NationStates Jolt Archive

Anarchism has a bad press. It is seen as being a philosophy for malcontents, thugs and motorcycle gangs. The misconception is that anarchists want a chaotic society.

Well, I myself am an anarchist and feel no need to justify my position to anyone and that is because all of the above are fallacies. Anarchism is not a belief in chaos. It is not a belief in "all against all" or "the rule of those with the biggest guns". That is not anarchism, and any who claim it is either as "anarchists" or as critics of it spout pure fallacies. Hence this is an attempt by myself to avoid villification and to clarify rather than justify my position.

Anarchism is essentially about the conflict between authority and autonomy. As so beautifully espoused by the American R.P Wolff in the 1960s authority is not about power, for a bank robber holds power at the barrel of a gun, but about the right to claim power and to claim obedience from others. Autonomy however is another mistaken term. Autonomy rests not in making choices. Autonomy rests in making choices and being responsible for the choices that one makes. This does not mean necessarily making the right choice all of the time. It means purely making a decision on careful or considered thought as to the effects of the said choice. This is what was meant by Jean-Jacques Rousseau when he stated that "A man cannot become a slave out of his own choice". He did not mean that a man cannot place himself into a position of blind obedience. Instead, he meant, even a slave is morally responsible for the decisions that he makes. This does not mean that anarchists recommend breaking the law in anyway. It is prudent for an anarchist to pay taxes to "his government" in order to avoid the hassle which accompanies not paying taxes. To the same extent an anarchist is not surrendering autonomy by refusing to loot buildings in a riot if they do not believe it is right. In the same way I am not surrendering autonomy by visiting a doctor and trusting in his opinion, for I am merely making the moral decision that taking the advice of a knowledgable person is a good idea.

This is the key to anarchy. Anarchy rests not in refusing to obey laws, in believing in chaos or in being a "bad citizen". I myself have voted in every election that I was elligible and have written to elected representatives on a number of issues and have received not so much as a speeding ticket. I consider myself a law-abiding citizen. But my anarchism stems from writing to my representative in the belief that they are an individual who can make a difference, like my doctor, not because of a belief in their moral authority to rule over me. Anarchism is thus a belief that "the State" has no moral authority over me. It does not mean that I deliberately disobey it. Anarchism is the taking of decisions because they are your decisions rather than because someone of alledged "authority" told you to.

Returning to my original point, it is about the conflict between authority and autonomy and believing that autonomy must take precedent over authority and that in fact there is no such thing as a moral authority to rule, even if authority is seen to exist (i.e. in uniformed officials etc)

Thanks.

very interesting. you wrote it yourself?

when you write to your reps what do you advocate?

very interesting. you wrote it yourself?

when you write to your reps what do you advocate?

I wrote to my M.P on Iraq and on other issues and merely expressed my opinion and merely asked that in his job he would take it into account. I was respectful, polite and didn't mention my leanings but merely spoke to him as someone with influence, not as a social superior.

My views make me very anti-legislation restricting free-speech hence I was appalled at legislation to do with inciting racial/religious hatred despite my hatred of racism.

Yes it is wrote by me myself but owes a lot of detail to the writings of R.P.Wolff.

very interesting. you wrote it yourself?

when you write to your reps what do you advocate?
direct democraty,still i don't think they listen .instead they wage war,is that enought rethoric for YOU?

you live as an anarchist within a non-anarchist system. thats very interesting. have you abandoned the notion of trying to move the UK to an anarchic system?

direct democraty,still i don't think they listen .instead they wage war,is that enought rethoric for YOU?
i dont think they listen either.

Good, it's nice to see another anarchist around here.

you live as an anarchist within a non-anarchist system. thats very interesting. have you abandoned the notion of trying to move the UK to an anarchic system?

I am fairly realistic and do not believe there will ever be an anarchist state. In fact, the state and its power over individuals has increased with the extent of its responsibilities. I am however, obviously, very vocal in my opposition to the monarchy.

this is very interesting to me.

that anti-monarchy thing makes good sense in an anarchist sort of way

what other sorts of things do you support as being within your ideology?

im not an anarachist but i am more liberal that most americans. i have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils every time i vote. i have to fight certain stupid local plans that take freedom from individuals to no great benefit to the public.

it seems like it would be much tougher for someone like you to figure out what you can support.

have you abandoned the notion of trying to move the UK to an anarchic system?

Personally I still hold out a vague hope for, if not our children, then maybe our children's children.

In the meantime, the anarchist tendencies of the world serve as a kind of counterweight to the excesses of the authoritarian ones, or at least attempt to do so.

this is very interesting to me.

that anti-monarchy thing makes good sense in an anarchist sort of way

what other sorts of things do you support as being within your ideology?

im not an anarachist but i am more liberal that most americans. i have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils every time i vote. i have to fight certain stupid local plans that take freedom from individuals to no great benefit to the public.

it seems like it would be much tougher for someone like you to figure out what you can support.

Well, I don't want to talk about who I would vote for in the USA as I do not want anyone to accuse me of being a "nasty lecturing Brit".

On the question you asked, raise a topic with me and I will tell you my position and how it relates to anarchism. On the war, I opposed the war not because anarchists are terrorists but because we do not believe that the state has the moral authority to order somebody to kill.



In the meantime, the anarchist tendencies of the world serve as a kind of counterweight to the excesses of the authoritarian ones, or at least attempt to do so.

Never looked at it like that but, yes I suppose.

Well, I don't want to talk about who I would vote for in the USA as I do not want anyone to accuse me of being a "nasty lecturing Brit".

On the question you asked, raise a topic with me and I will tell you my position and how it relates to anarchism. On the war, I opposed the war not because anarchists are terrorists but because we do not believe that the state has the moral authority to order somebody to kill.

its not like we have actual GOOD candidates anyway. really its a lesser of 2 evils thing every time

i would have given you an example but i dont know much about internal british politics.

uh...

fox hunting?


uh...

northern ireland?

its not like we have actual GOOD candidates anyway. really its a lesser of 2 evils thing every time

i would have given you an example but i dont know much about internal british politics.

uh...

fox hunting?


uh...

northern ireland?

Well Northern Ireland is about which state should that territory belong to, the Republic of Ireland or the UK. As an anarchist it is irrelevant to me as I do not believe that either the Republic of Ireland, the UK or any other 'State' has the moral authority to rule over the individuals of Northern Ireland.

On Fox Hunting, despite the fact I dislike the Sport personally, I believe that individuals should be free to make their own choices and that left to do so, then them and others will prosper.

One might say that Libertarianism is the closest alignment to myself.

Yep. Without leaders, not without order.

well the main question is not anarchy ,but more something like" what You think is anarchy?...
i think my self, that all actual governements are Chaotic based, on turning words and idea out,making this world what it is , a real mess....so take me down,i'm bread :sniper:

On behalf of the Nation of Moglajerhamishbergenha: F*ckin' eh!

A bit about Moglajerhamishbergenha:

Politically, we are anarchists. The state has no moral authority over the actions of individuals, but people contribute to the good of the nation through a clear recognition that if they don't, life becomes unpleasant for everybody. The only political requirement of the citizen is that all citizens keep themselves informed and vote on the issues; and that all citizens are required by law to serve in government office from time to time. We are still experimenting between a regular schedule and a random lottery system whereby citizens are "drafted" into government. This ensures all have a voice while at the same time ensuring all take responsibility for the future course of the nation.

While our economy is not as strong as some nations, we don't really care. We take turns producing food & clothing, so the basics are taken care of--no one goes hungry or homeless here--and we use the rest of our time innovating for the sheer joy of it. We measure the success of our economy in gross national fun (GNF), which is also our chief export (in various forms).

This is probably due to the Moglajerhamishbergenhan's ancient passtime, national project, and high-artform: getting it on. Oh yeah, that's right--once you go Moglajerhamish baby, you never go back... unless you want to (but you won't ;) )

After a long but very rewarding day at the office, the average Moglajerhamishbergenhan sets about making his/her life and the lives of others as pleasant as possible.

We're pretty relaxed about just about everything as you contribute to the general upkeep and don't cause trouble.

We have no fear of invasion, as we are defended by small but elite teams of Forest Tree-Yak herders, courageous but reasonable folk, armed with the best non-lethal defensives that a nation that spends all of its working hours inventing things can come up with.

Without getting into the specifics of our defensive tactics or technology, we mainly figure people go around invading each other because they're either starving, or because it's been a while, if you know what we mean. Therefore, foreign invaders of Moglajerhamishbergenha may arrive with angry hearts and guns in hand; but they always leave, unharmed, with a stupid grin on their faces and a desire to come back and visit next time they get a vacation. Our borders remain untouched and our lands pristine.

Anarchy rules! or, er, doesn't, I guess... whatever. Here, have a beverage.

Thanks.
You're welcome! Please don't shoot me

You're welcome! Please don't shoot me
Uh?

for you all who dispit Anarchism,i have a question?
Why do you all think it is chaos?

for you all who dispit Anarchism,i have a question?
Why do you all think it is chaos?

Because that is the context most people here the word in. According to Malatesta, the word "republican" meant a similar thing as anarchist does now in popular opinion before the French and American revolutions

Uh?
Uh?

Because that is the context most people here the word in. According to Malatesta, the word "republican" meant a similar thing as anarchist does now in popular opinion before the French and American revolutions
i agree :fluffle: but where are those revolution now?

i agree :fluffle: but where are those revolution now?
and why are they forgoten?

Anarchy--like Communism--is one of those political/economic systems that has to ignore reality in order to work according to its theory. While I appreciate many of Anarchy's tenets, the very idea of it fails to acknowledge some basic facts of human nature: most notably, the human drive to want to be able to tell others what to do. Even if you ostensively have no government, people will band together in groups nonetheless; if for no other reason than protection from random passers-by. This isn't meant to condone collectivism, since in this context the individual is forced to gather with others in the name of his self interest [eg, not getting shot when you go to the store].

Naturally, some groups will be more powerful than others, and naturally, they'll have leaders too. True anarchy is impossible unless you're willing to pay to have us all lobotomized.

True anarchy is impossible unless you're willing to pay to have us all lobotomized.
Take one for the team, brah.

Anarchy--like Communism--is one of those political/economic systems that has to ignore reality in order to work according to its theory. While I appreciate many of Anarchy's tenets, the very idea of it fails to acknowledge some basic facts of human nature: most notably, the human drive to want to be able to tell others what to do. Even if you ostensively have no government, people will band together in groups nonetheless; if for no other reason than protection from random passers-by. This isn't meant to condone collectivism, since in this context the individual is forced to gather with others in the name of his self interest [eg, not getting shot when you go to the store].

Naturally, some groups will be more powerful than others, and naturally, they'll have leaders too. True anarchy is impossible unless you're willing to pay to have us all lobotomized.
yes but isnt it possible to keep the ideals of anarachy in ones heart as they pick and choose the issues of the day? use it as a guide as to how to conduct oneself in the social and economic portions of life?

yes but isnt it possible to keep the ideals of anarachy in ones heart as they pick and choose the issues of the day? use it as a guide as to how to conduct oneself in the social and economic portions of life?

If I understand you correctly, sure, it is possible, and many of its ideals should and can be adhered to in day to day life, but society does need some manner of control.

Take one for the team, brah.

ROFL!! You are my new hero.

Anarchy--like Communism--is one of those political/economic systems that has to ignore reality in order to work according to its theory. While I appreciate many of Anarchy's tenets, the very idea of it fails to acknowledge some basic facts of human nature: most notably, the human drive to want to be able to tell others what to do. Even if you ostensively have no government, people will band together in groups nonetheless; if for no other reason than protection from random passers-by. This isn't meant to condone collectivism, since in this context the individual is forced to gather with others in the name of his self interest [eg, not getting shot when you go to the store].

Anarchy does not ignore the negative aspects of human nature. Rather, it states that our current institutions of unaccountable power and heirarchy reinforce and reward vices like greed and cruelty. Anarchist theory holds that while these flaws in humanity will persist,in a true anarchist society they will no longer be rewarded and hence, their power to affect human destiny will be diminished to such an extent as to be negligible.

Read more about anarchist theory at the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/).

Anarchy does not ignore the negative aspects of human nature. Rather, it states that our current institutions of unaccountable power and heirarchy reinforce and reward vices like greed and cruelty. Anarchist theory holds that while these flaws in humanity will persist,in a true anarchist society they will no longer be rewarded and hence, their power to affect human destiny will be diminished to such an extent as to be negligible.

Read more about anarchist theory at the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/).

That still doesn't answer to the fact that some sort of overarching authority is inherent to any group of people. This was, actually, the point of my post.

That still doesn't answer to the fact that some sort of overarching authority is inherent to any group of people. This was, actually, the point of my post.

Well, maybe you should demonstrate that forms of overarching authority are in fact inherent to any group of people.

That still doesn't answer to the fact that some sort of overarching authority is inherent to any group of people. This was, actually, the point of my post.

you mean like wouldnt there HAVE to be some kind of over arching authority that would prevent people from freely choosing a different system, leader, money, inequality?

Ummm.... a rational observation of any civilization that has ever existed on the face of the planet since humankind began?

you mean like wouldnt there HAVE to be some kind of over arching authority that would prevent people from freely choosing a different system, leader, money, inequality?

That's a question of the extent of the authority, a concept that nearly all of us are prone to disagree on. I'm merely stating that it does always--and will always--exist as part of our social dynamic, if you want to debate just what this power should or could be able to do to you, it's a slightly different issue.

Ummm.... a rational observation of any civilization that has ever existed on the face of the planet since humankind began?

The Arawak existed without institutions of private power, and the Spanish Republicans did quite well themselves. There are plenty of other examples out there, two will do for now. You stated that systems of authority are inherent to human nature, can you explain these (and other) anomalies?

Or at least give us your reasons to believe that humans must set up systems of authority and submission?

The Arawak existed without institutions of private power, and the Spanish Republicans did quite well themselves. There are plenty of other examples out there, two will do for now. You stated that systems of authority are inherent to human nature, can you explain these (and other) anomalies?

Or at least give us your reasons to believe that humans must set up systems of authority and submission?
are you talking about THESE arawak?

Although the Arawak people were often (except for a few tribes) divided into four separate classes, conflict was minimal within the tribe and culture. One example that can be given of a social structure that embodied the Arawak people was that of the Taino Culture. (The Antillean Arawak) It was generally considered a matrilineal (rank inherited through female line) society. This complex system of rank and government was divided into four distinct classes: slaves (naborias), commoners, nobles (nitaynos), and the chiefs. (caciques) The special privileges of being a chief were such things as living in special houses, being entitled to special foods, and receiving special treatment from the other classes. In return the chiefs were expected to take control over villages, districts and the provinces in their territory.

if so, i think its shaky to rely on the example of a group that wasnt really studied before it was (all but) wiped from the face of the earth. second hand accounts of conquerors and inferences of philosphers dont count for much.

are you talking about THESE arawak?

if so, i think its shaky to rely on the example of a group that wasnt really studied before it was (all but) wiped from the face of the earth. second hand accounts of conquerors and inferences of philosphers dont count for much.

Duur. Flabbergasted. Gobsmacked. I'm going to have to take a closer look at Howard Zinn now. I was basing my statement on what he wrote in People History of the United States. Thanks for the information can you give me a source so I can follow up on my own time? I'd appreciate it.

That still doesn't answer to the fact that some sort of overarching authority is inherent to any group of people. This was, actually, the point of my post.

Anarchists like me uphold that the only reason people believe the statement that you have just said is because they know no different.

May I just comment on how well this post has been debated. No flame or anything exists and that pleases me. If only other posters could learn.

Duur. Flabbergasted. Gobsmacked. I'm going to have to take a closer look at Howard Zinn now. I was basing my statement on what he wrote in People History of the United States. Thanks for the information can you give me a source so I can follow up on my own time? I'd appreciate it.
i took that from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/southamerica/arawak.html
not much of a link im afraid

personally if i were going to use an indian tribe as an example id use the souix. they werent as "civilized" as other groups but they sure were egalitarian. their leaders had nothing but personal authority over others, if they wanted to disagree or disobey they were "free" to. (it might involve having to leave the group eh?)

I think that to a degree Melkor's basic point is relevant, and that groups and societies trying to live in an anarchistic fashion may often have been prone to excessive influence by individuals or to bias towards certain agendas within the larger unit. But I think that this has been due largely to hostility and pressures from without against infant societies yet ill equipped to protect themselves and to establish safeguards, and to them actually being generally too small (in contrast to popular criticisms stating that such things might be nice on a small scale, but would never work for millions).

In a larger, well established community with a few agreed-upon conventions preventing mavericks from -for example- dominating the floor at popular assemblies, I still believe that this problem would fade.

Small communes are apt to be assaulted by slanders and to be cut-off from certain vital aspects of a nation at large, facing conditions that would destroy any system in the same place. Large communes containing hundreds of thousands of people have been violently attacked to the tune of many thousand murders, in no small part because of how well they were working despite all those Proudhonists running about.

I've long given up -if indeed I ever entertained- any ideas about violent revolution, likewise about global or national transition by use of current systems that naturally are self-perpetuating. But I am quite ready to believe that the establishment of serious and successful anarchist communes could come at any day in almost any part of the western world, and that the social progress achieved largely by the sacrifice of past anarchists and other leftists will temper the once uncontrollably murderous sword of the state so that next time they may survive and spread.

i took that from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/southamerica/arawak.html
not much of a link im afraid

personally if i were going to use an indian tribe as an example id use the souix. they werent as "civilized" as other groups but they sure were egalitarian. their leaders had nothing but personal authority over others, if they wanted to disagree or disobey they were "free" to. (it might involve having to leave the group eh?)

Since my copy was stolen, what I recall Zinn referring to were the wedding customs of the Arawak and generosity to guests, so maybe he isn't guilty of lying, just dodging. Gotta getta 'nother copy of People History, check and compare.

You're right, the Sioux sounds like a better example, though the freedom to voluntarily exile oneself isn't much of a freedom. How much power did the leader have to impose his will on others?

I've long given up -if indeed I ever entertained- any ideas about violent revolution, likewise about global or national transition by use of current systems that naturally are self-perpetuating. But I am quite ready to believe that the establishment of serious and successful anarchist communes could come at any day in almost any part of the western world, and that the social progress achieved largely by the sacrifice of past anarchists and other leftists will temper the once uncontrollably murderous sword of the state so that next time they may survive and spread.
In total agreement with you. I think violent revolution is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive in the long run. Looking back, it seems that violent revolution just reinforces the power and percieved legitimacy of the state. e.g. kings cutting off heads were a examples of abuse of power, state sanctioned executions were 'the will of the people'.
What is a real cause of sleepless nights for me is the inevitable backlash by establishment state forces once true progressive societal reform is in progress. That usually has the result of either provoking a violent revolution (Russia) or winning the conflict (COINTELLPRO). It's depressing, but state violence works - if only in the short term.
Do you see any way around this?

Since my copy was stolen, what I recall Zinn referring to were the wedding customs of the Arawak and generosity to guests, so maybe he isn't guilty of lying, just dodging. Gotta getta 'nother copy of People History, check and compare.

You're right, the Sioux sounds like a better example, though the freedom to voluntarily exile oneself isn't much of a freedom. How much power did the leader have to impose his will on others?
i dont think he had any. im not sure about the power of religious leaders. after all they deal in a whole nother dangerous realm. but war leaders, for example only had their own personal prestige to convince others to fight or to refrain from fighting. in the end anyone could refuse to go. they wouldnt share in the spoils (if any) and i suppose if they never ever fought they could get a bad reputation as a coward. (and that might lead to having trouble getting a wife) but there was no punishment for deciding to give a particular raid a pass.

youre guy probably liked the arawak because they were a very peaceful group. the quote i gave you sounded "scary" but it was probably much more benign than the words imply. (and who knows how accurate they are since the carribean arawak were extinct by the 1600s)

I've long given up -if indeed I ever entertained- any ideas about violent revolution, likewise about global or national transition by use of current systems that naturally are self-perpetuating. But I am quite ready to believe that the establishment of serious and successful anarchist communes could come at any day in almost any part of the western world, and that the social progress achieved largely by the sacrifice of past anarchists and other leftists will temper the once uncontrollably murderous sword of the state so that next time they may survive and spread.

ideas of bringing in anarchy by violent revolution seem to me to be utterly wrong. wont that just bring militaristic authoritarians to the top? i cant see a guy who overthrew a whole country being able to give up his power once its done. its using the tactics of the enemy now in hopes of switching to the right way later.

id like to think that anarchistic communes could thrive and bring in more followers. it just seems to me that anarchy can only work on a local level. you could manage a small community but once it gets big you need more official ways of dealing with natural conflicts. pretty soon youre back to what you had before (only maybe more fair than it is today)

In total agreement with you. I think violent revolution is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive in the long run. Looking back, it seems that violent revolution just reinforces the power and percieved legitimacy of the state. e.g. kings cutting off heads were a examples of abuse of power, state sanctioned executions were 'the will of the people'.
What is a real cause of sleepless nights for me is the inevitable backlash by establishment state forces once true progressive societal reform is in progress. That usually has the result of either provoking a violent revolution (Russia) or winning the conflict (COINTELLPRO). It's depressing, but state violence works - if only in the short term.
Do you see any way around this?


Good points.

I don't know that I do, entirely. As I say, I'm hopeful that past leftist movements have done much to reduce the severity of establishment reaction: I wouldn't expect the modern French Republic to think that it could get away with murdering twenty thousand Parisians and shipping thousands more off to slavery in the Pacific. That said, western police forces still quite frequently kill the odd radical in public, and certainly are acquiring quite the arsenal of 'less leathal' weapons for the wielding of some-how acceptable force, even if unprovoked or unpopular.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a solution, does it? I'll get back to you if any new ideas strike me.

ideas of bringing in anarchy by violent revolution seem to me to be utterly wrong. wont that just bring militaristic authoritarians to the top? i cant see a guy who overthrew a whole country being able to give up his power once its done. its using the tactics of the enemy now in hopes of switching to the right way later.

id like to think that anarchistic communes could thrive and bring in more followers. it just seems to me that anarchy can only work on a local level. you could manage a small community but once it gets big you need more official ways of dealing with natural conflicts. pretty soon youre back to what you had before (only maybe more fair than it is today)


First, yeah, well, I agree that violent revolution probably isn't the way. Of course there's nothing to say that militancy needs a leader as such. The people are quite able to fight on their own initiative... my desktop wallpaper is presently a painting titled, "La barricade de la place Blanche défendue par des Femmes." If required, officer-types could easily be appointed by popular consent to direct a defence in tactical terms, and just as easily stripped of their power by people who may not be so tactically aware but who certainly outgun one elected military leader.

But that's all a bit of a tangent, I've mentioned my general pessimism with regards to violent revolution.

As to the size of it, again as I've said, I think that the opposite is true. I don't quite go to the Marxist world-revolution theme, which I think is born out of a climate of disappointment and fostered by Trotskyite disdain for the Parisians missing an opportunity to sieze a military victory. But I do think that the support of multiple communities could well contribute to strong progress.

Yes, surely it becomes difficult if tens of millions of people try to centralise their democratic administration instead of keeping much of it on a community basis, but there's no reason they should do that... that just means creating the state. The problem hinted at here seems to be that which is inherent to modern representative democracy, not to true democracy and anarchism. Too many people means that your voice is drowned out.

Whatever criticisms are leveled against anarchism usually are already manifest in the modern system. Usually anarchism does away with them, or else it only suffers the same as what we have already.

Good points.

I don't know that I do, entirely. As I say, I'm hopeful that past leftist movements have done much to reduce the severity of establishment reaction: I wouldn't expect the modern French Republic to think that it could get away with murdering twenty thousand Parisians and shipping thousands more off to slavery in the Pacific. That said, western police forces still quite frequently kill the odd radical in public, and certainly are acquiring quite the arsenal of 'less leathal' weapons for the wielding of some-how acceptable force, even if unprovoked or unpopular.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a solution, does it? I'll get back to you if any new ideas strike me.

Oops, it did seem like I was asking for a solution. One of the things I've found when debating radical politics is what I call "The Trap". The Trap is sprung when the person you are debating with asks you for some detailed description of future society, appropriate tactics etc. etc. to which they respond by changing the topic over to one of feasability. I'm sorry to say that I've just been guilty of springing the trap. Sorry, lol.

I think we can take heart from a few aspects of society and some of the changes that have taken place over the last 50 years. And that is domestic policy is much more peaceful than in decades past. Massive anti war protests took place before the Iraq invasion, whereas previous anti war protest movements were years in the making and took place after the fact.
State power to oppress domestic populations within the imperialist west has been severely curtailed (notwithstanding GWB) where it is unthinkable to use deadly force on demonstrators (Kent State?) Where force is used it's done under a massive shroud of secrecy or in the midst of a propaganda campaign using 'legal' instruments.

So, there's plenty of room for hope.

My favourite analogy is one the Noam Chomsky used -- "Expanding the floor of the cage" The idea is to systematically fight for human rights and human dignity within the context of a broad social movement. As the circle of human freedom expands (the walls of the cage) so do peoples ability to further weaken private power.

There are a number of positive examples of people and peoples shaking off the chains. One is the (bottom up) campesino movement in Argentina, another is the (top down) Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. Bolivia, Uruguay, Peru, Chile and Mexico also have broad based social movements working to curtail private power as well and have been experiencing success on a variety of issues.