Republic vs democracy vs anarchy
- This topic has 179 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Osama Jafar wrote:neither all of the above – #people_choice ; but people are limited by there conceived possibilities, we here of all sorts of state abolishers have a job of opening people's minds towards these possibilities as the creation of a new habitat root level is possible and urgently needed as humanity become closer and troubled every passing day.
the thing is, communes may have worked in primative societies and in small populations of people but it would take a massive cultural shift to be even a possibility in an industrial society. Maybe it will happen maybe not but capitalism is here to stay it seems
think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.
mcolome1 wrote:We must define the concept of propertyThe Apache did not own anything privately and everything belonged to themThe ruling class owns everything and we do not own anythingThe objective of the state is to defend the property of the ruling classbusinessmen are not out to get you, you know that right? they are just looking to invest in a market and make money. You can define the meaning of the state however you want but in the end, we need one to maintain law and order. That doesn't mean it isn't incredibly corrupt(hillary look 20% of her campaign money from saldi arabia). Big pharma is literally the biggest lobbier in the USA(they outspend the fossil fuels industry 2:1) so you have a point with that
CP, again it is a matter of definition.I have offered you options of an alternative administration of society to the capitalist State, which socialists describe as the executive committee of the ruling possessing class and we challenge the idea that is somehow a neutral arbitrator for everyone. We are no defenders of the State, regardless of whatever constitution they frame to justify its existence.We maintain that there exist existing structures that can be adapted and re-shaped into better decision-making bodies. We also say that the arrival of the new technology permits the development of new improved means of applying the principles of democracy. As regards to the abuse of authority, part of our case is that by insisting on the peoples right to the free access to the necessities of life, there can be no usurpation of power, since throughout history it has been the elite's possession of the privilege to dole out what people required to survive that gave them their power. By depriving any bureaucracy of this power of being able to decide who gets what and when, they are denied control over us.
Quote:Anarchism is by definition chaos.Since i have raised the question of definitions, lets be clear – it is anarchy that is a common word for chaos, not anarchism which does not reject organisation and order.
CP, our messages have crossed but to address this claim…
Quote:businessmen are not out to get you, you know that right?You have read history and you read today's media, haven't you, and so you know that statement is patently false.We have had the industrial barons and corporations persecute those who seek to organise unions to try to equalise the balance of power a bit more, and the repression is frequently with the support of supposed "law and order" and they do so simply because
Quote:they are just looking to invest in a market and make money.We have businessmen who breach health and safety to make a profit…and rarely does the law prosecute. I'm no defender of Hilarity Clinton, but the Saudi cash went to the Clinton Foundation, which you could correctly say was a lobby group, not to her election campaign funds. They have since dried up after she lost, which as they say seems to indicate that they were inducements for influence.Only American citizens (and immigrants with green cards) can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisions of foreign companies can form political action committees (PACs) and collect contributions from their American employees. Some details and figures herehttps://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php
Capitalist Pig wrote:mcolome1 wrote:It is very funny to listen to some so called Congressmen or lawmen saying that the Mexican workers are criminals. What about all the legalized thieves that have stolen the sweat from the Mexican workers inside and outside the USA? Those have been blessed by God and the law, those have the rights to exploits others human beings In the legal system it is known as robbery, in the legal system it is a legalized crime. What about all the land robbers that went all the way down to Mexico DF and signed the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty ? Those thieves returned possessing large extension of landsin many countries a Criminal is a person who has stolen the property of somebody else, or have killed another human being, but a person violating a traffic law is not a criminal, a person that has been forced to emigrate to another country due to the conditions created by a bunch of thieves, and assassin in others countries, is not a criminal. The law and the constitution is created to serve the rich peoples.In the name of the Law many countries have been destroyed with bombs and the peoples from those countries have been forced to emigrate, and now those peoples are being rejected after they created those conditions, and they have been labeled as criminalsIt doesn't matter if your brown white or black if you commit a felony while being here illegally you gotta go. Need at least some law and order
You are citing ideas of concepts that were not said, we are not talking about the pigments of the skin of human beings, those are wrong conception created by this society, and too much emphasis is made in the US society, it is the only society where peoples have a national prefix, and Mexican is only a nationality, and races do not exist either. We are talking about human being over the face of the earth.We must define what a felony and a felon is, it is just a legal term, which has different meaning in different places. As it was said before a criminal in some places is a thief or a killer. Look at the history of the US and define who is the killer and who is the thieve, and who is the felon, and what felony has been committedHow would you call the 800 military bases that the US ruling class has around the world installed without the approval of the so called citizen of peoples of nation ? Is a felony, or are they felons ? Are they simple trespassers ? How would you call the spread of US military troops around the world without the permission of the citizen of those countries ? The Japanese are still fighting against the presence of US troops in Japan, and the Cuban are claiming a piece of land known as Guantanamo stolen several decades ago, and the Puerto Rican are claiming that they territory has been stolen for several decades, the Hawaiian is claiming that their territory was stolen. Is that a felony ? What about the territory stolen from Panama and more than 10000 were killed in order to recover the title during the government of George Bush ? How would you call the 122 times that the US troops have invaded Latin America without the approval of the peoples of the so called citizen of those countries, and the killing of millions of peoples. Is a felony, or are they felons ?How would you kill the stealing of natural resources and lands made by the US corporation around the globe, and stealing of billions of dollars ? Is it a felony, or are they felons ?How would call the invasion of Mexico from the North to the South and the stealing of the whole South-west region by the US ruling class, and a territory that has produced trillions of dollars in profits ? Is it felony, or are they felons ?How would you call the polluting of rivers, oceans, soil effected by the US in several countries and continents These are only a few historical examples. I suggest you to obtain some knowledge in US history and world history.
Capitalist Pig wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Republic vs Democracy is a nonsense created by the so called founders of the US ( like Bolivar, Sucres, San Martin, Duarte, Hidalgo, etc, etc.)which were a bunch of landowners, land robbers, Indians killers, slave drivers, slave owners, opium traffickers, and racist peoples, and many peoples without knowing the real history are always repeating the same shit.Most do not know what a republic is, or what a democracy is, and whatever, or whoever do not support the same stupidity is called banana republic, without known where the expression came from. All capitalists countries are republic including the smallest one that exists over the face of the earth, and in all of them the rich have more rights than the workers or the poor peoples, and all are divided in rich and poor, and that is call democracy. The more powerful ones want to give lectures of democracy to others using warplanes, gunboat diplomacy, and they are presided by war criminals, and gangsters wearing a suit and a tieThe USA is a republic like any other Republic based on a bourgeois democracy, labor exploitation, and a ruling class that extracts profits from the sweat of the workers, and with millions of workers like any other country where the majority of the workers are supporting their own ruling elite, their own exploiters, with nationalists point of view, and workers are rejecting others workers without knowing the real socio-economical reasonsAnarchism is a conception that millions of peoples do not know the real meaning of the expression, and the rulers have told them that it is a chaos, and without rules, and it just a lie, it is the absence of state and oppression. The first one that created chaos around the world is the capitalist state, and the first terrorist around the world is the US ruling class,a and they have a long history of making alliances with terrorists, thieves, gangsters, and criminals, one gangster replace another gangster by votesIn this forum we have said millions of times ( we have written thousands of articles ) that we do not support any type of government, any type of republic, we do not support any type of leaders, we do not support the concept of nation, and we do not support the so called democracy of the rich, and we support a society without state, we do not support any party of poverty, we support a world society without leaders, without wars, without a rat poison known as nationalism.What nation can have a human being that is living from a salary, and does not even have enough money to pay the rent, or is living in the streets begging for money, what country or republic can have a person that go to another country to kill another human being and does not have the courage,or the balls to say NO. I am not going to kill anybody ? Simple and easy. There is not need to go to the London or New York library to know that. We just need a bath of social reality, or buy new binoculars. My grandfather knew all that, and he cleaned his ass with a passport in front of an ambassadorwell your wrong, a republic and a democracy are different things and demonizing them won't change my views.Anarchism is by definition chaos. If there is no state or no leadership there will always be a struggle for power but I respect your view.by the way try being a little less pessimistic
I think you have reading comprehension problems. I did not say that Democracy and Republic are both same, one or both exist within each other, probably in this case you are the one that is wrong. Here we come again to the problem of definition. A Republic is a nation, or a piece of land that has been legally named as a nation,or a republic,( in reality, they are false entity ) and basically they came as legal entity after the French Revolution, and democracy is a form of government, and we have had several in the human history, and all of them have had a class nature, or the dominion and control of a small minority of peoples.I do not know what source you are using because all Dictionaries, Encyclopedia, Legal treatise, and political textbook, and economy textbook define Anarchism as a society without any form of government,and Anarchists define it as a society without state, and there is a great different between Anarchism and Anarchy, and the capitalist society is the real chaotic and anarchy society, because it is a society based on contradictions, is instable, and it produces constant and periodical crisis. This is your second strike
Quote:businessmen are not out to get you, you know that right?"The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." (Voltaire)The whole point of business is to exploit the economic vulnerability and disadvatage of the productive, welth producing majority 95% working class, for the accumulative profit of the unproductive minority 5% economic parasite, class, in conditions of waged slavery for the majority.This exploitation takes place at the very point of production in what appears to be a free exchange in what Robert Tressell caled 'The Great Money Trick'.Poverty absolute or relative, and war, by deed or proxy, government and nation states, whether dictatorships or democratic, are all a part and parcel of and inevitable concomitants of capitalism.‘Marx was right: capitalism cannot be civilised by means of some benevolent government that applies the right dosage of fiscal and monetary policy at the right time.’ (Yaroufakis)Two world wars, as well as the war science of Hiroshima and Nagasaki along wiht the cases cited by Marcos and Alan are indicative of the very nture and consequences of a capitalism both when emerging and growing and when obsolete, in its present social evolution as to give the lie to democratic or governmental restraints upon its bourgeois democratic institutions."If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt". (Marx)Socialism/communism/ anarchism/ post-capitalist society is the the last great emancipation, that of the 95%, that of wage slaves, in order to end exploitation and establish a classless society of social equals.Government ceases to be 'over people' and becomes the self administration 'over things' resources etc.
Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.Individually we do not support any type of govrerment either. Communism is not going to be an economical system either
Capitalist Pig wrote:mcolome1 wrote:We must define the concept of propertyThe Apache did not own anything privately and everything belonged to themThe ruling class owns everything and we do not own anythingThe objective of the state is to defend the property of the ruling classbusinessmen are not out to get you, you know that right? they are just looking to invest in a market and make money. You can define the meaning of the state however you want but in the end, we need one to maintain law and order. That doesn't mean it isn't incredibly corrupt(hillary look 20% of her campaign money from saldi arabia). Big pharma is literally the biggest lobbier in the USA(they outspend the fossil fuels industry 2:1) so you have a point with that
You are again saying things that we have not said. We are not talking about businessmen. We are talking about the concept of property. In this society we have personal property, means of productions, and labor power which can become a commodity and a propertyYou are a defender of the capitalist property, if you are wage slave, you are just defending the interests of you own masters, and businessmen they are getting you, because they are stealing your labor in order to produce a profit, and they are getting millions of peoples in order to make profits, they said that in order to make a millionaire, millions of poor peoples are needed in order to turn him or her into a rich person, therefore, you lovely businessman is also a thieve, and a raper of the working class, they are also involved in prostitution, pornography, and child slavery, and drugs, so who is the thief, and who is the raper ? I do not define the state, the state has been defined by history, and how it emerges, when it emerges, what is the purpose of its existence, and history has shown that it emerges along with the emerge of the class society, and it emerges to defend the interest of a minority group of human beings. Corruption does not come from the top, it comes from the bottom of the economical system itselfNow you are bringing Hillary Clinton which is not part of the conversation, but she is and was a politician like any other politician, and she serves like any other criminals that has served the US government, and she did the same job like any other, and the problem is not the illegality of the so called email, they show that the US has been for many years dealing with gangsters, criminals, felons, terrorists, dictators, and doing coup to others countries and overthrowing government, she served the state in a very faithful manner. That department used to be known as the War DepartmentThe capitalist state does not defend only the interest of the Pharmaceuticals, it defends the interest of the whole ruling class around the world, and pharmaceutical companies made their profits from stealing, in the same way that rich peoples make profits from real estate, or drugs traffic which is part of the system of profits. El Chapo is one of the best customers of Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase, JP Morgan, Citibank, and HSBC. Pablo Escobar a businessman said that he was willing to pay the national debt of Colombia, and the new president of the US was suggesting to the Mexican government to place taxation on drug sales to pay for the wallThe money that Clinton received from the Saudi was not used for the campaign, the election campaign was financed by the same interests that have financed most of the presidents of the USA and others countries, and they are your lovely businessmenWhat your report does not say is that Saudi Arabia ruling class , ISIS, Al Qaeda, the USA they are all the same, and both have financed the same terrorists that they are always rejecting and accusing of terrorism, and some of the money given to Clinton were some kind of bribery in order to obtain approval to buy weapons from the USA weapon manufacturers used by ISIS, and the same weapons were used to overthrow the government of Libya and for the war in Syria. Why the new president did not mention Saudi Arabia in his new inquisition, ? Some reports have shown that the US government has not dropped so many bombs on ISIS, that means that they do not want to exterminate them, they need them, they are the same. You report does not say that the US government is building a new mercenary army in Latin America hiring all kind of criminals, in order to be used in the Middle East, those are financed by your lovely businessmen to produce profits. Similar tactic was used by Ronald Reagan who made alliance with Pablo Escobar thru the CIA to sell drugs in the USA and to use the proceed to buy guns for terrorists. El Chapo is a retailer compared with Ronald Reagan, So who is the drug trafficker ? Do you know that the incarceration of Mexican emigrants also produce profits to corporations that run the jail system ?
Another fallacy is that workers finance the state, the state is financed with surplus value. Workers do not pay for the social benefits of others workers. Workers from others countries are not parasite of the US ruling class, it is the opposite way. This is not a religion problem, it is an economical and geopolitical struggle
Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.No, you are missing the point. Government over people ceases to exist, as unnecessary, in a commonly owned world with production for use and free access.We then collectively , locally, regionally and globally administer resources.The forms of those adminstrations will be the decisons of the people at the time.The collective giuding ethos will be to facilite as my signature puts it, "From each according ot their ability ,to each according ot their needs" both of those criteria (needs and ability) will be the self assessment of free people freed from constraints of class domination.
Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.You should know the answer because you have been in this forum since 2015. If you can not obtain the answers in this forum, we have thousands of publication covering the same topics
Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.No, you are missing the point. Government over people ceases to exist, as unnecessary, in a commonly owned world with production for use and free access.We then collectively , locally, regionally and globally administer resources.The forms of those adminstrations will be the decisons of the people at the time.The collective giuding ethos will be to facilite as my signature puts it, "From each according ot their ability ,to each according ot their needs" both of those criteria (needs and ability) will be the self assessment of free people freed from constraints of class domination.
That is a noble goal but that assumes people are capable of managing their own affairs and want to put in the time for the collective benifit of all. What I am saying is that some sort of government is nessesary in order for an advanced civilization to function. From what I've read so far all of you seem to support a democratic government of elected officials, or just anarchism.
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.You should know the answer because you have been in this forum since 2015. If you can not obtain the answers in this forum, we have thousands of publication covering the same topics
not really trying to stir up debate just seeing what you all individually think about the choice of government in a communist system but each of you seem to think the same thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.