You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Bill of Rights (including The 2nd Amendment) was written to 'Protect The People' from their own government, not from each other. Which explains WHY 'career politicians' WANT your gun.
What I meant was that money isn't really needed for survival. Food is, shelter is, companionship is. Money's a construct, that most of the time gets in the way of cooperation.
...
that was the entire point of my comment lmao
You were making it sound like violence would change things. I agree it would change things... but it wouldn't magically turn for the best.
yes it requires hard work, but there are many examples of it working throughout history so its not magical in any sense.
every person is capable of violence, so society itself must use violence of some form to protect itself.
French revolution? Well people have a much lower tolerance for oppression these days (I hope)
One of the actual problems is that society isn't really transparent in how it functions. Democracy? Fine, do that thing, but make sure you read the system requirements before hand. How many children are actually taught how the government functions as a basic lesson? I'm not sure there are any, even though it will affect the whole of your life.
Even the other forms of government are never discussed, they're only the field of "academics". As if we'd already solved the problem and there are no more answers because the system's perfect.
I'm not saying raise rebels, but at least follow the democratic ideals (actually put the case for why democracy is better than other systems)
democracy and capitalism are incompatible, so first we must remove capitalism. How would you propose we do that without violence?
Who said democracy and capitalism are incompatible? No way. Same problems could be dealt with by real capitalism and real democracy. At the moment we have something that calls itself something but isn't.
Communism, socialism isn't the answer either... Without turning people into some kind of "born slave"
anarchy might be a solution, but it could just as well not be.
I think a change in the world order is upcoming, and violence isn't going to be the leading cause (for once)
Unless you say "its just another form of violence."
Who said they were incompatible? The person who lead the formation of the country which allowed women to vote before the us
ATM democracy is actually more of a game of the control over the flow of information. Money, influence, upbringing, all plays a role on the so called viability of someone to lead others.
BTW the lenin quote sounds more of a beratement of democracy compared to capitalism
capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, which is control by an outside force through the monopoly of violence of the state. You could say that this is "free and democratic", if the state itself were so.
capitalism cannot exist in conjunction with a suitable communist alternative. This means that the gov under capitalism must destroy every socialist country to rise up (as shown throughout recent history over and over again). This means that the only option is to vote "for" private ownership of the means of production, which means the majority of society is not democratic, thus meaning society is nowhere near "true democracy" and is democratic on only a small subset of social issues, and no real economic ones.
If we look at chile as an example, chile elected a socialist as a leader to bring them to freedom. The capitalists in their country payed truckers not to move food and many other resources, so the people starved. It eventually lead to a west-backed military coup to remove the socialists from any form of power.
I don't really think any of its going to be a solution for as long as borders are involved.
So you're saying greed won over cooperation?
Or was it that a hierarchical power structure won over a decentralized power structure?
And there's another slight problem, there exists some people that don't want to think for themselves, heck they wouldn't even want a democracy.
"Communism, socialism isn't the answer either... Without turning people into some kind of "born slave"
anarchy might be a solution, but it could just as well not be."
socialism (and communism by extension) are based on worker control of the means of production, anarchist communists are the most common form of anarchist lmao
social constructs are only used to mask the violence that is happening. You must use violence to protect yourself while unmasking them, or you will never make it to the finish.
from what you are saying it sounds like you are anpac, am I correct?
What's an anpac?
anarchist-pacifist, I assumed that since you were talking about social constructs you had some knowledge of anarchy (social constructs are commonly talked about within the anarchist community, with egoism being the source usually).
I am not anpac, but from speaking with them the gist I have is that non-violent insurrection is the only way to defeat capitalism without the creation of another state, thus in their mind it is the only path to an anarchist system of any sort.
I've read a book about it. I don't subscribe. But on the other hand I don't treat anarchy as a bad thing either. Pacifism... I'd never be one, but I'd much rather live in a pacifist society.