Can Anarchism provide a solution to the flaws of Democracy?

[Smurf]

There isn't a thread about this yet? Honestly people...

*snip*

Kyrgyz parliamentarians took further steps March 26 to erase the remnants of ousted President Askar Akayev’s rule as they set 26 June as the date for new presidential polls.

Lawmaker Iskhak Masaliev announced the decision to reporters immediately after the voting by members of the outgoing, bicameral Kyrgyz parliament.

"It has been decided to hold [early presidential] elections on June 26," he said. "The presidential elections will be held on June 26 of this year. This is exact, exact."

Parliamentarians reached the agreement in the presence of Kurmanbek Bakiev, who was named interim leader to succeed ousted President Askar Akaev. Bakiev announced that he will run in the June presidential poll.

...

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/civilsociety/articles/pp032605.shtml

*snip*

Akaev and his Russian backers blame the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for making a big fuss over the supposedly less democratic aspects of the recent election – which did not quite come up to "international standards," according to the OSCE – but if you look at the actual OSCE report [.pdf], the objections might easily apply to any election held in, say, America of late. For example:

...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5301

 

[wasteofo2]

Eh, what with Georgia a year and a half ago, Ukraine during the winter, and Lebanon currently going on, I'm really sick of Democratic Revolutions. When're we going to have some more interesting popular uprising - seriously, Democracy has been done already, you'd think the peasants of some country out there could think of something more interesting to try.

 

[russ_watters]

I must admit to never having heard of this country (that I can remember). But its great to see people standing up for democracy. It seems democracy is spreading like a virus these days...

 

[wasteofo2]

I must admit to never having heard of this country (that I can remember). But its great to see people standing up for democracy. It seems democracy is spreading like a virus these days...

Indeed; I've actually heard some people on Fox re-defining the Domino Theory to relate to the current spread of Democracy throughout Eurasia...

But wouldn't it be more interesting if there were a popular Plutocratic uprising in Uzbekistan, or if some Democratic country like Belgium had a popular Autocratic uprising?

 

[russ_watters]

Kinda a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

 

[kyleb]

I'm pretty sure wasteofo2 was just poking fun at the talking heads for their attempt to pat themselves on the back for what is quite clearly the natural evolution of society.

 

[wasteofo2]

Kinda a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

There have been popular dictatorships and such in the past, why not again? Wasn't there some huge popular movement in favor of the Emperor of Japan at several points in Japanese history? Also, Hitler and Moussolini were pretty popular as well, before their countries started losing WWII...

Maybe the people of Belgium are just sick of not being confrontational and bellicose, and think their society just isn't tough enough on law-breakers, and are in the mood for an Autocracy, you never know...

 

[Smurf]

I'm with you wasteofo, if only people would try something new for once. I'd like to see the anarchist communal in barcelona declare sovereignity. ahh the irony.

 

[wasteofo2]

I'm with you wasteofo, if only people would try something new for once. I'd like to see the anarchist communal in barcelona declare sovereignity. ahh the irony.

A sovereign Anarchist nation? I love it! :rofl:

But how would they secure Anarchy; what could they do to prevent a Government from coming in?

 

[russ_watters]

There have been popular dictatorships and such in the past, why not again? Wasn't there some huge popular movement in favor of the Emperor of Japan at several points in Japanese history? Also, Hitler and Moussolini were pretty popular as well, before their countries started losing WWII...

I'll give you Japan because I'm not sure (though I think you're right) - but not Hitler or Moussolini. Hitler especially controlled via fear and propaganda. That's not real popularity any more than Saddam's 100% elections were.

 

[wasteofo2]

I'll give you Japan because I'm not sure (though I think you're right) - but not Hitler or Moussolini. Hitler especially controlled via fear and propaganda. That's not real popularity any more than Saddam's 100% elections were.

As far as Moussolini goes, I would say he actually was pretty popular amongst the Italian people.

My Grandmother was born in a small mountain village in Italy far prior to Moussolini's rise to power. They had no running water, electricity, roads, and rarely anything more to eat than bread and cheese. Recently, she was talking about growing up there, and said that when Moussolini came, they got all these things that they were missing; running water, electricity, roads, more food, and even said of Moussolini "God bless his heart" and crossed herself.

And sure, they ruled by fear and propaganda, but that doesn't mean that they weren't popular figures. You can scare people and lie to them in order to make them like you, especially if you can get them to believe there's a huge threat out there (Jews, homosexuals, etc.), and that you're taking care of that threat. Also, for the Germans who weren't being shipped to concentration camps, Hitler did bring up the standard of life (for those who were lucky enough to be permitted to live) compared to what it was prior to him.

 

[Smurf]

A sovereign Anarchist nation? I love it! :rofl:

But how would they secure Anarchy; what could they do to prevent a Government from coming in?

:rofl: Why not have an anarchist government? Anarchism isn't anti-government, only anti-state, there's a difference. Hense the irony of them declaring sovereignity.

Ahh well, it was a nice thought.

 

[kaos]

I'll give you Japan because I'm not sure (though I think you're right) - but not Hitler or Moussolini. Hitler especially controlled via fear and propaganda. That's not real popularity any more than Saddam's 100% elections were.

Actually hitler was quite popular.
He was even time magazines man of the year once.He was popular because he took advantage of anti semitism (and also because he ended the depression).Mussollini was popular because he got things running well.

 

[Smurf]

Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin, Franco.

All of these people were quite popular (at least for a time) with their own people, and quite often with people abroad too. Just because we look at them negatively now doesn't mean they always were. I think we focus too much on the violent sides of these people, rememeber: every single one of them improved their country in numerous ways and many of the people's lives therin.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually hitler was quite popular.
He was even time magazines man of the year once.

Clarification: being Time's man of the year has nothing to do with popularity, its all about impact.

And I stand-by my belief that tricking someone into liking you isn't the same as them liking you for who you really are.

 

[kaos]

well they were popular at the time and for not so good reasons, so i guess i know what u mean.

 

[wasteofo2]

Clarification: being Time's man of the year has nothing to do with popularity, its all about impact.

And I stand-by my belief that tricking someone into liking you isn't the same as them liking you for who you really are.

Hitler never could get people to appreciate him for what he really was - a simple painter...

Though what politician or leader doesn't trick people into liking him? You think there's ever been a political leader who presented himself exactly as he was, was totally clear about his motives and plans, and was totally honest with the people? Either way, I can't buy that people like Hitler weren't popular - they may have been popular for identically false reasons (dealing with the "Jewish problem"), but lots of people still liked them.

 

[wasteofo2]

:rofl: Why not have an anarchist government? Anarchism isn't anti-government, only anti-state, there's a difference. Hense the irony of them declaring sovereignity.

Ahh well, it was a nice thought.

Would the Anarchist government punish people for attempting to enforce a set of order upon others? Would there be an anarchist jail for statists? Would the citizens be taxed to pay for all this? How would you make income to be taxed in an Anarchist society?

Maybe that's the answer to all my problems with Democracy - Anarchy...