[Closed] Generation Right (Wing)

....but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?

On exactly the same thing as me - an aspiration. They are not basing it on an analysis of historical or existing conditions, well apart from analyzing what they don't want.

I too aspire that human society will develop and evolve into autonomous societies without states or state structures. And I think it probably will.

You're confusing no government with no commonly accepted limits of behaviour. Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It's only a minority which opts for violence. People don't suddenly become killers if the government ceases to exist.

As for example, some quick googling reveals....

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory ]Free Territory of Ukraine[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea ]Autonomous Shinmin Region Korea[/url]

and perhaps the best example.....

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia ]Revolutionary Catalonia[/url]

Admittedly these were all short-lived but it could be argued that their disappearance was more to do with outside forces than an inherent failure of the system itself.

I would rather describe it as self-evident claims ..... all the examples I give are functions carried out on a day to day basis by governments throughout the world, there's nothing particularly bold about saying that.

Yes these are things that governments do, but it's not exclusively the domain of governments to provide these things. If you read further about the example above, you'll see that society didn't suddenly collapse on the removal of centralised government. Quite the opposite in fact.

Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It's only a minority which opts for violence.

I'm not sure why you think it's all down to just violence, although Somalia is quite a violent place.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it's prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them, I didn't mention violence.

Do the people of Somalia, or any other areas with no functioning government, enjoy all those benefits which I've listed ?

"but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?"

Getting some one else to wipe their collective bottoms.

Good debate ladies and gents. Thanks.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it's prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them,

I put it to you that in its time the church has fulfilled all of those roles in (the abstract concept that we call) society too, it doesn't make it a universal force for good though, does it?

I didn't mention violence.

Yeah I know that's why I was replying to JY 😉

To repeat the above point though, all the things you list are not the exclusive preserve of centralised government. Are you really trying to use the failed and chaotic state of Somalia as the prime example of how centralised government is the only answer to all our problems?

Daz i would support what you want but the reality is a lack of government does nor lead to brotherly love....have you read Lord of the Flies 😉

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Lack of regulation and /or the lack of an ability to enforce it, be it in the amazon rain forest or internet behaviour, rarely leads to the pinnacle of humanity.

Yeah I know that's why I was replying to JY

Fair point.

And I thought it was you not me that brought Somalia into the argument.

But anyway we've got two different points of view and I need to go to the timber merchants, so I'll let you slog it out with JY. Good luck to the pair of you and please fight clean.

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Well funnily enough I agree here. This is one of the areas where I have most trouble with anarchism, the idea of local vigilante justice to deal with those who wish to cause harm to others. Growing up on a council estate I've seen vigilante justice in action and it's not particularly palatable.

There are many problems with anarchism, but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate, voting for largely unknown 'representatives' who routinely fail to deliver on their promises with little or no accountability or transparency.

"ill-informed and ignorant electorate" only one of those applies to me.

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

What do you think? 😆

where you get it from? 😀

but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate

That is exactly what anarchism is - an autonomous society where people govern themselves instead of being governed by others.

Normal people can't be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

It's only the people who you really wouldn't want in charge of anything that get involved in politics.

Normal people can't be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

I'd disagree on that. Normal people can't be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it's not surprising people can't be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they're concerned about, whether that's pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I'm pretty sure they would exercise that power. They'd be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

Rachel Reeves must have choked on her morning cuppa!

The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

Cough <localism> cough.

Yeah, I know it was just a sop to the proles...

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

🙄 You say as if it's something new. Labour have been raking the gutter for Daily Mail votes since the launching of New Labour.

I'd disagree on that. Normal people can't be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it's not surprising people can't be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they're concerned about, whether that's pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I'm pretty sure they would exercise that power. They'd be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines.

You'll love it. The shanty towns, people with guns everywhere, corrupt local mayors/drug lords with too much power, jeeps turned into buses, makeshift roads, makeshift everything, homeless children running out in front of cars, fly tipping.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines....

If you think that's what I'm talking about then you haven't understood (or are choosing not to). Don't think I ever said you could simply switch systems. It would take years (probably decades) of careful planning, progression and evolution. It's pretty obvious that if you simply remove centralised government without replacing it with something else then the more nefarious types in society would use it as an opportunity to help themselves.