NorthernGent
Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
That reminds me, in my short drug experimentation days, not much really pot, shrooms a couple time, and acid a few times.
Trouble with all this anarchy talk is that I've gotten to that point in life where, while the world sucks, I'm not sure that whoever rises out of the anarchy would be any better. Look at Putin, as an example of the grand opportunity, now lost.
I think a nationalist like Putin was almost guaranteed to take a grip on Russia. Attempting to install democracy overnight created an oligarch controlled society and serious widespread poverty, and, as a result, the Russian people turned away from the concept of democracy in exchange for order, stability and subsistence - i.e. Putin's nationalism. Personally, I wouldn't be too downhearted about Putin coming to the fore in Russia.
In terms of anarchy, Anarchists make a very good point about freedom, one I happen to agree with. They point to the excessive and constant use of propaganda in countries such as Britain and the US. Taking Britain as an example: the first seeds of democracy were sown here in the 1200s - people were forming movements that showed a certain level of political awareness. By the 1600s we had a revolution of sorts aimed at widening representation. The point to this is the British government and establishment realised earlier than most that they couldn't use widespread force and violence to control Britons, because Britons were more politically aware than most and ultimately more free than most (at that time). So, they came up with more subtle means of social control that revolved around attitude adjustment (or brainwashing, whichever you prefer). They've been practicing this for centuries through constant propaganda telling us that it's fine to kill people in another country, that it's fine not to care about people, that it's fine to step over the homeless on our way to buying the latest fashions. In contrast to this, humans are naturally sympathetic, we do care about people and other things - we all have something we want to preserve which exists outside of the four walls of our own homes - regardless of political affiliation. Basically, our establishment does to us what African establishments do to Africans - the means are different - one sustains itself through violence the other sustains itself through more subtle attitude adjustment.
In terms of how this relates to your post, our establishments control our attitude to the extent that some of us think it's fine not to care, and others think there's no point in caring because there is nothing better. Personally, I think humans are inherently sympathetic towards other humans and I think there is something better than this. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not possible. Most of us don't know our own minds. As we evolve and understand more about ourselves, and about what humans need out of life, then it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that the systems will be shaped accordingly. At present, the establishment adjusts our attitude to think we need death, destruction and greed out of life - this isn't a given or a constant - at some point the majority will come to realise that we really need loyalty, respect, friendship, love - and we don't get any of these by bombing other people or by being obsessed with consumerism.
< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 4/26/2007 11:50:52 PM >
_____________________________
I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.
Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.
|
RE: Anarchy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread