I think your belief is correct.
Printable View
What is considered authoritarian very much depends on what side is judging
Real authoritarian systems dont have platforms where people can speak up. Or for example women not allowed to vote or drive, or go to school. And you either believe on the official gobernment and official religion or not, you can chose to not believe and skeap up, but of course there will be consequences after
Free speech "you are free to say whatever you want to say" be ready to handle the consequences of your words
We do, know, a very basic principle is to not forget the past, that's why
Most people in the west know about "the red army" but, have they heard at all about "the white army?"
Russian history is very complex, tons of shades, so to speak
Very few times in history, really the people have taken control, its always an exchange of power between the people at the very top
You should look who was behind the white army, and why they were winning so much, they ended up losing... Lol
To put it simply, had the white army won that war, we would be hearing daily on the American western media about the evils of capitalism.. lmao!
Such is the nature of the game
Ring cedars book series gave me a wee glance within Russia's past that revolted and enjoyed me.
I never participated in the participation trophy thing. I don't know that it's an ideology. It certainly was a bad idea. I think we're moving away from it.
Cultures try to wipe out whole other cultures. Like when the soldiers shot up the ancient statues. Leaders cancel the very existence of former leaders. Like the Pharaohs.
Whatever you call it, the idea of getting rid of, or silencing a group of people is nothing new.
Imo that it is changing is what is new, re-writing history usually has the future generations finding the truths sooner or later, look at the Tartarian empire for eggysample or the Survivors thread of Elen's.
The thing about trophy's and Russia viewed together generated a thought.
Community or Individual, which should take precedence?
In community oriented cultures to distinguish oneself is to be allowed a semblance of self-determination and its byproduct of individual pride. No easy trophy's here.
In the individual oriented cultures all there is self-determination and its byproduct of dog-eat-dog, the rat race, etc. The losers become dejected, lack self-pride and become a drag on society ... that sucks!
From a higher moral, ethical, and humanitarian perspective the competitive spirit should be moderated so people are not left bloodied in those mean streets.
the people, of course. If people could regulate themselves, it would be amazing to see how well society functions. And before you ask ... :) ... The more power a citizen has the more responsible and self-moderating they should be. As the old saying goes ... "Doo doo rolls downhill"
Thank you.. That is music to me ears...
ABCofAnarchism.pdf
interesting, I skimmed it. When the subject of anarchism is broached my position is that no one can claim to be an anarchist, one has to live as an anarchist. It just doesn't feel right to claim because in the act of claiming it delineates one anarchist from another ... I feel that is not in the nature of anarchy. :)
But I haven't been in the zone of thinking about anarchy for awhile ... :)
lol.
Yeah.
The great misconception of anarchism.. Nu rules...
But people seem to forget that living without Rulers, which is what anarchism means.. Rules are sort of needed. Now how to go about at setting them is the great dilemma.
The above mentions book is one way of getting there... but then again...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI