Arlo, Talking bollocks and rulers at the same time, The queen ain't no human bein' - don'tcha know ? (She's an institution - that, however it came about, continues to exist by well informed concensus.)
Whatever the history of oppressive forms or rule and various popular or anarchistic revolutions against those - surely most governance arises by pragmatic choice in "the free world". It's simply a natural evolution of humans as intelligent social animals to understand that governance is more valuable than none. Of course, the government we get we deserve - won't get fooled again, here comes the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. ... unless we "participate" (with our brains). Ah yes, quality education in rock songs - can't beat it, beat it, beat it ... (or maybe not, with Whacko Jacko). (I refer to my earlier thread.) Dream ticket - Arlo Bensinger / Jeffrey Sachs Ian On 5/16/07, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Micah has asked] > When did they hold the vote on whether people needed to be ruled? > > [Arlo had answered] > What a great question! > > Of course, Marx believed that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie would begin > atemporary time of transitional rule by a Party speaking for the workers > (thecommunist party), but that this would eventually disappear as communities > wouldorganize into self-governing "communes" (to simplify a bit) with little > to > no"authoritative" government. In other words, people who "vote" that they > "didnot need to be ruled". > > "The "first phase" [of the communist revolution] would eventually give way to > a"higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was > nolonger needed." (Wikipedia on Communism) > > Many consider this a pipe-dream, given the seemingly insurmountable obstacle > ofhuman greed, ambition and desire for power (and they may be right). But > takesolace knowing that Marx, like you, decried the final need for a "state" > aswell. > > [SA] > An individualist program sounds like 'My way or the highway'. ... When we have > all these 'My Way or the Highway' individuals walking around, is that the > stereotypical 'Wild, Wild, West'? > > [Ron] > I thought too if individualism was pushed to extreme the "anarchist" label > could be dusted off and thrown around. > > [Arlo] > Anyone who cites the Sex Pistols should have a beer bought for them. First one > is on me, Ron. > > "Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that > common sense would allow for people to come together in agreement to form a > functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own > sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour." (Wikipedia) > > This certainly sounds like something both Micah and Marx would endorse. And > quite frankly it sounds here surprisingly MOQish, doesn't it? I mean, the > "state" is not the "social level", under Anarchism people still engage > socially. Its not a "every man on his own deserted island" idea. > > One question jumps out, and that is how reasonable is this "utopia"? If man's > basic nature is towards greed and power, and Pirsig is right that the social > level is (in part) a way to excise authority in forcing man to behave > "civilly", wouldn't Anarchism quickly devolve into the "Wild, Wild West" as SA > mentions? > > Wouldn't "might makes right" become the norm? Isn't that why we created a > socialized police force and a socialized judiciary system in the first place? > (And why people like Platt aren't Anarchists, they only play one on TV.) > > And then there are the sub-anarchies, anarcho-communism and > anarcho-capitalism. > Here Marx and Micah would likely split ways, as anarcho-communism "advocates > the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of > voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or commons through which > everyone > will be free to satisfy their needs", while anarcho-capitalism "advocates the > elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national > defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in > a > free market rather than by taxation; the complete deregulation of nonintrusive > personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market." (Wikipedia) > > Aside from the "property" issue, do not both of these presume more about human > nature than appears evident today? Who would protect the anarcho-whatever > nation from the hordes of immigrants or terroristic destruction? With no > police > or judiciary, would we hunt down killers with angry mobs a ala Wild, Wild > West? > (Which might be fun, I've always wanted to be in a posse.) > > If you read the entry on anarcho-capitalism, however, it contains a key > difference from modern capitalism, not simply the abolition of taxation. With > the abolition of all government, including a treasury, human enterprise takes > on a more "guild" system of production. Without "money" to mediate labor and > reward, there is no factory lines, no mass production, just butchers, bakers > and candlestick makers, with each trading his/her "goods" for other "goods", a > al a barter economy. > > Just some thoughts, as I crank up my Never Mind the Bollocks CD. > > > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
