[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are "they" really the enemy?
In message <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
> > did not have the consent of the white population. The Ku Klux Klan
> > developed as a way for the whites to enforce their rules.
>
> It also had the more-than-tacit support of the government.
>
> > The Ku Klux Klan was in its way an instrument of democracy.
>
> Instrument of oligarchy might be closer. Many poor whites were 'kept in
> line' by it, as well as the blacks.
Most of these remarks follow from a simplistic definition of government.
My point was that the government may in some cases consist of some overt
and recognized elements and some unofficial but nonetheless real elements.
In societies in which there is a significant level of internal dissent
quasi-governmental groups spring up. In Ireland the IRA is such a group
in many areas. The UK government sends car thieves to prison; the IRA
kneecaps them (smashes their knees with sledgehammers or a gunshot).
> > In Russia, the monarchy was replaced by a republic which was destroyed
> > by the Bolsheviks. There was widespread civil war. But there whenever
> > there was a governmental vacuum, people filled it. Russia was full of
> > bands of armed men. People needed governments to protect them from
> > the marauders.
>
> How can you distinguish the marauders and the government?
The difference is only one of degree. Either brigands smash your door
down and steal everything you have, or the IRS sends in their auditors.
On the whole, people prefer the lesser evil, the IRS, to the greater
evil, bandits.
> There was an
> anarchic transition period. Some areas/groups did well (such as the Coassaks,
> and parts of the Caucasus) some did very badly. Does this signify anything?
Not as far as this discussion is concerned. In a chaotic situation, the
fate of areas and groups will vary. In part this will reflect differing
levels of chaos.
> > Stalin was an expression of the people's will.
>
> I think that you are confusing 'the people' and 'the government.' Trotsky
> was much more the choice of 'the people.' That's why he was charged with
> 'bonapartism.'
Even now you find many old people who regret Stalin's absence. What I
was saying was that there was a widespread desire for peace and stability.
[There are also differences in meaning between the English word 'people'
and the Russian word usually used to translate it, 'narod'. I was
thinking of the term 'narodnaya volya'. Email me if you want to discuss
this further! In-depth discussions of Russian culture seem irrelevant
to this list.]
> > The US government is a large and powerful organization. Let us say
> > that somehow you contrive to successfully weaken, impair, and
> > obstruct it. How will you do this? Not by yourself. One person
> > cannot defeat millions. You need a group of some size, at the very
> > least of thousands. This group must have a set of common goals and
> > some sort of administrative structure to effect those goals...
>
> You seem to be hooked on organized conflict.
I am aware of organized conflict. If you want to radically change the US
government in a short period of time, it will resist you. If you are to
succeed, you must apply a commensurate amount of force.
> I think you vastly underestimate
> the power of incompetence, corruption, and bureaucracy.
? I don't think so, and in any case I don't see what you mean.
> > I could continue, but you must understand what I am going to say:
> > governments can only be defeated by organizations with the
> > attributes of governments.
>
> Tell that to the Afghans. The Afghan tribes have a long history of defeating
> governments with only a lose tribal and clan system.
I have spent around six months in Afghanistan. Most of this was in
Kabul, but I also visited Mazar-i-sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Ghazni,
Jelallabad, and smaller places. The 'loose' tribal systems are in
fact very tight. You are talking as though only national governments
were governments. In Afghanistan the central government has normally
been very weak. When I was there the king controlled the cities but
the chiefs controlled the villages. The chiefs and mullahs were very
powerful indeed.
Afghanistan is a very conservative society. Along certain lines men
are encouraged to be extreme individualists. But the group is very
powerful. A friend of mine lived in a village. Families live in small
compounds with high walls around them. The women cultivate the land
inside the walls. A young man from the village was walking along a
high hill near the village and saw an unveiled woman working her
fields. Someone from her family saw him and naturally took a shot
at him, because he was looking upon a woman in his family without a
veil. For several weeks no one could step outside in that village
without being shot at, because everyone was in or related to one of
the two families involved. This is not a loose society.
--
Jim Dixon