Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 109

Thread: "Notes on Anarchism"

  1. #51
    Senior Member -jmw-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 3rd, 2018 @ 04:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Location
    Ostholstein
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    m.y.o.b.ismus
    Religion
    Zu kurz, leider, das Textfeld :(
    Posts
    181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sophia View Post
    Isn't the reason we can't have anarchy now though because modern military technology gives an extreme advantage to societies with states in the modern sense?
    Military and national defense is perhaps the most difficult question which anarchism has to confront.
    Solution?
    I don't know.
    If you could organize a modern military within a polycentral constitutional order, the advantage of states perhapswouldn't be that great or would even not exist...

  2. #52
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by IlluSionSxxx View Post
    The problem with anarchism is that it simply doesn't work. It only works on a very small scale (eg. village or corporation), but it fails to work on any regionals, state or federal level. The reason for this, is because larger organisational stuctures require more abstraction and a greater distance between the organisation and the individual. The masses are not capable of grasping the complexity that results from this.

    I still don't see how you can say it doesn't work when we all know it hasn't really been given the chance to. I don't agree with your assumption that larger organizational structures require abstraction. I think it is a myth cultivated by those who support hierarchal type structures and those who , imo , underestimate the capabilities of the masses.


    I understand that anarchists (and national-anarchists) for this reason prefer to avoid any form of authority on levels higher than the local. This, however, inevitably leads to new problems. Without any higher authority, pretty much every village can create its own laws. As a result, something that is illegal in one village would be legal in the next village, with dozens of complications as a result.
    Some authority is legitimate. Anarchism , as I understand it , is the process of asking self proclaimed authorities to justify that authority. If the authority cannot justify itself then , in anarchist thought and practice , it should be dismantled. I see anarchism as a way of replacing illigitimate higher authorities ( usually elitist ) with higher authorities that are more democratically elected/controlled .

    An anarchistic way or life also makes it fairly easy for warlords to arise. Small warlords soon become warmongering imperialists, with dozens of complications as a result.
    I'm sure you will see how humourous it is for me to discuss the danger of " warmongering imperialists " with a supporter of the Third Reich.

    Classic anarchist thought denounces the formation of standing armies prefering peoples militias in times of defence ( if needed ) thus leaving war mongerers/warlords less able to form forces of a size that we have seen under State control.

    To avoid these problems, we need higher authorities than just the local, which makes the anarchistic experiment unfeasible in the long run. That's why there are barely any historical examples of anarchistic societies to begin with.
    We can have higher authorities than just local ones. The difference being , imo , that these higher authorities are made up directly from the local ones on a voluntary basis not from a centralized power base
    For a criticism of the anarchists during the Spanish revolution, I'd like to refer to Orwell's Hommage to Catalonia. As a foreign sympathiser, he fought on the side of the anarchists and experienced their experimental form of civilisation first hand.
    I have much time for Orwell ( Blair ) as a writer and as a person. However, Hommage to Catalonia ( why is it not called Hommage to Spain ) is a general criticism of the left wing factions active during the Spanish Civil War, or more precisely the infighting amongst them.
    The fact is that by the end of the war he was a commited anti stalinist , not an anti anarchist should be noted, imo.
    He chose to fight for the POUM/anarchists as opposed to the international communist brigades.

    Spanish Civil War aside Orwell in his younger days had sometimes refered to himself as a " tory anarchist " and was greatly influenced by the anarchist criticism of the Soviet disaster ( for socialism )

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Although he was never either a Trotskyist or an anarchist, he was strongly influenced by the Trotskyist and anarchist critiques of the Soviet regime and by the anarchists' emphasis on individual freedom. He wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier that 'I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.' In typical Orwellian style, he continues to deconstruct his own opinion as 'sentimental nonsense'. He continues 'it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly'. Many of his closest friends in the mid-1940s were part of the small anarchist scene in London.
    Orwell may have not been an anarchist but he was an avid opponent of Fascism. In short he prefered anarchism to fascism and was ardently opposed to Hitlers Third Reich

    I wouldn't really draw any conclusions out of this. According to Orwell's Hommage to Catalonia, the Spanish Civil War was about as surreal as a Dali painting.
    That's why it is not a good choice to judge Orwells view of anarchism , imo.
    The same thing is true for national-socialism. Please note that Stalin, Churcill and Roosevelt fought together to destroy German national-socialism.
    But only when the Third Reich had shown its imperialistic ambitions. Invasion of Poland , Russia , France, etc etc

    Anyway, there are enough threads about National Socialism here to discuss the rights and wrongs that went on then so there's no real need to discuss it on this one

    Nevertheless, we do see how national-socialism prospered for 7 years in spite of the violent suppression and propaganda from all sides. We see both happy workers and happy intellectuals when we look at life in the Third Reich before WW2. This cannot be said of any anarchist society.
    As I said there of plenty of threads to discuss the pros and cons on your own particular political bent.

    At least you have had the luxury of having 7 years of it in action ( without a war going on around it ) , if only the CNT would have had the same opportunity in Catalonia. We may well have a better view on how an anarchist society would have functioned ( or not ) and the problems it would have encountered.


    National-socialism has many similarities with enlightened monarchism, fascism, Maoism, Stalinism, Juche and national-anarchism but also with anarchism. The relation with anarchism rests mostly in its focus on community life and rural life. National-socialists are strongly communitarian, ecologist, anti-urban and in favor of natural hierarchy instead of a class system.
    To be honest I don't think the anarchists would agree with you here.

    National socialism is based on a State sponsored ruling elite. Any talk of ecology , communitarian spirit blends into the irrelevant by that very fact
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  3. #53
    Senior Member -jmw-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 3rd, 2018 @ 04:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Location
    Ostholstein
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    m.y.o.b.ismus
    Religion
    Zu kurz, leider, das Textfeld :(
    Posts
    181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I see anarchism as a way of replacing illigitimate higher authorities ( usually elitist ) with higher authorities that are more democratically elected/controlled .
    I think in respect to authorities the anarchistic point is not the democratic election but the possibility of costless or cost-least separation from authorities, be they democratic or not.

  4. #54
    Senior Member IlluSionSxxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 03:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Posts
    582
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    We should try and see if you're right!
    It has been tried and it was very chaotic every time. Again, I'd like to refer to Hommage to Catalonia for the Spanish variant.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    Well...
    I agree.
    Most people have difficulties to grasp this complexity, that's right.
    It's not easy "to live in two worlds", as Friedrich von Hayek put it: The one of the community, the other of the society.
    Conclusion?
    Elites. Hierarchies. Leadership. - Something alway recognized by anarchists both from the left and from the right (- but of course not by the kiddies who today call themselbes "anarchists" but are just pseudo-anarchist bourgeois leftwingers who happen to like pot and hate cops).
    If there is an elite and a hierarchy, then please explain how your model differs from eg. monarchism or national-socialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    No, not exactly.
    The major problem for (real) anarchists is not authority per se, but instituionalized and monopolized authority.
    Authority must be institutionalised for it to actually work. Further, the leadership must follow a clear plan to make decisions for the future.

    Please explain how you define institutionalisation and monopolisation within this context and why you opose it.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    This, however, inevitably leads to new problems. Without any higher authority, pretty much every village can create its own laws. As a result, something that is illegal in one village would be legal in the next village, with dozens of complications as a result.
    Switzerland seems to have no big problems with that, neither do the U.S.A. in which different counties may have different rules, too.
    Both the US and Switzerland have federal laws that deal with various issues. Besides that, most American states are larger than Belgium and Swiss cantons aren't that tiny either. This is completely incomparable with a situation where every village can establish its own laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    And even if there would be problems - would that be so important?
    Or, better: Of course there will be some problems;
    but would they be worse, from an anarchist perspective, than the problems we have now?
    Maybe they wouldn't be worse than the problems we have now, but they would be far worse than the problems one would have in an evolved national-socialist society.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    Do they?
    How would they do that?
    How would they finance an army in the first place?
    This costs a lot of money.
    Are there a lot of billionaires out there who want to play emperor?
    I doubt that.
    If that's what you think, you're naieve. Wall Street is filled with billionaires who want to play emperor. Today, they just do it economically by buying and selling property and shares. In your anarchistic society, they would invest in armies. These people continuously lust for power.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    And even if one could form an army, how can we be sure that he would be able to subjugate an armed populace?
    I doubt that, too.
    It depends. In the beginning, it will be hard. Once various cities are taken over however, the warlord has access to an increasing number of new soldiers and his chances will grow.

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    And even if he does it, than we would have some areas shifting between warlordism, dictatorship and chaos - so, roughly the same we have nowadays.
    Do you really want roughly the same we have nowadays? I want something better :p

    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post
    Well, depends on the perspective, I think.
    For a lot of non-NS (democrats, communists, liberals, libertarians, monarchists, feudalists, anarchists... You name it), national-socialist Germany "did not work", was politically deficient.
    Ask around old folk when they were happiest. Many will reluctantly admit that the era 1933-1939 was the greatest era of their lives, in spite of decades of anti-NS indoctrination.

    Why was this? Hitler brought welfare for all social layers, he united Germans as one folk and he returned Germany to the ways of our wise and noble ancestors.

  5. #55
    Senior Member IlluSionSxxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 03:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Posts
    582
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I still don't see how you can say it doesn't work when we all know it hasn't really been given the chance to.
    First of all, there are a handful of historical examples that indicates this. Besides this, however, insight in human nature also makes this pretty clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I don't agree with your assumption that larger organizational structures require abstraction. I think it is a myth cultivated by those who support hierarchal type structures and those who , imo , underestimate the capabilities of the masses.
    What I've learned from experience, is that most people have quite a good understanding and feeling of their direct environment (eg. their work, their village) but most have only very little understanding of the world outside their direct environment. With regards to the world outside their direct environment, most people base their views entirely on the propaganda rubbish they find in the mainstream media, with little to no interprettation. This allows any demagogue to win their hearts with one lie and distortion after another, which is exactly what we see with "social-democratic" politics and corporate advertising.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    Some authority is legitimate. Anarchism , as I understand it , is the process of asking self proclaimed authorities to justify that authority. If the authority cannot justify itself then , in anarchist thought and practice , it should be dismantled.
    Why not just establish a meritocratic infrastructure instead, which means that you pick leaders based on no other ground but their talents, their experience and their dedication? Why first allowing poor leaders to arise to remove them from position afterwards, while you can make sure only good leaders are put in place within a meritocratic system?

    I'm a supporter of meritocracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I see anarchism as a way of replacing illigitimate higher authorities ( usually elitist ) with higher authorities that are more democratically elected/controlled .
    Why is there a need for democratic control or election? Why would you let a few million idiots decide who becomes leader? Remember that idiots always outnumber the geniuses and that an idiot gets an vote equal to a genius.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I'm sure you will see how humourous it is for me to discuss the danger of " warmongering imperialists " with a supporter of the Third Reich.
    If you are indoctrinated by all those horror tales about the Third Reich, then I see. Otherwise, I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    Classic anarchist thought denounces the formation of standing armies prefering peoples militias in times of defence ( if needed ) thus leaving war mongerers/warlords less able to form forces of a size that we have seen under State control.
    There has to be only one poor leader to do his own thing and screw up the system and there's nothing to stop such a poor leader.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    We can have higher authorities than just local ones. The difference being , imo , that these higher authorities are made up directly from the local ones on a voluntary basis not from a centralized power base
    Social-democracy, anyone? Haven't you realised by now that such a system inherently leads to corruption?

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    I have much time for Orwell ( Blair ) as a writer and as a person. However, Hommage to Catalonia ( why is it not called Hommage to Spain ) is a general criticism of the left wing factions active during the Spanish Civil War, or more precisely the infighting amongst them.
    The fact is that by the end of the war he was a commited anti stalinist , not an anti anarchist should be noted, imo.
    He chose to fight for the POUM/anarchists as opposed to the international communist brigades.
    Still, he was very critical of his anarchist comrades.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    Orwell in his younger days had sometimes refered to himself as a " tory anarchist " and was greatly influenced by the anarchist criticism of the Soviet disaster ( for socialism )
    ... until he served in the Spanish Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    Orwell may have not been an anarchist but he was an avid opponent of Fascism. In short he prefered anarchism to fascism and was ardently opposed to Hitlers Third Reich
    Orwell only learned of the Third Reich from the lies and distortions in the British mainstream media. I don't blame him. Had he actually lived in the Third Reich, I'm sure he'd been more positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    But only when the Third Reich had shown its imperialistic ambitions. Invasion of Poland , Russia , France, etc etc
    The Third Reich didn't have imperialistic ambitions. For this topic, see and of the threads on the Third Reich.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    As I said there of plenty of threads to discuss the pros and cons on your own particular political bent.
    Still, I find it important to show it is superior to anarchism.

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    National-socialism has many similarities with enlightened monarchism, fascism, Maoism, Stalinism, Juche and national-anarchism but also with anarchism. The relation with anarchism rests mostly in its focus on community life and rural life. National-socialists are strongly communitarian, ecologist, anti-urban and in favor of natural hierarchy instead of a class system.
    To be honest I don't think the anarchists would agree with you here.
    On what part precisely? Do you know ANYTHING about national-socialism, besides the common anti-NS propaganda in mainstream media and "history books".

    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    National socialism is based on a State sponsored ruling elite. Any talk of ecology , communitarian spirit blends into the irrelevant by that very fact
    A nation should be run by a State sponsored elite. There's nothing wrong with that if they make decisions that benefit ALL of the people and not just some social groups. The Third Reich took care of all the Germans, which is why the communitarianism is far more relevant than the nation being run by an elite.

  6. #56
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  7. #57
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    To be honest it feels strange to reply to a member ( or ex-member ? ) knowing they have lost the right to reply , but I think there are obviously answers to give so..............

    Quote Originally Posted by IlluSionSxxx View Post
    First of all, there are a handful of historical examples that indicates this. Besides this, however, insight in human nature also makes this pretty clear.
    First my view on human nature , or at least some aspects of it.

    Firstly , there is a pretty broad consensus that human nature is inherently bad , selfish , treacherous etc etc and to be fair there is much justification for this.
    However , there is another side to human nature that is the total opposite of this. If it were not so we would not have words like compassion , charity , tolerance, sympathy , benevolence etc etc
    I happen to believe that the social conditions under which people live in society has a massive influence in shaping how altruistic or egotistical their nature will be.
    It is obvious to me that both the treacherous and the good seed are present within human nature but it is the economic/social system of human relations that plays no small part in influencing which seed is allowed to grow.

    What I've learned from experience, is that most people have quite a good understanding and feeling of their direct environment (eg. their work, their village) but most have only very little understanding of the world outside their direct environment. With regards to the world outside their direct environment, most people base their views entirely on the propaganda rubbish they find in the mainstream media, with little to no interprettation. This allows any demagogue to win their hearts with one lie and distortion after another, which is exactly what we see with "social-democratic" politics and corporate advertising.
    I agree with your comments on the propaganda within mainstream media that is why I help fund non mainstrem media organisations but with regard to what people understand it is largely down to education. If we educate people to perform such and such function I don't see a problem.


    Why not just establish a meritocratic infrastructure instead, which means that you pick leaders based on no other ground but their talents, their experience and their dedication? Why first allowing poor leaders to arise to remove them from position afterwards, while you can make sure only good leaders are put in place within a meritocratic system?

    I'm a supporter of meritocracy.
    If we are talking about an anarchist society , which we are, the term leader would not have the same relevence than say it would in other societal structures. It would probably be deemed unnecessary. Councils would have replaced the individual leader concept. ( in a socialist form of anarchism )

    Many who believe in meritocracy are from the ruling elites ( not surprisingly ) They have been priviledged with regard to education and as such have an advantage over equally capable people who due to their particular social status/position have not had their latent talents developed to their fullest potential , imo.


    Why is there a need for democratic control or election? Why would you let a few million idiots decide who becomes leader? Remember that idiots always outnumber the geniuses and that an idiot gets an vote equal to a genius.
    Democracy , in socialist anarchism , would not elect leaders as such. Representative councils , yes , but not leaders.
    I would also like to think that in a society where every member is given the right to develop their own personal attributes/talents and given them up to their own social structures/communities there wouldn't be that many " idiots "
    knocking around.
    If you are indoctrinated by all those horror tales about the Third Reich, then I see. Otherwise, I don't.
    I have an open mind , and my own views on NS , I wonder why so many NS'ists consider those who hold their own opinion as " indoctrinated ". I find it arrogant to be honest.
    Social-democracy, anyone? Haven't you realised by now that such a system inherently leads to corruption?
    Whilst I prefer social democracy to many other systems I don't think it goes far enough for my support. It does not give the producers control of production for one. And is always in a counter revolutionary quagmire.
    Still, he was very critical of his anarchist comrades.
    He was more critical of Fascism , that's why he was there fighting in the first place


    ... until he served in the Spanish Civil War
    Fighting Fascists.


    Orwell only learned of the Third Reich from the lies and distortions in the British mainstream media. I don't blame him. Had he actually lived in the Third Reich, I'm sure he'd been more positive.
    So now Orwell is " indoctrinated ".

    If he had lived in the Third Reich he would have probably been murdered and so would not have had the priviledge of forming an opinion on it

    Do you know ANYTHING about national-socialism, besides the common anti-NS propaganda in mainstream media and "history books".
    I know enough to see that Hitler carried out a social revolution with much success. But like all State Socialism it is only as good as the people at the top allow it to be. I hold the same opinion of Hitler as Evola did. He was a frustrated medium who suffered from psychosis.
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  8. #58
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Death and the Sun View Post
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    This is an improvement on your last post on this topic , imho.
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  9. #59
    Senior Member -jmw-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 3rd, 2018 @ 04:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Location
    Ostholstein
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    m.y.o.b.ismus
    Religion
    Zu kurz, leider, das Textfeld :(
    Posts
    181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by IlluSionSxxx View Post
    It has been tried and it was very chaotic every time. Again, I'd like to refer to Hommage to Catalonia for the Spanish variant.
    Well, Spain was Spain.
    We could try it in a different way.

    If there is an elite and a hierarchy, then please explain how your model differs from eg. monarchism or national-socialism?
    State here, no state there.

    Authority must be institutionalised for it to actually work. Further, the leadership must follow a clear plan to make decisions for the future.

    Please explain how you define institutionalisation and monopolisation within this context and why you opose it.
    I have no special definition for this context.
    I mean "institution" and "monopoly" just as these terms are normally used.

    And did I say I oppose them?
    Well, I do, but I don't think that's important.
    Important are the arguments I have, independent of my personal political beliefs.

    And my argument against monopolism would be that it would bring the need to justify the monopoly, which I think is a pretty difficult task.
    Many tried, but no one beyond doubt.

    Personally, I oppose state-monopolism (that's important: not institutionalization, just the monopoly), well, that's different to explain...
    Perhaps the easiest and most understandable way is to say that I have no idea how one exactly could justify having a monopoly.
    I have also strong objections from the point of legal philosophy and rule theory, but these are difficult to explain even in German, so I won't try to do it in English, at least not until the weekend. )

    Both the US and Switzerland have federal laws that deal with various issues. Besides that, most American states are larger than Belgium and Swiss cantons aren't that tiny either. This is completely incomparable with a situation where every village can establish its own laws.
    I do not think it's incomparable.

    The question is: How much can we subsidiaritize (<- Is there such a word?)?
    How much competences can we transfer from the federal and regional and local governments and bureaucracies to the regional, local and non-territorial ones respectivly?

    Imagine a world full of Liechtensteins, Andorras, Monacos and San Marinos - that would be damn near to anarchism.

    Maybe they wouldn't be worse than the problems we have now, but they would be far worse than the problems one would have in an evolved national-socialist society.
    Depends on what you see as a problem.
    As a NS, you personally perhaps wouldn't have much problem in a national-socialist state.
    Do you now have problems, with the current governments?
    I think so.
    Well, the same would go for non-NS in the form of state and government you prefer.

    There were a lot of communists, liberals, social democrats, traditionalists, christian conservatives and so on who really, really disliked historical NS and the way they were treated in and by it.

    If that's what you think, you're naieve. Wall Street is filled with billionaires who want to play emperor. Today, they just do it economically by buying and selling property and shares. In your anarchistic society, they would invest in armies. These people continuously lust for power.
    Naive?
    No, not at all.
    Wall Street is an economical phaenomenon.
    It was not there from the beginning and there are reasons we have it now.
    Especially it has to do with our monetary system.
    The same goes with a lot of other concentrations of wealth.
    They're connected with "power" in one or the other way and will not survive it's end. (Just think of the MIC!)

    Apart from that, there are not much people in the world who have and will have the money to finance an army.
    Hiere mercenaries?
    Yes, of course.
    But not enough of them.

    It depends. In the beginning, it will be hard. Once various cities are taken over however, the warlord has access to an increasing number of new soldiers and his chances will grow.
    His chances will grow that he does wake up one morning and is dead!
    This nice rule of not killing the enemies politicians and military leaders is one that anarchists do not abide by.

    Do you really want roughly the same we have nowadays? I want something better :p
    No, you don't.

    Ask around old folk when they were happiest. Many will reluctantly admit that the era 1933-1939 was the greatest era of their lives, in spite of decades of anti-NS indoctrination.
    Build a time machine, go back 400 years and interview some people.
    A lot of them will tell you they are very happy with how succesfull the latest witch-burning was.
    Does that make those practices any better?
    To be frank, I'm not interested at all if someone is happy with murdering, lying, stealing, raping or politics.
    Because it's happiness which someone else has to pay for.
    And that's not fair, plain and simple.
    If someone want's to live NS, perfect, I will not stop him - as long as he leaves the rest of us alone.
    I he does not leave us alone, then, well, then there's no reason we have to let him alone.

    Why was this? Hitler (a) brought welfare for all social layers, (b) he united Germans as one folk and (c) he returned Germany to the ways of our wise and noble ancestors.
    (a) Actually, normal wages, especially for workers, did not rise during the NS as far as I know.
    Nor did prices fall.
    So, the welfare-thing wasn't big.
    And it was grounded on unwise economic policy.

    (b) I doubt that a lot of political and social minorities of this time would call their persecution "unity"...
    Hitler was a party-leader and parties always represents parts of society, not the whole.
    Worse, he was the leader of a party which rose in a situation you could well describe as a quite civil war - which even reduced the chance encompassing all classes, stratas and groups of society with is politics.

    (c) Ha! Are you serious? Well, I think you must be...
    National-socialism was born out of the Europe of christianity, the nation-state, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution(s).
    As such, it was miles and miles away from "our ancestors".
    In fact, national-socialism had in practice (and despite what Dr. Goebbels had to say about this matter) much more to do with the French Revolution than with the Old Germans, the Germanics, the "Aryans" and so on.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by -jmw- View Post

    And: Quasi-anarchic societies were the rule (or "natural state") for a long time also in other parts of the world were you had traditional and custom-based rules enforced mostly by private means.
    Iceland is a prominent example.
    Ireland too.
    The Germanics, the Celts, Slavs...
    Native Americans.
    And so on and so on.

    Most of the time most of the people of the world did not have a state in the modern sense of the word.
    Of course they would not have a modern idea of a state, it was several thousand years ago. eyes: What a null point. And if you honestly think anyone on this forum likes government in its "modern" fashion it is hardly surprising you are foolish enough to believe in Anarchism too. Nothing about Anarchism is nature, there is no natural environment one can look at and draw similarities to it. Hierarchy, on the other hand, is the way of the world, and always will be, despite your pseudo-intellectual idealistic attempts. The strong survive, the weak die. Though there is not a need for the extreme aspects of this in modern society, we will always have weak and strong in regards to people. It is as if you are seeing a wall and saying "No, that is not a wall, it is a chair because that is more pleasant." There will always be leaders and followers, that is human nature, and thus there will always be States. One should stop wasting time with ridiculous Utopian ideas such as this and work on improving the systems which can, and do, exist.

    And as for critiquing NS, sure, its easy to insult something that actually existed when your beliefs have never been incarnated. A formless deed.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, June 16th, 2018, 01:02 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Sunday, June 3rd, 2018, 07:15 AM
  3. Hitler Had "Somali", "Berber" and "Jewish" DNA
    By NorthWestEuropean in forum Genealogy & Ancestry DNA
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Monday, July 11th, 2011, 01:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •