That's right!
I mean it's extremist so why don't we follow the things in the midle?
That's right!
I mean it's extremist so why don't we follow the things in the midle?
Proto took the words straight from my mouth.Originally Posted by Protozoa
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Yet, I'd rather have complete freedom from extreme liberalism than complete oppression from extreme conservatism.
Take care all.
I've lived in both, and I prefer extreme liberalism.
Last edited by Anaralia; 05-28-2004 at 10:31 PM.
Extreme conservatives are scary. Extreme liberals are annoying.
But seriously, only a state of extreme conservatism is sustainable. In the opposite case, someone will gain advantage by manipulating others, thus ending up with a state of extreme, and probably quite violent, conservatism anyway.
Anyway, I agree with Shadow Nexus. A state of extreme liberalness in principle would be ideal, but it is unstable, thus as soon as reality comes into effect, the **** would certainly hit the fan.
Last edited by Skogs; 06-01-2004 at 11:33 AM.
And all black people hate white people because of the slave thing. And all the Jews hate the arabs and viceversa. And French people have mustaches and berets.
Can we have a stereotype party now? C'mon, I'll dress as a bullfighter just for you. And I'll continiously say "ˇOlé, olé!" :rolleyes2
Anyway, no one awnsered my point yet. What kind of extreme liberalism and what kind of extreme conservadurism? Given the fact my values fall into anarchist ideas, if the realisation of the ideal is extreme liberalism, then I'm all for it.
Also, please excuse me, but I believe neoliberalists and fascists to be both extreme right, only in a different way.
A lot of people think of the ideological sprectrum too much in terms of black and white. If you're liberal, you should be a pot-smoking, tree-hugging abortion activist. If you're conservative, you should be a war-mongering, money-grubbing WASP.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Whoa... I don't think I can debate this anymore.I've lived in both. Under extreme liberalism, I almost starved to death and wound up wandering the streets, looking for food for myself and my family. Then there was a military coup, and General Pinochet made sure that there were too many bodies littering the streets for me to be able to wander them any more.
Too much freedom leads to uncontrolable chaos, as people can get away with anything.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
Maybe I should have phrased it better, but my point was simply that under extreme liberalism, the worst threat to one's well being is usually a lack of resources and the competition that results when lots of people compete for too little food, whereas in fascist rule, you're tortured and killed just because. And often. Lots of Chileans hold the exact opposite opinion that I hold, mostly rich Chileans, of course, since they benefited economically from Pinochet.
Last edited by Anaralia; 05-28-2004 at 10:32 PM.
Facism vs. Anarchy, basically. Either too much control, or no control. Either too much goverment power, or not goverment at all. And so on, and so forth..What kind of extreme liberalism and what kind of extreme conservadurism?
Personally, I'd rather have anarchy, than facism or Nazism. But, that's only because I'm strong enough to protect myself and my loved ones. If hooligans are running loose (no police), then that means I can also butcher them freely, and that's fine by me. But, there's not much I can do against an entire NATION, if it opresses me.
That's on the practical level... on the ideaological level, I can't honestly say which I despise more. They each have very few merits, and are incredibly awful ruling systems (or, in-case of anarchy, no rule).
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Anarchy is a vague term. (Unne, please, don't do the Ultimate Dictionary Devastating Attack...I see you coming ¬¬)Facism vs. Anarchy, basically.
Anrachism well aplied or anarchism wrongly aplied? I believe the world without state is the best model, yet of course, there is a difference between anarchy as it was set in, for example, regions of Spain in the civil war, where things actually worked (For three years, then Franco won the war) and production actually triplicated, and then there is the idea of going to- say- US or England, and removing the goverment from one day to another. One model was actually organised at seem to work while the other would lead to chaos and looting.
Also, there's also anarco-capitalism. It's another way of anarchism: Remove the state, but keep the economical system. The result is what we saw with Shin Ra in Final Fantasy VII.
Has anyone read V for Vendetta? Well, V is supposed to be a character that must - more or less- reflect the idea of anarchism. And well, he is not exactly a tard that goes arround blaberring crap about how he wishes control to end so he can masturbate in the street.
Well, V for Vendetta is probably one of the best comics ever made.
So anyway, put me in situation. Don't say "Fascism", don't say "Anarchism", say "Hitler, Mussolini" or say "a chaotic lack of order where people do as they are pleased without respecting the other". Then I can awnser: I prefer Mussolini. Why? Because in the case of anarchy as chaos, fascism would rise anyway, so I prefer to have fascism set than watching it rise with wars, killings...
Don't blame that on marxism but in the way Allende attempted to carry it away. I believe he had good intentions, but he was just a lame economist, his economic policy is probably the worst thing Chile ever had. He did not know if he would get elected again, so he tried to introduce economical reforms into socialism so fast he screwed up terribly, wich lead to an inflation of the 400%. Sure, he was a well read and intelligent person, but he should have let someone else in charge of the economy, because he was preety awful at it. Also, CIA attemtping to screw up one of his little good decisions and trying to make the bad decisions worse did not help either. In fact, Fidel Castro already warned him that his economical policies would sink the country, that he was going to fast. Of course, Fidel is much better in terms of economy than Allende never was. Allende did not listen to Fidel, then add that up to the CIA attempting the fall of Allende and...you know the results.Maybe I should have phrased it better, but my point was simply that under extreme liberalism, the worst threat to one's well being is usually a lack of resources and the competition that results when lots of people compete for too little food, whereas in fascist rule, you're tortured and killed just because. And often. Lots of Chileans hold the exact opposite opinion that I hold, mostly rich Chileans, of course, since they benefited economically from Pinochet.
Last edited by Shadow Nexus; 05-28-2004 at 12:28 PM.
Allende had a weak character. He disliked confrontation and so his advisors tried to implement their own policies, and he couldn't turn them away. He should have known better, yes, but ultimately he was more of a puppet than an authority figure, and that was a large part of his downfall.
Shadow Nexus, I understand what you're trying to say, but I honestly can't imagine any kind of Marxist/anarchist large scale scenario that doesn't lead to hoarding and violence. The example that you gave, from Spain, was limited to a relatively small portion of the population, (if I remember correctly) and I've seen socialism work very very well in small communities, but as more people are involved, it breaks down. How can you possibly avoid that?
In that I agree, the concept of marxism or anarchism taken to a large scale tends to fail in large communities, or so experience tells. OK, but the thing is more complex than that, you cannot simplify the failure of the implementation on human nature, because that is ignoring all the other factors arround that failure. For example, let's take Russia. According to Marx, the best countries for communism, when he wrote, where England and France, because both were facing capitalism, and it is from capitalism we move into socialism and then, communism (Again, according to Marx: my outlook in the idea is not so optimist). Russian revolution failed with the basic idea of revolution: You cannot change what is above without changing the bases. Starting a war or revolution to bring down a tyrant won't result in anything better if people are not ready for a change. Lenin knew this, that why- along with the problems in economy- decided to implement state capitalism temporally. Then Stalin arrived and well...you know the story. Stalin is one of the most horrible persons who has ever been into power.
Cuba is a different story, then again, I question wether the people were ready or not. However, Fidel Castro is and was a very intelligent person, yet of course, the situation was of Cold War, so he was under the wing of the Soviet Union and under the pressure of USA. From that arrived the whole blocking thing, something I believe to be criminal. And of course, add that to Castro's rather megalomaniac personality, and you get what you get now: Preassure, political opression. However, for now Fidel is the best socialist leader in any country, even if I can't say I like him much, he still has death penalty in his law and six articles in the Cuban constitution that are against freedom of expression. 27 journalists in prision and 50 people on death row (Even those, contrary to believe, are NOT political prisioners...I still do not believe it to be justified, however).
So yeah, for the things to really work, we would need the ideal conditions for an actual well done revolution. And that is not easy.
OK, let's look at anarchy and Marxism separately, as they deserve:...the concept of marxism or anarchism taken to a large scale tends to fail in large communities, or so experience tells. OK, but the thing is more complex than that, you cannot simplify the failure of the implementation on human nature, because that is ignoring all the other factors around that failure.
Anarchy is an inherently unstable state that is overthrown easily. You mention Europe and Russia, which is precisely where anarchy was defeated by fascism and communism, for many reasons. Anarchy can lead to chaos, which leads to the people themselves wishing for someone to come along and take power, and a state that is up for grabs is very, very tempting for someone with a big gun.
Marxism could work, in my opinion, or at least some versions of it could. If we look at success stories, though, there aren't any, except maybe for Castro.
Agreed. He's successful, if you can call it that, in a situation where very few people would ever be able to keep their heads above water. Living conditions in Cuba are pretty good compared with other third world countries, and given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the harsh embargo imposed by the US, it's an almost impossible task to accomplish. But look at how he got there: maximizing publicly owned property, minimizing civil rights, and generally ruling with an iron fist. In order to avoid revolts and slipping into anarchy, it's necessary for the leader to be strong, but political stability comes at a great cost.Fidel is the best socialist leader in any country
So again, I ask you, do you really think that the people and the state can be coordinated in such a way that you don't fall into neither anomie, nor fascism?
Posting Permissions
