That’s alright, you fascists (Christo- or otherwise) are all cowards hiding behind the glorious diffuse spectacle of the state anyway, I feel more than ready to beat you in a fight if it comes to that.
Individual appropriation. Propaganda of the deed.
Where do you live? And how much have you travelled to other places?
I admit, I’m not a great traveller by any means but even where I live I’ve seen more than enough to dispel any particular notion of ‘human nature’.
What you say may well be true, but I’d argue that those who squander their abilities are politically insignificant. Not in a ‘let’s pack them off to happy camps’ kind of way, more in a ‘they were never going to do anything anyway’ sort of way. The people who do give a shit, give a shit.
In which case they’ll buy into anarchy because we’ll give them a free toy, or something.
I agree, and what we’ve got are a bunch of people who are capable of being all the things I said - whatever else they may also be capable of.
Hey no shit, most people who call themselves anarchists are dipshits. But I’m seeking to define anarchism as something else on this thread, however limited and futile you might see that endeavor as being.
Also, I’m anti-state, not anti-government. One could have something that looks a bit like government in an anarchic society as I see it.
Tell me, what in your life has inspired you to be creative, funny, compassionate and so on?
Or anarchists who only work part-time, maybe.
Possibly because they spend most of the first 20 years of their life in state-controlled education centres (schools). But they don’t have to identify themselves as anarchists, or even believe in the dissolution of the state in order to be anarchists as I’m defining them.
5% more or less of anything is what makes the difference.
I see daily acts of kindness and compassion everywhere I go. I can’t convince you to see the same. I don’t know else to say about that.
Likewise, there’s not a lot of hope around in popular discourse. But I see this as the darkness before the light, if you like, the quiet before the storm. Never has there been more potential for revolution than when people are made to suppress both their dissatisfaction AND their hope.
As always. Which is why empowerment of that which is valuable and yet ordinary (in a human sense of ‘ordinary’) is what I believe in - if I tried to create a system or organisation of the conventional political type it would be co-opted and diverted.
When the state isn’t watching they are compassionate, most of the time anyway. That tells me something.
I don’t. But I don’t see much risk in approaching things as I do - what could go wrong with being optimistic about human potential? I might be proven wrong, but if that’s the worst outcome then fuck it, it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
I’m not talking about a violent overthrow or coup or a dissolution of the state in that sense. It’s not something that will be established and then have to find a way to stop the sociopaths resurrecting the state, it’s about advancing the opposite of sociopathic values, first, last and always. Sometimes real life gets in the way, of course, but often real life becomes easier by being this way.
Perhaps you’re not looking in the same places as I am.
Why would you be nervous about this?
There are even people within the state who embody these characteristics a lot of the time, so it isn’t just mythological, and like I say when the state isn’t watching, people behave markedly differently.
To be honest I think we’re always likely to be in the intermediate stage, and the measure of how anarchistic our society is derives from the human values I’ve listed. I don’t have a systemic plan for a transition to an ideal state - I’m not a Marxist or an anarcho-capitalist or any such ideologically committed historian. I do appreciate your disagreement, but like the dude in the Matrix said, my beliefs do not require you to believe in them.
10,000 years of hunter gatherer society.
… and 10,000 years of strife, struggle, disease, death, and oppression.
So why change it now?
Officially, I am re-introducing Christianity as philosophically viable.
The Christ = pure human self-valuing.
Baptism with fire = burning every culturally inherited valency bridge: Freedom.
Jesus = irrelevant.
Jesus was a value ontologist avant la lettre.
So I’m the second coming. But as I always said the second coming would not be a single human, but an elite.
The elite:
I
MM
JSS
Sauwelios
Parodites
Weary Locomotive
Pezer
BigTom
And, statistically, about a million others.
Don’t think I feel no shame and pain posting this drunken shit.
But in vino veritas and as Bill said: “Idiot, what do I matter?”
I’ll wait until you sober up before further comment…
:-"
It seems to me the distinction between leisure and work is an ill fit with anarchy.
It seems like you are defining them not for the qualities they have but for the qualities they would have in an alternate universe. If they make up the bulk of the population, which I Think they do, they are going to resist the Changes you are likely going to want to make. They may very well call in the state to enforce their fears about what you are doing. Not some of them, most of them.
So has it recently reached 5% and that’s why we do not have the dissolution of the state?
Within norms. Sure, I see them too. Where they fit the rules and categories sanctioned by norms and often the State.
OK
I figure that it’s best to go with what is. It seems to me there is too much assumption about what is hiding underneath conformity. If there are solutions, then these will come with a clear appraisal of what we know, even if that means the crack letting in a Little light is even smaller. One can have optimism without making more positive assessments.
The state arose out of what was less like a state - at least it seems this way. What will be different this time?
Perhaps. I Think I said earlier that there may simply be gaps between our perceptions and experiences and these may be hard to impossible to talk our way past.
First it Cuts both ways because it can also lead to overestimating the positive, which obviously I Think you have. In my experiences most people would find such a discussion uncomfortable. IN a sense what one is asking is 'are you more creative and intelligent than you seem to be? or Do you really want to conform or are you aching to throw off the bounds of state created norms? I can certainly come up with more diplomatic ways of trying to get at that information, but there is a damn good reason to be diplomatic there and that’s becasue people identify with those norms and also more and more see themselves and their Surfaces.
I’m not sure what you mean by the state watching. most of my interactions with people are not under state surveillance. People have internalized norms. When you say the state isn’t watching, what are the situations where the state is watching that you are thinking of?
That seems like a strange thing to say in context. What led you to Think I think your beliefs are dependent on mine? I assume it was something beyond my simply questioning your ideas and not agreeing.
I saw this in response to Sillouette…
I’ve travelled a lot, lived in a variety of places in the country of my birth, live now in Another country and have also lived in a country with a very different Culture from that of my birth country. Have had shorter stays in a number of countries other than the Three I have lived in for a long time. (the one I live in now is Another ‘Western nation’.) Human nature varies extremely. But what I saw everywhere I Went was that the bulk of the people Believe the norms of their Culture and these generally fit with that of their state. I saw anxiety in relation to what did not conform - at the least, some reactions much worse, even violent, and these worse reactions or the Calling in of the state in some way was Always likely if the lack of conformity was deemed really weird - even if it harmed no one. I encountered a general mixed at best reaction to creativity. Even when put on a pedastal, there were undercurrents of envy threat and interest in seeing the creative person taken down. Also creativity was generally accepted in ‘art’ - taken in a broad sense to include things like Music, etc. There was a main compartment for creativity. EVerywhere I Went I found people who were interested in a wider range of creativity, could tolerate and thrived in diversity in many facets of Life, etc. But these people were in a very small minority.
And by the way, I am not a pessimist. I just don’t see people the way you do. My optimism seems not to be dependent on what seems a rosy Picture of what they are ‘really’ like, despite appearances. And to be clear. I am not saying your optimism is hinged to the image you have of people. But it seemed like you had a kind of pascal’s Wager relationship to your faith in other people. And that you were potentially implying to be optimistic included this view of humans.
I agree with everything you said up to the point of abolishing the State being some kind of solution. I think of the French Revolution, I think of Bonapartism, and I know that tyrrany can exist (and in fact, thrives) in the absence of a state as well. If the U.S. Gov't actually limited itself to the powers described in it's Constitution,we'd be all set.
I'm not a libertarian because I think society needs organization, but I think that organization just needs to be divested from the control of ego-maniacal experimenters and theorists that think they know better than how the culture has developed over time.
The solution is merely to correct one seemingly small concern in the US Constitution. After that, everything automatically begins correcting itself and becomes as perfect as homosapians could ever manage.
But since that little change isn’t going to happen, one must derive another solution, not greatly different and with the same end goal. But trying to establish any Constitution is pretty damn tough regardless. So it isn’t for the meek hearted.
The idea of anarchism is merely one of “tear it all down and start again”.
But of course, if one has no idea to where the new start would go, it is insane to give up what one has in blind faith of pure chance (99% chance of getting worse).
I meant “insanity” to refer to the witch-hunts, not to the sociopathy.
I don’t share your definition.
They tend not to do especially well. They are damaged. In some short term situations they will do better, but long term and often short term also, they fuck up. They are essentially social mammals with part of their Brains missing.
Uccisore - The US Constitution is essentially a form of anti-State. So, yes. Can’t say I disagree as far as the USA goes. I live in Europe, though.
It will be absolutely prudent for any political anarchistic movement to see to what extent the US Constitution is a viable form. Of course, a large problem is with the enforcers of the law all the way up to the executive office. How are you going to keep them from being corrupted by capital? If even the mods on ILP are corrupted somewhat by their power, then how is an enforcing arm of a government ever going to keep clean?
This is why I propose something even more reduced to principle. At least something that can be traced back in toto to a set of agreed upon principles.
And as it turns out, those principles will be amazingly similar to the US Constitution (before recent corruption). And the way you prevent corruption is through “double-stitch verification” which basically prevents all forms of cancers.
And this definition as a perspective;
…would make me your god (note the small case “g”).
Oh, you mean when the Earth had about 0.5% of its present human population? You and your fellow anarchists are going to have to do some serious “culling of the herd” before you can get back to that.
I think you can just as easily say “culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish to tamper with it” as “culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish not to change with it”.
I strongly subscribe to the theory that population density (usually in line with size) is one of the most significant factors in changing social attitudes/organisation. I would totally agree that we can’t go back to any hunter/gatherer tribalism without a massive “culling of the herd”.
Monarchs became unable to manage populations too large, so they spread their powers to select Feudal Lords, who in turn had to spread their powers amongst Capitalists, who presumably will in turn eventually have to spread their power amongst co-operative management (and so on?). Akin to trees with their trunks, branches, twigs, leaf veins…
Living in increasingly close quarters similarly demands stronger co-operative behaviour in the social world as well as the economic, because there is no way out (with everywhere else increasingly populated too, with neighbourhoods rejecting you unless you will keep the peace and allow everyone to get on unhindered as best you can - enter the concept of negative liberty).
Anarchy just doesn’t factor into historical progression except, at best, at each extreme - with hardly anyone on the planet (lone wolves), or with far too many people on the planet that leadership is too spread out too have any real significance, assuming branching out of layers of power continues infinitely.
Anarchy is just “a cool idea” - at best a thought experiment to remind us where not to end up (realised once you’ve thought it through sufficiently).
Co-operativism is the next stage.
Must be a bizarre definition of elite you’re using there. But then mine only includes me…
I’ve lived in an abnormally high number of different houses for my age, 19 so far. They span only a few English counties, though family, friends, partners and holidays have filled in the gaps in terms of my travelling experience throughout the rest of the country - though not so much the rest of the world, I’ve only visited 4 foreign countries across only 2 continents. So in terms of being well travelled, I am and I am not. I feel informed about the USA, despite only having visited there once - through internet contact (and only to the extent one can be through media representation of the place). My best friend grew up and still lives in the Middle East. Living where I do, I am exposed to people from all over the world in a professional environment as well as living amongst all sorts of them - so I know about much of the rest of the world through them, despite not having visited the countries from whence they came. Further, my geography is very good, and I like to read up on other cultures/ways of living.
If I am to generalise, I would subscribe more to a notion of “human tendency relative to circumstances” than some ridiculous notion of a uniform “human nature”. I know people far better than I’ve ever known anyone else know them, and there’s definitely common ground and patterns - despite huge numbers of individual differences and variations.
I regard people who squander their abilities as highly politically significant, despite their lack of knowledge about what they’re doing. They vote in vast numbers for other reasons than political curiosity and knowledge. They keep the same old parties in power, and these parties know this.
Most people who call themselves Socialists are also dipshits. I seek to define Socialism as what it actually is, rather than what it’s made out to be - however futile others might see that endeavour.
I’m neither anti-State nor anti-government. To me, that’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. They are here and aren’t going to suddenly disappear forever just because some Anarchists got together. These institutions need to be transformed into something that brings out more favourable conditions (ironically ones that Anarchists would most likely wish would happen immediately without any transition). Socialism is simply more realistic - though I would identify more as a Co-operativist, because even Socialism asks for too much at once.
Not a simple answer to that one for sure. But to force one, I would say emotional/chemical reward due to a certain set of experiences.
Really? How do you measure that?
But OK, what is this human tendency, as you see it?
You’re still working within the framework of electoral politics. I couldn’t give a toss about that, because it always becomes dominated by political parties and political parties are equivalent to tabloid media in the way that they’ll leap from one position to another depending on what they perceive the advantage as being in doing so. The socialists are no different in this respect.
Go on then, define socialism as ‘what is actually is’. I’d be interested to hear what you mean by that.
This is perhaps the 12th time on this thread that people have resorted to a stock, hackneyed rejection of anarchism that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said, or indeed that anyone else on this thread has said. It’s an objection to a label, nothing more. I expect more of you, and know you are capable of far more.
So we need to use the state as a mechanism to force people to become more co-operative? I think you’re right that this is ‘what socialism really is’ but it’s a pretty terrible thing.
And this is why I hate Marxism - it reduces people to material beings, typically views ordinary life and people with contempt and pretends it is forcing them to do things for their own benefit. You have expressed utterly typical Marxism.
Indeed that is where I am different from most anyone here.
Of course I myself am the standard to what is required to be part of this elite - and I was drunk writing that list - but I’ve come so far that I can’t rise any higher, and have to expand in breadth. Thankfully this proves possible.
Basically I included every poster on this list who I know that understands, to a significant degree, value ontology. Without meeting that standard anyone is perfectly worthless to me, as a philosopher I mean.
WL’s presence on the list is mostly due to the drinking.