The Anarchist Underground

Political movement
 
HomeTestCalendarGalleryFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
xdumbfuckx

avatar

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-12-09
Age : 26

PostSubject: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:32 pm

i feel the need to quote libertarian communism by isaac pente
i will go out on a limb, and say that most people who are active here will agree with this quotation.

Quote :
Libertarian Communism is a society organised without the state and without private ownership. And there is no need to invent anything or conjure up some new organization for the purpose. The centres about which life in the future will be organised are already with us in the society of today: the free union and the free municipality.

The union: in it combine spontaneiously the workers from factories and all places of collective exploitation.

And the free municipality: an assembly with roots stretching back into the past where, again in spontaneity, inhabitants of village and hamlet combine together, and which points the way to the solution of problems in social life in the countryside. (By "village" the author means a rural settlement of up to several thousand inhabitants. - Ed. )

Both kinds of organisation, run on federal and democratic principles, will be soveriegn in their decision making, without being beholden to any higher body, their only obligation being to federate one with another as dictated by the economic requirement for liaison and communications bodies organised in industrial federations.

The union and the free municipality will assume the collective or common ownership of everything which is under private ownership at present and will regulate production and consumption (in a word, the economy) in each locality.

The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is indicative in itself of the fusion of two ideas: one of them is collectivist, tending to bring about harmony in the whole through the contributions and cooperation of individuals, without undermining their independence in any way; while the other is individualist, seeking to reassure the individual that his independence will be respected.

Since by himself he can achieve nothing, the factory worker, railway worker or labourer needs to join forces with his colleagues, both to carry out his work and to protect his interests as an individual. In contrast, the artisan and the farm worker can live independently and can even be self-sufficient, as a result of which the spirit of individualism is deeply ingrained in them. Thus, the union meets the need for a collectivist organization, while the free municipality is better suited to the individualistic feelings of the peasant.

organization and the individual:
the organization of the masses is not something to be disregarded as optimistic, a ploy for power, or a gross disregard for personal life.
as im sure all of us have been subject to such bourgeois scrutiny, we have all heard at least one, if not all of those remarks on organization of the people.

the remark that it being optimistic, is not only insulting, but, shows a blatant disregard for history.
man craves organization.
the first thing man did once he raised his knuckles from the ground, was form rudimentary tribes.
almost immediately after the formation of tribes, what happened?
the tribes battled!
obviously, the largest tribes were victorious.
these larger tribes were comprised of small organized tribes.
the formation of these tribes are obviously responsible for the punctuated equilibrium-esque fashion, in which man has socially evolved.
eventually, the tribes became classes, and of course, class antagonism shows we are on the verge of class war.

as history shows, the largest tribes won.
thankfully, we are the majority.

and as for the disregard of the individual, i'd say mr. kropotkin summed that up rather well.


however, that being said, we now must ask ourselves, where do we stand on the spontaneity question?
do we wait, or do we organize at once?

i say we organize at once.
the longer we wait, the worse it will get.
even if we try to negotiate, then we are just a group of collaborationists, and not revolutionaries.
the longer we wait, the more we become reformists.

your thoughts?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Inkus2000
Admin
avatar

Posts : 284
Join date : 2008-07-04

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:02 pm

Anarchist organization at present is spontaneous - its (spontaneous organization) brought about by our social condition.

The thing about theory is that its full of false dichotomies - ie organization vs spontenuity LOL. Another example is collectivism vs individualism, its complete bullshit - a collective is just a bunch of individuals, either they have rights or they don't - it depends on what way the institutions they live in are organized - how much control they have over them ect.

I wouldn't get too caught up in semantics, don't get me wrong theory is essential however its easy to get tripped up by definitions ect -
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:40 am

i think it is necessary that each of us organize in decentralized and chaotic systems. chaotic systems are unpredictable and spontanious.
you can tell what a Nazi organization will do. it is clear because they are organized and systematic. on the other hand, you cannot tell what a group of anarchists will do because they are chaotic. they can come to smart conclusions and act according to needs and in creative ways instead of according to the demands of some guy at top. each individual in an anarchist group can reason and has responsibility, unlike in nazi or communist organizations. as soon as we give up our spontaneity and chaotic ways, we give up our responsibility, our freedom, and we fail.

i dont think we should organize ether in parties or in unions. unions are the same as parties but a bit smaller. we should organize in the workplace, because that is the place where democracy is most needed. then we should organize in small municipalities and have participatory democracy. the municipality should be voluntary. if the people want ot organize one in order to provide things like healthcare and education, then they can do so. the money would come to it voluntarily.
workplaces would be small and free to work for whoever they want to. for example, a workplace could design computer programs for a group of individuals who have an interest. that group of individuals would then get another workplace to manage sales, etc. it would be a free association of democratic workplaces. each is individual and can trade with whoever they want.
wether each workplace should be taxed by the municipality they belong to is up for debate, but i think taxation should be replaced with donation. after all, the municipality IS a workplace.

this is the model we aim for. this requires us to form democratic workplaces, cooperatives, and make our municipalities independant of the state. a kind of good example is Christiania, except it eventually had to give in to the power of the state.
dont get yourself involved in unions which try to unite people from different places, they are the same as parties. you could form organizations to support other anarchist organizations, but dont go any further. organize in your area and spread your ideas arround as much as possible. get yourself involved in local governments if you can and try to change them from within as well as from the outside.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:36 pm

xdumbfuckx wrote:
however, that being said, we now must ask ourselves, where do we stand on the spontaneity question?
do we wait, or do we organize at once?

i say we organize at once.
the longer we wait, the worse it will get.
even if we try to negotiate, then we are just a group of collaborationists, and not revolutionaries.
the longer we wait, the more we become reformists.

your thoughts?

I think there's some misunderstanding here. Spontaneity and organization are not mutually exclusive. Just because the revolutionary instincts of the working class is very reflexive, it doesn't necessarily rule out organizing. Spain is an instructive example. The collectivisation of the industries (meaning expropriation) was spontaneous, but the anarchist organisations gave some foundation to the movement towards collectivization, helping the process to be as efficient and coordinated as possible.

So yes, of course we should organize. Just because revolution will come more or less spontaneously, doesn't mean we shouldn't sew the seeds of organization, necessary for post-revolutionary order.

Quote :
chaotic systems are unpredictable and spontanious.

They're also confused and bereft of order. I don't think we should be embracing the bourgeois notion of "chaos=anarchy". In reality, anarchy is quite orderly. Yes, during the insurrectionary period of revolution there will be destruction, but this period fades when all the crucial industries are controlled democratically.

Quote :
i dont think we should organize ether in parties or in unions.

Parties, that's a given since they're inherently attached to the state. But don't necessarily rule out all unions. Maybe they're not the best for promoting direct action, but they can be a good platform for a solidaric working class. At least take everything into account before disregarding unions.

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:59 pm

"They're also confused and bereft of order. I don't think we should be embracing the bourgeois notion of "chaos=anarchy". In reality, anarchy is quite orderly. Yes, during the insurrectionary period of revolution there will be destruction, but this period fades when all the crucial industries are controlled democratically. "

in sazen, they say "what is the sound of one hand clapping". obviously, our language impedes us from looking at reality as it really is. while i talk in this forum i may use the word "chaos" because i think it is suitable, but when i talk to someone who doesnt know about anarchism, ill leave it for later. we have to understand the true meaning of chaos. chaos is sought by people who attempt to create artificial intelligence, because the mind emerges from chaos. this is why i think that the revolutionary movement should be chaotic. we should embrace everything, and like responsible and free individuals, we should seize the oportunities thrown at us. this means...

"Parties, that's a given since they're inherently attached to the state. But don't necessarily rule out all unions. Maybe they're not the best for promoting direct action, but they can be a good platform for a solidaric working class. At least take everything into account before disregarding unions."

...that we shouldnt necessary reject parties or unions, but not show full support for them. we could definately use unions and parties to our advantage, in fact, i see that is may be necessary to enter mainstream politics and especially local politics to achieve our ends. take Ron Paul for example, he is a politician, but he sais what he thinks. i have watched vids of ron paul saying things which politicians just dont say because they would be looked down upon. we have to cooperate with all kinds of people, but we have to make our points clear and seek our ends. this is what creates a chaotic system. the chaotic system arises from here and allows us to act smoothely and break the system while being unbreakable ourselves. the anarchists in spain failed when faced with violence, we can't let that happen again, we have to find new and mroe effective ways.
take the riots in greece for example. i dont agree with everything that is happening there, for example, i dont like the fact that they break small stores. but if i was there i would join them and i would break banks and corporate property. i would make my point clear. it is pointless to reject whole movements because they dont agree with your ideas. it is better to cooperate with what you agree and denounce what you dont agree with in a specific manner. this way anarchists cannot be defeated, because we are like water against a stone-hard system. we can't break it with force, but we can penetrate it with mindful action.

the hypnoticed masses are dangerous and can be easily manipulated, even if they are anarchists. but no one can manipulate masses of individuals, each with his own path in the system, and all to achieve one common end.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:52 am

god0fmusic wrote:
in sazen, they say "what is the sound of one hand clapping". obviously, our language impedes us from looking at reality as it really is. while i talk in this forum i may use the word "chaos" because i think it is suitable, but when i talk to someone who doesnt know about anarchism, ill leave it for later. we have to understand the true meaning of chaos. chaos is sought by people who attempt to create artificial intelligence, because the mind emerges from chaos. this is why i think that the revolutionary movement should be chaotic. we should embrace everything, and like responsible and free individuals, we should seize the oportunities thrown at us. this means...

What makes that the "true" meaning of chaos. It definitely didn't come from a dictionary.

Quote :
...that we shouldnt necessary reject parties or unions, but not show full support for them. we could definately use unions and parties to our advantage, in fact, i see that is may be necessary to enter mainstream politics and especially local politics to achieve our ends.

Why? What's the historical pretext for a comment like this?

Quote :
take Ron Paul for example, he is a politician, but he sais what he thinks.

Isn't he, like... a capitalist? There's no reason a cappie should refrain from politics, cos the system is already set to facilitate capitalist programs. But there's a big difference for anarchists.

Quote :
i have watched vids of ron paul saying things which politicians just dont say because they would be looked down upon. we have to cooperate with all kinds of people, but we have to make our points clear and seek our ends. this is what creates a chaotic system.

But who gives a shit. Our targeted audience are of the least likely to vote or participate in the electoral system at all. If you wanna get the word out, try the workplace or the union meetings; I say this cos revolution doesn't flow from the anarchist movement, but from the working class.

Quote :
the chaotic system arises from here and allows us to act smoothely and break the system while being unbreakable ourselves. the anarchists in spain failed when faced with violence, we can't let that happen again, we have to find new and mroe effective ways.

If you want me to take this seriously, you should seriously consider the state's participation in the counter-revolution. And you're suggesting that we partake in said state, as anarchists in Spain did, with miserly effectiveness. They were basically ejected from the program of collectivization, which i'm sure you know was more significant in Spain than in any other place in the world (any time in history), after they joined the state. Yes, the war was an issue, but a peoples imbued with revolutionary elan are quite difficult to conquer, just look at Spain and Russia as the foremost examples. I don't think i really need to go into the detail here.

Quote :
take the riots in greece for example. i dont agree with everything that is happening there, for example, i dont like the fact that they break small stores. but if i was there i would join them and i would break banks and corporate property. i would make my point clear. it is pointless to reject whole movements because they dont agree with your ideas. it is better to cooperate with what you agree and denounce what you dont agree with in a specific manner. this way anarchists cannot be defeated, because we are like water against a stone-hard system. we can't break it with force, but we can penetrate it with mindful action.

And mindful action is running for office?

Quote :
the hypnoticed masses are dangerous and can be easily manipulated, even if they are anarchists. but no one can manipulate masses of individuals, each with his own path in the system, and all to achieve one common end.

I'll accept this, but this doesn't mean we have to participate in the electoral process.

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:43 pm

"What makes that the "true" meaning of chaos. It definitely didn't come from a dictionary."

there is no true meaning to any word if you want to put it that way. the meaning of a word is the idea it creates in your mind. but of cousre words have to be coherent. we can't use one word for many different things because it's meaning would be confusing.

"Why? What's the historical pretext for a comment like this?"

what's bad about politics? isn't there politics in workers unions and syndicates? im sure there is structures and processes in the CNT. it doesn't just run by itself.

"Isn't he, like... a capitalist? There's no reason a cappie should refrain from politics, cos the system is already set to facilitate capitalist programs. But there's a big difference for anarchists."

it is easier for a capitalist to become a president. but an anarchist can participate in municipal politics because after all, anarchist can benefit a lot from municipalities. this is why bookchin created an ideology called libertarian municipalism, which has greatly influenced the american green movement btw.

"But who gives a shit. Our targeted audience are of the least likely to vote or participate in the electoral system at all. If you wanna get the word out, try the workplace or the union meetings; I say this cos revolution doesn't flow from the anarchist movement, but from the working class."

the working class?
funny. this guy in my class sais he doesnt care about anarchism because he already lives ok. he can get a job, and if he wants he can be his own boss. he doesn't need to work for walmart. he can go and work as in individual musician, engineer, etc. do you really think he associates himself with the working class? and rumanians? i dont think they give a shit ether. they come here and are the working class, but they are hard working and can get quite a good job. i know a bunch who work at this really nice bar near my house. i dont think they give a shit about the working class. in fact, here, rumanians leave the spanish in a bad position, because they work and the spanish are lazy asses. they know this, and they have the government to feed them from the money they tax out of the rich. yes, the government is taxing the rich and giving money to the poor. do you think anyone here gives a shit about the working class?
go to switzerland, sweden or finland and talk about working class. they will laugh in your face because they know that this is a myth. the lower classes in first world countries are in the situation they are because they are lazy asses. more and more third world countries are getting better economic conditions with the new world order. the new world order will make working class a myth. we will all be middle class.
it isn't class struggle any more, it is spiritual struggle. i am fighting in the name of the Buddha. i fight to free humanity from the mental fetters that have been forced upon us by this new world order. i fight to free humanity and allow each individual to be conscious and free. so everyone can be awake enough to understand that through these selfish desires we are getting nowhere, and that we have to cultivate new ethics to be happy.

"If you want me to take this seriously, you should seriously consider the state's participation in the counter-revolution. And you're suggesting that we partake in said state, as anarchists in Spain did, with miserly effectiveness. They were basically ejected from the program of collectivization, which i'm sure you know was more significant in Spain than in any other place in the world (any time in history), after they joined the state. Yes, the war was an issue, but a peoples imbued with revolutionary elan are quite difficult to conquer, just look at Spain and Russia as the foremost examples. I don't think i really need to go into the detail here."

dont capitalists criticize anarchists because we use capitalism to destroy itself instead of isolating ourselves from capitalism?
i think it is justifiable to use the state against itself. as long as it works, it goes. politics dont always involve working with an authoritarian state.

"And mindful action is running for office?"

i wouldn't run for office. but why shouldnt we participate in municipal politics?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:21 pm

god0fmusic wrote:
there is no true meaning to any word if you want to put it that way. the meaning of a word is the idea it creates in your mind. but of cousre words have to be coherent. we can't use one word for many different things because it's meaning would be confusing.

This was my point.

Quote :
what's bad about politics? isn't there politics in workers unions and syndicates? im sure there is structures and processes in the CNT. it doesn't just run by itself.

Looks like we're caught on a definition again. I don't consider unions and collectives to be politics, but this hardly matters.

As long as you're not suggesting running for office, then there's no disagreement here.

Quote :
it is easier for a capitalist to become a president. but an anarchist can participate in municipal politics because after all, anarchist can benefit a lot from municipalities. this is why bookchin created an ideology called libertarian municipalism, which has greatly influenced the american green movement btw.

Would you elaborate? How would an anarchist benefit? What came from this influence on the green movement?

Quote :
the working class?
funny. this guy in my class sais he doesnt care about anarchism because he already lives ok. he can get a job, and if he wants he can be his own boss. he doesn't need to work for walmart. he can go and work as in individual musician, engineer, etc. do you really think he associates himself with the working class?

It doesn't matter whether he associates himself with the working class: He either is or is not a working class-man. And i fail to see any relevance.

Quote :
and rumanians? i dont think they give a shit ether. they come here and are the working class, but they are hard working and can get quite a good job. i know a bunch who work at this really nice bar near my house. i dont think they give a shit about the working class.

I dunno if you're going somewhere with this, but i'm not finding anything to respond to.

Quote :
in fact, here, rumanians leave the spanish in a bad position, because they work and the spanish are lazy asses. they know this, and they have the government to feed them from the money they tax out of the rich. yes, the government is taxing the rich and giving money to the poor. do you think anyone here gives a shit about the working class?

Does it matter? Is it at all relevant? Maybe you're trying to say that they would take the capitalists side in a revolution? It seems that you're trying to substitute history with little anecdotes about hard-working laborers.

Quote :
go to switzerland, sweden or finland and talk about working class. they will laugh in your face because they know that this is a myth. the lower classes in first world countries are in the situation they are because they are lazy asses. more and more third world countries are getting better economic conditions with the new world order. the new world order will make working class a myth. we will all be middle class.

... What the fuck is the middle class? That means absolutely nothing to me. And why the fuck are you an anarchist if you think that everything is fine, and no one (even the third world countries...) wants change. Seriously, more disregard for history.

Quote :
it isn't class struggle any more, it is spiritual struggle.

Capitalism implies class struggle. Just cos the working class in Amerika is ok (just ok, and barely with this recession coming on), doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. To say that class struggle doesn't exist anymore, is to effectively stick your head in the sand.

Quote :
i am fighting in the name of the Buddha. i fight to free humanity from the mental fetters that have been forced upon us by this new world order. i fight to free humanity and allow each individual to be conscious and free. so everyone can be awake enough to understand that through these selfish desires we are getting nowhere, and that we have to cultivate new ethics to be happy.

Uh-huh... And how can their be a free humanity if the material conditions do not promote freedom?

Quote :
dont capitalists criticize anarchists because we use capitalism to destroy itself instead of isolating ourselves from capitalism?

If they say this, their not only wrong, they're utterly bereft of knowledge. How would isolationism fix anything? And how does capitalism destroy itself? Yes, its cyclical, but it's been saved twice before, and we're coming up on a third time if Obama is successful.

Quote :
i think it is justifiable to use the state against itself. as long as it works, it goes. politics dont always involve working with an authoritarian state.

How, exactly, would this be accomplished. I've just never heard of this working before, though it's been tried.

Quote :
i wouldn't run for office. but why shouldnt we participate in municipal politics?

Because it accomplishes nothing

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:39 pm

"Would you elaborate? How would an anarchist benefit? What came from this influence on the green movement?"

i was sending messages to people on youtube (btw, i can't share a lot of political vids on youtube but i can share other vids. i think they're censuring them), and i came across this green channel which supported Nader. it listed the 10 basic aspects of the green party, and one of them, i think the first, was participatory democracy. another was decentralization of the state. you could work with the green party, maybe not to make Nader a president, but to help other groups or get people who support this ideology into municipal politics. you can do a shit-load of stuff with politics if you know what you're doing. for one part, you could change education a ton, which would help a lot. if would be great if schools in Amerika weren't prissons, and you can stop these prissons if you just participate in politics. this would make it much easier for anarchists to participate because they wouldnt be repressed in schools. plus, a great deal of alienation would be lifted from people. this is just from participating in politics.

"... What the fuck is the middle class? That means absolutely nothing to me. And why the fuck are you an anarchist if you think that everything is fine, and no one (even the third world countries...) wants change. Seriously, more disregard for history. "

i dont think you are getting the point. no one associates themselves with the working class. especially in countries like switzerland. i never said anything was fine. i said that people have the illusion that everything is fine. and economically speaking, this will be fine with a new world order. the thing i oppose about this new world order is the fact that we will be sheep. we will feel fine, but we will be stupid and un-spiritual. we will only live to fuck and consume. brave new world.
i am willing to have the typical tyrant in the state or in a corporation in exchange for spirituality and frequent revolutions. what i fear most is that we will be under the control of our most basic desires.
in third world countries things are different, but as soon as they start seeing the economic benefits of capitalism, they will submit and become just like the sheep in the US and Europe.

anarchists can no longer see things in such a primitive manner. we are not in the 30s in spain or russia with a tyrant trying to oppress the peasants. we are living in a cpaitalist world where we are fairly accomodated. and as we go, we are more and more accommodated to this bullshit.

"Capitalism implies class struggle. Just cos the working class in Amerika is ok (just ok, and barely with this recession coming on), doesn't mean it's the same everywhere."

yea, in europe people are much better off. they have the state to feed them when they cry. the corporations dont benefit as much, but they give the illusion that things are fine. Obama will bring Europe to Amerika with his cigarettes and his socialism. then people will not complain any more. there is no need for more commodity than this. what we need is something different.
people in Amerika dont become atheists because they realize christianity is bullshit. they become atheists because they no longer give a shit about anything but commodity. "give me commodity, or give me death" is what you will be hearing soon.

"Uh-huh... And how can their be a free humanity if the material conditions do not promote freedom?"

are you a communist or an anarchist?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:09 pm

god0fmusic wrote:
i was sending messages to people on youtube (btw, i can't share a lot of political vids on youtube but i can share other vids. i think they're censuring them), and i came across this green channel which supported Nader. it listed the 10 basic aspects of the green party, and one of them, i think the first, was participatory democracy. another was decentralization of the state. you could work with the green party, maybe not to make Nader a president, but to help other groups or get people who support this ideology into municipal politics. you can do a shit-load of stuff with politics if you know what you're doing. for one part, you could change education a ton, which would help a lot. if would be great if schools in Amerika weren't prissons, and you can stop these prissons if you just participate in politics. this would make it much easier for anarchists to participate because they wouldnt be repressed in schools. plus, a great deal of alienation would be lifted from people. this is just from participating in politics.

I think this is a bit too optimistic. What makes you think that congress would allow a change in the schools cirricullum, just because some coock with radical priorities like teaching our children history says so. I don't think municipal politics have any say in the federal school cirricullum (unless you're on the district school board or board of administrators, in which case, i would approve of participating [not really 'politics', as far as i'm concerned). it would take a large portion of congress held by anarchists (by that time, i'm sure they would be pathetic excuses for anarchists) to influence schools.

Quote :
i dont think you are getting the point. no one associates themselves with the working class.

I get it quite well. I get it because it's not your conciousness that decides your class, but your class that will influence your conciousness. Just cos they don't associate themselves with labor, it surely doesn't mean they don't labor, and it doesn't mean they won't play their part as a working classman/woman come revolution, come time to build.

Quote :
i never said anything was fine. i said that people have the illusion that everything is fine. and economically
speaking, this will be fine with a new world order.

You're taking your opinion from a very small portion of individuals. You must realise that not everyone lives in a highly industrialised country. And even if they do, class antagonisms can still manifest themselves, even if the working class has a fair standard of living (i'm not saying "fair", as in equitable, of course). This can be caused by economic crisis (ie, soon), neo-liberal reforms, imperialist war, etc. All of these, by the way, will be reality with the new world order: In fact, it'll be worse, despite what you might believe. Globalization will just widen the gap between rich and poor, haves and have-nots. I hope you don't have too many delusions like this when it comes to strengthening capitalism, which is what G8 seeks to do (shouldn't be hard to conjure up why).

Quote :
the thing i oppose about this new world order is the fact that we will be sheep. we will feel fine, but we will be stupid and un-spiritual. we will only live to fuck and consume. brave new world.

That's true, but this doesn't necessarily mean we'll be well off economically. We'll be just as poor (i mean, i know i will).

Quote :
i am willing to have the typical tyrant in the state or in a corporation in exchange for spirituality and frequent revolutions. what i fear most is that we will be under the control of our most basic desires.
in third world countries things are different, but as soon as they start seeing the economic benefits of capitalism, they will submit and become just like the sheep in the US and Europe.

What economic benefits? There's a reason that third world countries generally, historically, reject the idea of industrial fuedalism. They know, for the most part, that popular control of industry is a portent of functioning democracy. They generally disregard the bourgeois notion that freedom and democracy is only political.

Quote :
anarchists can no longer see things in such a primitive manner. we are not in the 30s in spain or russia with a tyrant trying to oppress the peasants. we are living in a cpaitalist world where we are fairly accomodated. and as we go, we are more and more accommodated to this bullshit.

I cannot live independantly with the job i have, and i live in the richest country on the face of the earth. I see no reason why i should accept your assertion that compensation is "fair". And overlooking the significance of history
in class struggle is never healthy. Seeing things the way i do is only "primitive" in so far as capitalism itself is primitive. Just cos they can't be so overtly repressive doesn't mean they aren't being just as repressive. They just find more clever ways of doing it, such as NAFTA, GATT, G8, imperialist wars under the guise of "democracy promotion". So just cos Franco couldn't say "I'm slaughtering the civilian population by the will of God, and in the interests of Spain" anymore, doesn't mean he couldn't say "I'm civilizing the population to promote democracy" and get away with it just the same.

And what's primitive about seeing the working class as a revolutionary force? They always have been, and they continue to be just by the fact that they are inherently democratic (being that they make up, on their own, the great majority of any society).

Quote :
yea, in europe people are much better off. they have the state to feed them when they cry. the corporations dont benefit as much, but they give the illusion that things are fine.

Let's stick to one country, Britain. It's hard to generalize about all of Europe without confusing the discussion. Britain has a higher standard of living, and better welfare state institutions. Is this ideal? Of course not; but they have this higher living standard because they have an active labor movement (not as active as i'd like to see, but that's rather irrelevant to this discussion), meaning they assert themselves as a force for democracy, and thus, their government must respond, in some cases (obviously they couldn't stop their country from going to Iraq, despite popular resistance). I would doubt to find any anarchists in parliament though.

Quote :
Obama will bring Europe to Amerika with his cigarettes and his socialism. then people will not complain any more. there is no need for more commodity than this. what we need is something different.

Uh, no i don't think this is accurate. Have you taken a look at his stimulus package? Or maybe where all his campaign funds came from? Or his transition team? The future doesn't look so bright with Obama five days from office. His Keynesianist presidency will just be to stabalize the private sector, stimulate capitalist growth, and save an already floundering system from its third (right?) crisis.

Quote :
people in Amerika dont become atheists because they realize christianity is bullshit. they become atheists because they no longer give a shit about anything but commodity. "give me commodity, or give me death" is what you will be hearing soon.

I think you're confusing people with capitalists (just a joke, but barely). public opinion in this country is still pretty sane, though policy may not be. The working class isn't filled with greed because their pockets aren't filled with money. Don't underestimate the environments effect on the human psyche.

Quote :
are you a communist or an anarchist?

You say that as if there's some mutual exclusion; i assure you, there isn't. And i'm sure the majority of this site agrees, given the fact that the anarchist-communists are the majority.

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:26 am

"I think this is a bit too optimistic. What makes you think that congress would allow a change in the schools cirricullum, just because some coock with radical priorities like teaching our children history says so. I don't think municipal politics have any say in the federal school cirricullum (unless you're on the district school board or board of administrators, in which case, i would approve of participating [not really 'politics', as far as i'm concerned). it would take a large portion of congress held by anarchists (by that time, i'm sure they would be pathetic excuses for anarchists) to influence schools."

i think anarchists should start getting into municipal politics, including things like the school board. this would be extremely helpful.
nevertheless, i still think that we should practice insurrection and take over workplaces, schools, abandoned buildings, and so on. this is the thing which should never be taken out, since the development of our consciousness is dependant on this.

"I get it quite well. I get it because it's not your conciousness that decides your class, but your class that will influence your conciousness."

its the other way arround as well, dont forget that.

"Just cos they don't associate themselves with labor, it surely doesn't mean they don't labor, and it doesn't mean they won't play their part as a working classman/woman come revolution, come time to build."

it's true that they are working class, and a lot of people are aware of this, but they are not bothered by it.

"You're taking your opinion from a very small portion of individuals. You must realise that not everyone lives in a highly industrialised country. And even if they do, class antagonisms can still manifest themselves, even if the working class has a fair standard of living (i'm not saying "fair", as in equitable, of course). This can be caused by economic crisis (ie, soon), neo-liberal reforms, imperialist war, etc. All of these, by the way, will be reality with the new world order: In fact, it'll be worse, despite what you might believe. Globalization will just widen the gap between rich and poor, haves and have-nots. I hope you don't have too many delusions like this when it comes to strengthening capitalism, which is what G8 seeks to do (shouldn't be hard to conjure up why). "

i dont think the state is stupid enough to allow people to wake up this easily. back in the early 1900s, an economic crisis would cause a revolution. right now we are in an economic crises, we there is no revolution. some turmoil in greece, yes, but very little. the first world will not suffer much. they will demand the state to control their economy and protect them, and the state will manage to control the economy. they are learning how to do it. the third world will ether dissapear or it will become like in Brave New World. do you think that in the kind of system seen in Brave New World people will rebel? i dont think so.

"What economic benefits? There's a reason that third world countries generally, historically, reject the idea of industrial fuedalism. They know, for the most part, that popular control of industry is a portent of functioning democracy. They generally disregard the bourgeois notion that freedom and democracy is only political. "

i think that i am benefited economically by capitalism. and it's funny, because more and more people will be benefitted by capitalism as the new world order advances. benefitted economically that is.
the government will learn how to keep people happy and stupid so they dont rebel.

"in class struggle is never healthy. Seeing things the way i do is only "primitive" in so far as capitalism itself is primitive. Just cos they can't be so overtly repressive doesn't mean they aren't being just as repressive. They just find more clever ways of doing it, such as NAFTA, GATT, G8, imperialist wars under the guise of "democracy promotion". So just cos Franco couldn't say "I'm slaughtering the civilian population by the will of God, and in the interests of Spain" anymore, doesn't mean he couldn't say "I'm civilizing the population to promote democracy" and get away with it just the same. "

like i said, they will find more and more clever ways to do this.

"And what's primitive about seeing the working class as a revolutionary force? They always have been, and they continue to be just by the fact that they are inherently democratic (being that they make up, on their own, the great majority of any society)."

they might be a revolutionary force, but not a force under bad economic conditions. i am a revolutionary with great economic conditions. i just fight for anarchism because i know that there is more to life than being able to eat, dress, and live in a brick and cement box.

"Let's stick to one country, Britain. It's hard to generalize about all of Europe without confusing the discussion. Britain has a higher standard of living, and better welfare state institutions. Is this ideal? Of course not; but they have this higher living standard because they have an active labor movement (not as active as i'd like to see, but that's rather irrelevant to this discussion), meaning they assert themselves as a force for democracy, and thus, their government must respond, in some cases (obviously they couldn't stop their country from going to Iraq, despite popular resistance). I would doubt to find any anarchists in parliament though."

so what if there is a strong labour movement? that only makes their conditions better, and that is natural. economic conditions will continue to get better. people will demand comodity, and socialism, as well as capitalism, offer commodity. like i said, i fight for anarchism because i know there is more to life than eating, dressing and living in a box.
but chasing after commodity is the rule of the new world order. they want people to have commodity so they are stupid and happy. the labour movement is not a bad thing for them, in fact, it is a good thing. it gives the illusion that the people have power, when really they have none, because they are unable to demand what is really beneficial to them. it's chasing the tail of superficial desires.
dont forget that fascism is a socialist ideology, and so is stalinism.
so we should never associate ourselves with populist forces or with the state. we should only associate ourselves with individuals in individualist ways.

"Uh, no i don't think this is accurate. Have you taken a look at his stimulus package? Or maybe where all his campaign funds came from? Or his transition team? The future doesn't look so bright with Obama five days from office. His Keynesianist presidency will just be to stabalize the private sector, stimulate capitalist growth, and save an already floundering system from its third (right?) crisis."

and the cycle will continue

"I think you're confusing people with capitalists (just a joke, but barely). public opinion in this country is still pretty sane, though policy may not be. The working class isn't filled with greed because their pockets aren't filled with money. Don't underestimate the environments effect on the human psyche."

but we still shuoldn't support the populist labour movement.

"You say that as if there's some mutual exclusion; i assure you, there isn't. And i'm sure the majority of this site agrees, given the fact that the anarchist-communists are the majority."

they are not mutually exclusive, but dont cross the line between anarcho-communism and communism. remember that anarchists are individualists, we seek the development of the individual's mind. if this factor is taken out, then it is not anarchism.
anarchism does not mean no-hierarchy, it means no masters. the reign of the individual.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:52 pm

god0fmusic wrote:
its the other way arround as well, dont forget that.

"Forget" implies that i had this notion at one point. I assure you i've never had any such illusions. I can say i'm bourgeois and believe i'm bourgeois, but that doesn't make me bourgeois. Just the same, i can say and believe i'm Mr. Rogers, but i'm not wearing a sweater.

Quote :
it's true that they are working class, and a lot of people are aware of this, but they are not bothered by it.

That's fine, but it's also irrelevant.

Quote :
i dont think the state is stupid enough to allow people to wake up this easily. back in the early 1900s, an economic crisis would cause a revolution. right now we are in an economic crises, we there is no revolution.

First, it's far too soon to comment on this in the way you are. This crisis is only beginning, and is bound to get exponentially worse (more job-cuts and inflation to come). Second, there was already a sit-in in Chicago, so don't rule out a strong labor movement coming to the forefront during the crisis (i'm not saying i like the odds, just that it's too soon to tell). As the crisis gets worse, class antagonisms will grow, and may even manifest themselves in riots and protests.

Quote :
some turmoil in greece, yes, but very little. the first world will not suffer much. they will demand the state to control their economy and protect them, and the state will manage to control the economy. they are learning how to do it. the third world will ether dissapear or it will become like in Brave New World. do you think that in the kind of system seen in Brave New World people will rebel? i dont think so.

Dunno what that is, so i couldn't tell you.

Again, this capitalist crisis is in a pre-mature stage, so it's too soon to rule out more class-struggle in third world, and even second and first-world countries (namely, Britain).

And as far as governments controlling the economy, that won't happen in Amerika. Obama's Keynesian stimulus plan will only make things worse in its present form. Keynesianism isn't government control of industry, but government stimulation of industry through public spending and the like, in order to stabilize the private sector. That's his goal.

Quote :
i think that i am benefited economically by capitalism. and it's funny, because more and more people will be benefitted by capitalism as the new world order advances. benefitted economically that is.

Only the bourgeiosie benefit from capitalism (and even then, it's arguable that they don't). If you're referring to an improvement in your standard of living (don't expect it to be at that level for much longer), then that's insignificant: It says nothing of the contradictory nature of capitalism, just that through history, the standard of living is bound to increase, because of the labor force, of course. Even under slavery and Nazism the standards of living of the working class improved; of course, this doesn't mean it was because of slavery or Nazism.

Quote :
like i said, they will find more and more clever ways to do this.

They haven't come up with anything more clever yet. US excuse for resort to force and intervention greatly resembles that of any imperialist country in the past. "We are benign, benevolent, self-less, and we wish to bring our grand style of living to the backwards, barbaric populations of the world". All very familiar to the perceptive observer of history.

Quote :
they might be a revolutionary force, but not a force under bad economic conditions. i am a revolutionary with great economic conditions. i just fight for anarchism because i know that there is more to life than being able to eat, dress, and live in a brick and cement box.

They are more revolutionary under poor economic conditions. Economic crisis has long been a spark to ignite the flame that is the working classes revolutionary instincts.

Quote :
so what if there is a strong labour movement? that only makes their conditions better, and that is natural. economic conditions will continue to get better.

This seems to contradict your previous statement, but you've got it right this time, it's natural, not because of capitalism, that the standard of living improves. However, a strong labor movement has a much more significant chance of improving their living standard, which was my point. Contrast that to Amerika, where real-wages have stagnated over the past couple of decades.

Quote :
people will demand comodity, and socialism, as well as capitalism, offer commodity. like i said, i fight for anarchism because i know there is more to life than eating, dressing and living in a box.
but chasing after commodity is the rule of the new world order. they want people to have commodity so they are stupid and happy.

No, they don't want people to have commodity, if they did, capitalism wouldn't exist. They just want people to buy their commodity; big difference. If there is no market (meaning the ability to profit), then commodities will not be produced (at least, not for the ones who need it). So they don't want people to be happy, they just wanna turn a profit. If they can appease the working class in the meantime, that's merely a perky bonus.

Quote :
the labour movement is not a bad thing for them, in fact, it is a good thing.

That would explain why US-UK coalition forces didn't attack unions and their rights in Iraq... The labor movement has never been, and will never be good for the bourgeoisie or the current order. The bourgeoisie know it, Bush knows it.

Quote :
it gives the illusion that the people have power, when really they have none, because they are unable to demand what is really beneficial to them. it's chasing the tail of superficial desires.

This is backwards. They're unable to demand what benefits them when there is no labor movement, but when it's strong, they'll not only understand what they need, they'll demand it, and it's likely the bourgeoisie will have to comply, at least to some extent. And then of course, this will create a snowball effect, however slow it may roll, and the working class will continue with its demands (cos, of course, the more that is demanded, the more the offers from the bourgeoisie will look like a joke).

Quote :
dont forget that fascism is a socialist ideology,

What!?!?

Quote :
and so is stalinism.

That's debatable, but i doubt if we actually put it to scrutiny that we would actually consider it to resemble anything socialistic.

Quote :
so we should never associate ourselves with populist forces or with the state. we should only associate ourselves with individuals in individualist ways.

I think this conversation took a hard left turn. I don't see what this is in response to. And what do you mean by "individualist ways".

Quote :
and the cycle will continue

You're assuming he'll be successful. He may well be, but it's far too soon to tell.

Quote :
but we still shuoldn't support the populist labour movement.

And why not?

Quote :
they are not mutually exclusive, but dont cross the line between anarcho-communism and communism.

"anarcho" is merely an indicator of my libertarian bent. Even if i just called myself communist, that doesn't change anything, because i consider them the same thing as a final product. Communism isn't authoritarian.

Quote :
remember that anarchists are individualists, we seek the development of the individual's mind. if this factor is taken out, then it is not anarchism.

Communism facilitates the growth of the individual just as much as anarchism. And we're only individualists as far as we believe in individuality. But without cooperation with everyone else, our species is doomed, so there is always a need for the community, because what one man can assume to accomplish anything on his own? Disregarding the working class and the labor movement is the path to failure.

Quote :
anarchism does not mean no-hierarchy, it means no masters. the reign of the individual.

heirarchy implies at least one master, so you're being contradictory. And just cos society is run in a communitarian manner, doesn't mean there is any detriment to the individual. In fact, the individual is necessarily dependant on the community to care for his/her needs. Without cooperation, we don't exist.

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:07 pm

""Forget" implies that i had this notion at one point. I assure you i've never had any such illusions. I can say i'm bourgeois and believe i'm bourgeois, but that doesn't make me bourgeois. Just the same, i can say and believe i'm Mr. Rogers, but i'm not wearing a sweater."

conditions create consciousness, and conscousness creates conditions. denying this is denying that your consciousness does not influence your actions.

"That's fine, but it's also irrelevant."

nothing is irrelevant. everything has to be taken into account, otherwise actions are misguided.

"First, it's far too soon to comment on this in the way you are. This crisis is only beginning, and is bound to get exponentially worse (more job-cuts and inflation to come). Second, there was already a sit-in in Chicago, so don't rule out a strong labor movement coming to the forefront during the crisis (i'm not saying i like the odds, just that it's too soon to tell). As the crisis gets worse, class antagonisms will grow, and may even manifest themselves in riots and protests."

it's soon, but we should imagine, because with our imagination we can create a vision of the future. dont you think that a clear vision of the future is important? of course by thinking too much we can distort our visions, but that is why we have forums to argue with other of oposing views.
i dont trust the labour movement, and that is why i think anarchists should also get into municipal politics. communists and fascists will do this, and we can't allow them to own municipal politics. if municipal politics is ruled by anarchists, then the state will have a harder time fucking us. at least they will have to use a condom. you have to keep in mind what opposing forces are capable of doing and how you will counter them.
the labour movement can be dangerous. in modern history, it has been the people who have demanded the state, not the upper class. the upper class just used this oportunity to supply it.
we have to get the point of anarchism across, and we have to fight for it in municipal politics as well as on the streets and workplace. how will the masses ignore us when we're everywhere?

"Dunno what that is, so i couldn't tell you."

read brave new world by aldous huxley. it is quick to read, and it is very good. he predicted how the new world order would look like, and he predicted quite well i think.

"Again, this capitalist crisis is in a pre-mature stage, so it's too soon to rule out more class-struggle in third world, and even second and first-world countries (namely, Britain)."

how many of the strugglers are anarchists? if the majority are not anarchists, then we should be afraid. communists are just as dangerous as fascists.

"And as far as governments controlling the economy, that won't happen in Amerika. Obama's Keynesian stimulus plan will only make things worse in its present form. Keynesianism isn't government control of industry, but government stimulation of industry through public spending and the like, in order to stabilize the private sector. That's his goal. "

how much different will the effects be if he were to control the economy? ether way, it will lead to a new world order.

"Only the bourgeiosie benefit from capitalism (and even then, it's arguable that they don't). If you're referring to an improvement in your standard of living (don't expect it to be at that level for much longer), then that's insignificant: It says nothing of the contradictory nature of capitalism, just that through history, the standard of living is bound to increase, because of the labor force, of course. Even under slavery and Nazism the standards of living of the working class improved; of course, this doesn't mean it was because of slavery or Nazism."

you make a good point. but that still doesnt make the labour movement necessarily good. if they are not libertarian, then they're dangerous.
and my point still holds: people are unaware of their psychological condition.

"They haven't come up with anything more clever yet. US excuse for resort to force and intervention greatly resembles that of any imperialist country in the past. "We are benign, benevolent, self-less, and we wish to bring our grand style of living to the backwards, barbaric populations of the world". All very familiar to the perceptive observer of history."

maybe eventually they'll have to stop their wars. but they will still manage to make the masses stupid in the long run, and they will manage to make it so that the labour movement supports the state. so far, the labour movement supports the state. anarchists are a minority, and we have to become a majority.

"They are more revolutionary under poor economic conditions. Economic crisis has long been a spark to ignite the flame that is the working classes revolutionary instincts."

will there be poor enough conditions to create a revolution? they are nowhere near as bad as when the industrial world began. i dont think it will ever be that bad again. if it failed then, it will fail now. unless of course, we know how to act.

"No, they don't want people to have commodity, if they did, capitalism wouldn't exist. They just want people to buy their commodity; big difference. If there is no market (meaning the ability to profit), then commodities will not be produced (at least, not for the ones who need it). So they don't want people to be happy, they just wanna turn a profit. If they can appease the working class in the meantime, that's merely a perky bonus."

ever heard of Eduard Bernayes (or at least i think that's how it's spelled). he was Freud's cousin or something like that. he is the reason why the state says that you have to consume in order for the economy for grow.

"That would explain why US-UK coalition forces didn't attack unions and their rights in Iraq... The labor movement has never been, and will never be good for the bourgeoisie or the current order. The bourgeoisie know it, Bush knows it."

of course it's not good, but they can adapt.

"This is backwards. They're unable to demand what benefits them when there is no labor movement, but when it's strong, they'll not only understand what they need, they'll demand it, and it's likely the bourgeoisie will have to comply, at least to some extent. And then of course, this will create a snowball effect, however slow it may roll, and the working class will continue with its demands (cos, of course, the more that is demanded, the more the offers from the bourgeoisie will look like a joke)."

the labour movement tends to demand a state. keep in mind that Nazism and Communism is part of the labour movement. libertarians are a small part.

"What!?!?"

why do you think people liked Mousolini or Perón or Hitler so much? these people got voted in by the masses because they believed they would make their economic conditions better. obviously, they made their conditions better, but at the expense of their freedom.

"Quote:
but we still shuoldn't support the populist labour movement.


And why not?"

are you fucking kidding me?
that's like supporting Hitler, except you are under the control of the masses instead of under the control of a leader.

"I think this conversation took a hard left turn. I don't see what this is in response to. And what do you mean by "individualist ways"."

the rejection of populism

"Communism facilitates the growth of the individual just as much as anarchism. And we're only individualists as far as we believe in individuality. But without cooperation with everyone else, our species is doomed, so there is always a need for the community, because what one man can assume to accomplish anything on his own? Disregarding the working class and the labor movement is the path to failure."

the labour movement seems to care too much for the masses and not enough for the individual. the individual is key. we have to understand the the only reason we live in a community is so the individual can progress.
the working class and the labour movement need to understand this.

"heirarchy implies at least one master, so you're being contradictory. And just cos society is run in a communitarian manner, doesn't mean there is any detriment to the individual. In fact, the individual is necessarily dependant on the community to care for his/her needs. Without cooperation, we don't exist."

you can hire a boss to run things. that is the ideal. that is non-coercive hierarchy.
i have to agree with the last few statements.

but the point is, the labour movement is dangerous. look at the USSR.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:10 pm

god0fmusic wrote:
conditions create consciousness, and conscousness creates conditions. denying this is denying that your consciousness does not influence your actions.

Indirectly, by influencing your actions, as you said there at the end. But, as i said, just because people THINK they are bourgeois (or Mr. Rogers), doesn't necessarily MAKE them bourgeois (Mr. Rogers). That's my only point, and its the only point that was relevent to the broader discussion.

Quote :
nothing is irrelevant. everything has to be taken into account, otherwise actions are misguided.

Quote :
it's true that they are working class, and a lot of people are aware of this, but they are not bothered by it.

I could say "cows take big shits". How is this relevant? Obviously some things are irrelevant, but since you seem to protest, explain to me why that statement was relevant; tell me why that will have an effect on a labor movement or a revolution, etc.?

Quote :
it's soon, but we should imagine, because with our imagination we can create a vision of the future. dont you think that a clear vision of the future is important?

Not if it's distorted by this absurdist logic in which we disregard evidence for mere assertions. If we try to imagine, we should at least take into account history, and all influencial factors.

Quote :
i dont trust the labour movement, and that is why i think anarchists should also get into municipal politics. communists and fascists will do this, and we can't allow them to own municipal politics. if municipal politics is ruled by anarchists, then the state will have a harder time fucking us. at least they will have to use a condom.

Okay, i'll assume that this is true, that municipal politics has that much of an influence. This still doesn't make up for the lack of any revolutionary merit. This is just plugging your finger in the dam. What is your plan for the long run, if it does not involve the working class?

Quote :
you have to keep in mind what opposing forces are capable of doing and how you will counter them.

What the hell could they possibly do in a municiple seat that would even have any semblance of fascism or communism?

Quote :
the labour movement can be dangerous. in modern history, it has been the people who have demanded the state, not the upper class. the upper class just used this oportunity to supply it.

I don't follow. Would you clarify your point?

Quote :
we have to get the point of anarchism across, and we have to fight for it in municipal politics as well as on the streets and workplace. how will the masses ignore us when we're everywhere?

If you just want face time with the public, buy some air time and make a show. Probably more worth your time.

Quote :
how many of the strugglers are anarchists? if the majority are not anarchists, then we should be afraid. communists are just as dangerous as fascists.

How many are communists or fascists? Any more? I would doubt there's any significant difference in numbers (much less fascists i'm sure). So why is this significant?

Quote :
how much different will the effects be if he were to control the economy? ether way, it will lead to a new world order.

Not much different i would think. He'd likely just give it back to the private sector cos he's a cappie. But if the people controlled it collectively, it would be much more efficient and effective (by that, i mean it supplys the needs of many, if not all, as opposed to a select few, or those with money).

Quote :
you make a good point. but that still doesnt make the labour movement necessarily good. if they are not libertarian, then they're dangerous.
and my point still holds: people are unaware of their psychological condition.

If you mean your point holds cos i've said nothing to counter it, i didn't deem it necessary because you didn't supply any evidence of why this is a psychological condition.

And what makes you think the labor movement is not libertarian? When they're not choked by the state, the working class tends to do very equitable, great things. When their revolutionary inspirations are stunted by a coercive, authoritative state, the state's actions (those on behalf of the people) are generally contrived and detrimental.

Quote :
maybe eventually they'll have to stop their wars. but they will still manage to make the masses stupid in the long run, and they will manage to make it so that the labour movement supports the state. so far, the labour movement supports the state. anarchists are a minority, and we have to become a majority.

That's not necessary, and will likely never happen. Most working classmen will never really identify themselves with something outside of the mainstream political parties (Democrat, Republican, or for somewhat smarter workers, Independant). This is because they won't be educated by anyone but the state, who will feed them the most shallow lessons in history, and withhold information quite vital to making an informed decision. So we need to keep our political rhetoric to a minimum and appeal to their human emotions and basic needs.

Education on the functioning of capitalism and its alternatives is important, but the working class doesn't need to say it is anarchist. When there is a true, grassroots democracy, which isn't farfetched even when the people are in support of their government (that factor is ever changing, and Obama, like anyone else, can't please everyone). And throughout history, as economic disasters start to develop, people tend to withdraw support for their govenrment. And even as it is, public opinion in Amerika differs immensely from washington policy.

Quote :
will there be poor enough conditions to create a revolution? they are nowhere near as bad as when the industrial world began. i dont think it will ever be that bad again. if it failed then, it will fail now. unless of course, we know how to act.

Meaning participate in politics? It's all quite relative, actually. We'll naturally conform to higher standards of living, and will generally react in the same way when we lose that standard, again, to a relative degree. Maybe people just understand that wealth is always being created, so our standards of living should never stagnate, much less decline.

Quote :
ever heard of Eduard Bernayes (or at least i think that's how it's spelled). he was Freud's cousin or something like that. he is the reason why the state says that you have to consume in order for the economy for grow.

Is there an underlying message here?

Quote :
of course it's not good, but they can adapt.

You said it was good. It being good for them and them adapting are two different things.

Quote :
the labour movement tends to demand a state. keep in mind that Nazism and Communism is part of the labour movement. libertarians are a small part.

They're not a part of the labor movement. When i say labor movement, i mean the natural course that the proletariat and the peasantry take when they embark on social revolution: An egalitarian one. The labor is not something contrived like what the bolsheviki turned the social revolution into. Let's get some history straight; when the Russian revolution started in February, the working class worked to build the foundation of a society run in an equal, non-heirarchical manner, outside of the state. When the bolsheviki took over in October, things almost immidiately went in a different direction. The working class were being effectively stunted by the state. The soviets were controlled by communist party members and a 32 tier rationing system was put into place, where the communists themselves, were of course at the top. And killing 12,000 soviet sailors didn't help so much. But the working class that remained from without the state, in Petrograd and Kronstadt, did some remarkable things. The same can be seen in Spain in the 30's; state subversion of the revolutionary instincts and initiative of the peasantry.

Just because the people running the state happen to be people, doesn't mean we can't make a distinction between them and the working class on the basis of motives and interests.

Quote :
why do you think people liked Mousolini or Perón or Hitler so much? these people got voted in by the masses because they believed they would make their economic conditions better. obviously, they made their conditions better, but at the expense of their freedom.

You're citing dictatorships. Remember, these people used rhetoric to gain power, and after that, they only needed to retain it through sheer force and repression. The working class will put its hopes on leaders from time to time, which we need to strongly advise against, or at least advise that they be careful to seperate rhetoric from reality, but there's generally a sense of justice in the working class, so they won't tolerate that sort of blunt aggression and repression for so long.

Quote :
are you fucking kidding me?
that's like supporting Hitler, except you are under the control of the masses instead of under the control of a leader.

And you're willing to back this up with some evidence? Or at least an anecdote or something.

Quote :
the rejection of populism

And what can you accomplish without populism? And if your plan is to convert everyone to anarchism, then would that not be populism?

Quote :
the labour movement seems to care too much for the masses and not enough for the individual.

You can't have the latter without the former. Further, when the masses, which you are a part of, whether you like it or not, have their needs met, the individual is nurtured, and prospers.

Quote :
the individual is key. we have to understand the the only reason we live in a community is so the individual can progress.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The community is the foundation for individual growth. The firmer the foundation, the stronger the individual (i don't mean physically).

Quote :
the working class and the labour movement need to understand this.

They don't have the time to understand this. They're a little busy trying to pay their mortgage, or for Ethiopians, trying to find scraps from a dumpster.

Quote :
you can hire a boss to run things. that is the ideal. that is non-coercive hierarchy.

If it is decided on by those who would be working below the boss, then it is not coercive. That's the main thing.

Quote :
i have to agree with the last few statements.
but the point is, the labour movement is dangerous. look at the USSR.

Explained briefly above. I'd be happy to elaborate.

Besides, with this logic i could just as easily say the individual is dangerous. Hitler was an individual, and a strong one at that. In fact, a morally (ugh, didn't wanna say that word, but i have no time) sturdy community is the way to influence the individual in a positive way.

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
god0fmusic
Admin


Posts : 182
Join date : 2008-07-09
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:09 am

i guess you are right about the dictators.

but i still dont believe what you say about communism being libertarian.

in this book by proudhon (el principio federativo, in spanish), Proudhon talks about authoritarian states and libertarian states. he calls dictatorships and communism authoritarian, and democracy and anarchism libertarian.
-dictatorships are a government for all by one (in it's pure form).
-communism is a government for all by all. this means that everything you do has to be for everyone else. you can't do anything for yourself because it goes against the masses. of course you would also shape the interest of the masses, but it would be minimal and hidden from view.
-democracy is a government for all, by each individual. this means that each individual is free to benefit society in whichever way he wants.
-anarchism. this is what we now call anarcho-capitalism. this is actually the true form of anarchism because it is a government by each individual for himself. the complete absense of coercion.

all of these forms of governments run into technical dificulaties and cannot be conserved in their pure form.

the ideal here is an anarchist-democracy. it is a government in which each individual does things in part for himself, and in part for everyone else. he is free to do whatever it is he wants though. i guess you could call this anarcho-communism, because people would have a tendencie to do things which benefits others. even the most ignorant society would have the least bit of consciousness to do this.

the thing about communism is that if you have a society which holds a common belief, it is dangerous to go against that belief. for example christianity in the US. in the past, if you went againt Christianity, you could be killed. today, thanks to the social passivity created by the corporationd and the state. people are too lazy to kill you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Admin
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:09 am

god0fmusic wrote:
but i still dont believe what you say about communism being libertarian.

Well, i'll try my best to convince you Wink

Quote :
-communism is a government for all by all. this means that everything you do has to be for everyone else. you can't do anything for yourself because it goes against the masses. of course you would also shape the interest of the masses, but it would be minimal and hidden from view.

That's why i encourage solidarity. When you have a form of unity among the working class, it's easier to see what you've built (being somewhat figurative) collectively. Aside from that, how does this sort of cooperation (cos "for all, by all" simply means that we make food for the people who need nourishment, we create housing for those who need shelter, and so on) hinder the individual? This is what the individiual does to survive; it conglomorartes with other people. So it naturally follows that we would take care of those people, not only cos we [should] care about them, but because we rely on them for survival. Of course, now that the earth is so populated and has so much technology, things've changed a bit, but that doesn't mean we have to say "Everyone for their self", and i don't think that's a progressive, or even a desirable mentality to have.

Quote :
-democracy is a government for all, by each individual. this means that each individual is free to benefit society in whichever way he wants.

grassroots democracy is essential to a functioning communist society; This includes free initiative in the workplace and in whatever democratic institutions that are available. Even labor would be participatory, i think (at least, that's ideal to me). Even if people think to leech off of the labor of others, much like a capitalist, they would feel compelled to do their part soon enough, partly because of peer pressure (their may be feelings of resentment, to some extent, from those who do labor) and internal pressure, and partly because i think they'd want to join in the spirit of solidarity, which will likely be quite noticable.

Quote :
-anarchism. this is what we now call anarcho-capitalism. this is actually the true form of anarchism because it is a government by each individual for himself. the complete absense of coercion.

... What? Anarchist-capitalism is an oxymoronic falsehood. The divisions created by the consolidation of wealth will inherently, by its very nature, lead back to privelage and a new social order based on those divisions. So, also inherently, anarchism has an element of solidarity that needs conserving. Capitalism is not the way to promote or conserve solidarity, in fact it is an effective way to poison and distort it.

Quote :
all of these forms of governments run into technical dificulaties and cannot be conserved in their pure form.

Why would this be a case for communism. There may be snags here and there, but this is to be expected. But why is communism's pure form, that being democratic control of industry by those who work it, be impossible to conserve.

Quote :
the ideal here is an anarchist-democracy. it is a government in which each individual does things in part for himself, and in part for everyone else. he is free to do whatever it is he wants though. i guess you could call this anarcho-communism, because people would have a tendencie to do things which benefits others. even the most ignorant society would have the least bit of consciousness to do this.

Right. I just don't see any need to call it anarcho-communism instead of communism. To me, they're synonymous, and all attempts at anarchism will inevitably resemble (and likely become) communism.

Quote :
the thing about communism is that if you have a society which holds a common belief, it is dangerous to go against that belief. for example christianity in the US. in the past, if you went againt Christianity, you could be killed. today, thanks to the social passivity created by the corporationd and the state. people are too lazy to kill you.

Which common belief is this? If you mean the belief that holds human life in high regard? Or the belief that exploitation, slavery of one man by another, is atrocious, and brings with it social excess and the attributes which we detest in a person? If that's what you mean, then i can definitely see how it would be dangerous to go against them.

Also, if you envision a society where people don't agree, how does anything get done?

_________________
"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"
--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.   

Back to top Go down
 
libertarian communism and the spontaneity question.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Politics of Nationalism under Communism in Bulgaria
» theme-background-question
» When Reseting Passwords add a Security Question(s)
» question-about-forum-securities
» tos-related-question-regarding-softwear-i-created

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Anarchist Underground :: The Revolutionary Sphere :: Revolutionary Thoughts-
Jump to: