So i was reading this huffpost article about iceland jailing 29 bankers, and it got me thinking...

so i was reading this huffpost article about iceland jailing 29 bankers, and it got me thinking, maybe democracy only works on a small, localized scale and under a small government. what does Holla Forums think about the concept of destroying borders by dividing people even more, like into tiny towns and communities, spread out with no cities (to maximize land use) with open borders between the communities? this way we have have a true democracy among a small gubmint and almost no chance for nationalism to rise.

basically what im proposing is libertarianism without capitalism.

lrn 2 libertarian socialism.

Well socialism requires localism, small workers coucils (Soviets) but these can all form a larger bottom-up system for the centralization of production.

I'm not against your general idea, but…


That's an incredibly silly and uninformed statement.

Libertarian socialism exists human.

That's what I assume communism would look like. No?

Although this might work in a post-scarcity society, your proposal seems farfetched. Small communities naturally join forces into nation-states, as history will show. The size may not matter. Maybe it's the culture and ease at which an angry crowd can enact change. Not to mention, without corporate sponsorship of news the real issues can be free of influence by bankers.

Not necessarily into nation-states specifically. Into larger federations of some kind, sure. The formation of the nation-state is a precise historical occurnace within capitalist development.

I think it's retarded.
As i see it, people like you tend to think of themselves as progressives, but in reality they're the most backward of conservatives. You people actually want to go back to feudal times, where various communities were pretty much isolated from each other.
There's a tendency for centralisation in human society, as there's tendency for centralisation in biological organism. You can't do shit about it.

And please, don't throw Marx's words about withering of the state at me. As long as there's industry, there will be a state. Marxists can fap to their anarchist paradise for all i care.


Basically what you are proposing is feudalism without feudals.
In other words, you're late by some 200 years.

hey user you shoud read some fucking BOOKS
tbqhwyf

I've been thinking about having smaller societies for some time. Bigger societies need more control to keep themselves from fragmenting and ripping themselves apart.

What books?

start with some BOOKchin maybe

I'm not interested in philosophy

then fuck off

What happens when some warlord leader gathers a large army and decides to go full conquest? Will there be a network between all these small communities? Will they have to put to vote whether to fight or what?

Good day to you too.

pretty much yes
It would primarily be a voluntary army, like it has always been in these sort of societies. WHere the people and "the army" are one and the same.

But they don't have a sense of nationality with one another? Why would they even want to fight?

To keep their comrades safe, to protect their freedom

FUCK OFF PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE WITH WHOM TO ASSOCIATE WITH YOU GODDAMN FASCIST PIGLORD FANATICAL ANTI-LIFE PIECE OF SHIT

WHAT THE FUCK DRIVES YOUR PATHOLOGICAL NEED TO FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT OTHERS IN THEIR GROUP YOU FUCKING SHITSTAIN SHOULD I ALSO BE FORCED TO LET ANYONE WHO KNOCKS AT MY DOOR INTO MY HOME AND SLEEP IN MY BED, IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE FUCKING SATISFIED???

But don't you think putting it to a vote may cause schisms when some communities in the outlier areas vote no because they feel the threat is distant and not their problem? Why would they feel the need to help people that they feel no kindred to?

1. Because it is the right thing to do in a society built on worker solidarity
2. Because they might be next if those before them fall.

That was a thing in ancient greece and rome.

1. So you rely on people to vote to help you, though they share no national tie or kin with you, out of the kindness of their hearts. I don't know user. Sounds flimsy.

2. They might be, but perhaps they feel it wiser to allow you to fall first, granting them casualties on the invading army and time for them to set up defenses.

Yeah. With their fellow Romans. Nationality breeds trust.

Would you only help a man in need when he's the same skin colour as you? Or speaks the same language you do?

Then you're kind of a dick and fuck you

Do you believe this man of another language and nation would automatically help me?

Is there any reason to believe that he would not?
Even if he wouldn't, it is still wrong to do nothing.

...

Stop projecting you racist piece of shit.

A noble idea, but it would be folly to help a man who would not care if you were facing destruction because it is the whole basis of your premise that he would. Doesn't sound like comradery to me user.

I'm racist for not defending a man that would not defend me. Lol k.

I spose I should say, I'm racist for defending a man who has no loyalty to me. Not all can defend because not all are equal.

*For not defending

nah you're racist for assuming a man from another ethnicity would never defend you.

I never said a man of another color. But language and nationality, though I should say community for this case. It was the other user that brought color into this so it's funny you say I'm the one projecting.

Tell me, was France racist for not defending the Axis when America entered the war?

the problem with the system you're proposing is that, in order for it to work, others must think like you, act like you, share the same morals as you.

If others are total assholes and don't want to help out, like the guy you were arguing with, then the whole system falls apart. Protip: people are assholes

That's true of any political system
It always needs at least passive acceptance by a majority