Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Philosophical health check

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:19 #61

  • cantata
  • cantata's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2481
  • Likes received: 2679
Capital punishment has never reduced the crimes it was used to punish. Yes, it killed the odd caught murderer here and there.... but murder went on unabated. Always has. Maybe always will. Ditto rape, GBH., robbery.... etc.

I mean statistics - ALL of which are silly. All of which are manipulated to fit the required information. Official, nonsensical, academic... all. Silly.
"...Wyrde saves oft the man undoomed
if he undaunted be....". (Beowulf).

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths... Beautiful people do not just happen". (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross).


:cavalier
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: irrepressible

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:24 #62

But you said heavy policing doesn't reduce crime, after attempting to disqualify all statistical evidence to the contrary.

You accept capital punishment reduced criminals therefore you must concede heavy policing and heavy punishments noticeabley (if you care to look at empirical evidence) reduced crime.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 04 Jul 2013 23:26 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:27 #63

  • cantata
  • cantata's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2481
  • Likes received: 2679
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
But you said heavy policing doesn't reduce crime, after attempting to disqualify all statistical evidence to the contrary, you accept capital punishment reduced criminals therefore you must concede it also reduced crime.

It didn't reduce crime. Societal conditions create or reduce crime. The police have fek all to do with it. Of course executing a man will get rid of... that man. But he will be replaced by another, and another, and another. Ad infinitum.
"...Wyrde saves oft the man undoomed
if he undaunted be....". (Beowulf).

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths... Beautiful people do not just happen". (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross).


:cavalier
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: irrepressible, Chuck Random

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:35 #64

I agree societal conditions create and reduce crime, but the state, the people and the police are not seperate from Society, the police represent societies reaction to crime, "heavy policing" which does reduce crime, is part of the "societal conditions" that you mention.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:44 #65

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
quotes from Chuck post #46
On the Masses:
The current political position of the people is irrelevant to the proposed format. Like I said, unless people want it, it ain't gonna happen. You can only try to get people interested in running their own affairs and promote the notions of solidarity and co-operation.

Where we are now is irrelevant to what one believes in.

I took quotes which to me require development in terms of their philosophical underpinnings, these two quotes both relate to the same issue in my view..what one bases one's political "beliefs" on..

Now the main Marxist view to this question would imo be that one's beliefs are irrelevant and what is important is the mass consciousness of the revolutionary class in society, what one should ultimately base one's political activity on is this material reality, not what you believe in regardless of the time, place, conditions, likelihood of revolution.

You need to clarify this contradiction between saying you want the grass roots to decide for themselves what they want, (which they currently do based on the material, empirical reality and choices available to them) and saying what the grass roots or people want or their political positions are irrelevant to "the proposed format", am I allowed to shudder at that statement?

Marxists have a tendency to believe in 'scientific socialism' and the inevitability of revolution arising from material conditions which I think is bullshit.

I simply know what I think would represent a better society and will advocate it and try to make my tiny contribution towards it in the hope that one day that idea gains momentum. I don't see where the contradiction in that lies.

If it's not Utopian it's sadistic, remove all authority and suddenly you think global corporate pirates will begin to play nicer?

The idea is to remove the authority of the global corporate pirates. The can play as nastily as they like all on their own.
You basically highlight the positive points of democracy it works well for the majority of people who aren't interested in taking more responsibility than they already have, ie feeding, housing, clothing and transporting their children and providing those staples...

It's working less and less well. The only reason it worked tolerably well was they were scared of pushing things too far. Now with no Soviet boogeyman and the successful elimination of alternatives, they're going for broke.
You hold democracy to a ridiculous standard by expecting it to represent you when you advocate having nothing to do with the democratic process, you can't form a party with consensus because nobodies views are more important than the view that's nobodies view can be more important than another persons?

I don't expect it to represent me because I think the notion it can is an illusion. All democracy ever does is try to keep the lid on and things ticking over.
What's the point of a political party? Why bother sending some guys to parliament and hoping they'll live up to your ideals? I advocate people doing the business directly in their workplace and community. Fuck packing people off to Westminster and expecting them to sort everything out. People should be running their communities., not some chumps 100 miles away. Also, pragmatically, no political party outside the current paradigm would be allowed to get too strong.
I hold my views as important, but they're only socially important if they have a mass backing. See this is the problem with politics. People get it into their head they have to have some party to go and tell everyone the one true way. At some point, conflict would occur - belief systems are never universal and will always clash with others - but you can't go round thinking everyone should be made to think like you do. Anarchists tend to want a critical mass where the poliitical system becomes an irrelevance.
You don't want to participate in the business of democracy you'd rather hold a negative position in regards to it's very existence, you are derisory and dismissive of any political party or political organization and dismissive of trades unions because they are "hierarchichal", these are all things the masses have chosen themselves as actual outlets of solidarity and co-operation.

If the masses thing these things are awesome, then so be it. They should just stop complaining about them is all. Because they're not going to get any better unless they do something about it.
Unions were formed out of solidarity but evolved into corporate bureaucracies - i think most, say, Unison members don't feel great levels of solidarity. I also struggle to see how you think people view political parties as vehicles of solidarity and co-operation. I don't think I've ever heard anyone express that opinion in my entire life.
Grass roots decision making is a very vague term, does it mean people making their own decisions?
What makes you think that isn't what they currently do and anarchism doesn't even enter the discussion?

Well, one small thing would be making decisions about how they run productive concerns. Like rather than going to work for the boss, going to work for themselves and their communities. Which funnily enough makes people happier - like the peasants in Spain who collectivised their own land and ran it themselves were far happier than people who were subjected to forced collectivisation in Spain. People are generally happier if they feel in control of their lives.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 04 Jul 2013 23:46 #66

  • diamondgeezer
  • diamondgeezer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gone But Not Forgotten
  • Posts: 3141
  • Likes received: 2852
Chuck Random wrote:
I agree 100%. That's why I'm an anarchist. I don't want to give 'em the chance. I think we're equally cynical in this respect, we just have a different perspective on it.

Bullies want to dominate. Most people I think just want to get on and have a quiet life.

ok I'll buy that reason for being an 'anarchist' I suppose....

Anarchists can be bullies too though (or become them), lets not forget that.

And I'll also say this: you mentioned nazi germany earlier...

What about all those people who did all the terrible things in the concentration camps? Were they 'victims of circumstance'? I don't think so. Most of them never even saw action on the front....nothing to 'twist' them or anything.

They were always like that...the potential was always within them to do those things. And if WW2 hadn't of happened, and the 'opportunity' hadn't have come up, then would they have done them? No. Look at most of them....innocuous-looking....harmless-looking...they looked just like your local bank clerk.

The potential is there, in lots of people in my opinion....'harmless' people you pass in the street every day.

WW2 wouldn't have made me a 'victim of circumstance' (if that is what that was) in those circumstances, I don't think so anyway.
The pen is mightier than the sword
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 05 Jul 2013 19:30 #67

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
diamondgeezer wrote:

Anarchists can be bullies too though (or become them), lets not forget that.

I totally agree.
And I'll also say this: you mentioned nazi germany earlier...

What about all those people who did all the terrible things in the concentration camps? Were they 'victims of circumstance'? I don't think so. Most of them never even saw action on the front....nothing to 'twist' them or anything.

They were always like that...the potential was always within them to do those things. And if WW2 hadn't of happened, and the 'opportunity' hadn't have come up, then would they have done them? No. Look at most of them....innocuous-looking....harmless-looking...they looked just like your local bank clerk.

The potential is there, in lots of people in my opinion....'harmless' people you pass in the street every day.

I agree that some of them were like that. And those guys were more likely to seek out those positions and be good at them.
But there's been a lot of work done on how others were really quite normal guys who got brutalised.
I mean, one of the reasons they introduced gas chambers was because some of the guys who performed mass shootings were starting to exhibit mental health problems. Pretty regular blokes, in the right circumstances, shot men, women and children by their thousands.

I think what's really scary is that it's in a lot of us - if it's encouraged to come out.

I agree 100%
WW2 wouldn't have made me a 'victim of circumstance' (if that is what that was) in those circumstances, I don't think so anyway.

I'd like to think that too. But you can't know that can you?
Imagine you were born in Germany in 1920. As you're growing up you hear again and again about how the Jews are parasitical vermin to blame for everything. You can't even hear a contrary opinion unless it's expressed secretly as that could get whoever is saying it arrested. School tells you, the papers tell you, your friends tell you. Then you get sent to Poland and see these weird foreign Jews who seem so alien. Could either of us really say we wouldn't come round to thinking it would be better if these Jews were made to disappear? For the good of the people.

Today we have ordinarily quite nice people quite happy to go along with poor people being treated a bit like Jews were back in the early 30s. The Black Triangle Campaign's name is no accident.
blacktrianglecampaign.org/about/
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: diamondgeezer

Philosophical health check 07 Jul 2013 02:15 #68

Actually Chuck i think you're slightly ill informed about British Politics:
What's the point of a political party? Why bother sending some guys to parliament and hoping they'll live up to your ideals? I advocate people doing the business directly in their workplace and community. Fuck packing people off to Westminster and expecting them to sort everything out. People should be running their communities., not some chumps 100 miles away.
1. The point of a political party is to represent the interests of a part of society amidst the competing interests of various other groups in society.
2.That isn't why you elect a local MP, you elect them based on their participation in your local community and you elect them on their material plans for improving the local area..
3.the reason these elected representatives go to Westminster is to enact the policies they got voted in on by bringing up bills in parliament, by asking questions in parliament, by representing their constituents in parliaments etc etc.
If the masses thing these things are awesome, then so be it. They should just stop complaining about them is all. Because they're not going to get any better unless they do something about it.
Unions were formed out of solidarity but evolved into corporate bureaucracies - i think most, say, Unison members don't feel great levels of solidarity. I also struggle to see how you think people view political parties as vehicles of solidarity and co-operation. I don't think I've ever heard anyone express that opinion in my entire life.
Things do get better, things get better for various people at the expense of others, anarchists constitute a small and antagonistic minority of those others..but things often get better for the masses of people, anarchists included, with the increase in living standards driven by technological and similar advances that occur all the time and do actually trickle down.

You're basically just throwing labels in your critique of unions, it's baseless and divisive, the noise being made by the conservative establishment the last few weeks surely hasn't escaped your notice?

The Tories hate the fact working class organizations like the Trades Unions who campaign for workers rights and pro working class reform and legislation can back politicians and get MP's elected through their links and positive influence on the mass of their members..the fact you've never heard that said, about Political Parties being a n actual example of Unity, Solidarity and co-operation, and the fact you've obviously only ever spoken politics with ideological persona's who are biased against and based in, their dismissal of various collective realities, gives me encouragement that it may be one of those often overlooked plain sight truths.
one small thing would be making decisions about how they run productive concerns. Like rather than going to work for the boss, going to work for themselves and their communities. Which funnily enough makes people happier - like the peasants in Spain who collectivised their own land and ran it themselves were far happier than people who were subjected to forced collectivisation in Spain. People are generally happier if they feel in control of their lives.
People's job's are stressful enough as it is, do you think after booting out multinationals people are going to have more time to figure out the stock markets and law well enough to engage in that essential aspect of any modern economy?

People's lives are not easy, but they are also not hard, they are in the middle, they have the freedom to complain and to participate in changing the things they complain about, very few take an active role though, and you advocate non participation in society as it is preferring your ideas and people who share them.

Peasants in Spain are irrelevant to people in the UK21st century, there are no peasants here really, in Britain collectivisation of Labour was long established before the industrial revolution, it was used as punishment and reformatory activity in the various work houses through the centuries, it was the alternative to being hung or beaten in public for vagrancy or mendicancy, by the time it was common practice there were no more peasants living off the land, they were pretty much outlawed in the Tudor times and gone by Victorian era.

Can you cite a scientific study to support the idea that people are more happy when in control of their own lives?

I would question whether people would feel happier being in control of a national industry, arguing and competing with private companies on the international markets to make money, attract investment and encourage trade and trade links.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 07 Jul 2013 02:27 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 07 Jul 2013 10:21 #69

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
1. The point of a political party is to represent the interests of a part of society amidst the competing interests of various other groups in society.
2.That isn't why you elect a local MP, you elect them based on their participation in your local community and you elect them on their material plans for improving the local area..
3.the reason these elected representatives go to Westminster is to enact the policies they got voted in on by bringing up bills in parliament, by asking questions in parliament, by representing their constituents in parliaments etc etc.

Well no. An MP is a representative of a political party who issue a manifesto outlining their plans. The party is not obliged to fulfill its promises and is free to do the opposite of what it says it will do should it so choose. The MP is generally loyal to the party first and the whip system serves to encourage obedience to the party line. Many MPs are following a career in politics, and this career is best facilitated by conforming to party discipline.
The MP may take on individual concerns of constituents, but this would be impractical concerning anything but a tiny minority given the MP to population ratio. Around 500 individuals to sixty million people.
The MP will dismiss their constituents on matters the MP disagrees with. For example somebody who has had their income reduced to zero by an ATOS assessment might find their MP may choose to take on their individual case, but may also find their MP is keen to force through such reforms in definance of their interests.

MPs seek a mandate to do whatever they wish. They do not seek a mandate to do directly what their constituents advise them they must do.

Even should an MP follow what they said they will do, this concerns all policies ranging through gay marriage, economic policy, the EU, the NHS - everything. Constituents are expected to have one individual represent them on every policy area without any means of controlling their actions post election. This is elected dictatorship that places the constituent at the MP's mercy, relies on faith in their benevolence. and assumes they are immune to the corrupting influence of power.
I
Things do get better, things get better for various people at the expense of others, anarchists constitute a small and antagonistic minority of those others..but things often get better for the masses of people, anarchists included, with the increase in living standards driven by technological and similar advances that occur all the time and do actually trickle down.

You're basically just throwing labels in your critique of unions, it's baseless and divisive, the noise being made by the conservative establishment the last few weeks surely hasn't escaped your notice?

The Tories hate the fact working class organizations like the Trades Unions who campaign for workers rights and pro working class reform and legislation can back politicians and get MP's elected through their links and positive influence on the mass of their members..the fact you've never heard that said, about Political Parties being a n actual example of Unity, Solidarity and co-operation, and the fact you've obviously only ever spoken politics with ideological persona's who are biased against and based in, their dismissal of various collective realities, gives me encouragement that it may be one of those often overlooked plain sight truths.

Though anarchists have wielded considerable clout in previous times and places, it is certainly true they have never been the primary force. But together with others, they have helped shaped courses of action.

The unions have certainly played a positive role and it is certainly true the Tories hate them. This is why they sought to destroy them.

The anarchist critique of trades unions is that they've only ever represented reform within the current system. This has benefits to the working class that should not be dismissed, but anarchists (and others) have seen the ultimate goal as revolution; reform should be a means to improve lives here and now and also to build revolutionary consciousness. They are a means, not an end.

In their current incarnation, the unions are simply another arm of the status quo making mild requests for piecemeal reform. Cponstrained by legislation and run by wealthy managers with a vested interest in the status quo, they may make periodic fiery rhetoric, but do little more than enact a few scattered strikes. They are no longer a working class movement but, they are what CTs might refer to as 'controlled opposition'. That does not mean unions could not be important working class movements, just not the ones we have now. I myself more support the anarcho-syndicalist model - revolutionary unions of workers (and non workers) that act directly as a means of worker solidarity without an external bureaucracy and hierarchy.

Technology may have some benefits just because it exists, but it is an illusion to say it automatically represents an improvement in people's overall lives. It means you get people who can enjoy the benefits of cheap mobile phone technology, but they still may be unable to afford to heat their home. Technology has brought us an immense variety of foodstuffs and access to out of season fruits and vegetables. It has also brought us a decline in the nutritional value of food due to the impact of intensive agriculture and the deployment of technology to introduce additives we are naturally drawn to such as fat, salt and sugar. Consequently, the poor are often obese because they consume cheap foodstuffs produced by technology that is designed to appeal to the palate and elicit compulsive consumption. But they still may not be able to afford even that - technology has brought us mountains of food, but nevertheless foodbanks are sharply on the rise.

Needless to say, any notion of trickle down wealth in an economic sense is firmly established to be a complete crock of shit.

People's job's are stressful enough as it is, do you think after booting out multinationals people are going to have more time to figure out the stock markets and law well enough to engage in that essential aspect of any modern economy?

People's lives are not easy, but they are also not hard, they are in the middle, they have the freedom to complain and to participate in changing the things they complain about, very few take an active role though, and you advocate non participation in society as it is preferring your ideas and people who share them.

Peasants in Spain are irrelevant to people in the UK21st century, there are no peasants here really, in Britain collectivisation of Labour was long established before the industrial revolution, it was used as punishment and reformatory activity in the various work houses through the centuries, it was the alternative to being hung or beaten in public for vagrancy or mendicancy, by the time it was common practice there were no more peasants living off the land, they were pretty much outlawed in the Tudor times and gone by Victorian era.

Can you cite a scientific study to support the idea that people are more happy when in control of their own lives?

I would question whether people would feel happier being in control of a national industry, arguing and competing with private companies on the international markets to make money, attract investment and encourage trade and trade links.

Why would they need to figure out the stock market? The stock market is an abstraction that serves no actual material purpose in the issues of producing and distributing commodities except within the narrow sphere of capitalism. I think the stock market should be relegated to the dustbin of history as some archaic ritual practiced by the high priests of Mammon.

In Spain, it wasn't just peasants (who there were many of - Spain was was different to Britain and had landless peasants who eagerly collectivised land for themselves) on the land. Anarchist workers ran industrial concerns and related services, such as the telephone exchange.

The ultimate goal I subscribe to is the elimination of private capital and money generally. The more I think about money, the more dumb an idea it seems to me.

People have an illusion of participation. You can achieve some effects - e.g. in recent some companies have withdrawn from workfare after campaigning, presumably as they feel they image is being adversely affected. But participation in the current system is not allowed to stray further than beyond minor reform. And the more direct and effective you are, the more the state acts. CTists like to have fantasies about 'government agents' and 'shills', but the police infiltrate groups that actually do something and get results. For example (because I am familiar with it), the animal rights movement encountered quite serious state attention when it started being both very active and quite effective. It thus challenged powerful financial interests who benefited from ignoring the welfare of animals to accumulate profit. Thus, the state reacted with infiltration, excessive sentencing, propaganda and surveillance. The current system allows you to be free on a scale where if the greater the difference you're making the less it cares, the more difference you're making the more it cares. It's a very effective system. In a totalitarian state you're aware you're being suppressed and prone to react against a directly perceived lack of participation. In a democratic society you are to express yourself and enact small changes as long as you don't start getting too bolshy and effective.
Ideally, they will appropriate your preoccupations and sell them back to you. V masks are a prime example. You purchase a mask from which a large corporation gains royalties and feel you are expressing yourself by invoking a Hollywood movie made to accumulate profit that transformed its source material into a form more palatable to the prevailing ideology - a story about anarchism vs fascism transformed into the standard tale of liberals fighting to be liberals. Your rebellion has already been appropriated and sold back to you by the time you've started.
Can you cite a scientific study to support the idea that people are more happy when in control of their own lives?

Sure

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=203211

Though I kinda take it as a truism. Like I kinda thought it was pretty well established co-operatives make for happier workplaces. I've met few people who say they prefer feeling out of control of their lives.

Another big variable is social equality. You may recall the book The Spirit Level created a shitstorm among neo-liberal types a couple of years ago. Written by two epidemologists, it showed that societies with higher levels of social equality experienced fewer social problems and vice versa. Which I think is obvious - people are inevitably going to feel less happy if they're aware they lack more than their peers. So somebody living in social housing in Merseyside may live like a king compared to somebody in a war and famine afflicted African country (though that war and famine might be caused by external forces, but I digress), but that doesn't make them feel any better if they're struggling to pay the bills and the shops are full of goods they cannot afford while somebody else drives past them in a Mercedes. William Godwin pointed this out in 1793, so it's hardly a new observation.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 07 Jul 2013 11:11 #70

What you've written is not sufficient to prove to me that Anarchism is useful as anything other than a counter revolutionary force of the Elite, it's like you're explaining your reasons for being a radical Marxist, but that would involve your participation in the material reality you stand outside being negative about, you have ideas about the material reality that you try and synthesize with the ideology of Anarchism, therefore you jump at the chance to say ridiculous things without explaining how they will be achieved:
"The ultimate goal I subscribe to is the elimination of private capital and money generally. "
I guess if you know you're never going to obtain a position of influence to achieve these goals, you can be as idealistic and far fetched as you like in defiining your ideological hopes and aspirations, in making your belief system as appealing to others as possible.
The idea is to remove the authority of the global corporate pirates. The can play as nastily as they like all on their own.
By "Smashing the State", by overthrowing government?
Do you think Global Corporate Pirates like Peter Thiel are worried about that?
Or do you think they also want to smash the state and Government and so are Libertarians that pour money into propagandising against the State and Government?

They can't play on their own, for evidence of this look at history, they make more money by getting lesser people with lesser -but still significant- amounts of personal avarice, to do the hard work, why do you think this would stop by you opposing the trade's unions and how do you think Anarchists who as far as I'm aware don't accept the use of power, could actually influence or impede corporate multinational pirates in any way?
In their current incarnation, the unions are simply another arm of the status quo making mild requests for piecemeal reform.
On the Unions:
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 07 Jul 2013 11:46 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 07 Jul 2013 12:13 #71

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
What you've written is not sufficient to prove to me that Anarchism is useful as anything other than a counter revolutionary force of the Elite,

Just out of interest, what would you propose as a revolutionary force?
it's like you're explaining your reasons for being a radical Marxist, but that would involve your participation in the material reality you stand outside being negative about, you have ideas about the material reality that you try and synthesize with the ideology of Anarchism, therefore you jump at the chance to say ridiculous things without explaining how they will be achieved:
"The ultimate goal I subscribe to is the elimination of private capital and money generally. "
I guess if you know you're never going to obtain a position of influence to achieve these goals, you can be as idealistic and far fetched as you like in defiining your ideological hopes and aspirations, in making your belief system as appealing to others as possible.

The "position of influence" I subscribe to is people building their own consciousness outside of some bureaucratic structure that acts as their shepherd.

I don't know that will never be achieved, but I am realistic about the high levels of apathy and lack of political consciousness that currently prevail. I can't stand those types who go round in small groups declaring what's going to happen when there's revolution - it just seems like a silly fantasy. I think you have to be realistic about where you are. And this does not simply apply to anarchists - there is currently no political party remotely near presenting a serious alternative to neo-liberal capitalism. That is just how it is right now and there's no point denying it.

I don't believe in being far fetched. I believe in being practical. I think anarchism is practical, but like any ideology it's reliant on people buying into it. So I simply play my miniscule role in trying to make that happen.
The idea is to remove the authority of the global corporate pirates. The can play as nastily as they like all on their own.
By "Smashing the State", by overthrowing government?
Do you think Global Corporate Pirates like Peter Thiel are worried about that?
Or do you think they also want to smash the state and Government and so are Libertarians that pour money into propagandising against the State and Government?[/quote]

I don't think they worry about it much from my angle. I don't think they worry about Marxists or fascists either. Unfortunately, they don't have a great deal to worry about right now other than the inherent failings of their own system which doesn't affect them personally very much because they're rich.

Libertarians at the top I think don't really want to smash the state. Private capital simply cannot function without the state and.I don't think it even really wants to. It benefits capital that the state - via taxes - pays for roads and refuse collection and police to protect them and armies to secure resources etc. The so-called externalities. Not to mention bailing out the banks - on those terms they should simply have been left to fail. Private capital wants to fully control the state, not dispense with it entirely. The propaganda is, I think, merely to acclimatise people to accepting the curtailment of social benefits while the state operations that benefit capital continue.
They can't play on their own, for evidence of this look at history, they make more money by getting lesser people with lesser -but still significant- amounts of personal avarice, to do the hard work, why do you think this would stop by you opposing the trade's unions and how do you think Anarchists who as far as I'm aware don't accept the use of power, could actually influence or impede corporate multinational pirates in any way?

I don't oppose the trades unions -I've said before I know Marxists and anarchists very active in them, but they and I agree that they are very limited in their usefulness in their current form. These people see them as resource while being under no illusions of their limited utility and that they may even act against working class interest.

IMO the way to oppose power is by making it redundant. We simply need to re-remember our own power and progressively cut the parasitical bosses off from suckling at our teat. We do this by building networks of solidarity and shifting our mindset away from aspirational capitalism to mutual aid and social equality with a view to telling the bosses we're sorry but we don't need you any more. Sit in a boardroom and shuffle papers if you like, we're getting on with doing stuff for ourselves and you aren't getting any benefit from it. The answer really is very simple. We just need to drag our thinking out of the assumptions that have been ground into it.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 07 Jul 2013 12:20 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Ultimate Seeker ™

Philosophical health check 07 Jul 2013 13:18 #72

Chuck Random wrote:
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
What you've written is not sufficient to prove to me that Anarchism is useful as anything other than a counter revolutionary force of the Elite,

Just out of interest, what would you propose as a revolutionary force?
The inner city youth and young people in general constitute the strongest revolutionary force in society at this moment imo, the one's who hack up soldiers for Allah and who shoot drug dealers and steal their assets, are the strongest revolutionary force besides the current Tory party imo.. but they're divided with the EDL and Islam playing a large part in this, personal avarice, tribalism and gang warfare of other kinds keep them fighting and scheming against each other.

Beyond this the working classes can still constitute a revolutionary force in society, recent press coverage of the Unions is imo evidence of the current tory government knowing this...
it's like you're explaining your reasons for being a radical Marxist, but that would involve your participation in the material reality you stand outside being negative about, you have ideas about the material reality that you try and synthesize with the ideology of Anarchism, therefore you jump at the chance to say ridiculous things without explaining how they will be achieved:
"The ultimate goal I subscribe to is the elimination of private capital and money generally. "
I guess if you know you're never going to obtain a position of influence to achieve these goals, you can be as idealistic and far fetched as you like in defiining your ideological hopes and aspirations, in making your belief system as appealing to others as possible.

The "position of influence" I subscribe to is people building their own consciousness outside of some bureaucratic structure that acts as their shepherd.
these are hollow words really.
I don't know that will never be achieved, but I am realistic about the high levels of apathy and lack of political consciousness that currently prevail. I can't stand those types who go round in small groups declaring what's going to happen when there's revolution - it just seems like a silly fantasy. I think you have to be realistic about where you are. And this does not simply apply to anarchists - there is currently no political party remotely near presenting a serious alternative to neo-liberal capitalism. That is just how it is right now and there's no point denying it.
The Green Party
The Unions
There are various anti neo-liberal parties in the EU.
I don't believe in being far fetched. I believe in being practical. I think anarchism is practical, but like any ideology it's reliant on people buying into it. So I simply play my miniscule role in trying to make that happen.
Anarchism is idealistic, that is practically an antonym of practical...give yourself a break from trying to influence the masses, let the masses influence you by being a part of them.
The idea is to remove the authority of the global corporate pirates. The can play as nastily as they like all on their own.
By "Smashing the State", by overthrowing government?
Do you think Global Corporate Pirates like Peter Thiel are worried about that?
Or do you think they also want to smash the state and Government and so are Libertarians that pour money into propagandising against the State and Government?
I don't think they worry about it much from my angle. I don't think they worry about Marxists or fascists either. Unfortunately, they don't have a great deal to worry about right now other than the inherent failings of their own system which doesn't affect them personally very much because they're rich.

Libertarians at the top I think don't really want to smash the state. Private capital simply cannot function without the state and.I don't think it even really wants to. It benefits capital that the state - via taxes - pays for roads and refuse collection and police to protect them and armies to secure resources etc. The so-called externalities. Not to mention bailing out the banks - on those terms they should simply have been left to fail. Private capital wants to fully control the state, not dispense with it entirely. The propaganda is, I think, merely to acclimatise people to accepting the curtailment of social benefits while the state operations that benefit capital continue.
They don't worry about the state or government so they donate millions to reactionary paleo conservatives like Ron Paul to run on an anti government platform and fund media and internet outlets to propagandize against Government regulation and all more social minded alternatives.

Your subjective views on Libertarians are imo illogical, Private Capital has controlled the state for centuries, the last century has seen multiplying diverse social reformers enact social democratic reforms, libertarians literally now want to smash the state and turn the clock back 300 years before the working classes can use it for recompense against private capital.
They can't play on their own, for evidence of this look at history, they make more money by getting lesser people with lesser -but still significant- amounts of personal avarice, to do the hard work, why do you think this would stop by you opposing the trade's unions and how do you think Anarchists who as far as I'm aware don't accept the use of power, could actually influence or impede corporate multinational pirates in any way?

I don't oppose the trades unions -I've said before I know Marxists and anarchists very active in them, but they and I agree that they are very limited in their usefulness in their current form. These people see them as resource while being under no illusions of their limited utility and that they may even act against working class interest.

IMO the way to oppose power is by making it redundant. We simply need to re-remember our own power and progressively cut the parasitical bosses off from suckling at our teat. We do this by building networks of solidarity and shifting our mindset away from aspirational capitalism to mutual aid and social equality with a view to telling the bosses we're sorry but we don't need you any more. Sit in a boardroom and shuffle papers if you like, we're getting on with doing stuff for ourselves and you aren't getting any benefit from it. The answer really is very simple. We just need to drag our thinking out of the assumptions that have been ground into it.

I don't think many people know where we are, but imo that's completely understandable, it isn't as easy as bosses vs workers without international and global trade the UK would be in lot's of trouble, without good links with Chinese and American governments and business the UK would be in trouble..Knowing where we are is imo the most important task, I'm not a Marxist per se, I'm more like you, as you know, but I can see quite clearly in a lot of places in this time people's ideas don't always correlate with the world they have often stopped observing, experimenting within..I agree we need to drag our thinking out of the assumptions and help each other to also do the same thanks for helping me do that :lumi:
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 07 Jul 2013 13:21 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 09 Jul 2013 23:46 #73

I think Slavoj Zizek put's across some good questions and criticisms of the ideology of Anarchistic direct democracy in this video@:


I hope you disagree with him Chuck ;)
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 16 Jul 2013 12:27 #74


Massimo Pigliucci - Science, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Life
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.