^^^^^^^^^^ hey thats good insight!!

___________________
http://www.travelninja.com
------------------------------------

Hi-jack alert

Not to change the subject but any native Canadians have any problems?
Just delays? (I hope...)

I might be going over the border this weekend...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Wow, I had to fish this one out, haven't been at the comp all weekend.
Did you change the avatar to scare me

quote:

Originally posted by drgoodvibe I'm not exactly sure if through simple moral virtue that we'd all have the same basic rules.

Let's not look at anarchy, or general 'lawlessness' as a concept of Dark Age. It would not be the outcome of collapse of power but a replacement of domination with a form of developmentalism, progressivism, that will result in social comfort.

Certainly, to reach complete anarchy is a very elusive goal since it would require to completely alter the present system, the entire set of societal values, means, norms....
I realize that my standpoint on anarchy appears very simple in this context, in this present society in a way that I advocate anarchism to make you think that I want this society to be simplified, which I don't. In reality, structure of the modern world system operates on extremely complex combinations of institutions and forms of power, of course.. if it didn't, we would still be living in a primitive society.

We need change? A change in power perhaps? No, that is not the priority of course. We need a shift away from this status quo in the power game. But power cannot be measured really, there can't be a dash of it or loads of it - it's power.. if it's in effect, it's dominating.

quote:

In an age of global capitalism, money rules all, its human nature to be greedy. So for one man to be rich and powerful he must impoverish many others.

Absolutely! Capitalist world economy leads to overshadowing of all other systems and all other purposes because consumerism force is so strong. The line between necessity and luxury is clouded in this age of mass consumption. And that link between social and political change needs to be expanded.
And I totally agree that the entire political, economic, social system follows a pattern of 'rise and fall', based on survival of the fittest, where rich societies became rich at the expense of poor, that the leaders became powerful in control over the weak, etc.
The whole system is a bourgeoisie ideology in theory. In practice, however, there is no progress. The gap between the two are greater and we live in delusion, with a vision, however the one with distorted interests. Who is guiding us and where does it lead us?

The global state we're in right now gives a false impression of stability due to order and control. But is it stable? Far from it. So, do you think we would be facing more instability with the shift in this critical perspective from so-called democracy to radicalism? Or would two wrongs make it right?

___________________
..::Adventure is something that while it is happening you wish it wasn't!::..

<<<I am, I flatter myself, completely a citizen of the world. In my travels, I never felt myself away from home.>>>

quote:

Originally posted by brunette Did you change the avatar to scare me [/qoute] RAWR!!!! scared yet? [quote] Let's not look at anarchy, or general 'lawlessness' as a concept of Dark Age. It would not be the outcome of collapse of power but a replacement of domination with a form of developmentalism, progresivism, that will result in social comfort.

Certainly anarchism can be seen as a form of developmentalism and progressivism instead of social disorder, chaos, but how would we get to that form of anarchism without going through massive social disororder. Its defnitely not going to be immediate.

quote:

We need change? A change in power perhaps? No, that is not the priority of course. We need a shift away from this status quo in the power game. But power cannot be measured really, there can't be a dash of it or loads of it - it's power.. if it's in effect, it's dominating.

Even in the Sahran tribes of which there is no real governance, there are rules that govern ecomics, justice, and every single one of them has an elder who guides the tribe spiritually as well as settles descisions. There is still a measure of power in this elder in a "lawless" society. The people live on their own, cooperate and live with their own resources, and yet still they still have a leader. The power that the tribal elder has, is it dominating?

We grew out of the sands out of the tribes into cities in the name of efficiency and kept the ideal of a tribal elder to lead us and guide us. Even if we go back to anarchy we'll come out of it again to produce this perfect form of capitalism that needs its institutions and governance.

quote:

And I totally agree that the entire political, economics, social system follows a pattern of 'rise and fall', based on survival of the fittest, where rich societies became rich at the expense of poor, that the leaders became powerful in control over the weak, etc. The whole system is a bourgeoisie ideology in theory. In practice, however, there is no progress. The gap between the two are greater and we live in delusion, with a vision, however the one with distorted interests. Who is guiding us and where does it lead us?

An interesting note to this, the state has taken a massive role in labour and how we work that there is progress to some degree. A 100 years ago unions were unbelievably racist and corrupt there was no progress made in living conditions, in working conditions. But now we have Equality rights legistlation, sure we don't really enforce it right now, but it is a step in the right direction. The state has finally taken a somewhat active role in relegating equality surely this is progress. Who is guiding us and where does it lead us? Well the democratic theorist would say that certainly the people that guide and lead us are the people that we ourselves elect, but we the people only can elect persons that have been able to move through the instuitional steel doors as societies elite.

quote:

The global state we're in right now gives a false impression of stability due to order and control. But is it stable? Far from it. So, do you think we would be facing more instability with the shift in this critical perspective from so-called democracy to radicalism? Or would two wrongs make it right?

Is this state of global order more stable then radicalism? I would have to say that right now yes. Radicalism as you and I know it, is completely foriegn to most people, they're not ready to be govern themselves and just simply cooperate. If we can't cooperate with eachother right now what makes you think that we'd want to in a state of radicalism?

___________________
http://www.travelninja.com
------------------------------------