At 8/30/11 12:15 PM, djack wrote:
It had everything to do with the expense of an education. You act as if the government was actively trying to hold back the serfs by withholding an education but the truth is they simply couldn't afford the costs of teaching everyone. Education is a legal requirement these days, everyone has access to at least at high school education and if someone wants to go to college there are loans and scholarships readily available. How exactly is an anarchist society supposed to educate its people anyway? Schools require that all the people spend money on something that they will never see a return on in the hopes that it does their children will be well enough educated to be successful in the future. That kind of altruism isn't something most people are willing to do and generally has to be forced upon the public.
Of course it was actively holding back the serfs, ask any historian and they will tell you that, the system was based on huge inequality for it to work, otherwise there would be no King or feudal system, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise? If certain people have huge wealth and others do not, unless it's based on who works the most, how is this a natural occurrence? You didn't answer my question on how education worked before fuedalism. My example of Athens let's say, how did they educate people?
It depends on the anarchist school of thought, although there's good chance you see anarchy as a synonym for 'chaos' but education would be a shared, optional institution open to all, why? Have a look at summerhill school too.
What the hell are you taking about? First you say no they didn't and far less so in the same sentence, so which is it? Are you saying that only the rich benefit or are you admitting that everyone gets at least some benefit? Then you rant about how people can't change the government and anyone who tries gets killed but last I checked neither of us lived in China so clearly neither of us has to worry about being killed for voicing our opinions. In the U.S. there are protesters in D.C. year round, I don't even think some of them know what they're protesting they just saw the protest and decided to join in, none of them get killed by the government.
You said people benefit more from government than anarchy and I said they don't and in fact they benefit far less from it than if they were free, so I don't understand your confusion with my syntax. I'm saying only the rich benefit, although this applies to all or most forms of government, not just capitalism. By change the government, I don't mean a silly petition for a new bus stop, I mean an actual tangible change for the benefit of most people at the expense of the ruling minority. Taking the manufacture of consent out of the picture, any change that the government (who are all state capitalists, funded by corporations anyway, ask for facts if you like) doesn't approve of, does not happen, like any state throughout time; try to change this and you will be killed or imprisoned. If the majority of people were to fight against something unjust to them, no matter how many people agreed if it does not fly with the government, it won't happen. If the people fought against the injustice outside of state-approved, delusional, bureaucratic means they are told to use, they will be imprisoned, this is why I say, everything else aside, to call what we have a democracy is inappropriate. I'll come to the China point later.
It's never impossible to set up a dictatorship. All you have to do is find the people who don't have everything they want and promise them that they'll get it if they follow you. Greed is a powerful force and some people will do anything for it including following a dictator.
You're first and second sentence is caused by the effects of a state, which controls the lives and working conditions of the inhabitants. Furthermore, a dictator would have a lot of trouble gaining power in a decentralised society, of autonomous individuals operating in co-operative but different confederations. Representative politics, hierarchy, the mindset statism creates and centralisations of economies, policing etc is how dictators gain power. Maybe impossibility is a stretch, but a single, centralised state is far, far more vulnerable to the dictator problem than any anarchist society.
There is no evidence people go insane easier at all. All of that post is pretty much wild speculation, but anarchists don't advocate small communities, just de-centralisation of power bases.
Except it's not that easy. Much like schools, police require altruism that is counter intuitive to human nature. Self policing is also impossible because the average person can't fight every battle for themself.
It's not self policing, but if you're a social anarchist like myself, you advocate at the least, the police are not working in the interests of the ruling class but rather as part of the co-operative. A lot of people get a lot of support, power and money from the continuance of crime. If you actually have a GENUINE interest in political theory, I can offer you quite a good link on this issue.
I didn't say we should stop the process I said that complete anarchy wouldn't work. Not all change is good and not all change is bad. For example, government regulation in schools (specifically No Child Left Behind in this case) makes the education system worse however complete deregulation of the economy leaves the entire thing more susceptible to depressions.
This is an interesting and conflicting point, I wonder, what do you understand of anarchy? In more than a soundbite.
Anarchists are also utopian fools. The state causes problems but the state also fixes problems. Eventually a better system will be developed but I can guarantee that it will never be anarchy. The nature of all societies requires that there be leaders, it is inevitable. Also, what brutality? You're in Britain not Soviet Russia. You don't live in some totalitarian or fascist state, you don't have to worry about being run over by tanks for voicing your opinion.
It only fixes (partially) the problems it causes, that's no argument for a state. I can guarantee it will probably be anarchy. Not anarchy as you seem to understand it of course, that would be horrible, but some degree of decentralised system in which people aren't cogs in machines, and the product of their labour is theirs to decide upon.
Now, the brutality and police issue. Well, I myself have had issue with that. I was incorrectly arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, to a guy's van. It wasn't me, and the description was given for someone of 5"6. I was 6"1. On being arrested however, I had my body slammed into a wall, and two of my friends, who were surprised at this had their face slammed into a wall and the other threatened to be thrown into the brook which was nearby for voicing their opposition. I was in a cell without a toilet for 22 hours, my DNA taken and my home was searched by police. All on a graffiti allegation let me remind you, based on one person's word, which I had not done. But most people don't see this as anything bad, it was the police who did it after all, so what if they use violence, I must've done something right? It's not very Soviet Union-y is it, so let's move on.
I'm sure you heard about the riots. A lot of bad things happened. In my opinion, the State caused the riots (the cuts on the poor, bail-outs for the rich, refusal to address of issues in deprived areas other than harsher policing, the beating of a 16 year old girl protesting the unlawful shooting of Mark Duggan, her beating sparked the riots in tottenham btw) failed to stop the backlash from this, and then dismissed any of it was their fault. But what happened after?
Well, a mother of two was given five months for buying a pair of shorts for her kid off of a looter. That's one life ruined for good. Another young guy posted a joke about riots when drunk, which he then deleted and he's serving a four year sentence. I'll continue on another post.