Counter-point; the State was created through a messy compromise between those who believed in democracy and freedom, and those who emphatically did not. They created a useful tool, we can take that tool, file the edges down so it stops hurting people, and then put it to use making things better for everyone but a select few rich assholes who have committed serious crimes to become rich assholes.
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone as assholes try to fill the power vacuum with violence, setting themselves up as warlords and pretenders to the throne.
The counter-counter point is that if your particular State was not created as such a compromise, and there’s no avenue for the People to have a voice in their government, then it is a moral imperative to express your voice in other ways, even if the State decides to kill you for it.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
After siding with the Bolsheviks during the Ukrainian–Soviet War, the Makhnovists were driven underground by the Austro-German invasion and waged guerrilla warfare against the Central Powers throughout 1918. After the insurgent victory at the Battle of Dibrivka, the Makhnovshchina came to control much of Katerynoslav province and set about constructing anarchist-communist institutions. […]
Surrounded on all sides by different enemies, the Makhnovist line in the battle for the Donbas eventually fell to the advancing White movement in June 1919. The Makhnovists were subsequently driven into a retreat to Kherson, where they reorganised their military and led a successful counteroffensive against the Whites at the Battle of Peregonovka. With the White advance defeated, the Makhnovists came to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine in late 1919, even taking over a number of large industrial cities, despite being a predominantly peasant movement.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.
Counter-point; the State was created through a messy compromise between those who believed in democracy and freedom, and those who emphatically did not. They created a useful tool, we can take that tool, file the edges down so it stops hurting people, and then put it to use making things better for everyone but a select few rich assholes who have committed serious crimes to become rich assholes.
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone as assholes try to fill the power vacuum with violence, setting themselves up as warlords and pretenders to the throne.
The counter-counter point is that if your particular State was not created as such a compromise, and there’s no avenue for the People to have a voice in their government, then it is a moral imperative to express your voice in other ways, even if the State decides to kill you for it.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution, that has been done before.
The state has a monopoly of violence, what would stop it from just becoming yet another liberal oligarchy?
Er, for example?
This is the first thing that came to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?
@[email protected] did:
If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.
Lol!
Learn what the term anomie actually means, okay?
What could possibly be more destructive to social norms than armed conflict?
Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.
Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @[email protected] said:
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
Liberal oligarchy does not qualify as democracy.
If the people have a voice, then there’s a path forward.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand, but then again. I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Then show me how your voice matters. Shouldn’t be too difficult, right?
Oh, sooo… liberals?
Sooo… like Makhno?
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
What’s your proof of this?
Zombie apocalypse movies?
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
A war of succession is a civil war.
Go read the war of the roses. Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War that Lenin started.
Or the Chinese Civil war.
Or read up on what’s happened in any country that’s had its government couped or toppled.
As I said, a history book, any one of them will do if they don’t gloss over shit that the Party doesn’t like.
As for destroying the State, every civil war does that, it’s the first thing to happen, the war is what happens next.
Guess what, Clyde? No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The Bolsheviks, quite literally, seized the state! History is amazing, isn’t it?
You have, so far, not managed to prove that you’ve read any, bright spark.
Lol! Do you even have the foggiest idea what it is you are talking about?
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.