4 ms·

>Democracy is continually threatened all over the world Not really. Maybe democracy of one place, but when the Russian revolution happened democracies everywh

>Democracy is continually threatened all over the world Not really. Maybe democracy of one place, but when the Russian revolution happened democracies everywhere were afraid it would happen to them so they responded to Russia. That's what I'm talking about. >I would classify that as primitivism, despite the presence of agriculture. Perhaps, but the point is that it's conceptually possible to have relatively large groups of people without government. Personally I consider primitivism a non-idea because of the simple fact that primitivism can't support the amount of people we have today. If we forgo agriculture it is estimated the world can support about 500 million people. Who's going to select the 6.5 billion that have to die? >I used to have moral problems with this too, but ultimately it doesn't matter--I'd rather limit myself to making small changes on the real world we have to generate better results. I've done the same. I just entertain the idea that we don't have the best possible system and to get the best system may mean starting over at some point.

philwelch 16y ago
but when the Russian revolution happened democracies everywhere were afraid it would happen to them so they responded to Russia Democracies fought to preserve the Russian Tsar because they thought his overthrow was a threat to democracy? No. They fought communism because they thought communism was a threat to their regimes in specific, just as other monarchies fought the French Revolutionary Wars because they thought the French Revolution was a threat to their regimes in specific. The commonality is that there are regimes of elites fighting to preserve their own power. Anarchy doesn't have that by definition. I just entertain the idea that we don't have the best possible system and to get the best system may mean starting over at some point. You don't get to start over unless people get hungry and desperate. And I think we have a system that can sustainably keep people out of hunger and desperation. If I'm wrong, maybe the anarchists will get another shot.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >They fought communism because they thought communism was a threat to their regimes in specific Yes. And if we ever have full Anarchy and if it turns out to be as good as some people think I believe people will fight just as aggressively to preserve it as they have to preserve previous systems that weren't even all that great (sometimes downright awful). >And I think we have a system that can sustainably keep people out of hunger and desperation Some, but there are a lot of people that are both hungry and desperate. Further "starting over" isn't strictly necessary. A smaller Anarchist system could be created within the confines of larger existing systems and this has been done to some extent with varying levels of success.

philwelch 16y ago

but when the Russian revolution happened democracies everywhere were afraid it would happen to them so they responded to Russia Democracies fought to preserve the Russian Tsar because they thought his overthrow was a threat to democracy? No. They fought communism because they thought communism was a threat to their regimes in specific, just as other monarchies fought the French Revolutionary Wars because they thought the French Revolution was a threat to their regimes in specific. The commonality is that there are regimes of elites fighting to preserve their own power. Anarchy doesn't have that by definition. I just entertain the idea that we don't have the best possible system and to get the best system may mean starting over at some point. You don't get to start over unless people get hungry and desperate. And I think we have a system that can sustainably keep people out of hunger and desperation. If I'm wrong, maybe the anarchists will get another shot.

loewenskind 16y ago
>They fought communism because they thought communism was a threat to their regimes in specific Yes. And if we ever have full Anarchy and if it turns out to be as good as some people think I believe people will fight just as aggressively to preserve it as they have to preserve previous systems that weren't even all that great (sometimes downright awful). >And I think we have a system that can sustainably keep people out of hunger and desperation Some, but there are a lot of people that are both hungry and desperate. Further "starting over" isn't strictly necessary. A smaller Anarchist system could be created within the confines of larger existing systems and this has been done to some extent with varying levels of success.