Death to middle-class society, and long live anarchism

[Demosthenes]

I'm saying that anarchism can be about discovering that you and everyone else has the power to change your social conditions if you want to and organise to.


You may not be able to change them instantaneously, but it's perfect possible for you, your friend or anyone else to organise to effect change.
Of course, it's a sad fact that the government relies on inertia, on people accepting the immutability of the social conditions, to retain their grasp on you and be able to dictate that your friend is an "unsuitable parent" in the first place.

Right so in other words you were saying nothing at all of any relevance to what I said about how given the way things are, it's an unfortunate fact that people find they kind of have to inculcate their kids into the system, and boss them around a whole lot more than they ought to - because they don't have any current alternatives. Please don't bother next time.

 

[Demosthenes]

The key was he refused to be told by any adult while he was a kid. If he disagreed with what they told him to do, he'd refuse, but give them reasons and arguments as to why he was refusing them.

That's not anarchy, that's obduracy and insolence.

lol

 

[soulman]

Indeed, largely because this is a piss take thread, not actually started by an anarchist. At least, not a chartered anarchist.

 

[max_freakout]

A begin indicates that progress follows. There is no progress in death.

salaam.

there is no progress in anarchy, because anarchy is the state of completion

 

[butchersapron]

Of what drongo?

 

[max_freakout]

Of what bongo?

of process

 

[butchersapron]

Of what process? What are it's components and what is it's dynamic driving it towards it's completion?

 

[max_freakout]

Of what process? What are it's components and what is it's dynamic driving it towards it's completion?

the process of everything, being driven towards a nexus of completion by the unfolding of time

 

[butchersapron]

Right. What is this 'nexus of completion' - how do you know this? Why everything? How is it leading to anarchy? How did you get outside of this process?

 

[butchersapron]

there is no progress in anarchy, because anarchy is the state of completion

Actually, defend this

there is no progress in anarchy, because anarchy is the state of completion

 

[max_freakout]

i dont 'know' this, it's just my conception of anarchy

 

[butchersapron]

What is? Say what this conception is.

 

[max_freakout]

i think anarchy is the final thing

 

[butchersapron]

Right, you've taken a bog standard teological approach and just added anarchy at the end. Well done philospher. Well done.

 

[max_freakout]

the idea of the necessity of hierarchical control can be transcended

 

[butchersapron]

the idea of the necessity of hierarchical control can be transcended

And has been many times without history coming to and end.

 

[Kizmet]

i think anarchy is the final thing

Entropy is the final thing. Not anarchy.

 

[Aldebaran]

there is no progress in anarchy, because anarchy is the state of completion

I said that death can't be a beginning since there is no progress in death.
I also said that death is - the state of - absolute anarchy.

salaam.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What doe you mean by 'doesn't allow'? I can't see a structure or methodology in place that can ban or bar any micro-structure that people find works for them.

Combat it.. discourage, maybe. But disallow?

I said "doesn't allow" because I presumed (perhaps mistakenly) that you're acquainted with the Foucauldian "reading" of discourse; that a discourse is composed of language structures cemented together by normative assumptions. If those structures and assumptions around our current politics don't include an understanding or an acceptance of the validity and/or possibility of the "solutions" that anarchism presents, then it doesn't allow them to become part of the discourse, and they stay where they are, on the fringe.

Well, this I absolutely agree with.

From a different perspective doesn't how effectively it's been supressed give you an idea of how vulnerable it is?

Not really. That was then, this is now. Most of the examples we have are 50, 100, 150 years old. We simply don't know how things would go in a world of near-instantaneous mass communication.

This then takes us back to the question I asked earlier about the structure that would be able to ban a thriving self-regulated micro-community.

I don't see one. Either a thriving micro-community (aside from those that are comprised of like-minded individuals) or a inherent opposition to it.

Opposition to self-governance is built into our legal structure, our civil laws, our planning system and just about any other state structure. Self-governance, autonomy, self-regulation, all these ideas are antithetical to the idea of a state.

What aspect of neo-liberalism prohibits it?

No aspect, the entire ideology.
An ideology that is based on what reduce to "market freedoms", the freedom to consume, the freedom to define yourself on terms set by consumption will not tolerate people who do not put the interests of the market first.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right so in other words you were saying nothing at all of any relevance to what I said about how given the way things are, it's an unfortunate fact that people find they kind of have to inculcate their kids into the system, and boss them around a whole lot more than they ought to - because they don't have any current alternatives. Please don't bother next time.

Don't worry, I won't.

 

[Kizmet]

I said "doesn't allow" because I presumed (perhaps mistakenly) that you're acquainted with the Foucauldian "reading" of discourse; that a discourse is composed of language structures cemented together by normative assumptions. If those structures and assumptions around our current politics don't include an understanding or an acceptance of the validity and/or possibility of the "solutions" that anarchism presents, then it doesn't allow them to become part of the discourse, and they stay where they are, on the fringe.

Foucalt.

Some interesting work on sexuality and repression.. but my old teacher used to say 'the words of a pessimist are loaded with failure'. Which kind of turns Foucault on himself. Plus I'm deeply suspicious of critical writers... since there is nearly always an agenda within their critique.

I'm a practical man and I understand the relationship between assumption, normalisation and structured discourse.

While these things can hinder the integration of ideas that are far from 'normal'.. because language itself is so fluid and ever changing and isn't driven by political or religious motives in perhaps the way it was... there's no way it can stop the take up of a powerful enough 'meme'.

Foucault, as I understand it was:

a) a depressive
b) disilllusioned with left wing politics
c) french

all of this has some bearing on his feelings abut acceptance of his/new ideas. Particularly the 'french' bit...

So, the question remains... what structure or methodology 'doesn't physically allow' for the take up of a meme?

Not really. That was then, this is now. Most of the examples we have are 50, 100, 150 years old. We simply don't know how things would go in a world of near-instantaneous mass communication.

It's this near-instantaneous mas-communication that makes it all the more vulnerable.

Because it's a meme spreader. And they can either work for you or against you.

Opposition to self-governance is built into our legal structure, our civil laws, our planning system and just about any other state structure. Self-governance, autonomy, self-regulation, all these ideas are antithetical to the idea of a state.

But yet within free market economies large companies are increasingly self governing, self regulating, self planning, and autonomous.

So it seems to me that the state 'structure' can incorporate or integrate with any type of organisition that itelf can 'integrate' with the state.

It's the 'black box' theory of governance. The state needs to know only what it must provide.. and in return what it will receive to any closed system (black box)... whatever goes on within that box is not it's concern.

To provide some depth to my point of view.. I have intimate knowledge of how this can work from my own work with a community that runs just like this on these principles. And it does work.

No aspect, the entire ideology.
An ideology that is based on what reduce to "market freedoms", the freedom to consume, the freedom to define yourself on terms set by consumption will not tolerate people who do not put the interests of the market first.

I think it can and does tolerate them.

But what it can't do is 'calculate them'. So ideologically communities/people who don't conform to rampant consumerism may seem to be discouraged.. in practice the freedom to consume also allows for the freedom to not consume.