Discussion in 'Anarchy' started by Lying in a field, Jun 23, 2006.
is pretty damn useful but so incredibly fucking boring.
I hate politics.
Depends on what it is that you are reading, and what steps you are taking as far as practical application...
Practical application is far more practical and seems to work so much better without reading and filling your head with strict ideologies that pretty much defeat the purpose.
anarchy is bullshit
Our choices in maldictories, such as the choice of bullshit, are spontaneous unguarded exposures of our subconscious preoccupations.
In this case, an intense anal preoccupation with excrement.
A preoccupation, and thus a maldictory, that one finds typical in Hierarchical societys such as ours.
Anal preoccupations are universally associated with latent homosexual submissive desires towards Hierarchical Authority, and an effeminate fear of Anarchy's fearless individual self-determination.
The latent homosexual, possessing, in themselves, the deep-seated homo-erotic impulse of sado-masochism, is thus always suspicious and fearful that humanity's motivations are as sado-masochistic as his own.
Such an effeminate creature always seeks, like an hysterical woman, the security and authority of Hierarchical father-figures, and can never walk erect in the fearless free-spirit of Anarchy.
This analysis is often refered to as the psycho-pathology of everyday things.
In which our everyday mental associations, as well as spontaneous and off-the-cuff actions and words, are valuable insights into eachother's subconscious preoccupations.
This being a typical case of what one can see and hear throughout any given day.
"with no revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practise"
Hell, reading political books can be boring as fuck, but its like a musician doing finger excersizes and learning scales. It equipts you to work better on a practical level, and theory is important as if you want an anarchist society to succeed.
Personally i feel reading and learning about how to help the poor, live off the land, protect the environment from unnecessary destruction, make my own things, live without money, be generally inspired about life without an imposed authority, inspiring those around me and valuing a personal sense of freedom and the necessity to feel that way and take action to preserve it.........are far greater tools than outdated ideologies.
Chris i hope one day you understand the greater implications of anarchism and not just its bland analysis of whats better and who does this better and why you cant do that and why..rules...rules...rules..etc.
Yeah and it can be boring sometimes but every once in awhile I find a really inspring article that really pushes me to act in my day to day life. Read: "Anarchism: A collection of revolutionary articles" by Kropotkin. It really inspired me and clarified a lot many things. And it's not too outdated.
Hey thanks! I actually have that book on my shelf but never thought to read it. I'll definitely have a look
Yeah, it's definitly a collection of his better writings. Tbe biggest thing it made me realize is that Anarchism and Communism are really one and neither can exist without the other.
If what you are saying is that men would naturally use shit as a maldictory because of shit's foul associations, and, like with dogs and cats, shit has a natural foul association, then you have a point.
Or it would be, except there are many foul associations, but we consistantly and constantly gravitate towards the sexual and anal as our foul associations of choice.
That's why it's so revealing of our subconscious preoccupations, and why all maldictories, spontaneous off-the-cuff remarks, and even humor, are so valuable in exposing common and usually well guarded inner conflicts.
Adaptating our behavior to increase survival and reproduction is what's natural.
Adaptation is the nature of behavior, and it's natural to adapt patriarchal patterns of behavior when a critical number of males are weak enough with fear to become submissively obedient to other males, and thus begin to subconsciously question their male sexual identity.
Our current patriarchal civilization proves that patriarchy and sexism is only possible amongst the most regressively primitive peoples.
But our current savage patriarchal regression is a recent regression, and archeological evidence overwhelmingly suggests that until the last 500 generations, most of us usually lived in highly conscious, cooperative, egalitarian societies free of patriarchal hierarchy.
Erico Malatesta is always a nice writer for beginners and not only.I dig him a lot.
Industrial Society and Its Future
Luddism is unfortunately used as a tool of oppression as well. In the United States, we know statistically that inequalities became greater as deindustrialization took place.
The industrial welfare state has given humanity, so far, greater quality of life generally, than primitive utopias.
I very much enjoyed reading your Freudian analysis. But I couldn't let this go... For one, "highly conscious" sounds like an empty cliche.
Secondly, the societies you described involved a very small subsection of humanity. You actually don't have to go back 500 generations to find "egalitarian" societies. Bushmen exist today.
1) their quality of life and life span was never comparable to ours, even prior to British colonialism;
2) anthropology is actually suggests, in new evidence, that a lot of what appeared to be egalitarian societies to ethnology initially, turns out were not very egalitarian at all. I forget the name of the french anthropologist who studied the practice of potlach in Berber society. But I can for now suggest you read Georges Bataille on the same subject;
Every -ism can be used as a tool for oppression.
I wouldn't say that i'm a full fledged supporter of Luddism(although that's more of a denigrating term, primitivism is the buzzword now.)
But i think a lot can be taken from such a critique of civ, especially capitalist industrial civ.
(yeah, i'm more of an ideological cherry-picker, someday i'll get enough gathered to bake a whole pie)
"quality of life" is awfully subjective, isnt it?
Also, most primitivists that i know are not advocating a "return" to any form of life. Only in drawing upon certain ways of life in order to formulate a new and vibrant existence.
Sort of in the same vein as Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
Some of us would rather be a Leaver than a Taker...
Are you familiar with the writings of John Zerzan?
Hello and happy New Year,
If you don't like reading about anarchism try this link to a very authoritative and accesible radio program about the history of anarchist thought and pracice:
I recomended this on two other threads a month ago, which seemed to kill the chat, oops. I dunno why, i'd like to imagine that there is nothing to add following my incisive comments(ha ha) but i don't think this is the case.
Just been reading "how to be free" by tom hodgkinson, which is alot of fun, desite being full of holes and wooly thinking.
I shall follow up the tips for further reading above.
I haven't read Daniel Quinn or John Zerzan, though I've read about the latter.
Here's my problem with primitivism --- primitivists can only survive off the crumbs of the capitalist system. This is the same problem I have with punks who are oh too socially conscious to work and beg for money instead, from choice not hard luck. That money comes from someone else's labor, and the California hippies are also protected by the state and it's police force no matter how much they profess to hate it. And have no doubt that they'll use hospital facilities if they ever get into an accident or something like that.
The only REAL primitivism is to be found in certain regions of the globe, particularly Africa and Asia, but also South America. And it's no fucking wonder that ideological primitivists want nothing to do with it. Because the lifespan in those societies average about 45 years of age. It's self-serving see...
Quality of life is not subjective as all that. Life span is a big indication, the general health of the citizenry is another, time for leisure and intellectual stimulation is another, freedom from violence and cohersion, yet another...
I don't think it is debatable, for instance, that generally speaking, Western Europe has a greater quality of life than the U.S. --- but Americans also enjoy a greater quality of life than Fiji.
P.S. I'm all for societal change and I empathize with non-utopian, non-primitivist anarchism as well as Marx's critique of the capitalist system. I don't however, endorse any political system over another. They all seem fallible to me, and I certainly don't waste any brain cells on egalitarian utopias. I guess that makes me more of an existentialist than an anarchist...
At any rate, I think unwittingly, primitivists play into the hands of Wall Street, who wants deindustrialization anyways, and U.S. hegemony over the Third World. That is why so many financiers fund the WWF and other primitivist NGOs as well as those who believe the state is the root of all evils.
I can see the idea of utilizing technology for the benefit of a greater sub-section of humanity. I just think being anti-industry, anti-technology, anti-urban, anti-everything that even sounds like Western civilization is dumb as could be. And the people who profess to hate Western civ are usually fully profiting from its comforts, which do exist.
P.S. 2 - John Zerzan's glasses come from where I wonder? Industry!
This is going to require more time than i have today to reply properly, but let me just state that:
1.) everyone is a hypocrite. especially the left. there is nothing wrong with this. When you live in technologically savvy 1st world consumer culture, you will not be able to remain "pure", so i hate it when someone uses the cliched line "if you/they actually believed this/that you would doing that/this, thus your aurgument should be thrown out." that line doesnt work with politically active socialists, marxists, anarchists, post-leftists or primitivists any more than it does with religious/spiritual people.
if you want to critique primitivism then do so on its merits, not on wether you feel someone is "living up to" what the primitivist ideal should be.
2.) how is that "quality of life" currently maintained in an Industrial/Technological Society and is it sustainable?
and to criticize someone for using what they hate is groundless.
Do you hate capitalism?
do you get paid an hourly wage to feed and clothe yourself and family?
does that mean anything negative that you have to say about capitalism is negated?
of course not!
I'm anti-State, but taxes are still taken out of my paycheck.
Does that mean any critique i make on the State's role in society is negated?
of course not!
gotta go, more to come later
Those are valid points, I edited my earlier post and encourage you to read my P.S.
1) Anyway, I don't agree!!! There have been men out there who gave their lives for their ideals. W.E.B. Dubois died in Ghana becuase he did not condone U.S. racism.
I would agree that we're all a part of the capitalist system. But my position is, capitalism then must have it's charms because if it was totally devoid of merit, you better believe I'd be among the Bushmen... How's about criticizing capitalism and Western society in a more sophisticated way rather than saying there is absolutely no merit to it? How's about acknowledging the fact that most every human creation has both merits and flaws and that they can be improved or changed?
2) The issue of sustainability is two-fold. On the one hand, consumer capitalism, as opposed to the producer capitalism that was prevalent around WWII, is in fact very damaging on many aspects. One of them is that most consumer items have no use-value (Marxist idea) other than an affirmation of superior social status through "conspicuous consumption."
As far as the environment, we know that technology has made it possible to do things to improve and replenish it. Reforestation is nothing other than a technological advance, my friend. So are cars run on electrical power, etc.
I think it is a matter of regulating the use of resources in the most intelligent way, not of trashing technological and industrial society because it certainly has yielded great benefits, and in any case, it cannot be stopped.
Separate names with a comma.