See, the examples you are siting are small-scale. When you apply this idea to a society of millions of people, things are going to wrong. And yes, there is something wrong with killing thousands of people to achieve an end - it's incredibly hypocritical, and I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more than just the "bad" people that end up getting killed. When you think about it, people who want to achieve such a utopian ideal wouldn't be capable of pulling off a violent revolution - the ones who are capable of doing that probably have ulterior motives.That_Which_Isnt said:Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.SonicKoala said:It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.
When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.
Second, how would you implement such a system? How would you ensure that everyone resorts to this co-operative style of living? The answer would have to be some sort of temporary dictatorship that organizes society into these small-scale co-operatives. They did something like that in the USSR, and it never worked. And sure, we have all these new advancements in technology, like the internet, but they would only benefit society provided everybody is completely honest and dedicated to this ideal. Theories like Communism and Anarchism rely FAR too heavily on the belief that this is what all people want, and that humanity in general is "good", which is naive.