Experimental anarchist state takeover thread.

[Amorphos]

Experimental anarchist state takeover thread.

Ok here’s the imaginary scenario;

Lets imagine for the purposes of this experiment, that by some means I have gotten into power by leading a new party to victory in the next election [muhahah]. Your task is to act as opposition [or as support] and find ways to stop me!

My first battle is with the banks so we shall begin there. Then will follow corporate enterprise, the stock markets, and education [I.e. remove public schools by nationalising them] if we get that far, but make no mistake, my aim is to completely change the existing system!

Right, I propose to fully nationalise the banks of my state, and that includes the central bank. I will also have all the private debt-money removed and replaced with state produced money that has no interest to pay on it. This will effectively remove the national debt, with will anyways be reduced to 0 and never used again.

You can imagine that you are a member of e.g. the Bilderberg Group, or have some other means of banking and corporate power in the western world. So now you have to do all you can to stop the proposed measures. You may for instance want to get the public or the military behind you, to stop this ‘madness‘, or you may use the world banking network etc to force me into an embarrassing climb-down.

If you are on my side, what should we do;

1. Remove all existing bankers from the central bank and replace them with people who don’t have agendas aside from that of the new state.
2. That + confiscate all their wealth and give them low position jobs where they will no longer be a problem.
edited.

How should we go about it;

The cost would be astronomical ~ to purchase all banks including the central bank, so we simply confiscate the lot and nationalise it for free. Our reasoning is that they have been steeling our income taxes for years, and have been making extortionate amounts by printing money and interest rate hikes etc, so we owe them nothing.

I don’t think there is a plausible ‘other way’ especially in these times.

--------.------.
Ok I think that’s enough to start with.
What would you do to change things or to stop any such changes?

.

[Ayleid]

You do know that this thread is advocating killing, largely, innocent people..

[Strelok]

The means are morally repugnant and the ends will be hard to maintain in a peaceful and quality fashion.

[Amorphos]

ok i edited the part about executing them, the point was to ask what lengths one would have to go to, just to change the banks let alone everything else. sorry i should have pointed that out.

or do you think they would go down quietly?

btw why are they innocent if they have been steeling our money for years? why is one act of theft different to another.

[Ayleid]

btw why are they innocent if they have been stealing our money for years? why is one act of theft different to another.

In your opinion.
Regardless, how did you come to the conclusion of treating bankers differently to the rest of the populace? Even if what you were saying were true, that they were stealing people's money, why should they be treated any differently to your average criminal who commits theft? They would have to be tried by the judiciary. It astounds me, in terms of irony, that you are complaining about a lack of 'justice' for those who have, allegedly, stolen from the public; an analogy comparable to that of a criminal stealing from innocent people, yet you originally wanted to punish them with death. Which, of course, is purely a stark difference from being treated in a similar light.

Oh, and the opposition to your new 'regime' could, quite possibly, come from the people who will have to endure this new system. Remember, the reason you were elected in the first place is because the country in quesion's, majority, people decided representative democracy is the best political system. Therefore, you are defying the majority of your populace to bring about a political system which you, and the insignificant minority, believe will help them. This will result in dictatorship, as they will rebel against you, forcing you to take control of all stately functions in order to 'help them'. Long story short, your proposed idea will result in an authoritarian styled government, which is ironic as you most likely started out trying to help people however your plan will result in a police state; the very opposite.

[Strelok]

To get the desired short-term effects they have to go down violently. The alternative is a potential century or so of social motivation that will be hard to initialize.

[Amorphos]

To get noticeable short-term effects they have to go down violently.

exactly, that’s what I thought! although the threat would probably do the trick, but then you got to make them know there is a threat.

The alternative is a potential century or so of social motivation that will be hard to initialize.

You would never be able to nationalise the banks as the cost is way to high, the only way to do it is via a quiet or noisy revolution [peaceful or not peaceful].

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

You don't seem to understand any form of Anarchism, I'll wait for the Anarcho-cappies to discuss how poorly you understand their ideology.

Hint; its not about nationalizing banks.

[Amorphos]

You don't seem to understand any form of Anarchism, I'll wait for the Anarcho-cappies to discuss how poorly you understand their ideology.
Hint; its not about nationalizing banks.

meh
Anarcho syndicate societies work by having a bank at the centre of groups of cooperatives.

Apart from that you have to get from a - b, going straight to the kind of anarchism you are thinking of, would be heavily destructive and I don’t even think it would work.

[Strelok]

Abstract anarchistic revolution is playing with fire.

If you want to ensure it's stability and functionality, you basically have to execute or a find a way to seclude every single person who can't cooperate in a moral fashion without the existence of the state. There would have to a consensus among a certain amount of people who band together and basically exterminate or separate anyone who disagrees.

Otherwise the society is unstable and wavering. There is also the threat of the next generations establishing a state or some other form of power if they disagree.

Trimothy Leary would probably have a better perception than me, though. I'm a minarchist but far from an anarchist and I'm fairly close-minded to the ideology.

I can see an anarcho-collectivist system, for example, working with a small group of people who agree and import and sell their labour to neighbouring societies

[Dr. Croccer]

I would immediately lead a rebellion against the Anarchist villains.

[Rolling Thunder]

I would immediately lead a rebellion against the Anarchist villains.

You have my light machine gun and anti-tank rifle!

[Dr. Croccer]

You have my light machine gun and anti-tank rifle!

''And my Axe!''





Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Basil II the B.S]

''And my Axe!''





Sorry, couldn't resist.

''And my vuvuzela!''



Sorry, couldn't resist either.

[Enemy of the State]

What the hell is your definition of anarchy?

[Strelok]

What the hell is your definition of anarchy?

I've been wondering that too. :s

I immediately assumed he generally means the abolition of the state and ignored the other details until I re-read the post.

[PacSubCom]

by some means I have gotten into power by leading a new party to victory

That doesn't look like anarchy.

[Amorphos]

What the hell is your definition of anarchy?

There is a specific definition?

Mainly the idea is to get rid of the powers that be, the banks are far more powerful than govt and govt can be decentralised [as you have spoke of before]. equally i think the best way to achieve that is step by step, moving from the present system to the next.

What would you do? Expect people to change into anarchists overnight, get rid of the state completely and let the whole system collapse?

-----------------

Regardless, how did you come to the conclusion of treating bankers differently to the rest of the populace?

We treat all criminals as different.

There were different options in the op and the idea of being ‘experimental’ was so that you could suggest different ways to achieve a given end. The rest I have explained.

-----------------

That doesn't look like anarchy.

What would you propose, violent revolution?

[PacSubCom]

What would you propose, violent revolution?

Anarchy means "no leaders". You start the thought experiment by declaring yourself to be the anarchist leader, something which can't exist. So this isn't about anarchy.

[Amorphos]

Anarchy means "no leaders". You start the thought experiment by declaring yourself to be the anarchist leader, something which can't exist. So this isn't about anarchy.

i start with a peaceful means of getting into a position where i can actually change things, and even then it would be really difficult to do so.

What if I am seeing myself [in this ‘experiment’] as a beneficial leader who is changing things towards such an end. As I say the alternative is violent revolution and a collapse of society, I am sure none of you [with your girly emotional reaction to change] want that.

Secondly you all presume there is only one form of anarchism? And that everyone are just going to become angels over night.