GLR Forum
General Forum => Politics => Topic started by: K6 on Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 16:39
-
The gay separatist group I have the honour of representing in the alt.politics.micronations usenet group has published today january 22,2006 and in Message # 29 of its sector of activity in English a sort of introduction to the notion of international gay cooperation and solidarity.The discussion may continue in the present forum.That discussion is openned to English speakers,as well as to native Spanish and French speakers either by way of the proper subdivision (multilingual section) of the present forum,or in alt.politics.micronations.
K6
-
The international cooperation of gays and lesbians has made certain progresses in the last years. I refere here to a particularly successfull organization called "International Lesbian and Gay Association", operating in 90 countries and representing more than 400 member organizations. The website of the organisation is: http://ilga.org/ (a funny pro-adoption TV ad is also available here (http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=724&ZoneID=4&FileCategory=3)).
Gay separatists/separationists are at present not organized properly: to this day there is no serious entity formally existing. Any effort into this direction should be started rationally and on the least common basis - administration of activities and resources. The internet can be widely used for discussions and place for information, the activities as such should be performed in the real world, of course. The proposed organization can devote itself to further elaboration of possible strategies for gay self-determination and popularization of the idea as such. With time, a camp and a permanent settlement could be established for experimental purposes (just a suggestion).
-
Gay separatists/separationists are at present not organized properly: to this day there is no serious entity formally existing. Any effort into this direction should be started rationally and on the least common basis - administration of activities and resources. The internet can be widely used for discussions and place for information, the activities as such should be performed in the real world, of course. The proposed organization can devote itself to further elaboration of possible strategies for gay self-determination and popularization of the idea as such. With time, a camp and a permanent settlement could be established for experimental purposes (just a suggestion).
1) Action on site alone counts.The internet is only the place to exchange information about experimentation in different places and under
various conditions,by gays living in different countries.
2) Trying to establish now a gay independent State does not represent a proximate and realistic goal.
3) Anything we try to establish now will be parallel to existing heterosexual State organizations.It may encompass tasks and procedures which do not require a State apparatus for their implementation.Like for instance the drafting and implementation of a definition of who is gay.Such a deed,not constituting yet a physical action,will not lend itself at being stopped by some other physical action.
4) Nationalism is premature,and might not correspond exactly to what we are.It is a romantic idea,good to whip up the passions of people including gays.But it might prove to be only the icind on the cake,whereas our idea is to bake a cake (= a State like organization).We might
be something more than a nation,for there exist international aspects and also assets of ours which cannot be neglected by us in a struggle for self-determination.
5) Upon experimentation on site and in everyday life,and following exchanges of results,different trends of thinking may appear which may
correspond to future and different gay political parties.As for myself,I am only a gay separatist,not really a gay nationalist despites appearances
to the contrary.I may seem at times passionate,but it s because I am familiar with political propaganda.
K6
-
3) Anything we try to establish now will be parallel to existing heterosexual State organizations.It may encompass tasks and procedures which do not require a State apparatus for their implementation.Like for instance the drafting and implementation of a definition of who is gay.Such a deed,not constituting yet a physical action,will not lend itself at being stopped by some other physical action.
The territorial state is just one organization amongst others. The purpose of the state varies from country to country, and in many countries former typically governmental jobs are assigned to private enterprises. The maintenance of the post, television, streets, railways, nuclear power stations, research, medical care, public education, social security and communal infrastructure - all these things are manageable as well by the state as by private organizations. In some countries even public security and penal system are in private hand.
Therefore it is logical, that local LGBT communities can make a lot of work for their benefit through their own organizations, without having the lable "state". At least in countries with moderate freedoms this way is the most promising to further real economical and cultural developement. Those with money can invest in support of the "gay-communal" small business, and commercial and non-commercial culture can exist side on side.
Such local structures come close to Jeff's "colonies concept" (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.msg121#msg121), though any actual network can function also as K6's "parallel" concept.
A global cooperation is highly desireable and in parts already existing, as some gay businessmen were smart enouph to invest money into gay tourism industry in e.g. Thailand. Recent donation from Elton John to a Nepalese gay rights activist group BDS (http://bds.org.np/) is a honorable example of private cross-continental help. However, a results oriented support through an organization like ILGA might be of additional benefit, as such an organization has certainly more experience and detailed knowledge of local situations than a private person. The objection that one head organization is only for the benefit of the "apparatschiks" is a foolish one, as search and anylysis of request for donation and control of the investments is a true job, which must be sensibly paid for. Greenpeace and many other organizations prove that even global jobs can be successfully performed by NGOs.
If we additionally manage to gain some additional souvereignity with years, the prospectives of cooperation seem very good.
-
Therefore it is logical, that local LGBT communities can make a lot of work for their benefit through their own organizations, without having the lable "state".
The basic element we have in permanence and are certain to retain is the gay individual.His association with other gays represents less a certainty,
and constitutes another level a bit higher and more hypothetical.In a certain number of countries,it is possible for gays to congregate and associate openly.In many it is not.There should exist basic tasks and duties for the gay individual,regardless of the fact that there may or may not exist some gaymeeting place or organization in the area he lives.A gay could find himself and at times without a community or organization.But he should at no time be left without a set of political rules of conduct or instructions.
K6
-
Certainly, ethical guildance is an essential need of many gays, espeacially when they are very young. The normative heterosexual moral often puts a young gay individual into conflict with his inner nature and his very wants and desires. The 3 monoteist religions of the "western world" clearly condemn homosexuality as a sin, but are often incorporated by gay youth as a basis for any ethically correct behaviour. It appears to me that these religions cannot build the moral basis for any self-accepting, conscious and proud gay identity.
The prize question is, whether any further developed legislation of an actual or imaginated gay entity can serve as ethical guildlines for an isolated gay individual? Or do we perhaps need our own religion/faith?
This question is not so easy to answer, as it may seem at the first. On one hand, the entire modern legislation serves solely to the purpose of regulating relationships/conflicts between natural persons, legal entities and the state. The ethical assessement of any action/behaviour is not relevant for the criminal or civil legislation. On the other hand, religious scriptures (partially) were initially set up as civil and penal codices, and e.g. Sharia is still practisized in some countries. What historical models shall we envision now if we are considering establishing a codex for the gay civilization?
The answer probably depends on whether a souvereign gay entity will be established, or not. A gay state designed as a modern society would need an entire framework of legislation, with threshold values for dangerous immissions, with detailed penalties for theft, cheque fraud, fire-raising and the like. Independently, an ethical code or set of conventions must exist - to give an individual an ethical guildance. Such an ethical code would be of greate use also for any isolated gay individual, who is subject of "heterosexual" laws in his country of residence.
But who shall write such a codex? Who can claim of himself the very knowledge of what is good and what is evil for a gay creature? Who can accomplish such a magnificent piece of work to give the eternal truth to a population of currently 500 millions, and billions of their successors? I do not know such an intellectual giant, who could perform this task on his/her own. It is also clear, that many ethical questions do not allow simple answers, and different philosophers would offer different solutions for the same ethical problem.
And here we come to the key point of the discussion. Not a single work should form our "Gay Scripture", but a collection of selected works of different philosophers - be it works of K. H. Ulrichs, "16 Propositions" of M. Denneny or just the fervent speeches of L. Kramer. A Code, as you suggest it, can become an essential part of such a compillation, but it cannot replace it - complex problems (such as ethical worldview of any particular gay individual) require complex solutions.
-
The prize question is, whether any further developed legislation of an actual or imaginated gay entity can serve as ethical guildlines for an isolated gay individual? Or do we perhaps need our own religion/faith?
We are in need of a secular political faith in ourselves.If we have made it since the origins of mankind,why should be believe in anybody else ? Or in anybody`s else intervention to saveguard our interests ?
K6
-
The answer probably depends on whether a souvereign gay entity will be established, or not. A gay state designed as a modern society would need an entire framework of legislation, with threshold values for dangerous immissions, with detailed penalties for theft, cheque fraud, fire-raising and the like. Independently, an ethical code or set of conventions must exist - to give an individual an ethical guildance. Such an ethical code would be of greate use also for any isolated gay individual, who is subject of "heterosexual" laws in his country of residence.
We have to contemplate three scenarios.
The first is the absence of a gay independent State,and the total lack of previous experience in statehood and statecraft.This corresponds to the present times in which we are living.
The second scenario,which would have to be contemplated already in some future time when we would have an independent State of our own,
would be its downfall.Either for general historical reasons,as happens to heterosexual States.Or for reasons having to do with our eventual incapacity to tender to our own particular demographic situation.Whatever we establish as a State structure will not be above what happened
to previous such structures.We are no better than heterosexuals in that respect.And we have particular problems which heterosexuals don`t have,and for which there exist no real historical experience.
The third scenario would be a "Vichy" gay State,having become a puppet of some hethro Empire or regime,no longer representing our interests,
and using in fact its name and apparatus to undermine the said interests.
In those three scenarios,sovereignty has to find some repository other than a State.There is nothing extraordinnary in that.The Poles did it during WWII.France`s general De Gaulle proceeded on similar lines after the defeat of his country in 1940.The Poles as a group,or general De Gaulle as an individual,never accepted foreign domination.The normal repository of gay sovereignty in the absence of a State,if we were better organized politically,would have been the gay people itself.We will probably have to rest content with the individual,because it`s only to the efforts of the individual that we ow our existence.The individual cannot represent the will of the people.But he can represent its interests,provided that the said interests are well defined.And from that point on,he can evolve a course of action and a code of conduct.Just read the War Memories of
general De Gaulle,and this should be perfectly clear.
A gay code of political conduct,besides defining the distinct interests of the gay people,has little to invent.Mostly,it can borrow from historical examples and political science.Machiavelli is an excellent author for that matter: read his book "The Prince".So is de Gaulle with his War Memories.
Another excellent author on Statecraft is Henry Kissinger,with his book titled "Diplomacy".Such is the life of a gay separatist: it consists merely in studying,in order to know in detail how heterosexual organized societies function and interact.
K6
-
We are in need of a secular political faith in ourselves.If we have made it since the origins of mankind,why should be believe in anybody else ? Or in anybody`s else intervention to saveguard our interests ?
This is true. The international gay heritage created through millenia must be collected, augmented and transmitted from generation to generation. This heritage includes political and philosophical works, belles lettres and visual arts. My suggestion was to make a compillation of important political and philosophical contributions to form a kind of secular "gay scripture", which would form the frame of our political (national?) self-perception. The "scripture" may consist of controversal works, leaving it to the reader to follow the various logical lines and decide by him/herself, what considerations appear more evident. It is clear, that with decades/centuries many new works shall be added to the "scripture" to address new ethical/political problems or depict new solutions.
We have to contemplate three scenarios. [..] In those three scenarios,sovereignty has to find some repository other than a State. [..] The normal repository of gay sovereignty in the absence of a State,if we were better organized politically,would have been the gay people itself.We will probably have to rest content with the individual,because it`s only to the efforts of the individual that we ow our existence.The individual cannot represent the will of the people.But he can represent its interests,provided that the said interests are well defined. [..]
Certainly, in the absence of the gay state the burden of preserving and transmittance of the gay cultural heritage is lying on the shoulders of single gay individuals. These individuals can act in more or less organized associations (as in many liberal countries in our time), or on their own risk (situation in highly oppressive regimes).
What are the duties of a gay individual in the absence of the gay state? I would shortly depict them in my own understanding as follows:
- Be aware of one's identity as gay.
- Do not act contrary to one's gay nature.
- Do not enter into heterosexual marriage.
- Live openly gay, if the cituation allows this without coming into live danger. Spoiled political carreer or deminished income does not constitute live danger.
- Learn to respect other homosexuals independently of their unusual clothings and apparantly ridiculous attitudes.
- Help other homosexuals when you are able to do so. If you know a homeless gay, help him to find a home, food and cloth. If other homosexuals become assaulted, help them to defend themselves. If you cannot help by yourselfe, find someone who can help.
- Take care of yourselfe and others. Donate to medical and social projects.
- Learn to know gay history and culture. Pass your knowledge to others in your surroundings, especially to the younger ones.
- Help closeted or cocooned homosexuals to understand and accept their identity and to come out.
- If you are an employer, give jobs prevalently to suitable homosexual applicants - they will have difficulties to get a job elsewhere. Pay your employees well and take care of them. Business profit is an issue of economy, and as such only a part of human social life.
- Engage in politics to improve situation of homosexuals in your country or in your place. Write letters in behalf of persecuted homosexuals in other countries if you become aware of their persecution. Press to your representatives/government to intervene.
- Support gay political and cultural organizations. Tell others that a gay state could be created if gays were sufficiently organized. If you are rich, buy an area and declare it a gay colony.
:+
-
This is true. The international gay heritage created through millenia must be collected, augmented and transmitted from generation to generation. This heritage includes political and philosophical works, belles lettres and visual arts. My suggestion was to make a compillation of important political and philosophical contributions to form a kind of secular "gay scripture", which would form the frame of our political (national?) self-perception. The "scripture" may consist of controversal works, leaving it to the reader to follow the various logical lines and decide by him/herself, what considerations appear more evident. It is clear, that with decades/centuries many new works shall be added to the "scripture" to address new ethical/political problems or depict new solutions.
With the advent of the internet,this is now among the things possible.Politics are the art of the possible.
K6
-
[li]Do not act contrary to one's gay nature.[/li]
If hypothetically I was a teacher in some school for future gay political cadres to be at a later date invested and sacrificed onto the altar of gay self-determination,I would tell them bluntly: "There is no heterosexual or gay human nature.The gay people is completely alone on the world stage of history,as are other actors on that stage.We exist only because of the dedication of individuals to our particular orientation.There is no common arbiter between us and the heterosexuals,not even nature.We can be saved from extinction and foreign hethro rule only by ourselves".
K6
-
[li]Help closeted or cocooned homosexuals to understand and accept their identity and to come out.[/li]
I beg here to differ.A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.So-called closeted homosexuals are to be abandonned to their fate.This is the time to save the people and the future State,not to rescue the individual who was not up to the test and task of existence and self-determination for the gay nation.Cocooned gays,we can entice by something greater than their own carreers for a while,not indefinitely.
K6
-
[..] There is no heterosexual or gay human nature.The gay people is completely alone on the world stage of history,as are other actors on that stage.We exist only because of the dedication of individuals to our particular orientation.There is no common arbiter between us and the heterosexuals,not even nature.We can be saved from extinction and foreign hethro rule only by ourselves. [..]
There are strong indices in favour of the in-born nature of human sexual orientation. We could therefore very well talk of someones "heterosexual" or "homosexual" nature, meaning the natural affinity to the opposite or the same sex. Even (arbitrarily) assuming that children are not sexually determined at birth, one can hardly argue that an individual "chooses" freely his sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about feelings, not about deeds - even a homosexual engaged in "heterosexual lifestyle" still remains a homosexual - a closeted one, however.
Quite another thing is, of course, being gay as political act (we have discussed (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php/topic,140.0.html) the issue extensely in relation to Denneny's "First Proposition" (http://gayhomeland.org/library/EN_Sixteen_Propositions.htm) already). As a people, the gay people is indeed solely the result of the free will of gays - considering being gay as identity-forming token and creating the gay culture(s) by themselves. We must be therefore aware, that "homosexuals" will exist through millenia independently from any efforts, whereas the same cannot be stated about "gays" - to preserve us as a people, we must act as a people. We must strengthen the relations within our people over the borders of existing states and languages, overcome the generation gap and find solutions to involve less wealthy individuals. Viital institutions for our cultural needs shall be created, and the internet as a low-cost solution should be used for communication and distribution of cultural goods.
I beg here to differ.A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.So-called closeted homosexuals are to be abandonned to their fate.This is the time to save the people and the future State,not to rescue the individual who was not up to the test and task of existence and self-determination for the gay nation.Cocooned gays,we can entice by something greater than their own carreers for a while,not indefinitely.
K6, we apparently have very differing understanding of the role of the state, and of the role of so-called "political elites". You seem to be very fond of the "Staatsräson" and of the idea that the individual's primary assignment is to serve the needs of the state - at almost any cost. The logical consequence is then to distinguish between "good" and "bad", clearly "worthy" and "worthless" citizens - depending on how much they can be used for the purposes of the state leadership. Brain-washing and indoctrination instead of education, prescribed "correct" ideology, incarceration or elimination of inconvenient opponents - is this the way to go for us?
It must be clearly stated at this point, that in the gay state we would be fierceful political opponents: I abominate totalitarism in all its forms, even in the form of the gay totalitarism. Not the people ought serve the state, but the state ought serve the people! And a diverse people we are: closeted homosexuals belong to this people as well as militant gay isolationists, cowards as well as braves - we are one people. The state shall take care of all members of our people - we cannot arbitrarily exclude those who do not fit into tightl ideological schemes. If they are weak and cocooned, it is our duty to help them to develope further as gay individuals by the means of education and positive role modeling, instead of living them to their fate.
Society lives from pluralism, and wherever tatalitarian structures were installed, it was always bad for the people. Intellectual monoculture, corruption and oppression were the only fruits of such structures - not the intended ideological euphory. I have first-hand experience with totalitarian societies, and I can witness that the reality in such societies is mostly very different from the scenario wich was invented by the political clique.
Your notion of sacrifice in the service of the gay state is a valuable one, and can be very well preached to the cadres of military, medical corps or particular political organizations. These values, however, cannot be transplanted into the entire population by the means of coercion and brain-washing.
The various political schools will struggle for the influence on the state and the society - and in this struggle the best way for our people will be found. The "fundamentalists" can peacefully live side on side with "liberals".
-
There are strong indices in favour of the in-born nature of human sexual orientation. We could therefore very well talk of someones "heterosexual" or "homosexual" nature, meaning the natural affinity to the opposite or the same sex. Even (arbitrarily) assuming that children are not sexually determined at birth, one can hardly argue that an individual "chooses" freely his sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about feelings, not about deeds - even a homosexual engaged in "heterosexual lifestyle" still remains a homosexual - a closeted one, however.
What individuals feel is beyond my humble means of evaluation.Individuals are therefore what they do,and which remains within the range of my capacities for observation.
K6
-
K6, we apparently have very differing understanding of the role of the state, and of the role of so-called "political elites". You seem to be very fond of the "Staatsräson"
If I am not compelled by circumstances to choose between the State and the individual,I won`t.I will actually be glad to be spared that terrible choice,which is not an easy one for a product of a democratic society like my humble self.But if some individual forces me into a choice between himself and some gay political interest more permanent than an individual,I will do that choice.It cannot be said that I will not have given an advanced warning to that effect.I am a deadly serious person when it comes to the idea of gay self-determination.
K6
-
It must be clearly stated at this point, that in the gay state we would be fierceful political opponents: I abominate totalitarism in all its forms, even in the form of the gay totalitarism.
I have reservations about totalitarianism which I once mentionned in this forum.They are not really sentimentally based,or motivated by the salvation of the individual.Totalitarian States and regimes have no process for transfering political power in an orderly fashion from an administration to another.Or from one generation to another.In that respect,totalitarianism endangers the continuous existence of the State.That,but that only,keeps me from giving my adhesion to an eventual totalitarian gay regime.The individual alone would not provide me with a motivation to remain comitted to democracy as the least disagreable political regime.Once the task of establishing a gay independent State is over,power must be handed to a democratic political regime,in the same fashion announced by General De Gaule in his War Memories.The comitment to democracy is sentimental in certain individuals,and motivated by the Raison d`État in others like my humble self.You remain free to assess which motive is the most reliable.
K6
-
Your notion of sacrifice in the service of the gay state is a valuable one, and can be very well preached to the cadres of military, medical corps or particular political organizations. These values, however, cannot be transplanted into the entire population by the means of coercion and brain-washing.
On that point,I do not disagree with you.Gays are real,not idealistic.We will have to do the job with the human material at hand.With the best
material available upon which we can set our hands,like the Jesuit order.
K6
-
I have reservations about totalitarianism which I once mentionned in this forum.They are not really sentimentally based,or motivated by the salvation of the individual.Totalitarian States and regimes have no process for transfering political power in an orderly fashion from an administration to another.Or from one generation to another.In that respect,totalitarianism endangers the continuous existence of the State. [..]
This is a very satisfying statement - it makes at the end no difference out of what motivations one makes the right thing. In my view, the state is the expression of the collective interest of the people - to serve the common needs of the people. In a totalitarian regime the state quickly turns out to serve interests of the clique at power - and against the people. It is good that we agree upon that point.
You are suggesting to learn from Jesuits - I can agree to this notion, yes. Political and methodological education is very important. Religious orders have recognized this long time ago, and we can learn a lot from them about organization.
-
This is a very satisfying statement - it makes at the end no difference out of what motivations one makes the right thing. In my view, the state is the expression of the collective interest of the people - to serve the common needs of the people. In a totalitarian regime the state quickly turns out to serve interests of the clique at power - and against the people. It is good that we agree upon that point.
I was born and I have lived so far under a democratic regime.I was entirely free to criticize it along with others,which didn`t left me entirely unconscious as to its limitations.First,it doesn`t exist everywhere as I was able to see for myself by traveling abroad.Second,it is rather recent,
since one doesn`t encounter much democracy in action and in history books.It is not a very heroic political system,notably in its social-democratic
form with which I am the most familiar.Democracy could lead the State to its downfall,and produce the individuals just for that.But my impression
in the case of democracy is that the downfall will only be temporary,for democracy will also produce the individuals required to reestablish the independence of the State.Whereas the downfall of such totalitarian States like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was irretrievable.In his War Memories,General De Gaule comments contemptuously on the limitations of the parlimentary democratic system.More or less,he says that the country (in his case,France) is to be saved from foreign domination,and it is a most regrettable thing that the bunch of its "saviors" will have in the end to step down and restore democracy in power,even if it is democracy itself which was the original cause of the dowfall of the State.After we have established an independent State of our own,liberals in it will be free to play their little ritual and/or idealistic games.Some liberals might be no match against perils of the foreign and international environment,in which case certain other people will replace them temporarily.
K6
-
I was born and I have lived so far under a democratic regime.I was entirely free to criticize it along with others,which didn`t left me entirely unconscious as to its limitations. [..]
I have grown up in a communist regime, and untill the age of 16 was a verwent socialist myself - no wunder, considering the propagandistic efforts of the state. The cardinal mistake of such systems is the necessity to limit the debate - because how else can one defend a state doctrin which has severe deficiencies? The limitation of the debate, and subsequent censoreship necessarily cause intellectual poverty among the broader leadership - we all know the consequences.
[..] its limitations.First,it doesn`t exist everywhere as I was able to see for myself by traveling abroad.Second,it is rather recent,
since one doesn`t encounter much democracy in action and in history books.It is not a very heroic political system,notably in its social-democratic
form with which I am the most familiar. [..]
The oldest democracy I am familiar with is the Athenian democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy). This was a very well-going direct democracy, a model which is unfortunately not very practicable in modern societies. "Every nation has the government it deserves" - a very true statement. A herd of sheep are best governed by an absolute monarch and a small aristocracy, whereas a civil society with well-educated and mature citizens is best served by democracy. The democratic government stands and falls with its institutions and the readiness of citizens to participate in the political process.
To quote Wikipedia:
"A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot' that finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs) meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning."
It is therefore the duty of political elites to enhance the education level of citizens and to create a positive climate of considering political rights a privilege, and not a burden. The current developements in many countries, namely the purposeful spread of idioty among citizens, resembles the decay of Roman Republic - with the intent to depriove the people from power and to transfer it to the hands of few.
[..] More or less,he says that the country (in his case,France) is to be saved from foreign domination,and it is a most regrettable thing that the bunch of its "saviors" will have in the end to step down and restore democracy in power,even if it is democracy itself which was the original cause of the dowfall of the State.After we have established an independent State of our own,liberals in it will be free to play their little ritual and/or idealistic games.Some liberals might be no match against perils of the foreign and international environment,in which case certain other people will replace them temporarily. [..]
The case of pre-war France is but one example of possible weakness of democracy - Weimar Germany is another one. However, it was not the democratic order that caused the troubles - the countries leadership and populations were simply entrapped in wrong state of minds. Athenian democracy was as succesfull a military power as the Spartan monarchy - with overwhelmingly higher culture and wealth. The high art of politics will be to find the right place of action for any particular politician or strateg.
-
The case of pre-war France is but one example of possible weakness of democracy - Weimar Germany is another one. However, it was not the democratic order that caused the troubles - the countries leadership and populations were simply entrapped in wrong state of minds.
The democratic system is the best to administer a country in conditions of plenty and under quiet international circumstances.Its decisional procedures and humanitarian concerns may however be no match in agitated and dangerous times on the world`s stage,when the independence of the nation-State is at stake.Or when the issue is precisely to create a new State.Obstacles of a human nature will eventually be encountered by us,which will not always lend themselves to good old liberal solutions or methods of political action.
K6
-
I have grown up in a communist regime, and untill the age of 16 was a verwent socialist myself - no wunder, considering the propagandistic efforts of the state. The cardinal mistake of such systems is the necessity to limit the debate - because how else can one defend a state doctrin which has severe deficiencies? The limitation of the debate, and subsequent censoreship necessarily cause intellectual poverty among the broader leadership - we all know the consequences.
I have observed twice communist regimes on site and in action.A few things in them did impressed me.Some others either left me completely indifferent,or inspired me only irony and contempt.Some aspects of these regimes did fool me,like their police apparatus.I could not imagine that such regimes,apparently so well armed,could collapse so quickly.Lastly,and at the time I became a gay separatist (70s),marxism had an important following in the part of the world where I live.None of these communist gentlemen wanted to move to a communist country however.Which led me to conclude that political power was their real motive,and marxist ideology only a pretext.
K6
-
The subject of this thread makes it a good place to ask if anyone has followed up on the request for help with copying and pasting the self determination statement in any social media comment sections yet?