| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 22:48 Post subject: anarchist society |
|
 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism and so on, you know what im talking about.
do you believe it could ever work?
i would like to atleast try it, but somehow it feels so utopistic and i doubt it would work in this society since people are too greedy,stupid.(im not saying that i aint stupid) and lets not forget about religions and shit like that...
and if theres a thread about this already then whateva whateva i do what i want!
oh and spiderman, there wont be a dx10 patch for xbox360 no matter how much you wish, i know it sounds harsh but believe me....
p.s im wasted so inz tarjoa kalja?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 22:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Naive bullshit.
I like the idea or the process of it and talking about it. But I refer you to my first sentence.
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 22:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Too tired to write a proper reply, but a grassroot democracy (bottom-up system as I understand it) has so far worked excellent for the governance of the internet.
I dunno how it would fare if it was introduced to society though. Certainly anarchy would not fare well, people need governance or it would be totally medieval - not saying the current system isn't tits up (like especially the financial system).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 23:01 Post subject: |
|
|
yep probably! but just to add somthing to talk about everyone please tell us what would be the idealistic society that you would like to live in?
edit. this question was directed to everybody(or one) on this forum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 23:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| lameeerdawg wrote: | yep probably! but just to add somthing to talk about everyone please tell us what would be the idealistic society that you would like to live in?
edit. this question was directed to everybody(or one) on this forum |
Have you seen Idiocracy ....
Ryzen 5 5600, ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING WIFI II, Corsair Vengeance RGB RT 32GB 3600MHz C16, MSI RTX 5070 Ti Ventus 3X OC , Corsair RMx Series RM750x. AOC AGON AG324UX - 4K 144Hz 1ms
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
no i cant say that i have seen it. how about you?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 23:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | Certainly anarchy would not fare well, people need governance or it would be totally medieval |
so lets make the assumptation that we have got rid of all the religious bullshit, what would be the system that you believe in?
p.s this is my first quote so dont be hating if i fail
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Dec 2009 23:52 Post subject: |
|
|
just think about institutions we've all grown accustomed to. health care, food production, even the internet...it wouldn't be possible without some structure and order.
i still believe in good old democracy being the optimal system - provided it's being executed in a proper way. but in the end, whether a form of government can be considered as good or bad doesn't depend on its general structure, but rather on whoever sits on top of it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 00:12 Post subject: |
|
|
so those things couldnt work on anarchist society? tell us why? and about democracy, i agree but only if its executed in a proper way like you said. and i think the only proper way to do it is tru grassroots democracy. probably wont make any sense but who cares
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 00:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| lameeerdawg wrote: | | so those things couldnt work on anarchist society? tell us why? |
of course you could also treat people, have something to eat and establish some sort of telecommunication in an anarchist society. the question is how well it would work. and to do it in an efficient way, you need control - doesn't matter if it's the state or companies.
the question would also be what you define as anarchy: simply no established ruler/authority? or absence of any kind of order and structure?
but then again, society will always regulate itself. anarchy will sooner or later form structures, while a dictator/monarch can be overthrown at any time. same thing with the dynamic equilibrium between left- and right-wing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73197
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 03:49 Post subject: |
|
|
That thing is one of the best satirical pieces I've seen in years. Not sure if the writers did this with intention, or it just came out that way, but yeah, should definitely be seen. I guess it's not for everyone, people will find it very silly, and it is, but it works tremendously well as a satire.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 05:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| zipfero wrote: | Naive bullshit.
|
This.
I leave it to teens who've just hit puberty and think they're tomorrow's john Connors.
an anarchist societ? No it could never work it'd be total chaos
anarchy of self? yes you're free to do what you want as long as you're aware of the consequences.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 05:48 Post subject: |
|
|
no. I might be a bit naive too but this is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialism
asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73197
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 06:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, this fits my views best as well, but I'm also realist to see that it will probably never happen. Maybe in Europe, but not in the region I live in now, nor in America, where it could serve as sample for other countries.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 11:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Anarchy -no. Socialism -we were witnesses that it doesn't work.
Bottom line: In this stage of our technological development people still need to do manual labour to have any kind of goods. With manual labour comes the concept of payment and trade of goods - the offer and demand system. And that is your everyday liberal capitalism.
To have "free" society - a place without any burden of work or concept of money, you need the major advancement in technology. In couple of hundred of years I think that we'll be pretty technologically developed - that means robots and computers will do all the labour work. The only thing for a man would be to think. But with robots doing work - better than man (they don't need rest, don't need payment, more precise than any human) - who gets paid? But then if people don't get money, and robots do everything: from food production, to engineering jobs, you have a state in where your monetary system brakes down! People don't have money to spend but the goods are produced at low cost rate (virtually free). And then a change is in order:
We get everything free, and we get the ultimate freedom. If I want I can be scientist, tackling with the mystery of universe, or the structure of the world. If I'm not for that I can be artist, and so on. You get to be what you want, you can even do nothing...
Sure there should be a major change in human way of thinking, but we are witnesses of that already: people in the 50' were totally different than those from today, where information is something that is available for all. I also think that with advancement in technology we are able to think clearly, thus people are aware of the futility of religion system - the ultimate "religion" becomes free and "logical" thinking. You may see that's atheist/agnostic society, but I see no problem with that...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73197
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 14:07 Post subject: |
|
|
We were witnesses socialism doesn't work... oh? Can you give some examples?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 15:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | We were witnesses socialism doesn't work... oh? Can you give some examples? |
Ahem... USSR, Yugoslavia... They wanted communism, but that wasn't possible so they went to socialism (Stalinism, Bolshevism etc., just refined form of socialism).
Perfect communism means no leadership, and all the power to the people. And you can say that China is functioning, but we all know how. And the freedom in Venezuela - which is leaning heavily towards socialism even if they say they're democratic republic - you say sth against Chavez and bam you're in prison.
The problem with philosophies is that you can make a perfect system that will function in your mind. But you need to count in the human factor, which is very variable factor...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73197
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 17:05 Post subject: |
|
|
There is a very huge difference between socialism and capitalism. Also, all the ones you mentioned (not 100% about Yugoslavia) had/have totalitarian regimes, a far cry from what Nouse posted. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 17:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Communism in the old USSR was actually more capitalistic than the west.
Party members got all kind of privileges like being able to shop western products in special stores, to get a dacha, etc.
Read Vladimir Voinovich - Moscow 2042 Plot summary:
| Quote: | The Russian author Kartsev, living in Munich in 1982 (just like Voinovich himself), time travels to the Moscow of 2042. After the "Great August Revolution", the new leader referred to as "Genialissimus" has changed the Soviet Union... up to a certain point. After Lenin's dream of the world revolution narrowed down to Stalin's theory of "Socialism in one country", Genialissimus has logically decided to start from building "Communism in one city", namely in Moscow.
The ideology has changed somewhat, into a hodgepodge of Marxism-Leninism and Russian Orthodoxy (Genialissimo himself is also Patriarch). The decay from which the Soviet Union suffered has worsened. The rest of the Soviet Union, where people barely survive, has been separated by a Berlin type of wall from the "paradise" of Moscow, where communism has been realised. Within the wall everyone gets everything "according to his needs". Only their needs are not decided by themselves, but by the wise Genialissimus. Most people have "ordinary needs", but a chosen few have "extraordinary needs". For the first-mentioned group, life is dismal even within the privileged "Moscow Republic". The situation finally gets so desperate that people throw themselves in the arms of the "liberator", a fellow dissident writer and (kind of) friend of Kartsev, the extreme Slavophile Sim Karnavalov (apparently inspired by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), who enters Moscow on a white horse and proclaims himself Tsar Serafim the First. Thus, communism is regressed back into feudal autocracy. This novel is considered[1] to be a masterpiece of anti-utopian satire. |
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 17:59 Post subject: |
|
|
The leaders being able to buy fancy shit doesn't make a country capitalist. The USSR was a communist country. I also believe it was a bastardized form of communism, but that's a very long discussion.
Anarchy would never work, humanity would not survive without clear structure. Sure it might sound great, but it'll lead to chaos. Chaos lies in our nature, we will screw ourselves without any guidance. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Dec 2009 18:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | There is a very huge difference between socialism and capitalism. |
Well of course, who said there isn't  And Democratic socialism is more like watered down capitalism. The only thing that differs it from capitalism is the term socialism, and that is used mainly for the purpose of showing it like a system who cares for people, whereas capitalism is only oriented towards profit.
And Marx's idea of communism wasn't bad, but the thing back in USSR, Yugoslavia and now in China (communist party), interpreted communism like Hitler interpreted Nietzsche's übermensch in Nazism (Mein Kampf to be precise) 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Dec 2009 23:01 Post subject: |
|
|
The biggest challenge for any modern society is educating the young.
It's natural for young people to challenge the status quo, so long as they understand the consequence of behaving a certain way.
Life's like that, it can deal you a serious curve ball if your not prepared to muck in and get your hands dirty.
Since the 50's and 60's the young now have more rights, financial freedom and are asked to make far greater moral choices despite being emotionally unprepared to do so.
Were really beginning to feel the pressure of this now, in the form of cynicism, political ambivalence, desocialisation.
Human beings haven't changed, and the same mistakes are made over and over by each generation.
What has changed is how we now choose to make use of the lives we have been gifted by our parents.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 28th Dec 2009 00:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the question would also be what you define as anarchy: simply no established ruler/authority? or absence of any kind of order and structure? |
i think i would say no authroties but...
im kinda trying to figure out if we as a people could ever survive without authorities and douchebags telling us how to live. im not saying there wouldnt be police or firefighters but instead of them being ruled by some laaamerdawg it would be the citizens running the shit. and for some reason i do believe the grassroots democracy is atleast one of the ways that it could ever work... but only if you want to know how it works and shit like that im wasted so fuck it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Mon, 28th Dec 2009 05:42 Post subject: Re: anarchist society |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
