TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Anarchism 101
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Here's another doc on Karl Hess:

Karl Hess:Toward Liberty
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


Terrible quality tho. :/

Yeah Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron imo but I do understand what he means by it.
Btw, quoting Marx on the fly like that is hardcore!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism I see state capitalism as government intervention on behalf of corporate interest. I see state socialism as government intervention on behalf of the electorate/people.

very first line of that link

quote:

State capitalism, in its classic meaning, is a private capitalist economy under state control.

yes, it does go on to say this

quote:

In more modern sense, state capitalism is a term used to describe a system where state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance interests of big business

but i think that's just ideology-stealing by someone, and incorrect. especially considering that the USSR existed right up til the 90s, so i would consider it a 'modern sense' of the word.

and continued

quote:

This term is also used by some heterodox economists to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by a state in a capitalist way, even if such a state chooses to call itself socialist.[3] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in the latter sense: as a social system combining capitalism � the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value � with ownership by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is a country where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh absolutely. which is why he's always been one of my favourite (modern) theorists.

My favorite is when he points out all the fucking terrible, TERRIBLE things our government did in Central America. We've been funding terrorism, dictators, and fascist for years to get our way...

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis My favorite is when he points out all the fucking terrible, TERRIBLE things our government did in Central America. We've been funding terrorism, dictators, and fascist for years to get our way...

was only listening to an hour-long lecture by him last night where he briefly covered that exact topic!

i'd love to be that coherent and articulate in spoken word on the fly like that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and continued

I think it just comes down to who is benefited by government intervention. Large corporations or the electorate.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches. His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold.

Yet fails to talk about certain issues, like certain false flag operations. I understand why now though, intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals / academics are far more indoctrinated than I originally thought. You can't definitely make a case with out proof, and you can't have a proof when the one crucial piece of evidence that would end debate is destroyed. The bourgeoisie aren't exactly known for independent thought or being capable of seeing past boundaries defined by familiar models and constructs. It's not like they give a flying fuck about truth to begin with. I learned that the hard way but Chomsky has age and experience, not to mention a highly refined intuition and understanding with all the painstaking research he's done over a lifetime. Plus, why waste your time on people who don't even care for honest discussion and the only genuine participation by them is limited to ridicule and personal attacks?

Re: Re: Anarchism 101

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN There's a tremendous problem here that he doesn't address. He argues that structures of authority/coercion need to justify their existence, and those that cannot should cease to operate/exist. But to whom do these authorities have to justify their existence to? Who is making the ultimate decisions regarding which structures of coercion are ok (the grandfather pulling their grandaughter aside near a busy roadway) or not ok? One might assume given chomsky's leanings, that it would be an inherently democratic process. But this raises the question of necessary infrastructure- who is going to organise the vote? Who is going to count the vote? In which places will the vote be held? Who decides on the structure of the vote (first past the post? Or something more representative)? Who is going to take the lead in dismantling those structures of coercion that have been unable to justify their own existence? The inherent problem here of course is that only other structures of coercion are capable of dismantling structures of coercion. The level of governmental input in these endeavours would be astronomical, and rather contradictory to the process itself. Indeed, what happens when the ignorant voter decides that the police and army (two of the favourite targets of anarchists) are legitimate coercive entities? There is no reason to assume that a majority of people will agree on the role such entitites should play in the new society, especially if those that currently fulfill those roles are allowed their democratic voice in the process. One of the main reasons for this of course is inherited ideology, which in my opinion was one of the inherent problems of socialism. How can you 'teach' the people to engage in a new society and forget the old, when they are so indoctrinated in the first place? The other problem, which you have alluded to briefly, is the idea of the pre-colonial communal (for want of a better term) organisation. The problem with this position is that I find it incredibly difficult to extrapolate the situation back then in the hopes of providing an alternative for modern society. Just because pre-modern man could exist in such a way is not reason enough to think that postmodern man could as well. Forgetting the problem of inherited ideology (though that is big and bad enough), there remains the issue of personal choice- in this new society am I allowed to own and run the corner store I bought? If I am, what's to stop me buying the store next to it? And then the store next to that? Before you know it, we're back where we started. The transition from global capitalism to anarcho-syndicalism is (in my opinion) completely impossible. Remnants of the old guard will always remain to fill in any power vacuum, and without the evil coercive structures, I see no boundaries existing to prevent that old guard swallowing up everything it can get its hands on. For instance, without the coercive institution of the army, what is to prevent the country next door from taking all that we have because we have no one to protect us? What is to prevent the person next door from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions when chomsky has dissolved the militant arm of the state (the police) as well as the courts? I don�t disagree with much chomsky says, I think his analyses are pretty accurate more often than not. But, like the marxists before him, he has never really addressed (at least not in what I had read up until 2001) how society is meant to make the transition. In my opinion its completely impossible to do; large societies need institutions and structures of power to ensure some kind of stability. A modern society bereft of such power structures will merely break down to such a state where citizens form their own structures, which wont have nearly the oversight we have now, and I see no reason why they would be able to transcend the "might makes right" ideology that permeates such organisations. In other words, stripping back the state's structures of authority will merely move the power from the government to organised crime or other outlaws who do what they will because there is nobody there to stop them.

Just saw this post, I'll get to it later when I'm not dog-tired .

quote:

Originally posted by robstar Here's another doc on Karl Hess: Karl Hess:Toward Liberty [[ LINK REMOVED ]] Terrible quality tho. :/ Yeah Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron imo but I do understand what he means by it. Btw, quoting Marx on the fly like that is hardcore!

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yet fails to talk about certain issues, like certain false flag operations.

does it occur to you for a second that chomsky doesn't talk about these false flags because they do not exist?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I understand why now though, intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals / academics are far more indoctrinated than I originally thought.

of course it doesn't occur to you. its always an issue with somebody else's understanding, and not yours. do you realise how arrogant and conceited you sound? yes shaolin, you can judge every 'intellectual' across the world so easily.

you would prefer to accuse chomsky, one of the sharpest minds of the modern era, of being an indoctrinated, ignorant slave than you would ever admit to a fallibility in your own position(s). as if somehow you are the only tertiary-educated member of academia that manages to resist the incessant indoctrination we all received at our chosen places of learning?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You can't definitely make a case with out proof, and you can't have a proof when the one crucial piece of evidence that would end debate is destroyed.

does this mean that we should accept a lesser standard of 'proof'? and why is it that this evidence can never be found? how on earth do we find out about these false flags in the first place, if the proof is never there?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The bourgeoisie aren't exactly known for independent thought or being capable of seeing past boundaries defined by familiar models and constructs.

what does this even mean? its as if the fact that most people disagree with you is actual evidence that you are right. in any case, chomsky is a member of the intelligentsia, and not the bourgeoisie. bourgeoisie are those that control the means of production. yes, i know it has been kind've commandeered to mean middle class, but i dont think that's correct.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's not like they give a flying fuck about truth to begin with.

what are you even talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Plus, why waste your time on people who don't even care for honest discussion and the only genuine participation by them is limited to ridicule and personal attacks?

?

I think the fact that you are saying that false flag operations don't exist is proof towards indoctrination. The one that always comes to mind is Operation Ajax.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think the fact that you are saying that false flag operations don't exist is proof towards indoctrination. The one that always comes to mind is Operation Ajax.

im not saying they all dont exist, just not as many as shaolin seems to think there are.

for instance, shaolin has regularly made the assertion that osama bin laden is a secret CIA asset. now, do you think its logical for me to demand the evidence supporting such an accusation, or is it ok that i take shaolin's intuition at his word?

in situations where the evidence cannot be provided, is it inherently illogical to remain skeptical until proven otherwise? is it unfair to expect a fairly high degree of evidence the more outlandish the claim? am i expected to render a decision on evidence that doesn't satisfy the burden of proof in a westminster court?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN for instance, shaolin has regularly made the assertion that osama bin laden is a secret CIA asset. now, do you think its logical for me to demand the evidence supporting such an accusation, or is it ok that i take shaolin's intuition at his word? in situations where the evidence cannot be provided, is it inherently illogical to remain skeptical until proven otherwise? is it unfair to expect a fairly high degree of evidence the more outlandish the claim? am i expected to render a decision on evidence that doesn't satisfy the burden of proof in a westminster court?

yes yes AND yes

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think the fact that you are saying that false flag operations don't exist is proof towards indoctrination. The one that always comes to mind is Operation Ajax.

oh, and i should point out, that we're not really talking about me here, we're talking about chomsky. im happy to wear the 'indoctrinated' tag if you guys will tolerate the 'paranoid' label. but shaolin calling someone like chomsky indoctrinated says a lot more about shaolin than it does about chomsky.

Trust you to project whatever the hell your imagination has conjured up. I can't even understand how you managed to infer that from my post, but I didn't call Chomsky indoctrinated, in fact, I only repeated something he's says himself, that the educated class and intellectuals are usually the most members of society. But obviously, you must read in to it what your strange insecure mind wants to, and on top of it accuse me of being arrogant. Congratulations . And to address your stupid statement, Chomsky doesn't even talk about false flags that are documented and undebatable.

Re: Re: Anarchism 101

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN There's a tremendous problem here that he doesn't address. He argues that structures of authority/coercion need to justify their existence, and those that cannot should cease to operate/exist. But to whom do these authorities have to justify their existence to? Who is making the ultimate decisions regarding which structures of coercion are ok (the grandfather pulling their grandaughter aside near a busy roadway) or not ok? One might assume given chomsky's leanings, that it would be an inherently democratic process. But this raises the question of necessary infrastructure- who is going to organise the vote? Who is going to count the vote? In which places will the vote be held? Who decides on the structure of the vote (first past the post? Or something more representative)? Who is going to take the lead in dismantling those structures of coercion that have been unable to justify their own existence? The inherent problem here of course is that only other structures of coercion are capable of dismantling structures of coercion. The level of governmental input in these endeavours would be astronomical, and rather contradictory to the process itself. Indeed, what happens when the ignorant voter decides that the police and army (two of the favourite targets of anarchists) are legitimate coercive entities? There is no reason to assume that a majority of people will agree on the role such entitites should play in the new society, especially if those that currently fulfill those roles are allowed their democratic voice in the process. One of the main reasons for this of course is inherited ideology, which in my opinion was one of the inherent problems of socialism. How can you 'teach' the people to engage in a new society and forget the old, when they are so indoctrinated in the first place? The other problem, which you have alluded to briefly, is the idea of the pre-colonial communal (for want of a better term) organisation. The problem with this position is that I find it incredibly difficult to extrapolate the situation back then in the hopes of providing an alternative for modern society. Just because pre-modern man could exist in such a way is not reason enough to think that postmodern man could as well. Forgetting the problem of inherited ideology (though that is big and bad enough), there remains the issue of personal choice- in this new society am I allowed to own and run the corner store I bought? If I am, what's to stop me buying the store next to it? And then the store next to that? Before you know it, we're back where we started. The transition from global capitalism to anarcho-syndicalism is (in my opinion) completely impossible. Remnants of the old guard will always remain to fill in any power vacuum, and without the evil coercive structures, I see no boundaries existing to prevent that old guard swallowing up everything it can get its hands on. For instance, without the coercive institution of the army, what is to prevent the country next door from taking all that we have because we have no one to protect us? What is to prevent the person next door from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions when chomsky has dissolved the militant arm of the state (the police) as well as the courts? I don�t disagree with much chomsky says, I think his analyses are pretty accurate more often than not. But, like the marxists before him, he has never really addressed (at least not in what I had read up until 2001) how society is meant to make the transition. In my opinion its completely impossible to do; large societies need institutions and structures of power to ensure some kind of stability. A modern society bereft of such power structures will merely break down to such a state where citizens form their own structures, which wont have nearly the oversight we have now, and I see no reason why they would be able to transcend the "might makes right" ideology that permeates such organisations. In other words, stripping back the state's structures of authority will merely move the power from the government to organised crime or other outlaws who do what they will because there is nobody there to stop them.

The state is organized crime. Just take a track record of this country. The intellectual you seem to respect so much talks about it all the time btw.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Anarchisim suffers from a major set back, the name. A majority of people do not like anarchy. Religions even draw on anarchy as the evil and bad state before the calm and good order is imposed. I think it might have something to do with a fear of the unknown. Outcomes that are random invoke this fear but predictable and stable outcomes help people feel safe in thier understanding of the world.

Anarchism has nothing to do with unrestrained lawlessness or violence, it's about the dismantling of unjustifiable coercive institutions... such as the state and corporations (who own the state btw, via proxy and their funds to politicians, including presidential candidates).

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Libritarian, or maybe Regionalisim, sound much better. My biggest gripe with any decentralized system of organization is that I don't see how they would resist groups (countries, organizations, corporate entities) who become massive. Look at the way the corporate cash can push around small countries.

By organizing against such a threat and then dismantling whatever organizational structure or institution results from it, as it is no longer needed after it.

Here's the most recent example of Anarchism. It's a short pamphlet where each chapter isn't much longer than a page, a fairly short read.

quote:

The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action Introduction Make a search of all the history books you can obtain. You will find little, if any, mention of Captain Jack White after 1914. It is as if the man who had proposed the formation of the Irish Citizen Army had literally disappeared from the face of the earth when the Dublin Lockout came to an end. In fact he lived on and remained active in the socialist movement until 1940. When James Connolly was sentenced to death it was White who rushed to South Wales and tried to bring the miners out on strike in protest. For that he served three months imprisonment. In England he worked for a time with Sylvia Pankhurst's Workers Socialist Federation, and during the General Strike of 1926 he wanted to organise a Citizen Army to protect the picket lines as he had done in Dublin. The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War saw White enlist with the Irish International Brigadiers who went to fight fascism. A comrade of his from the 1930's, Albert Meltzer, described White's experience "He was thrilled with the collectivisation in Spain, and also with the volunteer militias. He learned with amazement that this was the work of the Anarchists. In addition to his work with the Irish brigade at the front, he showed Spanish volunteer militia how to use firearms, and also trained women in the villages on the way to Saragossa in the use of small arms for defence. What, however, he could not stomach was the fact that the Irish, like the rest of the International Brigade, were being increasingly manipulated by the Communist Party. He had never accepted the CP; he had just not seen an alternative. Now he saw an alternative". White offered his services to the CNT, giving up his International Brigade membership. The CNT did not need foreign volunteers as they had enough support at that time but they did need arms. They needed people working for them outside Spain. He was asked to work for the CNT in London, to raise badly needed funds and solidarity. During his time in Spain he became a convinced Anarchist and shortly afterwards wrote a pamphlet simply entitled The Meaning of Anarchism. That this is new information to the reader indicates how history can be falsified or even have whole episodes completely written out of the history books. Much has been written to mark the 50th anniversary to the Spanish Civil War but the contribution of the Anarchists has been either totally ignored or reduced to a few footnotes which were often composed of blatant lies or generalised slander referring to 'wreckers'. To set the record straight this pamphlet was produced. It is not a history of the Civil War, that would require many hundreds of pages to do justice to the subject. It is an uncovering of the "hidden history" of the Anarchist participation in Spain's anti-fascist struggle. It has not been written because of some academic interest but because Anarchism is still as relevant now as it was fifty years ago. We have seen the results of social democracy and it's Labour Parties, we have seen what the Stalinists have done in Russia, China, Albania and their satellites, we have seen how their left critics in the Trotskyist movement have been unable to come to grips with the real problem. And that real problem is the authoritarian idea that the world can be changed over the heads of the workers. It can, but it won't be much better. Only Anarchism with its concept 'of socialism based on individual freedom and the power of workers' councils stands apart from all this. That is why, despite four decades of repression, the CNT reappeared as a real union after the death of Franco. That is why a group of Irish workers seeking a genuine socialism formed the Workers Solidarity Movement in 1984. We believe that Anarchism is not just another choice for those who want a better world, the history of all other `left' movements shows that Anarchism is a necessity.

Chapter 1 - Rebellion and Resistance
Chapter 2 - Anarchism in Action
Chapter 3 - The Counter Revolution
Chapter 4 - A Fresh Revolution

A Peace of the Anarchy: Ammon Hennacy and Other Angelic Troublemakers

Duration: 69 Minutes

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z but I didn't call Chomsky indoctrinated

oh really? so what does this mean then?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yet [chomsky] fails to talk about certain issues, like certain false flag operations. I understand why now though, intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals / academics are far more indoctrinated than I originally thought.

in other words, chomsky doesn't talk about false flags because he is part of the indoctrinated intellectual elite. forgive me if that's not really what you meant, but that's really your fault for how you expressed your sentiment rather than my 'stupid inference' (or whatever you called it).

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The state is organized crime. Just take a track record of this country. The intellectual you seem to respect so much talks about it all the time btw.

yeah, im not asking for a refresher course on political ideologies 101. i feel ive displayed at least a basic understanding of the popular 'isms' in this thread alone, are you going to address the specific issues i have raised or not?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh really? so what does this mean then?

Read the REST of it, does it sound like I'm talking about Chomsky?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in other words, chomsky doesn't talk about false flags because he is part of the indoctrinated intellectual elite. forgive me if that's not really what you meant, but that's really your fault for how you expressed your sentiment rather than my 'stupid inference' (or whatever you called it).

Read the rest of the post. I'm referring to the framework he's working in and the institutions and circles he is a part of. Read beyond those two lines and maybe your little rationalist mind might be able to put them together. Apparently you didn't understand my post at all, which doesn't surprise me. You're not a bohemian, and probably never met one (I myself am not, but I know plenty... the bourgeois is usually clueless as to what the hell they're talking about).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, im not asking for a refresher course on political ideologies 101.

You actually are, because you asked me a question that displays a fundamental lack of understanding of anarchism. You asked me about who and what authority decides what qualifies as a justification for the existence of a coercive institutions.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i feel ive displayed at least a basic understanding of the popular 'isms' in this thread alone, are you going to address the specific issues i have raised or not?

If you're going to be a dick, no.

fuck. youre such a sook.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck. youre such a sook.

Pretty bold words for a troll.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Pretty bold words for a troll.

HEY MAN, WE SHOULD NOT CUT DOWN TREES, THE TREES ARE OUR ANCESTORS DUDE.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.