The Armed Revolution

132 posts / 0 new
Last post
Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 1 2004 16:03
Wayne wrote:
Okay, how are nationalists anti-statist?

christ almighty, y'all really should read a little bit about anarchism before posting on enrager forums. there were plenty of anarchists who felt a little nationalism. it was about where they were from, not a nation-state. national anarchism is probably against capitalism and the state, but they're also against miscegenation 'cause they think it kills humanity for some reason. most anarchists don't like this, and they say it isn't anarchism; but it is. just because they want to segregate themselves from the rest of humanity doesn't mean they're authoritarian at all, and it isn't just a white thing. black nationalism is pretty much the same thing.

Wayne wrote:
[Y]ou are beneath me.

not arrogant are you? no, not in the least.

Wayne wrote:
Your understanding of communism is about as sophisticated as Joe Stalin's.

explain why you believe this.

Wayne wrote:
HIV's also above your head?

no, an alternative to that medicine is over my head.

Wayne wrote:
Oh well, fuck em. Things will get better when we rewild and stop producing condoms.

if you say so. notice i didn't.

Wayne wrote:
Tit.

asshole.

Wayne wrote:
And on the subject of contraception, what you got in mind?

there's lots of natural contraceptives. welcome to somewhat common knowledge.

Wayne wrote:
The rhythm method?

is sarcasm your only ammunition?

Wayne wrote:
Still no response on disability issues... er... fuck em too,

anybody could help differently abled people. there are people who are against civilization and would not let differently abled people hang. i said there were alternatives for everything you mentioned except the HIV medications. that was my "response on disability issues". it's not like we'd switch to a post-civilization wilderness overnight. we'd make a smooth transition to it. i'm mainly talking about myself anyway. it's not like i'm going to put myself in the woods to die. i'm going to take my time and do it the right way. if you're not going to be realistic, then just stop publicly clowning yourself.

Wayne wrote:
they'll probably die at birth.

actually, i read a lot of that happened along with abortion and infanticide before the agriculture revolution. if the child can't take care of itself when it's old enough to, then the mother sure isn't going to carry it around and let it slow her down, so some parents went ahead and killed babies who weren't going to make it on their own.

Wayne wrote:
Your defence of your politics is basically that they're not going to happen

You either have no reading comprehension skills, or you are just trolling this thread. Your grandmother won't have to worry about being any colder this winter. Anarchy isn't going to happen this winter. If it ever does happen, then we aren't going to let our loved ones freeze. All you can do is make a strawman. Make a real argument and stop acting like you've already won this debate. That in itself isn't fair and reveals your two guys' deceptive posts. Y'all haven't proven me wrong yet if you ever will.

Wayne wrote:
Any time we do stop using heating loads of people like my gran are going to freeze to death over the Scottish winter, aren't they?

Hell no, there are people of all ages, living all over the earth without heating and not freezing.

Wayne wrote:
Ever wonder why primitivism is something of a youthful movement?

Since when is Zerzan young? Someone could say the same thing about your movement. Long before I was a green anarchist, someone accused me of being an anarchist just for the sex, and I've never gotten heterosex from being an anarchist. I told him/her that I could've gotten plenty of homosex though.

Wayne wrote:
Given an island like the UK could support 50,000 people living primitively at the most, what do you plan for the rest of us?

What do y'all plan for yourselves? You either haven't been paying any attention or you just like to ask dumb questions in case no one else has been paying attention and will think you've asked a good rhetorical question. I think what started all of this nonsense is my proposal that we reduce global birth rates. Do you remember that? How could you forget? The theme all along was everyone on earth couldn't just switch to primitive ways, today. We'd have to wait until there's a lot less people on earth or in any given area. Anywhere you look, you could read stopping agriculture would wipe out the earth's wild food in a short time.

Wayne wrote:
Are you still considering firing nuclear waste at the sun? grin * laughs like fuck while typing*

I don't know what to do with the nuclear waste my "friend". Why don't you give this shit a rest if you could actually ever live in peace with anyone? I don't think you can.

Wayne wrote:
Is it fascist to physically oppose people whose intentions could lead to the mass deaths of people of a certain colour or religion? No.

If you're so fine, then why can't you just stop people from mass murdering instead of beating them up because they might kill a lot of people some day if they get political power?

Wayne wrote:
So why is it fascist to potentially oppose physically people whose intentions could lead to the mass deaths of people because they are women who give birth, because of their age, health, disability, HIV status, proximity to 'rewilded' nuclear dumps, etc ?

angry again, where are you getting this impression that i intend to kill women who give birth, HIV-infected people, etc? Hear me when I say this, these are ludicrous accusations. Make no more. For someone on the enrage forum, you are acting unfair, which is the opposite of how you should be posting.

Wayne wrote:
You depress me. . . .

Well, that sounds like a personal problem. After dealing with your attitude for several posts, I don't care anymore.

Wayne wrote:
Can't the Salvation Army look after you or something?

where's their anarchist forum? Would you point me to that, kind sir? won't i be finished with it just as fast as the other ones? actually, the newsgroups would occupy me for a while, but they won't stop talking about distant lands and other things I don't know about and can't discuss. Will you stop acting like a dirty communist? angry

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 1 2004 16:51
revol68 wrote:
what about wayne what will he do in ur primmie utopia he's vegan.

wayne will probably hate life just like he does in capitalism because

  1. vegans can't get full
  2. there won't be these variety of foods from around the world to make up for the lack of meat since there won't be agriculture and a global transportation system to transport the food
  3. all of these grains don't do well in our bodies anyway.

notice how it's just the same three people over and over? no, i'm not a hoax. some americans actually do eat roadkill. nothing's dirty about it. it just got hit by a car. what's the different between that and shooting it? i don't think they get it if it's been ran over a couple times and blackened with tire tracks tongue [/]

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 1 2004 18:01

OK, so far we've got a four-way combat between a

anti-anarchist vegan communist

libertarian communist

class struggle primitivist

anti-vegan anarcho primitivist

Plus a supporting cast of thousands of extras (George'sBush)

My first question is: can we design our own costumes? I see Enrager going the way of US wrestling. Guys, think what your theme tune would be. Mine would be prob something by New Model Army.

What we need to sort it all out is a big melting pot, yeah...No, actually, what we need is one of those knife fights where we start out tied at the wrist.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 1 2004 18:16

Zerzan got interviewed by some dude in his house. The dude says "Zerzan, why do you have a TV?"

Zerzan says "Like everyone else, I have to be narcotized".

Unless Zerzan thinks the TV is the most efficient way of unlearning language (maybe?), then he's a wanker. He's only able to argue for unlearning language by using language to do so. Humans are only able to ascribe equal rights to themselves, or to animals, because they have the capacity for self-conscious thought - the thing which distinguishes them from every other animal in the first place. Primmies can only post on internet discussion forums by using computers (or rewired X-Boxes apparently, or very nice cellular phones), sucking up electricity from nuclear power stations (especially in the US), and relying on technology invented in the past 10 years in order to have this conversation at all.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 1 2004 18:24

why do fucking idiots post ignoramus shit?? Zerzan has a TV, therefore, he's full of it. wow, what a drop in the bucket. you aren't living anarchy or whatever you profess, therefore, you are a wanker. An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 1 2004 22:04
revol68 wrote:
username, do you want to rid the world of technology or not?

I suppose so. I think everybody would want to. that open letter argues the state is a form of technology, so all anarchists are against technology whether they know it or not. fortunately, i don't know any pro-state anarchists, but that may change any day the way unexpected things pop up in this world.

revol68 wrote:
do u want to unlearn language?

maybe. Zerzan thinks we should. not all other primitivists do though.

revol68 wrote:
do u want to be made rewild?

yeah

revol68 wrote:
what exactly is being wild?

agriculture has everything to do with being tamed, so being wild has everything to do with a life of no agriculture. one would survive by hunting and gathering. there also wouldn't be any industry, so a tribe or person would have to be self-sufficient.

revol68 wrote:
oh yeah and have u looked any deeper into native amercian cultures pre columbus? u really are a fucking crack pot! the fact ur 26 and still believe this makes me think ur a tad special in the head or a wind up.

that's cool, man. my end all be all doesn't rest on the reality of their cultures, and i didn't say pre-Columbus. y'all really read what y'all want to see. what i said, anyway, was based on an online book that one can find on the black and green website. i think the book is called Beyond Civilization. i won't dig up the url, now, but i'll be glad to if anyone wants it.

revol68 wrote:
anyways got to go, so i suggest u stop eating road kill

i haven't started

revol68 wrote:
and shaggin ur sister

haven't done that either, asshole. i'm glad you "libertarians" are having fun at other people's [my] expenses. how can y'all retain any credibility? this is bullshit.

revol68 wrote:
and perhaps go outside into the wider world oh yeah and buy halo 2 and then u'll be down with the tech!

i hope you stop patronizing innocent people. again, what kind of libertarian are you? not one at all in my opinion if it matters which it should to a libertarian. i've seen trolls get better treatment than this! this is really wack. if this is how you treat your newbies, then what kind of dictator-less society do you think you'll have? not one at all. all of your organizations will be your cults of personality where everyone worships you for fear of being outcasted.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 1 2004 22:16

Alright.

If an anarchist writes a book criticising currency as a medium of exchange/distibution, then sells it to people, there appears to be a contradiction. They're criticising currency, but then using it to pay for their publishing costs (or even maybe get some income over the top, naughty naughty). However, in the anarchist communist society they're arguing for, books would still be produced and distributed for various reasons. The social relationship of currency exchange/capitalism would disappear, but the process of writing and distributing books would continue. E-books cost money to distribute, so although they're very cheap compared to publishing traditionally, there is a small cost somewhere down the line (plus no money to pay for the subsistence needed to produce them if they're given away free).

If a primitivist writes a book arguing for the end of technology, then they're using a technological medium to argue for its dissolution (not to mention language!). To me, there's a far more central contradiction to this.

Now, if our anarchist was to open an anarchist bookshop, which employed staff under the wage system in a hierarchical company structure - managers, directors, cleaners, post openers. And the anarchist sat on their arse raking in the profits, floated it on the stock market etc. etc. then there'd be a contradiction between the social relationship used for that anarchist bookshop and the ideas it was selling. Much like our primitivist writing a book.

Being anarchist shouldn't exclude people from engaging with society on any terms they see fit - including working for the state - the state has a monopoly of loads of essential services, why avoid doing an essential job just because it's controlled by the state? However, political action by anarchists should be consistent with the kind of society they want to see. That means no permanent hierarchies, no employer/employee relationships, democratic or consensus decision making, using technology to make things easier etc.

Some of the arguments on that page you posted distinguish between different forms of technology and their dependancies on different social relationships, your re-wild statements don't. So Zerzan having a TV isn't too bad a contradiction (although surely there are less pernicious forms of technological narcotization - books, second-hand LPs for example), but him going on TV (or radio), seems to me more of a contradiction than an anti-capitalist selling books. In Zerzan's world (and most of my Zerzan is via-Bookchin, but insert primmie poster-boy here), no-one would have the TV, or be able to form sentences to argue against it even if they could appear on it. In the anti-capitalist world, books would still be an excellent way to store information and knowledge, even if their content and means of distribution might change.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 1 2004 22:45

okay, but if a primitivist can reach billions of people and convince them to reduce their birth rates, then he/she can help save humanity. otherwise, life may go on without humans unless that primitivist would use existing technology. there is a big difference from scavenging existing technology and producing new technology. someday we could live without "technology", which can be much more than a television or a language. technology is the industry that makes the television. industry is the same under socialism as it is under capitalism. in both cases, industry is an expansionist monster composed of specialization. even if we could live without industry, which might be possible even with six billion people on earth (that's the impression i get from one article), there would still be division of labor as long as agriculture existed. you'd have wagoners and farmers, people trapped in isolated jobs for life, to feed the expansionist beast who consumes all commodities on the planet because industry just isn't self-sufficient. "WE NEED MORE RESOURCES!" capitalists also say you can be anything you want. the sky's the limit. if you don't like something, then you can just switch your job, but in reality, everything costs money. education costs money. you can't just get a job in another field 'cause you may not have the experience. the older you get, the more cornered you get into one particular career.

also, democracy is a populist idea in liberal rhetoric. democracy literally means strength/power/government or rule of the people also known as Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. governments can't be anarchistic, so all anarchists who use that term are either unaware or "aspiring populists. . . ." (Notes on Green Anarchy) besides, what democracy boils down to is majority rule, which is a lot of what socialism is, therefore, with industry, all we have is inequality. with capitalism, we have minority rule, and with communism, we have majority rule. being the minority who's ruled is just as bad as being the majority who's pwned under capitalism, and all of us probably know how bad that is. we're living it.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 2 2004 08:18

Quite happy with majority rule.

Consensus:

Two hundred people need to build a bridge (arggh technology) so they can get to a wild orchard across a river. One of them won't agree to building the bridge unless they paint it blue and pink and it has fluffy toys stuck all over it (or unless it's built next to their front yard or something).

They don't build the bridge because they don't want to "rule" over the minority of one who opposes the bridge. Then they starve and die.

Majority:

They vote, 199 of them want to build the bridge, so they build it, go eat unfarmed organic fruit. Whining six year old not oppressed by this decision.

Majority:

When they decide to build a creche, the builders who decide they don't want to build it unless it's made of steel and pointy bits of glass get overruled. Six year old rules in this case, is not oppressed, and doesn't die due to some consensus based compromise where there's some fluffy bits, but still some pointy glass sticking out of the floor. And of course the creche eventually arrives and isn't lost in years of embattlement between builders and six-year-olds.

I can find more reasonable examples if you'd like. Just taking your "minority of one" line of reasoning to its conclusion.

Majority rule doesn't mean the same majority rules all of the time, it means that on a single issue that's important to a community, the majority decide on it. The minority will always argue their case, before during and after any vote, and may change the decision with reasoned argument. They also benefit from the fact that they'll be in the majority on other decisions, so everyone being aware that they might consitute a minority will respect their views as much as possible. If people aren't at all interested in a particular issue, they wouldn't be coerced into turning up to meetings about it either, although it would be open to all, all the time, and each individual would have equal weight.

What it stops is people unreasonably preventing large majorities from taking concerted action about things together, because a "consensus" must be reached before hand. To me, that's rule by a minority of one in the worst case, or simply never reaching a decision, ever.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 2 2004 08:23

username, i asked you this question about a week ago already, but you ignored it: so for the theoretical possibility of slight inequalities in an anarchist society (as anarchists traditionally see it) you are willing to introduce certainties like reduced life expectancy, tyranny of the environment and nature, all the authoritarian and mystic/esoteric elements of a primitivist society, increased birth deaths, uncontrollable diseases, lack of food, and the general hardships that we would have to endure as scavengers? In other words, why are you willing to swap a theoretical possibility for some levels of inequalities and problems in direct democracy to certain tyranny?

Not to mention that with loss of language you would have no methods of preventing all this happening again, when one tribe discovers technologies which will give them advantage over others, and BAM! before you know it, you are back to square one with civilization thriving all over again.

Do not reply with the utopion vision ripped off from jehovas witness pamphlets where people live in nature free from diseases, food is plenty and so on. The simplest look into primitive societies will show you that the life is short and brutal, women need to give birth to 6-8 babies just to make sure that at least 2 of them will make it to reproductive age just to maintain the population levels.

Also, you should not be suprised of the reception you get on these boards, after all what you are suggesting is fundamentally against any anarchist principles there are. Just because your bizarre ideology has chosen to call themselves anarchists, doesn't mean that you are. I would be happy if you would just call yourself primitivists and would leave the green anarchist part out...

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 2 2004 11:12
revol68 wrote:
JDMF back on christmas card list. tongue

Yeah JDMF's cool, you're too rude to him.

What does JDMF stand for, btw?

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 2 2004 14:12
Catch wrote:
Quite happy with majority rule.

that's careless, but at least i know not to associate with you, someone who doesn't care about the minority. have you ever heard people complain about being the disenfranchised minority? i sure have. red tape holds them back. it's frustrating. if you're going to have a society where people can't see eye to eye, then why have it? there are too many of us on planet earth. we lack enough planet for six billion people not to be crowded. there's been too many people for 12,000 years. when you have to switch to a diet that dictates the land and other species, destroys your body, and alienates you from the freedom you used to enjoy just because there are 100 times more people than your old diet can sustain, you have too many people. when you have a society and the bottom line comes down to, "Well, there are going to be some people who will be incapacitated, but we can't stand in the way of progress", you have too many people. You need to get rid of industry. You need to let go of a system that requires more and more progress.

Catch wrote:
What it stops is people unreasonably preventing large majorities from taking concerted action about things together, because a "consensus" must be reached before hand. To me, that's rule by a minority of one in the worst case, or simply never reaching a decision, ever.

Exactly, I wouldn't prefer consensus either.

JDMF wrote:
username, i asked you this question about a week ago already, but you ignored it: so for the theoretical possibility of slight inequalities in an anarchist society (as anarchists traditionally see it) you are willing to introduce certainties like reduced life expectancy, tyranny of the environment and nature, all the authoritarian and mystic/esoteric elements of a primitivist society, increased birth deaths, uncontrollable diseases, lack of food, and the general hardships that we would have to endure as scavengers? In other words, why are you willing to swap a theoretical possibility for some levels of inequalities and problems in direct democracy to certain tyranny?

Not to mention that with loss of language you would have no methods of preventing all this happening again, when one tribe discovers technologies which will give them advantage over others, and BAM! before you know it, you are back to square one with civilization thriving all over again.

Do not reply with the utopion vision ripped off from jehovas witness pamphlets where people live in nature free from diseases, food is plenty and so on. The simplest look into primitive societies will show you that the life is short and brutal, women need to give birth to 6-8 babies just to make sure that at least 2 of them will make it to reproductive age just to maintain the population levels.

Also, you should not be suprised of the reception you get on these boards, after all what you are suggesting is fundamentally against any anarchist principles there are. Just because your bizarre ideology has chosen to call themselves anarchists, doesn't mean that you are. I would be happy if you would just call yourself primitivists and would leave the green anarchist part out...

Okay, this is just the oddest post. First of all, I'm sorry for not answering your question. I thought I answered all of the questions, and I must have missed yours. Second of all, these "theoretical . . . inequalities. . ." are fundamental to industry/agriculture, so unless your anarchist society lives without those two things, then you will have that undesirable way of life. That's the real point. I'm not saying, "Come on, guys. Let's live shorter lives." I'm saying, "Come on, guys. Let's stop being alienated from our lives even if reconnecting will shorten our days on earth because we want 'liberty . . . or . . . death!'" (Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775)

Third, there won't be any "tyranny of the environment and nature" if we discard industry and agriculture! "[T]yranny of the environment and nature" is what agriculture is! As for "all the authoritarian and mystic/esoteric elements of a primitivist society," I've heard of that stuff, and that's what keeps a lot of green anarchists from being primitivists; but I've never witnessed it. I never heard of "increased birth deaths".

Disease really didn't get bad until our ancestors switched to the neolithic diet, and I can back that up with a few sources. I never heard there was a "lack of food" during the paleolithic era. Why don't you back that up? During the ice age, I read they ate so well that they and the climate changes made a few animals extinct! Plus, eating all of that meat is what made their populations rise to unmanageable rates.

I don't know about "general hardships. . . ." I think it will be a wonderful life. I don't know if generations will pass on some message to the next generations, letting them know the effects of overpopulation or not. Was life brutal in primitivist societies, or are you referring to primitive tribes of today? Do you know these tribes are in desolate areas where even industry/capitalism/imperialism cannot thrive (yet) and only because it cannot thrive there yet?

I never heard of women having to have several babies just to have one survive, but what's wrong with that? I heard labor wasn't as painful. Native women would have babies in hot streams according to Howard Zinn in his People's History of the United States. What's wrong with having multiple offspring? Virtually every other species does it! Are you special or something just because you're human? No, you are the fucking savage animal you see those other species to be, those species who have many young just so enough of them will survive to make some more young. The only difference is that we're unfortunately tamed and trapped in some monster that absorbs the planet, and that monster isn't capitalism. that's just the monster's "winter coat".

If primitivism is "against" anarchism, then why did the first anarchist poet basically write about a primitive golden age? Why was Bakunin against everything, and why was Kropotkin, too, before he went into exile? Why did Emma Goldman publish Mother Earth? Why did Henry David Thoreau write anything? Just because something new and righteous comes along and makes you question your foundations doesn't mean we aren't anarchists. I would be happy if you just called yourselves socialists/communists and just took the libertarian/anarcho part out of it!

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 2 2004 14:29

Well I think a majority rule world would be as bad as a primitivist world; I can still think that Username and catch are both anarchists, we still share 99.9999% of our politics, especially in our aims in the here and now

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 2 2004 14:39
Username wrote:

I never heard of women having to have several babies just to have one survive, but what's wrong with that? I heard labor wasn't as painful.

Yeah, I bet being falling down a ravine and breaking your leg, then watching it fester away with gangrene and get maggot infested was just dandy in those days too.

Quote:
Are you special or something just because you're human?

Yes

Quote:
No, you are the fucking savage animal you see those other species to be, those species who have many young just so enough of them will survive to make some more young. The only difference is that we're unfortunately tamed and trapped in some monster that absorbs the planet.

And we don't lick our own genitals to keep them clean.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 2 2004 14:49
redyred wrote:
[W]e don't lick our own genitals to keep them clean.

you just pick your nose.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 2 2004 17:46
revol68 wrote:
he's ruder to me and seens to have problems grasping my biting postmodern humour. grin

yes. And i never got a chance before you and wayne already unleashed your insults on me (and many other new members on this board). From the very little i can gather from both of your messages i can say that politically i am not far off - but I have a very low tolerance for bully boys and internet tough guys, even if they happen to be "comrades".

Perhaps it hasn't dawned to you and maybe the messages you get from other members on this board are not clear enough, but maybe your inside jokes and particular sense of humour of making fun on expense of others (and yourselves as well) is not going down too well? Call me a boring bastard, but i find that kind of stuff funny only among friends, and since we are not, someone spouting that kind of rubbish deserves to get punched.

I'm still going to slap you and wayne if we meet in real life for calling me a cunt and what not smile

Quote:

anyways JDMF are u called Jacques per chance?

nope, and if i was i'd change my name! (though most jacques's in the world would probably think the same of my name, LOL!). GB, it's an initial thing wink

Solidarity and all that,

JD

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 2 2004 17:55

Jack Daniels motherfucker? Groovy.

spike
Offline
Joined: 13-07-04
Oct 2 2004 17:56

well said, JDMF.

and I'd love to be there to witness you giving wayne and revol a big slap grin twisted

PhaedrusTheWolfboy
Offline
Joined: 19-09-04
Oct 2 2004 20:02

confused What the fuck has all of this got to do with armed revolution? Username - Why can't you start your own topic instead of hyjacking this one?

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 2 2004 20:28

I didn't hijack this one. People started arguing with me on this thread instead of starting a new one. I only answered the thread's question.

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Oct 2 2004 21:39
Quote:
I'm still going to slap you and wayne if we meet in real life

As long as it's on my bum cheeks and you drip candle wax on my nipples too then that shouldn't be a problem.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 3 2004 00:10

Alright. If people are going to live anywhere near each other (I realise Username won't accept this premise), then they're going to have to make some kind of collective decision. One way is consensus, one is majority decision making, another would be individuals acting autonomously or in small affinity groups. I'm assuming Username prefers the latter. For me, communities will sometimes need to make collective decisions, so a majority of them being in favour of something, voting, and acting on it, to me, is better than endless intractable arguments (consensus), or some kind of vague markety system. Those communities could then federate with other communities, via delegates (or conferences if necessary, feasible), to make decisions that had impact beyond individual communities.

If you're going to cater for disabled people (hopefully a minority, a majority of disabled people in a community would be a misnomer - disabled is a term defined by social and productive relations - I wear glasses, I'd be physically disabled as far as certain tasks go without them), then majority decision making is the most likely to enable that. If you have an atomist, individualistic society, then those who aren't entirely able to provide for themselves will suffer - as soon as any pressure is put on the system of distribution they'll be hit by it. Concerted political activity to deal with ecological/seasonal crises is the only way you can provide for people who aren't self-sufficient.

I should make it very clear that I'm not talking about referendums. I'm talking about small local decision making bodies, with face to face discussion. So any individuals who found themselves in a minority would have the continual opportunity to argue, face to face, with those in the majority. I don't buy into scarcity politics, hard-won institutions like that would have been fought via years of revolutionary activity, and would have to be formed in relation to completely different notions of work, distribution etc. buy changing the social relations which affect production and distribution to a system where everything is free at point ofvanarchist-communism would automatically cater for groups such as the disabled. The kind of situations you're talking about are ship sinking, locust ridden societies. In planes they tell you to put the oxygen mask on yourself before your kid, in the hope you won't be dead before you get the oxygen mask on your kid, that's not everyday life. Like I said, minorities are fluid groups of people, and in a post-revolutionary society would be defined by their views, not arbitrary cultural distinctions. A society which didn't respect the views of minorites wouldn't be one I'd want to live in, but one which stagnated because it only acted when every single person agreed 100% with a decision, or was based entirely on personal impulse, is one in which the vast majority of people would barely survive, let alone experience true freedom.

Quote:

that's careless, but at least i know not to associate with you, someone who doesn't care about the minority. have you ever heard people complain about being the disenfranchised minority? i sure have. red tape holds them back. it's frustrating. if you're going to have a society where people can't see eye to eye, then why have it? there are too many of us on planet earth. there isn't enough planet for six billion people not to be crowded. there's been too many people for 12,000 years. when you have to switch to a diet that dictates the land and other species, destroys your body, and alienates you from the freedom you used to enjoy just because there are 100 times more people than your old diet can sustain, you have too many people. when you have a society and the bottom line comes down to, "Well, there are going to be some people who will be incapacitated, but we can't stand in the way of progress", you have too many people

Well I'm glad you don't want to associate with me. But since you're going on about overcrowding and getting rid of that extra 100 people - who decides which extra 100 people disappear? Darwin?

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 3 2004 01:20

I'm not sure what primitivists' answer is to federations and collectives. I think their answer is a tribe or being a hermit. I don't know how a tribe interacts. I don't know if they have to make collective decisions.

A lot of people seem to think I want to kill people. I guess no one has read me post I don't want to kill people. I think our population won't shrink until we reduce our birth rates, but today, someone told me that, in a few centuries, the population is going to be down to a number where primitivism can occur. This guy isn't a primitivist, so I asked him where he got that idea; and I'm awaiting his reply.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 3 2004 07:25

Lazlo, majority rule isn't something I'd say myself, sounds like referendum politics and invokes representation. The badly worded communistic/federated/majority decision making system I outlined above is what I'm talking about. One which takes into account that individual freedom is best developed within social groups, and relies on them for it's existence in most cases. Do you disagree with that?

Username, if your tribe are nomadic hunter gatherers, then they have to decide where they're going to go next. Not having read very much anthropological literature based on primary sources I can't say this with certainty, but I'd imagine that the interaction of most tribes would involve a shaman throwing bones around and deciding where to go on the basis of that, or the elder of the tribe doing so based on historical/geographical/meteorological knowledge (or possibly from having a bit of a dance 'round the camp fire, more bone throwing).

Of course if you had a future primitivist society, you probably wouldn't have camp fires - they're a technology that requires division of labour - collecting wood, piling it up, setting fire to it, tending it, cooking stuff on it, making sure it doesn't catch on to the re-wilded forest undergrowth, putting it out - and is hence oppressive. Much better to cuddle under a tree and see who makes it out the other side.

rich
Offline
Joined: 14-10-03
Oct 11 2004 12:45

My problem with the primitivist idea is that from what I have read it is based on a load of wild abstractions and nice-sounding poetic ideas. All this "technology is bad", then technology is whatever that particular writer is against. These abstractions come back to haunt primitivists whenever they debate with other people - and people find it hard to take them seriously. It must be quite frustrating to be a primitivist!

I am a "green" anarchist, but I find Green Anarchist (the nutty one of the two) to be disturbing in its complete lack of coherence. However I was attracted to this when I was younger as it looked amusing and dangerous. This is not the basis for a social movement!

In a free society, people can choose to live "primitively" - it's up to them. (Have you read Red Mars trilogy? There's a trend for something akin to "rewilding" in that.) So at best I see primitivism as a lifestyle choice, as part of the broader anarchist movement.

Similarly with animal rights - i am vegetarian (and vegan alot of the time), but I find all this - "if you're not a vegan you're not an anarchist", or similarly, "if you don't believe in free love (generally meaning rejection of monogamy as opposed to freely choosing who you love) you're not an anarchist" stuff to be very irritating, and a real obstacle for anarchism as a movement for social change. Anarchism is not about being in some "in" social group, defined by their moral or amoral purity.

And another thing - I have no quarrel with people debating ideas, but I cannot see any sense in abusing each other. Everyone has at some point changed their mind to what they think now - there's no need to abuse people for holding an idea. (And if you are keen to change a person's mind, hostility and abuse isn't going to do it!)

Anyhow, I've just read this: Listen Anarchist! by Chaz Bufe, and i think it's highly relevant to this...

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/listen.html

Oh - Armed revolution: regrettable necessity - we'll have to be prepared to defend ourselves or we will be slaughtered. Though ideally it would be a nonviolent revolution.

Plus I liked the discussion of majority rule - it is pleasing to remember that anarchism is a peasant idea, for practical people, rather than for idealists who live in the abstract.

gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 11 2004 19:57
rich wrote:
Plus I liked the discussion of majority rule - it is pleasing to remember that anarchism is a peasant idea, for practical people, rather than for idealists who live in the abstract.

did you mean to say 'pleasent' idea? if you did then i totally agree smile

if you meant 'peasent', why so?

rich
Offline
Joined: 14-10-03
Oct 21 2004 17:31

I mean peasant ideology because it is among the peasantry that anarchism has found its largest support, and that is a consequence of peasant ethics (necessities) like self reliance, practicality and "common sense". Also, Kropotkin and other earlier anarchist theorists based their model for an anarchist society on traditional peasant organisations, the russian Mir for example, and in spain, it was in the Pueblos that anarchism had an instinctive appeal for many.

I say anarchism is a peasant ideology to distinguish it from intellectual ideologies, which employ meaningless flourishes, or over-idealism. (Though I had not thought it through enough to see why it is not a "worker ideology" in particular. Though it could be because of "embourgeiousment" of workers as Bakunin called it.)

Calling anarchism a peasant ideology is probably not a very appealing thing. (Or useful.) Maybe "pleasant ideology, for practical people" would be more appropriate!