Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3
From	Message
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 07:23	clash I don't want to say this, because I really love the USA in many ways, but I also dislike people like yourself, who do not realise that all of that culture in USA and the diversity stems from the cultural inheritage of Europe plus (indeed) Asia! You have your own mix of this, and YES, it is unique. But, please don't bang your breats too much about it, because it just sounds pathetic.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 07:30	Clashofpawn "The axes are social and economic. And refer to ones view of how much control/regulation the government should exert over these two things." Your statement is globally correct but it's a bit more complex : The basic question is the control of the production tools (factories, machines...) Communists (at least the Russian experience) considers that they must be under the control of the state. Anarchists (libertarian socialists) consider that each production unit should be under the control of the workers of this unit because it's the only way to liberate people from the state and from the might of the capitalist who own the production unit. Then comes the question of welfare and repartition of the wealth.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 07:31	Government cannot regulate everything to get rid of capitalists. Stal is correct. The role model of socialism will be that of Nordic countries. The truth of the matter is that, democracy, socialism and government elected by free and fair elections are essential elements for peace and prosperity of a nation. Socialism cannot exist without capitalism. The pitfall of capitalism is that capitalists will exploit without any mercy to the working class if there is no government regulation. On the other hand, if there are too much regulations and taxes, capitalists cannot exist. We need some modification to control the greed of capitalists and I believe that the truth which stal is talking about.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 07:48	The pitfall of Anarchism. I don't think Pitroque's idea of equating Anarchists with libertarian socialists is correct. There are different kinds of socialism but anarchists are the ones who set their own rules in governing themselves. It is like a state within a state. Power and money corrupt people. In the long run anarchists can become lawless to other people whose ideas may get in conflict with them. In other words, they can become like terrorists, mafia, gangs etc.
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 07:56	Anarchism Ace's description is very similar to mine. First of all, I don't think anarchism should be related to socialism, which all in itself can come in very different shapes. In my vocabulary anarchism is - by definition - action against the existing system. A movement to overthrow the current leadership/government. Actually, some of that I have sensed (in America) from posts by at least softaire, and perhaps winslow and clashofpawns, too.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 08:23	Anarchism and socialism They were the 2 main streams of the "workers international". Marx and Bakunin differed about the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx estimated necessary as the first step toward real communism. Bakunin said that it would bring a gigantic bureaucracy and no liberty at all (he was a visionary !) So that both were linked at the very beginning. During the Russian revolution, Ukraine has been ruled according anarchist principles (Makhno was the leader) They created an anarchist army (officers were elected by the soldiers, including Makhno as general). 50.000 men, front line : 1000 km. They have beaten the Germans, the White Army but were betrayed by the Bolcheviks. In Spain, anarchists have ruled entire areas including big cities, in time of war and it worked : the production of the factories increased, they made Tramways... The anarchist system is very organised ! They were also betrayed by the communists and finally lost the civil war against Franco.
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 08:29	It is great that we finally have here some real accountances of historical fact. Which involves a world, to some extent apart from that of the US of A.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 08:30	Anarchism versus Liberterian Socialists. youtu.be Pitroque is also correct if the socialists acquire the state power by other means without contesting in free and fair election. Communism is the extreme form of socialism. Look at former Soviet Union and China. There was only one party rule. The communists could do whatever they like if the people opposed their ideology. They could do because they were dictators. They could be compared to anarchists. You can still witness the anarchists in N. Korea and Cuba. Anarchists cannot exist forever if they have democracy plus free and fair elections. So, they banned free and fair elections.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 08:41	anarchism and elections ace : "So, they banned free and fair elections." They did not ban elections, they spent much time electing people. Ex : anarchist army in Spain (it worked the same way in factories and agriculture. groups of 10 people elected one delegate. For 100 people, they elected another delegate, so that there was an organisation. But these delegates could be fired at any moment, during a meeting. As I told you it worked even if it seems improbable. They managed to transform factories to produce weapons within 6 weeks, with this organisation. It's very different from the North Korean or Cuban system.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 08:57	What is anarchism ? youtu.be Pitroque, What you are talking is about socialism. If there is free and fair elections plus democracy, there is no need for anarchism. I don't know the detailed history of anarchism in Spain. If Anarchism is good for Spain and any other countries, how and why did it disappear in those countries ? Most of the nations believe in Democracy. The analogy of anarchism is similar to flat earth theory that very few people believe in it.
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 08:59	I repeat: In my vocabulary anarchism is - by definition - action against the existing system. A movement to overthrow the current leadership/government.
hogfysshe 16-Feb-18, 09:08	but then what happens (after the existing system is overthrown)? wouldn't it then continue in some form and not try to overthrow itself, ...since it will have become "the existing system" ?
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 09:36	ace of aces : anarchy and democracy anarchism (a long article) en.wikipedia.org what anarchism (or the branch of anarchism "libertarian socialism") reject is the might. The democratic system gives a lot of might to some people during a specific time. In anarchists systems the leader can be fired at any time. He is paid the same than the others, so that there is little interest to keep the might and if the one in charge abuses, he is fired. Our Democratic system leads to an oligarchy (and the USSR one also lead to an oligarchy with privileges). I do not know how it works in details, one should read Bakunin, Kropotkin or other theoreticians. It's not that simple, of course.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 09:37	ace of aces : why it didn't widespread. I do not know for sure why it never widespread but one can conjecture : 1. Resistance of the people who have the political or economical might, for rather obvious reasons. 2. It's very demanding. Human being is selfish. That's why education was so important for anarchists. In Spain and Ukraine, they have not be helped by the democracies because such a system is considered as dangerous (c.f. point 1.) and they have had to fight against authoritarian countries or parties. Some anarchists have used terrorism to achieve their goals and have killed people but compared to the number of killed they have had in their ranks, it's not much at all. The repression has always been very harsh (Sacco and Vanzetti or the 8 of Chicago are 2 famous American examples but there are plenty other cases : in France in the beginning of the 20th century the democratic republic used machine guns to repress demonstrations of striking workers. During the commune of Paris (not anarchist but some were), 3 generals have been killed by the folk. When the army finally won, they killed around 20.000 people and plenty have been send to the chain gang. Sometimes, the bosses have hired gunmen against radical syndicalists (US example : Joseph Hillstorm, alias Jo Hill)
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 09:55	stal said : In my vocabulary anarchism is - by definition - action against the existing system. A movement to overthrow the current leadership/government. ------------------ I absolutely agree. How can you overthrow the despotic government or ruler if they don't serve in the best interest of the masses when there is no alternative to peaceful transition such as democracy with free and fair election ? The only choice left is by violent means of revolution. Anarchists are usually violent but not all of them. I can give you some examples from: 1. Spanish anarchism and civil war. Franco was a ruthless dictator. He was helped by Hitler who helped bombing the rebellion in Guernica. I like Picasso's painting of Guernica which showed how Spanish people suffered. 2. French Revolution. At that time, corrupt monarchy, nobility and clergy ruled France. The people were heavily taxed and were starving to death. 3. October revolution in Russia. It is also knows as dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin introduced Marxist socialism or communism. In all of these situations, millions of people were killed. Therefore, we should condemn anarchism but condone democracy with free and fair elections, IMHO.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 10:16	Revolution versus Anarchism. Hindsight shows, " Revolution " fits stal's description of action against the existing system. A movement to overthrow the current leadership/government. Anarchy has different meaning. I check it in the dictionary. 1. The complete absence of government. 2. political disorder and violence. 3. disorder in any sphere of activity. Revolution can be either peaceful or violent. Compared to revolution, evolution is a slow process. We have discussed much about Darwin's evolution and so I don't need to elaborate it. Since anarchism is associated with political disorder and violence, we should always promote democracy and the rule of law.
hogfysshe 16-Feb-18, 10:28	trying to understand where does philosophical anarchism fit in? must violence be connected with the word 100% of the time? en.wikipedia.org
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 10:34	ace of aces Stal said : "In my vocabulary anarchism is - by definition - action against the existing system." For once, I disagree with Stal. Anarchism has been caricatured : Anarchism (in its political form) has been thought as a system in itself, not just a protest. The majority of anarchists were not violent, at least before being attacked (apart if you estimate that striking and demonstrating is violent) Anarchy is not negation of organisation, it's rejection of might, whether financial, religious or political. The leaders, if they are necessary must come directly form the base. As for the revolution, It seems to me that Bakunin was in favor of a general strike. In our modern world, I believe that a strike of the consummation (everybody buys the minimum to live) could be sufficient. Bakunin admitted that, in such a radical change of social system, a few deaths would probably be unavoidable.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 10:39	ace of aces : about revolutions You give 3 relevant examples, very different, although all have in common a popular revolt at the very beginning French revolution was a fight between 2 social classes : the nobles and the bourgeoisie who seized the opportunity to acquire the might. It has little to do with anarchism. The right of property was never in question. The Russian revolution began in spring and was a popular revolt with plenty of groups (including the Ukrainians anarchists). In Oktober, the Bolcheviks, one of those groups managed to impose themselves. In Spain,a leftist government had been elected. Franco refused it. The situation was very chaotic and the government was weak. As the Anarchists were very numerous among the working class and there was almost no might, the people organised, following anarchists principles in communities all around the country with different systems (in some places, without using money for the exchanges !)
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 11:03	what is anarchism ? How do they consider themselves ? anarchist site in English : anarchism.pageabode.com it's a FAQ but there is also an history of anarchy on the same site.
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 11:03	Philosophical Anarchism or Civil rights movements. en.wikipedia.org) At least hogfysshe should explain first how he understands by philosophical anarchism so that we can discuss and debate about it. I believe you are talking about peaceful demonstration or protest against the injustice of the existing system. The idea is not new. Jesus might be the foremost if not the first one to embrace this system. He did not resort to any violent means and forgave them all who sinned against him even when he was dying on the cross by saying, " Father, forgive them. They don't know what they are doing." Did Jesus died in vain ? Christianity spread to millions of people. Mahatma Gandhi of India and Martin Luther King jr. followed the footsteps of Jesus by non violent means of protests. Just like US, India was a British colony and her citizens were discriminated. Gandhi played a significant role in gaining India's independence peacefully, whereas the settlers had to fight the British to have US independence. African slaves were supposed to be liberated after American civil war by Lincoln's 13th amendment, Emancipation Proclamation of US constitution but they were still discriminated by segregation. King fought the injustice system by civil rights movement and won peacefully. For details of his civil rights movement, please check at wiki in the above link.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 11:14	anarchy and violence theanarchistlibrary.org Malatesta was an important Italian anarchist leader in the beginning of the 20th century. This short text questions the necessity of using violence to achieve an anarchist society.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 11:33	Philosophical anarchism Anarchy is not only a political organisation of the society. It can be understood as a philosophical theory which can be applied to many aspects of the life. The way I understand it : Free thinking : never consider an opinion as evident, even if it's expressed by an authority, you have to question it To do so, you have to learn as much as possible, to be able to compare and make your own opinion. You should admit that the others are different in their thoughts and convictions and that those differences are respectable, which doesn't mean that you cannot debate ! You should admit that people are equal in right even if not in abilities and treat them so. You shouldn't try to acquire might or power on someone but rather make others as free as possible. Solidarity is, for most anarchists something essential. Malraux (French philosopher) wrote : "What about the Christ ? He is the only anarchist who succeeded"
ace-of-aces 16-Feb-18, 11:50	Pitroque en.wikipedia.org You are a French and you know more than me about the French revolution. When you have property but there is nothing to eat, what is the use of the property. This is just like a man who is lost in the desert or ship wrecked at sea with plenty of gold coins in his pockets. They just need drinking water to survive. The analogy is similar. The nobles and the bourgeoisie were tax free and lived in luxury, whereas the masses were near starved to death. So the French people went to the palace and demanded to give them bread. The Queen, Marie Antoinette was so naïve and ignorant. She did not understand why they could not bake the bread and eat it themselves. To cut the story short, anarchism was created by the starving masses to change the system by storming to liberate Bastille prison where political prisoners were kept. Now anarchism became totalitarism, where all the 3 powers of state, executive, legislative and judiciary were controlled by the masses. Being a family member of the royalty or nobility was enough evidence to condemn the person to death. About 30,000 French including the King and Queen were beheaded. It was the tyranny of the majority. France has no death penalty nowadays. Ask the average French people nowadays, " Was the killing of French people justified in the revolution without proper trial and investigation ?" The answer is obviously, No.
ptitroque 16-Feb-18, 12:01	ace of aces "Ask the average French people nowadays, " Was the killing of French people justified in the revolution without proper trial and investigation ?" The answer is obviously, No. " I don't think so. They would probably answer that it's sad and that we could have done with less deaths but they wouldn't condemn the revolution. If US people are asked if the independance war (which also killed many people) was justified, do you think that the answer will be no ?
hogfysshe 16-Feb-18, 12:27	thank you. ace, I don't have much of an understanding of these subjects. my post was in response to comments that seemed to leave out that there is thought and philosophy that does not involve violence connected with anarchism. I was simply dissatisfied that that was being left out and wanted some broadening and clarification. The responses were very good. they got at what was in my mind when I asked the question. thank you to both of you.
clashofpawns 16-Feb-18, 18:56	> I don't want to say this, because I really love the USA in many ways, but I also dislike people like yourself, who do not realise that all of that culture in USA and the diversity stems from the cultural inheritage of Europe plus (indeed) Asia! You have your own mix of this, and YES, it is unique. But, please don't bang your breats too much about it, because it just sounds pathetic. Nope. Actually we've had hundreds of years to evolve our own culture. Europe more resembles a derivative of the culture that originated in America than vice versa.
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 20:46	anarchism <Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.> from wikipedia It is interesting that the meaning can yet vary significantly between Members here.
stalhandske 16-Feb-18, 20:52	<Actually we've had hundreds of years to evolve our own culture. Europe more resembles a derivative of the culture that originated in America than vice versa. > That's what I said - America obviously has developed its own culture starting from the European/Asian mix. And - indeed - some of that American culture has spread to Europe (and Asia) as well! So, yes, there are cultural features in Europe that originate in America, but one should not exaggerate that either.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.