[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] PLUG vs. PLUG

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
> Woohoo!!! I can finally jump in now that you took it off plug and
> onto plug-talk. [grin]

Well, it actually diverged from relevance there. Heh.

> I have another slightly different proposition for why democratic
> organizations are disassembled.
[snip snip]
> As some people in power begin realizing that there are more efficient
> tools available for specific problems (e.g. terrorism), democracy begins
> to be replaced, piecewise until the whole system is no longer democratic
> (though parts may still be democratic).

I think this is consistent with my simpler statement.  Existing power
structures cannot retain their power whilst democratic forms function.  To
ensure their entrenched power's future, they must dismantle the democratic
forms.

Your one example of "terrorism" is nothing more than striking against
entrenched power to gain self-determination.  The kind of terrorism that
threatens a democratic structure is the kind imposed by the likes of
Monsanto, GE, and GM.

> Some of these people in power are Evil... But, most are well intentioned
> and think they're doing a good thing.

I don't believe there are "bad guys".  Everyone thinks they're making
things better.  The only real conflict are the conflicting ideas of what
"better" means.  If folks were open and honest about what their ideals
were, we wouldn't have nearly the conflict we have today.

It would be clear, for example, that George W. Bush's idea of "better" (or
at least the one that he's been spoon-fed) translates more accurately as
"better for rich, white, Christian men who really know best for everyone
else because, after all, God is on our side".  If he were to come out and
SAY that, he would lose nearly all of his support immediately.

> So, there is always an equilibrium between fascism (not Nazism, mind
> you) and anarchy.  Sometimes we swing one way, other times we swing the
> other.

Woah woah.  I think we have different ideas of both anarchism and fascism.
Fascism is a very specific political-economic system designed to increase
the pace of industrialization and driven by an elite few.  Anarchism is a
purely political system wherein all decisions rest in the hands of the
individual and the aggregate will of the people becomes the sole driving
force of civilization.  I would argue that Capitalist Republicanism (to
label the system exsting in the United States wherein the economy exists
for the sole purpose of re-enforcing the driving force of the monied
interests) is different from both of these and pulling on another axis
entirely (rather than being a point along a single continuum).

Now, if you meant that there is an equilibrium between anarchism and
authoritarianism, I'd see what you meant (and respectfully disagree
because the authoritarians, by their nature, hold all the cards or do not
exist).

> p.s. I've unsubscribed from PDXLUG because people I know and respect
> have enlightened me.  I have no experience with the group; but, since
> society is run by networks and influence graphs, I follow the lead of
> those I trust.  Thanks for having the open and public discussion.

Then it wasn't all in vain.  That isn't to say that the purpose of that
discussion was to drive members from their organization, but that the
discussion was worthwhile if someone found it illuminating.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org