Originally Posted by sean '90

State power and corporate power and, for that matter the powers-that-be are always to be preferred to the power of the uneducated unwashed rabble, who can easily be persuaded by a demagogue to do evil things or may just not give a damn about running the whatever-civic-structure- have-you. The elite generally know what they are doing and they have experience at running things. This is best done in a monarchy that has a privileged aristocracy and nobility. The hereditary classes are raised for the job from birth. This means that when they get the job, they will know the limitations and the duties and responsibilities and rights and privileges that accrue to the office. This is a significant advantage over elected officials who may have no clue what job it is they're running for, but would love to have power. Look at Bush for the pitfalls of elected officials.

"unwashed rabble"

Well fuck you too. The elite only care about pampering themselves and don't care if that means treating us "rabble" like cogs in a fucking machine to be used and abused. A hereditary caste system pigeon-holes people into positions by birth instead of by the skills people actually have, fuck that. Your ignorance boggles the mind.

Yeah, Sean. Us silly females add our voices to those of the unwashed rabble.

I find all this discussion about anarchists interesting and I can't help but be reminded of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. That conflict would've ended quickly had they taken power. Unfortunately, they refused to do so because they felt it was against their principles. As the conflict grew, the Republicans found themselves hampered by the Anarchists' lack of an organized and efficient chain of command. Every plan and order, all the way down to squad level, had to be voted on by each Anarchist, which made them completely ineffective on a tactical level. As they were at the time the largest group of Republican supporters, this organizational weakness kept them from achieving victory.

This inability of an anarchist organization to respond quickly is a drawback one must consider when contemplating that form of government.

Bri2k

Originally Posted by Bri2k

This inability of an anarchist organization to respond quickly is a drawback one must consider when contemplating that form of government.

I'm pretty weak when it comes to my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War, and, I'm not much of an expert on anarchist thinking through the ages, but I have no trouble agreeing with you that anarchists tend to move too slowly to be effective tactical warriors.

As for "contemplating that form of government" well, I can understand why the anarchists refused to take power. Anarchists wouldn't want to lord over anyone else so taking power would be a sell out to the whole premise of anarchist thinking. Also, anarchists wouldn't contemplate "that form of government" because anarchistic thinking is anathama to government.

This kind of gets back to a comment The Rani et al made a while ago about anarchistic processes never being suited to large state functions. I whole heartedly agree as would I think any and all anarchists. It's not about state power, its about consensus-based decision-making, free association, non coercive enforcement, etc. It's ideally suited to say, an agricultural district, a factory, a village, a regional management plan, etc. but it's not a design for a state government.

That said, self-organizing systems, consensus-based decision-making models have great potential for problem solving in a 4T setting. Particularly now as some have noted, because technological enhancements have made the heavy amount of decision-making/information exchange required, so much more possible.

I wonder if the Spanish anarchists might not have been more responsive to tactical decisions had each partisan been able to vote via a text message?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

....as in (existing) capitalism being a misnomer or contradiction?

Or am I way off here?

Do you imply that a free market isn't really in existance now? I would think you are right on here. Our economy is quite controlled by corporate interests and state policy. It's not free.

The most wonderful example of a free market I've ever experienced was selling chickens and produce in a suburban farmer's market. It was vibrant! Dynamic! and generally self regulating! It was also free from government intervetion (regulations, sales taxes, etc.) and free from large corporate interference. We set it up for farmers and truck patch gardeners only. That way that large distributors couldn't come in and low ball everyone else. We had great support from the customer base as well who stepped things up a notch by pushing to go completely organic. The market became 75% composed of organic producers, but we never let them push out the non-organic guys.

It's interesting that the resident monarchist would come to comment on this issue. It just goes to show he's a troll intent on disruption.

Coercive enforcement, something dictatorship and monarchy are noted for, would answer his trolling by coercion -----baning him from the forum. However, for whatever reason, that hasn't happened here. I feel that's likely due to the fact that the forum is open to anyone in the hopes that people will contribute meaninful dialogue and everyone is mature enough to ignore the trolls when they pop in.

I've opted for what I consider the best "non-coercive" strategy.

View Post Yesterday, 04:19 PM Remove user from ignore list
sean '90 This message is hidden because sean '90 is on your ignore list.


It's worked wonderfully for me. My mailbox isn't jammed with notifications that he's posted again, and again. As I scroll through the threads I dont have his tripe to read. I'm generally rid of him and I haven't done a thing to force him out and I haven't called on "the powers that be" to exercise their coercive powers to eliminate him.

Now, I wonder if we could use a consensus based approach to getting Sean '90 to come in line with the purpose of the forum. If the consensus was that Sean '90 was a exercising troll-like behavior, folks could put him on ignore. If enough people put him on ignore, the troll in Sean '90 would die! Sure, he'd still be a monarchist, likely remain sexist, continue to be bigoted, but, he'd have to behave better if he wanted anyone to pay attention to him. Since the troll in Sean '90 feeds on people's irritated responses to him, quoting him, etc. It is only through starvation that we can save the better, more entertaining part of Sean '90 from the troll that has posessed his soul.

Well. I'm doing my part, how about you!?

Originally Posted by Skabungus

...

Well. I'm doing my part, how about you!?

I have not placed sean '90 on the Ignore list even though he is a Progressive (as are all the others {3} there) monarchist who celebrates the fruits of the Treason of the Invitation of the so-called Glorious Revolution and the Regicidal behavior of the House of Orleans.

He is also ignorant of the version of the Xian faith he supposedly espouses as a Progressive would surely be. But, he has some measure of obtuseness that may (in time) bring him to disfavor his Progressive positions. The less better Mr. Lamb, Mr. Butler, and Kathaksung are so deeply steeped in Progress that I see no reason to hope that they might be open to conversation with one such as I. Past Progressive posting upon the three Ignored only led to hatred, anger, and madness upon their part. There is enough of all three in the present Progressive Executive Branch of the Commercial Republic's government to sate my wish to encounter hatred, anger, and madness in the wider world.

Sean '90 may be full of hate, anger, and madness of the Progressive variety as well; but, he is largely ignorant. If he should become even more acutely Progressive I would then join your Program to shun yet another Progressive T4T Poster. I have hope that he may yet join the obtuse community.

Sean 90's posts kind of get to me -- more than a Boomer's opinions would. It's a bit embarrassing for a Millie to see that one of their own is speaking for them and acting like an ignorant fool. I'm not the only one. The sharpest attacks have come from fellow Millies. Even the lurker 90s Boy exposed himself to criticize Sean. Probably that subconscious group mentality thing, eh?

I'd just like to repeat that I think he'd make a great Nazi or Islamic terrorist. Fortunately, the most harm he can do here is tell us that we're all going to hell. I won't ignore him until he really starts trolling, but I won't expect him to add to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

... Now, I wonder if we could use a consensus based approach to getting Sean '90 to come in line with the purpose of the forum. If the consensus was that Sean '90 was a exercising troll-like behavior, folks could put him on ignore. If enough people put him on ignore, the troll in Sean '90 would die! Sure, he'd still be a monarchist, likely remain sexist, continue to be bigoted, but, he'd have to behave better if he wanted anyone to pay attention to him. Since the troll in Sean '90 feeds on people's irritated responses to him, quoting him, etc. It is only through starvation that we can save the better, more entertaining part of Sean '90 from the troll that has possessed his soul.

Well. I'm doing my part, how about you!?

This assumes that the troll is not interesting in his own way.

Let's admit it, you would never invite your dog to dine at your table because he has the manners of, well, a dog. If you want someone to chase a ball for hour on end, though, your dog is the perfect choice (try to get one of your kids to do that).

Unintentionally, Sean provides some of us with a degree of entertainment that would never be provided by the average poster. So I feel perfectly free to ignore what is not interesting to me, and throw the ball when the mood strikes. Sometimes he chases it, barking all the way.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess I'm a true anarchist and not a collective autonomist after all, because I say let sean do whatever he wants. I also don't use ignore lists, because it makes conversations hard to follow if you're only reading one side of them.

If you don't like getting all those emails, there's a way to turn off notification.

Yes, I know, I'm just stirring the pot

Originally Posted by Skabungus

It's interesting that the resident monarchist would come to comment on this issue. It just goes to show he's a troll intent on disruption.

Coercive enforcement, something dictatorship and monarchy are noted for, would answer his trolling by coercion -----baning him from the forum. However, for whatever reason, that hasn't happened here. I feel that's likely due to the fact that the forum is open to anyone in the hopes that people will contribute meaninful dialogue and everyone is mature enough to ignore the trolls when they pop in.

I've opted for what I consider the best "non-coercive" strategy.

View Post Yesterday, 04:19 PM Remove user from ignore list
sean '90 This message is hidden because sean '90 is on your ignore list.


It's worked wonderfully for me. My mailbox isn't jammed with notifications that he's posted again, and again. As I scroll through the threads I dont have his tripe to read. I'm generally rid of him and I haven't done a thing to force him out and I haven't called on "the powers that be" to exercise their coercive powers to eliminate him.

Now, I wonder if we could use a consensus based approach to getting Sean '90 to come in line with the purpose of the forum. If the consensus was that Sean '90 was a exercising troll-like behavior, folks could put him on ignore. If enough people put him on ignore, the troll in Sean '90 would die! Sure, he'd still be a monarchist, likely remain sexist, continue to be bigoted, but, he'd have to behave better if he wanted anyone to pay attention to him. Since the troll in Sean '90 feeds on people's irritated responses to him, quoting him, etc. It is only through starvation that we can save the better, more entertaining part of Sean '90 from the troll that has posessed his soul.

Well. I'm doing my part, how about you!?

I tried reasoning with him first. Then I put him on Ignore. I still have to scroll past other posts quoting him, but that's not so terrible.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Be careful, you'll end up being a blasphemous, heretical, witch, sent to hell by a string of little mad faces ...

The horror!!!!

Originally Posted by Skabungus

... I wonder if the Spanish anarchists might not have been more responsive to tactical decisions had each partisan been able to vote via a text message?

One of the first things any military does to make civilians into soldiers is to beat the question 'why?' out of their vocabulary. Militaries all require reflexive obedience by subordinates, because questioning at the wrong time gets people killed. The US military is one of the few that has been able to add-back some sense of independence, because the new warfare needs even the ultimate subordinates (privates) to assume command or act independently at times. But they add that later ... after the reflexive obedience is already implanted.

Somehow, the idea of an anarchist as soldier is an oxymoron, but the hyperreligious are perfect for the job.

I have no problem with restoring the peasant communes of Imperial Russia or other such collective entities being restored, but you must remember that collective entities only work on a small scale. Beyond that, one cannot do consensus decision-making as you will never get a consensus.

Originally Posted by The Rani

But you'll be in good company.

Damn, only allowed 4 images per post? Fascism!!!!!!!!!!! (TM)

Email Cheslog. Man sould do something about that.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

<snip>
I wonder if the Spanish anarchists might not have been more responsive to tactical decisions had each partisan been able to vote via a text message?

I'm sure that would've definitely been an improvement! You've touched on something I keep thinking about. With modern technology, we now have the means to make Direct Democracy work on a large scale. Technologically speaking, we no longer need a Representational Democracy.

I think the Anarchist model will work well on the smaller scale that may become necessary should some of the things I'm hearing about Peak Oil, etc. come to pass.

Bri2k

Another sign of a turning change: The Post just bought out 60 of it's senior writing/reporting staff. Here's my favorite valedectory:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...6?OpenDocument

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Another sign of a turning change: The Post just bought out 60 of it's senior writing/reporting staff. Here's my favorite valedectory:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...6?OpenDocument

You need to clarify that the buy-out is for the St. Louis Dispatch Post, not the WaPo.

I was wondering why I hadn't heard about the buyout until I checked your link, since of course, the WaPo is my home paper.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You need to clarify that the buy-out is for the St. Louis Dispatch Post, not the WaPo.

I was wondering why I hadn't heard about the buyout until I checked your link, since of course, the WaPo is my home paper.

*ahem* St. Louis Post-Dispatch. *You* got the name backwards

How things have slipped. The former Pulitzer flagship, now a garbage scow.

Strange bedfellows: New England liberals and Southern conservatives meet as part of a growing successionist movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/...onist_movement

I just learned that the senior Senator of my state of New Mexico, Pete Domenici (Silent, 1932) will be retiring this next election year. That would make him the second Silent senator this year advancing in age to decide to retire, the other being Senator John Warner of Wonkette's state. Senator Domenici has held that seat since since 1972 and was expected to seek re-election next year (at least from what I'd been hearing in the news). I have a feeling the battle to fill his seat may get feisty.

Originally Posted by Wiz83

I just learned that the senior Senator of my state of New Mexico, Pete Domenici (Silent, 1932) will be retiring this next election year. That would make him the second Silent senator this year advancing in age to decide to retire, the other being Senator John Warner of Wonkette's state. Senator Domenici has held that seat since since 1972 and was expected to seek re-election next year (at least from what I'd been hearing in the news). I have a feeling the battle to fill his seat may get feisty.

Wiz - I've heard Patsy Madrid will try for his seat. Say it isn't so! Talk about ensuring a GOP victory! Heather Wilson cleaned her clock once and may do so again, this time for the Senate.

Looks like the Silent are not going to be in power much outside of the Supreme Court after the '08 elections.

This morning's New York Times includes a long story about how the Bush Administration, through a compliant Justice Department (after the appointment of future Medal of Freedom recipient Al Gonzales), has ignored every attempt to rein in its torture policies and written still-secret memos assuring the White House that everything they want to do is OK.

Meanwhile, mainstream liberals are increasingly (but not universally) being persuaded that we have to stay in Iraq and that the intervention was not such a bad idea. (See Times Op-ed by Roger (not to be confused with Richard) Cohen, arguing that the world's main problem today is that too many people hate neoconservatives.)

Depending on how things turn out over the next ten years, we may well conclude that we have been in a 4T, a rather quiet one, since 9/11, one that has transformed the US into an imperial dictatorship, just as Russia--ahead of us as always--has abandoned, in effect, its experiment in democracy and become a capitalist authoritarian state--the wave of the future.

Such a quiet 4T is parallel to what the British went through in the 1860s and 1870s. There was no war (except the Indian Mutiny) and no revolution, but, partly because of the North's victory in the Civil War, Britain became quite democratic and the professions and government were opened up to the Middle Class. Something similar happened in Germany (although they fought three brief wars, one of them pretty big.) France did have a brief civil war with 30,000 people dead in the suppression of the Paris commune, but then experienced parallel changes as well.

What is becoming clearer and clearer is that nothing has been done to stop the march either of a new foreign policy (indefinite occupation of parts of the Middle East), or the rolling back of social programs, or, above all, the expansion of executive authority. If a Republican defeats Hillary Clinton (a very good possibility), I think the new course will definitely be set. And even if she wins, she may be the "Ike"--a premature Ike--of this 4T--the opposition President who does little or nothing to undo the results of the 4T, except perhaps to ensure that women and minorities share the leadership positions to some extent.

OK, I'm in a pessimistic mood this morning. Go ahead, try and prove that I'm wrong.

I was convinced that Bush’s reelection in 2004 signaled that T4T had indeed begun on 9/11 and presumably ‘W’ was the new grey champion. Then Katrina blew through and Bush appears to be a rejected champion. But as KaiserD2 points out, the Bush administration took us in a substantially new direction both here and abroad. The country has not rejected much of his agenda; certainly not his general direction.

My world history is not strong enough to know if there have been rejected grey champions in the past. So what happens now? If a Republican wins 2008 does he automatically become grey champion? Guiliani? Does a Democratic win put T4T on pause? It’s hard to see Hillary pulling the country together and moving forward, a premature Ike indeed. But what about Obama?

Can we get through this election without a new political party? I can’t imagine the country accepting a Clinton/Guiliani choice. And if the Republican’s really do figure a way to win, doesn’t the Democratic party implode?