|
U-Know! Forum » OMG!! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 12:17
|
||
No. I was saying there should be no parties as all they do it corrupt the idea of an elected representative.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 12:20
|
||
|
Duckbreath, there is no need to be so insulting in your reply. It doesn't do anybody any good. We have lost too many stimulating and intelligent posters from this board because of such loaded and aggressive postings. As well as the insults and loaded terminology, you make baseless presumptions about what I think, what I know and what my motivations are. If you thought about what I said you would already have the answers to some of the fears and charges you give voice to. I made it plain that centralised power and its resultant authoritarianism are a Bad Thing. I said in plain terms that it's not *who* is in power but the existance of the power *itself* that is the cause of the problem, that such power corrupt all who wield it. So how can you ask if I 'just want a 'revolution' and will then 'will' it over us all whether we objected or not'? >once a leader has been elected he cannot consult >his party on every single issue which is why it never works >- you may not like >it but thats the way the system works and those >are the terms in which you have to criticise it No it is not! Were we living in the USSR would you say 'well yes all the elections are for one repressive party; you may not like it but that's the way it is so that's the terms in which you have to criticise it'? Would you say the same under some medieval feudal system? Or can we dream a bit bigger than that? Do we think we might not be just a change of party leader away from the best of all possible worlds? >quite often when there are good people in charge >it leads to progress Aside from the historical inaccuracy of what you say, the principle itself is wrong. You're saying that because you can name several occasions in which an appalling regime gave way to a less appalling one, therefore the power structures are fine. Of course centralised power has delivered some good things (though the examples you quote are merely stopping doing some of the problems they had created), but no social system is entirely bad. In the 1930s Nazi Germany had the lowest infant mortality rate on earth and an astonishing program of economic regenration. Doesn't mean we should have been cheering them. >there's no country in the world at any time in >history who have made a better job depends what you mean by country. There certainly have been societies that do a far better job of it, just no the mass societies we know. Once societies get so huge they cannot help but ignore, oppress and disenfranchise huge sections of their populations. Western society cannot be measured simply by the material comfort of those who live in it. We have to factor in the people and places upon whose exploitation our comfort is based. As with all great civilisations, the West is built on slavery. We've got squeamish about having darkies chained up in our back yards, so we have them a long way away, in the sweatshops of Malaysia or the cocoa plantations of west Africa. These people are not free from slavery and don't benefit from the social care you mention. >your 'down with us' sentiments they're actually 'up with us' sentiments. Saying leaders can take our power and act against our will and interests is more like 'down with us'. >a mixture of cynicism and 'revolutionary chic' Again, I try not to respond to insults but this is so wide of the mark I can't help myself. I believe that people should have the right to directly affect things that directly affect them, rather than hope for benevolence from a distant leader. I'm saying that, given the chance, people would and should take an active interest in running their affairs. I trust that people really are that basically intelligent, trustworthy and good. If we can envision ways in which the world could be better then we should work towards making them so. You can call that 'cynical' if you want. |
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 13:11
|
||
|
Apologies - I didn't mean to be insulting - I typed that post really fast before and I generally like to be more measured than that -- you say that representative governments will necessarily be corrupt when I think that sufficiently reformed and with good people involved they are the best hope we have got. also your alternative - the dismantling of all power structures - would involve some kind of consensus - you would have to convince people your 'system' would be better and I honestly can't see how you would enable this consensus without political debate and ideological mobilisation - how would this situation come about as you see it? Can you talk specifically about this? I realise I don't know a lot of your views - I have read only a few of your posts and articles - and you may have answers for all of these but I have noticed on this forum a kind of re-active vagueness - no politicians can be trusted, we're a corrupt culture, authoritarianism is bad, everything we are told is lies- as if we can only view the world as a conspiracy against us- you can say we're based on slavery but I see it as something progressive and good about our culture that we were the first to abolish it when all around the world in the west and east and in tribal africa it still widespreadly used - you never seem to mention our cultural triumphs only our failures and also suspect that is why there is on here an interest in prehistoric culture - cause all we can see is their passion and enthusiasm - we won't ever be in a position to judge their specific beliefs or morality - it's a vague kind of spirituality and non-threatening morally - won't ever tell us what to do all well and good but politics is about specifics and I am genuinely interested in how you think we can, as you say, make the world better for people based on their innate goodness we were talking originally about IDS's position within his party and I was judging his actions against the working procedure of his party and its system - you and aqk were judging him against your ideals and I agree with you about this - I think you misunderstood the basis of my remarks
|
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 13:13
|
||
|
'authoritarianism is bad' sorry i agree with that one
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 13:29
|
||
| Frankly I haven't noticed any vicious name-calling here, or if there is it isn't as bad as on Slate.com. On Slate I had people call me a "commie-faggot", or worse, a retard and a coward. Certainly though I don't agree with duckbreath, at least he hasn't stooped that low. | |||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 13:32
|
||
|
who is responsible for making sure a 'powerless' society remains powerless & who is responsible for making sure there are no usurpers? what if it is the representative will of the people that they want some bodies to have a measure of power and will sacrifice a bit of liberty in order to get a centralised system of protection - how will you persuade them they dont have this right? how will people claim a right without a judiciary anyway? how will you prevent consenting adults from establishing a power relationship between each other - ie. 'i will let you order me about if you give me this benefit'? |
|||
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 13:57
|
||
|
I wasn't really judging IDS against anything. In fact I wasn't referring to him at all. I was more making a point about the party system. On your slavery point, slavery was a product of capitalism - and still today there is the constant search for cheap labour globally. The abolition was for no 'moral' reason, but simply out of pure eceonomic necessity (there was a general acceptance that it was 'killing off the working class'), I can't see why that should be regarded as 'good' or 'progressive'. |
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 14:11
|
||
|
although you can argue that capitalism began earlier most people would agree it began with in the middle ages so slavery pre-dates it by thousands of years with regard to your slavery remarks - what about the abolitionist movement and all the pressure exerted on govenments to abolish slavery - the catholic church itself was one of the biggest influences on the abolition of slavery - Lincoln made speeches against the 'evil slavery' all through his life i think you are being harsh on the people involved with getting rid of it to suggest they were just motivated economically - also when are you suggesting that slaves were made up of the 'working classes'? |
|||
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 14:33
|
||
I'm not suggesting that slaves were working class. I'm saying that the population throughout the colonies was being decimated by slavery.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Oct 17, 2003, 05:09
|
||
|
Those are difficult questions to answer really... I suppose it is human nature to accept less freedom for security or even survival. Frankly though, I'm not sure if it's even those two reasons for the masses to act that way. I tend to think they are still deceived by the lies their governments give them.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
