politics or just hate

[Abler]

From observing so called 'political-debate' across the web I have began to wonder whether many posters actually have a political viewpoint, or whether they are driven primarily by their hate for the western system of freedom, democracy and enterprise, that is, countries such as America and Britain, along with many others.

Should anarchist ramblings be considered in the same light as political debate or are they merely a way of expresing the the feeling of worldly injustice which is a characteristic of adolescance?

This poses another question;
Do most leftist feelings reflect political thinking or a desperate plea for an escape from an unjust and imperfect society in which we live.

[JudgeDredd]

i quite sure you won't see any wealthy ppl complaining on the internet.

so why are you bitching?

[swayside]

the leftist, while they don't mean to try to screw the world over, don't try to screw the world over for revenge. they actually think that way... weird huh?

[Jimsween]

I love it when people make fun of the other side of the political spectrum. It's like when a "conservative" says "those damn liberals and thier abortions we should make laws to change that!" or when a "liberal" says "We need LESS government spending!". Ahh that ironing, look at the ironing...

[nitroxide]

Just becase you dismiss them as rambilings their are people out their that feel strongly about what they are speaking about and have actually set firm beliefs based on their words i have no needs that i lack society hasnt fucked me bad i am not rich but i dont lack any food shelter or love i have entertainment and i have money for games music drugs etc. i can afford to go to concerts and do all these things but does that mean i have to be happy with our present state.i complain(hate) the goverment for justified reasons...we lived in a fucked up society.

[Kenney333]

I like to think im informed about my left wing opinions, but hey, the "desperate plea for an escape from an unjust and imperfect society" sounds pretty good too

[Trerro]

At 5/10/03 11:34 AM, Abler wrote: From observing so called 'political-debate' across the web I have began to wonder whether many posters actually have a political viewpoint, or whether they are driven primarily by their hate for the western system of freedom, democracy and enterprise, that is, countries such as America and Britain, along with many others.

The ease of posting something online is both the best and worst thing about the 'net. On one hand, anyone can make an intelligenet argument, and have a debate with others who do the same. On the other hand, every idiot and troll can post trash with no thought in it. In any board, expect to see a mixture of debate and garbage. The garbage is just something you have to accept the existense of, then ignore and move on.

Should anarchist ramblings be considered in the same light as political debate or are they merely a way of expresing the the feeling of worldly injustice which is a characteristic of adolescance?

Belief in anarchy as a working system is no less valid than belief in anything else - so long as it's actually an informed, developed opinion. While I personally don't think it would ever work, no one's ever tested it, and for me to say it's invalid is to do so with no evidence to back me up. So until it's actually been tested somewhere, it remains a valid theory, regardless of whether you agree with it's ideal and/or possibility.

This poses another question;
Do most leftist feelings reflect political thinking or a desperate plea for an escape from an unjust and imperfect society in which we live.

While some may just want to "escape", with most, I doubt it. Right vs. Left is essentially Law vs. Chaos. A lawful individual is one who tends to place the group before the individual, believing that a clearly defined law sytem is needed to prevent everyone from killing each other and to establish basic codes of conduct and moral decency, which simply won't exist otherwise. A chaotic individual places the individual above all else, with government's only purposes being protecting inviduals rights and basic functions of state. Such a person believes that people shouldn't need someone to establish morality for them - they should be able to do it on their own. Thus, government is still needed, but in a less powerful role.

Each system has it's merits and flaws. Law (right) allows organization and development, but also breeds conformity and corrupt authority. Chaos allows freedom, self-expression and personal rights, but at the cost of having less stability and a weaker state.

Neither of these sides is better than the other. A pure law (right) society would be incapable of change, as all conduct would be rigidly controlled. This results in a totalitarian state, complete with executions of all those who think different. A pure chaos (left) state allows nothing to be established, usually resulting in a new government each week, and all the associated bloodshed.

Clearly, a balance is needed, but should it be even, favoring the person, or favoring the collective? This is center, left, and right respectively. There is no one correct answer to this, but what you personally believe the answer to be forms the core of your standpoint, and your location on the political spectrum.

I personally think personal rights and freedoms should be government's priority, but recognize the value of having some organization, and some defined rules. Thus, I'm a liberal, but not a radical - left, but not to the extreme.

So yes, many left people do have a developed opinion, and aren't trying to escape society, they're trying to fix some of it's flaws and improve it for the good of all.

[NEMESiSZ]

Most people here just think they should hate bush because SNL makes fun of him, and their favorite entertainers all do.

No left wing people here EVER know what they're talking about or have anything worthwhile to say. Not once have they ever contributed anything worth reading.

[Shih]

At 5/12/03 08:01 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Most people here just think they should hate bush because SNL makes fun of him, and their favorite entertainers all do.

No left wing people here EVER know what they're talking about or have anything worthwhile to say. Not once have they ever contributed anything worth reading.

Man shut up. A lot of the lefts here have made good valid points supporting their views. Yeah there's a lot of people just following others lead as least as many as there are rights here making retarted comments about people who should shut up or get out of America.

[NEMESiSZ]

"OMG BUSH IS DUMB" is not a valid argument, sorry.

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/12/03 08:52 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "OMG BUSH IS DUMB" is not a valid argument, sorry.

yeah, but not all of them post like that. I think your being a little stereotypical and biased here.

[JMHX]

At 5/12/03 10:18 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 5/12/03 08:52 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "OMG BUSH IS DUMB" is not a valid argument, sorry.

yeah, but not all of them post like that. I think your being a little stereotypical and biased here.

Well this is Nemmy. He lives to anger people, even if he knows what he's saying is wrong. Most people just learn to live with him. Sort of like Cancer.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/12/03 08:01 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Most people here just think they should hate bush because SNL makes fun of him, and their favorite entertainers all do.

No left wing people here EVER know what they're talking about or have anything worthwhile to say. Not once have they ever contributed anything worth reading.

Have to admit that many with anarchist/leftist views at times don’t express their ideas in the best way. People seem to think these views are fixed on some type of total chaotic society, it isn’t true. You shouldn’t be listening to 15 yr old angry kids telling you they want to bring down the government and kill cops. You should listen to grounded people who know what they are talking about then you can judge the ideals of those structures of reform.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/12/03 08:52 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "OMG BUSH IS DUMB" is not a valid argument, sorry.

Why don't you look for my posts. I have valid facts to support my view.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/10/03 11:34 AM, Abler wrote: From observing so called 'political-debate' across the web I have began to wonder whether many posters actually have a political viewpoint, or whether they are driven primarily by their hate for the western system of freedom, democracy and enterprise, that is, countries such as America and Britain, along with many others.

Should anarchist ramblings be considered in the same light as political debate or are they merely a way of expresing the the feeling of worldly injustice which is a characteristic of adolescance?

This poses another question;
Do most leftist feelings reflect political thinking or a desperate plea for an escape from an unjust and imperfect society in which we live.

The leftist organization intends to transform institutionalized power relationships. This can be done through appeal to the current rulers and the exercise of democratic rights or through the electoral or violent conquest of state power. The organization tries to make itself into an alternative power or a counter-power. This is why it must embrace the current ideology of power like democracy.
Leftism is the active perception of a social struggle as a political program; it is ideological from top to bottom. The struggle of the left does not grow out of the desires, needs and dreams of the living individuals who which are exploited, oppressed, dominated and dispossessed by this society. It is not the activity of people striving to reappropriate their own lives and seeking the tools necessary for doing so. Rather it is a program formulated in the minds of leftist leaders or in organizational meetings that exists above and before people’s individual struggles and to which these latter are to subordinate themselves. It demands that individuals continue to give up their capacity to determine their own existence.
The anarchist endeavor has always been the total transformation of existence based on the reappropriation of life by each and every individual, acting in free association with others of their choosing. The realization of anarchist dreams, of the dreams of every individual still capable of dreaming and desiring independently to be the autonomous creators of their own existence, requires a conscious and rigorous break with the left. At minimum, this break would mean:
1. The rejection of a political perception of social struggle; a recognition that revolutionary struggle is not a program, but is rather the struggle for the individual and social reappropriation of the totality of life.
2. The rejection of organizationalism, meaning by this the rejection of the idea that any organization can represent exploited individuals or groups, social struggle, revolution or anarchy.
3. The rejection of democracy and the quantitative illusion. The rejection of the view that the number of adherents to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the institutions of domination and as a reappropriation of life.
4. The rejection of making demands to those in power, choosing rather a practice of direct action and attack. The rejection of the idea that we can realize our desire for self-determination through piece-meal demands which, at best, only offer a temporary amelioration of the harmfulness of the social order of capital
5. The rejection of the idea of progress, of the idea that the current order of things is the result of an ongoing process of improvement that we can take further, possibly even to its apotheosis, if we put in the effort. The recognition that the current trajectory—which the rulers and their loyal reformist and "revolutionary" opposition call "progress"—is inherently harmful to individual freedom, free association, healthy human relations, the totality of life and the planet itself.
6. The rejection of identity politics. Full reappropriation on the individual level, can only occur when we stop identifying ourselves essentially in terms of our social identities.
7. The rejection of collectivism, of the subordination of the individual to the group.
8. The rejection of ideology, that is to say, the rejection of every program, idea, abstraction, ideal or theory that is placed above life and individuals as a construct to be served. The rejection, therefore, of God, the State, the Nation, the Race, etc., but also of Anarchism, Primitivism, Communism, Freedom, Reason, the Individual, etc. when these become ideals to which one is to sacrifice oneself, one’s desires, one’s aspirations, one’s dreams.
Read More About It

[Nirvana13666]

It is no accident that the sinister image of the mad anarchist is so accepted. The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of carnage and chaos. We can expect little else from power-mongers who would have no power to monger if we had our way. They have to believe that authority and obedience are essential in order to justify their own crimes to themselves. The TV, press and films all preach obedience, and when anarchy is mentioned at all, it is presented as mindless destruction

[nitroxide]

Of course, there is a major flaw in this argument. The absence of laws would only work if we all embraced a standard code of personal ethics. We would need to define what constitutes an unethical act. There would have to be an effective, internal motivation to act respectfully towards one another. Spirituality could provide this incentive, but many people have become spiritually empty.

Anarchy is simply not a viable option, because currently there is no common code of ethics. In fact, our own individualistic culture can only exist in the absence of ethics. Arguably, an unethical act is anything done which results in predictable harm or manipulation of other people, when it's not necessary for immediate survival or self-protection. Unethical acts are an integral part of any system embracing "free enterprise." It's every man for himself, winner takes all, and everyone else be damned. event though its not how it should be ethics should also include a general kidness and care for fellow man.
Our worst problems do not actually result from any particular political system. Unethical acts are performed around the globe in the name of environmental activism, patriotism, and righteous retaliation. We are in significant trouble, because people in general do not trust in a higher power, and feel that they must take matters into their own hands. In doing so, they perceive no reason to act ethically. The likelihood of being caught has become the only restraint for our behaviour.

It's a shame that more people don't believe in karma, the automatic balancing function of the universe. According to karmic law, there is no possibility of any act going undetected. Automatic consequences are built into every human action or inaction. As long as its basic premise is accepted, karma could appeal even to the most logical among us.

Peaceful demonstration and self expression are perfectly ethical, as Gandhi so vividly showed us, but deliberately causing harm is never okay. Since each and every negative act results in karmic consequences, karma will also catch up with whoever bombed us or anyone that has bombed any country.

As our world seems to spiral downward into chaos, we can only hope that more and more people begin to embrace some form of spirituality, leading to more enlightened and ethical behaviour. If we each believed in karma, or a higher being, there would be no need for laws at all. Cheating, lying, stealing, and hurting would be seen as plainly stupid, once we became convinced of the inevitable repercussions of negative behaviour. Even anarchy would work under those conditions.

[Trerro]

At 5/12/03 08:01 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Most people here just think they should hate bush because SNL makes fun of him, and their favorite entertainers all do.

No left wing people here EVER know what they're talking about or have anything worthwhile to say. Not once have they ever contributed anything worth reading.

Translation: Lefts don't post anything you agree with.

If you actually read the post above yours (it's a whole screen of text, might be a stretch for you), you'll see that it actually defended BOTH sides, saying that the problem isn't left or right, but rather the extreme of each. Bush is not mentioned anywhere in this thread, so your mention of him suggests that you haven't read it and are merely spewing trash. If you can't even consider a point of view different than yours (and can't even read it), then you really shouldn't be posting to a politics board, as meaningful discussion with someone is impossible if they completely ignore the other sides view. (How can you support or refute what you haven't read?!)

[cannibal7878]

Once again, I am forced to say that a society without some sort of ruling class, and some form of common laws could never exist...It is all utopia to think that we could all co-exist with out some other kind of authority telling us what we can and can not do. It is bad enough, with guns, drugs, and other horrible things, and that is with laws, and governmental control...imagine no laws, no authority...now amplify the violence by like 1,000%...that would be outrageous...if you stop and think about it...humans are warlike species, always have been, always will be, we could never co-exist in peace without laws and without government...sorry to shatter your dream...