[Decky]

Perhaps the USSR did not adequately arm the populace because it was counter to the intrests of the party.

Perhaps,but didn't I just say that the working class should be in charge of their own arms, the party does not need to give them arms (personally I think the workers themselves or their unions should be the ones who physically keep them).

[SolarCross]

Fuser, technically taxizen is right that classes rise from (or at least with) the state. The earliest example of clearly-definable social classes occurred in agrarian civilization, where one sees the warrior-aristocrat class at the top and the slave class at the bottom, with peasants and commoners in between. That's also the earliest example of the state, and it's easy to see how the state supported the class structure through law and the protection of private property, as well as official privilege. The same is still true, although the nature of the classes has changed.

Where I believe he's wrong is in thinking that a civilized society CAN dispose of the state. If we could, we would certainly also eliminate class differences -- along with civilization itself.

Mal - what definition of civilisation are you using? Is this the Newspeak definition - used by narcissistic bureaucrats who think they are sole creators of all good things? Or the one more usually used - the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization?

[Malatant of Shadow]

Mal - what definition of civilisation are you using? Is this the Newspeak definition - used by narcissistic bureaucrats who think they are sole creators of all good things? Or the one more usually used - the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization?

Closer to the latter. I go the root of the word and define "civilization" as "life in cities." If a human community has no cities, it isn't civilized. I distinguish grades of "proto-civilization" in the transition from hunter-gatherer to civilized life. The term has, for me, no necessary moral implications.

[SolarCross]

Perhaps,but didn't I just say that the working class should be in charge of their own arms, the party does not need to give them arms (personally I think the workers themselves or their unions should be the ones who physically keep them).

That sentiment practically makes you an anarchist. If you lived in the USSR when the Bolsheviks were consolidating their grip on power and said something like that you would find yourself denounced and sent to a gulag if you were lucky.
Governments of any kind (leftist or rightist) are organised crime rackets that will always seek to disarm their victims if they can.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Governments of any kind (leftist or rightist) are organised crime rackets that will always seek to disarm their victims if they can.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

I'd say if Nazi Germany didn't do that, we have a pretty solid counterexample.

The idea of the people overthrowing the state by force of arms is a myth. That sometimes happens in a coup d'etat, usually pulled off by the military, but a popular revolution doesn't need to fight the armed forces of the state, or if it does, it's guaranteed to lose.

The only time a popular movement has to resort to arms is when it DOESN'T (yet) have enough popular support to win, and the state is coming after it with armed force of its own. That was the case for example with the Chinese Communists for many years, hence the Long March and the formation of the PLA. During that period they managed to defend themselves against the armed forces of the Kuomintang (and the Japanese), but not to defeat those forces aggressively and overthrow the state. When they finally did overthrow the state, they didn't have to fight much to do so, because the Kuomintang forces deserted and wouldn't fight for the immensely unpopular regime.

Some governments do restrict gun ownership more than others of course, but in no case is that to protect the state itself or its authority, because any state commands armed forces that can easily defeat any private armies that can be fielded against it -- provided the state's soldiers remain loyal. Gun ownership is restricted for public safety reasons and those of public order.

[Decky]

If you lived in the USSR when the Bolsheviks were consolidating their grip on power and said something like that you would find yourself denounced and sent to a gulag if you were lucky.

I know.

It wasn't perfect (just the closet humanity has ever got). I never said that it was heaven did I? I'm a Marxist not a utopian socialist.

[mikema63]

Your a something all right.

[SolarCross]

Marxist = utopian socialist - you actually believe you can trust your interests to a self-legitimised force monopoly just because they got some funky slogans despite 6000 years of history showing invariabley that SLFMs even with the fanciest slogans are a recipe for slavery.

Anarchist = pragmatic socialist - we actually know better than to give up self-mastery.

[Decky]

Anarchist = pragmatic socialist

That's why you have achieved so much, saving Europe from the Nazis, the first man in space etc.

We just sit about occasionally having fights with police, smashing up a few shops on demos and smoking tons of weed.

Truly you are the pragmatic world changers and we are the dreamers.

[SolarCross]

Anarchism is everywhere.. everyone is born an anarchist and an anarchist they remain until subdued by force or deception. The internet is anarchism, the black market is anarchism, the family is anarchism, friendship is anarchism, jokes are anarchism, samizdat is anarchism, surviving oppression is anarchism, inventing is anarchism, making your own choices is anarchism, charity is anarchism. Anarchism exists with or without the state. Without anarchism the state would have nothing to steal, nothing to destroy, nothing to humiliate and couldn't exist.

The 20th century was century of the state, the century of hate.

The 21st century will be the century of anarchy, the century of love.

[quetzalcoatl]

Anarchism is everywhere.. everyone is born an anarchist and an anarchist they remain until subdued by force or deception. The internet is anarchism, the black market is anarchism, the family is anarchism, friendship is anarchism, jokes are anarchism, samizdat is anarchism, surviving oppression is anarchism, inventing is anarchism, making your own choices is anarchism, charity is anarchism. Anarchism exists with or without the state. Without anarchism the state would have nothing to steal, nothing to destroy, nothing to humiliate and couldn't exist.

The 20th century was century of the state, the century of hate.

The 21st century will be the century of anarchy, the century of love.

The black market, the family, friendship, and surviving hardship are part of human nature. Anarchy is part of human nature. The State is part of human nature.

Life is a balance. You must come to terms both with anarchy and with the state, because they are both inescapable. The more you try to suppress one, the more it will pop up unexpectedly where you least expect it...and in a more dangerous form.

[michael3]

The black market, the family, friendship, and surviving hardship are part of human nature. Anarchy is part of human nature. The State is part of human nature.

Life is a balance. You must come to terms both with anarchy and with the state, because they are both inescapable. The more you try to suppress one, the more it will pop up unexpectedly where you least expect it...and in a more dangerous form.

Wow, I must say Taxizen's last post was sublime. And Q, your reply offers a further look into the larger problem.

I wouldn't say that the State is part of human nature, except that as Evil is part of human nature and evil is a case of wanting something good in a bad way, what then is the good that can be done better without the State?

The answer is the Universal brotherhood of Man, extending the concept of the Family to all Humanity and an acceptance of our common parentage. If we truly love one another as brothers and sisters, we can do anything.

[quetzalcoatl]

...I wouldn't say that the State is part of human nature, except that as Evil is part of human nature and evil is a case of wanting something good in a bad way, what then is the good that can be done better without the State?

The answer is the Universal brotherhood of Man, extending the concept of the Family to all Humanity and an acceptance of our common parentage. If we truly love one another as brothers and sisters, we can do anything.

I wouldn't say the sate is evil, precisely...at least without some specific context. States do evil things and states do great things, just like people. But the urge toward statism, or its equivalents, cannot be fully suppressed, it can only be re channeled.