Faults In Any System

[lsbskins1]

From another thread:

Quote by: grandpa The problem is, if you support a system in argument, you're ultimately supporting it's abuses, even if you don't like them. That's actually one of the intended purposes of citizenship, to place us all under the same umbrella, for better or worse (though most often for worse). Ideologies can be such causal links, and the state ultimately is an ideology, as is capitalism. Yes, we can accept these arrangements, but we should expect all that typically comes with them, including the worst abuses. It's also a matter of misperception. If we work for an organization -- whether public or private -- and say, "this is not you or I, but the nation or the company," we're only deluding ourselves. But this happens everyday, and must happen if we are to have the state, capitalism, or any other mental subversion of the self and human community. Grandpa h.

Do you believe that if you support a system, then you support it faults and all? If I believe that abortion should be legal, does that mean I have to believe that anyone should be able to have an abortion under any circumstance? If I believe in Western Medicine, does that mean I have to support any doctor who practices under that system, no matter how unethical he may be? If I support an anarchist philosophy, does that mean I have to support any abuse that may happen in it's name? This seems to me to be an absurd contention.

[Jack]

If I'm considered in support of any institution of which I happen to be a member, whether a nation, club or company, what's the purpose of dissent and protest? Those are the means by which we distance ourselves from positions with which we don't agree. I wouldn't be inclined to protest the actions or positions of an institution with which I had no association.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 From another thread: Do you believe that if you support a system, then you support it faults and all? If I believe that abortion should be legal, does that mean I have to believe that anyone should be able to have an abortion under any circumstance?

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.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood If I'm considered in support of any institution of which I happen to be a member, whether a nation, club or company, what's the purpose of dissent and protest? Those are the means by which we distance ourselves from positions with which we don't agree.

True, and that was part of my point. However, if we strongly defend the ideological framework behind a nation, we shouldn't weasel our way out of what the nation actually does, or is. If a nation has a violent history, if it's corrupt, we should address it as such and reasonably conclude it's that way for certain reasons. Perhaps they are ingrained into the system itself, which is my theory. There's a reason the President
could order the application of torture, just like there's a reason his title could exist. It could be called ideological loyalty. So it truly isn't Bush's fault the Iraq War happened, it's the fault of our entire nation and society. We can protest it, say we're distant from it, but if it happens under the nation we ardently support, it's still happening in our name. It might make us feel sad, weak and hypocritical, but it's the honest thing to do. We can see ourselves in reflection and not always like what we see. It's part of living an honest life.

When it comes to bureaucracies, I don't agree workers can do nothing to change things. They can. They just need to be organized and, of course, at least slightly more couragous than an unthinking machine.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

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.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 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"?

It's not a story or an excuse.
It's actually true that Spanish anarchists were crushed militarily. It's also true that American and European movements have been crushed. So....am I to believe that, just because some person or group get's beaten, that their previous efforts weren't worthwhile?

As for whether the Spanish Anarchists were as bad as anyone else, I don't know what to tell you.
Some of this could probably be found on various web sites, and I could provide some if you'd like. And, of course, there are sources that make claims either way. But I won't say they had no reason to have a revolution in general, let alone against encroaching fascism. In the end, it's the fear of being without an economic/political yoke that'll be our demise (assuming, of course, that we don't get hit by meteorites or that a supervolcano won't erupt).

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

I think our demise (if it comes from something other than meteorites or a super volcano) will come from our inability to control our greed. We will suck every last resource from our earth island and put so much crap in the atmosphere that we will destroy ourselves and millions of other species and when the planet recovers, it will be dominated by super cochroaches.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I think our demise (if it comes from something other than meteorites or a super volcano) will come from our inability to control our greed. We will suck every last resource from our earth island and put so much crap in the atmosphere that we will destroy ourselves and millions of other species and when the planet recovers, it will be dominated by super cochroaches.

Just what is happening. Solution? Libertarian communism, green policy and non-materialistic philosophy. Aka about everything USA is loathing without valuable reason. HEY MAN WE GONNA DIE!

[InTheFlesh?]

i've recently wondered why whenever anarchy is brought up, someone always says 'oh it'll never work, people will steal and try and take power and kill each other, it's human nature'

if it is human nature... why are we trying to fight it? i mean, are we pretending we aren't humans? if being utter monsters is what are 'nature' is we should surely just accept it and kick this civilisation rubbish in.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? i've recently wondered why whenever anarchy is brought up, someone always says 'oh it'll never work, people will steal and try and take power and kill each other, it's human nature' if it is human nature... why are we trying to fight it? i mean, are we pretending we aren't humans? if being utter monsters is what are 'nature' is we should surely just accept it and kick this civilisation rubbish in.

Fot the same reasons that Zebras don't just lay down in front of the lion and let nature take it's course. The point is not that civilization is beyond us, the point is that as social animals, some form of government and leadership is a natual part of the order we impose on ourselves so that we may increase our survival chances.

Gorillas have a silverback, lions have a dominant male, wolf packs have an alpha wolf. Our system is considerably more complex because we are more complex, but it is essentially formed from the same need. We survive better when we work in groups. Groups need direction to be effective. Leadership provides that direction.

[xyzer]

I'll drink to this isbskins...

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.

It is what I was proposing on the Rev Wright/ Obama thread! To blame the system for the failures and foibles of those who operate it (Which Wright did/does) at any one time is nonsense. Blame Bush if you will for the Iraq stalemate. But don't blame our system.

I think grandpa's idea that we citizens are collectively to blame for some of the mistakes our political leaders make is a stretch! And then to blame the system is even more illogical. This is not a government that easily ignores the principles of our constitution and the rule of law.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? i've recently wondered why whenever anarchy is brought up, someone always says 'oh it'll never work, people will steal and try and take power and kill each other, it's human nature' if it is human nature... why are we trying to fight it? i mean, are we pretending we aren't humans? if being utter monsters is what are 'nature' is we should surely just accept it and kick this civilisation rubbish in.

Well, the hope is we'll evolve beyond it, and the wuest for civilisation is also apparently part of our nature.