Anarchism, Marxism and other things police men hate

Right, if we are opposed to the current political system... what do we think would be a better one to replace it?

and why?

 

i'd rather live without one and be a hermit

seriously, whatever system you try some mofo will meddle with it for their own gain and mess it up, so why bother

 

Well it may not be very in your face over here... but in countries less fortunate than us (ie countries where people are murdered for their beliefs) I would say a fair political system was very important.

An unfair political system can (and does) result in the weak being oppressed.

 

There is no alternative. The system isn't corrupt - people are corrupt. The system is a product of us. Nothing will truly change until people have evolved to a point where we don't need governing. Therefore, the only real revolution is a revolution of the self. Developing into decent human beings is the best step towards social change. Change yourself, and the world has changed.

 

Yes, but in the mean time... how do we protect the vunerable from being abused and oppressed within a political framework?

 

well, i know its important, and i didnt mean to sound as if i dont care about everyone else - but personally i wouldnt change anything. Obviously in countries with oppression and dictatorship something needs to be changed, but i couldnt think of anything that would work in a totally groovy way, was all i was trying to say

 

We have oppression over here too. For example Tony Blair taking us to war when the people had said no to it.

 

To the best of our ability. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't strive to improve the system. I'm suggesting that utopian ideals such as anarchism are unworkable at this point in time. It's more a question of "what's the best system we can implement" rather than "what's the best system".

 

I agree somewhat, so what do you think other than protesting we can do?

What do you think of the idea of an elected world parliament?

 

In the grand scheme of things, fuck all. You can protest all you want, but power isn't in the hands of governments - it's in the hands of multinationals. On a smaller scale, there's a lot that can be done within the system. But in terms of changing the system..... the world isn't ready for it. People aren't ready for it.

Good and bad. On the one hand, I suspect it would just become a system whereby capitalism would be able to further tighten its grip. On the other hand, no real progress can be made until there's a world government. For example, one country will never abandon nuclear weapons while its neighbours have them. One country will never turn its back on GM crops when it puts it at a competitive disadvantage to its neighbours. Maybe with a world government there'd be a snowball's chance in hell that Kyoto would actually mean something. But I kinda wouldn't hold my breath.

 

A world government would be a disaster because it would keep power in the hands of the few.


I often wonder if there would ever be wars if power wasn't focused in the hands of people like Blair and Bush.

 

I think we can keep striving as hard as we possibly can to make this world a better place, to make every little change we can and to never ever ever give up...If one persons life is changed we are winning, if one person realises the ill of his ways we are winning and never ever get downhearted or pessimistic bcause what we are fighting for and what we believe in is right and one day the world will realise this and it will be a better place...So what can we do till then...We can go on every march, we can go on every protest and slowly but suurely things will begin to change and change for the better....It is already happening...The multi nationals know it and are clinging on for dear life, the Government are adding more and more laws to make us scared and unhappy...but you know what and this is what really makes me smile..It isn't working......We may not have won the war but for the first time we really are starting to win the battles....

I would go into a big idealistic idea of a Eutopian state but I just wanna keep it simple....So in answer to your question of what can we do...the answer is everything you possibly can....

And I certainly don't agree that people/humanity is corrupt....Not for one second..That is what they want you to believe, to lose faith in those around you....but once again I refuse to do that..I believe in everyone...

As a wise woman once said ""Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

 

Not at all. It's about accepting that we all have to share the burden of responsibility and that nothing will really change until people change. I believe that people and human nature are the problem, but it doesn't cause me to loose faith because I also believe in the infinite capacity of people to evolve and change. If a few of us can get on with each other and live lives full of compassion, honesty and trust, then there's no reason the whole world can't do it. It'll just take time.

 

That takes the assumption that we are all evolving towards love not hate.

I'd like to hope so, but it's a pretty big assumption to make.

 

But I think you have to make that assumption thatwe are moving towards love, it is the only way forward.....and most people I know would rather love than hate....If we are evolving towards hate then we don't have very long left as we have very destructive weapons now with which to demonstrate our hate...We have to be positive about our futures....

 

You could also assume that most people are pretty good natured anyway when in the right circumstances. Evolution might have nothing to do with it.

People might just be becoming more evil because of the society that we currently live in. If society were to change to something less repressive we might realise a better 'nature' in places we didn't think possible.

 

But what will we change to? You say less repressive, but how do you mean?

 

I don't know what it would change to but I know what it would change from ...

The best example I can think of are new laws introduced as a response to supposed terrorist fears.

At the moment it seems that we are living with a 'terrorist threat', as this threat gets worse the government have bigger 'clamp downs' ... they introduce new laws and restrictions of freedom that people welome so they can feel safer, however, these tightening up of laws serve no purpose except to further repress more citizens, thus causing more unease and dissatisfaction which is followed by resentment.

 

yeh, but this is what I mean.

I guess I;m trying to open a discussion on what a realistic alternative to the regime we have now would be better short term on the way to eutopia.

Something workable. Noone seems to be able to come up with workable examples.

Yes repressive laws need to be abolished for sure. What laws would we keep?

 

The only realistic short-term alternative that I can see is devolving power to local/regional bodies. There are still two problems with this though: people are often selfish, and you may find that when parties are more accountable locally, we may actually get more repressive legislation. For example, the death penalty is supported by a fairly clear majority of people. The second problem is that real power is held by the multinationals, so devolving government won't achieve diddly squat in the areas that really matter. In fact, you could argue it would actually hand more power to such companies.