• @bouh
    link
    11 year ago

    And how would the absence of state allow to fight these rich people and companies?

    • poVoq
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Explaining this is out of scope of this community… but currently it is the police that is protecting these companies and the courts that are jailing activists. If you think the state is (or even can be) on our side, you are gravely mistaken.

      • @bouh
        link
        01 year ago

        I firmly disagree. No state merely means a feudal state in my opinion, with the rich and companies being the lords. You can’t prevent them from seizing and enslaving places and people without a strong authority to rule them.

        Then, making a state work for the people rather than the companies is another matter.

        • schmorp
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Unless you can somehow make a state hold itself accountable for its actions I don’t see that we’ll ever get a state that works for the people. Of course there’s a spectrum with some states worse than others, but to have to constantly fight off authoritarian structures who want more power over you shouldn’t be the norm.

          • @bouh
            link
            11 year ago

            That’s what democracy is trying to do.

            On the other hand, as I said, no state means a feudal state. If rich men or organisation are not reigned in some way, they will seize the power for themselves. It is actually what’s happening in liberal countries.

            With more cynism it is how societies work: an armed group seize a place for its profit or comfort. Until it’s submitted to a more powerful armed group. Democracy arise when the armed group want peace from the people under its rule. Or when the people are the biggest part of the army and get to organise themselves to take over.