Where I Come From

[Theta Sigma]

If anyone would be kind enough to read this, I'd be grateful. I wish to impart the story of how I came to hold such passionate views; however my views are not yet completely formed and I want to be pointed in the right direction, too.

The earliest age I can remember internally criticising the natural order of things is fourteen: it suddenly struck me, as an agnostic-atheist (if one can have the temerity to call oneself such at that age) that the universe would not be affected by the absence of man, that is to say, there is no intrinsic reason or meaning behind our existence. We apply meaning, indeed we are overrun by it every day, but this meaning is of our own construction. At such a young age, this had a cataclysmic effect on my mind. Negatively, at first, since for days on end I felt drowned in such thoughts, unable to comprehend them. But it laid sturdy foundations for what was to come.

I encountered what may be considered situational thought when I was sixteen, when it occurred to me that we, in western capitalist society, have a fundamentally unnatural way of living, which induces mundanity: we get up, we go to work, we work, we eat, we work some more, we come home, we sleep. Once a week we go to the supermarket to exchange valueless pieces of paper for commodities which keep us alive for the next round of absurdity. The acquisition of money becomes a means unto itself. When I describe money as valueless, I mean that it has no intrinsic value, and indeed only exists because of modes of thought described by structuralism; it does not exist in itself. Therefore, it is utterly unfathomable to me why we apply abstract allowances of this bartering system to certain people, why it renders other people illegal, why we allow ourselves to be dominated by it when it renders our fellow human beings homeless if they do not have enough. A person's value is designated by how much money they have. If they do not have money, they are not allowed to live; they are not allowed the basic requirements of humanity. Thus, the class system, though I had utterly no idea of its link to Marxism at the time; my thoughts were my own, I had read nothing to back them up.

Fast forward a couple of years and I'm starting my first job at Fujitsu, where I spent eight hours each day helping bourgeois Home Office monkeys fix their trivial computer problems. This brought on a severe bout of depression, both existential (why do we devote our lives to making money? Is this really it? Just this until I die?) and based upon environment (if I saw a headline about a rape, or war, or whatever on my way to work, it would ruin my entire day). I felt personally culpable for every act of injustice carried out in the world, because I was part of the system which enacted them. Capitalism resulted in inequality, in death, in racism, in sexism, and I couldn't handle just living my day-to-day life in such a system. My views started to truly form.

When I ended up suicidal, I had to leave that job. I rested into a numbness for two further years, working two more jobs, before finally ending up at university, my political and philosophical ideas reawakened, my mind opened up to the literary works of theorists and philosophers whose ideas are akin to my own. I'm in a wonderful environment now, where I'm free to think like this amongst people who think the same way.

I suppose what I really want to discuss is my current crisis.

Existential thought, evidently, speaks volumes to me, as does Marxism. I believe, as Sartre did, that the two can work together. For me, I'm something of an existential nihilist (though not a fundamental nihilist (if such a thing is permissible) because I do not believe in passivity; I believe in activism). The lack of intrinsic meaning available in life shows the harshness and cruelty of the world up for being not only atrocious, but also absurd. The pointlessness of it all points me towards the view that we are here, there is no reason for it, so why not make it as pleasant and as free as possible? Why try to cling to mundane, soul-destroying, even totalitarian lifestyles? They are utterly pointless and feel as though they are striving towards a goal which does not even exist.

I want to know whether you think I'm best suited to Marxism or to anarchism. I believe in a classless, stateless society, I believe in communally owned transportation, means of production etc., I believe in the fundamental right to freedom of every human being, I believe in the deconstruction of the harmful constructs which predominate our society today. The idea of communism is highly appealing to me; there's a thread somewhere on this site which discusses how a communist society would work with regards to jobs, and it's absolutely the idea I'd been promoting in my own mind all the time I was at work: not working for working's sake, not overproducing while other people are starving; helping one-another, massively increased leisure time in order to enjoy the life we're privileged enough to have rather than filling it with mundanity.

Sometimes it bewilders me that we've reached a state of such sadness as a society, and then I realise that the bourgeois don't share in that sadness.

Sorry for the long first post.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't think there's any need to apologize - in fact, I wish half of all first posts were this engaging!

Unfortunately, I don't have time for a reply that does justice right now, but I will say this: Why feel obligated to pick a side in a petty personal dispute over a century old? My feeling is that, just as one can reconcile the best of existentialism and Marxism, there's no reason the Marxist "method" doesn't necessarily lead to anarchist conclusions (depending, of course, on one's understandings thereof).

Anyway, welcome to the board!

[The Jay]

I must say that I empathize with your story. It is obvious that you cannot stop thinking about something that seems contradictory to you; I'm the same way. Continue to work through these contradictions and absurdities such that you find your way through them and into a better understanding. I too went into a similar depression and did not enjoy it frankly. It sucked. I cannot tell you whether you are more suited for one thing or another since that is for you to find for yourself. All that I can say is that if you want to discuss anything with me, let me know.

[Red Economist]

I want to know whether you think I'm best suited to Marxism or to anarchism. I believe in a classless, stateless society, I believe in communally owned transportation, means of production etc., I believe in the fundamental right to freedom of every human being, I believe in the deconstruction of the harmful constructs which predominate our society today. The idea of communism is highly appealing to me; there's a thread somewhere on this site which discusses how a communist society would work with regards to jobs, and it's absolutely the idea I'd been promoting in my own mind all the time I was at work: not working for working's sake, not overproducing while other people are starving; helping one-another, massively increased leisure time in order to enjoy the life we're privileged enough to have rather than filling it with mundanity.Welcome to Revleft. I've had depression for just over five years (and felt suicidal too. it appears to be quite common on here. personally, I've found focusing on the negatives of capitalism can be part of this as I thought about them in a way in terms of what was 'right' or 'true', as opposed to what was practical in terms of solutions, and as so made them unsolvable, though this took years of introspection to reach the point where I thought the ideas themselves might be the problem.

I think in Orthodox forms of Marxism (19th century Revolutionary Social Democracy and 20th Century Marxism-Leninism and it's derivatives, possibly including Maoism) would not fit in well with Existentialism or Structuralism as it would be considered 'idealist' (crudely, putting mind before matter as the causes of social and natural phenomena, ranging from consciousness to the supernatural). broadly, they consider Marxism to be an athiest science and are therefore hostile to more philosophical approaches (outside of their own).
I have seen criticisms of existentialism in The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism edited by O.Kuusinen (p. 54-57) (1961). the extract is below; I have no idea how 'accurate' it is as a description of existential philosophy as I have never really engaged with it as a philosophy, but with all soviet texts, it will be true enough to be believable, with enough ideology thrown in to confuse the issue in the way the 'party' wants. As far as I can tell, most of the terminology is explained in the text itself.

I think more unorthodox and philosophical forms of western Marxism will accept existential philosophy (Sartre included) and I don't think anarchists have any objections to existentialism.

I hope this is at least some food for thought, even if it is crudely Stalinised Philosophy.


Philosophy Against Reason

The pessimism, irrationalism and hostility to a scientific world outlook characteristic of the ideology of the present-day bourgeoisie are very clearly seen in one of the most fashionable philosophical doctrines, viz., existentialism. Its founder, the German Idealist philosopher Martin Heidegger, borrowed much from the doctrine of Soren Aabye Kierkegaard, the early nineteenth-century Danish Mystic. Other prominent existentialists are Karl Jaspers, Jeal Paul Satre, G., Marcel and Albert Camus.
The Most general problem raised by the existentialists is that of the meaning of life, of man's place in the universe, and the path he chooses in life. It is an old problem, but at the present time it has acquired special importance for the many people who feel they must determine their place in the complex and contradictory conditions of bourgeois society and express their attitude to the world-wide struggle between progressive and reactionary forces.
Existentialism, therefore, touches on one of the burning questions of the time, but the solution it offers is based on a decadent, idealist world outlook. Its starting-point is the consciousness of the individual isolated from and standing opposed to society and living by his own thoughts and feelings. That wrong-starting point predetermines the fallacy of the whole doctrine.
The adherents of existentialism claim that it is a doctrine of being in general; actually, it deals exclusively with the "existence" of the individual. Disregarding the arguments of some existentialists about the "hereafter", the sole reality they recognize is the consciousness that "I exist". The external world is depicted as a mystery inaccessible to reason and logical thought. "Being", Sartre wrote, "is devoid of reason, causality, necessity". Like all subjective idealists, the existentialists deny the objective reality of nature, space and time. According to Heidegger, the world exists only inasmuch as man exists; "if there is no existence, neither can the universe exist."
By contending that the most important thing for man is the fact of his existence, the existentialists indulge in fine-spun reasoning about human existence having an end and man's whole life being lived in fear of death. The function of philosophy, in their view, is to awaken and keep alive this fear. To philosophize, says Jaspers, is to learn to die.
The existentialists realize, of course, that the easiest way to indoctrinate this feeling of fear is to sever the individual from society, make him feel isolated and helpless. Accordingly, they seek to instill the idea that the individual is "alone" in an alien and hostile world, that in relation to other men his is an "unreal" existence, that society robs him of his individuality.
The existentialist adroitly exploit the indubitable fact, tragically felt by many people, that capitalist society does oppress the individual, that it does suppress his personality. They play on the feeling of protest against the oppressive capitalist system arising among a section of the intellectuals and they direct it along the false path of protest against society as such. For in the existentialist view, although the individual cannot exist without intercourse with other indivdiuals, he nevertheless remains in complete solitutde, and only be withdrawing into himself can he aquire freedom. The existentialists do not recogonise the obligations imposed on the individual by the community or generally accepted ethical standards: the hero of existentialist plays and novels is ussually a person without firm convictions and often an amoral nature. All human activity and struggle are futile, the world is a kingdom of absurdity, and all history meaningless.
The subjective-idealist philosophy of existentialism is above all false because it reduces all reality to the existence of man and his emotions and, at the same time, completely distorts the very nature of man.
For man's life is bound up with society. What has raised him high above the level of the animal world? His life and labor as a member of society. It is in society that man develops his mind and emotions, will and conscience, acquires a meaning and purpose in life. He who lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideas, is concerned with the problem of life, not death- how to shape his life as a useful member of society, what contribution he can make to it's progress. But once a person is artificially severed from society, he becomes a trembling, frightened being, always in fear of death and not knowing what to do with his life.
Existentialism involuntarily demonstrates the degree of spiritual emptiness and moral degradation resulting from bourgeois individualism.
It is not only a decadent philosophy, but a very reactionary one. For, in the final analysis, it is the expression of the exploiting class's mortal fear of the inevitable doom of the capitalist system, and has a demoralizing effect on those who have succumbed to it's influence, especially the youth. Its preaching of fear, hopelessness, and the meaninglessness of existence fosters anti-social inclinations and justifies negation of morality and principle. In certain situations, the existentialist can easily become a pawn of the most reactionary forces and be converted from an hysterical malcontent into a fascist thug. In Germany, existentialism, along with some other reactionary doctrines, was the ideological soil of Fascism. In France, after the last war, the existentialists made vicious attacks on the heroic communist party and denounced party discipline and proletarian class solidarity.The French Marxists, however, we quick to expose existentialism as a major ideological foe and, as a result of their consistent struggle, it lost much of its influence on French Intellectuals.

oh, and long posts are fine (as long as paragraphing helps break it up). Big walls of text are scarey. I've put some stuff up like this before and I'm surprised how often there are some really dedicated people on here who actually read it.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's nice of you to share your story, so thank you for putting time and effort into that.
If you don't mind, there's something I'd like to comment on.

You ought not to be suited to any specific ideology. Neither Marxism nor Anarchism, nor anything else. It appears to me that you want to adopt an ideology and find the idea of forming a fixed identity appealing. I gather this is a consequence of your existential angst, given that a solution to that angst is adopting a doctrine?


Why try to cling to mundane, soul-destroying, even totalitarian... [ideologies]?

This can be quite counter-productive, it prevents you from going from Anarchism to Marxism to Communism and back again, from learning about the history, ideas and practice that exist in each of these categories and attempting to synthesise, creating your own combinations/understanding.

I hope you find this useful.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Depression and suicide here too pal :)

I think it probably is pretty common amongst those who have realised the inadequacies and reality of the capitalist system.

It sounds as if you went through a lot of the same stuff that I did (albeit a few years later than me) so there is an AWFUL lot I could say, but I will keep it fairly short.

I very much identify with some kind of existentialism/absurdism/nihilism combination, and I often feel like this precludes me from fully integrating with materialist Marxist organisations. I think the mind is very important, I do however believe that existence precedes essence, and I'm not sure if this qualifies me as a materialist or not. In my view, the material world comes first, but the world of ideas is more important.

I put equality before liberty and therefore describe myself as a communist rather than an anarchist (although anarcho-communist would also be fairly accurate)

Despair and depression will cripple you; you can begin to come to terms with the world though. Depressive realism and thoughts of suicide can be very liberating. Where once you may have felt trapped in a horrible world - when you are low enough you will realise that there is always a way out, and that oblivion can be better than torture. Just knowing that you have the option (even if you do not take it) can be incredibly freeing as a feeling, and can help to alleviate the pain. For me also came a feeling of invincibility; no-one could hurt me, nothing could be taken from me that hadn't already been taken. The one thing I had left was completely in my own hands. With a knife to your throat you are unstoppable :) it truly is a beautiful thing.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I put equality before liberty and therefore describe myself as a communist rather than an anarchist (although anarcho-communist would also be fairly accurate)


You can't put equality before or after liberty, they both come hand in hand.

Imposition of restrictions (by an irrational authority, thus a hierarchy [and a static one at that]) requires inequality.
Thus a lack of liberty is tied to inequality.

Being denied access to a full/equal range of resources, statuses and positions in society necessitates a lack of liberty.
Thus inequality is tied to a lack of liberty.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

You can't put equality before or after liberty, they both come hand in hand.

Imposition of restrictions (by an irrational authority, thus a hierarchy [and a static one at that]) requires inequality.
Thus a lack of liberty is tied to inequality.

Being denied access to a full/equal range of resources, statuses and positions in society necessitates a lack of liberty.
Thus inequality is tied to a lack of liberty.

They do of course go hand in hand. However, the way I see it, there is a point where you must either sacrifice liberty to attain equality (dictatorship of the proletariat) or risk equality in the name of liberty (anarchist revolution).

Either way...

"freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

To me though, communism implies using order to achieve equality, and anarchism the lack of order to achieve liberty.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

They do of course go hand in hand. However, the way I see it, there is a point where you must either sacrifice liberty to attain equality (dictatorship of the proletariat) or risk equality in the name of liberty (anarchist revolution).

Either way...

"freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

To me though, communism implies using order to achieve equality, and anarchism the lack of order to achieve liberty.

Your explanation here is either too shallow or too deep to be of any use. Or both.

Too shallow because it does not differentiate between libertarian and authoritarian tendencies within Communism (in terms of theory), and too deep because it is an understanding which attempts to differentiate and divide something which is ultimately a particular activity and process that both Anarchists and Communists attempt to advance, the real movement which abolishes the present state of affairs, the complete overhaul of what currently exists. Ultimately, a revolution is a revolution and does not belong to Anarchists or Communists. If the process is carried out successfully, then it works. Attempts which have failed must be learned from and have useless ideas ejected from the pool of strategies, tactics and theories.

Additionally, term 'order' is unsuitable, and even incorrect, some of the reasons for which I have explained above. What I haven't mentioned is that Anarchism doesn't achieve its ends via a 'lack of order' that simply comes from a superficial understanding of the ideology as a whole. Anarchists are very much inclined to being ordered but without it being done hierarchically/vertically.

Finally, on a side-note to clarify my views above, political parties aren't useless. However, as vehicles for change, they have a tendency to recreate already existing social conditions, thus preventing complete social change from occurring in a consistent fashion (as some aspects such as hierarchy are being perpetuated and eventually desynchronise revolutionary change).

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

That was quite the intro post! I've quickly glanced over it and it looks like you had quite the development behind you :)

[Theta Sigma]

I don't think there's any need to apologize - in fact, I wish half of all first posts were this engaging!

Unfortunately, I don't have time for a reply that does justice right now, but I will say this: Why feel obligated to pick a side in a petty personal dispute over a century old? My feeling is that, just as one can reconcile the best of existentialism and Marxism, there's no reason the Marxist "method" doesn't necessarily lead to anarchist conclusions (depending, of course, on one's understandings thereof).

Anyway, welcome to the board!

Thank-you so much!

I have this overwhelming feeling that I need to claim some sort of identity. I'm currently struggling with my gender identity, too, so I think it's something to do with that. Compensating for it perhaps.

Maybe I should just be myself. I just like the idea of having these wonderful critical thinkers behind me, you know? Almost like they validate my ideas. A failing of mine is that I feel the need to read everything in their particular school of thought in order to fully understand it; I need to teach myself that my own thoughts are just as important.


I must say that I empathize with your story. It is obvious that you cannot stop thinking about something that seems contradictory to you; I'm the same way. Continue to work through these contradictions and absurdities such that you find your way through them and into a better understanding. I too went into a similar depression and did not enjoy it frankly. It sucked. I cannot tell you whether you are more suited for one thing or another since that is for you to find for yourself. All that I can say is that if you want to discuss anything with me, let me know.

That's it, exactly. Capitalism is almost self-contradictory; the absurd (which is rendered most absurd by capitalism) is almost like a cover for the emptiness of everything, that is to say that "[human beings] wanted to cling, but there was nothing to cling to"; because we are burdened with consciousness of our environment, and with cognitive thought, we need some kind of order in place to give life meaning, a structure to living. We feel that we must have something else there, and so we've collectively built on it over thousands of years, but it's all just in our heads. A bottle is not a bottle in itself, but because we say it's a bottle. The cultures of humanity are unreal.


Welcome to Revleft. I've had depression for just over five years (and felt suicidal too. it appears to be quite common on here. personally, I've found focusing on the negatives of capitalism can be part of this as I thought about them in a way in terms of what was 'right' or 'true', as opposed to what was practical in terms of solutions, and as so made them unsolvable, though this took years of introspection to reach the point where I thought the ideas themselves might be the problem.

I think in Orthodox forms of Marxism (19th century Revolutionary Social Democracy and 20th Century Marxism-Leninism and it's derivatives, possibly including Maoism) would not fit in well with Existentialism or Structuralism as it would be considered 'idealist' (crudely, putting mind before matter as the causes of social and natural phenomena, ranging from consciousness to the supernatural). broadly, they consider Marxism to be an athiest science and are therefore hostile to more philosophical approaches (outside of their own).
I have seen criticisms of existentialism in The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism edited by O.Kuusinen (p. 54-57) (1961). the extract is below; I have no idea how 'accurate' it is as a description of existential philosophy as I have never really engaged with it as a philosophy, but with all soviet texts, it will be true enough to be believable, with enough ideology thrown in to confuse the issue in the way the 'party' wants. As far as I can tell, most of the terminology is explained in the text itself.

I think more unorthodox and philosophical forms of western Marxism will accept existential philosophy (Sartre included) and I don't think anarchists have any objections to existentialism.

I hope this is at least some food for thought, even if it is crudely Stalinised Philosophy.



oh, and long posts are fine (as long as paragraphing helps break it up). Big walls of text are scarey. I've put some stuff up like this before and I'm surprised how often there are some really dedicated people on here who actually read it.

I did the exact same thing. It's only now I'm starting to think "how would we move beyond that?" which is what was missing when I was at my worst; that was almost passivity, because I just felt that the system wouldn't be able to change, thus my life would always be pointless. Now I realise that I can exist in a little pocket outside capitalism, as that is how I see academia, at least in a personal sense. While I'm outside capitalism, I can also plot its demise, unless it first destroys itself!

Interesting point. Perhaps it's best not to be orthodox anything, but to base one's ideas on the teachings of another while formulating one's own views. I find myself drawn to Marxist thought as I experienced so much of it myself prior to even hearing about he or Engels, however I reject the absolute materialism of his thought, thus bringing philosophical thought into play: I don't think it can be proven that there is nothing beyond the physical, in whatever sense.

Will read through that quote properly tomorrow when I'm more awake!


It's nice of you to share your story, so thank you for putting time and effort into that.
If you don't mind, there's something I'd like to comment on.

You ought not to be suited to any specific ideology. Neither Marxism nor Anarchism, nor anything else. It appears to me that you want to adopt an ideology and find the idea of forming a fixed identity appealing. I gather this is a consequence of your existential angst, given that a solution to that angst is adopting a doctrine?



This can be quite counter-productive, it prevents you from going from Anarchism to Marxism to Communism and back again, from learning about the history, ideas and practice that exist in each of these categories and attempting to synthesise, creating your own combinations/understanding.

I hope you find this useful.

Very plausibly to do with my existential angst, yeah. I hadn't thought of that. Almost like if I have a label to attach to myself, I can exist somewhat beyond myself. I want to be a writer, which is almost similar: expression and extension of one's mind within the structures of culture. My ultimate 'career' aspiration is to become a Marxist Poet, whatever the hell that means.

Your last paragraph has been very useful to me in helping me realise that adhering in an orthodox manner to one teaching is not required, nor is it necessary. Thank-you so much. I need to remind myself that I'm at liberty to do this sometimes; I feel somewhat ruled and overwhelmed by the academia surrounding these modes of thought.


Depression and suicide here too pal :)

I think it probably is pretty common amongst those who have realised the inadequacies and reality of the capitalist system.

It sounds as if you went through a lot of the same stuff that I did (albeit a few years later than me) so there is an AWFUL lot I could say, but I will keep it fairly short.

I very much identify with some kind of existentialism/absurdism/nihilism combination, and I often feel like this precludes me from fully integrating with materialist Marxist organisations. I think the mind is very important, I do however believe that existence precedes essence, and I'm not sure if this qualifies me as a materialist or not. In my view, the material world comes first, but the world of ideas is more important.

I put equality before liberty and therefore describe myself as a communist rather than an anarchist (although anarcho-communist would also be fairly accurate)

Despair and depression will cripple you; you can begin to come to terms with the world though. Depressive realism and thoughts of suicide can be very liberating. Where once you may have felt trapped in a horrible world - when you are low enough you will realise that there is always a way out, and that oblivion can be better than torture. Just knowing that you have the option (even if you do not take it) can be incredibly freeing as a feeling, and can help to alleviate the pain. For me also came a feeling of invincibility; no-one could hurt me, nothing could be taken from me that hadn't already been taken. The one thing I had left was completely in my own hands. With a knife to your throat you are unstoppable :) it truly is a beautiful thing.

Sounds like we have very similar ways of thinking! Sorry to hear you went through such bad times.

That last paragraph - those sentiments resonate within me. My depression at the realisation of the absurd was almost liberating in a way, for it showed me that it's utterly pointless to live in a way you don't want to live. It showed me I could do anything I wanted to with my life. It was almost the feeling that in spite of this, I still went to work every day, that made me feel as low as I did.


Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

That was quite the intro post! I've quickly glanced over it and it looks like you had quite the development behind you :)

Thank-you! :D

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply in so detailed a manner. I've only just seen that this has been put up because my post count is still 0! Something to do with permissions or?

So glad I found this place.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply in so detailed a manner. I've only just seen that this has been put up because my post count is still 0! Something to do with permissions or?

It is just because certain parts of the forum, such as non-political discussion, wherein this is, do not give you post count additions.

[Alan OldStudent]

Welcome, young Comrade, from an old guy who's been a revolutionary socialist for many decades. We create whatever meaning our lives have. If we can leave this world a little better place than it was when we came here, if we can make our own small contribution, we were not a waste of real estate.

None of us as individuals can do much more than play a minor role, but all of us together can change the world.


IMAGINE by John Lennon
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra



<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/RwUGSYDKUxU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/RwUGSYDKUxU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Red Economist]

I did the exact same thing. It's only now I'm starting to think "how would we move beyond that?" which is what was missing when I was at my worst; that was almost passivity, because I just felt that the system wouldn't be able to change, thus my life would always be pointless. Now I realise that I can exist in a little pocket outside capitalism, as that is how I see academia, at least in a personal sense. While I'm outside capitalism, I can also plot its demise, unless it first destroys itself!

Interesting point. Perhaps it's best not to be orthodox anything, but to base one's ideas on the teachings of another while formulating one's own views. I find myself drawn to Marxist thought as I experienced so much of it myself prior to even hearing about he or Engels, however I reject the absolute materialism of his thought, thus bringing philosophical thought into play: I don't think it can be proven that there is nothing beyond the physical, in whatever sense.

Will read through that quote properly tomorrow when I'm more awake!

I've found it's best to use 'ideology' as a way of organizing your thoughts, rather than to accept the ideology as a true reflection of reality. it's a heady dose of philosophical anti-realism (idealism in the non-Marxian sense) but does seem to shift depression rather well, like 'positive-thinking' without the tendency towards thinking 'positive' delusions/false beliefs are 'healthy'.

Marxism is technically a dogma, because it begins from the premise of the material and dialectical nature of reality. but if your prepared to accept that it's philosophical assumptions cannot be held to be absolutely true (and consequently 'sh*t happens) it is not impossible to use it. it's just going to look a bit crazy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hello there,

gotta say, that's a really interesting intro thread you got here. As other users have stated, no need to apologize for anything at all, quite the contrary.

Now, forgive me if this will sound condescending or anything, but I'm going to take you up on that part about being pointed in the right direction:



I encountered what may be considered situational thought when I was sixteen, when it occurred to me that we, in western capitalist society, have a fundamentally unnatural way of living, which induces mundanity: we get up, we go to work, we work, we eat, we work some more, we come home, we sleep.

It just might be that you used the term "unnatural" here as a rhetorical device, but still I'm going to assume you actually didn't.



It makes no sense really to consider social life in contemporary capitalist society - and that goes for any historical social formation - as either natural or unnatural. This way of life induces all sorts of effects; just as life in historically surpassed forms of society did, and the feeling of a mundane existence is one of them (this is not to imply that these feelings and effects are historically exactly the same, far from it). But there is no basis really for any claim that a kind of life is a perversion of a fundamental human nature as it would have to assume a fixed, and completely mysterious, entity that could bear this name.

I'd suggest these articles by Guy Robinson: http://www.************************/making_materialism_historical.htm

http://www.************************/Robinson_Essay_Three_The_Concept_Of_Nature.htm


I want to know whether you think I'm best suited to Marxism or to anarchism. Honestly, I don't see the point in posing the question this way.

You surely know whether you're interested in Marxism and anarchism. If yes, and given the fact that most probably you don't either have a) problems with cognition and b) problems with your optical apparatus (this word has really invaded my speech lately), it would seem that you're well suited.

That's about it.

I can relate to a good extent on your personal story. Though, honestly, I was never really sold on a narrative promoting the notion of an inherent meaningfulness of existence so the thought that life doesn't mean anything (how could it after all since life's not a sentence or an utterance) never came as particularly shocking. In fact, after a brutal scare I had as a kid who wanted to go to church and explore the Catholic faith (and got a nice lil sermon on the fires of Hell), I was really, really glad nothing had any Meaning.

I also think I can relate to this specifically:

I felt personally culpable for every act of injustice carried out in the world, because I was part of the system which enacted them. Capitalism resulted in inequality, in death, in racism, in sexism, and I couldn't handle just living my day-to-day life in such a system. My views started to truly form.
Though, I never did feel that much personally culpable. Not really. But yeah, obviously for people of a certain psychological disposition it's not that easy to not feel like total shit with, well, shit flying everywhere in this life, and sticking to your face as well. One thing that is well worth keeping in mind is that we really ought to assess our personal responsibility reasonably, and some overbearing stories about just how filthy we are down deep due to capital. Especially in an anti-consumerist variant.

Having said all that, welcome, I hope you'll find this place stimulating.

EDIT: oh for crying out loud, even the link to Rosa's site is censored?? Well done.

Thanks to Q for pointing this out to me, the links of the articles are here:

http://goo.gl/zQp7C4

http://goo.gl/CZLD4d

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Very plausibly to do with my existential angst, yeah. I hadn't thought of that. Almost like if I have a label to attach to myself, I can exist somewhat beyond myself. I want to be a writer, which is almost similar: expression and extension of one's mind within the structures of culture. My ultimate 'career' aspiration is to become a Marxist Poet, whatever the hell that means.

Your last paragraph has been very useful to me in helping me realise that adhering in an orthodox manner to one teaching is not required, nor is it necessary. Thank-you so much. I need to remind myself that I'm at liberty to do this sometimes; I feel somewhat ruled and overwhelmed by the academia surrounding these modes of thought.

I wish to clarify my ideas, both for my benefit and anyone else who wishes to draw from them.

Ideology is inescapable as each person has a somewhat unified set of ideas based on some wide goal. These goals are unfixed and the ideas based around them are also unfixed, thus open to modification. Therefore, I must have an ideology.

In addition to ideology is a paradigm, a rigid thought pattern or collection of assumptions and methods. In other words, it is the dominant/main way of thinking/mindset which prevents certain challenges and criticism. It makes the ideology used alongside it quite stagnant by promoting the same old way of interpreting things, gathering ideas, responding to challenges and putting them into practice.

To summarise, an ideology comes with a way of thinking which interfaces with it, and other ideas, in a certain manner.

Now, ideologies such as Anarchism, Marxism and Communism (Communism as in the political tendencies which posit a means to achieve communism via revolution) are all quite useful to learn from but we ought not to get bogged down by the labelling which comes as a result of getting involved with any individual ideology. The reason for this is because such labelling invokes the need to fetishise the ideology (in the way Marx and Feuerbach used the concept) and turn it into something worthy of worship or complete commitment. Effectively, an ideology is formed and adopted, then turned into something beyond the level of its actual position as a tool to be used and thus has its downsides ignored. This, at the same time, produces a paradigm which affirms the existence of the fetish and promotes a way of existing based purely on the ongoing reification of the ideology, the 'thingification' or the representation of the ideology as something real and manifest.

Consequently, I do not label myself as an '-ist' of any particular ideology. I might, however, describe my current paradigm e.g. I take a heterodox or unorthodox stance with regards to mainstream politics or economics. Of course, that does not prevent me from eventually formalising the future mature form of my ideology and giving it a label, but I would be extremely cautious of constructing an identity based on that label, as that would undermine the creative process of criticising and updating ideas, practices etc.

Finally, if someone asks you what your perspective is, don't get drawn into that kind of question and instead treat it as a loaded question which views 'you' as something reducible to a limited viewpoint, as all viewpoints are limited by the position from which they view something. The entirety of 'you' is tied to your ideology, not a perspective. Perspectives are tied to the roles from which you view something by, e.g. a person's perspective as a student (which isn't representative of the entire person). They cannot belong to a person in the same way an ideology can. Perspectives are not applicable to all of existence, that is where ideology comes in. Ideology deals with everything with regards to the goal/goals it is centred around, a perspective on the other hand is based on a specific, localised frame of reference or context and is not large scale in scope. Ideologies are formed out of perspectives, but not the other way around (as humans start localised and gradually build up). I have found Nietzsche's ideology to be very influential on me here (not Nietzschean ideology; it doesn't, or shouldn't, exist).

Again, I hope you find this useful.


I've found it's best to use 'ideology' as a way of organizing your thoughts, rather than to accept the ideology as a true reflection of reality.

Ideology has no truth-value, it is simply a system of ideas geared around a particular aim or set of aims. Thus it cannot genuinely be seen as a true reflection of reality in the first place. It is the ideas contained within the ideology that must be exposed to attack and criticism (as well as the paradigm used alongside it), only the ideas themselves are that which can contain a truth-value. See my above response to Theta-Sigma which adds to the interesting things you are saying.

[Theta Sigma]

Anyone know why the quoting options aren't working for me as they did before?

I can't really reply to you all without it!

Doesn't work with the multi-quote options, nor just clicking 'Quote'.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Anyone know why the quoting options aren't working for me as they did before?

I can't really reply to you all without it!

Doesn't work with the multi-quote options, nor just clicking 'Quote'.

I recommend you post this question in the 'Technical Support' section of the website. In the mean time, you can manually quote and put the person's name (perhaps in shorthand). In case you don't know how to do that, just write [quote=insertnamehere[ (where the '[' is obviously ']').

[Thirsty Crow]

I recommend you post this question in the 'Technical Support' section of the website. In the mean time, you can manually quote and put the person's name (perhaps in shorthand). In case you don't know how to do that, just write [quote=insertnamehere[ (where the '[' is obviously ']').
The glitch with the quote stuff happens on and off. I think I had to manually do the quote thing yesterday but now it works fine.

Theta Sigma, you can also use the quote button in the window where you're writing your reply ("wrap quote tags") but then you'll have to copy paste and so on.

EDIT: lol it doesn't seem to work fine.

[Theta Sigma]

It is just because certain parts of the forum, such as non-political discussion, wherein this is, do not give you post count additions.

Aha! Thank-you!


Welcome, young Comrade, from an old guy who's been a revolutionary socialist for many decades. We create whatever meaning our lives have. If we can leave this world a little better place than it was when we came here, if we can make our own small contribution, we were not a waste of real estate.

None of us as individuals can do much more than play a minor role, but all of us together can change the world.

I agree completely! A Marxist friend of mine gave me Candide to read based on my statement of that principle.


I've found it's best to use 'ideology' as a way of organizing your thoughts, rather than to accept the ideology as a true reflection of reality. it's a heady dose of philosophical anti-realism (idealism in the non-Marxian sense) but does seem to shift depression rather well, like 'positive-thinking' without the tendency towards thinking 'positive' delusions/false beliefs are 'healthy'.

Marxism is technically a dogma, because it begins from the premise of the material and dialectical nature of reality. but if your prepared to accept that it's philosophical assumptions cannot be held to be absolutely true (and consequently 'sh*t happens) it is not impossible to use it. it's just going to look a bit crazy.

I think you're right. Sometimes I struggle to do that, too, but I'm getting to grips with it, the more I learn.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a materialist, really; I'd still dub myself a Marxist, but I'm definitely not a materialist, so I don't blindly agree with everything Marx preached.


Hello there,

gotta say, that's a really interesting intro thread you got here. As other users have stated, no need to apologize for anything at all, quite the contrary.

Now, forgive me if this will sound condescending or anything, but I'm going to take you up on that part about being pointed in the right direction:

It makes no sense really to consider social life in contemporary capitalist society - and that goes for any historical social formation - as either natural or unnatural. This way of life induces all sorts of effects; just as life in historically surpassed forms of society did, and the feeling of a mundane existence is one of them (this is not to imply that these feelings and effects are historically exactly the same, far from it). But there is no basis really for any claim that a kind of life is a perversion of a fundamental human nature as it would have to assume a fixed, and completely mysterious, entity that could bear this name.

You surely know whether you're interested in Marxism and anarchism. If yes, and given the fact that most probably you don't either have a) problems with cognition and b) problems with your optical apparatus (this word has really invaded my speech lately), it would seem that you're well suited.

That's about it.

I can relate to a good extent on your personal story. Though, honestly, I was never really sold on a narrative promoting the notion of an inherent meaningfulness of existence so the thought that life doesn't mean anything (how could it after all since life's not a sentence or an utterance) never came as particularly shocking. In fact, after a brutal scare I had as a kid who wanted to go to church and explore the Catholic faith (and got a nice lil sermon on the fires of Hell), I was really, really glad nothing had any Meaning.

Though, I never did feel that much personally culpable. Not really. But yeah, obviously for people of a certain psychological disposition it's not that easy to not feel like total shit with, well, shit flying everywhere in this life, and sticking to your face as well. One thing that is well worth keeping in mind is that we really ought to assess our personal responsibility reasonably, and some overbearing stories about just how filthy we are down deep due to capital. Especially in an anti-consumerist variant.

Having said all that, welcome, I hope you'll find this place stimulating.

I'm doing manual quoting so I've just chopped my quotes and the links out of your post to make it easier to respond to. Hope that's not a problem.

That's a really interesting statement regarding my use of the word 'unnatural'; it was one of my earliest thoughts, and I've been thinking similarly to you, recently, but I think it was more a reaction to the negative 'unnatural' nature of our lives, that is to say, we impose an artificial struggle, artificial oppression etc. on one another for no good reason. We're all here for roughly the same amount of time if we die of old age, and there's no intrinsic reason for us to be here, so why not let it be as simple and as peaceful as possible? To me, a communist society would provide this 'utopian' structure, but I accept that it's not really any more natural than the current structure. But I think from what you've said you understand what I'm getting at anyway.

I'm interested in both Marxism and anarchism, yeah, and I like the idea of stateless communism (global communism, whereby the human race works together in an egalitarian society, everyone has enough food, shelter, clothing, we all learn together, etc. and there's no such thing as an over-arching governance, rather, the people govern themselves) and right now it's just a case for me of reading more about that.

Yes, I do find a comfort in the meaninglessness of life nowadays; it means that my own life is not predicated on abstract, useless social values. I am my own person and as long as I do good to others and retain my happiness,
I am a worthwhile human being.

Thank-you very much for the links!


I wish to clarify my ideas, both for my benefit and anyone else who wishes to draw from them.

Ideology is inescapable as each person has a somewhat unified set of ideas based on some wide goal. These goals are unfixed and the ideas based around them are also unfixed, thus open to modification. Therefore, I must have an ideology.

In addition to ideology is a paradigm, a rigid thought pattern or collection of assumptions and methods. In other words, it is the dominant/main way of thinking/mindset which prevents certain challenges and criticism. It makes the ideology used alongside it quite stagnant by promoting the same old way of interpreting things, gathering ideas, responding to challenges and putting them into practice.

To summarise, an ideology comes with a way of thinking which interfaces with it, and other ideas, in a certain manner.

Now, ideologies such as Anarchism, Marxism and Communism (Communism as in the political tendencies which posit a means to achieve communism via revolution) are all quite useful to learn from but we ought not to get bogged down by the labelling which comes as a result of getting involved with any individual ideology. The reason for this is because such labelling invokes the need to fetishise the ideology (in the way Marx and Feuerbach used the concept) and turn it into something worthy of worship or complete commitment. Effectively, an ideology is formed and adopted, then turned into something beyond the level of its actual position as a tool to be used and thus has its downsides ignored. This, at the same time, produces a paradigm which affirms the existence of the fetish and promotes a way of existing based purely on the ongoing reification of the ideology, the 'thingification' or the representation of the ideology as something real and manifest.

Consequently, I do not label myself as an '-ist' of any particular ideology. I might, however, describe my current paradigm e.g. I take a heterodox or unorthodox stance with regards to mainstream politics or economics. Of course, that does not prevent me from eventually formalising the future mature form of my ideology and giving it a label, but I would be extremely cautious of constructing an identity based on that label, as that would undermine the creative process of criticising and updating ideas, practices etc.

Finally, if someone asks you what your perspective is, don't get drawn into that kind of question and instead treat it as a loaded question which views 'you' as something reducible to a limited viewpoint, as all viewpoints are limited by the position from which they view something. The entirety of 'you' is tied to your ideology, not a perspective. Perspectives are tied to the roles from which you view something by, e.g. a person's perspective as a student (which isn't representative of the entire person). They cannot belong to a person in the same way an ideology can. Perspectives are not applicable to all of existence, that is where ideology comes in. Ideology deals with everything with regards to the goal/goals it is centred around, a perspective on the other hand is based on a specific, localised frame of reference or context and is not large scale in scope. Ideologies are formed out of perspectives, but not the other way around (as humans start localised and gradually build up). I have found Nietzsche's ideology to be very influential on me here (not Nietzschean ideology; it doesn't, or shouldn't, exist).

Again, I hope you find this useful.

This is a marvellously detailed post, thank-you very much.

I think your first point is something I'm in danger of falling into, that is, applying, for instance, Marxism to myself too rigidly to allow myself to accept its critiques and allow the development of my own thoughts. I'm attempting to prevent this, though, by engaging with the criticisms I raise myself with the various ideologies I come to admire and believe in.

And I absolutely come close to fetishisation, sometimes! Right down to searching vigorously for Marxist wallpaper. ;) But yes, that's an eye-opening point. I like using ideologies to back up my thoughts but I do need to be careful not to categorise myself and allow myself to fetishise what should not be fetishised.

My thoughts are still developing, as are my ideas, and of course, being as young as I am, my perspectives.

I do hope I've not completely misunderstood your wonderful post.

Sorry for the delay in replying, guys.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a materialist, really; I'd still dub myself a Marxist, but I'm definitely not a materialist, so I don't blindly agree with everything Marx preached.

Take a look at this.

http://marxmyths.org/cyril-smith/article.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a materialist, really; I'd still dub myself a Marxist, but I'm definitely not a materialist, so I don't blindly agree with everything Marx preached.

From all that you wrote, I'd say you just might be a materialist after all.

But of course, this rests on the way materialism is conceived. So, I'm not sure what blind agreement with everything Marx wrote has to do with materialism; that would really amount to a dogmatism of a kind.

Materialism is a necessary minimum element of any scientific inquiry, whatever its object might be.
The specific character of the object of such inquiry, the social relations of human beings, is such that it requires a materialism of inquiry that takes its object as sensuous activity, as practice - this is the active side, the specifically human side encompassed under the umbrella term of the production of life which Marx refers to, for instance in Theses on Feuerbach, in contradistinction to various kinds of idealism in thinking about humanity and its history (the idealism that both a) doesn't know real sensuous activity apart from its apriorism and purely mental constructs like the idea of Humanity or Nature, and for this reason serves as b) an ideological weapon in the arsenal of the ruling class)


Therefore, the problem of ideas and beliefs held by people is located within their social life, and are shown to be connected to the bases of that life in a particular way.

EDIT: Cyril Smith has a really peculiar view of some stuff; namely, Marx/Feurbach and Marx/Hegel.

As for the latter:
Marx had learned from Hegel one lesson which he never forgot: putting in front of society a ‘slogan’, a formula, a set of ‘sectarian principles’ with which to make the world correspond is not the point.One could say that Marx's involvement with Hegel and his liberal disciples did constitute a learning process; but taking Hegel up with his project can't make it so. In other words, it's only through a comprehensive criticism of the latter (and of Feuerbach, whom Marx criticized also as Hegel's only critic worthy of note) and a complete break in perspective and method (which is something Smith hints at but in an incomplete way).

[LewisFrommer]

Hello Theta,

Without having read any of the replies to your introductory post I will give you this as my very second post before I need to find my way to work. Bear in mind that all throughout the world exists us, humans. Though we may have no footprint on the universe yet, that doesn't mean that a footprint wont be left at some point in time. Furthermore, it doesn't mean we don't touch each other every day. The important thing to remember is humanity. In humanity there will always be suffering, there will most certainly always be greed and there will always be the existential thinkers that think what they can, ask the questions and help to better society as a whole. There are no sides to be taken when each of us thinks our own way. What you need to do is sit back, take in the comments, provide your own and find a system that works for you. I would present an adaptation of Marxism. Something you can believe in and practice from day to day that helps you cope with the faults in the way we live today.

LF