Skip to main content

View Diary: We Are a Vision of the Future, On the Black Bloc: Part I (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You reacted with disbelief at the proposition (0+ / 0-)

    that a source of authority--the state--needs to enforce laws, i.e.. exert coercion for civilization to endure.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sat May 05, 2012 at 10:51:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

      Again, you constructed some stereotype in your head and are trying to fit me into it.


      Answer the questions?

      Or are they too scary for you? Are you too afraid to step out of your rigidly programmed Authoritarian mindset to even consider them? Are you afraid that you may have to give up your carefully protected privilege if you think about scary ideas that don't conform to your comfortable privileged version of reality?

      A reality where you obviously have to reduce anyone you disagree with to some inferior stereotype to even deal with them?

      •  There has never existed a perfect democratic (0+ / 0-)

        statedemocratic state that treated the powerful and powerless with equal dignity.

        But, the need for a state/tribe/other authority structure is basic social contract stuff.

        .  "I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is none other than a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things."  </  Other parts of Leviathan have been discredited, but this has never been plausibly challenged.  People are not lining up in Canada or Sweden to live in Somalia or Waziristan.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:24:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree! (0+ / 0-)
          But, the need for a state/tribe/other authority structure is basic social contract stuff.
          I am not, nor have I ever been an anarchist.  That is something you made up in your head.

          I shall reprint my questions from above.

          What are citizens supposed to do if the state uses excessive coercion?

          What if laws get passed by ....say, Republicans...that give the state too much power to coerce.

          What if citizens then use the electoral process, but then Democrats keep and enforce those same excessive laws?

          What recourse and rights do citizens have when the state becomes too "coercive?"


          You really believe that? You don't think the state represents the entrenched power structure rather than the people? The MIC, the Banking Industry, The Plutocracy? You think the state represents The People?

          You think what we have, what the status qou, IS is a representation of The People?

          I will restate them, starting with....

          IS it possible in your mind for a democracy and the electoral process to STOP representing the will of the people and shift to representing the will of  rich, politically powerful institutions?

          Is it possible for BOTH Parties to enable/support that? (Thus in part negating the electoral process)

          Are we there yet?

          If so what do the people do about it?

          If you can get through that, we can have a discussion about the role of "anarchism."

          Your image of me was wrong. My image of you is that you will support the state no matter how hot the frog water gets. Am I wrong too?

          •  Of course those are problems. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Markoff Chaney

            And that happens in virtually every democracy.  The rich and powerful will game any system--tribal, democratic, authoritarian.  

            As to what options are available, that is very situation specific.  The options facing Greeks are different than those facing Americans which are different than those facing Mexicans which are different than those facing Israelis or Palestinians.

            Certainly, a system where anyone who objects to a policy can opt out of compliance won't work, just as the right of the people to collectively resist a government that lacks legitimacy is undeniable.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:55:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well said! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              So I posit that it is "the rich" who have opted out. Not out of a policy, but out of the social contract that policies attempt to define and codify.

              I further posit that they have used an "idea" (a set of beliefs, memes and slogans....and of course plain old corruption) to get the government to back the idea that they are allowed to opt out. Even, through policies they have bought, encouraged to do so.

              So how do the people fight back against that "idea" and bring the social contract back into balance?

              •  I wish I had the answer. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Markoff Chaney

                Brings to mind an observation that you can judge the trajectory of a democracy by its ability to tax the rich.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well the only way to fight an idea (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  is with another idea. Almost always some version of the opposite of the original idea that is propelling the situation.

                  So we have  idea that is propelling the situation, in this case the rich and the government colluding against the people.....what would be the opposite of that?

                  I urge you to review the socio/political situation that allowed the reforms that once were the heart of the Democratic party....the new deal.

                  What was the idea that convinced the PTB/rich of the time that they were better off accepting the new deal.

                  Because there are only two ways to get them to change; force (and good luck with that!) or convincing them that something really bad was going to happen if they didn't accept the new deal.

                  And THAT...

                  is where the idea of Anarchism/Radical Socialism comes into play.

                  The sooner we can introduce the idea into the conversation.....

                  The less likely we will need to embrace the very unpleasant and undesirable actuality of Radical or Anarchist tactics.

                  And that
                  is the extent of my "support" for Anarchists. As a weapon in the Battle of Ideas.

                  Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
                  Martin Luther King, Jr.
                  You say above you wish you had the answer, I propose that waging the Battle of Ideas is the answer, the only one that has ever worked.

                  So we only have one choice, realy. Try to channel the Radical Populism into a constructive channel, or try to dismiss, ridicule, and tamp it down. So I leave you with this...

                  Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
                  John F. Kennedy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site