I like that your argument against Anarchism is that people are selfish and greedy, so having a system where individuals have huge amounts of power and wealth and can get what they want is better.
Because (many) Anarchists would say that humans being selfish and wanting more for their own benefit is (one of) the most important reason(s) for stopping humans having power and control over others.
I didn’t read him as saying that though. They are not stating that capitalism is better, they are stating that human greed will attempt to corrupt every system.
There have to be safeguards in place to stop the greed. And yes, there might be safeguards within one anarchist collective (which anywhere else would be known as “laws”), but not another one that gets greedy and wants to take over your collective and has bigger guns.
Fighting against greed is an ongoing project no matter what political system you are under. Switching systems does not miraculously solve this.
Agreed. The flaw in the system is people. I hate to say it with the context of this comic, but the solution unfortunately isn’t “no rules” anarchy. That’s similar to the libertarian view, which somehow relies on the idea that if you get rid of regulation corporations and people will suddenly behave well by themselves when in fact history has proven time and again that it just turns into a big power grab. Corporations start dumping waste everywhere, get rid of environmental and worker protections, etc. whatever it takes to get ahead and make the most money. Same for people. There might be some places that can sort out some kind of effective shared governing and resource managment, but that still means rules, not anarchy.
Rules and laws keep people, the rich, and corporations from running roughshod. Problem is that those same people try to bend and shape those rules so that they can get away with doing just that. There is no “win” and being done, it’s a never-ending battle against greed.
Our leaders are a mix of three different parties because not all German people have the same opinions.
Yes, our leaders are a compromise between left-leaning voters and right-leaning voters. Respecting more people’s votes makes the country more democratic, not less.
If your question is about whether the people have free choice or if they can only choose one of the six parties currently in the Bundestag, the answer is the former. Little story:
Under Merkel, all German parties moved to be more migrant-friendly, until even Merkel’s conservative party (the most right wing party at the time) was largely okay with migration.
However, there are many anti-migration voters in Germany. So what did they do? Did they say “oh, we only have these five options, guess there’s no way I can vote against migration”? No, they founded a new party, the AfD, to be anti migration. This party quickly got into the Bundestag and rose to be a major party now.
Upon seeing the popularity of anti-migration policies, some of the other parties now shift torwards more anti-migration policies, too.
The German people have plenty of choice, and if a popular topic is ever not represented by the popular parties, it can quickly be made represented again.
(The reason I was assuming USA btw, is because another comment mentioned America. Also the USA is an easy example of a less democratic democracy.)
AfD is not anti-migration it’s anti-migrant. Anti-migration is just a facade they use to hide their racism. They are interested in kicking out the migrants not just stopping more from coming to germany.
What they do want is wage-slaves, slaves that will come to germany and do anything they want them to do, live like they are told to live and leave when they want them to leave.
And its ironic how germany the so-called “we won’t forget our nazi past” country now supports a neo-nazi party (they poll at 20%).
Alice weidel, AfD’s chancellor candidate recently talked about how she longs for her grandfather’s time. Her grandfather was an actual fucking Nazi.
AfD is also the same party whose leaders attended a neo-nazi conference at the start of 2024.
On the topic of democracy, 60% of Germans support a ban on arms deal to israel, how many parties support this? How many even acknowledge it?
We’re not talking about hypothetical individuals. This is a discussion of the present reality. In most of the developed world, but certainly in America.
The more power they are given, the more they will use to get more power for them and their mates.
Any system where people are given power over others will inevitably tend to absolutism by the ruling clique unless the people agitate against it. Not simply participate in the system as given as systems are inevitably co-opted.
I like that your argument against Anarchism is that people are selfish and greedy, so having a system where individuals have huge amounts of power and wealth and can get what they want is better.
Because (many) Anarchists would say that humans being selfish and wanting more for their own benefit is (one of) the most important reason(s) for stopping humans having power and control over others.
I didn’t read him as saying that though. They are not stating that capitalism is better, they are stating that human greed will attempt to corrupt every system.
There have to be safeguards in place to stop the greed. And yes, there might be safeguards within one anarchist collective (which anywhere else would be known as “laws”), but not another one that gets greedy and wants to take over your collective and has bigger guns.
Fighting against greed is an ongoing project no matter what political system you are under. Switching systems does not miraculously solve this.
Agreed. The flaw in the system is people. I hate to say it with the context of this comic, but the solution unfortunately isn’t “no rules” anarchy. That’s similar to the libertarian view, which somehow relies on the idea that if you get rid of regulation corporations and people will suddenly behave well by themselves when in fact history has proven time and again that it just turns into a big power grab. Corporations start dumping waste everywhere, get rid of environmental and worker protections, etc. whatever it takes to get ahead and make the most money. Same for people. There might be some places that can sort out some kind of effective shared governing and resource managment, but that still means rules, not anarchy.
Rules and laws keep people, the rich, and corporations from running roughshod. Problem is that those same people try to bend and shape those rules so that they can get away with doing just that. There is no “win” and being done, it’s a never-ending battle against greed.
I agree with your last paragraph fully.
I’d also say Anarchism is more a process than an end goal.
Those powerful individuals, however, were chosen by the citizens. (Assuming the system you’re talking about is a democracy.)
Out of an extremely limited pool where often our best option is the lesser evil.
Democracy in any current implementation is hardly democratic.
How is the German democracy hardly democratic?
Because abolishing democracy is not an available option? Is that what a system needs to be considered democratic?
I understand why USAmericans think of their system as hardly democratic, but that’s not the only type of democracy that exists.
I don’t know why Euros always assume everyone is American.
And how is it? Do your leaders reflect your views entirely or is it chock full of compromises you don’t have to make on your end?
The only real democracy is direct democracy, not party politics.
You just asdumed the person talking about German politics to be european, so theres that I guess.
Our leaders are a mix of three different parties because not all German people have the same opinions.
Yes, our leaders are a compromise between left-leaning voters and right-leaning voters. Respecting more people’s votes makes the country more democratic, not less.
If your question is about whether the people have free choice or if they can only choose one of the six parties currently in the Bundestag, the answer is the former. Little story:
Under Merkel, all German parties moved to be more migrant-friendly, until even Merkel’s conservative party (the most right wing party at the time) was largely okay with migration.
However, there are many anti-migration voters in Germany. So what did they do? Did they say “oh, we only have these five options, guess there’s no way I can vote against migration”? No, they founded a new party, the AfD, to be anti migration. This party quickly got into the Bundestag and rose to be a major party now.
Upon seeing the popularity of anti-migration policies, some of the other parties now shift torwards more anti-migration policies, too.
The German people have plenty of choice, and if a popular topic is ever not represented by the popular parties, it can quickly be made represented again.
(The reason I was assuming USA btw, is because another comment mentioned America. Also the USA is an easy example of a less democratic democracy.)
What the fuck kind of bullshit are you on bro?
AfD is not anti-migration it’s anti-migrant. Anti-migration is just a facade they use to hide their racism. They are interested in kicking out the migrants not just stopping more from coming to germany.
What they do want is wage-slaves, slaves that will come to germany and do anything they want them to do, live like they are told to live and leave when they want them to leave.
And its ironic how germany the so-called “we won’t forget our nazi past” country now supports a neo-nazi party (they poll at 20%).
Alice weidel, AfD’s chancellor candidate recently talked about how she longs for her grandfather’s time. Her grandfather was an actual fucking Nazi.
AfD is also the same party whose leaders attended a neo-nazi conference at the start of 2024.
On the topic of democracy, 60% of Germans support a ban on arms deal to israel, how many parties support this? How many even acknowledge it?
Which democracy are you talking about?
How is that contrary to my point? Many people are anti migration and so an anti migration party was founded.
What the reason for being anti migration is, be it racism or something else, doesn’t matter here.
That’s why I explicitly said “popular” topic.
The reason anti-migration found it’s way back into the Bundestag is because the voters care about migration policies.
The reason Israel arms deals aren’t talked about much is because most voters don’t give a fuck about what happens in the middle east.
It’s the tolerance paradox all over again.
We’re not talking about hypothetical individuals. This is a discussion of the present reality. In most of the developed world, but certainly in America.
The more power they are given, the more they will use to get more power for them and their mates.
Any system where people are given power over others will inevitably tend to absolutism by the ruling clique unless the people agitate against it. Not simply participate in the system as given as systems are inevitably co-opted.