Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
A good rule of thumb would be not to believe an anarcho-primitivist until he's seen living off the land, heh heh heh. And - well, I don't know if you have studied this topic. A hunter-gatherer social structure might still be not really what you wish for, so one should be informed when making comparisons. And what about the matter of size? A tribe is already a big structure, one that might be translatable to industrial age, but I believe hunter-gatherers live in smallish units. Moreover while such a unit may function as a single big sort-of family, I'm inclined to believe that with the growth of an anarchic society, the chance that clan-type structures will develop relatively naturally, is quite non-neglectable.
Hm, to conclude: if by hunter-gatherer social structure you mean purely that there are no specific gender roles, no vows of marriages, and development of clans or similar structures is prevented, but it is not meant to draw deeper comparisons, then I see no problem in that.
So, the new Game of Thrones trailer has made me forget how utterly meh season 2 of Game of Thrones was.
HBO's model entirely relies on people being easy and not cheap.
See: The Sopranos.
Basically, this.
Putting the whole hunter-gatherer thing aside, I am aware that anarchy would inevitably lead to a certain atomization of society and its decentralization to much smaller units since non-hierarchical organization is practically impossible on a bigger level. But I don't think this is a reason to worry, due to the advances of communication technology - people aren't suddenly going to start viewing the other group as a completely dehumanized Other, which was admittedly fairly common in primtive societies due to a lack of contact.
Saw Ruby Sparks. Good deconstruction, bad use of reality warper powers.
He's caught in an infinite loop of self-absorption. There was really nothing profound about the life lessons he supposedly got shoved down his throat, but he has to dramatize it into a deep learning experience for the masses at the end of the movie. He will keep meeting Ruby again and again until he learn not to be a co-dependent snowflake.
Boy am I glad I got an email notification for this, 'cause I never would have known about it otherwise.
genuis
Hm, to return to that discussion on anarchism - there was a guy back on TVT arguing that three years of anarchist Catalonia is enough of a proof that an anarchist society can totally work on big scale and in the long term. I wonder what you think of it.
Hmmmm-mmmmm... The answer might be of use to me in a different argument, with a certain person. I won't yet call names though.
I assume he just stored the magic typewriter away. Oh well, it was probably the intention to imply that he has had an epiphany: it failed a tad in that regard, but I don't see the need for punishment/comeuppance within the context of the movie.
Yup, that sounds pretty great! Wait, no, the other thing.
Hmm, mostly I hoped that I'd set a trap, a certain IJBMer would fall in it, and I'd be able to shove in his face what he said ages ago. Heh heh heh. But it doesn't mean I don't appreciate that you responded, by no means it does.
The argument that something cannot work due to "human nature" is bullshit, because the human character is relative and easily shaped by the environment and experience - the existence of any absolutes is minimal at best.
Anyway, I used to be opposed to a violent revolution myself, but some of the people at Marks21 managed to convince me otherwise. Any attempts at a revolution will inevitably have reactionaries trying to bring it down and restore the old order, often through violence. Obviously, there is no way a bunch of hippie peaceniks are going to be able to resist the counter-revolution, so it has to be crushed by force.
The class war, if ultimately successful, will be the final war - the end of violence, the end of oppression, the end of privilege. Some unsavory things will have to happen for it to be successful, but what is the alternative - to cry at the fate of the world while doing absolutely nothing? It only ends up serving the conservatives and reactionaries, as nothing will be done to destroy the oppressive order and it will only continue to get worse and worse. You can't expect somebody who has been oppressed for ages to take it all calmly and with no desire for vengeance. Violence begets violence - it's a fierce cycle of revenge that can only be stopped by the complete annihiliation of the privileged classes through forced economic redistribution, by any means necessary.
>first paragraph: fierce agreement
>second paragraph: skeptical, depending on how you define 'violence'(which can vary from civil disobedience turning into a riot up to full-on civil war shenanigans)
>third paragraph: consistency is thrown out of the window in favour of hurrdurr, the simplified utopianism clashes with the sane relativism and possibilities for non-violent change that the first paragraph implies
Welp, this is a disappoint.
I'm reminded of a Soviet Commissar character in that one film I once watched. The guy believed that the French Revolution was a step in the right direction, but it was too ineffectual, and ultimately failed to prevent the reaction from taking over. Simply put, the guillotine was an insufficient tool for the job. He was, however, convinced that the CheKa would succeed where the guillotine did not.
^^ Now, any sort of revolutionary change is technically violent - the key element of a socialist revolution is redistribution of wealth, which means that some people will have stuff forcibly taken away. The real question lies in the amount of violence that ought to be used.
If we accept the postulates that the revolution has to be global, "non-violent" change (more like change without blood) is theoretically compatible with completely tearing down the system, but that would imply that the huge majority of the seven billion people in the world would have to agree upon the same vision, the same method of achieving it and act at the same time, which is practically almost impossible to pull off.
The revolution would begin in one part of the world and continue to spread across the globe, and it would be in the interest in foreign powers to crush it, which would automatically imply violence against multiple state institutions, police forces and militaries. In revolutionary chaos, there will most probably be reactionary forces with the interest of returning to the old order who would use violence to achieve that goal - if that happens, violence has to be used to stop them.
I definitely agree that wanton killing sprees such as the ones in anarchist Catalonia are bad and should be avoided, but that doesn't automatically disqualify the idea of a socialist revolution just because things like that may happen - they represent the collective wrath of the working class and the oppressed, which ought to be put in check by revolutionary leaders so it doesn't become disproportionate, but can we really blame them?
And thus is becomes a cynical cost/benefit-analysis, so pipedreamy that morality goes out the window. Ethics are situational, and such a big picture erases the individual completely. Socialism can't triumph if it embraces the dehumanization of capitalism it fights so hard against.
Awww, now I'm speaking in slogans and simulacra too.
In theory, I agree with you... but what good is it if nothing can ever be done?
There's those absolutes again. There's a fuckhuge gap between delusions of a belated worldwide Marxist revolution and sitting on one's butt because can't fight the system. You know this. You already do a ton of activism, and the idea that it'll all somehow lead to some global revolution can only be demotivating due to how far-off it is. The big picture contains so many micro-issues you can be busy for a lifetime. Any activism is good, provided you keep a realistic perspective about it. There's always a compromise between different political systems(at least in plural democracies), and little use in getting mopey about that.
Do call me out if this is starting to sound too know-it-allish.
I'm not convinced a violent revolution would work. The modern world has the biggest gap between civilian power and military power of any time in history. We don't have homing missiles, airborne drones, tanks or anything of that sort. A civilian militia won't cut it against professionals, either, and the potential for abuses is huge. Teaching responsible use of skills and equipment is a huge part of any professional endeavour, and when that education isn't in place, it's easier than ever for those privileged enough to have those things to abuse them for whatever ends they like.
The only way it could ever work is if a regional military force was compliant with the revolution, pretty much at the outset. This wouldn't have been outlandish in a different social context, but ever since the anti-socialism/communism propaganda of Cold War USA, the trust your average person has in such systems of policy and economics has plummeted. Even with leftist ideas gaining traction once again, the capitalist system holds a massive upper hand. Before any revolution can take place, violent or otherwise, there's still a lot of capitalistic concepts taken for granted that have to be broken as default considerations.
Since you're here: would it stick, or not? Anarchist Catalonia.
There are times when I seriously want to help people, but have no idea how to help them. Any advice I write sounds snappy, writing "I don't know what to say" sounds pathetic, but not helping them feels mean.
What do?
@Tools: I know the feeling all too well. I usually try to push them in the direction of someone I think would be better able to help them, but then I worry that it comes off as trying to pass the buck, so...I don't know.
Why must social interaction be so difficult? It needs cheat codes or something.
Someone was complaining that they had no friends, even though I had seen them make no moves towards making them. I typed this out in the hope that it didn't come off as too rude:
Edit: I give up. I tried, but it's hard
You should have said that.