The biggest problem is we are all full of bullshit me included. Most of us are full of ego { I know I am }

Maybe we should be finding out ways how we can lose our bullshit.

nirvana wrote:
Better yet how about people just don't kill each other...period point blank.

The biggest problem is that humans just like me and you join the Army and kill people for cash.

That's the biggest problem and maybe the only real problem with the world.

The only way we can lose our bullshit as you put it, is to literally stop going to work for someone else and stop trading money in our billions all at once.
We need to stop co-operating with a system that perpetuates our own enslavement.

That would be evolutionary though and quite the tall order. I don't see it happening short of some kind of divine intervention.

Your analysis gentlemen:

Guevarista wrote:
Theoretically perhaps gue but as even Orwell pointed out, the pyramid on the red side is invariably the same way up as the one on the right. Ditch the pyramids full stop and we are talking

andyh wrote:
So many people would be scared that not co-operating with the system would cause it to fail.

Americans would never do that because the majority like the system and don't wan't it to crash.

I would say for the most part that people even like the police and feel protected by them.

Many in the US would be scared without a police force that the ghetto people would have no control.

Fears of Rwanda in the western world would be on every republicans mind.

800,000 chopped up with machete's in 3 month's? people would be scared shitless.

Everyone seems to wan't in to the system, not out of it.

For example look at all the immigration right now into the US & UK.

Scared of not being able to feed themselves is all because others will not help them if they can't 'pay' for it.
Thats all it boils down to at the end of the day, money splits us apart.

Fascism -source www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

In other words so many people are very rigid in their understanding of something that is essentially, in my mind anyway, about individualism over Statism.

Would you like me to define those words too?

I recently decided to stop calling myself an anarchist. Not that I really go around saying it too much but I don`t think I shall call myself that anymore. I figure people will label me whatever their personal bias allows.

Are you aware Animal farm was a critique specifically of Stalinism, not the "red side" en masse and that Orwell was a consistent socialist throughout his life?
Orwell on socialism from “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”:

I have got to struggle against that, just as I have got to struggle against castor oil, rubber truncheons and concentration camps. And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party.

I have put the personal aspect first, but obviously it is not the only one.

It is not possible for any thinking person to live in such a society as our own without wanting to change it. For perhaps ten years past I have had some grasp of the real nature of capitalist society. I have seen British imperialism at work in Burma, and I have seen something of the effects of poverty and unemployment in Britain. In so far as I have struggle against the system, it has been mainly by writing books which I hoped would influence the reading public. I shall continue to do that, of course, but at a moment like the present writing books is not enough. The tempo of events is quickening; the dangers which once seemed a generation distant are staring us in the face. One has got to be actively a Socialist, not merely sympathetic to Socialism, or one plays into the hands of our always-active enemies.

andyh wrote:
What about the crime factor?

Without the system would the west become the 3rd world?

Yes gue I'm aware that Orwell was commenting on the corruption of the basic principles of 'the left' by a few. Point is that no matter how sound those principles may be, socialism has always in practice been a pyramid standing on it's base. It's invariably been arrested at a point where some are more equal than others. Socialism involves State and invariably centralisation of power.

The quote you provided from Orwell merely goes to show that he could only perceive one alternative to fascism-socialism. I could speculate as to why he took such a position of course. The reality is that there are an infinite number of alternatives, we are encouraged to think that there are but two, left and right. Perhaps because both invariably and arguably intrinsically are predicated on the model of a pyramid sat on it's base.....Despite the theoretical goal of the left being to flip that pyramid so to speak.

"social­ism has always in prac­tice been a pyra­mid stand­ing on it’s base"
tbh dub i will put that down to ignorance, have you read anything about the Russian revolution?

A pyramid standing on it's base is metaphorically the complete antithesis to Socialist theory and any attempted socialist revolution, departure from the principle in my picture of overturning the massive wealth of the imperialist and capitalist elite of centuries and on that building an egalitarian society servicing human need, signifies the failure of any revolution pertaining to be socialist, what that then descends into through internal and external subversion (as in Russia) does not reflect on socialism but signals it's defeat.

If the state is to exist then it should be the people that have the control over it. There is a lot of talk these days about big government versus small government. Big government of course sounds bad to people as government is so often badly run for negative purposes. There are problems with small government too though. If you remove the checks and balances etc and the social programmes of government then a "small" government would just hand control over to business. Yes some might say that is already the case but there are instances I believe where government has made our current world operate more fairly. Of course there is a flip side to that.

So what would be better than big or small government would perhaps be a more accountable government. To me democracy should be more democratic. It should not be about party politics and the people should be able to vote on issues.

We have two worlds essentially I think, the one we live in and the one we wish we lived in. The one we wish we lived in will probably never happen and so perhaps we should work on improving what we have.

In my mind if socialism has ended up as a case of a new elite then it is not really socialism. People often misuse terms. We see now in the USA that Socialism has been systematically turned into a 'bad word". People do not need any understanding of what socialism is. They can simply call you a socialist as a way of saying that you are bad. It is just like calling somebody a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter or calling somebody an insurgent instead of a civilian.

So you can call me a commie or a terrorist or whatever and indeed some might call me an anarchist but they might not mean it as a good thing. What is important to me is that if we have a "socialist" system then it really be that way. I studied sociology at college and when the lecturer described what socialism was one of the class said "that`s how things should be isn`t it?" and of course the lecturer would not answer that directly, but does it not seem right that in our capitalist society where some are stinking rich that they help to make sure people don`t die of being poor?

andyh wrote:

The problem there is we are too disunited if we dont work we cant pay bills that keep roof over over our heads. We all want to protect our little slice of the cake. What would make us join together like we did hundreds of years ago?

RealAmerican wrote:
Most (not all) crime is about money and scarcity.
You remove the scarcity and you eliminate most crime.
The rest is based on violence, drunken behaviour etc which is ofc also reduced in a situation where there is no scarcity.
There's more than enough resources to go around several times over, we all know this, yet we work our balls off doing pointless profit based tasks.
Some of the worst crime goes completely unpunished as we all know too well by now.

nirvana wrote:
Did we only join together hundreds of years ago?
You mean thousands of years ago right? If not tens of thousands of years ago.
Did they have corporate entities and fractional reserve banking back then?
How did people ever manage to feed themselves without macdonalds I wonder?
The mind boggles...

i-baster wrote:
Switzerland.

oioioi wrote:
Zing!!!!

+99999999999999999999999999

andyh wrote:
Are you trying to say you think I am Switzerland?