Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bearORbullENIGMA

If The State Does Collapse....

Recommended Posts

If the State does collapse under the weight of excessive benefits & welfare &

such....

...won't that vindicate the Anarcho-Socialist strategies of pushing reform to the

limit in an attempt to cause the State to collapse?

"...a sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits...

...on strategic grounds...you have to show that the system, if it's true....I mean if the system

will collapse due to reform, okay, then that's fine, but if it won't, you have to reach the point

where it resists & there's nothing left but to take things over, maybe by force.

That's basically self-defense, but unless people recognize coercion as a form of self-defense

they are not going to take part in it, at least they shouldn't.

...If you get to a point where the existing institutions simply will not bend to the popular will,

then you've got to eliminate the institutions."

- Prof. Chomsky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The inevitable vacuum-filling by an autocratic strongman will confirm Oswald Spengler's assertion that democracy is simply a temporary phase toward the arrival of The Caesar.

You obviously don't understand Anarcho-Socialism & how it differs to pure Anarchism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron will have to do a good job of eliminating a lot of institutions as the nation is bankrupt and can't afford them

look for all sorts of quango's to just close down over night, the Commission for Racial Equality, OFCOM etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain where the power vacuum would lie in an Anarcho-Socialist society.

It wouldn't have to even lie in the society.

The only functioning Anarcho-socialist society that I can think of ever existing was quickly replaced by a Mr. F. Franco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wouldn't have to even lie in the society.

The only functioning Anarcho-socialist society that I can think of ever existing was quickly replaced by a Mr. F. Franco.

Yes, because it was in Spain & relatively unable to defend itself against the attacking fascists on one side & the attacking Communists on the other.

I'm not so sure an anarcho-socialist revolution in America, say, would be quite so defenseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the State does collapse under the weight of excessive benefits & welfare &

such....

...expect to see a lot of gangs carrying out kidnappings for monetary gain. Until those fortunates still in well-paid work decide to move to safer shores.

It's an extreme scenario (the State collapsing) and let's hope it doesn't come to pass. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...expect to see a lot of gangs carrying out kidnappings for monetary gain. Until those fortunates still in well-paid work decide to move to safer shores.

It's an extreme scenario (the State collapsing) and let's hope it doesn't come to pass. :o

Please educate yourself on Anarcho-Socialism & how it differs from total anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because it was in Spain & relatively unable to defend itself against the attacking fascists on one side & the attacking Communists on the other.

I'm not so sure an anarcho-socialist revolution in America, say, would be quite so defenseless.

Well I think the problem with an anarcho-socialist state will always be possible disruption from VI's within, and possible disruption from VI's without (and both these disruptive elements will no doubt collaborate). It seems to be a form of governance that always requires a high degree of mutual trust.

I personally think we're more likely to see a return of autocrats. That said, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because it was in Spain & relatively unable to defend itself against the attacking fascists on one side & the attacking Communists on the other.

I'm not so sure an anarcho-socialist revolution in America, say, would be quite so defenseless.

A civilisation of super advanced robot centaurs wouldn't be defenseless either but that's about as likely as your anarcho-socialism.

If the state did collapse (in say the US for sake of argument) then they would be far more likely to lapse into territorial feudalism than happy clappy anarcho socialism.

inb4: learn the difference between anarchy and anarcho-socialism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you obviously don't understand the repeated patterns that underlie the growth and decline of civilisations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

I happen to be half way through the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon at the moment. It is surprising how quickly a large organised state can disintegrate. It is also very interesting that the people at the top don't necessarily act in the state's best interest. For instance, the local militia in Spain were quite capable of resisting the barbarians. The central government quite deliberately prevented them from doing so again once they had demonstrated that they could. An armed population was more of a threat than the barbarians were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I happen to be half way through the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon at the moment. It is surprising how quickly a large organised state can disintegrate. It is also very interesting that the people at the top don't necessarily act in the state's best interest. For instance, the local militia in Spain were quite capable of resisting the barbarians. The central government quite deliberately prevented them from doing so again once they had demonstrated that they could. An armed population was more of a threat than the barbarians were.

Have a go at Management and Machiavelli by antony jay - one of the writers on Yes Minister. Puts a lot of that into context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A civilisation of super advanced robot centaurs wouldn't be defenseless either but that's about as likely as your anarcho-socialism.

Just as the end of chattel slavery once seemed unlikely, so do many modern day injustices.

However unlikely the move from economic slavery, bourgeois dictat & the ownership of production in the hands of the few to economic freedom, real democracy & ownership of the means of production in the hands of the people is, it's still a just cause worth fighting for.

If the state did collapse (in say the US for sake of argument) then they would be far more likely to lapse into territorial feudalism than happy clappy anarcho socialism.

That's most definitely true under present circumstances & that's what makes Chomsky's comments that to gain popular support for some type of anarcho-socialism you need the will of the people on your side, partly by showing them that there are limits to social reform, so valid.

You did watch the video didn't you?

Edited by bearORbullENIGMA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
Cameron will have to do a good job of eliminating a lot of institutions as the nation is bankrupt and can't afford them

look for all sorts of quango's to just close down over night, the Commission for Racial Equality, OFCOM etc

It's a no win situation for everyone

If he goes all 'fiscally conservative', the resulting austerity will wipe out the middle class and cause all manner of social breakdown and chaos

If he goes for the NuFascist Lite route, the country will go bust......wiping out the middle class......... causing all manner of social breakdown and chaos

Caught between a rock and a hard place aren't we?

Personally, I think a conservative government being elected next year is an irrelevence. The EU runs this country now. We don't have independent, sovereign rule or an independent sovereign system of law. The sell off of the UK is all but complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The anarcho-socialists must be happy the government has bought the banks.

Why would they be happy that the banks have been bought at their most unprofitable

stage & will probably be privatized once they have been made profitable again?

Why would they be happy with the socialization of cost & the privatization of profit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I think the problem with an anarcho-socialist state will always be possible disruption from VI's within, and possible disruption from VI's without (and both these disruptive elements will no doubt collaborate). It seems to be a form of governance that always requires a high degree of mutual trust.

I personally think we're more likely to see a return of autocrats. That said, who knows?

There is a possibility of relapse in any system. People need to stay aware & guarded. That's

actually more possible in a decentralized system of participatory politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's most definitely true under present circumstances & that's what makes Chomsky's comments that to gain popular support for some type of anarcho-socialism you need the will of the people on your side, partly by showing them that there are limits to social reform.

Right. So it's a can't-get-there-from-here solution for redeeming the sins of mankind. I'll file it right next to Scientology and Cosplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. So it's a can't-get-there-from-here solution for redeeming the sins of mankind. I'll file it right next to Scientology and Cosplay.

So you'd rather the movement attempted to seize power without popular consent

& implement an autocratic rule?

If the people don't want anarcho-socialism it won't happen. Can't be more sensible

& fairer than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.