Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#1201 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 September 2003 - 06:12 PM

<Hi bader, sorry for the late reply. i do agree with your views here except i see no examples of any democratic society from the past but of the swiss model. please enlighten me on this point. for a society to reach a democratic state, it is not easy at all. it take cohesive effort. and, a democratic society takes not one but many, unselfishly, capable to create such a system. this method would be long and draggy cause there would be disagreements from some and it's time consuming to convince them. the reason why i propose curitiba system is because all it takes is one single person and he alone can create wonders for many. democratic system is defintely nice but how long can one waits? frankly, i would love to live in a democratic society but it just take too much effort for it to happen. long process to create, destroy in a matter of second. this is the reason i chose curitiba over swiss. >

Howdy Marquis
I'm sorry to but in, but let me make a point. Switzerland is a model for a country that's mature enough not to be spoon fed. They don't need a strong government. We can even expand the same principle into the economics and have communes that are capitalist and some that are cooperatives. And the people would vote with their feet among them.

Curitiba, however, is only a city so far, and its leadership can mostly be applied to transportation, ecology (green areas) and programs to have its poor learn how to fish. But it's not in contradiction with Switzerland. A strong hands-on mayor can indeed make a city or commune work, whether in the Alps or in the Tropics...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1202 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 September 2003 - 06:31 PM

<Hi donq, sorry too for the late reply. yea i understood what he meant and i had explain my reason on my reply. the reason due to the time needed to build a system. one more point i like to ask you is: once the lion is tame, what about the tiger? i guess im more incline towards conservativism. what's you view on this?>

Hi again
Once the lion is tamed, we'll be facing new predators unless we brake up with animals on the upper end of the food chain. It's not to deny them their right to exist, but naturally we want to exercise our right *not to be eaten*...;)

Conservatism, communism, or any "ism" other than Humanism naturally can put the human at the service of the system. Thus now we have a conservative government in America that threatens our own survival in order to save itself. Likewise it denies health care and even preys on our children to make a good consumer out of the them.:confused:

I'd favor an enlightened citizenship though as the basis for a goverment of decentralized communes, with hands-on mayor and leaders, and the ability of their citizen to vote with their feet. Some however may prefer a democratic socialist approach--high taxes but high in welfare--and that's OK. At the top end you got Scandinavia and at the bottom you got Kerala. It's your choice...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1203 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 September 2003 - 07:02 PM

<I with some sort of frustration watched Donkihote playing around with a sophisticated face on. He is a mathematician, but go and ask him if he understands that a simple turns into a complex and vice versa. I doubt he will answer. He will start right away messing all things into one basket and trying to make a sense of it(?).
And this is a person who supposed to have, well, if not excellent but very working apparutus of abstract and concrete thinking, which is, of course, required by mathematics.>

Howdy Volt
I could turn this into a never-ending debate, but I rather ask you, "What are you talking about?" Where exactly are my thoughts illogical, when they fit neatly those of many others like Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Tolstoy, Orwell, Epicurus and plain good ol' common sense? Aren't my models, working models? Haven't the Mondragon coops, the Swedes, the Swiss, the people of Curitiba reached a balance of Freedom and Economics Prosperity?

<Make fun of life!>

That's important. That's why I propose the 'Vodka Revolution'...;)
  • 0

#1204 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 September 2003 - 08:45 PM

http://engforum.prav...&threadid=36051
  • 0

#1205 Volt

Volt

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts

Posted 28 September 2003 - 09:29 PM

Okay,
Donq, I respect you not just because of your profession. I'm just pissed off at life being so mean and people talking so much empty phrases, and cheating and speaking falsely.
And the same time you. Playing with serious, maybe the most serious of all faced by humanity, theme - the survival, and decent human lives.
That irks me.
You remind me one of those jokers who frolicked on the board of Titanic.
There are threads/subjects for jokes and sometimes we have to decide something serious.
<sigh>
.....
  • 0

#1206 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 29 September 2003 - 10:16 AM

Hello Volt,

My answer is try speaking to people instead of at them.
Try contributing instead of judging and reactionary comments.
Your perception of me is not true. On the other hand I hold no perception of you, I refuse to react and be presumptious.
Behind that bluster and dummy spitting their lies another person.
Inspite of the bluster etc I got two sentences that told me something that could have come in another type of wrapping.
I am quite prepared to take more hot air and spittle in my face to learn a little more.
Am I the last fool? You asked. My reply is - what is the price of education?
  • 0

#1207 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 29 September 2003 - 08:21 PM

<Donq, I respect you not just because of your profession. I'm just pissed off at life being so mean and people talking so much empty phrases, and cheating and speaking falsely.
And the same time you. Playing with serious, maybe the most serious of all faced by humanity, theme - the survival, and decent human lives.
That irks me.
You remind me one of those jokers who frolicked on the board of Titanic.
There are threads/subjects for jokes and sometimes we have to decide something serious.
<sigh>>

Actually I ain't joking. Having such a name got many advantages, but you can do your own. You think you can afford to be boring in a day and age where the media controls everything down to the most primal instincts, ie. sex? Look at the posting on prostitution: That's how the destroy a society: Make sex a commodity and have the population get high on pornography, while proclaiming religious values. It's the same 'Opium of the People' to which you better offer some real alternative, and it be better be a lot of fun...

"Many of us are disposed to believe that a pleasurable life necessarily entails the winning of riches, fame, and power [does it sound like capitalism?], only to come away feeling anxious that we still don
  • 0

#1208 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 September 2003 - 03:30 PM

//What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real
that everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up--in its erotic
connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it? //

<If I would be interested in other people resources I would say just that;
You national symbols --flag, anthem are unimportant.
You shouldn-t protect your land, your family, your nation. Take only what you can get. You don-t needed anybody around you, only important is just your food, best even you would buy it from me.
You should forget your history, traditions, friends, family, and nation.
So then you will be easy to buy and dispose.>

"The flag is a symbol, but behind it stands a ruling elite."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who my sympathies lie with. Didn't the "No Lion No Problem" give you a clue? How about the coops? What about the names of Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Tolstoy or Orwell? Not even the dismissal of the flag? Well my sympathies lie with ANARCHISM.

True, I don't propose a tear down of the system--I propose Humanism as an immediate goal--but a slow nonviolent approach to change. What you propose though is replacing a lion with another. And that really doesn't appeal to me. I guess some people need the lion but not me.

WHY ANARCHISTS OPPOSE MILITARISM AND NATIONALISM
- by the Boston Anarchists Against Militarism (BAAM)

SO, WHAT EXACTLY IS AN ANARCHIST?

Over the years, many people of many different beliefs have adopted the label anarchists, and most self-identifying anarchists would agree that there are many schools of anarchist thought. We are anarchists of the social/communal school of thought, who believe, roughly, in working towards a society based on the values of community and mutual aid; direct democracy; non-hierarchical organization; the absense of class division; the absense of divisions based on race, gender and nation; and the absense of institutionalized authority figures (because power corrupts, and we know it). The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek "anarchos" and means "no ruler", a condition which CEOs, bureaucrats and landlords would like everyone to believe is synonymous with "chaos". Throughout this document, the term "anarchist" will be used to refer to social anarchists, although it is not always used in this context in the media.

ANARCHISTS ARE JUST TERRORISTS, ANYWAY...

According to Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Isreal, terrorism is "the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and enacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political purposes" (as the former Prime Minister of country that has committed countless terrorist acts against innocent people over the years, we certainly trust Mr. Netanyahu's ability to define the term!).

There is no consensus amongst anarchists about the proper use of violence. However, there is nothing about violence that is central to anarchism, and *many anarchists reject violence and terrorism, choosing instead peaceful protest and education to achieve their goals*. A good anarchist case against terrorism can be read in "You Can't Blow Up A Social Relationship" (available at http://flag.blackened.net/noterror/)

*No anarchist would support random, undirected acts of violence or destruction, or the attack of innocent people for political purposes*.

SO ARE ANARCHISTS OPPOSED TO WAR?

Most anarchists are not pacifists, although some Christain anarchists (like Leo Tolstoy, who inspired Ghandi, who inspired King) reject all foms of violence. Like any form of struggle, war is sometimes necessary, even when what you're fighting for is not perfect. Some anarchists might consider World War II such a war, because even though in the end the victors were American, British and other capitalists, the alternative of Nazi Fascism was much worse. Many anarchists have fought in wars of independence from colonialism, even though the new nationalist governments were still corrupt.

Anarchists believe in waging a class war - fighting for the rights of the working class against the wealthy classes who exploit their labor for profit, and ultimately fighting for a society where class does not exist. Most of the time, this is not a literal war and does not involve physical violence, but rather involves other forms of actions and ideas. However, when a war of revolution is the olny way left to defeat the ruling class and establish or preserve a free society, anarchists are prepared to take up arms and fight.

GREAT, LET'S GO TO WAR THEN.

Not so fast! Anarchists believe SOME wars may be justified - especially wars of revolution to overthrow oppressors. Many anarchists have fought prominently in wars, like the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and hundreds of thousands of anarchists in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

However, anarchists recognize that most wars are fought by the r
  • 0

#1209 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 September 2003 - 03:30 PM

//What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real
that everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up--in its erotic
connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it? //

<If I would be interested in other people resources I would say just that;
You national symbols --flag, anthem are unimportant.
You shouldn-t protect your land, your family, your nation. Take only what you can get. You don-t needed anybody around you, only important is just your food, best even you would buy it from me.
You should forget your history, traditions, friends, family, and nation.
So then you will be easy to buy and dispose.>

"The flag is a symbol, but behind it stands a ruling elite."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who my sympathies lie with. Didn't the "No Lion No Problem" give you a clue? How about the coops? What about the names of Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Tolstoy or Orwell? Not even the dismissal of the flag? Well my sympathies lie with ANARCHISM.

True, I don't propose a tear down of the system--I propose Humanism as an immediate goal--but a slow nonviolent approach to change. What you propose though is replacing a lion with another. And that really doesn't appeal to me. I guess some people need the lion but not me.

WHY ANARCHISTS OPPOSE MILITARISM AND NATIONALISM
- by the Boston Anarchists Against Militarism (BAAM)

SO, WHAT EXACTLY IS AN ANARCHIST?

Over the years, many people of many different beliefs have adopted the label anarchists, and most self-identifying anarchists would agree that there are many schools of anarchist thought. We are anarchists of the social/communal school of thought, who believe, roughly, in working towards a society based on the values of community and mutual aid; direct democracy; non-hierarchical organization; the absense of class division; the absense of divisions based on race, gender and nation; and the absense of institutionalized authority figures (because power corrupts, and we know it). The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek "anarchos" and means "no ruler", a condition which CEOs, bureaucrats and landlords would like everyone to believe is synonymous with "chaos". Throughout this document, the term "anarchist" will be used to refer to social anarchists, although it is not always used in this context in the media.

ANARCHISTS ARE JUST TERRORISTS, ANYWAY...

According to Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Isreal, terrorism is "the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and enacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political purposes" (as the former Prime Minister of country that has committed countless terrorist acts against innocent people over the years, we certainly trust Mr. Netanyahu's ability to define the term!).

There is no consensus amongst anarchists about the proper use of violence. However, there is nothing about violence that is central to anarchism, and *many anarchists reject violence and terrorism, choosing instead peaceful protest and education to achieve their goals*. A good anarchist case against terrorism can be read in "You Can't Blow Up A Social Relationship" (available at http://flag.blackened.net/noterror/)

*No anarchist would support random, undirected acts of violence or destruction, or the attack of innocent people for political purposes*.

SO ARE ANARCHISTS OPPOSED TO WAR?

Most anarchists are not pacifists, although some Christain anarchists (like Leo Tolstoy, who inspired Ghandi, who inspired King) reject all foms of violence. Like any form of struggle, war is sometimes necessary, even when what you're fighting for is not perfect. Some anarchists might consider World War II such a war, because even though in the end the victors were American, British and other capitalists, the alternative of Nazi Fascism was much worse. Many anarchists have fought in wars of independence from colonialism, even though the new nationalist governments were still corrupt.

Anarchists believe in waging a class war - fighting for the rights of the working class against the wealthy classes who exploit their labor for profit, and ultimately fighting for a society where class does not exist. Most of the time, this is not a literal war and does not involve physical violence, but rather involves other forms of actions and ideas. However, when a war of revolution is the olny way left to defeat the ruling class and establish or preserve a free society, anarchists are prepared to take up arms and fight.
  • 0

#1210 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 September 2003 - 03:32 PM

Poll...

http://engforum.prav...&threadid=36293

//What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real
that everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up--in its erotic
connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it? //

<If I would be interested in other people resources I would say just that;
You national symbols --flag, anthem are unimportant.
You shouldn-t protect your land, your family, your nation. Take only what you can get. You don-t needed anybody around you, only important is just your food, best even you would buy it from me.
You should forget your history, traditions, friends, family, and nation.
So then you will be easy to buy and dispose.>

"The flag is a symbol, but behind it stands a ruling elite."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who my sympathies lie with. Didn't the "No Lion No Problem" give you a clue? How about the coops? What about the names of Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Tolstoy or Orwell? Not even the dismissal of the flag? Well my sympathies lie with ANARCHISM.

True, I don't propose a tear down of the system--I propose Humanism as an immediate goal--but a slow nonviolent approach to change. What you propose though is replacing a lion with another. And that really doesn't appeal to me. I guess some people need the lion but not me.

WHY ANARCHISTS OPPOSE MILITARISM AND NATIONALISM
- by the Boston Anarchists Against Militarism (BAAM)

SO, WHAT EXACTLY IS AN ANARCHIST?

Over the years, many people of many different beliefs have adopted the label anarchists, and most self-identifying anarchists would agree that there are many schools of anarchist thought. We are anarchists of the social/communal school of thought, who believe, roughly, in working towards a society based on the values of community and mutual aid; direct democracy; non-hierarchical organization; the absense of class division; the absense of divisions based on race, gender and nation; and the absense of institutionalized authority figures (because power corrupts, and we know it). The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek "anarchos" and means "no ruler", a condition which CEOs, bureaucrats and landlords would like everyone to believe is synonymous with "chaos". Throughout this document, the term "anarchist" will be used to refer to social anarchists, although it is not always used in this context in the media.

ANARCHISTS ARE JUST TERRORISTS, ANYWAY...

According to Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Isreal, terrorism is "the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and enacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political purposes" (as the former Prime Minister of country that has committed countless terrorist acts against innocent people over the years, we certainly trust Mr. Netanyahu's ability to define the term!).

There is no consensus amongst anarchists about the proper use of violence. However, there is nothing about violence that is central to anarchism, and *many anarchists reject violence and terrorism, choosing instead peaceful protest and education to achieve their goals*. A good anarchist case against terrorism can be read in "You Can't Blow Up A Social Relationship" (available at http://flag.blackened.net/noterror/)

*No anarchist would support random, undirected acts of violence or destruction, or the attack of innocent people for political purposes*.

SO ARE ANARCHISTS OPPOSED TO WAR?

Most anarchists are not pacifists, although some Christain anarchists (like Leo Tolstoy, who inspired Ghandi, who inspired King) reject all foms of violence. Like any form of struggle, war is sometimes necessary, even when what you're fighting for is not perfect. Some anarchists might consider World War II such a war, because even though in the end the victors were American, British and other capitalists, the alternative of Nazi Fascism was much worse. Many anarchists have fought in wars of independence from colonialism, even though the new nationalist governments were still corrupt.

Anarchists believe in waging a class war - fighting for the rights of the working class against the wealthy classes who exploit their labor for profit, and ultimately fighting for a society where class does not exist. Most of the time, this is not a literal war and does not involve physical violence, but rather involves other forms of actions and ideas. However, when a war of revolution is the olny way left to defeat the ruling class and establish or preserve a free society, anarchists are prepared to take up arms and fight.

GREAT, LET'S GO TO WAR THEN.

Not so fast! Anarchists believe SOME wars may be justified - especially wars of revolution to overthrow oppressors. Many anarchists have fought prominently in wars, like the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and hundreds of thousands of anarchists in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

However, anarchists recognize that most wars are fought by the ruling elites of nations for their own economic and political interests, without regard for the interests of the civilians on either side. Thoughout the years, American soldiers have been sent abroad to protect dubious political or economic interests (as in Haiti or Iraq), or engage in plain old imperialism (Vietnam, the Philippines, Grenada - to protect as one former Special Forces agent wryly put it, the strategic nutmeg supply from the communists - Laos, Puerto Rico, most of Latin America - you get the idea).

AMERICAN TROOPS FOUGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS, YOU TRAITOR!

While this may be true in some degree *(e.g., the freedom to burn more oil and consume more resources per capita than any other nation on the planet, largely responsible for the much-vaunted American prosperity)*, mostly the American military has been used to fight against the freedom of other people around the world (and thereby ensuring American wealth, also known as American freedom). The School of the Americas (SOA) in Ft. Benning, Georgia, has for years trained Latin American dictators and their henchmen on methods of torture and repression, and have birthed some of the most evil paramilitaries the world has ever seen. Green Berets and Special Forces work regularly alongside such agents, training them in techniques of torture and repression. A military that creates such despots can have no honest motives of preserving freedom in the world.

The freedoms that exist in America were fought for and won, rather, by ordinary people. Starting from the Bill of Rights, which would not have been included in the Constitution (they're amendments!) if popular outcry had not necessitated it.

IF YOU'RE NOT FOR US, YOU'RE AGAINST US!

Let us be absolutely clear: Anarchists in no way support the actions of the terrorists responsible for the loss of life on September 11, 2001. We do not support the actions of Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban that supports him. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we must side with America. Indeed, anarchists (and many others) would point out the short-sighted American policies of supporting the Mujahideen guerrillas during the conflict with the Soviet Union (a fact that is carefully not mentioned), including arming them to the teeth (without which they would not have prevailed against the Soviet army), is largely the reason why moderate elements do not exist in Afghanistan today.

The American government has explicitly said that everyone must choose sides in the battle - neutrality is not allowed. Fine. The anarchist position is not one of neutrality. Just as we rejected both American Capitalism and Russian Communism, here too we reject both sides - the barbaric Taliban rulers and the horrific American empire. *We choose to side, rather, with the victims of both of these regimes - with the millions of Afghan peasants left to starve by the Taliban, displaced by the threat of American aggression, and sure to become collateral damage in American attacks; and with the billions of working class people across the world trapped in poverty by the American empire*.

*The flag is a symbol, but behind it stands a ruling elite*.

NO WAR BETWEEN NATIONS, NO PEACE BETWEEN CLASSES!

more...

http://www.infoshop....1/11/01/8600281

<Who would be easiest victim of NWO?
Person with family, country club , clan, national group or the country, or single individual?
Whom is easy to hire as a spy, member of community with strong emotional ties to family, community, national group or country or an individual untouched to anything?>

NWO sucks, but the solution ain't divided, isolated, hostile nations--we don't need more Hitlers or Stalins--but the solidarity of the little people across border lines.

<True is , anybody who tries to convince that you, for your own happiness don-t need any emotional ties besides to your food is your enemy.!
When you will lose t your flag, anthem -., nation, you are not human you are just just a cur.>

I'm human that's why I propose Humanism as a road to freedom and cooperation...

<Slavs Unite! >

Peoples of the World, Unite!

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1211 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 01 October 2003 - 01:18 AM

Poll...

http://engforum.prav...&threadid=36360
  • 0

#1212 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 01 October 2003 - 02:59 AM

"Nationalistic symbols divide, food differentiates yet unites"

"The national flag covers every injustice, every unhumanity, every lie, every outrage, every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation kills the sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where he overlooks injustice done; where, indeed, it may appear to him a meritorious act if committed in the interests of the nation."

Vareniki, anyone?;)

Are anarchists against Nationalism?

To begin to answer this question, we must first define what we mean by nationalism. For many people, it is just the natural attachment to home, the place one grew up. These feelings, however, obviously do not exist in a social vacuum. Nationality, as Bakunin noted, is a "natural and social fact," as "every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes the essence of nationality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 325]

Perhaps it is in the interest of anarchists to distinguish between nationality or ethnicity (that is, cultural affinity) and nationalism (confined to the state and government itself) as a better way of defining what we support and oppose -- nationalism, at root, is destructive and reactionary, whereas ethnic and cultural affinity is a source of community, social diversity and vitality.

Such diversity is to be celebrated and allowed to express it itself on its own terms. Or, as Murray Bookchin puts it, "[t]hat specific peoples should be free to fully develop their own cultural capacities is not merely a right but a desideratum. The world would be a drab place indeed if a magnificent mosaic of different cultures does not replace the largely decultured and homogenised world created by modern capitalism." ["Nationalism and the 'National Question'", Society and Nature, pp. 8-36, No. 5, pp. 28-29] But, as he also warns, such cultural freedom and variety should not be confused with nationalism. The latter is far more (and ethically, a lot less) than simple recognition of cultural uniqueness and love of home. Nationalism is the love of, or the desire to create, a nation-state. And for this reason anarchists are opposed to it, in all its forms.

This means that nationalism cannot and must not be confused with nationality. The later is a product of social processes while the former to a product of state action and elite rule. Social evolution cannot be squeezed into the narrow, restricting borders of the nation state without harming the individuals whose lives make that social development happen in the first place.

The state, as we have seen, is a centralised body invested with power and a social monopoly of force. As such it pre-empts the autonomy of localities and peoples, and in the name of the "nation" crushes the living, breathing reality of "nations" (i.e. peoples and their cultures) with one law, one culture and one "official" history. Unlike most nationalists, anarchists recognise that almost all "nations" are in fact not homogeneous, and so consider nationality to be far wider in application than just lines on maps, created by conquest. Hence we think that recreating the centralised state in a slightly smaller area, as nationalist movements generally advocate, cannot solve what is called the "national question."

Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker argues, the "nation is not the cause, but the result of the state. It is the state that creates the nation, not the nation the state." [Nationalism and Culture, p. 200] Every state is an artificial mechanism imposed upon society by some ruler in order to defend and make secure the interests of privileged minorities within society. Nationalism was created to reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if these shared affinities do not exist, the state will create them by centralising education in its own hands, imposing an "official" language and attempting to crush cultural differences from the people's within its borders.

Hence we see the all too familiar sight of successful "national liberation" movements replacing foreign oppression with a home-based one. This is unsurprising as nationalism delivers power to local ruling classes as it relies on taking state power. As a result, Nationalism can never deliver freedom to the working class (the vast majority of a given "nation"). Moreover, nationalism hides class differences within the "nation" by arguing that all people must unite around their supposedly common interests (as members of the same "nation"), when in fact they have nothing in common due to the existence of hierarchies and classes. Its function is to build a mass support base for local elites angry with imperialism for blocking their ambitions to rule and exploit "their" nation and fellow country people:

"[W]e must not forget that we are always dealing with the organised selfishness of privileged minorities which hide behind the skirts of the nation, hide behind the credulity of the masses [when discussing Nationalism]. We speak of national interests, national capital, national spheres of interest, national honour, and national spirit; but we forget that behind all this there are hidden merely the selfish interests of power-loving politicians and money-loving business men for whom the nation is a convenient cover to hide their personal greed and their schemes for political power from the eyes of the world." [Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 252-3]
Moreover, the Nation has effectively replaced God in terms of justifying injustice and oppression and allowing individuals to wash their hands of their own actions. For "under cover of the nation everything can be hid" argues Rocker (echoing Bakunin, we must note). "The national flag covers every injustice, every unhumanity, every lie, every outrage, every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation kills the sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where he overlooks injustice done; where, indeed, it may appear to him a meritorious act if committed in the interests of the nation." [Op. Cit., p. 252] (perhaps, in the future, the economy will increasingly replace the nation just as the nation replaced god as the means of escaping personal responsibility of our acts? Only time will tell, but "economic efficiency" has been as commonly used to justify oppression and exploitation as "reasons of state" and "the national interest" have been).

Thus anarchists oppose nationalism in all its forms as harmful to the interests of those who make up a given nation and their cultural identities. However, anarchists are opposed to all forms of exploitation and oppression, including imperialism (i.e. a situation of external domination where the ruling class of one country dominates the people and territory of another country - see section D.5). While rejecting Nationalism, anarchists do not necessarily oppose national liberation struggles against such domination (see section D.7 for details). *However, it goes without saying that national "liberation" movements that take on notions of racial, cultural or ethnic "superiority" or "purity" or believe that cultural differences are somehow "rooted" in biology get no support from anarchists*.

http://www.geocities...1931/secD6.html
  • 0

#1213 Guest_mcclane_*

Guest_mcclane_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2003 - 06:29 PM

How dare you are to say that the government should tax all junk food if its the easiest food that homeless or low class people can get.
DO YOU WANNA GET THE HOMELESSS MORE HOMELESS????
  • 0

#1214 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 01 October 2003 - 09:50 PM

<How dare you are to say that the government should tax all junk food if its the easiest food that homeless or low class people can get.
DO YOU WANNA GET THE HOMELESSS MORE HOMELESS???? >

Howdy
Hijole, good question. Well they can always buy 'dog food,' which is cheaper and of better quality...;)

-Excellent Palatability
  • 0

#1215 Guest_mcclane_*

Guest_mcclane_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2003 - 10:49 PM

Homeless people have no other alternative than seek for the puppeteers, why? because they do not have a place to prepare their own food as healthy as they would want it and they can not afford more. Thats why i dont agree that the government shoul tax their food and if they do, as i said before, they will leave the homeless homeless.
otra cosa, hablas espa?ol????
  • 0

#1216 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 02 October 2003 - 03:44 AM

THE BEST WAY TO HELP THE HOMELESS IS,

''DON'T BE ONE OF THEM''

GET A JOB, DAMNED IT!!!!!!!!!!
  • 0

#1217 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 02 October 2003 - 11:31 AM

and let them be foodless, that way the streets are more tidy.
Employ all Mexicans to police that law.
Any homeless found unable pay the tax can go into the welfare
prisons where both a home and food is supplied by the workers who pay taxes. So get a job and lighten the load.

According to a U.S. Govt study the average American works 8 weeks longer p.a. than a generation ago for about the same income in real terms.
The U.S. ability to create jobs is decreasing. Emplyment -to-population ratio declined from 64.3% to 62.7% between 1999 and 2002.
There is a polarisation of labour markets around the world -
full time workers are working more which increases part-time
workers/under-employed as a result.
The American Institute of Stress estimates it costs U.S. industry
$300 billion p.a. in health costs and programmes to help manage stress. (tough at the top)

Remember that article DonQ posted about GDP etc. That 300 billion would figure as part of domestic product. Take all those negative costs and add them together and think what could have been done with it (as people do with the cost of war) if society was healthy and just. This applies across the board not just the U.S of A.
- everyone could have a home and still enjoy junk food!

When we have such prolific productive technology and science
on top of the prolific unbundance of nature, free energy from the sun why is it that we have to work longer to make ends meet
in the future, and for many the future never comes?
Sounds like the faster they row the boat the bigger the hole in the bottem gets. Getting a job (oar) or rowing (working) faster and longer doesn't stop the water (deficit experience) from getting in.
Surely everyone can smell a rat as big as a Lion!

Today in the U.K. one in six work 60 hours plus a week. two years ago it was one in eight. The number of women working 60 hrs per week has more then doubled. Three quarters of employees work overtime and about a third get paid for it-
what would you call that? Job insurance. Can get to the stage
like the sweat shops in Indonesia, you will work as long as the boss wants you to or get lost.
If you work 60 hrs and get paid for 40 that has a big discount on the true hourly rate and cheat the law on minimum pay rates.
Perhaps the definition of Crime against Humanity should be redrawn.
  • 0

#1218 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 02:13 AM

<Homeless people have no other alternative than seek for the puppeteers, why? because they do not have a place to prepare their own food as healthy as they would want it and they can not afford more. Thats why i dont agree that the government shoul tax their food and if they do, as i said before, they will leave the homeless homeless.>

To leave the homeless, homeless would be the least of their worries...;)

Other than that, I'd disagree that the poor benefits from eating junk food more than eating dog food.:confused: What I propose is taxing junk food and subsidizing healthy food so--surprise--they would end up paying the same price for 'quality food.' This would be particularly important for kids both because they can't make an informed choice and because they are forming their eating habits. I'd give you an example: You get a half a gallon of junk ice cream for, say, 3 bucks with all kinds of s*** in there, but a quarter gallon of healthful soy ice cream go for the same price. Then you tax the junk ice cream $1.50 and pass it on to the healthy soy ice cream. And the same thing for thousands and thousands of products for which there's a healthy alternative. Go to any of the large health foods and you'll find anything from soy hamburgers to natural cola soda. Nobody has to suffer. Just give them the right incentive and the poor will have a chance to change. Otherwise it'll only be the lion preying on the innocent little animals and their kids.;)

<otra cosa, hablas espa?ol????>

Si!:D
  • 0

#1219 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 02:53 AM

<THE BEST WAY TO HELP THE HOMELESS IS,

''DON'T BE ONE OF THEM''

GET A JOB, DAMNED IT!!!!!!!!!! >

Could they be out of work? Or have mental problems? Or drug addiction? Or simply getting the fish the governments hands them out to get them out of the way? Never mind, don't be one!;)

How about this though?

WE GOT THE BEST EDUCATED HOMELESS IN THE WORLD!!!

The homeless are everywhere: parks, beaches, scenic places, romantic
hideaways, libraries... The powerful, safe and comfortable in their
fortified citadels, ignore them; the average family, turned down by
their presence, is kept away from out better places... We can safely
say: America got the best educated homeless in the world!!!

THE PROBLEM

(Source: Homelessness in the United States: A Policy Analysis, by
Jessica P. Wilkins)

An ideal proposal also gets to the root of the homelessness problem.
Some proposals try and deal with the symptoms of homelessness, such as
building the homeless more shelters or allowing them to loiter in parks
and other public places, but these proposals really do nothing to combat
the true problem. Instead of dealing with the symptoms of homelessness,
an ideal proposal would deal with the actual problem by trying to help
the homeless escape from their current condition.

A SOLUTION (Curitiba, Brazil)

Under the "garbage that's not garbage" program, 70% of the city's trash
is recycled by its residents. Once a week, a truck collects paper,
cardboard, metal, plastic and glass that has been sorted in the city's
homes. The city's paper recycling alone saves the equivalent of 1,200
trees a day. As well as the environmental benefits, money raised from
selling materials goes into social programs, and *the city employs the
homeless and recovering alcoholics* in its garbage separation plant.

***Don't give them the fish (or worse, ignore them) but teach them how to fish!***

This is my proposal...

'The homeless, who now occupy our better parks, should be incorporated into light but necessary duties, like picking up litter, in exchange for a decent wage; there should be no homeless. (Again, Curitiba is a model on this.)'
  • 0

#1220 Guest_mcclane_*

Guest_mcclane_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 October 2003 - 02:54 AM

De donde eres wey??? donde naciste, como sabes espa?ol
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru