[Vesuvius]

I am in college, and in Imperial Russia, under the centralized gov there was almost no schooling or hospitals but when the zemtvo (small township / commune) got permission to tax in the mid-late 1800s they had the best care in those areas of all prior Russian history
[the below was added as afterthought]
additionally, since the question is in regard to oppressive gov, do you really think they'll let you have a lot of worthwhile education? in periods in russian history all education was banned as was foreign influence. in other times the education was censored, certain courses were barred, and only those approved by the central government were allowed to attend schools. all writing was censored, and there, at times, were even censors for the censors. and this is the least of the issues with oppressive gov. genocide, racism, sexism, cruelty, no freedom of religion.

yes having no government COULD VERY WELL FAIL. but having an option of freedom and justice is better than having an insurmountable power committing atrocities with impunity. everyone at the worst would at least have a chance to live, and to create a decent way of life.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vesuvius ]

[Vesuvius]

clarification: oppressive government = Iraq, Iran (in the 70s/80s more than now), Communist and Imperial Russia, Communist China, Early US gov., Burhmese (sp?) gov., in general dictatorships or highly corrupt or biased governments.

the question is if you have to choose for an indefinite period whether to have that or not.

without it you will be at the mercy of humanity, but should a working organization / political plan arise, you will be very well off.

if it fails, you will not be much worse off than with oppressive gov, unless you are oppressive, corrupt, and unsympathetic to humanity - in which case the government will be a good thing for you.

and if it fails, there is the possibility of future redemption- something absent from the other vision.

[fshock]

I`m sorry for calling you a moron, you actually surpise me here.

People that are suppressed let themselves get put in that position. You can`t let things get to far away from you because it will overpower you.

Anarchy will only bring chaos, murder, rape, theft, chopping peoples fingers off just to take thier rings ect...

Communism, is a good idea but if some totally uncompassionate, greedy, power monger is in charge it is futile.

But if I had to choose I`d go with anarchy, because you have more control of your life and future.
You would have to be aware of your position.

[Dr.Squirley]

Read civil disobedience by henry david thoreau.

[Immy]

good thread.

read Wild Swans by Jung Chang.
Its biographical account of 3 generations of women living in China from around 1890 to 1970. No matter what your interests are this book is absoultly essential reading.

[wayfinder]

opression begets anarchy, anarchy begets opression. choose one and get the other, eventually.

[Vesuvius]

what a load of bullshit.

you can say any government will- eventually- lead to another type, but the conclusion you claim without support is a load of crap.

[fshock]

Well said Travis.

[Sukhoi]

^ Yup!

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sukhoi ]

[travis travis]

"... However ... Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, Africa, shows what happens when a large majority of uneducated poor wackos gets a chance to do as they please ... major mayhem ... Afghanistan is probably another good example..."

Well... these are examples of what happens when one culture becomes the center of the world, rendering all those third world places the most desperate, uneducated fringes of the American/Industrial way of life... but what if America/Europe wasn't the great commerce vehicle that was running everyone's life? I think being 'wacko' right now, has at least something to do with being born in the ghetto of the great machine. Not to say other cultures don't do all sorts of fucked-up things, but I'm more saying... how can we judge people at this point when we've robbed their culture and made them slaves on our hellish outer rim of mercantilism? Now that's a simplification, I am aware of many hideous, evil things been done in the developing world in the name of doing the right thing. But still, I feel that if being third world didn't mean being a subservient dirt factory ghetto then these people could at least try to figure some things out.

as for anarchy, unless you're sick of the fuzz hastling you about your drugs, who cares? what the fuck do I need anarchy for? just cause I'm fucking bored with orderly life? yeah, well Hitler thought war was the greatest thrill. now that's wacko, to have lives that afford us such freedom in our homes, and want to trash it all just because we don't feel like filling out one tax form a year, or because it would be fun to be able to annoy anyone we want and have no authority get us for it. sure it's FUN to be obnoxiously free, but it's not right. most every commune built in hippie-dom feel apart because the drug alcohol abusers would just crash there, party, and be wreckless. that sort of living is a degrading form of freedom, it's like being a dog and doing what you please to wherever and whomever. And people can STILL pursue that if they want pretty thoroughly in the United States without getting into too much trouble to grow up at any time. I'm good friends with a lot of people like this, and trust me, despite leading very debauched lives, everyone including the evil authorities still have sympathy for them and will help them get on track whenever.

so I guess I'm missing the point of this anarchy thing, and I can certainly say I've encountered far more bad people then bad government systems in my life. so I think american government and life anyway works rather well in the states.

when it extends its grip though, and uses everyone else we so politely consider 'third world' for nothing but our manufacturing drones... you better believe that that's messed up. they basically get the worst of our labor, none of our benefits, and the inherited culture of lowliness and substance abuse that is what most people working such crap jobs know.


P.S. - If you live in a free country - USE YOUR FREEDOM. It seems obvious but very few people pay attention to that. Be creative, set your life in motion. Don't just sit around and then feel like knocking down some mailboxes or getting ripping drunk because civilized life is so 'oppressively' boring. Do stuff. Have fun. Take up causes, projects, or whatever you want to do, but keep learning, keep moving. Stagnation ain't life, and self-destructiveness is not the answer to that.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: travis travis ]

[Impaler]

I guess I might as well post something in my own thread.

Vesuvius-- Wayfinder is actually on the right track. It's called the human predicament. Basically, it's a cyclical history of corruption.

A tyrannical government leads to revolution, which leads to anarchy, which leads to competing groups, which leads to a dominant group, which in turn leads to a tyrannical government. Rarely does an oppressive rule ever lead to freedom and a Western style of rule. This theory is supported both by Plato and the Muslim version of Machiavelli, Khaldun (the philsopher of choice for Osama bin Laden).

Maybe you should beef up on your philosophy before you go and make sweeping insults like that, hmm?

Travis: Invariably, if one form of a social contract outside the tribal system hadn't popped up, another would have. The struggle for authoritarian command was pretty multilateral throughout the history of the world. To label government as the cause of all the evils in anarchy is the same as saying that Caucasian Europeans were the cause of all slavery and feudal systems, since they had more money and global influence.

HawkOne: Although I think you were a little too extreme on the "respect" ad hominem factor, your caveman analogy was poignant, if not a little far-fetched. The struggle for power DOES turn most of us into testosterone-driven envy mongers, only a select few (the alpha males) actually act on it. It's the rule of nature, to insure that the entire species doesn't destroy itself in the first few years of existence.

[HawkOne]

travis,

Although your post contained various disclaimers, allow me to rectify a little confusion, when referring to the large majority in Rwanda, I was referring to the Hutus, when referring to the wackos, I was referring to the large amount of people from the Hutu side of the conflict who could be found slashing anyone they came across belonging to the Tutsi minority to pieces with jungle knives, men, women, children and even livestock. Now, people who systematically cut the limbs of others, leaving them to die (not all died, some survive lacking arms and legs!!), regardless if they are European or from a developing country can safely be considered wackos in my opinion. The mass killings were a result of ancient religious differences that suddenly erupted into violence, and cannot possibly be linked to any western influence. I am sure you agree.

When I am saying uneducated, I mean of course educated in our western sense of the term. The people of Rwanda have of course carried on their traditions and beliefs of their region since their beginning of time (about 500 B.C.), which in their sense of education is what have brought them to where they are today, i.e. not very far. Because of that, people don’t know what nasty stuff live in their water, and that boiling it will take care of the problem. They also don’t know about crop rotation that will help them put food on the table in a more reliable fashion. They also don’t know that because they have such a low level of education, bad infrastructure and political instability, western companies will not open up a “sweatshop” factory in their country, creating many new jobs, bringing money with it.

When I bumped across some info about the whole Hutu and Tutsi conflict, it struck me as being strangely reminiscent of this anarchy vs. oppression topic. Take a look at the info in this link if you will, it is quite close to many of the points argued so far, with a powerful minority controlling the majority, until the “balance” was upset ..
A little info 1
A little info 2

This following statement needs a bit of attention I think: “I think being 'wacko' right now, has at least something to do with being born in the ghetto of the great machine. Not to say other cultures don't do all sorts of fucked-up things, but I'm more saying... how can we judge people at this point when we've robbed their culture and made them slaves on our hellish outer rim of mercantilism?”

The “West” has become frightfully pampered when it comes to the notion that working in a factory is invariably hell on earth, and that opening factories in developing countries is bad news for those living there. Sure, they have only a fraction of the salary that the workers in the USA used to have before the factory was closed, but it is still some of the only salaries in a developing country, usually with massive amounts of unskilled labor, not having a regular job, and since there are no other options, I don’t really think it is all bad stuff.

Another little detail, slavery was THE largest “business” in Africa for many centuries before the various colonial powers got the idea to colonize and utilize. It is not something that was created by any western society since most societies have had their various forms of slavery. Slavery was an accepted feature, often essential to the economy and society, of all ancient civilizations.

I wonder what would have become of Africa if left undisturbed by various European nations influences, and their occupying forces.....

I think your comments on anarchy are spot on, and are beautifully illustrated.


[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[Vesuvius]

I know the idea of cyclical behaviors, however I disagree with it in a grand scheme. certainly there is progress and decline, and certainly some trends usually lead to certain others, but as knowledge grows and tech advances, plus after social and diplomatic changes occur like revolution, socialism, democracy, constitutionalism, etc, there is a tendancy for some of the ideas to be made obselete and other considerations that were never in the cycle to appear. example: the dwindling number of theocracies. example: shrinking numbers of nomadic peoples. example: more widespread acknowledgement of the need in some form of human rights. these things are not all inevitable changes, and theoretically it is possible for great widespread ignorance or crisis to undoe much of this, but in many instances I feel that a lack of government does not always lead to despotism (though certainly in this argument there is at least some justification) and I definitley feel that despotism does not lead inevitably to anarchy. it may, but many revolts under oppression lead to rectification of the problems rather than merely replacing one dictator with another (I said many, like maybe half, so it is not inevitable). beyond this I feel that 'history repeats itself' is a good credo for learning and awareness, and it is certainly true, but it is true because of the limits of knowledge and resources, plus the influences of the petty, and I feel that much of what promotes repitition in the sense that you mean can either fade away or be brought about only in rare circumstance that has nothing to do with political progress and everything to do with unavoidable catastrophy.
[edited to add the following]
and I think that Plato is hardly a creditable source, he's a fucking moron. most of his arguments are hypocritical or blind to obvious alternatives, and are created by minor research leading him to a conclusion, which he then backtracks and creates steps leading to. he refuses to acknowledge steps that lead to other rationales, and will support very strained or idiotic or self-condemned (hence hypocracy) points in favor of what he wants to justify.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Vesuvius ]

[Jacks True Self]

I haven't read all of posts above just the beginning but here is what I think.

Government is just a system to keep large groups of people living in peace (ideally).

Anarchy�s difference from the current governmental system is that all individuals involved follow the laws and principles during anarchy voluntarily and therefore there is no need to enforce control over on them.

That is a very utopian idea and it will never work while there are still groups of people out there where individual only thinks of himself or herself, with disregard to the group they are part of. I think that most people in the world are this way and any system that depends on honesty on the part of the individual will not work. 90% of people are simply dishonest and therefore require a stick to get them in line�

I think Anarchy can work and Communism as well can work but only when such a commune is created by volunteers who hold their laws in their hearts.