For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
proudmaryQuote
shadooby
May have sounded good at the time but if you really want to know what it'd be like watch "Escape From New York".
The word anarchist has become lazy shorthand for anyone who wants to bring about disorder and upheaval. But an anarchist is really somebody who advocates the abolition of government and wants a social system based on voluntary co-operation
Quote
Amsterdamned
Chess is anarchy, with an attempt to contol it with the mind.
I love being off-topic.
Quote
proudmaryQuote
Amsterdamned
Chess is anarchy, with an attempt to contol it with the mind.
I love being off-topic.
I'd think that chess is a monarchy
Quote
nankerphlege
What society\country would you use as an example that does not call "arms" makers successful?
Quote
SwayStones
Another type of anarchy, occurs when a revolution leaves a country in a temporary lawless state. For instance, the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was anarchistic, and frightening.
Quote
SwayStonesQuote
proudmaryQuote
Amsterdamned
Chess is anarchy, with an attempt to contol it with the mind.
I love being off-topic.
I'd think that chess is a monarchy
Chess is the game of kings, but the pieces represent more than just the monarchy.. The figures also represent the entire structure of Medieval European society.
Quote
lsbzQuote
SwayStones
Another type of anarchy, occurs when a revolution leaves a country in a temporary lawless state. For instance, the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was anarchistic, and frightening.
The Reign of Terror wasn't really lawless and anarchistic. It was a harsh dictatorship of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. The trouble with it was that they only had the support of the half of France; the rest remaining in favor of royalty. Napoleon later unified the revolutionary and the royalist reign somewhat.
Quote
lsbzQuote
proudmary
Mick said "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Where and under which circumstances did he say that? I guess 60-s.
Apparently in a 1967 interview:
"The Commandments say 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and half the world is in training to annihilate the other half. Nobody would get me in uniform and off to Aden to kill a lot of people I've never met and have nothing against anyway. I know people say they are against wars and yet they go on fighting them. Millions of marvellous young men are killed and in five minutes everybody seems to have forgotten all about it. War stems from power-mad politicians and patriots."
"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope. Not the popular conception of it - men in black cloaks lurching around with hidden bombs - but a freedom of every man personally for himself. There should be no such thing as private property. Anybody should be able to go where he likes and do what he likes. Politics, like the legal system, is dominated by old men. Old men who are also bugged by religion. And the law - the law's outdated and doesn't cater enough for individual cases."
Quote
proudmaryQuote
lsbzQuote
SwayStones
Another type of anarchy, occurs when a revolution leaves a country in a temporary lawless state. For instance, the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was anarchistic, and frightening.
The Reign of Terror wasn't really lawless and anarchistic. It was a harsh dictatorship of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. The trouble with it was that they only had the support of the half of France; the rest remaining in favor of royalty. Napoleon later unified the revolutionary and the royalist reign somewhat.
Yes there was not anarchy in France after the French Revolution.
It represents Emotional Rescue - I'll be your knight in shining armor.Quote
kleermaker
No it represents feminism, the Queen being the most powerful figure and the King being passive and useless.
Quote
lsbzQuote
proudmaryQuote
lsbzQuote
SwayStones
Another type of anarchy, occurs when a revolution leaves a country in a temporary lawless state. For instance, the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was anarchistic, and frightening.
The Reign of Terror wasn't really lawless and anarchistic. It was a harsh dictatorship of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. The trouble with it was that they only had the support of the half of France; the rest remaining in favor of royalty. Napoleon later unified the revolutionary and the royalist reign somewhat.
Yes there was not anarchy in France after the French Revolution.
Although it would have seemed anarchistic to the royalists; it would have depended much on who's side you were on. But I think that they were democratically elected. The revolution always was much a Parisian thing though.
Quote
kleermaker
The French liberal or bourgeois Revolution ended in a dictatorship, lead by an Emperor (ironically a title that is more royal than that of a king)...
Quote
kleermakerQuote
SwayStonesQuote
proudmaryQuote
Amsterdamned
Chess is anarchy, with an attempt to contol it with the mind.
I love being off-topic.
I'd think that chess is a monarchy
Chess is the game of kings, but the pieces represent more than just the monarchy.. The figures also represent the entire structure of Medieval European society.
No it represents feminism, the Queen being the most powerful figure and the King being passive and useless.
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
The French liberal or bourgeois Revolution ended in a dictatorship, lead by an Emperor (ironically a title that is more royal than that of a king)...
Yes, and after Napoleon the monarchy was even restored for a couple of decades. In my opinion, the revolution has destructed much of value, in the sense of cultural tradition and good manners. And the French revolutionairies never understood the danger of capitalism. The capitalists are wealthier and more powerful than the Kings ever were. What remains of the revolution are mobile phones and superficial embraces. But at least, the French women still wear dresses and skirts.
Quote
kleermaker
But on the other hand one can say that capitalism is an inevitable phase in Human Evolution and that it also has produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and numerous fantastic ideas and philosophies, parliamentary democracy and human rights.
Quote
Amsterdamned
<I think also capitalism will end 'one day', to make room for a more fair and less aggressive economic world order> <Kleermaker>
That would be nice, Kleermaker. Nature will not allow this though, cause it implies suicide for the species involved. In this case: the human monkey.
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
But on the other hand one can say that capitalism is an inevitable phase in Human Evolution and that it also has produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and numerous fantastic ideas and philosophies, parliamentary democracy and human rights.
"Inevitable" as nightmares can be, possibly, but I doubt it. The Enlightenment of the French was more a reinvention of values that have always been available. The way I see it is that those in power at some thought that capitalism would be a more effective way than the monarchy to exploit humanity. But the common people always seem to support them very loyally, so it has some democratic legitimacy.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Amsterdamned
<I think also capitalism will end 'one day', to make room for a more fair and less aggressive economic world order> <Kleermaker>
That would be nice, Kleermaker. Nature will not allow this though, cause it implies suicide for the species involved. In this case: the human monkey.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but if someone had predicted some hundred years ago (!) that there wouldn't be war in Europe anymore in the future, (s)he undoubtedly would have been considered as raving mad and told the same answer that you gave (war is a cause of nature). I believe that the human kind is also social and needs social behaviour more and more rather than struggle for life in order to survive. But now I'm talking about a process in the very long term. So it demands a visionary insight to understand this.
Quote
kleermaker
Without capitalism the age of Enlightenment (not only in France) wouldn't have taken place.
Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, I don't think "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Quote
Stoneage
It was Jagger who made me intrested in the likes of Shelley, Keats and Lord Byron. What happened with his intellectual curiosity later on?
Quote
Title5Take1
Mick listed some fairly intellectual books he's read lately in his recent NEW YORK TIMES interview. And right now on rollingstones.com is a recent video interview titled "Mick Jagger loves books," where he mentions having read Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I'm interested in Stalinist Russia and was about to reread Martin Amis's book on Stalin, but then saw the Mick clip and went to my library and am now reading the Montefiore book he said was a "great read." And I am finding it absorbing.
Quote
Title5Take1Quote
Stoneage
It was Jagger who made me intrested in the likes of Shelley, Keats and Lord Byron. What happened with his intellectual curiosity later on?
Mick listed some fairly intellectual books he's read lately in his recent NEW YORK TIMES interview. And right now on rollingstones.com is a recent video interview titled "Mick Jagger loves books," where he mentions having read Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I'm interested in Stalinist Russia and was about to reread Martin Amis's book on Stalin, but then saw the Mick clip and went to my library and am now reading the Montefiore book he said was a "great read." And I am finding it absorbing.
Quote
proudmaryQuote
Title5Take1Quote
Stoneage
It was Jagger who made me intrested in the likes of Shelley, Keats and Lord Byron. What happened with his intellectual curiosity later on?
Mick listed some fairly intellectual books he's read lately in his recent NEW YORK TIMES interview. And right now on rollingstones.com is a recent video interview titled "Mick Jagger loves books," where he mentions having read Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I'm interested in Stalinist Russia and was about to reread Martin Amis's book on Stalin, but then saw the Mick clip and went to my library and am now reading the Montefiore book he said was a "great read." And I am finding it absorbing.
Montefiore book is good but insufficient for full understanding of a question. There's more about the food at parties than about collectivization that led to millions of deaths.
Maybe you may try this one - Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives by
Edvard Radzinsky. He is Russian so he understands his subject better. Saying that I don't mean his book is deprived errors and discrepancies but he writes in he details about Stalin's crimes.
and thanks for the tip, I'll check rollingstones.com for Mick's interview
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
Without capitalism the age of Enlightenment (not only in France) wouldn't have taken place.
Maybe in that context, but that was not a good thing. Democracy has been around since old Greece, and the French revolutionairies were inspired by it. The whole European world could have gotten democratic much earlier. That was Before Christ!
And the Enlightenment started before the revolution with noble ladies and their salons. That's how those ideas got circulating. The revolution has been said to be of lawyers and merchants; I think it was the establishment that felt it did not need the burden and burocracy of the royalist regime anymore.Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, I don't think "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
It apparently was about a personal anarchy; I think a good idea.
Quote
kleermaker
I agree that capitalism has had and still has unimaginably devastating effects, like slavery, colonialism, two ruinous world wars, a 'lost' continent, still plundered by all big powers (Africa), big problems in other 'third world' continents (Latin America) and countries (Russia, China, India) and a vast and fast exhaustion of environment (pollution) and raw materials. And this is not even a complete list. But on the other hand one can say that capitalism is an inevitable phase in Human Evolution and that it also has produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and numerous fantastic ideas and philosophies, parliamentary democracy and human rights. But just like feudalism endured for ages and finally ended, so I think also capitalism will end 'one day', to make room for a more fair and less aggressive economic world order, though it certainly will take quite some time yet and though I can't prove that this deterministic vision will be realised.
Quote
SwayStonesQuote
kleermaker
I agree that capitalism has had and still has unimaginably devastating effects, like slavery, colonialism, two ruinous world wars, a 'lost' continent, still plundered by all big powers (Africa), big problems in other 'third world' continents (Latin America) and countries (Russia, China, India) and a vast and fast exhaustion of environment (pollution) and raw materials. And this is not even a complete list. But on the other hand one can say that capitalism is an inevitable phase in Human Evolution and that it also has produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and numerous fantastic ideas and philosophies, parliamentary democracy and human rights. But just like feudalism endured for ages and finally ended, so I think also capitalism will end 'one day', to make room for a more fair and less aggressive economic world order, though it certainly will take quite some time yet and though I can't prove that this deterministic vision will be realised.
Sorry to say,,kleermaker ,but I still prefer the "devastating " effects as you named it - you're not wrong on the whole line but..-rather than the real devatatings effects communism had in some countries back in 1940/50 and still have nowadays .
I know what I am talking about -pity my English isn't fluent enough when it gets into politics
btw,aren't we breaking the Iorr rules now ?
bv said no politics allowed ,didn't he ?