Are you a moral person?

[fromderinside]

Alternatively every successful movement tends to dominate. So one despotic regime was replaced by another. Alternatively, success in mission tends to reduce need for advocacy and continued use(waste of) energy on advocacy leading ultimately to complacency through indifference.

We only respond to the squeaking wheel. Now the wheel is squeaking so we will respond, probably wrongly, generating another set of problems in the future.

Human nature of which short sightedness is one recurring aspect.

 

[untermensche]

The Anarchist societies were not despotic.

They replaced a bunch of petty dictatorships with democracies.

And were attacked by every despotic system on the planet from the Nazis to the capitalists.

 

[Bronzeage]

What was the difference between wanting to get rid of the King and whining?

All I see is a bunch of sycophants to the King.

They need to see the light.

In the case of this discussion, there is no difference. You have stated a goal, but haven't put forth how we get there.

Is this just another Bill and Ted "Be excellent to each other," sermon?

Read how the Spanish Anarchists did it.

It starts with people understanding the difference between a leader and a boss.

Some ideas are before their time.

Monarchy persisted for centuries and capitalism is stronger with much better propaganda.

And in many parts of the capitalist world people have some prosperity because of unions in spite of the nature of capitalism.

In the US that is reversing. It is moving towards third world status, not universal prosperity.

Not to mention the nations the US dominates to allow that prosperity for some in the US.

It would be better if I could ask some Spanish Anarchists how they did it, but there doesn't seem to be any around. If you are going to refer me to historical plans and methods, it would be better to list the ones which succeeded.

 

[untermensche]

They succeeded well.

Their society was florousing.

Until it was attacked by fascists. The same way the French were attached by fascists.

 

[Bronzeage]

They succeeded well.

Their society was florousing.

Until it was attacked by fascists. The same way the French were attached by fascists.

Okay, you are proposing a social structure which is incapable of defending itself from outside threats. If a society is incapable of passing its system to the next generation, it doesn't matter how nice it was to live there.


This is no different from a hunter gatherer group, led by a leader who has no idea how to deal with the leopards which keep dragging people away in the dark.

 

[untermensche]

They succeeded well.

Their society was florousing.

Until it was attacked by fascists. The same way the French were attached by fascists.

Okay, you are proposing a social structure which is incapable of defending itself from outside threats. If a society is incapable of passing its system to the next generation, it doesn't matter how nice it was to live there.


This is no different from a hunter gatherer group, led by a leader who has no idea how to deal with the leopards which keep dragging people away in the dark.

I am proposing a structure that could not defend itself against an attack from the German Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Russian Communists and the capitalists from the US and Britain.

France fell to just Germany.

Is that a social structure we should get rid of too?

And I am talking morality.

A dictatorship is an immoral structure.

Are you saying morality is not something we should strive to improve?

 

[fromderinside]

The Anarchist societies were not despotic.

They replaced a bunch of petty dictatorships with democracies.

And were attacked by every despotic system on the planet from the Nazis to the capitalists.

There may be anarchists, but, anarchist societies? Got an island fore every anarchist? It won't do with anything less.

Spanish revolution may have been promoted by anarchists, but, whatever they replaced it with was not an anarchist society.

Anarchist: 1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power. 2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order.

It can't apply to society because, by definition, societies are ordered.

society: 1. the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

 

[untermensche]

The Anarchist societies were not despotic.

They replaced a bunch of petty dictatorships with democracies.

And were attacked by every despotic system on the planet from the Nazis to the capitalists.

There may be anarchists, but, anarchist societies?

Absolute ignorance is never an argument.

The Spanish Anarchists.

They controlled large parts of Spain.

And their factories were more efficient than the capitalist factories and several innovations of the time came out of Anarchist factories.

The society did not collapse. It was not threatening to collapse.

It was showing how "bosses" were not necessary.

Which is why it was attacked by every despotic system on the planet.

Despots hate Anarchism. They hate being told and shown how they are immoral and unneeded.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Anarchist societies were not despotic.

They replaced a bunch of petty dictatorships with democracies.

And were attacked by every despotic system on the planet from the Nazis to the capitalists.

There may be anarchists, but, anarchist societies?

Absolute ignorance is never an argument.

The Spanish Anarchists.

They controlled large parts of Spain.

And their factories were more efficient than the capitalist factories and several innovations of the time came out of Anarchist factories.

The society did not collapse. It was not threatening to collapse.

It was showing how "bosses" were not necessary.

Which is why it was attacked by every despotic system on the planet.

Despots hate Anarchism. They hate being told and shown how they are immoral and unneeded.

Take off your rose tinted spectacles! The anarchist territory of the Spanish civil war was a tyranny. People were terrified to not come across as working class. The property owning classes were shouting horay in the streets as the anarchists came and then horay in the streets when the fascists came. The freedom under the anarchists was all just a pretence. Something they did in order to avoid getting shot by the militias. Which happened. I know you base your opinions on Farewell to Catalonia to a large extent. I've read the same book, and I drew very different conclusions. I think you read the book with an extremely filtered point of view. Because that book is a very raw and open account IMHO. It can be read from either perspective. I suggest reading it again, but from a different perspective. I'm sure you'll learn new things.

The problem with anarchy is that it's always It's always temporary. It's just the period between rigid power structures. It's never a sustainable option in the long run. Our best bet is always to try to fill the power vacuum with something that will cause us minimal pain. But it'll always be some cunt or another.

 

[untermensche]

The anarchist territory of the Spanish civil war was a tyranny.

Here's what somebody who actually saw it said:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Take off your brown colored glasses.

Brown from being shoved up the ass of some dictator.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The anarchist territory of the Spanish civil war was a tyranny.

Here's what somebody who actually saw it said:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Take off your brown colored glasses.

Brown from being shoved up the ass of some dictator.

I read the same book and I took something completely different from it. I saw it as a book by somebody who admits to first having rose tinted spectacles and having them crack bit by bit, until very little was left. In the end when he returns to Barcelona he notes that people were very quick to switch to cheering for the nationalists. Implying that their suport and loyalty for anarchism were superficial and mostly geared towards just not getting shot. That's a tyranny. The truth was that the people under the anarchists did not feel free. And that's what makes it a tyranny.

Also, don't forget the ideals of the time. Anarchists and communists had a Rousseauist view of the state of the world. They thought that humans uncorrupted by capitalism would be non-violent and pure at heart. This is a lie, and doesn't match reality. So anarchists and communists solved this by monitoring the speech of eachother and monitoring how people were dressed. Very often having anybody expressing "counter-revolutionary tendencies" shot. Soon, just the fear of getting shot kept most people in line.

I know Orwell painted the communists as the evil ones corrupting the purity of the anarchists. But that's not true. They were just a handy scape goat. The communists were just better organised. If there's a war on whoever is better organised will steamroll the others. In a war the anarchists will always lose. Their ideals are irrelevant. They can't win a war, and they can't defend themselves effectively if they're attacked. Don't forget that CNT/the anarchists controlled the country before the nationalists showed up. On paper they had an incredibly strong position. They lost because the Spanish were fucking sick of them and wanted order and stability. The anarchy of the anarchists paved the way for the fascists. That's usually how fascists get to power anywhere.

And before you say Franco won because he had military support from Germany and Italy. The communists had support of the USSR. The anarchists got a lot of private funding from labour unions around the world.

 

[untermensche]

Orwell never became disenchanted with the Anarchists.

That is something pulled from thin air.

He did see the Communists as an authoritarian bunch of trouble makers however.

And his 1984 was about life under capitalism.

As we see around us.

Constant war. Constant lies from the government. More and more intrusions.

Modern technological tyranny!

The communists were just better organised.

No "just" about it.

They had different ideas about authority and different ideas about justice.

A completely different thing.

Anarchism is founded upon morality and allowing every human to maximize themselves.

Capitalism is a system of absolute authority where people are reduced to the tools of others. It has no moral foundation.

Morality. Morality in human interaction. No dictatorships. Nobody reduced to a tool of another.

That is all Anarchists are asking for.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Orwell never became disenchanted with the Anarchists.

That is something pulled from thin air.

No. But the last third of the book is just a long list of excuses for the anarchists. He doesn't say that the problem with the anarchism is their anarchism. But that's surely what it looked like to me when I read it.

He did see the Communists as an authoritarian bunch of trouble makers however.

And his 1984 was about life under capitalism.

As we see around us.

Constant war. Constant lies from the government. More and more intrusions.

Modern technological tyranny!

No, it's not. A big thing of 1984 is calling things the opposite of what they are. War is peace. Truth is lies. Freedom is slavery. So capitalism is communism.

1984's original title was "1948". The original story is that after the fall of Nazi Germany the war continued with England and USA fighting the USSR.

Due to British-Soviet diplomatic relations The British foreign office leaned on the publisher to change the names and the setting to something that wouldn't annoy the Soviets. Orwell, hating censorship, but needing the money, changed it as little as possible and tried his darndest to make the changes in such a way that any moron could figure out what the real names should be.

1984 is about communism in USSR in 1948, and nothing else.

The communists were just better organised.

No "just" about it.

They had different ideas about authority and different ideas about justice.

A completely different thing.

One big difference is that the Red Army actually knew how to win wars. As they had already done once. Yes, their mission was also to create a Spanish puppet state of USSR. But unless they actually also won, that effort would be wasted. They were not idiots.

Anarchism is founded upon morality and allowing every human to maximize themselves.

Capitalism is a system of absolute authority where people are reduced to the tools of others. It has no moral foundation.

Morality. Morality in human interaction. No dictatorships. Nobody reduced to a tool of another.

That is all Anarchists are asking for.

Anarchism of the early 20'th century was also utopian and dumb. It doesn't matter how well motivated they were, it was doomed to fail.

It's a false dichotomy. At least capitalism works. Anarchism just doesn't. As it's failure in the Spanish civil war showes. Blaming it on USSR is like the Germans blaming the Jews. It's just a dumb excuse. If your system of organising society is that damn easy to push over, it's good riddance to a garbage system. A political system needs to be robust and self re-enforcing. If it isn't it's doomed

 

[Bronzeage]

They succeeded well.

Their society was florousing.

Until it was attacked by fascists. The same way the French were attached by fascists.

Okay, you are proposing a social structure which is incapable of defending itself from outside threats. If a society is incapable of passing its system to the next generation, it doesn't matter how nice it was to live there.


This is no different from a hunter gatherer group, led by a leader who has no idea how to deal with the leopards which keep dragging people away in the dark.

I am proposing a structure that could not defend itself against an attack from the German Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Russian Communists and the capitalists from the US and Britain.

France fell to just Germany.

Is that a social structure we should get rid of too?

And I am talking morality.

A dictatorship is an immoral structure.

Are you saying morality is not something we should strive to improve?

I am asking you how you intend to do this.

It might help if you could be more clear as to what you think morality is, or at least give some outline of your moral code.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am proposing a structure that could not defend itself against an attack from the German Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Russian Communists and the capitalists from the US and Britain.

France fell to just Germany.

Is that a social structure we should get rid of too?

And I am talking morality.

A dictatorship is an immoral structure.

Are you saying morality is not something we should strive to improve?

I am asking you how you intend to do this.

It might help if you could be more clear as to what you think morality is, or at least give some outline of your moral code.

His morals are irrelevant if they don't come with a system that enshrines them. Until he does he's just a dude on a baricade shouting irrelevant slogans.

 

[untermensche]

No. But the last third of the book is just a long list of excuses for the anarchists. He doesn't say that the problem with the anarchism is their anarchism. But that's surely what it looked like to me when I read it.

That's a crazy reading so I do believe it is your reading.

Anarchism in action is just a replacement of dictatorship with democracy. But that simple transformation transforms the entire society as Orwell noted.

To say there is a problem with Anarchism is to say there is a problem with democracy. It is fervent support of dictatorship.

Presently dictatorial systems like capitalism have more power than any system to ever exist.

The US crushed and altered revolutions in Greece and Vietnam and Chile and Cuba and Nicaragua and Guatemala, and many more.

It supported an anti-democratic coup in Venezuela.

It supports the oppression and theft from the Palestinians.

It attacked Iraq for no good reason except for war profiteering which led to ISIS and a prolonged war in Syria.

Right now the mad power of American capitalists is preventing any advancement from the oppressive system.

But this is not a discussion only about power.

I am talking about a moral way to structure society. Which in Spain also turned out to be the most efficient structure.

In it's short life it did not become the most powerful force in the world.

And some with myopia think that is a commentary.

No, it's not. A big thing of 1984 is calling things the opposite of what they are. War is peace. Truth is lies. Freedom is slavery. So capitalism is communism.

1984's original title was "1948". The original story is that after the fall of Nazi Germany the war continued with England and USA fighting the USSR.

Delusion.

Not even Animal Farm was just about the Soviet Union.

1984 was about any modern technological tyrannical power structure.

A power structure at constant war. A power structure that thinks it can lie. A power structure where it's actions are hidden by a huge system of secrecy. A power structure becoming more and more intrusive because of technology.

It is a blindness to not see 1984 as describing the present-day US.

Orwell said this blindness was acquired by a "good education". By indoctrination in other words.

One big difference is that the Red Army actually knew how to win wars.

When they start singing the praises of Stalin to support their ideas you know they have fallen over a cliff.

Your ideas are radical and dangerous. And wrong.

Support of dictatorship is to ask for tyranny.

 

[untermensche]

I am proposing a structure that could not defend itself against an attack from the German Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Russian Communists and the capitalists from the US and Britain.

France fell to just Germany.

Is that a social structure we should get rid of too?

And I am talking morality.

A dictatorship is an immoral structure.

Are you saying morality is not something we should strive to improve?

I am asking you how you intend to do this.

It might help if you could be more clear as to what you think morality is, or at least give some outline of your moral code.

My morality says dictatorship is an immoral power structure.

That is the end of capitalism as it exists as has always existed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's a crazy reading so I do believe it is your reading.

Anarchism in action is just a replacement of dictatorship with democracy. But that simple transformation transforms the entire society as Orwell noted.

In Spain that was done terrorising the capitalists and middle-class. Which is implied in Homage to Catalonia. If you want to make an omellete you need to break some eggs. But you seem unwilling to break the eggs. If you don't, you are fucked.

To say there is a problem with Anarchism is to say there is a problem with democracy. It is fervent support of dictatorship.

I can't hear you over the loud sound of your massive false dichotomy.

Presently dictatorial systems like capitalism have more power than any system to ever exist.

Using loaded words doesn't help your cause. Pro-lifers call abortionists murderers. That doesn't make me like them more. I get what they're saying. But the hyperbole isn't pretty.

And it's not capitalism. It's free market capitalism. It's a very specific construction of capitalism, that seems to be the secret sauce to power. A good thing about power is that it lets you keep your system.

I get all the flaws and problems of free market capitalism in a representative democracy. The question I ask myself is, can we do better? I very much doubt that. I think this is as good as it gets. I think any major change to this recipe will lead to less personal freedoms.

The US crushed and altered revolutions in Greece and Vietnam and Chile and Cuba and Nicaragua and Guatemala, and many more.

It supported an anti-democratic coup in Venezuela.

It supports the oppression and theft from the Palestinians.

It attacked Iraq for no good reason except for war profiteering which led to ISIS and a prolonged war in Syria.

Right now the mad power of American capitalists is preventing any advancement from the oppressive system.

But this is not a discussion only about power.

I am talking about a moral way to structure society. Which in Spain also turned out to be the most efficient structure.

In it's short life it did not become the most powerful force in the world.

And some with myopia think that is a commentary.

Was there some point to your rant on American abuses of power? Yes, if one country becomes too powerful, that power will corrupt, and they will start molesting everybody else. That's how power works. What the rest of us can do to counter it is to get our act together, and counter that power. You know... like China is doing. That's the only way to fight it.

BTW... just to be perfectly clear here. As hegemonic world powers go, we could do a hell of a lot worse than USA. I think every other world power in history has been worse. So I'm actually quite satisfied with USA's godawful track-record.

Delusion.

Nice that you have so strong opinions on the matter. Especially since we can't know, since he didn't tell anyone what he was thinking. But he did say and do lots of things that can make us draw that conclusion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21337504

Not even Animal Farm was just about the Soviet Union.

I actually think it is.

1984 was about any modern technological tyrannical power structure.

A power structure at constant war. A power structure that thinks it can lie. A power structure where it's actions are hidden by a huge system of secrecy. A power structure becoming more and more intrusive because of technology.

It is a blindness to not see 1984 as describing the present-day US.

Orwell said this blindness was acquired by a "good education". By indoctrination in other words.

I think you missed the little detail that it's set in Oceania, and we know absolutely nothing about the other states, not filtered by Big Brother. NOTHING! For all we know they could be utopian paradises.

Call me crazy, but I fail to see the parallels between Oceania and USA. Last time I checked free speech worked great in USA.

One big difference is that the Red Army actually knew how to win wars.

When they start singing the praises of Stalin to support their ideas you know they have fallen over a cliff.

Your ideas are radical and dangerous. And wrong.

Support of dictatorship is to ask for tyranny.

In 1936 the jury was still out on USSR and Stalin. People from the west were still emigrating to USSR back then. They really didn't know better. They also didn't see the Soviet union as a tyrany. Orwell was very lonely on the left having realised this, and in criticising Stalin. Which makes him one of my heroes. You are passing judgement on people who couldn't have known better.

At the start of the civil war the anarchists and the communists were pretty much the same. But because the anarchists weren't as well organised, they got politically outmaneuvered.

 

[untermensche]

George Orwell
The Freedom of the Press
Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Orwell wanted a preface about the dangers of censorship in the British press for Animal Farm.

A very naive reading is to think it was just about the Soviet Union.

I think you missed the little detail that it's set in Oceania

Pathetic!

Constant war.

Constant lies from the government.

Actions of the government hidden by a huge network of secrecy.

You do not see the similarities?

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Orwell wanted a preface about the dangers of censorship in the British press for Animal Farm.

A very naive reading is to think it was just about the Soviet Union.

Erm... I think that preface only makes sense if the book would be about the Soviet union. If it wasn't it would be too on the nose. Only a hack writer thinks in one dimension. It's a way to say, nice of you realize the horrors of USSR, but things aren't perfect here either.

I think you missed the little detail that it's set in Oceania

Pathetic!

Constant war.

Constant lies from the government.

Actions of the government hidden by a huge network of secrecy.

You do not see the similarities?

That's of no concern. We're discussing what country Orwell had in mind. And it wasn't USA or England.

Also... they're not very good liars as they keep getting caught