Log in

View Full Version : Why political systems and 'order' don't work... - In relatio



Rebelde para Siempre
7th January 2003, 07:24
Why political systems don't work -

Don't get me wrong in this post. I am a sympathiser of the entire 'radical' left wing. There was a time when I considered myself a communist, then a socialist, now an anarchist (of some sort).

So why did I change my views? I realised something about society. Just that. We are kept in check by society. Our ideals, beliefs and actions will never truly be the same as anyone else's. Society forces you to be someone who you are not. Everywhere you turn someone supresses your free play, what you want to really do. We never live in true peace, it is constant turmoil which singularly drives us in today's world. Other people's views, the formalities of civilized society, you despise and comdemn are forced upon you every single minute you interact with others. We never are truly ourselves. Everytime we speak to someone we are reminded of the way we 'should' act and we wear a mask. The mask changes with whoever we see.

Don't you see that in a socialist society the people have even less freedom? In fact socialist society places more pressure on the individual than any other. They are expected to work forever, to be a part of a machine, perhaps even moreso than capitalist society. The people have nothing to look foward to except monotony, equality and supression by the socialist government. The very things which people protest - police state, authoritarian control and violence are needed even more in a system which is as rigid as socialism. These are needed because not everyone will agree with socialism. Another revolution may take place simply because the people CAN revolt.

A communist state will supposedly emerge from a socialist state. This is basically impossible. How can a stateless society emerge from one which requires so much control?

Fascism and capitalism are basically spoken for.

So here I present a theory. Somehow (any means nessacary), anarchy is instituted. We leave people to their own actions. Theories for a new anarchist society will arise for sure. None will ever materialise because everyone will NOT BELIEVE THE SAME THING. For many years, hundreds, maybe thousands (I hope it doesn't take that long) people will live in chaos. Violence, death will be prevelant for so long. But is it possible that through experience only, people will come to a realisation, a compromise which everyone will agree upon, a society where people realise that there has been enough death and evil. Therefore evil will be no more because EVERYONE simply chooses for it to no longer exist, not because they are threatened by violence. This is the higher state of mind it takes for communism (or a good society) to work.

Just a theory. That's all.

For the people who will refute, you have simply proven my point. We all have differing views. Your's have been influenced by your own affirmations or whatever experiences you have felt. Therefore I ask for a brief moment to come to a conclusion based on what you DO NOT know, or what you haven't experienced.

If you have read all this then I commend you. Re-read it, You may come away with a different point of view, or at the very least something to dwell upon.

Rebelde para Siempre
7th January 2003, 09:03
Anarchy, freedom forever!

redstar2000
7th January 2003, 14:12
RpS, I don't dispute your points about the "masks" we wear in interacting with other humans.

But I suggest that many (most? all?) of these masks are imposed upon us by the differences in wealth and power between us...the weak and poor must LIE to the rich and powerful in order to survive, at least until they realize their own strength in numbers and overthrow their masters.

To suggest that the remedy for our dilemma is a return to "a state of nature"--the war of all against all--is, fortunately, impractical...though global nuclear war would do it. Rather drastic, don't you think?

Your idea of "socialism" is a capitalist stereotype of autocratic repression...like that of a high school textbook from the 1950s. NOBODY with any sense wants anything like that...and even if they did, there is no longer any practical way to "achieve" it.

It is the very nature of humans to "have different ideas", to struggle with each other over those ideas, to try to make their dreams a living reality. Political movements and institutions are created, at their best, to facilitate that process...to give it free play with an outcome agreeable to most.

Would it be better to live on a comfortable South Pacific island, completely isolated from all human contact and all human thought...would I be "freer" there? Yes, but I would no longer be human; I'd be just another hairless monkey looking for something to eat.

:cool:

Rebelde para Siempre
9th January 2003, 06:15
Good reply redstar2000


Your idea of "socialism" is a capitalist stereotype of autocratic repression...like that of a high school textbook from the 1950s. NOBODY with any sense wants anything like that...and even if they did, there is no longer any practical way to "achieve" it.

Tell me how socialism will be freeer than the current system. In reality it's just another political system, which comes with it's negative aspects. One of which I beleive is the need for a more authoritarian stance eg. police force, work inspectors etc etc..


Would it be better to live on a comfortable South Pacific island, completely isolated from all human contact and all human thought...would I be "freer" there? Yes, but I would no longer be human; I'd be just another hairless monkey looking for something to eat.

I guess we are all just hairless monkeys looking for something to eat, it's just we live in a concrete jungle now, with rules and regulations, trying to create some kind of order. We are all in actuality free right now, we could do what we wanted, but the fear of repercussions stops us.

I want to live without fear.

Rebelde para Siempre
11th January 2003, 12:51
Come on, I want more input here...

commie kg
11th January 2003, 19:26
What's to stop people from creating their own small, feudal governments within the large Anarchist state? The country would be dominated by warlords squabbling over land and resources. IMO, it would be a step backwards, not forwards.
But, I never really got into Anarchy or read any literature on it, so I might have a warped opinion.