics back to learning!

I personally dislike how the Puritan way has screwed this country up. I'm not sure I have a label, but clearly what we have now doesn't work.

clearly what we have now doesn't work.

[having a politic discution in english is not easy for me. I try to explain, but if it's not clear, tell me, I'll try again]

What you have in USA doesn't work. What they had in USSR doesn't work. What we have in Europe (with few differences between countries) doesn't work.
I think only auto-organisation of people could work. I am an anarchist and a syndicalist in France, and every day I explain that everything must me decided by everybody. For that, people have to understand politic, have interest for it. Not by voting 1 time every 5 years, to decide who will be the chief. But by discussing all the questions and explaining his way of thinking.
We have that when we have big strikes, but quickly, uses come back and everybody go back to his job, forgotting what happened in this time of revolt where discussion was free.
In one of the musics I purpose in the French sountrack, one is titled "Brulez le pouvoir" that means "burn the gouvernence" (or something like that). That's it : we have to distroy all congress, president, and so on, so then we all together will be the governence, we will decide together about everything...
Only one solution : revolution !! :goodjob:

i happen to be anti-educationalist, in the sense that i was "educated" in america, where all we were taught turned out to be lies.

but i would support someone who thought they could reform the system of teaching to bring honesty and ethics back to learning!

Care to describe in more detail?

By the way, when I say education, I mean the entire process of growing up, from your parents to university. I think that you can give a child attributes, such as intelligence, energy, resourcefullness, initiative and other such things through education.

[having a politic discution in english is not easy for me. I try to explain, but if it's not clear, tell me, I'll try again]

What you have in USA doesn't work. What they had in USSR doesn't work. What we have in Europe (with few differences between countries) doesn't work.
I think only auto-organisation of people could work. I am an anarchist and a syndicalist in France, and every day I explain that everything must me decided by everybody. For that, people have to understand politic, have interest for it. Not by voting 1 time every 5 years, to decide who will be the chief. But by discussing all the questions and explaining his way of thinking.
We have that when we have big strikes, but quickly, uses come back and everybody go back to his job, forgotting what happened in this time of revolt where discussion was free.
In one of the musics I purpose in the French sountrack, one is titled "Brulez le pouvoir" that means "burn the gouvernence" (or something like that). That's it : we have to distroy all congress, president, and so on, so then we all together will be the governence, we will decide together about everything...
Only one solution : revolution !! :goodjob:

I had a epiphany about modern "democracy" that we are forced to endure in america. since it is near the time for "voting" here, i was waxing philisophical about what this meant.

I think that the idea of voting in a democracy give the powers that be the oportunity to easily change the decisions they made about the laws, and blamed on the people. You see, I don't believe that democracy exists in any way in america anymore, especially after the last few "elections".

And the greatest thing about this system: the rulers can do what they want with impunity, and then BLAME the people and save "Hey, you voted for us/this!"

@ArneHD
When you mean education beginning with early childhood, then i understand you. i am "anti-established american educational system"

While my political 'ism' is rarely stable, I believe that the education system is only as bad or crass as the people controlling the state. If we are to have an honest state system of education, then we must have an at least enlightened group ruling the country..... Not likely to happen.. But at least Socialists would fund them and keep the bible off the required reading list. (I'm a senior in a Kansan highschool, so the line between church and school is a very very thin one around me.)

dude, i would be scared to live in kansas!!

i agree, the schools must be worse for you, i went to highschool and was senior in 1999! it sucked under clinton alot, but probly not nearly as bad as now! (but dont get me wrong clinton was still a prick)

My opinion of the currently horrible state of school capitalist indocination is based largely off of what little of Antonio Gramsci's work I have read.
check him out sometime
(I'm just now getting into Goldman)

-edit-
It's not that horrible in East Kansas, I live in a suburb of Kansas City so I have that great influence of Culture and radicals, also my Government AP teacher is a Socialist (or at least likes socialism).

i just checked out Gramsci! he seems in his communistic ways to be the modernistic-era's equivelent to the neo-liberals' outlook. but to say this is rather shortsighted, alas. it is more that he created the tools for which the new-liberals to exist, rather that was part of the an early movement.

does that even make a fart of sense?

ps: i live in the suburbs of phoenix. can you say "Suburban Sprawl Hell" ?

Eh, elaboration might be nice

Well, it is the conversion from a more individualistic pre-postmodern outlook on life to the Orwellian future we live today. It is perpetrated by the unknowing school teachers (are they really unknowing i wonder?)

An illusion is created then, in the classrooms across the allied world, or a better life under the regimes, rather that the truth: we are better because we are not being bombed, but rather bombing the rest of the unallied world.
But the illusion has to start somewhere; has to be initially woven for the unsuspecting, innocent minds of childeren: the classroom

Any reason why you chose the spanish republican flag to represent the communal labor civics? I am just curious.

i have changed it ;)
thanks for the insight. the link i had originally intended does look rather tenuous.

One question, how do you imagine your utopian system?

In my mind utopia will arise when we begin to apply social engineering (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29)) to shape people from a young age to have certain traits: intelligence, creativity and initiative. if a large percentage of the human population could be engineered to have these traits, humanities ills could be over.

when i close my eyes, i imagine looking on a city very closer to what we live in right now. just with empowered citizens and a dissolved police state regime. maybe some street cars, too.

edit: i disagree with you, people can be nurtured with these tendancies, or they can aquire them with a critical mind, and by voracious reading habits. One of the worst problems is that there are people with power who are constantly scheming for ways to further consolidate their power and possibly handing it over to groomed heirs.
One thing i will say, in agreement with you, is that whitewashing history and slipping massive amounts of capitalist propaganda into school's lessons, pounded into childerens' heads day after day, must stop. My stomach turns at the thought of it, and at the thought of these "teachers" who willfully commit these lies.

im not sure what i just said makes any sense :(

What does "Empowerd" mean anyway?

empowered mean literaly "recieving power" or "attaining personal power"

By the way, where do you stand on the political compass? (http://politicalcompass.org/)

I'm -6.5, -6.67

roughly a year ago when I took it I was -8.13, -7.74.

I just took it I got -2.25 aand 2.05

Im right on par with nelson mandela. -6,-4(closed it before i got the decimals)

dude, i would be scared to live in kansas!!

i agree, the schools must be worse for you, i went to highschool and was senior in 1999! it sucked under clinton alot, but probly not nearly as bad as now! (but dont get me wrong clinton was still a prick)

I think the best way to describe schools now is like they were when Clinton was in,but with one main difference, they on crack now,maybe alittle bit of pcp too. I remember when they tried to bring back the pledge in my highschool,they were soo scared of a walk out becuase of it that they made it optional. I think theres some miss perception about high school though to. High school is meant to teach you how to learn. College is where you learn. But even so just being smart in one area doesnt make you smart in every area. I was just reading about how a thousand professors got together to publish a report saying 9/11 was a conspiracy. sure i belive George Buh was an ahole with a plan to dump on everyone,but that doesnt make a conspiracy. and i think believing WTC buildings were a controlled explosion is an amateur's propoganda.

well, when i was in high school, it wadnt no pcp or crack. im a white boy so we were dropping ac1d and poking smot. i hope they arent smoking crack; can you say "private school"

as to the WTC: it doesnt matter who did it; it matters it was a tragedy and so many died for money (islamic or american terrorists, it doenst matter)

ANARCHY

ECONOMIC: -6.75
SOCIAL: -9.13
crap i'm past the dalai lama in the lame chart thingie

well, when i was in high school, it wadnt no pcp or crack. im a white boy so we were dropping ac1d and poking smot. i hope they arent smoking crack; can you say "private school"

as to the WTC: it doesnt matter who did it; it matters it was a tragedy and so many died for money (islamic or american terrorists, it doenst matter)

ANARCHY

I meant the school system not the students. And on the WTC thing,i brought it up showing how some intelligence doesnt garuntee the elimination of stupidity.

However i do agree......ANARCHY

yes, i get very mad at the thought of what teachers in the current american system tell childeren to believe as fact

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

yes, you are probly right, gangs and mobs form immediately in a power vacuum. its been this way for thousands of years.

but plz don't separate police from brute gangs. in my town, they shoot you even if you are unarmed (and put a knife in your cold hand) or they shoot you in the back of the head as you flee. I am not making these things up, even saw this sh!t on the damn news.
and dont separate the government ie CIA from the mob: i believe that the CIA smuggles in the most cocaine than any other criminal organization could smuggle into america.

The baisis of the police is that the police can fight crime, crime can fight you, you can fight politicans and politicans can fight the police. Nobody can remove one without removing their own protection.

The baisis of the police is that the police can fight crime, crime can fight you, you can fight politicans and politicans can fight the police. Nobody can remove one without removing their own protection.

the keystone of the arch you describe in my mind, is the people vs. the politicians. we have had the power to fight them completely removed by "democracy" as we know it today. and the politicians and the police have a racket.

therefore: the people and the crooks VS. the cops and politicians

pretty standard revolution

i believe that the CIA smuggles in the most cocaine than any other criminal organization could smuggle into america.


Power Vacuums dont only rise in the absense of "order" or government

thats right. i think it has to do more with corrupt mofo's wanting to screw everyone over and control them.

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

I'd like you to read a story from Iraq. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-letter20sep20,1,226790.story?coll=la-headlines-world

You'll need to use bugmenot.com or register with them to read it. Here's a brief quote from it:


BAGHDAD — On a recent Sunday, I was buying groceries in my beloved Amariya neighborhood in western Baghdad when I heard the sound of an AK-47 for about three seconds. It was close but not very close, so I continued shopping.

As I took a right turn on Munadhama Street, I saw a man lying on the ground in a small pool of blood. He wasn't dead.
...


No one did anything. No one lifted a finger. The only reaction came from a woman in the grocery store. In a low voice, she said, "My God, bless his soul."

I went home and didn't dare tell my wife. I did not want to frighten her.

This is the mentality that results when violent organizations take over, or in this case, haven't even taken over. Everyone is too afraid to stand up to them. Everyone looks out for their own neck, their own material gain and wellbeing, and doesn't stop for a moment to think about what they're doing to the planet, to their society, or to each other. People act like sheep. When guns get involved, everyone waits for someone else to do the right thing so that they don't have to risk their own lives. This is why there will always be people in power, and people who are subordinate to that power. Getting rid of one power source doesn't change this, it just means you get a new power source in its place. A week or a month of anarchy isn't going to enlighten anyone, and that's all the time it needed for gangs and mobs to start taking over and establishing new authorities that are far more oppressive.

Anarchy can only exist in a society where all, or at least 95% of the members would put what is moral before their own lives every single time. Right now, success in life is defined as accumulating a lot of fancy crap and living a long time. This style of thinking is considered normal, and even encouraged, and you can see what it has brought humanity. Millions of people starve to death daily while we buy thousand dollar security systems to protect all of our junk.

Do you mean that Camarad George W and his US Revolutionary army leaded an anarchist revolution in Irak ? :eek:
;)

You know, when people will be strong enough to kill capitalism AND create something else where they are free, I think they will also be strong enough to resist to other exploiters (this MK47, with Bible, or anything else...). If not, we will say that revolution aborted, and a new revolution will be to do !! :goodjob:

Personaly I'm more of a socialist, and I belive in induvidual freedom, within the framework of a strong government, perhaps it is a by-product of living in Norway. Anyway, a benign government is needed to enforce values, unless everybody confirms to the same values, in which case, enforcing them is not needed. But without the guiding hand of government, we will, considdering todays political spectrum and culture, fall appart.

Also, I see the internet as the greatest tool for the revolution that the world has ever seen.

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

FABRYSSE!!!! I LOVE IT! You have very eloquently put how the real revolution should be. The meta-revolution will be a revolution of freedom and choice, and a change of paradigm from the conventional to the anarchist mindset, focused on true freedom.

Your english is beautiful by the way.


@Norseman2
You do have a point, and it will take nearly 95% of the population for this to work. but when you look at the concentration of power consolidated to 1% of the population and the dissolution of the middle class, we might actually get there, if people take the time to educate themselves. The analogy of the dead iraqi and the ak-47's is not just iraq, it is my home town. the cops here shoot people first, then plant weapons on them later. and what is worse here, is that they are touted as insane criminals or tweakers after they are dead on the fukking evening news!!! @#$%@#$%@

@ArneHD
I have been to europe; it is a better place than america. when i was there in '99, cops didnt carry guns, just beat-down-sticks, which is alright by me (and makes me think them real men). and i had heard that if you were unemployed, you didnt starve.
but socialism and strong government can sometimes become a framework for facsism, just as capitalism is. That is why i believe the leftist slant of ideals of taking care of a populace and preserving freedoms of the socialist governments of europe should be preserved in "anarchism" with little or no actual governing.

whew

I'm left of center, but not super radical, so here il sorta lay out my positions before i start in on this debate:

On education (American): It doesnt work, im in highschool right now, and too many teachers are simply not good. There are too few requirments, and too few intelligent people willing to be teachers. People seem to take seriously the saying "those who cannot do, teach". I have a rather lengthy fantasy/vision for the future of education, but I'l type it up later if anyone is interested

On Violence: My main driving political force is pacifism. This is the area where I am most "radical" i guess, and why i can never participate in any sort of violent revolution. There are causes I will die for, but none I will kill for.

On Social Issues: Progress has been made, but there are still leaps and bounds to take before all people are equal in the eyes of the state, as they are in the eyes of God

On Government: I think the government should serve the people. I have problems with America's specific and current state of democracy, but i believe the majority should win and that democracy can and will work. If I am a minority, who am I to say I'm smart enough to decide the fate of everyone.

On Economy: I don't have entirely developed ideas on this yet, but I definitly support unions and such. Labor rights are important, and i dislike exploitive large companies

http://thesimpleway.org/shane/index.html
I read this guys book, and it is amazing. I would like to be able to live my life the way he outlines, and I am working on it, I highly recomend it.
Jesus is actually awesome, while many people are turned off by mainline christianity, Jesus is amazing


whew, didnt intend it to be that long...umm respond? :crazyeye:

On education (American): It doesnt work, im in highschool right now, and too many teachers are simply not good. There are too few requirments, and too few intelligent people willing to be teachers. People seem to take seriously the saying "those who cannot do, teach"...
yes. and these morons are put there on purpose, not because they can't get a real teacher in a classroom. they are there to teach lies and whitewashed bullsh!t history.

On Violence: My main driving political force is pacifism...There are causes I will die for, but none I will kill for.
no. Pacifism as Pathology. If you are a true pacifist, then you support the government with your useless death. You don't die for a cause, you live for it.


On Economy: I don't have entirely developed ideas on this yet, but I definitly support unions and such. Labor rights are important, and i dislike exploitive large companies
Start your search on economics with ideas like "True-cost Economics" and "Eco-Economics" (you can google or wiki those terms)


Jesus is actually awesome, while many people are turned off by mainline christianity, Jesus is amazing
I actually do like Jesus, despite my scathing critisisms of all of Christianity for all timeperiods, and my love for the works of Nietzsche. I think Jesus was murdered by his disciples, and had his good nature and message of ture evangelism raped by Paul and the spreaders of original Christianity.


Welcome to the Second Revolution subforums!! :D

I am a complete libertarian, I believe in complete freedom for people's personal choices as long as they don't harm others. The government has NO right to set moral values, and yet the government does it all the time in America! We are supposed to have something called "seperation of church and state", and yet I've never seen it. "In God we trust"?!!? "One nation under God"?!!?:confused: Let people exercise religous and moral freedom YOU FREAKIN' CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC WARMONGERING CRUSADING FASCIST FEDS!!!:mad: /end rant (for now)

i somehow doubt the govnt has the resources/will to place bad teachers
my mom was a teacher for 10-12 years (then i came along :D ) and while i have no idea if i would have found her a good teacher, she is definitly competant and intelligent so probably

Pasifist but not passive
Im definitly not going to avoid conflict in an interest to continue being pacifistic, thats cowardly to hide behind false ideals
however i disagree with most revolutionary forces when they advocate violence
iv heard arguments for violence that the revolution doesnt have time to wait non-violently, however i think violent revolutions take as long and dont lay as firm a foundation for perpetuating whatever change was achieved

gandhi is my favorite philosopher/politcal guy/whatever
iv been meaning to read nietzche...gotta go get it off my dads shelf i guess

definately read nietzsche! it is inspiriring and affirming. disregard hitlers love of nietzsche, he only took what he wanted from his books, and nietzsche would have killed himself to avoid hitler becommin enamoured with him (i only mention this as people will critisize nietzsche on the grounds of the Uber-Mench principle being related to hitler's aryan super race, and this was brought up at nuremburg)

"beyond good and evil" is excellent. and so is "human, all too human". i haven't finished "thus spoke zarathrustra" and cannot vouch for it, but his all time best work, in my opinion, is "The Antichrist"




edit: breathe, turquoiseninja, breathe!! ;)

i somehow doubt the govnt has the resources/will to place bad teachers
my mom was a teacher for 10-12 years (then i came along :D ) and while i have no idea if i would have found her a good teacher, she is definitly competant and intelligent so probably


You're it would be insanely conterproductive to everyones aims to place bad teachers. But if you create a bad system,good teachers are far less likely to arise. The Gov controls the situation,the rest of screwing up education is left to the schools themselves. At the top their like anything else, inept politicians,not great principles or superintendents,or whomever

I believe in absolute Imperialism. (as long as I am the Emperor;) )

You're it would be insanely conterproductive to everyones aims to place bad teachers. But if you create a bad system,good teachers are far less likely to arise. The Gov controls the situation,the rest of screwing up education is left to the schools themselves. At the top their like anything else, inept politicians,not great principles or superintendents,or whomever

yes! could it be coincedence that america is the lowest among all its peers (wester world) in education funding and students test scores??? An intelligent american populace might realize the crimes being commited in their names!! They might just stop cowing down and letting all this sh!t happen! They just might rise up.

I agree with GarretSidzaka.:king:

I think idiocy and Neo-liberalism are a danger to all childeren. I'm glad there are a few teachers who have their heads on their shoulders. But to get a real education you usually have to pay (ie university). And the people who need it or could use it the most, cant afford it.

About teachers :
If I understand what you say, I think that the problem is that persons who would be the best teachers go working and searching in firms. In a firm they are better payed than in a school... That's it in France too. The solution that the syndicalist I am purpose is simple : best pay for teachers, and you'll have the better !

About violence :
I agree with you, prplhazed. I violently fight for pacifism ! :lol:
Seriously : I want a revolution as pacifist as it can be. But I'm afraid (i'm sure really), that the Boss of big firms, the presidents of states, deputies, and such people having power, won't agree to abandon their power to the people. So, as pacifist as we can be, we'll have to explain them a little more loudly, and a little more, and a little more... And at final, we'll have to put them out with violence.
And to say exactly what I think : we won't be able to explain anything because capitalists (boss and government allied as usual) will send us police and army, and it won't be the time to discuss. The only solution we'll have is to fight them. After that, it'll be time to talk about pacifism, and it'll be important to do it.

yes, i dont advocate murder and pillaging, what im trying to say is that i would rather live for a cause than to become a statistic, or a "dead terrorist" as they will name any who oppose them

I agree with you. A "martyr" (does it exists in english ?) is at first a dead activist. You're right.

I love rebellions. Sounds like fun.:ar15: :king:

I love rebellions. Sounds like fun.:ar15: :king:
Ummm....so are you an emperor or a rebel:D

I think it is pretty much impossible to win a revolution with pure pascifism. I definately want to be always persuading people with speeches and books and stuff, (Like Subcommander Marcos/Delegate Zero) but in the end the revolutionaries have to start assinating and rioting to get their way. Sitting there won't make the President just agree to you demands.

I think the only place pascificism will make a great impact would have to be a passive-aggressive general strike, where entire cities' populations stop working and stay at home. this would be the best blow pascifism could deal

Ummm....so are you an emperor or a rebel:D

I think it is pretty much impossible to win a revolution with pure pascifism. I definately want to be always persuading people with speeches and books and stuff, (Like Subcommander Marcos/Delegate Zero) but in the end the revolutionaries have to start assinating and rioting to get their way. Sitting there won't make the President just agree to you demands.


Humans quest to be lead. And those who have a leader maybe become content(especially in an age of decadence like America's current). They need not nor care about other options. I a firmly believe a Revolution needs,and should need to whip out the old. Part of that constant cycle of Birth and Death. Too many think old age garruntees wisdom,and absolves greed. Guess im kinda like Lenin as far as revolutions are concerned.

I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;)

I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;)
not bloody likely

I meant temporary absolute authority until the current system which has gone out of whack can be reformed considerably.

Do you mean that Camarad George W and his US Revolutionary army leaded an anarchist revolution in Irak ? :eek:
;)


Roughly the equivalent of that, yes. I suspect if there had been an anarchist revolution in Iraq with the same conditions that we attacked under, it would have resulted in all the same problems. Maybe 25% fewer civilian casualties (if we factor out our contribution to the civil war). It doesn't matter how you get rid of the government, the result is the same. What really makes a difference is what you do afterwards. But more important than that is the state of the country before you topple its government. Iraq was a house of cards, both kept in check and perpetuated by Saddam Hussein. Brutal rule kept a civil war from breaking out, but also prevented any of the free speech that would have helped both sides resolve their differences peacefully, or at least teach both sides to tolerate each other.


You know, when people will be strong enough to kill capitalism AND create something else where they are free, I think they will also be strong enough to resist to other exploiters (this MK47, with Bible, or anything else...). If not, we will say that revolution aborted, and a new revolution will be to do !! :goodjob:

One violent revolution after another is not a good thing. Imagine playing a game of civ where you have a revolution every five or six turns, and each one destroys your military, depletes your population, and destroys city improvements randomly. Obviously civ isn't real life, but I think you can see the problem. If everyone is killing each other all the time, pretty soon no one will be left. You will be unendingly at risk of invasion, and all your cities will soon be gone. People will have to live alone in the hills and fight for their very survival, especially if some other country freaks out and invades. If you have a revolution, you want to get it right the first time.

...One violent revolution after another is not a good thing. Imagine playing a game of civ where you have a revolution every five or six turns, and each one destroys your military, depletes your population, and destroys city improvements randomly. Obviously civ isn't real life, but I think you can see the problem. If everyone is killing each other all the time, pretty soon no one will be left. You will be unendingly at risk of invasion, and all your cities will soon be gone. People will have to live alone in the hills and fight for their very survival, especially if some other country freaks out and invades. If you have a revolution, you want to get it right the first time.

I disagree! as long as there is oppression, classism, racism, and prejudice, and it is openly promoted, like in 99% of all societies i know of, there will be need of revolution.

In fact, i feel that if there is a revolt in the capitalist world and then some kind of new system (or anarchist lack therof) replaces it, there will be at least one or two more revolutions before humanity might reach some kind of stable state. Just look at Drtad a couple posts above:
I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;) We would have to revolt against him too, right?

This, of course, can only happen if we don't complete eradicate all life on earth with WMD or enviromental mass extinction.

I disagree! as long as there is oppression, classism, racism, and prejudice, and it is openly promoted, like in 99% of all societies i know of, there will be need of revolution.


Get the revolution right the first time and there won't be.


In fact, i feel that if there is a revolt in the capitalist world and then some kind of new system (or anarchist lack therof) replaces it, there will be at least one or two more revolutions before humanity might reach some kind of stable state. Just look at Drtad a couple posts above:
We would have to revolt against him too, right?


I've got another post/rant coming up for that post. Anyway, get it right the first time and you don't need to have the extra two or three extra revolutions.


This, of course, can only happen if we don't complete eradicate all life on earth with WMD or enviromental mass extinction.

This is true.

I must say that I agree to some extent with Norseman2, although he points out the population trouble, while I am more concerned about the infrastructure. The ultimate revolution would be surgical, and presise. They need to first remove all obsticales in their way, then change whatever they want to change, without touching anything besides this.

A good example of this would be the Thailand coup d'etat, where the government was removed with a minimum of disturbance. They removed the obstacles they faced and can then procede to change whatever they want to change.

Not all absolute rulers have to be revolted against to give up their power and reform the system into a more democratic one. Just look at the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos. He has been an absolute ruler for over 30 years but his reign has been dedicated to building new schools and glorifying his country. He is also willingly stepping towards democracy and allowed parliamentary elections.

@Norseman2
While I'm sure that at least one of my proverbial, multiple revolutions will end up violent, I am also a firm believer that some revolutions don't require a single death.

A novel that has bloodless revolutions is Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. He has already depicted a "anarchist style" society in his previous two books, yet the society is still flawed enough to where it must change. The society had a bloodless coup where the people simply reorganized themselves and made the would-be dictator exile herself (because of her regrets in life and loss of power).

@ArneHD
I don't know much about Thailand other than the dictator/king wore really thick rimmed glasses :D

@Drtad
The problem with absolute rulers is this: They can't always take care of a huge population fairly, just being one man (or woman). And eventually there will be an ethical compromise where he must decide that one populace will suffer, for the gain of another (possibly larger or richer) populace. This is what (i think) revolutionaries are against.

Forcing one part of the population to suffer while letting another get richer. That's dispicable. But I see what you mean. I think I have been reading too much of Hobbes' philosophy lately...

:goodjob: you are learning well, young jedi

Come check out this new off-topic poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188197) I started. I think it is actually rather important (the topic not the poll ;) )

Did anybody here already saw Brazilian history? :P We NEVER could go out of the sphere of power from the "same people". The only one nation in the world(as far as I know/readed, but perhaps it can be of south america only, whatever) to declare independence from they colonizators(Portugal) and keep a monarchy..And guess who was the King? The Portugal's Prince :P
We were as well one of the last(if not the last) in the world to abolish slavery officially. And when Republic was declared, it was declared by people that were already in the power in one way or other and just wanted to officialize it. We never had any kind of effective/overwhelming revolution, only some isolated moviments that were fast cutted off since then really that started from the population. In years 60 the military took the power one more time in a bad and oppresive regime. In end of years 80 population was growing tired of it, so the biggest TV channel in Brazil decided it was time to change(for what they wanted of course) and made a Big-massive propaganda that made people go in the street "asking" for demmocracy untill it happened. So the nice TV channel made again massive propraganda of the Presidente they wanted, and of course won. Since then we are controlled by this channel and each ellection thnis channel chooses our govenamment.

So revolutionless people in Brazil no? :P

And still, compare to all the others south american countries that had all kind of revolutions or so and you will see who is better off(also the population, of course no comparation with europe) now...The world can be strange and the theory is never like its pratice.

I defend revolution in mind because anarchy and armed revolution will result only in 1 more poor state.

But then again, Im surely completely wrong :)

Did anybody here already saw Brazilian history? :P We NEVER could go out of the sphere of power from the "same people". The only one nation in the world(as far as I know/readed, but perhaps it can be of south america only, whatever) to declare independence from they colonizators(Portugal) and keep a monarchy..And guess who was the King? The Portugal's Prince :P
We were as well one of the last(if not the last) in the world to abolish slavery officially. And when Republic was declared, it was declared by people that were already in the power in one way or other and just wanted to officialize it. We never had any kind of effective/overwhelming revolution, only some isolated moviments that were fast cutted off since then really that started from the population. In years 60 the military took the power one more time in a bad and oppresive regime. In end of years 80 population was growing tired of it, so the biggest TV channel in Brazil decided it was time to change(for what they wanted of course) and made a Big-massive propaganda that made people go in the street "asking" for demmocracy untill it happened. So the nice TV channel made again massive propraganda of the Presidente they wanted, and of course won. Since then we are controlled by this channel and each ellection thnis channel chooses our govenamment.

So revolutionless people in Brazil no? :P

And still, compare to all the others south american countries that had all kind of revolutions or so and you will see who is better off(also the population, of course no comparation with europe) now...The world can be strange and the theory is never like its pratice.

I defend revolution in mind because anarchy and armed revolution will result only in 1 more poor state.

But then again, Im surely completely wrong :)

I appreciate your story of brazil, for i never had learned of it here in america. it is amazing how many times the country had switched it's government, with relatively no bloodshed.
I personally believe in the bloodless revolution you speak of. I know my game is a bloody war oriented mess, but this is only a game, and only for letting out aggression. I feel that the real revolution will be a bloodless (mostly) one, and will deal with people refusing bad ideas, and accepting good ones. I also think that environmental damage will catalyze it.

So, Revolution, peaceful of violent?

In video games, violent is the most fun. But in real life, I hope for a peaceful revolt. Dont start calling me a pacifist or anything, but I hope that no one has to die unnessasarily for my childeren to have a truly free world.

Good to hear from you Leif!!

I still think that, if we are peacefull, when we'll say to our bosses or republic presidents :
"ok, guys, that's finished for you. The power is for all people, you can give your idea, but just like me and all the others"
I think that their answer will be short but clear : send police and army to stop this revolution !
So we'll have to be violent because our oponent is violent...

In video games, violent is the most fun. But in real life, I hope for a peaceful revolt. Dont start calling me a pacifist or anything, but I hope that no one has to die unnessasarily for my childeren to have a truly free world.

Good to hear from you Leif!!

I still think that, if we are peacefull, when we'll say to our bosses or republic presidents :
"ok, guys, that's finished for you. The power is for all people, you can give your idea, but just like me and all the others"
I think that their answer will be short but clear : send police and army to stop this revolution !
So we'll have to be violent because our oponent is violent...

Well, I said i hoped it would be nonviolent. That is what i dream of, when the cops and soldiers dont listen either...
But you're right, all of the revolutions in america have been like you said.

Personally, I don't know how it'll happen, but we're all living in the age of short blips of now, we're all apart of the great leap forwords.

Yeah, and I like to think of my mod as a tiny, microscopic piece that this group has helped me contribute!

I think that the way to lose the revolution is to leave america, like alot of us might feel tempted to do. Like Michael Ruppert, he left america, out of fear for his life. I think he should have stayed and been super careful.

Well, the USA isn't the only country in the world, or even a very good one for that matter. The only places where America is really good (bad would be a better term, though) are in deployable military power, and nuclear capability. For the average US citizen, these are bad because you have to support this gigantic military with unpaid labor (on average, for an 8 hour work day, you're probably doing close to an hour of work where your money is taken and given to the military), in order to protect a country which, at any time, could fire enough nukes to end humanity. Global warming, America, and Russia are the three greatest dangers humanity faces. The common US citizen has to slave themselves in order to protect one of the three greatest dangers to humanity.

Personally I'm slightly disappointed with developed countries. Though in Europe we've known strong communist parties/movements, and even the anarchists were occasionally powerful, we face the some illusions you do in the US; particularly that most people have more to lose than their chains, and their small comforts blind them so they don't see or care they're actually been exploited. Thus I'm more optimistic about the Southern American countries, where such illusions don't exist. Not that I'm giving up the fight in my country either.

its easy to despair over here, once you know whats going on. But i just have to keep my head clear of the lies and bullsh!t, and hope for a better world (or at least for the scales of history to balence once again.

I've been eyeing Norway, but I'll stay as long as possible.

yeah ive heard good things about norway myself!

It's ironic, really. My great grandfather moved to America to escape fascists in Norway, and now I will be moving to Norway at the earliest possible convenience to escape fascists in America. We've already lost the right to habeas corpus, and practically all other rights derive from that, so we are completely at the mercy of the Bush regime. I'm not sticking around for that fun. Don't worry though, if the **** hits the proverbial fan, I'm not going to sit around in Norway and suicidally let a nuclear power become openly fascist.

I very much doubt that the Armerican population would allow U.S.A. to be turned into a facist country, I'm pretty sure there would be many revolts if that were ever to happened, and if there's none you can be damn sure I will come across the sea and make one.

Anyways what I believe is that if you have a truly free society the only thing there would rule would be chaos. A free society would degrade and kill itself because of the control. Therefore I can openly support a society that is free, but got control over it's citezens too(not in the big brother way, it's fanatic).
For one I am a supporter communism, though not in the way the Sovjet went. I believe that elections of leaders are important to avoid that the power goes to the wrong person. People won't work to just help other people, they want something out if it themselves, thats why I would make a 'reward system' where you work and get 'points'(like money) and then you can speand the points on these 'rewards'(it can be things like a painting or a better computer etc. etc.).

Just my opinion though.

I very much doubt that the Armerican population would allow U.S.A. to be turned into a facist country, I'm pretty sure there would be many revolts if that were ever to happened, and if there's none you can be damn sure I will come across the sea and make one.

Fly over now, cause fascism is here to stay, in america in the form of Neo-Liberalism. Be glad that Denmark can keep america's at arms-length. :lol:


For one I am a supporter communism....

you sound like a market socialist

Personally I think that all political methods are based on one thing: Localised rule vs. Centralised rule.

One one hand you have Anarchism that is on the extreme localised side. On the other a despotism is on the extreme centralised.

The trouble is that in a localised system a centralised power will lose power and eventually stop having a monopoly on violence. This is perhaps what defines a state, they have a monopoly on leagal violence. As they loose this power they also lose the ability to make long-term comittments, go to the moon, or colonize space or something, unless all people involved agree and those that are not involved agree to pay. Considering how poorly humanity has preformed in the past it comes as no suprise that few would entrust a collective of people to make a unified decision without lumbering a project too much. We can even see this in the current ISS program where nations are fighting over who has/gets to do what.

On the other hand an extremly centralised government tends to be very beurocratic, although it retains power. It would however also need to have a monopoly on violence and du to this it will tend to be authorian. It will though have the power to make long term goals in the interest of the nation (although not always in the interest of it's citizens) and force citizens to work towards that goal.

As far as I can tell, more people are killed by their own or foreign governments than by criminals. For example, in 2003, 17,732 people were murdered in the US. Let's say 600,000 Iraqis have been killed in the course of the Iraq war (a low estimate). Let's say that 1/10th of those deaths have been caused by US forces (a very low estimate, IIRC, it's closer to 1/5th, but I'll stay on the low end until I can get the exact numbers). The war has been going on for three years, so, the yearly average is 20,000 thousand people killed by US forces alone. Now, we're an unusually violent country with a population of 300 million, so this should be saying something to you already about the brutality of war and fascism. We've also been to war at least 25 times in the last 100 years, and committed no small number of atrocities in dozens of countries, including establishing numerous dictators and nuking and firebombing German and Japanese cities.

Seriously, read through this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

If you get through all of that and still care about American interests abroad, I don't know how to help you.

I think that all of the military, political, and law enforcement power should be directly in the hands of the people. Not the American people, at least not now, but in a good a country that is the way things should be. In the absence of any authoritarian law enforcement I would trust the average American to use a gun to protect against tyranny about as much as I would trust a match to protect a stick of dynamite. In the hands of an American, that gun would just as likely be used to create tyranny. There's something deeply wrong and disturbing with our instant gratification, "I'm my own morality", claw your way to the top mentality. I suspect we'll just have to keep sleepwalking into fascism until we get a sudden and brutal awakening.

dude read ward churchill's "on roosting chickens". we have had an invasion or battle going on at least once a year (more often more) since 1776. america has been at non-stop war. we are a nation of war :cry:

Hi Guys,

Funny to read all the posts. As i'm probably more pessimictic than many, i only want to say that's it is in our human nature to want to control everything and everybody everywhere and everywhen. The plague is this planet is....us. Money, weapons, political systems, diplomacy,... all of our "creations" has the same goal: earning more control !


Hian the Frog.

yeah, but as intelligent beings, we have will, and we can change our behaviours over time. the catch all excuse "it is human nature" has perpetuated ages of atrocities and holocausts, simply because people refuse to be willful, thinking beings.

Look at the society of cattle in america today. oblivious to the crimes against humanity that are being committed, simply out of a refusal to take an iota of responsibility.

No, please don't say "human nature" because i havent committed any war crimes lately, and i am human.

America Is one of the best Nations in the world.

Your all crazy Paranoid.

How has the goverments "evils" made our lives harder? Aside from one of the gimic taxes that snuck 1000$ out of my pocket?

If anything I'd say we need more controll over the actions of radicals, expecially people flaunting and commiting unGodly acts.

America Is one of the best Nations in the world.

Your all crazy Paranoid.

How has the goverments "evils" made our lives harder? Aside from one of the gimic taxes that snuck 1000$ out of my pocket?

If anything I'd say we need more controll over the actions of radicals, expecially people flaunting and commiting unGodly acts.

Yes, brotha. Praise Jesus!

yeah, but as intelligent beings, we have will, and we can change our behaviours over time. the catch all excuse "it is human nature" has perpetuated ages of atrocities and holocausts, simply because people refuse to be willful, thinking beings.

Look at the society of cattle in america today. oblivious to the crimes against humanity that are being committed, simply out of a refusal to take an iota of responsibility.

No, please don't say "human nature" because i havent committed any war crimes lately, and i am human.

Sorry to bring this up now, but I've learned quite a bit over the last few months, and this popped up in my list of subscribed threads. I wasn't suggesting that it's human nature to be like people are today. I was referring specifically to Americans, and only the more recent breed of Americans. The Americans of 250 years ago could have easily handled anarchy.

I think it is human nature to be kind, compassionate, and to care for your fellow man. That's really the only way we could have survived this long. We got through ice ages, droughts, famines, diseases, and worse. We have only two things going for us, and that's intelligence, and cooperation. One guy alone is not going to live very long out in the wildneress. A group of idiots out in the wilderness are not going to live very long either. The only reason we have survived as a species is because, at least up until recently, we were multi-skilled, highly intelligent tool-using communal animals. We cared for each other, and we weren't afraid to try to help one another. That was human nature for all of natural human history (i.e. up until farming and the rise of civilization and the creation of class structures).

What we have in modern times is now a subversion of human nature. People are reeducated, taught that it's not ok to help someone who is getting beaten to death, that you should call the police. And if it's the police who are beating someone to death, you should look away and take any cameras with you. We're taught that sharing is communism, and is therefore evil. We're taught that it's unnecessary, homeless people in the street are homeless because, obviously, they want to be homeless. We have no obligations to anyone or anything, and any suggestion otherwise is fascist.

This is a capitalist/authoritarian defense mechanism, like an economic form of mutually assured destruction. Without the capitalists and their cronies in office, the society they have left us would implode. People don't know how to live without them, they've lost that core component of humanity that kept us alive through so much hardship. If you take the cronies out of office they can just put new ones in. If you get rid of the current capitalists new ones will take their places. But that's all moot, because, apart from a revolution you can't get rid of the current cronies or capitalists. You can't have a revolution either, because they control the media. No one would support it when all the propaganda opposes it, and everyone knows that the removal of their system would result in our society imploding, and even if a revolution suceeds, the massive failure would result in us going back to capitalism almost immediately. Most people just confuse our system with all of humanity, which is why you probably thought I was referring to society as a whole, like most people do.

The problem is that you can't go straight to anarchy. You need an intermediate step to get (some) people ready (obviously it's not a cookie cutter solution, different approaches are required for different societies). You need a new authoritarian power structure. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez and Castro and many others have already figured this out. Socialism is the preparation step, to destroy all the crap that capitalists have spewed around. The important part, though, is that the more authoritarian power-structure must be subjected to greater checks and controls from the people, like in Venezuela. The people must be able to vote politicians out of power. Politicians shouldn't need to whore themselves out to corporations to get into power. Politicians who do whore themselves out to corporations should be removed from power. If these aren't followed, the constitution must unequivocally guarantee the right of the people to rebel, must make it illegal for the government to use its influence to prevent legitimate revolution, and must provide everything necessary to guarantee that the people can rebel without getting massacred or scared away. If those controls are in place, then it will be safe for the government to start correcting the problems which have lead to people being irresponsible morons. A generation or two later, and it would be time for anarchy. It's a risky detour from the goal, but it's essential to make the progression from capitalism.

The americans of 250 years ago where a different species from Modern-Day Man. Those humans of old were capable of building a house where they needed it before winter came; capable of feeding themselves in any biome with wildlife. And when humans of this time fought, it was a personal, abrupt thing.

What the modern propaganda machine, humans are taken from the ages of four years old into a reeducation system that convinces children of lies. I believed heartily that "genetically modified foods" would make huge vegetables that would feed the world. I find out that the "modifications" where to make the food grow pesticides in its cells.

But if you really think about it, children in Western society are started on the path of systemization even earlier than 4 years old. The ever-present, invasive Television pumps out garbage round the clock for small children to absorb. When my wife watches shows like "CSI", for some reason I start to get mad, and uncomfortable watching shootings and seeing decomposing bodies.

The television, I think, is what brought the final downfall of Man. A self-devised way to strangle our own minds, and pollute our own reason.

As for transfer to anarchy: I have become a rather defeatist anarchist at times. I don't see how me or my friends could help the movement, except in small, meaningless ways. And I will second your opinion, I greatly support and admire Chavez, especially after learning his story as president. I also support Cuba and Castro, but not so greatly as I admire Chavez. I think that any rebuilding of post-climate change Earth (aka post-capitalist ;) ) will be brought about by countries like these, with their social governments.

I also support Cuba and Castro, but not so greatly as I admire Chavez. I think that any rebuilding of post-climate change Earth (aka post-capitalist ;) ) will be brought about by countries like these, with their social governments.What a strange kind of anarchist. I don't support statists of any brand, whether socialist or capitalist, feminist or fascist. Although I will say that Chavez seems genuine and I like his in-your-face attitude to the Bushies, ultimately he is part of the problem. All Presidents are.

yes, but for revolution to occur, there must be sympathetic nation states to support an ugly insurgency in north america.

i agree with you, i do not like any national governments, and just as chavez gives to the poor, he takes from the rich, infringing upon them, emphasizing classism in new ways. And, as always, a remote government of any kind will be evil because of the centralization of power and the arbitrary ways it is excised.

yes, but for revolution to occur, there must be sympathetic nation states to support an ugly insurgency in north america.Nah. You don't need them. They simply make things worse. As for "ugly insurgencies", violence cannot be stopped with violence. It simply perpetuates the cycle. I take the fall of communism as my inspiration. People just quit it.

i agree with you, i do not like any national governments, and just as chavez gives to the poor, he takes from the rich, infringing upon them, emphasizing classism in new ways.Actually, like all welfare statists, when he pretends to give to the poor he actually gives to the bureaucrats instead and perpetuates the control of the bureaucrats over them. If he really wanted to give to the poor, he would sell off Petroleos de Venezuela have give the proceeds to the poor. Or, even, better just give them shares which they could dispose of as they wished. But that would be relinquishing his control over them, wouldn't it?

And, as always, a remote government of any kind will be evil because of the centralization of power and the arbitrary ways it is excised.Agreed.

I agree to your points with Chavez, but this doesn't change the fact that I admire the man. He is standing up to a country that has assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him. Brave stance to take.

As for americans being able to simple "quit" capitalism, as you say the russians did with communism (which i would debate), i don't think this can happen. And i feel this is because of the such deeply ingrained class warfare here. To be honest, I don't think there will be any change for a while to come. But i would be willing and eager to wait till i was 90 years old, if the revolution would be bloodless

I agree to your points with Chavez, but this doesn't change the fact that I admire the man. He is standing up to a country that has assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him. Brave stance to take.It would appear that we basically agree, although I don't remember when the US "assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him".

As for americans being able to simple "quit" capitalism, as you say the russians did with communism (which i would debate), i don't think this can happen. And i feel this is because of the such deeply ingrained class warfare here. To be honest, I don't think there will be any change for a while to come. But i would be willing and eager to wait till i was 90 years old, if the revolution would be bloodlessAmericans are far from ready for a revolution of any kind, bloodless or bloody. I firmly believe that the state will fall for the same reason it arose - new technologies. It was a result of the innovation of agriculture. I once hoped that the Internet could be the technology which would lead to its downfall. The events of the last three or four years clearly show that I was wrong, although it is obvious that uncensored information is driving the authorities (and especially their gatekeepers) batty. However, there are many more technologies on the horizon. Freedom - and the drive to innovate - cannot be stopped no matter how hard the statists try to suppress it.

BTW, it is refreshing to see an American acknowledge the extent to which your society is class-based. There are the professionals who obtain their status because they have passed through hugely-expensive initiation rituals. And there are the cannon-fodder whose every other option has been taken away. That's it.

Thank you for being human!

Chavez was kidnapped in 2002 (?) in a coup led by a capitalist puppet. In the end, his palace guards were secretly loyal and helped overthrow the coup de etat. Chavez himself claims his life has been threatened by assassination attempts. And one need only look to panama to see the friend of his who was assassinated (Torrijos). I'm sorry, did I say assassinated, I meant "Plane Accidented".

Yes thank you for noticing i am an alive, aware person. to become what i am, though, involved experiences i wouldn't wish on my enemies.

Chavez was kidnapped in 2002 (?) in a coup led by a capitalist puppet. In the end, his palace guards were secretly loyal and helped overthrow the coup de etat. Chavez himself claims his life has been threatened by assassination attempts. And one need only look to panama to see the friend of his who was assassinated (Torrijos). I'm sorry, did I say assassinated, I meant "Plane Accidented".

Yes thank you for noticing i am an alive, aware person. to become what i am, though, involved experiences i wouldn't wish on my enemies.


watch 'the revolution will not be televised' very easy to find has irish filmmakers who were there at the time document the whole process, including the role of RCTV.
also 'venezuela bolivariana' is very informative

yes that was an excellent source of info. i am dissapointed that chavez choose to close the capitalist TV station. i dont think that is how the left should work.

yes that was an excellent source of info. i am dissapointed that chavez choose to close the capitalist TV station. i dont think that is how the left should work.

If the TV station is going to play cartoons while a dictator is removed from power, and the elected president of the country is rescued, that TV station has no business "informing" people. Freedom of speech as it is understood in capitalist countries is freedom for the rich to speak. Real freedom of speech is the freedom for anyone to speak and be heard, whether or not they have the money to buy a TV station and staff it with people to spew out their propaganda day and night. Chavez does this on his government TV station, and I hope he does it more. More than anything, keeping people from being ignorant of reality is essential to maintaining a funtional democracy. Misinforming the public is one of many ways of subverting a democracy and, as in the case of the US, turning it into a system of corporate fascism.

i understand, and perhaps they were being prudent. but it smacks of stalinism. i hope that chavez will reestablish something in its place for the people or something.

i understand, and perhaps they were being prudent. but it smacks of stalinism. i hope that chavez will reestablish something in its place for the people or something.

The truth about RCTV - a VIC briefing Print E-mail
In recent weeks a number of press articles have claimed that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is closing down the TV station RCTV and that this is a sign of increasing censorship and restrictions to the freedom of expression in Venezuela.

. .These are false allegations, circulated by opponents of the Chávez government as part of a politically motivated campaign to undermine support for the government. The truth about RCTV is very different and below the Venezuela Information Centre outlines the facts.

1) Is the Venezuelan government shutting down the RCTV Station?

Contrary to some reports, the RCTV station is not being closed down. Rather, the Venezuelan government has chosen not to renew RCTV’s licence to broadcast via Venezuela’s Channel Two when this expires on 27 May. RCTV will continue to be able to operate freely in Venezuela on the public airwaves on cable and on satellite, as will the many TV and radio stations that RCTV owner Empresas 1BC runs across Venezuela[i].

2) Why has the government decided not to renew RCTV’s licence?

As with other democracies, Venezuelan law allows the government the right to grant broadcast licences, renew them or let them expire. The government has made the decision not to renew because of RCTV’s violation of numerous laws – most notably the active support it gave to a military coup in April 2002 to overthrow the democratically-elected Chávez government.

In addition to its violation of laws that prohibit the incitement of political violence, RCTV has not co-operated with tax laws and has failed to pay fines issued by the Telecommunications Commission.

* RCTV’s involvement in the 2002 coup

In April 2002, a violent military coup temporarily overthrew the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. At least 13 people were killed and in the 48 hours that the coup plotters held power there was violent repression against those protesting for Chávez’s return and many were shot at by the police. The coup plotters overturned key components of Venezuela’s democratic constitution - closing down the elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other state institutions.

Sections of Venezuela’s private media – including RCTV – played an active role in supporting this coup which became known as the world’s first ‘media coup’. One of the coup leaders Vice-Admiral Victor Ramirez Perez, underlined the key role of the media in organising the coup, stating, “We had a deadly weapon – the media.” The media’s role is highlighted in the documentaries, The Revolution Will Not be Televised and the new John Pilger film The War on Democracy.[ii]

RCTV’s specific involvement included running adverts encouraging the public to take to the streets and to overthrow the democratically elected president.[iii] As www.venezuelanalysis.com highlighted, RCTV was the first to broadcast the false claim that Chávez’s supporters were shooting at opposition demonstrators, which then served as a justification for high level military generals to declare their disobedience to the government[iv] and RCTV also showed exclusive interviews with coup plotters.

RCTV’s involvement was publicly highlighted on a television chat show the day after the coup, where journalists and military plotters boasted of their collaboration in creating a violent confrontation that could be used to justify the overthrow of the government. In this exchange, one conspirator says: "I must thank Venevision and RCTV" for the role it played[v]. RCTV's participation was so extensive that its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice.

In addition to direct misrepresentation of events, RCTV also censored news reporting to try to stop the public from finding out what was really happening. RCTV's owner Marcel Granier ordered on the day of the coup and the following day that there was to be "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others" on the station. [vi] A managing producer of one of the station's news programmes affirmed this when testifying to the Venezuelan National Assembly. Instead, in the days of the coup, when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demand the return of President Chavez, RCTV showed only cartoons[vii]. This is in clear violation of regulations contained in Article 58 of the Venezuelan Constitution that guarantee Venezuelan citizens a right to "true and accurate information".

In no country would it be the case that media outlets which have not only called for, but also played a key role in organising the violent overthrow of a democratic government, would have their licence to broadcast renewed.

Following their support for the April 2002 military coup, sections of the media have continued to go beyond just expressing criticism of the democratic Venezuelan government by calling for its overthrow. For example, just a few months after the April 2002 military coup, a sabotage of the oil industry – Venezuela’s main source of revenue . .– was organised by industry employers with the intention of creating severe economic hardship that would lead to the overthrow of the Chavez government. It lasted for two months and saw Venezuela’s economy shrink in the first and second quarters of 2003 by 15 percent and 25 percent respectively. Again, the four main TV stations, including RCTV, ran a propaganda war against Chavez including broadcasting 17,600 ‘advertisements’ in support of the sabotage. Many of these were paid for by the TV stations themselves.[viii]

3) Is the non-renewal of the licence legal and have other governments made similar decisions?
Most countries regard the TV and radio airwaves as a public space that has to be regulated through laws and codes of conduct. Governments or delegated bodies are empowered to take action against any broadcaster that fails in its legally prescribed responsibilities.

Across the world, decisions not to renew licences to those who have violated these requirements are not unusual. A report by J. David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, found that there have been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV licences. [ix] In addition research conducted by the Venezuelan Ministry of Telecommunications shows that over 600 TV broadcasting licences have not been renewed all around the world.

In Venezuela, the regulations are based on Article 156 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the Organic Law of Telecommunications (2000) and the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (2004) Similarly, there are requirements on broadcasters in the US and Britain.

In the US, laws have long established standards to which all broadcasters must adhere. These are maintained by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which controls licensing and programming. The FCC has regularly denied licence renewals based on these standards and as an article in the Houston Chronicle noted, “it’s doubtful [RCTV’s] actions would last more than a few minutes with the FCC.”[x]

In Britain, TV and radio must adhere to the Broadcasting Code which embodies objectives that Parliament set down in the Communications Act of 2003. This states that “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services”[xi] and that “Broadcasters must use their best endeavors so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives.”[xii] RCTV’s role in the coup would have clearly violated these laws.

4) Will alternative views still be able to be expressed in Venezuela?
Much of the reporting of the non-renewal of the RCTV licence has implied that this station is a lone critical voice of the Chavez government. This could not be further from the truth.

It is estimated that 95 percent of the Venezuelan media is in opposition to President Chávez, and on a daily basis produces vitriolic ‘news pieces’ as well as editorials against the government.[xiii]. The private Venezuelan media includes five major television channels –Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión, Televen and CMT – which control at least 90 percent of the TV market, with smaller private stations controlling another five percent.[xiv] In addition all of the country’s 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are held in private hands, as are 99 percent of radio stations.[xv]

Venezuela’s media enjoys the freedom to report and express opinions without government interference. Despite the clear violations of laws and active support for the overthrowing of a democratic government, not a single TV or radio station has been closed by the government since President Chávez was elected in 1998.

However, two television channels have been shut down temporarily for political reasons, not by the government, but by opponents of President Chavez. One was the public station, Channel 8, which was shut down by the junta responsible for the coup as part of concerted efforts to prevent the truth from getting out. The second is the case of alternative station Catia TV, which was closed in July 2003 by the former Metropolitan Area Mayor, Alfredo Peña, an anti-Chávez member of the opposition and supporter of the April 2002 coup[xvi].

In fact, since the election of the President Chávez, the diversity of media has expanded. Venezuela’s Telecommunications Minister, Jesse Chacón, recently pointed out that during the Chávez presidency the number of TV channels have increased from 30 to 78 and the number of FM radio broadcasters from 368 to 617 since 1999.

5) What will replace RCTV on Channel Two?

In addition to RCTV’s failure to meet basic public interest standards, the Venezuelan government has also said that it has chosen to grant the licence to another broadcaster in order to democratise both access to and the content of the airwaves.

A new television station TEVES (Venezuelan Social Television) will begin airing on Channel Two once RCTV’s licence expires. Government Minister Jesse Chacon has said that TEVES will be similar in concept to that of European public service broadcasting, with the aim of creating space for diverse programming. He explained that the new channel will “break the editorial line that exists in the TV business, where the owner of the medium is the owner of the message” with independent TV producers creating the programmes for the new channel.[xvii] The Venezuelan Director of Public Policy of the Ministry of Communication and Information, Luisana Colomine, added that “Any person can participate in its production and no one will be excluded for belonging to one political party or another… That's part of the idea of public service”. [xviii]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Hugo Chávez and RCTV: Censorship or a legitimate decision? 7 February 2007 at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1954
[ii] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised can be viewed at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144 or a copy can be requested by e-mailing . For more information on The War on Democracy see www.johnpilger.com
[iii] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV. Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[iv] The footage which claimed to show Chavez supporters firing on innocent demonstrators, was actually scenes of pro-government demonstrators defending themselves while under fire from trained snipers who were killing people as shown in the film Llaguno Bridge: Keys to a Massacre at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wU0OIIEmY
[v] In the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
[vi] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm.
[vii] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[vii] Venezuelan Government Will Not Renew “Coup-Plotting” TV Station’s License 3 January 2007 at www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2182
[viii] Eva Gollinger quoted in www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.47_Telesur_ the_one.htm
[ix] See the full report http://www.rebelion.org/docs/47853.pdf
[x] Jones, Bart “Chavez as Castro? It’s not that simple in Venezuela,” Houston Chronicle, February 7, 2007.
[xi] Section 3.1 of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/ofcom-broadcasting-code.pdf
[xii] Section 3.6 of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/ofcom-broadcasting-code.pdf
[xiii] Press release from Council on Hemispheric Affairs 19 January 2007 http://www.coha.org/2007/01/19/hugo-chavez-the-media-and-everybody-else
[xiv] Press release from Council on Hemispheric Affairs 19 January 2007 http://www.coha.org/2007/01/19/hugo-chavez-the-media-and-everybody-else
[xv] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV. Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[xvi] http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n8281.html
[xvii] See Telecom Minister: New Channel Will Be First True Public TV in Venezuela, March 29 2007, www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2254
[xviii] Interview with Panorama, available at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2296

Nah. You don't need them. They simply make things worse. As for "ugly insurgencies", violence cannot be stopped with violence. It simply perpetuates the cycle. I take the fall of communism as my inspiration. People just quit it.

Actually, like all welfare statists, when he pretends to give to the poor he actually gives to the bureaucrats instead and perpetuates the control of the bureaucrats over them. If he really wanted to give to the poor, he would sell off Petroleos de Venezuela have give the proceeds to the poor. Or, even, better just give them shares which they could dispose of as they wished. But that would be relinquishing his control over them, wouldn't it?

Agreed.

people didnt just quit communism. it was actively undermined externally from the beginning.
my problem with this kind of attitude is summed up by someone else somewhere else:




'The main difference between communists and anarchists is that communists proceed from reality as it actually exists and work to transform it accordingly, while anarchists proceed from subjective idealism...what they WISH to be the case, and try to hammer reality into place to fit it. And that's precisely why they've never succeeded anywhere...they don't have any idea how to start with what exists and transform it into something else.

It is not possible to just jump straight from a situation of profound inequality and somehow create overnight, due to some insurrection or whatever, a whole new situation for the masses of people. You have to start with what IS, and transform it through protracted struggle. You have to understand the relation between consciousness and matter, between the economic base and the society that grows from that, and know how to struggle on all fronts to transform society. That takes a while. We need to go ahead and acknowlege that fact.

There's an old anecdote about a communist professor who's asked about this, and his response was, "Look, everyone can see that I'm fat. I've tried every sort of diet and sometimes I've made progress, but I put the weight back on. But I finally came up with a solution: I've decided that I'm going to skip the diet stage and go straight to being thin!"

Anarchists want to skip the diet stage. They want to skip the struggle, skip the leadership, skip the state as an expression of the people's will and a means for unlocking their potential, and somehow magically come to a classless, communist society.'




venezuela is successful, the lives of poor people have been improved. but it is because it has recognised concrete reality, how easy do you think it would be for organised power, with all their accumulated wealth etc to subvert a system of a loose federation of individuals? hugo chavez has acted as a figurehead, and provided protection, for the hundreds of social movements which have emerged since the 'caracazo'. its not that i am against the principles of anarchism, its just that you must be realistic in these matters, and until there is an example of a successful vision which has moved beyond the idealistic stage i remain convinced of the necessity for some kind of leadership.

I have to disagree, I do not feel that communism is any different than western democracy.

As an anarchist myself, i believe that central government of any kind breeds the inequities that are experienced by most nations. This is evident in the capitalist and communist class struggles.

A central government of any kind is not communism, either. In order for a society to be communist, it must be classless, which includes having no ruling class distinct from the ruled class. Direct democracy might be a possible form of communism, but there's no ruling class to enforce it, so it would be equivalent to anarchy. The major distinction communism makes with anarchy is with market anarchists, like the American Libertarian variety. Communism recognizes not only the danger of concentrated political power, but also of concentrated economic power. It goes somewhat further to require that intellectuals see to the education of the population. Those three things ensure the freedom of a country.

Concentrated political power is pretty obviously a bad thing, e.g. a dictatorship. Concentrated economic power is also a bad thing, e.g. any multinational or defense industry corporation you can name. Get rid of those concentrations and people will be free. But, that freedom is temporary. It wouldn't take long for warlords, gangs, and mafias to gain power in a decentralized system. A perfect example would be the Native American tribes prior to the European invasion.

Marriage laws are non-existent men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to the last minute and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man's head or at his hands.

They live in...


large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves.... They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of then; friends and expect the same degree of liberality. ...


And here's what Columbus had to say about them:


They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.


Las Casas, again:


Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians....


The problem that the Native Americans had was two-fold. Firstly, they were technologically behind their aggressors. If they had had a lot of people inventing and researching, and sharing their discoveries, it would have improved their quality of life and their ability to resist aggressors. Secondly, they were not prepared to organize rapidly. Staying connected and informed would have helped them to spread new ideas and knowledge, and to organize more efficiently against attackers. To get these two things, you need education to keep people aware of their necessity and interested in them, in addition to the education itself. That's how you go from a temporarily free society, such as the Native Americans had, to a permanently free society, such as is the goal of communism.

I feel the native americans, prior to the genocide, could have quite possibly been more advanced than the europeans in a natural way. they possessed great balance in their lives, and therefore knew not war.

The europeans, on the other hand, come from a perpetual dark age of war and pestilence. the fact that the europeans had guns and swordmetal is a testament to their lack of complexity. And where ever they went, they spread their dark age, even to this day.

Whoa, discussion here has come to praise the Colonel's recent activities regarding venezuelan press.

How... boring.

Whoa, discussion here has come to praise the Colonel's recent activities regarding venezuelan press.

How... boring.

so you agree with me then, that he shouldn't have done it? (and why is neo-liberal media shoving this down my american throat?)

Garrett, make a quick internet research for the name 'Gustavo Cisneros'.

Then you'll understand why was so important to close a medium-sized channel like RCTV to clear competition for a larger company.

Latin 'socialists' keep dreaming of a red revolution every time a Coronel reaches power. How sad.

read it. latin murdock

Garrett, make a quick internet research for the name 'Gustavo Cisneros'.

Then you'll understand why was so important to close a medium-sized channel like RCTV to clear competition for a larger company.

Latin 'socialists' keep dreaming of a red revolution every time a Coronel reaches power. How sad.


its not that a coronel came to power but how he came to power and how he maintained power - through the mass democratic mobilisation of civil society. a quick internet search will reveal the widespread empowerment of the people which has resulted.

also are you suggesting that gustavo cisneros actively encouraged or was behind the closure of RCTV? this seems a bit of an overcomplicated conspiracy theory considering a more obvious reason in RCTVs active coup orchestration, as well as a bit far fetched considering venevisions role in this coup also.

so you agree with me then, that he shouldn't have done it? (and why is neo-liberal media shoving this down my american throat?)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2048

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2049

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2050

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2052

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2053

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2054

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2058

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2059

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2070






The battle over the media is about race as well as class

The protests in Venezuela are motivated by more than a TV station. The oligarchy fears it is losing its right to run the country

Richard Gott in Caracas
Thursday June 7, 2007
The Guardian

After 10 days of rival protests in the streets of Caracas, memories have been revived of earlier attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez, now in its ninth year. Street demonstrations, culminating in an attempted coup in 2002 and a prolonged lock-out at the national oil industry, once seemed the last resort of an opposition unable to make headway at the polls. Yet the current unrest is a feeble echo of those tumultuous events, and the political struggle takes place on a smaller canvas. Today's battle is for the hearts and minds of a younger generation confused by the upheavals of an uncharted revolutionary process.

University students from privileged backgrounds have been pitched against newly enfranchised young people from the impoverished shantytowns, beneficiaries of the increased oil royalties spent on higher education projects for the poor. These separate groups never meet, but both sides occupy their familiar battleground within the city, one in the leafy squares of eastern Caracas, the other in the narrow and teeming streets in the west. This symbolic battle will become ever more familiar in Latin America in the years ahead: rich against poor, white against brown and black, immigrant settlers against indigenous peoples, privileged minorities against the great mass of the population. History may have come to an end in other parts of the world, but in this continent historical processes are in full flood.

Ostensibly the argument is about the media, and the government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of a prominent station, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), and to hand its frequencies to a newly established state channel. What are the rights of commercial television channels? What are the responsibilities of those funded by the state? Where should the balance between them lie? Academic questions in Europe and the US, the debate in Latin America is loud and impassioned. Here there is little tradition of public broadcasting, and commercial stations often received their licence in the days of military rule.

The debate in Venezuela has less to do with the alleged absence of freedom of expression than with a perennially tricky issue locally referred to as "exclusion", a shorthand term for "race" and "racism". RCTV was not just a politically reactionary organisation which supported the 2002 coup attempt against a democratically elected government - it was also a white supremacist channel. Its staff and presenters, in a country largely of black and indigenous descent, were uniformly white, as were the protagonists of its soap operas and the advertisements it carried. It was "colonial" television, reflecting the desires and ambitions of an external power.

At the final, close-down party of RCTV last month, those most in view on the screen were long-haired and pulchritudinous young blondes. Such images make for excellent television watching by European and North American males, and these languorous blondes are indeed familiar figures from the Miss World and Miss Universe competitions in which the children of recent immigrants from Europe are invariably Venezuela's chief contenders. Yet their ubiquity on the screen prevented the channel from presenting a mirror to the society that it sought to serve or to entertain. To watch a Venezuelan commercial station (and several still survive) is to imagine that you have been transported to the US. Everything is based on a modern, urban and industrialised society, remote from the experience of most Venezuelans. Their programmes, argues Aristóbulo Istúriz, until recently Chávez's minister of education (and an Afro-Venezuelan), encourage racism, discrimination and exclusion.

The new state-funded channels (and there are several of them too, plus innumerable community radio stations) are doing something completely different, and unusual in the competitive world of commercial television. Their programmes look as though they are taking place in Venezuela, and they display the cross-section of the population to be seen on cross-country buses or on the Caracas metro. As in every country in the world, not everyone in Venezuela is a natural beauty. Many are old, ugly and fat. Today they are given a voice and a face on the television channels of the state. Many are deaf or hard of hearing. Now they have sign language interpretation on every programme. Many are inarticulate peasants. They too have their moment on the screen. Their immediate and dangerous struggle for land is not just being observed by a documentary film-maker from the city. They are being taught to make the films themselves.

Blanca Eekhout, the head of Vive TV, the government's cultural channel, launched two years ago, coined the slogan "Don't watch television, make it". Classes in film-making have been set up all over the country. Lil Rodríguez, an Afro-Venezuelan journalist and the boss of TVES, the channel that replaces RCTV, claims that it will become "a useful space for rescuing those values that other models of television always ignore, especially our Afro-heritage". With time, the excluded will find a voice within the mainstream.

Little of this is under discussion in the dialogue of the deaf on the streets of Caracas. For the protesting university students, the argument about the media is just one more stick with which to hit out against the ever-popular Chávez. Yet as they mourn the loss of their favourite soap operas, they are already aware that their eventual loss may be more substantial. As children of the oligarchy, they might have expected soon to run the country. Now fresh faces are emerging from the shantytowns to challenge them, a new class educating itself at speed and planning to seize their birthright.

Just a few weeks ago, Chávez outlined his plans for university reform, encouraging wider access and the development of a different curriculum. New colleges and technical institutes across the country will dilute the prestige of the older establishments, still the preserve of the wealthy, and the battle over the media will soon be submerged in a wider struggle for educational reform. Chávez takes no notice of the complaints and simply soldiers on, with the characteristics of an evangelical preacher: he urges people to lead moral lives, live simply and resist the lure of consumerism. He is embarked on a challenge to the established order that has long prevailed in Venezuela and throughout the rest of Latin America, hoping that the message of his cultural revolution will soon echo across the continent.

Cisneros was (and is) a multimillionaire with his share in Venezuelan petrodollars. He played an active role in the coup'detat against Chavez in 2002 and was always a conservative figure in the country's politics. His own television, Venevisión is one of Venezuela's most popular channel and too played an important role in the coup.

But Cisneros is 'brother' of Chavez now. Why? Because he realized the new direction the government was taking and sided with Chavez in time for being one of the major leads in the recent "boli-burgeois". El Coronel too, being an adequate politician (and nothing more than that), sided with Cisnero's and the capitalist's huge resources. Then came the closing of RCTV with the stupid excuse of playing a part in the coup - while all of the coup leaders, including Cisneros AND the RCTV leaders, are still out of jail, why?

Why closing RCTV and keeping other coup players? Why allying with greedy Cisneros while playing the 'socialist' speech? Why closing RCTV *right now* after siding with Cisneros, and not before? Why are so many students and barrio workers protesting?

True, El Coronel has done important improvements for democracy -true democracy- in Venezuela, like helping organize barrio assemblies and community participation. But he's a politician, a player, and History is full of those who free with one hand and opress with the other.

I suggest some independent media sources like Radar de los Barrios, Indymedia Venezuela (partially dominated by "bolicrats" but still worthy of debate) and El Libertario.

what do you mean by bolicrat? i think i have an idea.

Bolicrat = bolivarian + bureaucrat

Cisneros was (and is) a multimillionaire with his share in Venezuelan petrodollars. He played an active role in the coup'detat against Chavez in 2002 and was always a conservative figure in the country's politics. His own television, Venevisión is one of Venezuela's most popular channel and too played an important role in the coup.

But Cisneros is 'brother' of Chavez now. Why? Because he realized the new direction the government was taking and sided with Chavez in time for being one of the major leads in the recent "boli-burgeois". El Coronel too, being an adequate politician (and nothing more than that), sided with Cisnero's and the capitalist's huge resources. Then came the closing of RCTV with the stupid excuse of playing a part in the coup - while all of the coup leaders, including Cisneros AND the RCTV leaders, are still out of jail, why?

Why closing RCTV and keeping other coup players? Why allying with greedy Cisneros while playing the 'socialist' speech? Why closing RCTV *right now* after siding with Cisneros, and not before? Why are so many students and barrio workers protesting?

True, El Coronel has done important improvements for democracy -true democracy- in Venezuela, like helping organize barrio assemblies and community participation. But he's a politician, a player, and History is full of those who free with one hand and opress with the other.

I suggest some independent media sources like Radar de los Barrios, Indymedia Venezuela (partially dominated by "bolicrats" but still worthy of debate) and El Libertario.



The media sources you provide are interesting and give a different criticism , but you refer to them as bolicrats , because you dont agree with them ? they refer to themselves as a 'network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations' whats bureaucratic ?

Though i am far from convinced by the anarchist versions of the situation , it probably comes down to what i explained above that it does not take into account concrete reality and acts accordingly from there . there are no alternatives put up for suggestion which could work in this specific context . as you say chavez has made great moves towards true democracy , amazing considering the situation beforehand and in neighbouring countries , and considering he is just an adequate politician! what would the anarchists have done differently ? would you dissolve the state and leave the people to fend for themselves ? i would just like to know , the closest i could find to actual proposed solutions was to simply not vote , which thankfully was not the most popular option , but would you agree with that ?

RCTV is interesting , it was involved in the coup and even after continued to represent a small minority calling for the removal of chavez , chavez didnt shut it down which is the interesting thing , but it allowed him to say he was conciliatory , which is unsurprising given the international pressure that would have inevitably followed , especially considering the outcry when he simply refused to renew its licence . i suggest you read some of the links i provided on the circumstances -



'The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela's electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.

Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country's social and economic stability.

What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn't be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is.you don't get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems.

When RCTV's broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.'




RCTV continued to break the rules , unfortunately venevision did not ! conspiracies of alliances are unnecessary if you consider this .

why else do you oppose the closure of RCTV ? is it attacking free speech ? did it represent free speech to begin with ? what do you think of the new TVes?

Just finished reading all the fascinating discussion here, and decided to share my owns thoughts with you. I wrote a lot more than I originally intended (hence the spoiler), but if anyone can be bothered to read it, I'd be interested to hear your response to part or all of it.


While I am, in some ways, sympathetic to philosophical anarchism (which seems to be at the heart of the discussion here), I feel it is beset by a number of unavoidable problems:

1) Conflict/competition of some kind exists as a factor in all human relationships. Put simply, none of us really wants to be 'equal'. We want to be wittier, smarter, prettier, stronger, wealthier or more virtuous (etc. etc.), that is to say better or more successful, than someone (or everyone) else. Of course, we don't all give value to the same things - for some fortune and fame is the greatest goal, for others intelligence or wisdom, for others sporting or sexual prowess (etc). This is by no means the only thing that we want, or even the most important, but it has always been and will always be a characteristic of human relationships - to deny it is to deny an essential part of our humanity. If competition between individuals is not to become intolerably destructive, then some authority is required to umpire or referee; to enforce a set of rules under which that competition takes place.

2) There are two things in this world more dangerous than the state: the first is nature. The universe is not naturally friendly to us. Unless we have some religious belief, the idea of a benevolent hand 'tending the light at the end of the tunnel' (to use Hunter S. Thompson's phrase) is not one on which we can base any rational decisions. Sometimes the world does help us out, and everything goes according to our wishes, but at other times things can go drastically, terribly wrong for us through no fault of our own. Moreover, for each of us, one of the things which can make things go terribly wrong for us is the action of other human beings. To protect ourselves against the vicissitudes of nature, and the actions of others, we have recourse only to collective action (or total self-abnegation, which is the most complete denial of humanity). In some cases (many more than contemporary states tend to assume), voluntary collective action can be entirely sufficient. But in some other cases, voluntary action cannot or will not be effective in addressing the problem at hand - a measure of organisation and even coercion can be necessary. A society which abandons hierarchies of power, and with them the means to swiftly and decisively employ the capacities of that society, is one which will have no decent answer to a sudden and devastating natural or man-made disaster (including organised aggression), or even to many longer-term problems in which some individuals must lose out in the short-term to insure everyone's future (environmental issues spring to mind).

3) The other thing more dangerous than the state is public opinion. Humans disagree with each other pretty much constantly. This is a good thing - indeed, it is the very essence of human creativity, without which we as a species would still be clinging desperately to a bare existence. However, disagreement also holds the potential for division, opposition, conflict and violence, and as a result many of us tend (quite justly) to fear it. Hence, those who disagree with the majority on any issue of collective importance are always likely to be the target of criticism or worse. Majorities do not naturally respect or tolerate minorities, and no sane minority would be content to trust a purely majoritarian arrangement - in many cases armed insurrection offers a better hope. Whether it is an individual or a group who make up the minority in any given case, the development of a hostile public opinion represents a threat of the gravest kind. Moreover, in many cases the repression of difference causes harm to the society (and even humankind as a whole) by restricting the vital, dynamic creativity which allows us to adapt and develop. In the absence of a mutually-recognised authority, empowered to balance and mediate between the beliefs, interests and identities of the various individuals and groups within a society, and to constrain public opinion by ensuring a plurality of views receive attention, there is no brake on the tyrannical instincts of the majority, except the violent resistance of the minority.

4) The world is getting smaller. Local-level organisation is capable of dealing with many more problems than most governments accept, but there are still many problems for which a local solution is no solution at all. Indeed, solutions to localised problems can often prove to be the cause of problems for the wider world. Moreover, the flip-side of localism is parochialism - the narrowing of a community's concerns to those in which it is directly interested, the problem being that the indirect effects of actions taken outside the community can have serious consequences upon it (and that the community's own actions will have similar effects elsewhere). Larger-scale organisation, and the mediation between different localities, is impossible without hierarchical power relationships and a certain amount of coercive force to ensure no part acts in such a way as to cause intolerable harm to the rest.

Now, if all this has got you thinking I'm espousing some kind of Hobbesian authoritarian state, you'd be wrong (though I don't deny that reading Hobbes has influenced my thinking in some ways). I recognise that the ideal of complete freedom from hierarchy and coercion is a valid one, and that a person's freedom and dignity is compromised to the extent that others have power over him/her. But, I also recognise that there are other things which can deny an individual's freedom and dignity, and that there are many things besides freedom and dignity which have value (whether or not I value them myself) and should be taken into account when considering how a society should be organised. Just about the worst thing we can do is to put one value, one idea of 'the good', or one notion of 'right' above all others to the extent that it alone commands our complete obedience. Even religions, inasmuch as they do not adopt a fundamentalist creed, tend to emphasise the many-sided nature of 'the good', whereby humans are often forced to choose between one good (or bad) and another.

I think Aristotle had it right: the difficulty is not to figure out what is good, but to strike the best balance between different goods. The state, in its current form, certainly does not do that. But neither the abolition nor the wholesale extension of authority offers a solution to our problems (either would be worse than the current arrangement in many ways). We need the ideal, principled notions of freedom and equality (etc.) to guide us as we choose our collective path. But we should always beware of denying one aspect of our humanity in order to conform more completely to the principles derived from another.

While I am, in some ways, sympathetic to philosophical anarchism (which seems to be at the heart of the discussion here), I feel it is beset by a number of unavoidable problems:

1) Conflict/competition of some kind exists as a factor in all human relationships. Put simply, none of us really wants to be 'equal'. We want to be wittier, smarter, prettier, stronger, wealthier or more virtuous (etc. etc.), that is to say better or more successful, than someone (or everyone) else. Of course, we don't all give value to the same things - for some fortune and fame is the greatest goal, for others intelligence or wisdom, for others sporting or sexual prowess (etc). This is by no means the only thing that we want, or even the most important, but it has always been and will always be a characteristic of human relationships - to deny it is to deny an essential part of our humanity. If competition between individuals is not to become intolerably destructive, then some authority is required to umpire or referee; to enforce a set of rules under which that competition takes place.

2) There are two things in this world more dangerous than the state: the first is nature. The universe is not naturally friendly to us. Unless we have some religious belief, the idea of a benevolent hand 'tending the light at the end of the tunnel' (to use Hunter S. Thompson's phrase) is not one on which we can base any rational decisions. Sometimes the world does help us out, and everything goes according to our wishes, but at other times things can go drastically, terribly wrong for us through no fault of our own. Moreover, for each of us, one of the things which can make things go terribly wrong for us is the action of other human beings. To protect ourselves against the vicissitudes of nature, and the actions of others, we have recourse only to collective action (or total self-abnegation, which is the most complete denial of humanity). In some cases (many more than contemporary states tend to assume), voluntary collective action can be entirely sufficient. But in some other cases, voluntary action cannot or will not be effective in addressing the problem at hand - a measure of organisation and even coercion can be necessary. A society which abandons hierarchies of power, and with them the means to swiftly and decisively employ the capacities of that society, is one which will have no decent answer to a sudden and devastating natural or man-made disaster (including organised aggression), or even to many longer-term problems in which some individuals must lose out in the short-term to insure everyone's future (environmental issues spring to mind).

3) The other thing more dangerous than the state is public opinion. Humans disagree with each other pretty much constantly. This is a good thing - indeed, it is the very essence of human creativity, without which we as a species would still be clinging desperately to a bare existence. However, disagreement also holds the potential for division, opposition, conflict and violence, and as a result many of us tend (quite justly) to fear it. Hence, those who disagree with the majority on any issue of collective importance are always likely to be the target of criticism or worse. Majorities do not naturally respect or tolerate minorities, and no sane minority would be content to trust a purely majoritarian arrangement - in many cases armed insurrection offers a better hope. Whether it is an individual or a group who make up the minority in any given case, the development of a hostile public opinion represents a threat of the gravest kind. Moreover, in many cases the repression of difference causes harm to the society (and even humankind as a whole) by restricting the vital, dynamic creativity which allows us to adapt and develop. In the absence of a mutually-recognised authority, empowered to balance and mediate between the beliefs, interests and identities of the various individuals and groups within a society, and to constrain public opinion by ensuring a plurality of views receive attention, there is no brake on the tyrannical instincts of the majority, except the violent resistance of the minority.

4) The world is getting smaller. Local-level organisation is capable of dealing with many more problems than most governments accept, but there are still many problems for which a local solution is no solution at all. Indeed, solutions to localised problems can often prove to be the cause of problems for the wider world. Moreover, the flip-side of localism is parochialism - the narrowing of a community's concerns to those in which it is directly interested, the problem being that the indirect effects of actions taken outside the community can have serious consequences upon it (and that the community's own actions will have similar effects elsewhere). Larger-scale organisation, and the mediation between different localities, is impossible without hierarchical power relationships and a certain amount of coercive force to ensure no part acts in such a way as to cause intolerable harm to the rest.

Now, if all this has got you thinking I'm espousing some kind of Hobbesian authoritarian state, you'd be wrong (though I don't deny that reading Hobbes has influenced my thinking in some ways). I recognise that the ideal of complete freedom from hierarchy and coercion is a valid one, and that a person's freedom and dignity is compromised to the extent that others have power over him/her. But, I also recognise that there are other things which can deny an individual's freedom and dignity, and that there are many things besides freedom and dignity which have value (whether or not I value them myself) and should be taken into account when considering how a society should be organised. Just about the worst thing we can do is to put one value, one idea of 'the good', or one notion of 'right' above all others to the extent that it alone commands our complete obedience. Even religions, inasmuch as they do not adopt a fundamentalist creed, tend to emphasise the many-sided nature of 'the good', whereby humans are often forced to choose between one good (or bad) and another.

I think Aristotle had it right: the difficulty is not to figure out what is good, but to strike the best balance between different goods. The state, in its current form, certainly does not do that. But neither the abolition nor the wholesale extension of authority offers a solution to our problems (either would be worse than the current arrangement in many ways). We need the ideal, principled notions of freedom and equality (etc.) to guide us as we choose our collective path. But we should always beware of denying one aspect of our humanity in order to conform more completely to the principles derived from another.




my response

1. I starkly disagree. Perhaps competition is ubiquitous in Competitive types, I wholly do not think that all humans possess destructive competitiveness. Your blanket stereotype falls short if you were to meet many of my neighborhood friends. Yes many humans are competitive jerks, but i would not lump this description on all people. It just not a feature, IMO, of human nature.

2. BS. BS. BS. example: new orleans. more people died there because the government's politically-motivated inaction. I think if Haliburton hadn't been put in charge of the disaster effort, and perhaps the national guard wansn't there shooting people, perhaps the many more of the cities populace wouldn't be dead or homeless.
And Don't forget Global Warming (our fault, and the corporate government suppresses to this day electric vehicles)

3. You sound like a media propagandist when you say that "public opinion" is dangerous. Yes the state would think so. We live in a "fake democracy" where what little of "public opinion" still remains, is completely distorted by the media (which is not the "liberal" media, it is the "Neo-Liberal" media). Your sickening, Dark Side look at freedom of choice and freedom of thought is disturbing.

4. (each one you write makes me successively more angry ;) ) Local-level organization, as you put it does not nessassarily mean there will be furthering gaps in the distribution of wealth. What you are insinuating is personally offensive to me because my "non anarchistic" dream for the world is washington dc crumbling and the states being forced to fend for themselves. The only time I have ever felt truly "democratic" is when i vote for the local level legislation. Federal level government has absolutey ZERO democracy and reminds me of my childhood impressions of the Soviet Union.

.
.
.
I find myself wondering what social class you are a part of. Are you upper or lower, or perhaps bourgeoisie...? I'm gonna guess you are a democrat, as well? I'm gonna guess you will vote for clinton too. Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to vote for a president this time around, since we will only be offered one of two factions to choose from, within our SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM

:vomit: Aristotle

something worth looking at
Anarchosyndicalism by Rudolph Rocker (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html)

Thanks for the response, and I'll check out that link when I've got time.

:hmm: Where to begin...


I find myself wondering what social class you are a part of. Are you upper or lower, or perhaps bourgeoisie...? I'm gonna guess you are a democrat, as well? I'm gonna guess you will vote for clinton too. Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to vote for a president this time around, since we will only be offered one of two factions to choose from, within our SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM


Strange thing, that: I never wondered about anyone else's social class when reading their posts - are you perhaps a little over-sensitive to people's class backgrounds? But, since you ask, I guess now that I've been to university I'd have to say middle-class (graduates who call themselves working-class = :cringe: ), though I was a factory-worker/truck-driver (and part-time musician) for several years before that. I'll have to hold off telling you exactly how middle-class I am until I get a job (I graduate this weekend).

I won't be voting in that election because I'm British, but if I could I suppose I'd vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils (always the choice when voting, imo) - that I disagree with many of their policies doesn't change the fact that the alternative would surely be much worse. Also, to call the US system 'single party' is completely innaccurate - there are two parties, and for all they agree on (much of which I personally disagree with) there are many major differences between them. I spent the last year researching and writing a paper on the nature of the liberal-conservative divide: the divisions in the US electorate and between the two parties are not as stark as many suggest, but there are fundamental disagreements over both principle and policy - much more so than in the current British electorate and major political parties.


1. I starkly disagree. Perhaps competition is ubiquitous in Competitive types, I wholly do not think that all humans possess destructive competitiveness. Your blanket stereotype falls short if you were to meet many of my neighborhood friends. Yes many humans are competitive jerks, but i would not lump this description on all people. It just not a feature, IMO, of human nature.


Your attitude to competition is one I have encountered on many occasions, but have never heard explained in any coherent way (perhaps you could change that...). In my experience, everyone has a competitive streak which, though it may be a very small part of their personality, has some effect on their relationships.

Let me put it this way: in our current society, and all known human societies (including the most egalitarian tribal societies), there is competition (at the least) for sustenance, status and sexual partners. If you desire to survive or to reproduce, then you must engage in competition of some kind. But most (all who have not been utterly downtrodden) also wish to see themselves as (and to be seen as) successful in some way. Whether this is a matter of wealth, spirituality, moral uprightness, political awareness, etc. is of little consequence as far as this argument is concerned. The key point is that we can only judge ourselves (and can only be judged by others to be) successful in comparison to other people.

Even if there were, as you suggest, many people who have no competitive instincts whatsoever, how are those who do have these instincts (in abundance) to be restricted from terrorising everyone else? The only viable answer yet provided is to create institutions to contain and channel those instincts, hopefully to the greater good, but at least to restrain their most destructive and tyrannical urges. Regrettably, this necessarily requires a certain amount of authority and coercion, at least in the large and interdependent societies of the modern world.

I do not say that our current societies have achieved a satisfactory solution to this problem (I don't believe there is any ultimate solution, but we could do much better than at present), but that authority and coercion cannot be entirely removed from our societies unless humans are completely stripped of their humanity (which is the ultimate form of coercion and authority - to force humans to become other than they are and wish to be). Also, I would add that competition, in some forms at least, can be a good thing if channelled in the right directions - it can drive us to achieve things which are of great benefit to humanity (which was the central point of Nietzsche's socio-political thought).


2. BS. BS. BS. example: new orleans. more people died there because the government's politically-motivated inaction. I think if Haliburton hadn't been put in charge of the disaster effort, and perhaps the national guard wansn't there shooting people, perhaps the many more of the cities populace wouldn't be dead or homeless.
And Don't forget Global Warming (our fault, and the corporate government suppresses to this day electric vehicles)


Ok, firstly, don't say 'BS'. It undermines your position, not mine. If you want to convince people, rather than just shouting slogans at them (which is the major failing of the left in the West, imo), then you need to strive to sound reasonable at all times. Check out Moscovici's research on minority influence (or watch 'Twelve Angry Men') if you don't get my point.

I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of the US government with regards to New Orleans and its attitudes to many of its own (poor) citizens. But you conflate the current US government with government per se, which is justified neither by theory nor practice. That a government is wildly corrupt, callous and immoral does not mean that all government is necessarily the same. At the present time there is significant flooding in parts of the UK, and without the efforts of state-run services and co-ordination at the national level by central government, the many people left stranded, homeless and destitute would have little hope for the future (charity will only go so far - it will take a hell of a lot of state action to complete the reconstruction in a timely and stable manner).

On global warming, I'd agree that states have tended to be part of the problem (hell, everyone in the West has been part of the problem). But they can also be part of whatever solutions we manage to come up with - through the regulation of human behaviour by carrot (tax incentives for green initiatives) and stick (legal regulation), governments have a crucial role to play in reducing carbon emissions and other environmental damage. The US government is rightly condemned around the world for its laissez faire approach to the environment, but there are other governments (both local and national) which do play a positive role - check out the German government's policies over the last 20 years, for example.

No time to reply to your other responses right now. Back later.

Strange thing, that: I never wondered about anyone else's social class when reading their posts - are you perhaps a little over-sensitive to people's class backgrounds?

unfortunately, often when one becomes truly aware of the class struggle and class war, one can even become classist. I just wanted to know who was saying the things written. I did not guess your nationality, but your class I had guessed.



The key point [of competition] is that we can only judge ourselves (and can only be judged by others to be) successful in comparison to other people.
I do not measure success by comparison. The fundamental idea of this assumption is flawed. When you compare yourself to others truthfully, you would have to take into account people's life styles, history, and mind set. In addition, you would have to ask if they were happy or not, and that can be difficult to truly know. And so could go for the people judging you (assuming they aren't sterotypers). My measure of success is not the same as yours. But I'm sure you have reasons in your life that i might not understand that would collaborate with you view of success.


Even if there were, as you suggest, many people who have no competitive instincts whatsoever, how are those who do have these instincts (in abundance) to be restricted from terrorising everyone else? The only viable answer yet provided is to create institutions to contain and channel those instincts, hopefully to the greater good, but at least to restrain their most destructive and tyrannical urges. Regrettably, this necessarily requires a certain amount of authority and coercion, at least in the large and interdependent societies of the modern world.
just because I'm an anarch does not mean I will allow myself or the people I love to be dominated. Much as the syndicalists did in 1936 spanish revolution, I would defend my community. From terrorists of any stripe.

I do not say that our current societies have achieved a satisfactory solution to this problem Good and repeat this to yourself like a mantra.

Also, I would add that competition, in some forms at least, can be a good thing if channelled in the right directions - it can drive us to achieve things which are of great benefit to humanity (which was the central point of Nietzsche's socio-political thought).Hmm, thats not entirely what i got from Nietzsche.


Ok, firstly, don't say 'BS'. It undermines your position, not mine. If you want to convince people, rather than just shouting slogans at them (which is the major failing of the left in the West, imo), then you need to strive to sound reasonable at all times. Check out Moscovici's research on minority influence (or watch 'Twelve Angry Men') if you don't get my point.

They make us watch that stupid movie (TwelveAngryMen) in grammar school constantly. And if i called BS on you, I apologize if that offended you. Instead I could have called shenanigans on you (call you a liar). Your mother-nature-is-more-dangerous-than-the-state paragraph perhaps deserved laughter, instead.


But you conflate the current US government with government per se, which is justified neither by theory nor practice. That a government is wildly corrupt, callous and immoral does not mean that all government is necessarily the same. I do not do not compare or contrast governments because I feel there is no need to. Wild corruption, callous indifference, and lack of ethics are features I attribute to nearly all governments; they are almost always the key descriptive features. When was the last time you were wrongfully arrested, I ask? And telling me that britain is different, while britain is going through a Big Brother era with fascist resurgence.

On global warming, I'd agree that states have tended to be part of the problem (hell, everyone in the West has been part of the problem). another great mantra for you to repeat frequently.

3. You sound like a media propagandist when you say that "public opinion" is dangerous. Yes the state would think so. We live in a "fake democracy" where what little of "public opinion" still remains, is completely distorted by the media (which is not the "liberal" media, it is the "Neo-Liberal" media). Your sickening, Dark Side look at freedom of choice and freedom of thought is disturbing.


I fear you've got things backwards here. The mass media (and hence its propagandists) consistently tell us that public opinion is the one true source of legitimate authority. While to a limited extent (in some cases) this is inspired by a genuinely democratic sentiment, more often it simply reflects the fact that the mass media is the main leader of public opinion, and hence is an attempt by those in the media (and their bosses) to assert their own power over government and, hence, society. In large societies (ie. all 'modern' societies), public opinion is necessarily mediated opinion; it is constructed in the media sphere, wherein the various beliefs and opinions of individuals and groups are represented, distorted and influenced by those who control the flow of information.

Public opinion, in this sense, is a thoroughly modern development. Remove mass media from the equation, and you no longer have public opinion in any meaningful sense; instead, you have the myriad different, and conflicting, opinions of the population (not the same as the public). It should be obvious to you why I regard this kind of public opinion as more dangerous than the state: it wields power, and demands to wield absolute power, over both state and society, and, in presenting the population's opinions as a single, uniform public opinion, claims the right to condemn any individual, group, belief, practice (etc.) as it sees fit. In some cases, this merely legitimises (or, rather, claims to legitimise) the iniquitous and authoritarian deployment of state power; in many others, it actually demands and drives the creation of such policies.

However, I would also argue that unmediated public opinion can be very dangerous as well. I grew up in a small rural town, where everyone knew each other and so a 'communal sentiment' (the small-town version of public opinion) was able to develop. So long as there was some vague sense that a majority of the community (or at least majority of the most influential individuals therein) held a common opinion, that opinion was henceforth taken to be the opinion of the community. Those condemned by this opinion (whether for their lifestyle, their political beliefs, or even their dress sense) tended to be criticised, bullied and ostracised by the community. Were it not for the existence of state power (ie. the law), there were occasions when I suspect that certain individuals would have been at least beaten up by this 'community', and perhaps even hung from the nearest tree.

To give an example you may be more familiar with, it was only when the state (belatedly) began to intervene that the activities of the KKK (which, may I remind you, was driven and supported by many localised public opinions of this latter type) were curtailed. The rule of public opinion can too easily become the rule of the lynch mob.


4. (each one you write makes me successively more angry ;) ) Local-level organization, as you put it does not nessassarily mean there will be furthering gaps in the distribution of wealth. What you are insinuating is personally offensive to me because my "non anarchistic" dream for the world is washington dc crumbling and the states being forced to fend for themselves. The only time I have ever felt truly "democratic" is when i vote for the local level legislation. Federal level government has absolutey ZERO democracy and reminds me of my childhood impressions of the Soviet Union.


Firstly, don't let political arguments make you angry, no matter how much you disagree with them, and never take personal offence to a general argument. You will be much more able to counter an argument if you treat it dispassionately (this is not to say 'take a neutral stance', but rather 'keep your emotions in check when reading or listening to an argument' - easier said than done, I know).

Local level legislation and government can indeed be much more democratic than that it could ever be at the national level (which is not to say that it always is more democratic). The problem is that, by definition, local level politics is concerned only with what concerns local people. In many cases this is unproblematic, as the effects of local decisions have little reach beyond the locality itself. But in some very important cases local decisions can have profound effects on communities and individuals in the outside world. To mediate between localities, and to prevent injustice at the local level (as in the lynch mob case above) some superior authority is needed.

The key is not to allow this superior authority to accumulate too much power, and so to become tyrannical over both the individual and local communities. It will, of course, always strive to do so (the same is true of local government) - such is the nature of power (or, as Nietzsche calls it, 'the will to power'). But so long as people maintain a healthy scepticism about those who seek power, it is usually possible to keep government on a short-enough leash. The difficulty, for both your society and mine, is that too many people place too much trust in their leaders, or else feel themselves to be powerless in the face of the state.

The latter is a mistake; as demonstrated by so many grassroots movements around the world (the anti-abortion movement in the US is a prime example, though not one for which I have any affinity; the civil rights movement, for which I have great affinity, was also like this), governments can be forced to change their policies if enough people organise to make their feelings known. The process of change is often a depressingly long one, but, as your favourite film ( :rolleyes: ) shows us, by sticking resolutely to their point, by acting reasonably (the frequent failure to do so is perhaps the reason why the Pro-Life movement has not had more success; ditto the animal rights movement in the UK), and by striving above all to persuade other people to support their cause, change can be brought about.

You should also be careful before dismissing the power of the vote. Even in present day America, where I don't doubt that a serious level of electoral corruption has set in (though more in terms of gerrymandering and party funding, than actual vote fraud - but the effect is the same), politicians cannot afford to ignore the opinions of those who vote. This doesn't mean that any given voter will necessarily get anything that he/she wants, but it does mean that politicians (for whom votes are the principal means to their ultimate goal: power) will always pay attention to what the voters want. Hence, if a movement can convince enough people that their cause is important enough to influence who they vote for, then politicians will start to change their policies (if only for their own selfish reasons).

As I suggested in my previous post, the great failure of the left in the West has been its overemphasis on preaching to the converted (through slogans and over-intellectualised arguments which actually turn the majority of people away from leftist politics - 'political correctness' in particular has been a disastrous failure, the term now signifying the left's 'anti-freedom' agenda to many people). Only when the left realises that it should direct its arguments to the non-believers, not the believers, will it have the chance to recover any meaningful political power either in the US or Britain.


:vomit: Aristotle


:lol: I take it you're a Plato fan... :mischief:

Seriously, though, there's a lot of good stuff in Aristotle's work. I wouldn't for a moment say I agree with most of his conclusions (the same goes for Hobbes, Nietzsche and Machiavelli; the other three thinkers to whom I owe the greatest debt for my own political understandings), but I see his explanation of 'the good' as a range of different (and at times conflicting) goods as offering a more accurate, sensitive and egalitarian view of morality and the ends of politics than can be found anywhere else.

unfortunately, often when one becomes truly aware of the class struggle and class war, one can even become classist. I just wanted to know who was saying the things written. I did not guess your nationality, but your class I had guessed.


One thing I've realised in the past few years of researching political/moral beliefs is that social class is a very bad indicator of an individual's beliefs. This is not to say that there are no general trends (middle-class people do tend to favour lower taxes, for example), but that there is always a significant minority in any social group whose opinions are different, and even opposed, to those of the majority of their peers. Assuming things about people on the basis of their social class has little more validity than assuming things about people based on the colour of their skin.


I do not measure success by comparison.


Not directly, maybe, but any meaningful notion of success is necessarily comparative; without others to compare oneself to, there is no way of defining success. This is inherent in the social/existentialist refutation of Descartes' maxim 'I think therefore I am'. In the absence of an 'other', it is impossible to conceive of the self (there is no 'I'). So in assessing oneself, one only has recourse to comparison with others.

I think perhaps I have been a little confusing in my earlier explanation. I certainly do not mean that each of us strives to dominate over others (Nietzsche's view), or that we all take a consciously competetive view of our interactions and relationships. What I mean is that competition is an inescapable part of the underlying nature of human beings and human relationships. To the extent that each of us strives to succeed, each of us strives to be better than others in some way. And striving for success is what makes human life valuable - if we were all simply content to survive, and nothing more, there would be no art, no honour or virtue, and no morality. (This is by no means a justification for 'capitalism' - 'natural competition' is one of the most laughably pathetic arguments ever deployed in its favour).

The problem, as you well understand, is that competition can be destructive too. Hence, it must somehow be restrained if some individuals are not to impose (by force or fraud) their wills upon the rest of humanity (Nietzsche argued that those who could impose their will in this way, should do so - this being the 'master morality' - the central point of my disagreement with him). However, in restraining the worst kinds of competitiveness, it would be all too easy to end up crushing the spirit of natural competition by which human beings invest value in the things they choose to do. Hence, any solution to the problem of competition must avoid seeing competition itself as a problem - it is the effects of excessive or overly self-concerned competition that must be regulated, not the natural fact of human competitiveness (which is as much a part of 'being human' as a sense of sympathy or community).


just because I'm an anarch does not mean I will allow myself or the people I love to be dominated. Much as the syndicalists did in 1936 spanish revolution, I would defend my community. From terrorists of any stripe.


But surely it would be better to insure the continued freedom and security of one's community through institutions and arguments, than through inter-communal violence. Of course, there are times when the former fail, and one has recourse only to the latter. But, imo, whenever there is a chance of preserving (and extending) freedom and security through peaceful means, we ought to grab the opportunity with both hands. Resorting to the gun is rarely a safe way to protect oneself in the long term (and, as Gandhi put it, 'means are to ends as the seed is to the tree' - violent means tend to produce violent ends). By putting in place an authority with the power to mediate between communities, we can prevent many disputes from ever reaching a stage where two groups need to fight one another (with the proviso, as ever, that we keep that authority on as short a leash as possible, and do not allow it to become too closely associated with any one community - again, the threat from public opinion looms large).


And if i called BS on you, I apologize if that offended you. Instead I could have called shenanigans on you (call you a liar).


You didn't offend me (years of relentless argument with ideologues of all stripes has taught me not to take things personally when discussing politics). I was offering you some advice as to how you can best persuade people that your pov is worth considering (again, learned over many years of arguing with people I disagree with). And whatever you might call me, 'liar' is entirely inappropriate. I might be wrong (though, of course, I don't think so), but I'm not trying to fool you in any way. I see the use of deception in political debate as utterly counter-productive; partly because you always get found out in the end, and partly because, again referring to Gandhi's argument, if deception is part of the means you use, then the chances are it will be part of the ends you produce.


I do not do not compare or contrast governments because I feel there is no need to. Wild corruption, callous indifference, and lack of ethics are features I attribute to nearly all governments; they are almost always the key descriptive features.


We're closer together here than you might think. I agree that the natural tendency of governments is to become corrupt, indifferent to suffering, and immoral. Where I disagree, however, is on the question of whether we can do without them. As should be fairly clear by now, I feel there are a number of very difficult questions that need answering if any notion of a stateless modern society is to be made coherent. Personally, I don't hold any great hope of those questions being answered without posing even more difficult questions in their place.

Above all, I fear the consequences of some experiment in a radically new social model produced by revolutionary action - there have been many attempts to change society in such a way; very few (perhaps none) have produced the results they set out to achieve, and many have made much worse the lives of many people. By the same token, when striving to create a better world, we must avoid at all costs using the people of a particular time and place as guinea pigs for our political experiments. Not only is this to treat them as means rather than ends in themselves, but it also runs (yet again) into Gandhi's means/end warning.


When was the last time you were wrongfully arrested, I ask?


I've never been arrested, wrongfully or otherwise. Generally, in my lifetime and in the part of the world in which I live, the police have not tended to be as corrupt and, most importantly, as politicised as those (I assume) you have had to deal with. I have seen friends of mine arrested (including an anarchist, for throwing rocks at the police - who, I might add, had been very restrained up to that point, and did not give him a beating; indeed, he was released the next day with only a caution), but none have ever been sent to jail for a crime they did not commit (a couple did get sent away for crimes they did commit). I do not doubt for one second that there are corrupt police in Britain, and that some minorities are treated unjustly by the police. But I see this as a cause for greater public scrutiny and accountability of the police force, rather than for its outright abolition. The fact that in my city there is no police-community tension, despite us having several large immigrant populations and some fairly deprived housing estates, is demonstration enough for me that policing can be sensitive and non-oppressive.


And telling me that britain is different, while britain is going through a Big Brother era with fascist resurgence.


Fascist resurgence? Our exceptionally high levels of immigration would suggest otherwise, as would the impending departure of our 'beloved' ( :rolleyes: ) Mr Blair. We are still free to speak out on whatever issues concern us. And, while parts of the British media are undoubtedly partisan, they are not all partisan in the same direction, and other parts actively seek to show different points of view. The 'Big Brother' bit is indeed a concern, though it is being driven more by public opinion than by the politicians themselves (though some of them do play a significant role) - terrorist attacks always produce this kind of effect (it was the same with the IRA); the public, too easily frightened by the stories in the media (sensational stories selling more newspapers than sober ones, the media will always tend to make things seem worse than they really are) cry out for the politicians do something. The politicians, knowing a vote-winner when they see one, are only to happy to oblige, given that the extension of their own powers is nearly always welcome.

For all that, though, a movement against the more authoritarian impulses of the current regime has been gaining ground in recent months, and several notable politicians have started to see that there are votes in the anti-authoritarian position. Indeed, because us anti-authoritarian types are more likely to cast our votes on questions of authority than the rest of society, it may be that there are more votes to be had in opposing ID cards and repressive 'anti-terror' measures than there are in supporting them.

And while it may not be completely different, the British government is nothing like a facsimile of its US counterpart. For one thing we have very sensibly (imo) avoided letting a politician be our head of state. To have a monarch may seem bizarre, anachronistic and unegalitarian (indeed, in some ways it is all of those things). But by giving someone ultimate power on the condition that they never, ever use it, we avoid having to place a politician (always the most dangerous kind of human being) in a position where he/she can claim that his/her office represents the true voice of the people. We pay the Queen and her family vast sums of money, shower them with honours, and offer them our undying devotion on the single condition that they never actually do anything. As the unpopularity of Prince Charles shows, a royal who can't keep his mouth shut runs the risk of alienating the people and, potentially, fomenting a more republican sentiment amongst them.

I really was going to comment on this topic, but your discussions got kinda big.

/me lazy

I really was going to comment on this topic, but your discussions got kinda big.

/me lazy

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Once I get going I just keep thinking of more stuff I want to say. And I've got a lot of time on my hands right now...

Firstly, don't let political arguments make you angry, no matter how much you disagree with them, and never take personal offence to a general argument. You will be much more able to counter an argument if you treat it dispassionately (this is not to say 'take a neutral stance', but rather 'keep your emotions in check when reading or listening to an argument' - easier said than done, I know).

sorry, you got me in the morning before my "coffee" :)

winston, your point one conflicts with your point two. (point 3 i havent gotten to yet)

You say that the media distorts truth for democratic reasons:
While to a limited extent (in some cases) this is inspired by a genuinely democratic sentiment, more often it simply reflects the fact that the mass media is the main leader of public opinion, and hence is an attempt by those in the media (and their bosses) to assert their own power over government and, hence, society. In large societies (ie. all 'modern' societies), public opinion is necessarily mediated opinion; it is constructed in the media sphere, wherein the various beliefs and opinions of individuals and groups are represented, distorted and influenced by those who control the flow of information.

and then contradict your second point about grassroots movements
But so long as people maintain a healthy scepticism about those who seek power, it is usually possible to keep government on a short-enough leash. The difficulty, for both your society and mine, is that too many people place too much trust in their leaders, or else feel themselves to be powerless in the face of the state.

The latter is a mistake; as demonstrated by so many grassroots movements around the world (the anti-abortion movement in the US is a prime example, though not one for which I have any affinity; the civil rights movement, for which I have great affinity, was also like this), governments can be forced to change their policies if enough people organise to make their feelings known.

grassroots movements require people to have paradigm changes in the their lives to allow a radical refusal to some element of society. this is nearly impossible in america. They cannot form, because the media is a brain wash machine, coving up the tracks of corporate/government criminality. You know as well as I do that the american or british government does not always tell the whole story.

and sometimes, "grass roots movements" (or neo-liberal smoke screens) like the smoking ban in the US and the save the rainforest crap, and the whole abortion issue are just distractions in the media, detracting from the real issues that will karmically effect our species (like East Timor, Rwanda (too little too late), Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Colombia, Afghanistan I & II, Iraq sanctions '91-'03 {100,000 childeren killed}) *please dont make me site these, but i can. :)

I really was going to comment on this topic, but your discussions got kinda big.

/me lazy

yeah i agree. Winston, if you could condense it a little; i dont think im gonna have the time to read your pages of text.

also, i can gaurantee you will not see eye to eye with me ever. Unless perhaps you, yourself, have a big paradigm change. Suggestions to help you learn why authoritarianism is bad:

Get Arrested and molested by cops!
Do cocaine or crack (or any other CIA sponsored drug) then get arrested!!
Become Homeless!
Join the Military! Then go to a foriegn war and later be told that you arent a veteran! (me)
Go completely insane for a few years and enjoy mental hospitals.
Have a friend get killed by cops!

People who go through these things are not nessassarily evil or bad, but are forever changed.

Ok. I've got my 'keep it brief' hat on. Let's see if that works. (Just... one... more... paragraph... :nono: )


You say that the media distorts truth for democratic reasons


No, I say that the media fetishes public opinion (which it is instrumental in creating), sometimes for democratic reasons (a lot of journalists believe their own spin), but more often simply to extend its own power. The same can be said of demogogues of any kind. More often than not the media distorts the truth just to sell more copies/get more viewers - sensationalism sells.


the media is a brain wash machine, coving up the tracks of corporate/government criminality.


I half agree with you here. Parts of the media are complicit in covering up such criminality, but other parts actively seek to expose it. (I don't know what coverage of Iraq is like over there, but we've been given a pretty clear picture of our government's duplicity and incompetence - even from the state-run BBC).


You know as well as I do that the american or british government does not always tell the whole story.


Of course. Politicians are, by their very nature, power-hungry and duplicitous (though there is the odd exception). But, if I've understood you correctly, we disagree on two main points:

1) You say that politicians/the state can never be controlled by the people, and so must be abolished. I say that they can be controlled by the people, but must be continually reformed.

2) You say that we can do without politicians/the state. I say, regretfully, that we cannot do without them.

I don't know which of us is the more pessimistic. ;)


Suggestions to help you learn why authoritarianism is bad:


I already know why authoritarianism is bad: it strips human beings of all their freedom and dignity. I believe society should be (and generally is) based on free co-operation, but also that this is impossible without some (limited) degree of authority and coercion to restrain those who would abuse the system.

I appreciate that the state has screwed you and many other people over (and I can see why your experience has turned you against it - for a country to mistreat someone who has risked their life in its name is utterly disgraceful). If it were possible eventually to create a mode of human existence in which the state could be totally abolished without dehumanising us, then I would celebrate along with you (though I suspect I would look a little surprised ;) ).

But what we desperately need right now is to turn both of our societies away from the warmongering, neo-authoritarian course they have embarked upon. Until we have done so, I believe that we have to deal in actuals not possibles. Convincing people that they can use their voices and their votes to effect a change, if only a limited one, is the crucial first step, imo.

Edit: I just got the "coffee" bit. :lol:

No, I say that the media fetishes public opinion (which it is instrumental in creating), sometimes for democratic reasons (a lot of journalists believe their own spin), but more often simply to extend its own power. The same can be said of demogogues of any kind. More often than not the media distorts the truth just to sell more copies/get more viewers - sensationalism sells.

have you ever heard of a movie call Manufacturing Consent (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=99&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) ?

(I don't know what coverage of Iraq is like over there, but we've been given a pretty clear picture of our government's duplicity and incompetence - even from the state-run BBC).


we hear about it between the news story about pedophile mexican rampage and the story about the cute puppy with only 2 legs

15 second soundbytes usually

2) You say that we can do without politicians/the state. I say, regretfully, that we cannot do without them.

I assume you have read nietzsche so when i alliterate to his opinion of religion and "priest-caste" in the book Der Anticrist, when i say that the political caste creates need for itself through it's own actions. IE start a war with politicians, and finish the war with treaties by politicians.

Now i know that saying we should abolish modern politicians sounds radical, and may never happen (apartheid world gov't). But ethically, or even karmically, i feel it is unhealthy to compromise your own personal morals to defend the system.
IE:
"I know it's wrong but it is needed."
"It may not be good, but it's human nature."
"You can't get rid of politicians, even though they are lying crooks, because we need them.

If it were possible eventually to create a mode of human existence in which the state could be totally abolished without dehumanising us, then I would celebrate along with you (though I suspect I would look a little surprised ).

Then never defend a system that refuses (or subverts) attempts to humanize.
Even if you haven't thought of a better replacement ;)

and i too, would be skeptical. (i probly wouldn't trust the first couple of revolutions anyway)

Then never defend a system that refuses (or subverts) attempts to humanize.
Even if you haven't thought of a better replacement ;)


The way I look at it: no matter how much I hate the walls of my house, it would be unwise to knock them down until I've found another way to hold the roof up. :p

No man, knock the walls of your house down, you'll see how much fun it is.

:)

Mankind progresses often by dismantling what came before, self-sacrificially, and then rebuilding something new and better after. Not perfect, but better.

Remember, there is no rebellion, there is not outright war. But for one more man or woman to refuse and resist, if not only secretly in the heart or mind, there is one person that will never support fascism or authoritarianism willfully.

You can keep your job and whatnot, we don't need any self-mutilating acts of refusal. Just realize you are slightly less of a hypocrite that the person next to you (maybe ;) )

Mankind progresses often by dismantling what came before, self-sacrificially, and then rebuilding something new and better after. Not perfect, but better.


Amen to that. :goodjob:

"forgive me i have not played the scenario, i have just glanced in this section of the forum and this is my opinion on the matter"

the second revolution socialist?

if thats the case we are in big trouble

its all about liberty, you cannot trust man with too much power, you can see this throughout history

it seems history is repeating itself .... once again

but i can see how this mod can do well as it seems there are alot of gentlemen on this forum that are in the "leftist" line of thought

hopefully you will become more enlightened and find that liberty is the answer

i have confidence in the message of liberty, if one truly has the desire to find the good message they will find it




a controlled revolution manufactured by the elite to sway us from the right revolution, this is what it is and this is how they want it to be


ronpaul2008.com, the message of liberty is in your grasp

"forgive me i have not played the scenario, i have just glanced in this section of the forum and this is my opinion on the matter"

the second revolution socialist?

if thats the case we are in big trouble

its all about liberty, you cannot trust man with too much power, you can see this throughout history

it seems history is repeating itself .... once again

but i can see how this mod can do well as it seems there are alot of gentlemen on this forum that are in the "leftist" line of thought

hopefully you will become more enlightened and find that liberty is the answer

i have confidence in the message of liberty, if one truly has the desire to find the good message they will find it




a controlled revolution manufactured by the elite to sway us from the right revolution, this is what it is and this is how they want it to be


ronpaul2008.com, the message of liberty is in your grasp

I see that ron paul is a candidate for primaries, perhaps?

Yes, most of us are rather leftist, and there is some downright commies around here (jk ;) ). i have to admit that the mod is meant only to be a game. I really truly hope that there is little violence in any revolutionary progressions.

you keep mentioning liberty.
would you care to elaborate on your views?

I don't know if you ever read the NY Review of Books, but there's an excellent article in the most recent edition about how John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales systematically sought to undermine your 'constitutionally enshrined' liberties (along with the protections granted to foreigners under the Geneva Convention).

It's not available online yet, but it will be once the next edition comes out.

Just thought you might fancy a little 'light' reading. :)

grrr double post

Yes, it looks like ashcroft was a a Good American, loyal to his Country First.

He, and many others systematically undermined geneva conventions, and as many domestic civil rights that they could. What was ironic, is they did it right in front of our noses, (i watched the legislations) and almost nobody knew or cared. (and those that did care were in some kind of paralysis)

What I found most surprising about the NYR article was that Ashcroft actually blocked an authoritarian measure that Gonzales wanted to bring in, because he thought it was illegal. It seems Ashcroft convinced himself that he was upholding the law, while Gonzales was much more inclined to try to bypass it altogether. I don't know which is worse, the self-deluding true-believer, or the totally unscrupulous pragmatist.

Also, I looked up this Ron Paul chap, and it seems he's a genuine supporter of liberty (of a kind), and has opposed the current administration's authoritarianism. He also seems to have some grasp of why America is so widely hated in much of the world: "If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there." (from wikipedia, quoting a candidate debate).

Of course, Paul's still a pro-life, pro-capitalist conservative. But it does go some way to explaining Amin001's comments about liberty - I figure he/she assumes that anyone on the left is necessarily in favour of unlimited state power (and, clearly, didn't read our discussion), whilst 'true' rightist politics is inherently opposed to it.

yeah that is what is ironic:

republicans had all along talked against larger government while democrats were all about the welfare state.

now, republicans have abandoned their old dogma for blatant fascism, and the liberals are in their seat. amuzing

can anyone say 'coup'?

yeah that is what is ironic:

republicans had all along talked against larger government while democrats were all about the welfare state.


I dunno, I reckon there's always been a strand of Republican thought that veered towards authoritarianism and warmongering (eg. McCarthy et al) - you can trace it all the way back to Alexander Hamilton's megalomaniac vision of the federal government. Their idea of small government only applies to economic matters, and then only to powerful commercial concerns.

I once read a book on the prohibition era, where the author talked about the synthesis of the two great American ideals - 'freedom' and 'acquisition' - into 'freedom of acquisition'. It seems to me that many contemporary Republicans take their idea of liberty from the example set by gangsters like Al Capone.

From what little I've read, Ron Paul takes a more principled stand - liberty isn't just for big business. I still wouldn't vote for him myself, but he sounds a whole lot better than the money-grabbing hypocrites in power at the moment. With any luck he'll remind a few Republican voters that liberty means more than the freedom for executives to buy themselves new Mercedes.


can anyone say 'coup'?


Isn't that what they keep chickens in? ;)

btw. I'm back driving trucks again. Now I'm really confused about my class status. :confused:

well, driving trucks, i'd say you don't have any class status (untill you get your paycheck that is) :D

Hopefully it'll cover the rent... :please:

oh Pshaw, the republicans aren't fascists!... Yet! Now this American party on the other hand... (http://www.americanfascistparty.com/index2.html)

Plain and simply put, the left keeps going on about revolution because we believe in the ideas of change and adaptation. Compared to my opinions Hillary Clinton looks like Oswald Mosley (she already did before, but compared to the extreme left she acts like him too ;) ).

There may be an argument that any views on the far left are unamerican, but I find that to be no farther from the truth. When we look at the formation of the very core and ideals in America, we find people who could be considered aligned towards the left. We find thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin and Benedict Arnold (who was more than a "traitor" he was the sole cause for the American revolution's success, he fought for liberty and independence.. he just betrayed us because we betrayed him.) later on we find truly magnificent and world changing thinkers at the heart of American theory and foundation.

Brownson, Thoreau, Emerson, Goldman, warren, Berkman Cleyre, all people who fought for and promoted their ideas because they wanted to be able to experience True Liberty. They wanted the freedom to enjoy themselves, to be paid justly, to have all their constitutional rights, to be treated as equals. Surely there are no greater american values than the pursuit of just treatment and freedom?

Labor organizations such as the IWW helped paved the way for our minimum wage system, workers rights advocacy groups, unions, and other groups fighting for a fair workplace.

Don't be so persuaded by the cold war,the USSR thought our system was just as corrupt and totalitarian. We after all, allowed, and still do, many people to starve to death and be denied homes if they were/are unable to work.

I have taken the time to educate myself on rightist, centrist (or third way "fascism") and Leftist viewpoints. And sadly the most Effective system is the Fascist one. It is a state with such keen control economically as to be able to make a country one of the richest and most powerful, from a backwater society where money is worthless, in a manner of mere decades. However, the loss of individuality and the ethical problems make this such a horrid system. It is still the most effectivewhen ethics and liberties are disregarded.

On the left though, my own personal idea is one very much so in line with Makhnovist thinking, with other influences. My ideal would be a system of extreme national balkanization, into many smaller counties run by councils. The Idea of enforcing "anarchistic Law" is a challenging one, and impossible without coercing someone, such is why the community rather than an individual cop, would express the idea of direct action to weed out criminals. problems arise here based on morality, but overall it would be as non-coercive as possible.

I'll try to write more later, so that I can in clean and sound mind explain my theories, right now I'm rather tired and I still have an essay to write for my english class.

who's oswald mosley?

I apologize beforehand if my past statement was unclear, 'twas a bit early for me. Oswald Mosley was the head of the BUF, or British Union of Fascists. He was generally well received by the media, and held a good deal of popular sway. He was an ex-parliament member who ran, for the BUF, for prime minister of the UK. He had a speaking style that sounded dramatic, and almost like he really talked like a movie star, he was such a charismatic figure that he incited a riot, the "Battle of cable street" I believe. It was where the Fascists were marching, and there were hundreds of fascists,met by opposition from the communists, workers rights unions, and Jews of britain. The story seemed to cast an almost sympathetic tone to the BUF. They may have very well been elected to lead Britain as a fascist country if not for the bravery of the minority and the ..well it was mostly the outbreak of WW2 for the british. They imprisoned many BUF members for Nazi conspiracies or fascist conspiracies and all favor they had garnered was gone.

It's the little known story of how britain avoided the fate of Germany, italy, spain, and portugal.

i think i could use some relentlessness against fascists in my country. in my region, there are many people from mexico. but the whites don't want them here (unless they are making them money). so they are building huge walls and having pro-racism on the evening news and crap like that.

Soy de Estados Unidos. Mi español es muy malo... muy, muy malo...

So, When did Arizona become it's own country? I used to live in Tuscon and Phoenix, and I currently reside in Reno, Nevada, but our federal sovereign state is, Because the confederacy lost the war, subservient to a centralized authority! Woo! we call this "Centralized Authority" the "District of columbia" And it's part of the federation called "The United States of America" =P

Don't confuse Fascism with being an ignorant **ck to people those people are probably right-wing instead of centrist =/ It's a shame that they'd dare call themselves "Citizens". They really deserve no place in the Americas, nations founded on, and engulfed in ideas of Liberty, "Viva Latina Libre! Viva Simon Bolivar! Socialismo o Muerte!" and so on. But they're just remnants of an era of colonialism and we will have to tolerate their right to speak their minds and express their viewpoints, as well as the right to peaceful assemblage... Thankfully so do we =P

However I must agree with you to an extent, that in our country we are becoming more and more Centralized and Hyper Nationalistic. I wish I were just a conspiracy nut or some crazy hippy, but as someone who has studied political systems in depth, we're pushing on the boundaries of centrism, Our current leader is reminiscent of a a certain other leader similar in his policies, yes even war. This leader was shot by a radical leftist named Leon Czolgosz. Brownie points if you can take a guess =P. Regardless looks like we've come full cycle.

Make no mistake, fascism is not only in a central governement, it is a pyramid whose constituting stones are the 'ignorant' and the 'rascist'.
(remember the whole things that happened in WW2 germany?)

Compass: -7.38, -3.95

Basically, I'm a socialist, or a democratic socialist depending on how you distinguish the two.

The government needs to regulate corporations for the good of the working population, as well as small business and the environment. Outsourcing kills employment as well as the few companies who actually like their country enough to employ its people. However, it seems that our (American) education will need to do some catching up to reduce outsourcing regardless of government regulation. An educated workforce is essential.

Free market doesn't work because it leads to a few monopolies (which we have right now) dominating the marketplace, hurting the overall economy, and . .. .. .. .ing workers and consumers over.

Also, voting is essential because a national population will never reach a consensus by themselves. It's frankly just immature to think that an entire country, or any group over ten people could unanimously determine every aspect of a culture without utilizing a democratic process or a more authoritarian leader.

Anarchy doesn't work because no one can specialize if they're preoccupied with not getting killed. Technologically advanced societies (steel, gunpowder, etc.) developed from agricultural societies because once farmers were able to generate more food from less land, other people could become craftsmen, artists, scientists, and so on, and obtain food from farmers. These specialized people created all the advanced tools and ideas that allowed their societies to grow and expand. Essentially, anarchy means a state below tribalism, which means that technological, social, and artistic growth just stops.

Anarcho-syndicalism, while quite utopian, would be incredibly difficult to set up in today's world of dumbass people watching American Idol and skipping History class (not to mention a lessened ability to specialize once everyone's a politician) and is basically impractical for America today.

Now, keep in mind these are my thoughts on a more practical government. Anarchy or non-confederated tribalism are still cool to think about, and in a way seem really fun. The problem is that, just like a Zombie apocalypse, it may sound cool but it would be scary as . .. .. .. . in real life.


So, yeah, just throwing that out there.

i agree with you about "free markets", capitalism can't be much trusted.

as far as anarchism, it is not a government type (or chaotic lack therof), but just a universal acceptance that we can't boss each other around, or bully or extort. If we could spread that ideology everywhere, then the system would cease to exist. But what is easier, having a bloody total revolution, or just changing peoples mind about their culture.

History would seem to indicate that the bloody total revolution is easier if you don't have the money to control the news, and most other forms of information. However, bloody total revolution would not be able to create anarcho-syndicalism. No number of bombings and shootings will ever make people realize the need to shun authority and organize for the common good. The only good that can be found in a violent revolution is the moderation of an out of control government.

and that will only be the case if the cops start shooting people in the streets in america, and there is total marshal law.

And that would more likely herald the dawn of a nationalist/authoritarian revolution, rather than any leftist one.

Violent resistance plays into the hands of the authoritarians -- they have yet another excuse to extend their authority to 'defend' society.

Changing the culture will take time, but I believe it is possible if we can speak in a language that ordinary people understand, rather than in the intellectual/academic mode that is favoured by most leftist thinkers.

To many (most?) people today, Marx-inspired leftist politics looks more like the rule of the intellectuals than the rule of the proletariat. After all, if you need a masters degree in sociology to understand the ideology, it can hardly be seen as democratic or egalitarian.

As much as I have problems with Michael Moore's style of documentary making (and some of his political views), at least he's trying to speak to 'the people' rather than to academics and ideologues.

i agree with you about marx and i agree with you about michael moore, youre two for two there :)
If there is a sufficient need for a community to defend themselves from authoritarianism, however, i do not advocate pathological pacifism.

Any one label ending with "ist" would not be an accurate description of me, because all are ultimately generalisations, and all generalisations are ultimately false. So I will use several terms to describe my political views, which have shocked people all over the made-up, one-dimensional right-left political scale. I am a pessimist, an anti-neo-Darwinist, and very close to calling myself an illuminatist and a socialist.

With regard to the first term, I believe that human beings cannot concieve of a good system without adequate knowledge of what is a bad one, and exactly what makes that bad system inadequate. I believe that a bit more skepticism is needed in examining the face of nature and how it factors into political practices. In the first place, I believe that conventional views of liberal values need to be reexamined, because they were formulated in an era of religious history of the world, which does not hold true in much of what we can observe. Now that Darwinism has been added as what I see as a more accurate picture of natural order, I think we should reexamine how we view nature, and take a look at whether it is really as positive as it was made out to be in the era of crreationism.

I find myself rather skeptical, for example, of such statements as "All men are created equal." and "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." I detest racism, of course, but as a young man who sees diversity and inequality everywhere he looks, I cannot bring myself to believe that everyone within a given race is by default, equal. Men may each be good at doing their own thing, but history has shown that situations call for certain traits above others. Likewise, as per Locke's statement, I cannot believe that everyone is, by default, free. Once again, the source must be considered; Darwin's view of nature had yet to come into consideration by Locke when he wrote that.

Sorry, people, but I do not believe in anarchy. Not to say that I believe anarchy is undesireable; what I mean is that anarchy, as idealists would have it, is impossible. Growing up a bullied nerd, and studying animal behavior commonly, I cannot see anything desirable about the natural order of things, or the inspired process of letting whatever happens, happen. Idealistic anarchy is a myth because in any society where beings are in contact with each other and there is competition over resources and pleasure, some sort of authority will always exist.

For example, wolf pack law. I can see nothing free in any such system; in a pack; the authority always goes to the biggest and toughest dog, and those who had the misfortune of anything that would make them lesser warriors will be squashed. Everywhere else, even with non-social creatures, the struggle to survie is a struggle to see which individual can stoop the lowest to feed his face. I am also convinced that humans are no better, for the most part. Humans have shown themselves to be wolves at heart most of the time, and in the case of freedom, they often have shown themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing. My favorite paradigm for this is the militant racism in the Southern USA. When the Confederate rebellion was formed, they all acted like it was about defying authority and preserving rights, but it was mainly a means to an end of denying rights to a good deal of their own citizens. Even after the Civil War, they continued to insitute Jim Crow laws and oppress their subjects, and a lot of people in the South were only free once the federal government expanded its authority and struck down the locals.

This is what I mean when I say I am an anti-neo-Darwinist. I believe that libertarianism is not a good paradigm for freedom, because it was concieved of in a world holding creationism to be the valid version of nature. Hence, from this sort of thinking, a return to letting nature be the authority struck people then as being a return to eden, and a return to the glory of God. I, however, have observed the true ugly side of nature in a more objective way, and I believe that if everybody else examined the state of nature in a more Darwinistic light, they would be more of the position that a return to nature would actually be nothing more than a return to a dog-eat-dog sort of order that no faith would not consider sinful, and where there is constant oppression and no constitutional checks to power. Essentially, in line with the proverb that history is the key to the future, I hold that man must see what has been scientifically proven about his past, in order that he better judge what is good for his future.

This is what has led me close to calling myself an illuminatist and a socialist, as opposed to an anarchist or a libertarian. I believe that a few established institutions are healthy for society, provided that they are benevolent towards the people. For example, if freedom is defined by what opportunities people have access to, I would not consider a naturally-ordered society to be free. A man born poor in a system with a small government cannot hope to compete with men who have inherited wealth enough to afford automobiles and education. The same poor man is on more equal field if born into a system with a large government that provides him with public transportation and public educatation.

Money is not the only factor that prevents equality in a naturalised society. Under the state of nature, the strongest survive; few factors besides physical fitness matter in judging one's placement in such a society. In a society that has introduced institutions such as currency and jobs, strength is no longer the only factor considered anymore. It does not matter if a man is weaker than his fellow men; he may be able to compete on equal grounds in an institutionalized society if he is exeptionally good at mathematics, writing, art, or a host of other skills that would not have mattered in nature. Hence, I say that a society governened by benevolent institutionalism can potentially be more free than one with small government. Having said that, any institution that has outstayed its welcome and does more harm than good deserves destruction, or at least flushing out, but government should be considered just one of many things that amplify the corrupt nature of humanity; there are also religion and ignorance.

Ultimately, the first step I believe an attempt at change should make is to acknowledge that sadly, men are not really created equal, and the goal of that attempt to change situations for the better should be think of the best way to make society equal. I believe a big step is education for the masses.

DOWN WiTH NEo-LIBERALISM and DOWN with SOCIAL DARWINISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DOWN WiTH NEo-LIBERALISM and DOWN with SOCIAL DARWINISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just out of curiosity, how is Neoliberalism defined by its proponents and critics? Based on what I've read, its proponents seem to consider it a form of detente, the idea of promoting peace throughout the world by encouraging the interdependence of nations. According to its critics, it seems to be a fancy euphemism for dollar diplomacy in practice.

BTW, I like a lot the logo for the ideaology that is pretty blatantly a swastika edited to look like a dollar sign. Class, man.

neo liberalism is a system of justification (among other things)

Uh...political debate...must...hold...ba...
Fu*k it. Necroposting!

I'm a left-sympathising, central ecenomy, technocratic, socio-anarchistic, antireligious megalmoaniac something and I request a dispute.

It's on topic, after all.

you are always welcome to dispute here!!! and these threads never die!!1

now we have to start with something. tell me what you think about some event or person, past or present (but i have a feeling we wont argue too much ;) )

I oppose seperatists, since I'm in favour of one world government, but also all present governments, because they don't fit my ideals. Now what should I do? Root for whatever of the two sides seems more sympathetic or hope that they dismantle each other?

Also, I'm too 1337 to find the latest working version of second revolution. Could anyone hand me a link, s'il vous plais?

the latest version is for 1.61 warlords. you may have to reinstall warlords to revert to the working patch. just look in my profile for files.

now, by world goverment, you mean American, then? Do you support the methods of Globalization and Neo-Liberalism, too?

Doesn't seem like he meant that at all. I'm also a supporter of a 'world government' - nationalism and the concept of the nation-state is one of the biggest barriers to a world free from poverty and war.

ahh, i see. i believe in a world quasi-republic, with values based solely on human rights and eco-economics.
unfortunately, america masquerades as a "freedom loving supporter of human rights" when in fact in 1998 they vetoed a UN resolution that would make 'the right to food and water' universal.

and with america attempting to form a world government with the sword and not the pen and podium, we will have a global apartheid. *hums imperial march*

To Hell! I'd never support a growth in american-value based influence, let alone an american world government. I'd rather see civilisation crumble to dust and ashes, and I sure don't mean the game here.

Neoliberalism is as arbitraily pointless as nationalism ist, so I can't see a future for them either.

And as far as US Foreign Policy is concerned, I can only say DELUSION. As delusional as most american political perspectives are, sadly.

Well, my feelings are stronger; I'd rather see Civilization the game crumble than an American worldwide empire!

Damn you heretic! How could you defy the sanctity of the divine Game with your unholy speech!?

Then again, I always hated the americanised touch of the Civilisation games. Anyone else noticed how the American Empire is the only whose Unique Unit can still be used in Endgame? And the ridiculous bonuses on the mall?

I hear ya. but if you look closely, you can see tiny bits of anti-american sentiment. for instance, the technology Fascism gives you Mt. Rushmore!!! (did that change in BtS?)

I agree that neoliberalism is bad, but i don't think that it is arbitrary or pointless. it, in fact, has a very definite purpose and method. the problem is that these are steeped purely in Evil masked with Good Intentions!!

remember though, not everyone here in america is completely clueless. some of us "take the red pill" and "leave the matrix", if you will. Not entirely a comfortable move, but definitely a ethically comforting move. :)

Mt. Rushmore. Good point.

And I still dislike Neoliberalism. Capitalism is like evolution - it works. But not for the good of anyone. Promoting both uncontrolled markets and taxes sounds, to me, like letting everyone bash horns with everyone and profit from it as the richest and most powerful.

And as far as America is concerned - anyone calling himself an American will have to take the blame for their government's actions. In a democracy, no one is innocent. Of course, I realise not everyone is directly at fault for or supporting what is done out of "national interest", but nonetheless - the majority still seems to have . .. .. .. .ed up. Either by misdeeds (Who the fu*k elected dubya?) or by lack of action (Government agencies and a president have been proven to have lied to the public. Why the FU*K are they still empowered?).

i agree with you that the blame falls on america and its citizens, but only partly. i myself do small things to help the world, be it try to curb my consumerism, or try to educate my fellows to not believe the skewed paradigm.
but remember, the president, in this day and age, can admit to breaking the law, and there is nothing done about it. this is because the system is broken, and the "representatives" have ZERO accountability. So there really isnt anything we can do beyond educate ourselves and others to the truth of these matters, to the existence of amerikan crimes.

and no-one elected Bush. the first time around he was appointed by the courts against popular vote, and the second time, his opponent, Dickhead Kerry, ceded the vote to him. (most likely because he was supposed to do that from the beginning). SO DONT BLAME US FOR THAT :p

I still have to blame you. Why didn't you overthrow them already? :lol:

I still have to blame you. Why didn't you overthrow them already? :lol:

Now, how should that go?

Did you know that every single time i "vote", nothing i ask for happens, and people and things i "vote" against always retain power or happen.

Now do you mean armed revolt? That would be very bad. :nuke:

btw: what kingdom do you hail from? im guessing not amerika :D

I mean mass demonstrations, physical dismantlement of government agencies, ignoring of administrative orders and civil resistance.
Arms are, after all, really really naug-...bad.

And no, I can't honestly claim the honours of amerikkkan ancestorship. My genetic pool is made in Europe. The boring, central part, sadly.

did you know that our congress was going to pass a law that made being an undocumented immigrant was going to be a 'felony', which means anybody that was found, without proper papers, would be put into prison.

there was a mass protest that my generation had never seen before, there where literally millions of people, most ethnic, out in the streets of ALL the major cities in america. the laws never got passed after this.

Jolly good, I say.

But nonetheless - you still have a somewhat, ehm, disliked president on top of your hierarchy, he doesn't seem to get off his trip on his own and while he might be out in two years time one way or another...two years is probably quite enough to cause a lot of trouble.

If he wasn't even elected - why do the protests against him not have any impact?

Jolly good, I say.

But nonetheless - you still have a somewhat, ehm, disliked president on top of your hierarchy, he doesn't seem to get off his trip on his own and while he might be out in two years time one way or another...two years is probably quite enough to cause a lot of trouble.

If he wasn't even elected - why do the protests against him not have any impact?

The American model of Democracy has proven to be largely the weaker one, compared to the Parliamentary system present in most other countries. Look at American history; the system has only ever been dominated by two political parties at a time. The US constitution provides more checks and balances on paper, but the country's winner-take-all system prevents the rise of factions that care as much about things as the people do. While it's true that governing in the peoples' interests does not work as well in times when the peoples' interests lie in their prejudices, and causes them to elect people like Hitler, the fact that now you still can have a Parliamentary system that forbids truly wicked political parties, like Modern Germany's does, proves that these systems are still potentially better.

Meanwhile, in the USA, the facists needn't abandon their ends just because the constitution prevents dictators; all they must change is their means. The rise of the new right proves that a coalition of ambitious and greedy people working together, can acomplish the same goals under the American system, as a single fascist demagogue can in a parliamentary system.

because protests mean absolutely nothing here in america, other than a two-minute sound byte for the newscasts. and if your at a real protest, expect militaristic police units lined up against you with tear gas and "non-lethal" ammunitions.

So, in other words, you'd categorise the USA as crypto-fascist?

So, in other words, you'd categorise the USA as crypto-fascist?

Dude, it's not rocket science. The only reason you don't see Americans hating on Jews and stuff is because that was done, and we already learned from that the hard way. But liberals? Nobody said anything about not skapegoating them.

You don't see the Swastika, because that, too, was taken. But you see a lot of "One Nation Under God" bumper stickers that remind me a lot of the "Strength through unity; unity through faith" posters in V For Vendetta.

Likewise, the only reason the USA does not have a dictator is because its constitution does not allow the rise of such men. Bet that doesn't prevent a coalition of all the first-families in America from acting as a political cartel and establishing a de-facto dictatorship.

If you replace the Jews, Gypsies, gays, and communists with liberals, the Swastika on the German flag with the cross, fish, or letter "W" on the American flag, and the dictator and his secret police with a president and his corporate doners, media . .. .. .. .. .es, and general plutocrat friends, it looks very much like the evolution of American fascism. Connect the dots.

Oh, come on, THAT's nothing new. I was wondering more about how openly it is usually spoken of ;)

i would say less than 10% of the populace (not including the oligarchs) have any clue what we talk about in regards to politics or anarchism, believe in what are considered "conspiracies", or even think basically at all.

i would say less than 10% of the populace (not including the oligarchs) have any clue what we talk about in regards to politics or anarchism, believe in what are considered "conspiracies", or even think basically at all.

The sad thing is that it's only truly a conspiracy if nobody tells you about it. In America, despite attempts by the Man to seize the media and use it as a puppet, the information is still there to anyone who bothers looking. If people just took time to analyze stock reports, history books, the workings of the political system, they would find more than enough to conclude that the same few people have controlled politics and capitalism since the before the country was even independent, and that the constitution actually severely limits the ability of the common man to influence where his government is going.

If America's government wasn't deliberately concieved by the wealthy elite for the wealthy elite, that's at least what happened anyway. The real problem now is that Americans are living comfortably because the man has learned to rape people in other countries instead. So long as it's not in their backyard, Americans feel they shouldn't care.

So, what you say? Has the man won or is there a window of opportunity one could use to dismantle the system?

system? the 'system' cannot be dismantled. it is what brings us food, water and doctors. Now can the system be fixed? maybe.

to 'dismantle the system', a large portion of people would simply starve (at least in america, where very few can actually grow food)

'Dismantling', in any reasonable debate, comes with a slient 'build a better one parallely to it". At least afaik, that is ;)

ok then, i agree with you partly. the main parts of the system i would LOVE to see go are these:

Politicians as we know them,
Corporations as we know them,
The Media as we know it,
The Health Care system as we know it.

And what would you like to be constructed instead?

And what would you like to be constructed instead?

Dismantling some of the system would be useful simply because it would force a lot of the people to pull together and fend and think for themselves again. Complacency, and the belief that one can get away with it, factors in no small part into the blissful ignorance of most Americans. On the other hand, though, reverting to a system that favored strength and unity would be oppressive to minorities, especially in areas willing to oppress them.

Not to mention that if you wipe out the consumerist mindset of America, and the institutions that feed it, all at once, as opposed to phasing it out gradually, it would almost certainly result in a depression; maybe even starvation. This isn't the case in all countries. If the government and all businesses were suddenly wiped out in Japan or China, they'd stop recieving American dollars in the mail, but the people wouldn't be as helpless, since the large manufacturing sector in both countries has left the majority of the people with a knowledge of how to build all the commodities they need, even if it's not as a career.

In America, by contrast, the consumerist mindset puts everyone's mind on accumulating vast amounts of commodities, which leave the people happy, but spoiled and weak. Americans love their material lifestyle, but what it's really doing is simultaneously sending out their dollars and jobs abroad, and making them less self-sufficient and helping to build competence in foreigners who work hard to make the stuff Americans crave. A fall of businesses in America and sudden cutoff from Asian goods would likely leave the country in an even worse state. I don't like to see my fellow countrymen become helpless and dependent, but it's a lesser evil if the alternative is starvation.

So rather than a massive collapse, I think things are going to go more slowly but surely. America's current system of global marketing cannot survive for ever. Once the people in China and India are all rich enough to start their own businesses, said businesses will probably outbid American businesses in those regions, due to not having to pay overseas transportation costs. When that happens, there needs to be some change in the America, whether it's a people's revolution, or just a change on the poltitico-economic level.

yes bahmo i definitely agree with you my brotha.

system wide collapse puts the complacent, and effectively useless, population of the massive megalopolises of america in grave danger. there are small sub-populations who could actually live off the land, but most don't even know how to catch and clean even a fish. and even assuming they do know enough to "live off the land", our ecosystems IMO couldn't handle that large a hunter/gatherer society.

What i think that could replace those things i mentioned above:

Politicians:
Replace them with councils that have 'universal drafts' instead of elections or appointments. What the 'universal draft' means (not to be confused with military draft) is that the councils rotate membership frequently, and the members chosen must be randomly selected from all parts of society, ethnicities, religions, ect. What these councilors would do it mediate any disputes, help set or remove laws, and review current situations while coordinating with other nearby councils, and with higher and lower councils. But the important part of this council system is the 'universal draft'.
when you get 'drafted', you have a term of a few weeks or months in a council of some type. you would get recompensed exactly as you would your job and provisions would be made for your lifestyle. afterwards, you would go back to you community with cool stories to tell your friends about the things you did and saw :)

Corporations:
these should be replaced with trade-syndicalist unions. These unions would be there, of course, to guarantee workers rights, but also would be to self-regulate the industry that they are a part of. much in the mindstate of the Anarch-syndicalists. They would also consist of councils drafted from the lowest to highest jobs, in a 'universal draft' system. The councils would basically replace the idea of 'upper management' with 'worker's management'.

The Media:
The media is a touchy subject, ridden with propaganda. To make the media fair, advertising must be curbed, and made to be free for those who can't pay. There needs to be councils whose purpose is to maintain channels for ALL those who would want a message to be spread. With the great technologies we have, there should be a TV channel for every ideology and group, and more! Journalism, rising from the ashes, could once more be a regulatory institution, reporting on corruption and enlightening the public. But, for sure, there must be opposing viewpoints in the Media, not one all encompassing amerikan ideal. Strength through diversity!

The Health Care System:
This system is currently thoroughly corrupt, with our very lives staked against corporate interests. For one, this needs to be abolished and maintained solely by taxes, much like a Social Security that starts when you are concieved :)
Next, pharmaceutical companies must be castrated completely, and medications must be tested more thoroughly; while the FDA must be replaced with an institution that is less concerned with money and more with our lives. Doctors themselves must pass an ethical test to even become doctors, i think. But, more importantly that all, everyone who is within our borders must have easily available, subsidized health care.

these are just some of my thoughts

Corporations:
these should be replaced with trade-syndicalist unions. These unions would be there, of course, to guarantee workers rights, but also would be to self-regulate the industry that they are a part of. much in the mindstate of the Anarch-syndicalists. They would also consist of councils drafted from the lowest to highest jobs, in a 'universal draft' system. The councils would basically replace the idea of 'upper management' with 'worker's management'.
[B][COLOR="Red"]

I have something to add to that: membership should be international. It should be constitutionally-mandated that if a corporation wants to invest in a foreign country, it must allow citizens of that country on its board-of-directors. This is important because while making corporations more democratically-run is a good idea, my experience with Americans is that their willingness to get democratically-involved is limited to making themselves comfortable. They've generally-shown themselves to be unconcerned with what happens to people in other countries, so long as they are happy.

Oh, and one more thing on the subject of corporations: I say there should be a cultural revolution in which every last Golden M is destroyed!

yeah thats pretty good.

i had an idea also: Co-operative Capital. i think that corporations should be formed on the sweat of like minded, hopeful people who want to start something, instead of megalithic loans from greedy shareholders. i mean this method of cooperation instead of lending would mean smaller business, but i think that is part of the goal.

Garret, what
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87
means ?

hi sniperrabbit :)

this is a fun game called the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). it uses two axes instead of the normal, right-left axis. then it tells you where some famous history people might have scored. it is fun and shouldn't really be taken too seriously.

but when you do it, post you results so we can all see :)

here's my result :
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54
:D
I'm rather moderate, I think.

It's not fair, even the political compass is incapable of representing my political viewpoints accurately. For example, it cannot determine the difference between a militant and a pacifist. I'm

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

apparently.

those are both pretty leftist positions. i wouldn't feel bad if with those scores. now if you were like +7.4/+8.0 i would be afraid you would want to subjugate me :p!!!

remember too, that it is merely a game to play. what i liked was they had the results of all the political candidates of USA2007 primaries. all but two of them were in the Right wing authoritarian quadrant (even 'liberals' like obama and clinton)

you can see that here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007)

Yeah, that was a nice addition.

Still the best graphical/semi-graphical representation has to be from the online game particracy.com: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/index.php

Now we just need a decent test for that...

Anyway, the fact is that a single position on the graph could contain wildly different viewpoints, in my opinion.

I must say, I appreciate that this new survey foregoes free speech entirely. I consider myself socially liberal, but I am completely opposed to such people as the KKK or NAMBLA expressing their views, or even having a right to exist.

A huge part of revolutionary thought is the acknowledgement that problems bear a human face a lot of the time, that needs to be wiped out. For me, a society that seeks to establish social justice and freedom by the blind tolerance of those who would stand in the way of said ideals, is completely antithetical to revolutionary thought.

That said, one vital hair that survey should split, yet does not, is the issue of justified force by a populace, as opposed to justified force by a leader or some clear minority. That's because it's basically the difference between tyranny and the prevention thereof. They should have replaced such questions as "eye for eye" with separate ones asking such things as "It was right for the French revolutionaries to kill Marie Antoinette" (I agree) and "It was right for Stalin to kill people in order to eliminate the chance of counterrevolution" (I disagree.)

Leaving such issues as general as that survey does keeps the concept of executive power vs. human rights far more vague than they should be.

well, as i said, its just a little game.

btw: what did you get, Bahmo?

well, as i said, its just a little game.

btw: what did you get, Bahmo?

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

I think second slider is so low beause I believe in Libertarian ends through authoritarian means; a good historical example would be Ike forcefully desegregating Alabama University. I think minorities need some extra power in the government to help keep them free from majority discrimination.

Yes, but the only problem is, when you and the like minds who have power over the forceful power inevitably lose that power, how can you be certain you won't have a repeat of history?

When you have a Philosopher King, whose rule is fair and just, and makes pains to take care of all people, subjects or not, you may have a great peace. But only for a time. For when those who coveted that Kings power eventually maneuver into power themselves, they will use it at a whim, with no understanding, or care, for those they oppress.

I think that as a species, we need to spread tolerance, diversity and understanding, so that one day we can overcome our selfish brethren, and instead of destroy them, enlighten them.

Thats my carebears moment for the day.

But surely the time for tolerance and peace should come after we have rendered society tolerable and peaceful?

yeah, but think how many historical revolutionaries said "blah blah blah it will be nice after the revolution" and then instituted a dictatorship. i can think of one group that didn't, beside the abortive spanish anarchosyndicalist revolution of 1936. (but who knows maybe even they would have)

there has to be a revolutionary new form of revolution. im saying we have to re-invent the revolution because we know for damn sure that none of them have ever worked.

That's true, but we can't go around advocating post-revolutionary values in a pre-revolutionary world. Freedom of choice, for example, is great, but only when you are educated enough to be able to make that choice for yourself.

neither you or I nor anyone i have ever heard of is qualified to make that determination. In fact there may be no human who is qualified to make that determination on another human.

In almost every situation, there is a correct choice and an incorrect choice. It is possible to determine with science and reason which choice is the correct one. Until everyone uses and understands science and reason, they are not going to be capable of making correct choices every time a decision is called for.

i disagree with binary-oppositionism. so many situations appear to have a "correct choice" and an "incorrect choice". but this is almost always an oversimplification of ideas, used most often in propaganda and disinformation.

I would appreciate you to elaborate on your second and third statements.

By correct choice and incorrect choice I mean one right choice and many many wrong ones.

The application of scientific principles is, in my view, the only way to determine a correct course of action. Since the vast majority appear to allow their emotions to guide their actions, they are in no position to make decisions which impact the lives of others. Those who obey reality and evidence must, therefore, educate and enlighten the remainder of the population and enable a decent society with true freedom of choice to flourish.

yes i agree, but this is divergent of your previous statements with the connotations of traditional, perhaps even violent, revolution. but do correct me if i misinterpreted some of your statements. ahh yes this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6182985&postcount=125)

But the conditions for education are not existent in most parts of the world. The old authority has a grip over the hearts and minds of the people. I believe that we must break this grip by any means necessary. Let me sum up my viewpoint in an attractive and quotable statement;

If violence against criminals is required to save the lives of the innocent, then to shirk from this duty would be an act of moral cowardice.

Edit: Yeah, that's probably a good idea.

there has to be a revolutionary new form of revolution. im saying we have to re-invent the revolution because we know for damn sure that none of them have ever worked.

Actually, I think the vast majority of revolutions have worked for the things they promised, at least temporarily. America's first revolution may have been harmful to the indigenous people, and it may not have established a perfect democracy, but it did place more of the wealth in the hands of the people who actually worked for it, as opposed to monarchs who just sucked it up for their own ends. France's revolution may have been hijacked by Napoleon, but despite his pomposity, he was a liberator in some ways, and helped to spread the ideals of civil liberties among the countries he conquered. Russia's revolution may not have made the country less dictatorial, but it did take the country out of the war, and despite a few lavish hypocrisies by the Communist leaders, they were nothing compared to the ostentatious, diamond-studded lives the Tsars used to live. People starved under the Soviet rule, but not as much as before, and not once the country was industrialized.

Dead Flag is right about forcing scientific thought on the masses if they want true democracy, and he may be right about the need for a benevolent enlightened elite to do it, too. Every revolutionary has been a little elitist; even so-called communists weren't actually from proletarian families.

Revolutions have not made countries truly democratic, because so far, nothing has been able to establish true democracy in a larger body than a city, and even there, the people can still be manipulated by think-tanks.

i think that democracies should be no larger than a city!!! LOL
beyond that we should have syndicalist councils and committees formed by regular universal draft.

my advice is this: continue to do your utmost best in talking to political noobs, and even try to turn a couple from the dark side (if its safe). And if you train, keep training. It would take a major crime to spark off a serious, classic revolution, and frankly, i much prefer a slow gradual and cerebral revolution.

one thing you must realize, the very moment you force your ideas on someone by the point of a sword, you have now put yourself in the exact same throne as the people you deposed. You become them.

It's not the ideas that are the issue. The issue is that for every second we delay progress, more suffering is caused by the uneducated or immoral. If we want to eliminate suffering entirely, we must educate and enlighten them. However, if we want to reduce suffering immediately, we must take action in the most decisive way possible.

It's not the ideas that are the issue. The issue is that for every second we delay progress, more suffering is caused by the uneducated or immoral. If we want to eliminate suffering entirely, we must educate and enlighten them. However, if we want to reduce suffering immediately, we must take action in the most decisive way possible.

What we ought to do is study to become good leaders. The vast majority of the people are not going to be uncomforatble enough for a revolution for a while. Once China and India grow to be such economic powerhouses that they no longer need US dollars to be rich, they'll probably boot out US companies. Then Americans will grow uncomfortable. If there is more war against a percieved axis of evil, and more counter-terrorist warfare in the innefective way Bush wages it, then there will eventually be a draft.

We'll need to wait until such events cause the people to grow angry, though. Simply forcing ideas on them when the man gives them a good life will make them think we're the bad guys.

A forceful revolution has to be reasonably popular, otherwise there wouldn't be enough revolutionaries to actually carry it out in the first place.

However, I disagree that the best thing to do is wait. Look at how far it's gotten us so far. If we can predict a collapse then the authorities can prevent it. What we have to do is continuously agitate and educate while building up committees, collectives and associations with which to replace the old order with when the time comes.

@Bahmo
You're right. I think things can get alot worse if the Status Quo continues along it's current path. And I especially think that if things get really bad, a bloody revolution would be a minor part, since the great majority and the middle class will be uprising. A nice, long, general strike would be nice :)

@Dead Flag
Please do not try any of these things you talk about. you sound like I did about 4 years ago when i first found out the extent of the hideous system and globalization and the ruling elite, you want to take it all down in rage. But this is incorrect and you need to further meditate on the lessons of history and the good that exists in man (not just the evil)
any actions by groups in the manner you talk about would leave you in a pool of blood, posthumously labeled a terrorist. Don't even think about going down those roads, when there are alternatives to dying like Che.

Don't worry my friend, I shall take a different path.

I'm not going to waste my life on a foolish and impatient gesture. I'm not going to shed blood only to see the struggle collapse in self-contradiction. But neither will I stand idly by while innocent lives are lost. Neither while I meditate and reflect while the elite continue to deceive and brainwash the masses.

What I am going to do is achieve victory. It may take me ten, twenty or thirty years but I, personally, will not rest until I know that my existence has been justified by a measurable contribution to humanity. If this requires bloodshed, though I hope very dearly it does not, then what must be done, must be done.

Until the time comes when I must answer the call, I will be waiting. And in that time I will be studying. I will be learning. But most of all I will be laying the foundations for the next great era of mankind. To turn inwards is the greatest death for a revolutionary. To build communities is the greatest life.

I never asked to to turn inwards to become insular. Quite the contrary, you should be spreading the ideas of a better way, and more importantly, be always attempting to pop the bubble of brainwashing that so many have like a wet blanket on their head.

But you should realize that bringing people out of the matrix of lies that most live in since childhood should be your primary goal. I only ask you look within and regard history so you do not unknowingly give out the wrong idea. You should constantly read books and constantly catalog the discrepancies of information we are bombarded with, as well as mentally document all the atrocities that are hidden as forbidden knowlage. Then you should mentally map out a method for telling people in a way that doesn't scare them off, and allows them to further open their own eyes to the world.

I'm merely skeptical of the influence one radical or a group of radicals can have over a population that does carry around a bubble of brainwashing, as you said. In fact I'm not hopeful of the capability of the majority in the 'developed' world to contribute to the progression of society. I believe that the future lies within the poor countries which we exploit. However, how are they supposed to peacefully claim their share of the earth's resources?

I believe that the future lies within the poor countries which we exploit. However, how are they supposed to peacefully claim their share of the earth's resources?

They're not. Sadly, when people in poor countries react against foreign oppression, their justified anger is usually utilized by bad men such as Hitler and Osama for their evil cause. That is not to say, however, that better men couldn't organize and come along. If a bunch of people from around the world were to pool their funds out of generosity, they could raise enough to outbid bad men.

A concentration of benevolent people from America, China, and Europe, for example, could easily shell out enough money to completely solve the starvation and economic woes of less-developed countries. That would be the way to really build support internationally for a global liberation movement.

Yes, i think that the future of the world will rest in the undeveloped countries.
this is primarly because they have the largest amounts of untapped resources, and large populations. there will be a point, IMO, when the developed world will be greatly overextended, and they will end up succumbing to the revolutionary might of the Third world. But this time will be far from now, and with globalisation doing it damnedest to crush those countries, coupled with probable orbital weapons platforms, it would be an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

Please, dead_flag, use your knowledge to spread the 'virus of understanding' amongst the people you are around. When something worthy of an outright revolution happens, like a draft or nukes or mass starvation, at least there will be many people with the right idea before it starts. And as a person 'out of the matrix', the responsibility rests solely on your shoulders to spread this ideology.

I don't have the time to read every post you guys have wrote, but I think I get the picture, what are you guys talking about...

The USA is in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to set peace there and destroy all terrorist groups, if thats true, why is USA supporting Kosovos independence where there are many terrorist organizations and many drug routes go trough Kosovo... cause USA is in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the oil and gas, and by supporting the independence of Kosovo they are saying hey we don't hate Muslims... you see? we help them... and +Kosovo is in the Balkan near Russia, so they can manipulate it and use it for strategic blackmale!
All in all USA has become a big Bully who's days are numbered, cause Russia is weak no more, and China, India, do I need to say more?

yeah, USA foreign policy is not consistent except for its self-serving nature. i really can't stand the fact that as US citizen, i have no control over what my county does or doesnt do or who we bomb or put sanctions against and kill babies, but as a citizenry we get all the contempt that the other nations hold against america. not fair, but then again neither is our foreign policy.

It would be extremely unfair to blame Americans for the actions of their government. In the developed world, the wealthy purchase votes through the media and advertising. Therefore, no individual, or group of individuals, can change the situation while the majority continue to receive their instructions directly from Command HQ.

Well I think Americans deserve for being treated that way!
Because Americans are not interested in politics so they only here about it in TV and they believe every thing they see on it! In this part of the world people are very interested in politics we know everything thats going on! and when the ruling political party makes that many mistakes it ratings go from roof sky to 5-10% and they can disband the party cause the people will not vote for them any more... in the US there are always Republicans and Democrats you only see the candidate not being the same! but your not seeing the people that are coming to power with that man that is representing them ;)
I just think that if the Americans got more involved in politics these things wouldn't happen!

For instance, if I was to ask an average American where Serbia is, he would say Africa or Asia... that says it all!

yeah, but tell that to the people who hate all americans. you will find some in europe and canada even (as this is places i have been to)

i think it is bullshisse, and i wish there was some way for us to reverse this trend. unfortunately, with hilary 'the beeotch' clinton slated to be the next president, i foresee it only getting worse.

Well I think Americans deserve for being treated that way!
Because Americans are not interested in politics so they only here about it in TV and they believe every thing they see on it! In this part of the world people are very interested in politics we know everything thats going on! and when the ruling political party makes that many mistakes it ratings go from roof sky to 5-10% and they can disband the party cause the people will not vote for them any more... in the US there are always Republicans and Democrats you only see the candidate not being the same! but your not seeing the people that are coming to power with that man that is representing them ;)
I just think that if the Americans got more involved in politics these things wouldn't happen!

For instance, if I was to ask an average American where Serbia is, he would say Africa or Asia... that says it all!

well, i gaurantee that the people in this thread (for the most part) are not your average americans. that includes people who play my mod fervently too. but even though some americans have "Left the Matrix" and rejected the lie-trap we are raised in, we still get dissed by other countries, even though we (as a subgroup) are the only ones who really recognize what is going in america, and can see the world from a different point of view than the bullshisse media.

Yes I understand and respect that, but you have to realize you guys are a minority and you have to face the fact that people from around the world think that Americans are stupid... and this is going to happen until a revolution hits America like it did in Vietnam war ;)

Yes I understand and respect that, but you have to realize you guys are a minority and you have to face the fact that people from around the world think that Americans are stupid... and this is going to happen until a revolution hits America like it did in Vietnam war ;)

I think you underestimate the power of the Evil American Propaganda system! I don't know when there will be a revolution (not sure the one to which you refer to) because people here are still too comfortable. And when there are massive peaceful protest about something, the gov't takes it seriously and only then perhaps curbs their behaviour (in the case of making felons out of undocumented immigrants).

I think that perhaps if drastic things happen here, there may be some kind of refusal to the powers-that-be, but I'm also afraid the Elite class would simply starve us off before we could do anything.

Edit: I don't like hippies aka yuppies

well, in the US as it is! I'm just waiting (not happily) for another sep. 11th :(
Your enemies list is just going higher and higher...

PS. I'm not talking about the people in America but about the government

im hoping we don't have another 9/11. coz if it happens it will be because it is allowed to happen, and i dont want to watch more innocents die.

Edit: I don't like hippies aka yuppies

I dislike pacifism; however, the criticisms directed at America's military-industrial complex are very valid, even if the more-radical conspiracy theories aren't. The system of using private contacting to produce weapons has led to a number of immense problems. When profiteers get a chance to suck up American tax dollars, they can and will fund the election of politicians who will return the favor by spending more tax dollars on weapons, sometimes ineffective and unneeded. This wastes far too much money on things America's military does not really need; most of it is Soviet era stuff that is now not relevent to counter-terrorism, and it would be better for economy or infrastructure if left in the hands of the people or spent on such things as public transportation.

Furthermore, the use of so much money on bombs and other killing machines means that America has built an immense amount of hard-power at the expense of dwindling their soft-power. When there is a terrorist threat, all America has is lots of bombs to drop in the general area. What is being ignored is that these so-called terrorists are mostly civillians who are so fed-up that they will join and fight for anybody if they gave them food. That's what Osama and company do, and meanwhile, as our bombs kill more civillians; that just makes them hate us more. If we instead allocated our inflated military budget towards providing food to the starving people of the world, and building infrastructure, we could easily outbid Osama. However, this simple solution is going ignored due to the Military-Industrial-Complex's grip on politics. That is by far the biggest reason the USA is so hated in the world today.

Yeah, and according to Chomsky, the US spends more on its Defense Budget than the rest of the entire world, combined.

Yeah, and according to Chomsky, the US spends more on its "Defense" Budget than the rest of the entire world, combined.

Furthermore, even Canada, before Harper, spent several times on military what Bush's "Axis of Evil" did. Al Quaeda spent even less than that. Osama's biggest resource is human-capital; if we provided charity to the thhird world; he wouldn't have that resorce.

Furthermore, even Canada, before Harper, spent several times on military what Bush's "Axis of Evil" did. Al Quaeda spent even less than that. Osama's biggest resource is human-capital; if we provided charity to the thhird world; he wouldn't have that resorce.

I agree, people should only consider spending their money to UN charity (like UNHCR) and not the ones they just heard of... :crazyeye:

well those "charity" organizations that get alot of US$ are really corporations aiming at profit.

well those "charity" organizations that get alot of US$ are really corporations aiming at profit.

I think a good deal of Americans believe that it is "charitable" to let McDonalds invest in third-world countries.

That's one of the problems with modern economics. It really does help to stimulate humanity, but the only way to measure its success is to measure profits, and you can't eat money.

I think a good deal of Americans believe that it is "charitable" to let McDonalds invest in third-world countries.IOW, if folks in the Third World want to work for McDonalds or to eat there, charity means that you should force them to do what you think is right instead? Of course, you know so much better what is good for them than they do themselves.

That's one of the problems with modern economics. It really does help to stimulate humanity, but the only way to measure its success is to measure profits, and you can't eat money.Like most people, money is the only thing I get paid with. Somehow I manage to eat. :rolleyes:

Actually, Abegweit, a lot of problems are caused, especially in third world countries, by poor people who believe that they will be better off if they sell their farms and go to work in factories; the industrial revolution in Britain is a good example of this. I study Development Economics so I do know a little about it.

Secondly, unless they are informed about proper nutrition then they will not be able to make an informed decision about where to eat. Charity means education and empowerment, not empty or deceitful choices.

Actually, Abegweit, a lot of problems are caused, especially in third world countries, by poor people who believe that they will be better off if they sell their farms and go to work in factories; the industrial revolution in Britain is a good example of this. I study Development Economics so I do know a little about it.Actually, Dead Flag, the arrogance in your comment is only exceeded by the ignorance. Do you really believe that folks are so stupid that they can't see the difference between an improvement in their circumstances and a decline? I really don't care what kind of statist propaganda you "study", you obviously need to learn a little about how the real world works.

To start with, where did you get the idea that folks who worked in factories in Britain were worse off than peasants? And where did you get the idea that they had farms to sell?

Continue a bit more, gents. I still haven't got a fix on you Abegweit ;) but i think i will by later today.

@abegweit
so you think that perhaps globalisation is something that most countries' people choose and are okay with?

Actually, Dead Flag, the arrogance in your comment is only exceeded by the ignorance. Do you really believe that folks are so stupid that they can't see the difference between an improvement in their circumstances and a decline? I really don't care what kind of statist propaganda you "study", you obviously need to learn a little about how the real world works.

To start with, where did you get the idea that folks who worked in factories in Britain were worse off than peasants? And where did you get the idea that they had farms to sell?

I'm not the one suggesting people can see into the future ;)

The fact is, nobody knows what their circumstances will be like until after they've changed. By that time it's fairly difficult to reverse them again. It's ludicrous to suggest that agricultural workers have any inclination as to what life in the city is like. Especially because by the time they have heard what city life is like, the circumstances will have changed anyway.

And are you seriously saying that factory life is better than agricultural life? It seems like you're the one who's being studying propaganda.

so you think that perhaps globalisation is something that most countries' people choose and are okay with?I have never understood what "globalisation" is supposed to mean. From what I can see, it is mostly about rich people thinking that it's cute to watch poor people dance around in funny clothes.

It's ludicrous to suggest that agricultural workers have any inclination as to what life in the city is like.You really have no clue whatever, do you? You honestly believe that people are stupid enough to simply plunge out into the unknown in a romantic belief in the virtues of sweatshops.

And are you seriously saying that factory life is better than agricultural life? It seems like you're the one who's being studying propaganda.I have worked on farms and I have worked in sweatshops and I know the difference. You are right about the propaganda, though. Like you, I have indeed studied it. It is quite clear from the way that you talk that you have never done anything else.

Let me tell you, from first-hand experience, that life in the factories is indeed better than life on the farms. The factories are mindless and extremely extremely hot. And oh, never forget the dust. It can get hard to breathe. It remains that the farms are back-breaking. I can only think that rice paddies must be far worse than what I went through. I have spent many weeks at hard labour - day after day slopping calves, picking stones out of fields and digging dirt to be ground up in hoppers, for example. Still... most of the time I drove tractors and trucks. Rice paddy farmers don't have these things. It is nothing but slogging with a hoe. Absolutely back-breaking.

Your romantic crap about agricultural life is nothing more than BS. You have no clue. None.