Quote
proudmary

Quote
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

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.

Isbz- if you don't want to conform then that is your choice. I didn't use that word and I am not very fond of "conforming". What society\country would you use as an example that does not call "arms" makers successful?

Go Dawgs!

Chess is anarchy, with an attempt to contol it with the mind.
I love being off-topic.

Quote
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.
Btw, what's off-topic is the question. I thought that we will talk about Mick's political consciousness but people have chosen another direction. Very anarchistic



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 15:52 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
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.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
nankerphlege
What society\country would you use as an example that does not call "arms" makers successful?

A civilized country/society.

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.

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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 16:07 by lsbz.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
proudmary

Quote
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
lsbz

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.

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. But in Russia after February Revolution(when have dethroned the tsar)there was a short period of anarchy before Lenin and Co took the power

Quote
lsbz

Quote
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."

Trying not to be cynical, but these quotes are a very revealing read - and not only in hindsight, I think. Rhetorical snippets hastily thrown together that are supposed to give him the appearance of a lucid, non-conformist yet politically correct mind. One of the many roles he has adapted to over his long career, never taking too much risk, never taking too much commitment, and thus never up there with those battling at the real frontiers of his time.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
lsbz

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.

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
No it represents feminism, the Queen being the most powerful figure and the King being passive and useless.

It represents Emotional Rescue - I'll be your knight in shining armor.
(Just trying to get back on topic - more or less)
Oh, and when a bishop captures a pawn, it represents - well, you know, some recent scandal.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
proudmary

Quote
lsbz

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.

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.

Many people think that after a Revolution the new powers have fully won and the old ones lost, but it never goes that way. 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), while the Russian Revolution was followed by a civil war and total disaster for the socialist powers, because the New Economic Policy (which was restoration of and even a boost for capitalism) almost inevitably ended in the Tsarist-like dictatorship by Stalin (who finally murdered all leading revolutionaries from the very beginning and by doing so all socialist/revolutionary powers). Those historical processes almost all follow the same pattern, China being a good example as well.

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)...

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 19:11 by lsbz.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
proudmary

Quote
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.

Every game is different. The queen is the most powerfull piece but :
You can exchange the queen for a few strong other pieces, sacrifice the queen in order to slaughter your opponent ..even your pawns can promote to a queen.

That implies a Harem.

Chess was a forbidden game in the middle ages (during a certain era) due to that.
Yet it was popular in monasteries at the same time.

Chess is about the King.The game is over when your opponents King cannot move anymore.

Btw,Napoleon was a very bad chess player.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 20:08 by Amsterdamned.

Quote
lsbz

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)...

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.

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.

<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
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
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
lsbz

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.

"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.

Without capitalism the age of Enlightenment (not only in France) wouldn't have taken place. I mean: Renaissance and Enlightenment were the products of the dominant economical structure (capitalism). That's Materialism in the Marxist sense of the word. I don't see capitalism as a purposive enterprise of those in power but as a result of the existing societal economical power relationships between the different classes. Those power relationships don't stay the same for ever, but they can endure for ages, as history has proven. Historically spoken capitalism is not an 'old' system yet. Besides it has proven to be very dynamic. But as my friends the old Greek used to say: Panta rhei, ouden menei (everything flows, nothing remains). Anyway, I don't think "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."

File this next to "Tune in Turn On Drop Out" and "Never trust anyone Over Thirty"

Quote
kleermaker

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.

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.

Yup, and some of them even get payed.

Quote
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.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-21 04:06 by lsbz.

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?

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
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.

Hmm.. Mick reading something about Russia marks usually an emergence of great rock and roll song... hmm... or he just taking tips of how to rearrange The Stones management, and to deal with his colleagues (even though watching RARITIES cover gives a hint that he knows already something at least how to handle the past...)?

- Doxa

P.S. According to Keith, Mick was so impressed and effected by watching James Brown backstage, and how he treats his "court". If I were Keith, I'd be worried now...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-21 12:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Title5Take1

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?

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
proudmary

Quote
Title5Take1

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?

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

And if you want to understand why such a mediocre intellect like Stalin could become the almighty leader in the first place and get away with killing literally all old revolutionaries then you better read A History of Soviet Russia by E.H. Carr. Because that work really explains why the Russian Revolution failed and degenerated into a brutal and murderous dictatorship.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
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.

Democracy in old Greece is an interesting subject. But ancient democracy wasn't that democratic at all, because slaves and women didn't have any right to vote in Athens for instance and exercising one's civil rights wasn't something common either because most people didn't have time to be present at meetings: they had to work to stay alive. But the question why people in the western world rediscovered Ancient Culture during the Renaissance and then developed their own ideas further in the age of Enlightenment (based on the Renaissance and on the themes Ratio and Empiricism) can't simply be answered because "the establishment that felt it did not need the burden and burocracy of the royalist regime anymore". Fact is that a new establishment was coming into being all over Europe and since a pretty long time. It wasn't the class of aristocracy but that of the bourgeoisie and the reason of its growing political power had an economical background that had its roots in a developing new economic system instead of feudalism: capitalism.

As for personal anarchy: that's a vast idea. I don't know what it means.

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.

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 ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
SwayStones

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.

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 ?

We're talking about philosophy and history here, Sway, thanks to Mick Jagger, so don't worry.

Btw: I think we have the luxury and luck to have been born at the 'right side'. Most people don't. As for communism: I said that the Russian and Chinese Communist Revolutions failed. So what's called communism (SU, China etc) was never communism according to its principles at all. We can see that even more clearer because Russia and China belong to the most capitalistic countries in the world. Capitalism in France for example is very mild and 'tamed' compared to the wild west capitalism of Russia and 'communist' China. In China the old system of the Empire rules again, Mao being the first Emperor, just like Stalin was the next Czar. If both countries were really communist, then they would be democratic and then capitalism wouldn't have any chance there. But they aren't democratic and communist, but respectively a mix of capitalism and totalitarianism (China) and capitalism and anarchism and mafia state (Russia).