Post #20070
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 315
Total Words: 30,109
Average words per post: 95.58
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-03-19 18:46
Currently 3.00/4
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast)
I have not yet saw the movie, however I read the graphic novel and found in it few parallels with 1984 in addition to the one wrote by IO.
- Fate is a computre used by the leader to monitor the civilian population in a similar way the telescreens are used by BB in Oceania.
- In both books the states are locked in seemly unending wars.
- The ruling party in V4V, Norse Fire resemble Ingsoc althought Norse Fire is meant to be more Fascist.
I really recomended you all to read the graphic novel, to my opinion it's one of the best graphic novels out there. _________________ "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain" - Friedrich von Schiller
Post #20591
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-03-26 04:26
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist
Country: American Empire
Chaotic currents: ebbs, bobs tides and eddies of destiny
Currently 2.50/4
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (4 votes cast)
for aspergie fags and conceits of intelligence visit demsoc.net, arguing leftism makes you 'intellectual', 'seriouse'. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Tue 2008-05-27 06:34; edited 2 times in total
Post #21376
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 820
Total Words: 104,052
Average words per post: 126.89
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2006-04-04 08:36
Politics: Friggin Wacko!
Country: United States
Image Is Everything
Currently 3.00/4
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast)
I haven't seen that poster here.
This is the only poster I have seen up.
I assumed it was a Zorro type movie on the basis of the poster.
There are some unrealistic aspects to the story though. How does he get the resources (money) to have that underground museum for a home? And apparently it is under a building in the city judging from that scene with Evey in the rain.
How could he have all of those costumes manufactured without the government finding out?
Where could the money come from to pay for their distribution? In the movie these things just HAPPEN.
Post #21410
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 18
Total Words: 2,381
Average words per post: 132.28
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-04-05 05:45
Politics: World Federalist
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'm a fan of the Wakowski brothers' other movie "The Matrix", so I had high hopes for this film. I was not disappointed! It's definitely inspired by "1984" and daringly topical. I'm pleased to see the references to Bird Flu and government-staged terrorist attacks. It's interesting how the emblem of Sutler's party was the double-cross. This also appears on the arms of the House of Lorraine, an Illuminati bloodline, and it can be seen on the modern logo of the oil company Exxon. _________________ If 8 out of 10 cats prefer it, then the remaining 2 out of 10 are immune to MSG.
Post #25532
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1139
Total Words: 132,977
Average words per post: 116.75
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-06-04 21:37
Politics: Zionist
Country: American Empire
Re: Image Is Everything
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
psikeyhackr wrote:
There are some unrealistic aspects to the story though. How does he get the resources (money) to have that underground museum for a home? And apparently it is under a building in the city judging from that scene with Evey in the rain.
How could he have all of those costumes manufactured without the government finding out?
Where could the money come from to pay for their distribution? In the movie these things just HAPPEN.[/size]
psikey
Apparently he stole all those things. He probably stole the money for the costumes, as well. _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #32084
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Total Words: 5,783
Average words per post: 141.05
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-09-03 04:41
Politics: There is no spoon
Country: Oceania
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ah, 5, V, 101...
One way V and 1984 differ: 1984 prophesizes a "boot stamping on a human face forever" and V ends with the upbeat image of hundreds of citizens in Guy Fawkes masks overwhelming the riot police (who lay down their arms) during the finale of the 1812 Overture, accompanied, of course, by one exploding house of Parliament.
The novel ends a bit differently, but still optimistically... _________________
Post #32085
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-09-03 04:45
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
utkiyaznik wrote:
Ah, 5, V, 101...
One way V and 1984 differ: 1984 prophesizes a "boot stamping on a human face forever" and V ends with the upbeat image of hundreds of citizens in Guy Fawkes masks overwhelming the riot police (who lay down their arms) during the finale of the 1812 Overture, accompanied, of course, by one exploding house of Parliament.
The novel ends a bit differently, but still optimistically...
And doesn't V4Vendetta believe in anarchism? That in itself makes the movie something I'm not interested in seeing. Anarchy... well, just doesn't work. How can you form a society without laws? _________________
Post #32089
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-09-03 05:04
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
And doesn't V4Vendetta believe in anarchism? That in itself makes the movie something I'm not interested in seeing. Anarchy... well, just doesn't work. How can you form a society without laws?
Didn't you used to have communist as your tag^^.
Anarchy isn't necessarily the absence of law but in actuality the absence of leaders imposing that law, there can still be common communal laws accepted and changed as they are practical. Laws are simply means to discern anothers reaction to your action within societal constructs. In most smaller societal units these relationships are obvious to the level of abstraction formalised laws achieve anyway. So for the large part laws are about protecting your contact with strangers, for such cases I find it most conceivable in certain society types that the kind of solid laws that would govern these relations could be so simple the needn't be enforced by leaders.
Now I'm no anarchist I don't believe if we click our fingers and put all the leaders up against the wall everything will turn out hunky-dory I do however believe that anarchy could potentially "work". _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32106
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-09-04 03:33
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
Didn't you used to have communist as your tag^^.
Yes, but at least Communism has some official organization.
JD-sama wrote:
Anarchy isn't necessarily the absence of law but in actuality the absence of leaders imposing that law, there can still be common communal laws accepted and changed as they are practical.
Until someone really big demands your corn-bread.
This is how I see governments in the context of "Life":
Democracy: you choose your corn-bread
Republic: you vote someone who chooses your corn-bread for you
Communism: everyone works for their common corn-bread, giving more to those who need it
Anarchy: some big dude takes your corn-bread
JD-sama wrote:
Laws are simply means to discern anothers reaction to your action within societal constructs. In most smaller societal units these relationships are obvious to the level of abstraction formalised laws achieve anyway. So for the large part laws are about protecting your contact with strangers, for such cases I find it most conceivable in certain society types that the kind of solid laws that would govern these relations could be so simple the needn't be enforced by leaders.
How does anarchy provide a safe-guard against gangs and intimidatory tactics? The way I see it, anarchy breeds chaos. Society needs order of some kind; name me a single society without laws, or order, that has survived beyond one year, please. I know you aren't an anarchist, but since you seem to be defending it, surely you have something to back it up with?
JD-sama wrote:
Now I'm no anarchist I don't believe if we click our fingers and put all the leaders up against the wall everything will turn out hunky-dory I do however believe that anarchy could potentially "work".
I'm not so sure, as I already said. Anarchy entails too much lack of order. I accept that Communism can work, I just don't think anarchy is possible. Every system creates a new form of order; anarchy always seems to breed dictatorships ready to enforce that new order. _________________
Post #32119
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-09-04 06:03
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Yes, but at least Communism has some official organization.
Depends how you define official, communism as an end-state lacks is stateless and classless, it lacks formalised hierarchy. It has organisation no doubt, in fact it has plenty of it, but there is nothing that says anarchy can't have organisation either.
Communists and leftist anarchist have the same end in mind(just different ways of getting there) communism as a final destination is fundamentally a form of anarchy.
Quote:
Until someone really big demands your corn-bread.
This is how I see governments in the context of "Life":
Democracy: you choose your corn-bread
Republic: you vote someone who chooses your corn-bread for you
Communism: everyone works for their common corn-bread, giving more to those who need it
Anarchy: some big dude takes your corn-bread
Even in communism there will likely be bigger than average fellows with a hankering for corn bread, there is no formalised state to demand he cease. What there is is a community, you know you won't have your corn bread stolen from the bigger guy because the bigger guy knows he has more to lose from alienating himself from community than he has to gain from stealing your food. As with all societal systems providing dissent remains in a power minority it will be able to continue and whilst communism functions it will benefit the power majority. The same can be said for types of anarchy, just because there is no formalised istitution protecting your bread doesn't mean noone will stand up for you.
Also shouldn't democracy be everyone chooses your corn-bread.
Anarchy describes a great breadth of systems including communism, there are stupid systems within anarchy like anarcho-capitalism where property rights protect everyone through the intervention of magical fairies but you must make sure you don't equate anarchy with anomie.
Quote:
How does anarchy provide a safe-guard against gangs and intimidatory tactics? The way I see it, anarchy breeds chaos. Society needs order of some kind; name me a single society without laws, or order, that has survived beyond one year, please. I know you aren't an anarchist, but since you seem to be defending it, surely you have something to back it up with?
The same way any stateless society does through the informal association of individuals of similar interest to achieve mutual goals. Really a state is just the lazy way of doing the same thing, people fo similar interests and goals get together and delegate their worries to the people who seem most capable, sadly this radically changes the goals-means equation for the person delegated too.
Your second reasoning implies a somewhat fallacious argument, sure there have been no anarchist societies resembling a desirable civilisation, that can be said about any system at one time or another though.
Quote:
I'm not so sure, as I already said. Anarchy entails too much lack of order. I accept that Communism can work, I just don't think anarchy is possible. Every system creates a new form of order; anarchy always seems to breed dictatorships ready to enforce that new order.
I think basically what your doing is mistaking anarchy for anomie, anarchy can have order it simply lacks hierarchy. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32123
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-09-04 06:30
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
Depends how you define official, communism as an end-state lacks is stateless and classless, it lacks formalised hierarchy. It has organisation no doubt, in fact it has plenty of it, but there is nothing that says anarchy can't have organisation either.
Communists and leftist anarchist have the same end in mind(just different ways of getting there) communism as a final destination is fundamentally a form of anarchy.
Yes, I am aware that true anarchy and true communism are somewhat similar, but in theory, communism has more order than theoretical anarchy, from what I know. In communism, I have not seen anything saying that basic laws will no longer exist. Perhaps, in some people's view of communist utopianism, laws may not be "necessary", but the difference between anarchy and communism is that communism does not necessitate the destruction of laws, while anarchy inherently does.
JD-sama wrote:
Even in communism there will likely be bigger than average fellows with a hankering for corn bread, there is no formalised state to demand he cease. What there is is a community, you know you won't have your corn bread stolen from the bigger guy because the bigger guy knows he has more to lose from alienating himself from community than he has to gain from stealing your food. As with all societal systems providing dissent remains in a power minority it will be able to continue and whilst communism functions it will benefit the power majority. The same can be said for types of anarchy, just because there is no formalised istitution protecting your bread doesn't mean noone will stand up for you.
Also shouldn't democracy be everyone chooses your corn-bread.
Anarchy describes a great breadth of systems including communism, there are stupid systems within anarchy like anarcho-capitalism where property rights protect everyone through the intervention of magical fairies but you must make sure you don't equate anarchy with anomie.
It's hard not to equate anarchy with anarchy.
What in anarchy prevents a syndicate of big guys from controlling lawless society, magical fairies I presume?
JD-sama wrote:
The same way any stateless society does through the informal association of individuals of similar interest to achieve mutual goals. Really a state is just the lazy way of doing the same thing, people fo similar interests and goals get together and delegate their worries to the people who seem most capable, sadly this radically changes the goals-means equation for the person delegated too.
I think this is where we start having minor disagreement. I don't think a society can function without established laws of order, while you seem to think that the mere collectivity of a group will establish laws of order without "laws".
JD-sama wrote:
Your second reasoning implies a somewhat fallacious argument, sure there have been no anarchist societies resembling a desirable civilisation, that can be said about any system at one time or another though.
Sorry, my bad.
JD-sama wrote:
I think basically what your doing is mistaking anarchy for anomie, anarchy can have order it simply lacks hierarchy.
Like I said, anarchy and "anomie" seem to be relatively same with a lack of established order. _________________
Post #32132
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-09-04 09:25
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Yes, I am aware that true anarchy and true communism are somewhat similar, but in theory, communism has more order than theoretical anarchy, from what I know. In communism, I have not seen anything saying that basic laws will no longer exist. Perhaps, in some people's view of communist utopianism, laws may not be "necessary", but the difference between anarchy and communism is that communism does not necessitate the destruction of laws, while anarchy inherently does.
Not just similar true communist states are a subset of true anarchist states.
Laws always exist in a societal system, laws are simply a means of informing someone how others will react to their actions. In current society our law to prevent murder means nothing more than that if you are found to be acting in a certain manner(categorised as murder) a certain group of people(the state police force) will try to lock you up or kill you.
The difference between anarchistic societal systems and others is simply the means by which laws are generated. In non-anarchistic society leaders create laws which followers must both obey and enforce, in anarchy laws are determined through social groups and individual communication without a master servant relation(or at least a formalised one).
Anarchy is not about the destruction of laws just the removal of leaders. If you look at the vast majority of proposed anarchist systems they are full of laws, just laws determined and changed by the people communally not by leaders.
Quote:
It's hard not to equate anarchy with anarchy.
What in anarchy prevents a syndicate of big guys from controlling lawless society, magical fairies I presume?
Indeed but it's easy not to equate anarchy and anomie with a little mental discipline. Anomie means without laws anarchy means without leaders. If you don't believe laws can exist without leaders fair enough that's a different argument but it excludes communism as much as it does any other type of anarchy.
Your shameful theft of my mockery of AnCap aside^^, what can potentially stop such syndicates in anarachy is even bigger syndicates of people who don't want to be controlled.
Quote:
I think this is where we start having minor disagreement. I don't think a society can function without established laws of order, while you seem to think that the mere collectivity of a group will establish laws of order without "laws".
I don't think society is anything more than the sum of interpersonal relationships when one pulls that back to the level of abstraction we normally deal with one can pretty much categorise these relationships as laws or at least social norms/etiquette. So I guess I agree with you, this doesn't have much to do with anarchy though, have you actually read any serious leftist anarchist propositions?
Quote:
Like I said, anarchy and "anomie" seem to be relatively same with a lack of established order.
They really arn't archy is leadership omie is lawfullness , anomie is the only one which prescribes a lack of order. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32147
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-09-04 21:14
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
Not just similar true communist states are a subset of true anarchist states.
Because they both advocate the withering away of the state?
JD-sama wrote:
Indeed but it's easy not to equate anarchy and anomie with a little mental discipline. Anomie means without laws anarchy means without leaders. If you don't believe laws can exist without leaders fair enough that's a different argument but it excludes communism as much as it does any other type of anarchy.
Your shameful theft of my mockery of AnCap aside^^, what can potentially stop such syndicates in anarachy is even bigger syndicates of people who don't want to be controlled.
I'm a shameful thief. So, what organizes those anti-syndicates? Magical fairies? I honestly see nothing preventing the powerful from exploiting the weak in anarchic systems. Without laws, the strong can manipulate society, and intimidate it.
When you honestly look into places where gangs roam free, you notice there are no syndicates of people who don't want to be controlled. No one has the guts to stand up to the gangs. What in anarchy will magically prevent this? _________________
Post #32174
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2006-09-05 07:13
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Because they both advocate the withering away of the state?
The state and classes , without those things the concept of leaders is meaningless. Of course I'm no utopian classes and even leadership will always exist transiently within simple social relationship, the important thing is that both systems firmly avoid the formalisation of the concepts and seek to allow them to be flexible.
Quote:
I'm a shameful thief. So, what organizes those anti-syndicates? Magical fairies? I honestly see nothing preventing the powerful from exploiting the weak in anarchic systems. Without laws, the strong can manipulate society, and intimidate it.
When you honestly look into places where gangs roam free, you notice there are no syndicates of people who don't want to be controlled. No one has the guts to stand up to the gangs. What in anarchy will magically prevent this?
People organise those syndicates ... who else? When I want to get something done I shout around to people I know and even people I don't and try and get them on board bang a syndicate. I don't play the role of leader in this scenario yet I can organise a group towards a goal because we share a mutual interest in it.
Let's examine the difference a formalised law makes with a leader. The almighty leader declares that x is bad because by some mechanism he has determined it to be so, also for him to be an effectual leader in this circumstance he must also declare that it is bad for some group not to obey him(this would be the state military police force or some such) we'll call this second law y. Now when an individual commits x the leader declares that his subserviant group must beat them up, his subserviant group may or may not agree with this recourse but those who do not fear y and thus do it anyway. Peace is preserved but the leader is in a dangerous position of centralised power.
Now minus the leader. It is generally considered that x is bad and this feeling is well communicated. An individual or group thereof commits x which a second individual does not appreciate thusly he calls out to fellow individuals explaining the circumstance in which x was committed and his desire to take action. Now his fellow individuals may examine the issue make judgement for themselves and if necessary call on yet more people to make judgement on the action. Eventually a for an against body will emerge with the popular body being the largest and likely most powerful an arbitration and punishmnent process will most likely follow but the biggest group would probably win out. Peace is preserved but we are relying on a fragile infrastructure of social communication and class consciousness.
Your observation of effectively despotic gang rule in some areas is correct but examined from the wrong side of things. Sure despotism can exist in a reasonably sustained manner, people can be prevented from taking action against their leaders quite effectively through thorough control. However much the same can be said for the bourgeoisie oligarchy that controls society as a whole until such entities are risen up against and destroyed one cannot organise a society which prevents them. For example the reason people don't create anti-gang groups in gang areas is because they would be shot, remove that threat and I'm sure there would be many. Now switch it around in an anti-gang society a gang will find it difficult to form and gain power because they will be attacked.
All in all though this is why I'm a communist and not an anarchist, people won't develop these tools and social organisations magically by merely removing the existant leaders and thus they will be unable to deal with the emergence of new leaders in much the manner you describe. This is why an interim state of worker control is required to make anarchistic systems work in a sustainable manner, they require masses of infrastructure particularly communication infrastructure alongside education and allowing people to become accustomed to greater social co-operation in society. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32264
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2006-09-07 02:29
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
The state and classes , without those things the concept of leaders is meaningless. Of course I'm no utopian classes and even leadership will always exist transiently within simple social relationship, the important thing is that both systems firmly avoid the formalisation of the concepts and seek to allow them to be flexible.
Ah, I see. We've already gone over this in TechSynd thread (regarding flexible/inflexible rules) with myself being inflexible concerning rights being set in stone, whilst you are not, so there's no real point to rehash this. ^^
JD-sama wrote:
Your observation of effectively despotic gang rule in some areas is correct but examined from the wrong side of things. Sure despotism can exist in a reasonably sustained manner, people can be prevented from taking action against their leaders quite effectively through thorough control. However much the same can be said for the bourgeoisie oligarchy that controls society as a whole until such entities are risen up against and destroyed one cannot organise a society which prevents them. For example the reason people don't create anti-gang groups in gang areas is because they would be shot, remove that threat and I'm sure there would be many. Now switch it around in an anti-gang society a gang will find it difficult to form and gain power because they will be attacked.
You see, the thing I consider is this: in a society without leaders or rules, despotic tendences will arise, because it's a historical certainty. Sure, utopian anarchy isn't anomie, but I don't think utopian anarchy can possibly exist. Without a rewiring of the human brain, I suppose. Or, some serious social-cooperation conditioning. In any case, humans are pack animals, with a primal instinct towards either authority or wanting to be in authority. The only way I see anarchy as being possible is if people are somehow mentally liberated from being the sheep they are. _________________
Post #32278
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2006-09-07 08:48
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Ah, I see. We've already gone over this in TechSynd thread (regarding flexible/inflexible rules) with myself being inflexible concerning rights being set in stone, whilst you are not, so there's no real point to rehash this. ^^
Somewhat, it's important to recognise that the the flexibility in anarchism and communism is not so much in the law but the authority which enforces it, this of course means a law can't be set in stone that requires a state similarly set in stone. It does not however preclude the existance of very stable laws.
Quote:
You see, the thing I consider is this: in a society without leaders or rules, despotic tendences will arise, because it's a historical certainty. Sure, utopian anarchy isn't anomie, but I don't think utopian anarchy can possibly exist. Without a rewiring of the human brain, I suppose. Or, some serious social-cooperation conditioning. In any case, humans are pack animals, with a primal instinct towards either authority or wanting to be in authority. The only way I see anarchy as being possible is if people are somehow mentally liberated from being the sheep they are.
There are still rules in many anarchist societies just the leaders who enforce and implement them are gone. Instead laws are enforced by a populace connected(in the case of communism ... at least as I see it) by vast networks of protocol and general infrastructure. My fellow leftists would hit me for predicting post revolutionary society too exactly but let me suggest a potential scenario on how things could function.
We're talking about a despotic tendancy so let's give our potential despots every advantage I can think of. In the remote coutryside there exists a mining community with a highly active militia surrounded by small service communities and a refinery which is mostly automated and operated middle aged techy types and little in the way of militia membership. Both the refinery and the mining operation rely on supplies from the service communities and the refinery relies on the mining operation to fulfill it's purpose. So let's say some wannabe stalin manages to completely convince the mining community to follow them. First step to wield power over the rest of the world is control more marketable resources that means the refinery, it has the military capability but needs the service communities to sustain itself so the mining community has to effectively take over the entire area militarily this will become obvious to the outside world as communication networks allow constant communication between all parties across the world. By breaking down the borders of communication distance used to impose we place the occupied individuals at an advantage in that those negatively effected by their situation is unbounded geographically whilst the ability to militarily control of the occupier is. The communication of discontent expands and this is where protocol enters in militias will exist so will trade routes, mechanisms will exist by which this discontent communicated outside of the occupied territory will be transformed into the re-organisation of trade routes to avoid the supporting despots and enaction of military force against them. These mechanisms might resemble modern judicial systems somewhat but instead of being held over a barrel by the state military all participation is voluntary and transient thus removing the centralised and class roles. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32333
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-09-08 02:13
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
JD-sama wrote:
Somewhat, it's important to recognise that the the flexibility in anarchism and communism is not so much in the law but the authority which enforces it, this of course means a law can't be set in stone that requires a state similarly set in stone. It does not however preclude the existance of very stable laws.
But, what happens when democracy fails, and the people mistakenly choose less liberty? When democracy fails, it fails very hard, and people get killed. Perhaps I have no faith in humanity, but I don't believe in civil rights being negotiable. Either we have them or we don't, in my humble opinion.
JD-sama wrote:
There are still rules in many anarchist societies just the leaders who enforce and implement them are gone. Instead laws are enforced by a populace connected(in the case of communism ... at least as I see it) by vast networks of protocol and general infrastructure. My fellow leftists would hit me for predicting post revolutionary society too exactly but let me suggest a potential scenario on how things could function.
How would a society unanimously choose the same course of method? The way I see it, society would have multiple ways to solve a problem, resulting in inner turmoil and tensions. When people disagree, things can get ugly.
What networks of protocol? Is protocol set in stone? No, so how does "protocol" guarantee anarchy is free from the rise of a despotism, which is almost inevitable, considering a system with low restraint will breed a stronger system from which order re-arises. Again, that's my opinion, but it's rational from my point of view. I don't see the way anarchy can exist without some form of leadership, I see it as being an invitation for a charlatan to gather power and stage a despotic coup. It's happened before, what makes you sure it won't happen again?
JD-sama wrote:
We're talking about a despotic tendancy so let's give our potential despots every advantage I can think of. In the remote coutryside there exists a mining community with a highly active militia surrounded by small service communities and a refinery which is mostly automated and operated middle aged techy types and little in the way of militia membership. Both the refinery and the mining operation rely on supplies from the service communities and the refinery relies on the mining operation to fulfill it's purpose. So let's say some wannabe stalin manages to completely convince the mining community to follow them. First step to wield power over the rest of the world is control more marketable resources that means the refinery, it has the military capability but needs the service communities to sustain itself so the mining community has to effectively take over the entire area militarily this will become obvious to the outside world as communication networks allow constant communication between all parties across the world. By breaking down the borders of communication distance used to impose we place the occupied individuals at an advantage in that those negatively effected by their situation is unbounded geographically whilst the ability to militarily control of the occupier is. The communication of discontent expands and this is where protocol enters in militias will exist so will trade routes, mechanisms will exist by which this discontent communicated outside of the occupied territory will be transformed into the re-organisation of trade routes to avoid the supporting despots and enaction of military force against them. These mechanisms might resemble modern judicial systems somewhat but instead of being held over a barrel by the state military all participation is voluntary and transient thus removing the centralised and class roles.
Alright, I see how in a One World Anarchist State, coups would be almost impossible, however, with enough chaos, it's possible. There's no single system which hasn't failed yet. All forms of government have a statistical shelf-life. Eventually, coups will emerge, revolutions will form. One democracy falls into chaos, only to breed despotism, or a newer democracy which lasts hundreds of years, only to restart the cycle. Politics/sociography is as much related to evolution as it is to itself.
What happens in an anarchist one-state? There's nothing to prevent despotism, except if every man and woman fought it. But, the chances of despotism not taking hold by being too bold is slim. Despotism tends to only show it's ugly head once it has enough power. Yeah, I'm talking as if despotism is a person, but in a way, that evilest of concepts is a "person", in a sense. _________________
Post #32364
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-09-08 08:32
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
But, what happens when democracy fails, and the people mistakenly choose less liberty? When democracy fails, it fails very hard, and people get killed. Perhaps I have no faith in humanity, but I don't believe in civil rights being negotiable. Either we have them or we don't, in my humble opinion.
When democracy fails the system fails ... Just as with any democratic system. Your stone set laws don't change this. When the power majority is organised in favour of a reform that reform will happen regardless of whether of not there is a finely written document of exquisite paper quality which tells them it is never allowed. No system is perfect, there is always an avenue for failure, I just doubt your reform makes it any narrower.
Quote:
How would a society unanimously choose the same course of method? The way I see it, society would have multiple ways to solve a problem, resulting in inner turmoil and tensions. When people disagree, things can get ugly.
What networks of protocol? Is protocol set in stone? No, so how does "protocol" guarantee anarchy is free from the rise of a despotism, which is almost inevitable, considering a system with low restraint will breed a stronger system from which order re-arises. Again, that's my opinion, but it's rational from my point of view. I don't see the way anarchy can exist without some form of leadership, I see it as being an invitation for a charlatan to gather power and stage a despotic coup. It's happened before, what makes you sure it won't happen again?
Societies needn't unanimously choose the same course of method, that's the beauty of decentralisation, the only parties which need agree of those effected, providing participation can be retained as voluntary all else will follow.
Protocol is not set in stone it is a tool which people choose to use or not use. Consider the parallel of computing protocols noone forces you to use IP it isn't set in stone nor backed by a military force yet almost everyone in the world has agreed to use it because of it's benefits. If someone invented a better protocol and started using it that would slowly replace IP(v6) and so it should. A protocol in itself is simply information that is shared with a large number of people, they follow that protocol voluntarily because it is useful.
Of course I can't be certain anarchy will never lead to despotism or some other undesirable state, I'm merely playing the risks as any other political system does. Hierarchical democracies are hardly immune to the rise of despots and oligarchies, in fact I could argue that such systems give them a stepping ladder.
Quote:
Alright, I see how in a One World Anarchist State, coups would be almost impossible, however, with enough chaos, it's possible. There's no single system which hasn't failed yet. All forms of government have a statistical shelf-life. Eventually, coups will emerge, revolutions will form. One democracy falls into chaos, only to breed despotism, or a newer democracy which lasts hundreds of years, only to restart the cycle. Politics/sociography is as much related to evolution as it is to itself.
What happens in an anarchist one-state? There's nothing to prevent despotism, except if every man and woman fought it. But, the chances of despotism not taking hold by being too bold is slim. Despotism tends to only show it's ugly head once it has enough power. Yeah, I'm talking as if despotism is a person, but in a way, that evilest of concepts is a "person", in a sense.
A one world anarachist system is what I'm proposing, it obviously won't work with rogue military powers running around, that's why an important step of socialism is to destroy the borders which seek to define us. Every system has a potential course of events which will plunge it into chaos beyond that which can be tolerated, the aim of any political system is simply to minimize that risk.
Your right that there is nothing to stop despotism but the men and women willing to fight against it. That is always the case and I fear short of a legion of robots there is little we can do to change that. I would suggest that if the only reason those men and women choose to fight despotism is the barked commands of some deified leader we have already failed in our pursuit to prevent it. If people can't grow up and learn to take considered responsibility for themselves and their societies/communities we can never achieve we have fundamentally lost to the fate of never ending struggles amongst an elite. I choose to take the chance that this is not the case as the futility of action given the positive makes it almost irrelevant in consideration. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #32416
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-09-09 04:18
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
JD-sama wrote:
When democracy fails the system fails ... Just as with any democratic system. Your stone set laws don't change this. When the power majority is organised in favour of a reform that reform will happen regardless of whether of not there is a finely written document of exquisite paper quality which tells them it is never allowed. No system is perfect, there is always an avenue for failure, I just doubt your reform makes it any narrower.
If it's the will of the people to destroy their own liberties, having a Constitution with firm rules will at least temporarily keep the majority at bay, for a short time. You're right about democracy overriding rules. I simply still think that in the long-term, having un-negotiable freedoms is better than undefined ones, or ones without firmness.
JD-sama wrote:
Of course I can't be certain anarchy will never lead to despotism or some other undesirable state, I'm merely playing the risks as any other political system does. Hierarchical democracies are hardly immune to the rise of despots and oligarchies, in fact I could argue that such systems give them a stepping ladder.
Of course. My own ideology is taking a risk. I don't know how it will turn out, but I want to give it a try, and I'm sure you want to give communism a try, even if it fails, because by doing so, you can build on your mistakes and create something workable.
Hierarchial? My ideology isn't hierarchial at all. It's direct democracy.
Argue away. ^^
JD-sama wrote:
A one world anarachist system is what I'm proposing, it obviously won't work with rogue military powers running around, that's why an important step of socialism is to destroy the borders which seek to define us. Every system has a potential course of events which will plunge it into chaos beyond that which can be tolerated, the aim of any political system is simply to minimize that risk.
Oh, just to warn you, I suggest you correct your errors (all of them) if you argue with rats these days. He's become quite the little grammar Nazi.
Aside from that...
Obviously not. I mean, it's also obvious communism can't work without the human race uniting in cooperation, which unfortunately for both of us, JD, makes communism something inachievable for a thousand years. One day, maybe. I still think direct democracy would be more fun, but that's just me.
JD-sama wrote:
Your right that there is nothing to stop despotism but the men and women willing to fight against it. That is always the case and I fear short of a legion of robots there is little we can do to change that. I would suggest that if the only reason those men and women choose to fight despotism is the barked commands of some deified leader we have already failed in our pursuit to prevent it. If people can't grow up and learn to take considered responsibility for themselves and their societies/communities we can never achieve we have fundamentally lost to the fate of never ending struggles amongst an elite. I choose to take the chance that this is not the case as the futility of action given the positive makes it almost irrelevant in consideration.
Well, if people can learn to get along and live in communes together, and form militias, police, and decentralize themselves to the point that a despot cannot form, I'd be happy to live in such a society. _________________
Post #32452
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-09-09 19:08
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
If it's the will of the people to destroy their own liberties, having a Constitution with firm rules will at least temporarily keep the majority at bay, for a short time. You're right about democracy overriding rules. I simply still think that in the long-term, having un-negotiable freedoms is better than undefined ones, or ones without firmness.
The thing is it doesn't stop them through it attempts to stop them organising, which means when the change comes(and given a power majority it will) it will be outside governmental organisation likely allowing far more drastic and far less organised changes than perhaps the actual public will agitated for. I see legislation above democracy as the greater evil as whilst it could conceivably buy a little time in a society of imbeciles when examined in terms of the entire course of such an opinion shift I suspect (let us assume the legislation is good and the people are wrong) it does more damage than good through throwing a countries governmental structure into dissaray and allowing a (likely extreme) vanguard to redefine it's order.
If held within a flexible democracy people may make bad choices but the number of them required to truly destroy their privelage of recourse is far greater than with an enshrined constitution which must(and will) be crushed when public opinion takes a turn for the worst.
Quote:
Of course. My own ideology is taking a risk. I don't know how it will turn out, but I want to give it a try, and I'm sure you want to give communism a try, even if it fails, because by doing so, you can build on your mistakes and create something workable.
Hierarchial? My ideology isn't hierarchial at all. It's direct democracy.
Argue away. ^^
I'd point out I support communism because I genuinely think that probabilistically it is our best bet I don't simply want to give it a try for the sake of it. If I thought trying communism would probably be worse than not trying it I wouldn't support it however great the system.
You can't have leaders without hierarchy you can't not have leaders without anarchy. My ideology is also direct democracy how else would one remove leaders whilst sustaining society.
Quote:
Oh, just to warn you, I suggest you correct your errors (all of them) if you argue with rats these days. He's become quite the little grammar Nazi.
Aside from that...
Obviously not. I mean, it's also obvious communism can't work without the human race uniting in cooperation, which unfortunately for both of us, JD, makes communism something inachievable for a thousand years. One day, maybe. I still think direct democracy would be more fun, but that's just me.
If people want to make themselves look like idiots by criticising others typing mistakes that's their own grave to dig.
It requires a degree of worldwide consensus yes, not necessarily worldwide co-operation in all respects, I highly doubt the human race will ever operate as a perfectly organised machine nor that they would want to.
Communism as an end state might be in the future but the path to it need not be, i is important to know and appreciate your destination in order to best navigate along ones journey to it. Direct democracy is part of communism, at least it is the only type of classless societal co-ordination I can fathom without eliminating dispute altogether with some utopian parlour trick.
Direct democracy is also in my opinion an important part of attaining communism, by understanding the end point one can see the trends of societal change must progress. Call me simple but I think the logical way to implement a transitional governance to a stateless classless moneyless society is to steadily chip away at the powers of state class and money.
Quote:
Well, if people can learn to get along and live in communes together, and form militias, police, and decentralize themselves to the point that a despot cannot form, I'd be happy to live in such a society.
Of course people can(bar the slightly absolutist part of your statement, no society can absolutely eliminate an eventuality from possibility) the question is will they and what can one do to encourage it. I argue there is a reasonable means to steadily achieve this over time nothing more nothing less just as is required. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #58139
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 7
Total Words: 3,191
Average words per post: 455.86
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2008-12-13 03:08
Politics: Silly Party
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
V for Vendetta as a film, compared to 1984 the novel, is a rabbit compared to a lion. In V for Vendetta, change is possible. In V for Vendetta, humanity wins. 1984 makes none of those conceits, instead taking a more honest approach. _________________ Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Post #59242
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-08-01 18:43
Politics: Ingsoc
Country: British Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Well John Hurt played Winston Smith in 1984 and he plays Adam Sutler, the dictator in VfV. He even gets his face plastered in a giant video screen. I have to admit, I chuckled at that.
The "humanity prevails" ending of VfV didn't bother me because really, it comes down to the people running the governments.
In 1984 it's described that the people who came to power through Ingsoc believed in power, nothing else. They fully knew they were perverting Socialism for their own gains and they never pretended, at least not to themselves, that they weren't. They knew they wanted power, they knew how to keep it, and they were willing to go to any lengths to keep the power they had won.
The way I see it the Norsefire regime in VfV is very tame compared to the Ingsoc regime. Like the Nazis and Communists, to paraphrase 1984, Norsefire probablly pretended to itself that they had seized power for ultimatley selfless reasons, and thus were unable or unwilling to do what had to be done to secure power.
Had the same mob walked up against Ingsoc troops no doubt they would have fired on them and order quickly restored.
Plus it would have been harder to take out the Ingsoc command structure. In VfV, in both the novel and movie, Susan/Sutler (the dictator) is killed. It's impossible to kill BB because he's either dead and kept alive through Party propaganda or he never existed in the first place. There would be no clear "#2" to go after as well, as there is no central Ingsoc/Oceanic government. Presumbley if the Party structure in Air Strip One was compromised and its troops disabled for whatever reason reinforcements in all forms would arrive from Oceanic bases in the US and Canada in short order to restore order. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
So, what organizes those anti-syndicates? Magical fairies? I honestly see nothing preventing the powerful from exploiting the weak in anarchic systems. Without laws, the strong can manipulate society, and intimidate it.
Without a rewiring of the human brain, I suppose. Or, some serious social-cooperation conditioning. In any case, humans are pack animals, with a primal instinct towards either authority or wanting to be in authority. The only way I see anarchy as being possible is if people are somehow mentally liberated from being the sheep they are.
