Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[vanesch]

No. You read that they were considered the ancestors of green anarchism. You filled in the rest yourself. Green Anarchism is not, I repeat, is not Primitivism.

But if you really want to research Anarcho-Primitivism (notice there's a different name for it, because it's a different ideology) you can see it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Phoo, this is going to be a semantic battle in which I'm only moderately interested.

From your link about Green Anarchism:

Green anarchists can be described as anti-civilization anarchists and sometimes anarcho-primitivists, though not all green anarchists and anti-civilization anarchists are primitivists.

I get dizzy when I read such thing, I think it is kind of like the discussions in Christianism about whether God is Three in One, or is One with Three forms, which lead to the Schism between the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholics.

It doesn't change my point: anarchism is a kind of return to the bushes ( ) and independent of a judgement of value of that return, I ask you: WHAT IS GOING TO STOP CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM GETTING TOGETHER AGAIN AND BUILD UP A CIVILISATION ?
Given that anarchism (all flavors) denies any structure, there is no structure going to STOP those individuals from getting together again, as it happened in the plains of Mesopotamia some 10000 years ago.

So this looks to me like an intrinsic instability in any anarchist vision, no ?

Somehow it seems to me that the best practical way to IMPLEMENT anarchism now would be to provoque an almost total thermonuclear war, with the hope that some would survive and with the hope that their descendents would become so terribly mentally retarded that they won't get the idea of getting together and doing agriculture. And maybe the best way to get there quickly is to participate fully in a frenzic consumer-driven society
, and vote for fascistoid leaders.

 

[vanesch]

I think ants will hijack the threads of this forum in the future!

ALL ANTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE

 

[Astronuc]

Ants are very useful and helpful. I use them in my gardening.

They protect plants from some harmful insects and help break down logs from dead trees into compost.

I have lots of varieties of ants in my yard, and I had to relocate two ant nests which had developed in some old tree stumps.

 

[arildno]

Aunts are very useful and helpful. I use them in my gardening.

I couldn't agree more. Aunts rule!

 

[Lisa!]

ALL ANTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE

My prediction's come true. As you see ants already hijacked a thread!

Astronuc, arildno's changed your post in an enlightening day!

 

[Smurf]

It doesn't change my point: anarchism is a kind of return to the bushes ( )

Now you're just generalizing. There are many flavors of anarchism, only 1 of which (or some green anarchists too) condemns technology.

 

[Smurf]

Given that anarchism (all flavors) denies any structure, there is no structure going to STOP those individuals from getting together again, as it happened in the plains of Mesopotamia some 10000 years ago.

.. There's no response to that. Everything in your post, especially this statement spring from a complete misconception of what Anarchism is. I can only tell you to learn before speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Society

There are practical applications of anarchism today, if you were correct in your implications this would not be so. Obviously they are sustainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Wiki is your friend.

 

[vanesch]

.. There's no response to that. Everything in your post, especially this statement spring from a complete misconception of what Anarchism is. I can only tell you to learn before speaking.

Well, I just read your links and respond to it as I see what's written...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Society

From that link:

Anarchists propose that with the destruction of the state, violence from statist forces will generally come from counter-revolutionaries, or those that want a return to hierarchal structures. Marxist-Leninists are critical of anarchists on this issue, and argue without a strong centralized group, or vanguard, a revolutionary society will not be able to defend itself. Although some anarchists are pacifists, many anarchists propose self-defense against counter-revolutionary forces through the construction of popular militias.

That's exactly my critique: if there's no central structure to ENFORCE this, how are you going to prevent certain groups from "going back to static organization" ? Your link suggests militia, but what stops one of these militia to attack the neighbouring militia ?
I mean, what's different with the situation at the start of the agricultural revolution ?

There are practical applications of anarchism today, if you were correct in your implications this would not be so. Obviously they are sustainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Wiki is your friend.

Again, from your link:

Critics, however, express doubts concerning the effectiveness of a voluntary militia against a ruthless modern military using weapons of mass destruction and hierarchical structure. Critics also argue that historical examples, like the Spanish Civil War, do not support the theory that anarchist communities can defend themselves.

Apparently the people who wrote these critics are as ignorant as I am about anarchism, because they see the same flaws ?

 

[Astronuc]

My prediction's come true. As you see ants already hijacked a thread!

With a little help from their friends - the antarchists or antanarchists or antarchistos.

I thought ants tended to be antianarchists anyway.

Astronuc, arildno's changed your post in an enlightening day!

I noticed. It's the thought that counts. Unfortunately, all of my aunts have slowed down and gardening would not appeal to them. So I have to rely on my 6-legged friends.

 

[Lisa!]

With a little help from their friends - the antarchists or antanarchists or antarchistos.

I thought ants tended to be antianarchists anyway.

I think ants really deserve to have their own threads. Humans can learn a lot from them.

So I have to rely on my 6-legged friends.

Interesting!

 

[Smurf]

Apparently the people who wrote these critics are as ignorant as I am about anarchism, because they see the same flaws ?

No. Those criticisms are about an anarchist society being under external attack, or internal attack from a dissenting group. It has nothing to do with the agricultural revolution or any lack of social structure.

 

[vanesch]

No. Those criticisms are about an anarchist society being under external attack, or internal attack from a dissenting group. It has nothing to do with the agricultural revolution or any lack of social structure.

But that's the point: how is an anarchist society going to stabilize itself against static development (from outside or from inside) ? The reason I brought up the agricultural revolution is that this was the reason for instoring state structures in the past, from which an elite got a (much) better life, and the average person got a worse life than under hunter-gatherers, and at the same time made the hunter-gatherer lifestyle less and less possible ; but which also induced a long term development from which we NOW take (some) advantage.
So how is such a development going to be stopped by the anarchic society of your preferred flavor, whatever that is ?

 

[vanesch]

I think ants really deserve to have their own threads. Humans can learn a lot from them.

I think ants are perfect communists within, and obey the law of the jungle on the outside of their colonies, as do all structures which have no superstructure.

 

[Smurf]

But that's the point: how is an anarchist society going to stabilize itself against static development (from outside or from inside) ?

I don't know. What are you asking? Tell you what, tell me what a democracy does to 'stabilize' it's self and I'll tell you what the Zapatistas or the Barcelona colony is doing differently in that respect.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know. What are you asking? Tell you what, tell me what a democracy does to 'stabilize' it's self and I'll tell you what the Zapatistas or the Barcelona colony is doing differently in that respect.

Well, a democracy first has a structure which is imposed by superior violence, namely its state, the army, the police and all that which protects it against small instabilities from within (as a relatively small group, say 1000-10000 armed men, you will have difficulties throwing over a mature democracy). It seeks alliances with other democracies through international agreements against external agressions. As long as its politicians can keep the majority of people relatively happy, a democracy is a relatively stable structure.

 

[alexandra]

Well, a democracy first has a structure which is imposed by superior violence, namely its state, the army, the police and all that which protects it against small instabilities from within (as a relatively small group, say 1000-10000 armed men, you will have difficulties throwing over a mature democracy).

Very true - that is why there is no possibility at all that a relatively small group can achieve any real change. Thus the need for mass movements to change social structures.

As long as its politicians can keep the majority of people relatively happy, a democracy is a relatively stable structure.

But in capitalist societies, where the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening, it will become more and more difficult (if not impossible) to keep most of the people relatively happy (most of the people's living conditions are deteriorating). The state will therefore have to increase its use of repressive measures (army and police and other ways of controlling people, eg. the Patriot Act and similar legislation in the UK and Australia) to control the masses.

 

[Anttech]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4227602.stm

The world did change on 11 September 2001 but in ways that were not predicted at the time.

It changed because the attacks led not just to the war on terror, but also to the war on Iraq.

Twin Towers
After 9/11 there was widespread support for the US

The one war was launched amid sympathy for the United States.

The other war has lost much of that sympathy.

Had it just been the war on terror, things would have been different.

US relations with Europe would not have been so strained. A hornet's nest would not have been stirred up in Iraq.

 

[Smurf]

Well, a democracy first has a structure which is imposed by superior violence, namely its state, the army, the police and all that which protects it against small instabilities from within (as a relatively small group, say 1000-10000 armed men, you will have difficulties throwing over a mature democracy). It seeks alliances with other democracies through international agreements against external agressions. As long as its politicians can keep the majority of people relatively happy, a democracy is a relatively stable structure.

Okay. Well the zapatistas have a structure which is supported by the people. The people are responsible for enforcing decisions that the people and the junta (leadership body) has decided on, usually and preferably by pacificist means, but as you can see an assault rifle is considered part of the standard attire/uniform for the zapatista, even though they are rarely used.

As for this part:

as a relatively small group, say 1000-10000 armed men, you will have difficulties throwing over a mature democracy).

I would think that the size of the group necessary to overthrow another group would be completely relative on the size of the group they are trying to overthrow.. wouldn't it?

And the Mexican government has a much larger army than that, 1/3 of which is in Chiapas and they havn't managed to take out the zapatistas yet, even though it's been, what... like 11 years? A second generation of zapatistas is already taking the place of the originals.

 

[vanesch]

Okay. Well the zapatistas have a structure which is supported by the people. The people are responsible for enforcing decisions that the people and the junta (leadership body) has decided on, usually and preferably by pacificist means, but as you can see an assault rifle is considered part of the standard attire/uniform for the zapatista, even though they are rarely used.

In what way is that different from a state structure then ? People take decisions under the direction of a junta and armed men obeying the junta enforce these decisions. That's a state structure ! I'm sure that if you let it evolve (how long did it exist ?) you get ministers, a kind of state police, tax collection and the whole circus.

As for this part:I would think that the size of the group necessary to overthrow another group would be completely relative on the size of the group they are trying to overthrow.. wouldn't it?

Well, if we're talking about an instability, the size of the initiating group as compared to the overall size of the structure shouldn't matter.

 

[Smurf]

In what way is that different from a state structure then ? People take decisions under the direction of a junta and armed men obeying the junta enforce these decisions. That's a state structure ! I'm sure that if you let it evolve (how long did it exist ?) you get ministers, a kind of state police, tax collection and the whole circus.

Again your conclusions are drawn from misconceptions about the social structure. I said no where that anyone takes orders from a junta. You assume that simply because there is a leadership entity that it is placed in a hierarchial position.

You should read about the Zapatista Junta system, there are no permanent leaders, there are no decisions made without what you might call a referendum, and the power is extremely decentralized. And those "armed men" are not professional, permanent soldiers, let alone do they obey a junta. This as well as infinitely many other differences.

state n,
a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.

There certainly is no such thing. The nation is run collectively in autonomous municipalities. Would you like some links?

Well, if we're talking about an instability, the size of the initiating group as compared to the overall size of the structure shouldn't matter.

Okay.. I still don't see your point in making that statement though.

 

[vanesch]

Very true - that is why there is no possibility at all that a relatively small group can achieve any real change. Thus the need for mass movements to change social structures.

No, that's not true. It only proves that a democracy is not intrinsically unstable (that a relatively small group can initiate a "flip-over") - as I think that an anarchy is.
Social structures can slowly evolve in a democracy, but only under the will of a majority.

But in capitalist societies, where the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening, it will become more and more difficult (if not impossible) to keep most of the people relatively happy (most of the people's living conditions are deteriorating). The state will therefore have to increase its use of repressive measures (army and police and other ways of controlling people, eg. the Patriot Act and similar legislation in the UK and Australia) to control the masses.

Well, I think that if most people are becoming unhappy that they will vote in such a way that things will change. After all, capitalism as such is not part of a democracy ; it is capitalist because people decide so. I know that there are feedback systems so that they vote against their own interest by keeping that capitalist system in place, but if they do so, that means that they are deluded into thinking they are happy. And if you're deluded into thinking you're happy, well, you're happy :-) The same happens with religion.
I don't say that democracy is ironclad protected against everything, but at least I don't see an *intrinsic* instability.

 

[Smurf]

Well, I think that if most people are becoming unhappy that they will vote in such a way that things will change.

Oh? And which champion of the poor shall they vote for, Bush? Or Kerry?

 

[vanesch]

You should read about the Zapatista Junta system

Give some links. BTW, how long did it last ?

there are no decisions made without what you might call a referendum

Who decides what the outcome is, and what do you do with those that don't agree ?

and the power is extremely decentralized. And those "armed men" are not professional, permanent soldiers, let alone do they obey a junta. This as well as infinitely many other differences.

state n,
a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.

There certainly is no such thing. The nation is run collectively in autonomous municipalities. Would you like some links?

Yes, who says that that supreme public power cannot be extremely decentralized ? That's still a state ! And if it is COMPLETELY decentralized, then the smaller units are states by themselves (like the citystates in good old antiquity).
Anarchy would mean that NO rules are imposed, by nobody, on nobody. From the moment you impose rules, you have a state structure. What stops these individual decentralized structures, btw, from going to war between them ?


In any case, if I were to be in such a system, the first thing *I* would do would be to convince my local municipality to tie together with some neighbouring municipalities, to form a slightly stronger unit, and go and conquest all the others, because those in the initial set of municipalities would then become the new ruling elite. I'd distribute future responsability posts to the members of the initial "contra" municipalities if they help me to form a small army and overthrow the others. I'm sure it would be an offer you cannot refuse. If I don't find enough takers, I'd move around until I have enough takers that I can form a small army, large enough to overthrow a few of these units. I'm sure I'd find enough people around, ready to kill their neighbors for a future minister or other elite post in a dictatorship.

 

[vanesch]

Oh? And which champion of the poor shall they vote for, Bush? Or Kerry?

Nobody stops you from putting a third candidate on the line. You'll say that propaganda by the major parties will not give him the chance. True, but that means that that propaganda succeeded in making the voters believe they should vote Bush or Kerry. And that's what they did. So as long as that propaganda WORKS (and hence stops you from having another candidate) by the same mechanism, people are fooled in thinking they are "happy" and even the poor accept their lot, so no uprising.

 

[Smurf]

Nobody stops you from putting a third candidate on the line. You'll say that propaganda by the major parties will not give him the chance. True, but that means that that propaganda succeeded in making the voters believe they should vote Bush or Kerry. And that's what they did. So as long as that propaganda WORKS (and hence stops you from having another candidate) by the same mechanism, people are fooled in thinking they are "happy" and even the poor accept their lot, so no uprising.

Firstly, not anyone can run. Just because the constitution doesn't prevent anyone doesn't give everyone the de facto ability to run. The truth is, you need $$ first and a lot of it. Therefor automatically eliminating all decent candidates for the poor.

Secondly you need even more $$ to get anyone to know your name at all, let alone to know your policies. If you're representing the poor you're not going to get loads of heafty donations are you?

Thirdly propoganda doesn't make someone 'happy' with their selection. They just trick someone into thinking "If you don't vote for the mainstream parties, something really really bad will happen to you". They call it fear-mongering instead of happy-mongering for a reason you know.

Vanesch, come on! I know you don't actually believe this crap, stop trying to be a moderate just so you can appeal to the fascist right a little more.

 

[vanesch]

Firstly, not anyone can run. Just because the constitution doesn't prevent anyone doesn't give everyone the de facto ability to run. The truth is, you need $$ first and a lot of it. Therefor automatically eliminating all decent candidates for the poor.

Maybe in the US. In France for instance, there were 16 candidates for the last presidential elections.

Thirdly propoganda doesn't make someone 'happy' with their selection. They just trick someone into thinking "If you don't vote for the mainstream parties, something really really bad will happen to you". They call it fear-mongering instead of happy-mongering for a reason you know.

Ok, but the effect is the same: they're not going to "bring the revolution". Whether it is because they are "happy" or because they say "ouf" because the really really bad thing didn't happen.

Vanesch, come on! I know you don't actually believe this crap, stop trying to be a moderate just so you can appeal to the fascist right a little more.

And I even tricked guys like Russ into thinking I'm left-wing

 

[Smurf]

Give some links. BTW, how long did it last

Who decides what the outcome is, and what do you do with those that don't agree ?

It's been in use and development by the indigenous populous in the jungle for some time now, really hard to say. However it's current form has only existed since they declared autonomous municipalities the day NAFTA was signed... why are you talking about it in past tense?

Zapatismo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Good_Government
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/2004/marcos/fallaciesAUG.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/2004/marcos/5decisionsAUG.html
http://www.chiapas-support.org/

Other great stuff:
http://flag.blackened.net/index.shtml

Yes, who says that that supreme public power cannot be extremely decentralized ? That's still a state ! And if it is COMPLETELY decentralized, then the smaller units are states by themselves (like the citystates in good old antiquity).

I don't know, I guess it's possible. But now we're no longer talking about anarchism.

Anarchy would mean that NO rules are imposed, by nobody, on nobody. From the moment you impose rules, you have a state structure.

Okay, but your the one who said the word Anarchy. The political ideology by the slightly different name is rather different, as I've been trying to explain.

What stops these individual decentralized structures, btw, from going to war between them ?

I don't know, what's stopping Alberta from invading Saskachewan?

Everything you say after that is nonsense. I've made an equally accurate parody of it. Enjoy

In any case, if I were to be in such a system, the first thing *I* would do would be to convince my local municipality to tie together with some neighbouring municipalities, to form a slightly stronger unit,

Really? Well if I lived in a democracy the first thing I would do is convince the prime minister to underrule the judicial and legislative branches to give him unlimited power...

and go and conquest all the others, because those in the initial set of municipalities would then become the new ruling elite.

And then build up the army and conquer the US...

I'd distribute future responsability posts to the members of the initial "contra" municipalities if they help me to form a small army and overthrow the others.

I'd make agreements with Exxon and Wal-Mart to create private armies and terrorize the world so to secure that they fall over themselves doing my bidding...

I'm sure it would be an offer you cannot refuse.

How could they refuse, after all I'm dictator of North America...

If I don't find enough takers, I'd move around until I have enough takers that I can form a small army, large enough to overthrow a few of these units. I'm sure I'd find enough people around, ready to kill their neighbors for a future minister or other elite post in a dictatorship.

I'd get Green Peace and Amnesty international to steal nukes from Russia and bomb all my adversaries...

Vanesch, I would really appreciate it if you approached this discussion with a slightly more open mind, instead of jumping to conclusions all the time. Would it exist now, being under constant attack from Mexican military and paramilitary forces for over a decade, if it was not durable?

 

[Skyhunter]

Personally I have no envy of the super rich whatsoever. I think often they are more to be pitied. There is a film where Danny DeVito plays a rich grasping businessman where somebody asks him why he is so ruthless when he's already rich. He replies "You don't get it, it's a game and whoever dies with the most wins" I think this epitomises the waste of a life spent chasing material gain.

An interesting example of two contemporary men to illucidate your point.

Harvey Kellogg and C.W. Post

Kellegg was a gastric surgeon who invented breakfast cereal and peanut butter, among other modern foods. He was uninterested in money or fame, he founded health spas, and used the money he made to further his life work of promoting good health.

C.W. Post copied his ideas and marketed them. He made lots of money and commited suicide. So much for the rich having it made.

 

[Smurf]

Maybe in the US. In France for instance, there were 16 candidates for the last presidential elections.

Indeed, I was there for the election. France has not yet fallen to the level of corruption as the US has. They will eventually, or they will change their system. One or the other is unavoidable.

Oh and Vanesch, can you tell me how many people you knew who knew all of the candidates' names? And out of all the names and policies that were commonly known... how many of them were rich?

Ok, but the effect is the same: they're not going to "bring the revolution". Whether it is because they are "happy" or because they say "ouf" because the really really bad thing didn't happen.

Yes. The effect is to prevent the poor from being represented in and protected by the government and/or whatever ideology you want to call it. This is the inherent discriminatory trait of capitalism. And it will continue to degrade the nation until it is no longer recognizable as a democracy, and then it will enable revolution.

 

[vanesch]

Oh and Vanesch, can you tell me how many people you knew who knew all of the candidates' names? And out of all the names and policies that were commonly known... how many of them were rich?

Well, as during several weeks before the elections they each had equal time on the national TV each evening (something like 10 minutes for each candidate, and 2 candidates per evening) to explain their programme, they were quite well known by anybody who had been watching TV, and there were quite some non-conformists. Of course there were the two revolutionary candidates (one old and well known, the other guy new: he's a postman and is 27 years old,), there was a woman representing a kind of feminist party of the islands and other stuff, and then there were the more traditional Republican, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Green candidates, together with a party which has as program the promotion of hunting and fishing :-)
Out came... Republican and Fascist (and Socialist was third)...
The revolutionaries didn't score badly: together they had 12% or so if I remember well, while the winner Republican (Chirac) only had 19%, the Fascist (Le Pen) had 17% and the Socialist (Jospin) had 16%.
So the second round was between Chirac and Le Pen, which Chirac easily won with something like 83%.

(all numbers are from the top of my head).

 

[Smurf]

Well, as during several weeks before the elections they each had equal time on the national TV each evening (something like 10 minutes for each candidate, and 2 candidates per evening) to explain their programme, they were quite well known by anybody who had been watching TV, and there were quite some non-conformists.

Yup. I remember watching some of them, (Jospin was my favorite) but I don't think it's accurate to say they were all "quite well known" by anyone who'd been watching TV, 10 minutes a night, once a week is not a lot of time. France is doing well for the time being, but we both know the majority of French people are not represented by the conservative agenda. The fact that they keep getting elected alone shows that the system is failing. Slowly, at first, but it will fail.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know, what's stopping Alberta from invading Saskachewan?

As of now ? I'd say, the state of Canada.
If Canada wouldn't exist ?
Their respective armies and alliances.
The UN.
But imagine that Alberta was a state "as we know it" and Saskachewan was a domain where no structure were present, just a few people living unorganized, doing whatever pleased them. Wouldn't it be a great temptation for Alberta to "eat pieces" out of that nomans land ?

Really? Well if I lived in a democracy the first thing I would do is convince the prime minister to underrule the judicial and legislative branches to give him unlimited power...

Because you think that is not a real danger ? Look at what Hitler did ! So you need STRUCTURES to avoid that. Democracies normally have locks build in for this not to happen. Separation of powers is one of its pillars.

And then build up the army and conquer the US...

Well, the US is not exactly the same as a few unorganized farmers with a gun, right ?

Vanesch, I would really appreciate it if you approached this discussion with a slightly more open mind, instead of jumping to conclusions all the time. Would it exist now, being under constant attack from Mexican military and paramilitary forces for over a decade, if it was not durable?

It is not THAT structureless !
From your own link on Wiki:

An assembly of local representatives forms the Juntas de Buen Gobierno or Councils of Good Government (JBG’s). These are unofficial governments, as they aren't neither recognized nor opposed by the Mexican government; they oversee local community programs on food, health and education, as well as taxation.

The Councils of Good Government (or JBG’s) also apply a rotation method of those who serve on the council. Each citizen within the jurisdiction of the JBG is required to serve on the council for two weeks, and then a new council is put into power. It is set up this way in order to secure that no political figures can become corrupt, or under the influence of outside forces. It also accommodates the needs, interests and concerns of each member within the area that the JBG covers.

The Councils have created their own laws and enforce them, applying punishment when deemed necessary, under a community-based system. The JBG’s have declared a serious stance against the trafficking of drugs and people.

What else is this than small state structures ?

Well you're always jumping to the conclusion that "I don't understand what you're talking about", that "I'm talking nonsense", that "I should read up" etc...

But what I see is that against my argument, that the denial of all structure using violence to enforce something is unstable against a relatively small group of people who decide to organize themselves and use violence to obtain the rule, you never presented a coherent argument. In the few times where you didn't call my propositions "nonsense" you actually came up with STRUCTURES of people DECIDING and armed people, and I'm sure that organized violence between members independent from their junta is NOT tolerated. From the moment that you put violence "in common" you have the basic structure of a state.

 

[vanesch]

The fact that they keep getting elected alone shows that the system is failing. Slowly, at first, but it will fail.

I agree with you that what doesn't work well is the republican system of the "winner" takes it all: for instance, Chirac represented initially 19% of the population, and he won. Much fairer is proportional representation, like in my native country, Belgium. The problem is (maybe that's NOT a problem in fact) that you get an almost inpossibility to form a majority, especially if 25% or so is fascist with whom nobody wants to get involved.

 

[Astronuc]

I know this is non sequitir in the present discussion, but it does pertain to the initial post.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record.

Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: "It was painful. It's painful now." Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

Mr. Powell also implied in the interview that the United States did not go to war in Iraq with sufficient troops to secure the country and failed to keep sufficient Iraqi forces to help stabilize the country.

"What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces or by re-creating the Iraqi forces, armed forces, more quickly than we are doing now," he said.

But with Iraq still violent and plagued by sectarian conflict, the United States has "little choice but to keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces and to do everything we can to increase their size and their capability and their strength."

Since leaving office in January, Mr. Powell has declined interview requests. But his expressions of regret about the weapons intelligence and the lack of troops were consistent with many of his statements in office, especially after it became clear that Iraq had none of the weapons that Mr. Powell had said it was stockpiling.

From NY Times, "Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record," By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

 

[Smurf]

But imagine that Alberta was a state "as we know it" and Saskachewan was a domain where no structure were present, just a few people living unorganized, doing whatever pleased them. Wouldn't it be a great temptation for Alberta to "eat pieces" out of that nomans land ?

I don't know, do the nomans all have recognized uniforms and assault rifles? Do they all share an ideology and the goal of self preservation of their social structure?

If so, then I would say Alberta would think twice, yes. I mean, what does Alberta have that Mexico doesn't?

But you said there was no social structure. okay, then probably not unless there was another presented reason, like it was protected by the UN.

Because you think that is not a real danger ? Look at what Hitler did ! So you need STRUCTURES to avoid that. Democracies normally have locks build in for this not to happen. Separation of powers is one of its pillars.

Yeah, I do think it's a real danger, but no I don't think it's at all likely. And what does that have to do with zapatismo anyways? In Germany Hitler took control of the state, which already had supreme power. Zapatismo has no supreme power, so any attempt to become totaltarian would be much slower and difficult as you would first have to build a state out of a society that doesn't believe in hierarchial structure. I mean, you'd be opposed by the entire population.

Well, the US is not exactly the same as a few unorganized farmers with a gun, right ?

Nor are the Zapatistas.

What else is this than small state structures ?

They're juntas.
I'll show you again:

state. n,
The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state

In zapatismo there is no supreme power. Therefor there is no state.

Well you're always jumping to the conclusion that "I don't understand what you're talking about", that "I'm talking nonsense", that "I should read up" etc...

Okay, I'm sorry. But you ARE making some very inaccurate assumptions.

But what I see is that against my argument, that the denial of all structure using violence to enforce something is unstable against a relatively small group of people who decide to organize themselves and use violence to obtain the rule, you never presented a coherent argument.

The people will stop them...? What do you expect, there is no vulernability. You mine as well ask why can't a small group of people take control of NY, because the police will stop them... in Zapatismo, the people will stop them. If the people do not want zapatismo, they will not have to overthrow it, Zapatistas do not impose their rule on others.

In the few times where you didn't call my propositions "nonsense" you actually came up with STRUCTURES of people DECIDING and armed people,

Yes, I'm trying to sum it up for you. Obviously that gave you the wrong impressions. The people are armed, the structure exists only because the people accept it. The people make decisions and allow the juntas (there are often more than one junta in a municipality) to make them for them.

and I'm sure that organized violence between members independent from their junta is NOT tolerated.

What do you mean? What's a member independant from their junta? What's a member?

From the moment that you put violence "in common" you have the basic structure of a state.

What? Since when? What violence? Zapatismo is non-violent anyways. What is 'in common' violence?