An Anarchist Revolution Or Nothing

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:13 pm

spartacus wrote:

Ok with some I shall engage in dialog but with others I will not, for example:

BornAgainAthiest YES dialog

DigitalAtheist NO

Anarchists and their rules! Rolling Eyes

Oh my!
Holy carp! Spartacus! You live! You can respond!

My apologies for the late response, I have been busy with some projects, and couldn't be as present as usual.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this quote above. I think it means you don't want to talk to me.
Did I hurt your feelings? Then, I am sorry that I made the comments in my second post to this thread. I merely assumed that you were a troll (of some nature) because you seemed to ignore my original (very valid) question, AND EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THIS OR ANY OTHER THREAD YOU HAVE STARTED! You may have proven me wrong. I am as willing to create a dialogue with you as anybody else on this forum, but you have to remember, it is a forum. People will ask questions and seek clarifications from you. 'Tis the nature of forums, n'est pas? If you treat it as a soapbox for a one-way barrage of almost senseless drivel, then people will throw rotten banana peels at you. Nasty, but true.

So please, provide some direct answers to some questions, and this may become a welcome incubator for your revolution. To act holier-than-thou with doctrinal bombast is merely to be a pretender.

My first question still stands (brute/elegant), but the good FMJ provides what I deem to be a reasonable echo of its intent, albeit better-read and with a better understanding of the subject. To wave a lace handkerchief in the direction of either of these questions would be a nice show of good intentions.

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:23 pm

spartacus wrote:

Most people work because they don’t have any other choice; it is the only way available to them under the system to survive to the next day.

I totally agree with him here. Something I've noticed in the "framing" of "work" in our monetary based society. I hear constantly, "People want jobs/work". I however don't believe this to be entirely accurate. People want the stuff the money allows them to purchase from the jobs they work. I think most humans would gladly accept the "stuff" without the "work" if it was possible. That said, there are still essential jobs that must be performed, I don't however believe this will always be the case. I also believe there are a high percentage of jobs that are performed that are not essential and are in fact wasteful, and that many of these jobs are only done in support of the "economic system" itself. To clarify waist in the last sentence; I don't equate waist to money, I equate it to the resources the money synthetically represents. No matter how much "money" there is, it can't produce more resources then are finitely available for our use. I truly believe most humans forget what it (capital) represents, and wrongly believe, "if we have enough money, we can do anything". It's pure bullshit.

One such industry I believe falls into this wasteful category is insurance. Untold amounts of our finite resources are consumed every year in the propagation of an intermediary payment system. Essentially a payment middle man. It's my opinion our society would be better off without this industry (I use the word lightly, because they produce nothing but some crap we call "peace of mind").

The Learned Joined: Jun 15, 2005 Posts: 120

The Decline and Fall of Capitalism and the State
System Collapse and the end of Authority

The end of capitalism is near, the state and authority will disappear with it. Life without capitalism will prevail at last on the whole of planet earth. Life will be without the private ownership of the means of production and of natural resources and without money or trade. The system will end for ever and an anti-system will take its place.

To the students of California, to the anti-Olympic movement in Canada, to the Chiapas in Mexico, to the black bloc and to the Tarmac Tiqqun, to the global justice and social forums to the internet, forget Foucault and forget Budillard, Capitalism is collapsing.

The day will come when the people of the world will rebel and create the long awaited real revolution. It took many years of slavery and execution for the people to reach a level of no return, i.e., anarcho-social revolution. It will happen in the first half of this century.

The people of Russia and America, the people of Iran and China, Arabs, Israeli and Africans will revolt in a global revolution to terminate once and for ever this anti-human parasitic capitalist system.

This day is not that far away, it is not a question of how it will happen but when and where it will start. For the time being we will fasten the process and accelerate the rate of development as to bring nearer the day of emancipation.

Humanity is anarchic, and anarchically it desires to exist, without money, authority, work and competition. We want to live as human people living in an expanding and equal universe. Some will be at the forefront some will lag a bit behind, but all will march towards this long awaited future.

Beyond theory (meta-theory) and beyond practice (meta-practice) comes freedom and creativity, without poverty and fear. We will decide how to live not capitalism, we will decide what is right or wrong not the state or religious morality. We will decide if we want to work in a coercive violent class society.

Forget Marx, forget the past, begin everything from scratch, do what you please without harming others and nature. Freedom and equality for all on a one small planet. We will save the planet and ourselves just days before it will be too little too late.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:09 pm

spartacus wrote:

The Decline and Fall of Capitalism and the State
System Collapse and the end of Authority

The end of capitalism is near, the state and authority will disappear with it. Life without capitalism will prevail at last on the whole of planet earth. Life will be without the private ownership of the means of production and of natural resources and without money or trade. The system will end for ever and an anti-system will take its place.

To the students of California, to the anti-Olympic movement in Canada, to the Chiapas in Mexico, to the black bloc and to the Tarmac Tiqqun, to the global justice and social forums to the internet, forget Foucault and forget Budillard, Capitalism is collapsing.

The day will come when the people of the world will rebel and create the long awaited real revolution. It took many years of slavery and execution for the people to reach a level of no return, i.e., anarcho-social revolution. It will happen in the first half of this century.

The people of Russia and America, the people of Iran and China, Arabs, Israeli and Africans will revolt in a global revolution to terminate once and for ever this anti-human parasitic capitalist system.

This day is not that far away, it is not a question of how it will happen but when and where it will start. For the time being we will fasten the process and accelerate the rate of development as to bring nearer the day of emancipation.

Humanity is anarchic, and anarchically it desires to exist, without money, authority, work and competition. We want to live as human people living in an expanding and equal universe. Some will be at the forefront some will lag a bit behind, but all will march towards this long awaited future.

Beyond theory (meta-theory) and beyond practice (meta-practice) comes freedom and creativity, without poverty and fear. We will decide how to live not capitalism, we will decide what is right or wrong not the state or religious morality. We will decide if we want to work in a coercive violent class society.

Forget Marx, forget the past, begin everything from scratch, do what you please without harming others and nature. Freedom and equality for all on a one small planet. We will save the planet and ourselves just days before it will be too little too late.

BornAgainAthiest here, Spartacus!

Ok, you won't talk to DigitalAthiest and I won't talk to you, so how about you talking to MockingGods? Why don't you try and convert him to your way of Anarchic thinking? Who knows? Maybe the two of you would agree - if only you (Spartacus Anarchus) would talk with him (MockingGods). Hmmmm....?

BAA.

The Learned Joined: Jun 15, 2005 Posts: 120

To

FullMentalJackpot

Gabriel Kolko – book 1979
We knew all this before, during and after Marx, we knew what is bolshevism and what is Taylorism, we knew everything and warned the communists, even Marx and Lenin were warned by anarchists about the consequence of their activity.
Forget Kolko, we don’t need this capitalist to tell us about political economy – Kolko is part of the problem not the solution, which is a total socio-anarchic revolution.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:27 pm

BAA wrote:

Ok, you won't talk to DigitalAthiest and I won't talk to you, so how about you talking to MockingGods? Why don't you try and convert him to your way of Anarchic thinking? Who knows? Maybe the two of you would agree - if only you (Spartacus Anarchus) would talk with him (MockingGods). Hmmmm....?

Perhaps my ideas are even too radical for someone like sparticus, and he doesn't know how to proceed when someone conditionally agrees with him. Maybe he feels more comfortable arguing against the more traditional ideologies of the capitalistic right.

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

spartacus wrote:

To

FullMentalJackpot

Gabriel Kolko – book 1979
We knew all this before, during and after Marx, we knew what is bolshevism and what is Taylorism, we knew everything and warned the communists, even Marx and Lenin were warned by anarchists about the consequence of their activity.
Forget Kolko, we don’t need this capitalist to tell us about political economy – Kolko is part of the problem not the solution, which is a total socio-anarchic revolution.

Kolko is a socialist(yes i read many socialists and progressives). Your red religion is destructive. Let anarchists arrange themselves how they wish. Socialism for socialists and propertarian market order for those that understand signaling theory in regards to employing a scalar value to allocate scarce resources rather then binary democracy.

Kolko's fundamental argument was that the state cannot coexist with corporations because teh corporations would just exit the market and buy off state officials for protection. Kolko wanted only 1 provider of all things the state, but in order for that to work you must have the state seize all capital first. Capitalists, like me, read Kolko and realize that he's only partially right. Yes corporations and the state likely cannot coexist without massive exploitation of those without wealth. Instead of deriving the conclusion that we should have 1 agency control everything via a binary choice method we want decentralized institutional provision.

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1039

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

Let anarchists arrange themselves how they wish.

Surely an arrangement of anarchists is a contradiction in terms.

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:14 pm

MockingGods wrote:

spartacus wrote:

Most people work because they don’t have any other choice; it is the only way available to them under the system to survive to the next day.

I totally agree with him here. Something I've noticed in the "framing" of "work" in our monetary based society. I hear constantly, "People want jobs/work". I however don't believe this to be entirely accurate. People want the stuff the money allows them to purchase from the jobs they work. I think most humans would gladly accept the "stuff" without the "work" if it was possible. That said, there are still essential jobs that must be performed, I don't however believe this will always be the case. I also believe there are a high percentage of jobs that are performed that are not essential and are in fact wasteful, and that many of these jobs are only done in support of the "economic system" itself. To clarify waist in the last sentence; I don't equate waist to money, I equate it to the resources the money synthetically represents. No matter how much "money" there is, it can't produce more resources then are finitely available for our use. I truly believe most humans forget what it (capital) represents, and wrongly believe, "if we have enough money, we can do anything". It's pure bullshit.

MG,

The reasons that humans organized into civilized societies and developed cultures are myriad and well worth exploring. I think that a strong understanding of these mechanisms might help us to address the problems that you mention here. We are not alone, and I like to think that the studies of Darwin, McLuhan, and even Watson/Crick, etc are leading us all to this knowledge, despite all of the challenges and frustrations that these good people experience on their path.

As you likely know, I share your aversion to the "strong work-ethic" mentality that so many people are deluded by. Why shouldn't we human beings turn our energies to ending world hunger, or perhaps to the establishment of the two-day work week? The study (and perhaps even the practice) of anarchy may hold some answers to these questions. This chap "Spartacus", however, really doesn't offer anything of value to this movement. All that I see from him are bogus pseudo-aphorisms which extol some vague bucolic romance begot by (yet another) regime change. He is Camus's "revolutionary", but lacks an army, a philosophy, or a war. Spartacus is a demagogue with no plan for change.

The thing that really pisses me off is that he at once promotes the flower-power rhetoric of "do what you please without harming others and nature" and the violent politic of black bloc movements. This contradiction is absurd, and must be a joke. It's the stuff of first-year undergrad philosophy papers.

I would love to find more allies in the fights to end oppression, to promote intelligent thought, and to improve society and the world in general… but this irritating jackass ain't it. Not until he engages in some honest thinking anyway.

Well, that's my tirade for the day. Here's hoping this leads somewhere good.

Cheers!

DA

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

Stuz719 wrote:

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

Let anarchists arrange themselves how they wish.

Surely an arrangement of anarchists is a contradiction in terms.

You mean anarchist = isolationist?

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

DigitalAtheist wrote:

As you likely know, I share your aversion to the "strong work-ethic" mentality that so many people are deluded by. Why shouldn't we human beings turn our energies to ending world hunger, or perhaps to the establishment of the two-day work week? The study (and perhaps even the practice) of anarchy may hold some answers to these questions. This chap "Spartacus", however, really doesn't offer anything of value to this movement. All that I see from him are bogus pseudo-aphorisms which extol some vague bucolic romance begot by (yet another) regime change. He is Camus's "revolutionary", but lacks an army, a philosophy, or a war. Spartacus is a demagogue with no plan for change.

DA

If people have differentials in their preference for labor then proactive impositions would be the sort of thing that would just exploit those that wish to work harder or more. If people desire 2 day work week that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to free-ride on the productive capacities of others.

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:17 am

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

As you likely know, I share your aversion to the "strong work-ethic" mentality that so many people are deluded by. Why shouldn't we human beings turn our energies to ending world hunger, or perhaps to the establishment of the two-day work week? The study (and perhaps even the practice) of anarchy may hold some answers to these questions. This chap "Spartacus", however, really doesn't offer anything of value to this movement. All that I see from him are bogus pseudo-aphorisms which extol some vague bucolic romance begot by (yet another) regime change. He is Camus's "revolutionary", but lacks an army, a philosophy, or a war. Spartacus is a demagogue with no plan for change.

DA

If people have differentials in their preference for labor then proactive impositions would be the sort of thing that would just exploit those that wish to work harder or more. If people desire 2 day work week that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to free-ride on the productive capacities of others.

I honestly believe most people don't "desire" to work at all. Certainly there are the few individuals who are lucky enough to have a "job" they are passionate about, but it's my opinion that's a rarity. Most people work because it's the method by which they've come accustomed to, to exploit resources. They work because they have no other choice. Well, I suppose if starving as a homeless person without the option of health care is your idea of choice, they could take that route.

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:27 am

Excellent tirade DA... I enjoyed every word Very Happy

DigitalAtheist wrote:

As you likely know, I share your aversion to the "strong work-ethic" mentality that so many people are deluded by.

I could comment on nearly everything you wrote, but I'll start here. It's my opinion, in order for this complex system of economics to remain viable, people must be deluded into believing in a strong work ethic. There's probably some subtle social brainwashing going on in this "people want jobs" propaganda. The system would crumble if people stopped working. Here in the US there's another framing propaganda being used; "people want health insurance". People don't want health insurance... people want, and perhaps need, health care.

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:35 am

Stuz719 wrote:

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

Let anarchists arrange themselves how they wish.

Surely an arrangement of anarchists is a contradiction in terms.

I get it

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

MockingGods wrote:

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

As you likely know, I share your aversion to the "strong work-ethic" mentality that so many people are deluded by. Why shouldn't we human beings turn our energies to ending world hunger, or perhaps to the establishment of the two-day work week? The study (and perhaps even the practice) of anarchy may hold some answers to these questions. This chap "Spartacus", however, really doesn't offer anything of value to this movement. All that I see from him are bogus pseudo-aphorisms which extol some vague bucolic romance begot by (yet another) regime change. He is Camus's "revolutionary", but lacks an army, a philosophy, or a war. Spartacus is a demagogue with no plan for change.

DA

If people have differentials in their preference for labor then proactive impositions would be the sort of thing that would just exploit those that wish to work harder or more. If people desire 2 day work week that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to free-ride on the productive capacities of others.

I honestly believe most people don't "desire" to work at all. Certainly there are the few individuals who are lucky enough to have a "job" they are passionate about, but it's my opinion that's a rarity. Most people work because it's the method by which they've come accustomed to, to exploit resources. They work because they have no other choice. Well, I suppose if starving as a homeless person without the option of health care is your idea of choice, they could take that route.

It depends on how you define work or labor. It can be defined as doing something productive and valuable to society or the individual to wage slavery. I truely believe some people enjoy and desire to go to work, it may not be the majority but these people should not be enslaved bcs of differential in labor preference.
Is that really a valid scale ? you either work or starve to death ? I live in a major metropolitan city and quite a few individuals do not work. They receive wealth transfers.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile