Quote:
Quote by: grandpa  First of all, I didn't argue this should be the case, bu the whole point of nationalism is to put us all under one umbrella of elite rulers. I certainly agree we should distance ourselves from strict collectivist abuses, but if the nation attacks someone in my name, I'll be blamed for it. Again, I didn't argue that this should be the case, but it is. If you say you support a system, then you should be prepared to take criticism for its abuses. Maybe you did not actually do them yourself, but you still supported the general ideological framework by which they happened. That means something.
In a society we call our own, we should take credit for all the trouble.
To take credit only for the good things is ultimately a form of cowardice. It's irresponsible.
The more "outside" of the society you actually are, the less you should need to address its actions.
Grandpa h. |
This from the man who touts the momentary success of Spanish Anarchism and urges us to look to that short lived example as some sort of touchstone (taking credit for the good) but blames outside forces for it's downfall, by putting all the blame on some nebulous group of "others" who could not resist the forces of authority (a cowardly avoidence of taking credit for the trouble). Or do those rules only apply to "others"? I have to give up my support for government because if I don't I am supporting it's faults, but you get to ignore obvious faults and failures...why?
If I had the inclination, I could spend hours combing your posts for all the times you have deflected criticsm of anarchist failure by pushing off those failures on the inability of some to be "true" to core principles. Well, that is a "fault" in the philosophy. Why do you get to disavow the failures as not inherent, while I must accept every fault as part and parcel of what I support? I don't think you can be consistant in your position and have one set of rules for your perspective and another set of rules for mine. My position is not, and has never been, that my prefered system is perfect. My position is, and always has been, that my prefered system offers the better and more stable solution. That does not mean I am saying my system is not subject to abuses and failures. I am saying that humans are the root of the problem in any system. I am saying that people will always attempt to amass power and manipulate situations and resources to their personal advantage. I am saying that each of our systems wants to correct for these abuses. I am saying that even though authority can be abused to achieve those ends, it is not the cause of the problem. I am saying anarchy offers LESS ability to resist said abuses, not more, and that that is the reason it always fails, and fails quickly.