NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been doing some thorough reading this morning and a tad of reflection of my like for the systems of socialism, to alleviate ownership, to alleviate coercion and poverty. I have a few thoughts I need some aid on working out.

My query forms itself around the basis of an the goal of several schools of political structure, anarchy, marxism, socialism.

Would a system with an end of no government work?

The definition of 'government' is the key, in my eyes.

As I've read on anarchy, and socialism, and marxism, they come to the same general end goal. Though, they are just different methods to such an end.

Either the lack of authority, the increased government funding for welfare, or the shift of ownership. They aim towards an egalitarian, no government, no social classes.

I've seen the economic and egalitaritian differences and i think it's quite simple to understand egalitarian, and the abolishment of social classes. Though 'no government' is a tad perplexing for me.

It seems to vary in several examples, e.g, the zapitista nonviolent revolution where they have a volunteer police force, and delegates selected to speak for the people.
These 'delegates' seem to be a followed thought in anarchy. Would not a selected 'official/delegate' be some form of government to propose a consensus of people of one commmunity to a higher council? In such the same way of workers councils? Or of a national council?

Or is every situation different and nothing can quite be compared and should be individual? Is this one community, or are they several.

What is the difference in 'no government' as to 'government'?

Why are selected delegates, volunteer police forces, different between elected officials and paid police forces?

Is government only shared idea of 'system' ?

A lack of a system, chaos. I'd have to say that is where the idea of the lack of authority and of no government comes from to be the general idea of anarchy as 'chaos'.

What seperates 'system' from 'government' ?


Note: Sorry if this seems to be ill-written and jumping around points, but I seem to have a few too many things running in my mind.

Basically, and I don't say you are in this group, but a majority of humans are stupid and can only be lead. If we went to a socialist structure, that would work for the stupid people, however, as seen in every tested example, it would become corrupt.

Democracy works, since the stupid people can elect the leaders. Unfortunately, I know of nearly no country that practices true democracy.

I'd maintain that any delegate or police force, elected or volunteer, with the authority to make somebody do what they do not want to do (or prevent somebody from doing what they want to do) is a government.

To govern is to say what ultimately happens.

Thus, a system without government could, in my opinion, yield only one concievable outcome - total dog eat dog lawlessness.

I'm aware that many people disagree.

Basically, and I don't say you are in this group, but a majority of humans are stupid and can only be lead. If we went to a socialist structure, that would work for the stupid people, however, as seen in every tested example, it would become corrupt.

Democracy works, since the stupid people can elect the leaders. Unfortunately, I know of nearly no country that practices true democracy.

It's a chicken and egg thing. If you ask me, most people are "stupid" because of we live in a culture where such is considered good. I mean, look at how we are raised on pop music and reality TV. That's bound to bring our intelligence down just a touch.

In my perfect world the government would be very limited. The purpose would be to do for the people what they can't do on thier own and nothing else.

The US government in my view has thier nose into too much stuff that is none of thier business.

Would a system with an end of no government work?
No. Never has, never will.

It's a chicken and egg thing. If you ask me, most people are "stupid" because of we live in a culture where such is considered good. I mean, look at how we are raised on pop music and reality TV. That's bound to bring our intelligence down just a touch.

Humanity in general was already stupid before such things existed - which of course does not mean current culture isn't making it worse..

I can see the idea of socialism working for followers, but i don't entirely agree with that conception that it would only work for the stupid, and thusly any leaders would corrupt it. There are several working social democratic countries, such as sweden who aren't stupid in the slightest. Also, that is only when you seem to take in the idea of a socialist state being authoritarian and the people not having a say, which is a branch in and of itself.

I was aiming to the umbrella terms that are agreed through several branches of each form of government.

I guess my question much more had to do with the fact of there being a difference between a government structure and economic.
These all entail the same economic structure, but in different government fashions.

Equality, and no social classes are civil rights and economic freedoms, that should follow the same act in each government, as i'd say is the goal in the end.

I must say a society without a government is non-existant, that a system will always be in effect, even if it is the lack of a system, and that this system is what seperates cooperation from chaos.

A government is a system, used for a means to an end, and who and how issues are processed. Only who controls it, and how is the everchanging difference. Yes?

There is no such thing as 'no government' as there is no such thing as 'no system'.

My question is evolving into what would seem not as if they would 'work' as work is subjective in all fields, but if they can carry the burden of health and furthering technology, the understanding and manipulation of the world around us.

The essence in each though is that in we take in need in these equal societies, would they thusly be able to further technology and sciences in a civilized manner as there should be a need for such? They would not be primitive villages based on the fall of a monetary system in action?

Anarchy of any brand name is a damn sexy ideology. However, it's not really practically possible as the end result would undermine what we wished to accomplish in the first place: freedom from authority. I'm a minarchist libertarian, and I believe that a small but effective government bound tightly by a constitution is the best option we have at the moment. As soon as a better idea comes along that would work in the real world, I'll be glad to jump aboard and join the revolution.
But until that time comes, I'll stick to what I see possible at the moment.