"Don't bother mourning, ORGANIZE!" [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 12:39

"I don't get it" is not an opinion, it's not a contribution to the discussion, it's just one user (always the same user) talking about his personal impressions. Even if we thought that was important (most of us don't), we wouldn't really need to be informed as it's always the same impression. And don't for a moment pretend that, if someone spent almost their entire time on this site posting "I don't care" and "Why is this important?" in threads relating to anarchism, anti-civ and queer theory, that person wouldn't be warned to knock it off. But as we all know, on RevLeft some people are more equal than others.

Are you wearing your tinfoil hat today, Xhar-Xhar?

Stop making presumptions about my motives. You're just wrong and it makes you look like a paranoid nutjob.

I don't get it" is not an opinion

No, you're quite right, he asked a question. A perfectly reasonable question and the response to that was to call him a reactionary. When BIXX then takes issue with that reaction and does give his opinion the subsequent response is to call him a troll. That's a really great contribution, guys. Thanks.

Fyi, I don't have the authority to warn people to knock anything off, so I'm not sure how you think I can actually enforce this alleged double-standard. Unless you're talking about someone else, in which case you should take it up with them, not me.

It's interesting that you use anarchism, anti-civ and queer theory as examples though. I'm neither an anarchist or anti-civ -- I wholly embrace criticisms of both these things, since I'm happy to make my own. When you consider the amount of trite, repetitive criticisms that are levelled in every thread on these subjects, however, it could be quite easy just to call you all trolls. Of course, people don't do that because it's a waste of time and doesn't actually create any interest debates. Instead they consistently engage with the arguments, even when the arguments are the same and made by the same stubborn, arrogant members who never seem to listen anyway.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th November 2015, 13:00

Are you wearing your tinfoil hat today, Xhar-Xhar?

Stop making presumptions about my motives. You're just wrong and it makes you look like a paranoid nutjob.

I have no idea what your motives are. Or rather, I could make some reasonable guesses, but it's not important for me to do so. I'm talking about your behaviour, which is a matter of public record on this site.

No, you're quite right, he asked a question. A perfectly reasonable question and the response to that was to call him a reactionary. When BIXX then takes issue with that reaction and does give his opinion the subsequent response is to call him a troll. That's a really great contribution, guys. Thanks.

As if BIXX is someone who joined yesterday. You're ignoring the entire context formed by their previous posts - including one where they openly supported a self-proclaimed reactionary organisation, and their long run of shitposting, crusades against individual members and so on - so that you can pretend that BIXX is the victim here. That might fool people who actually have joined yesterday. But it's not fooling anyone who has been here for some time.

Fyi, I don't have the authority to warn people to knock anything off, so I'm not sure how you think I can actually enforce this alleged double-standard. Unless you're talking about someone else, in which case you should take it up with them, not me.

Ah, yes, my mistake, you were only appointed as a local mod, not a global mod. That certainly doesn't seem to be stopping you from throwing your weight around.

It's interesting that you use anarchism, anti-civ and queer theory as examples though. I'm neither an anarchist or anti-civ -- I wholly embrace criticisms of both these things, since I'm happy to make my own. When you consider the amount of trite, repetitive criticisms that are levelled in every thread on these subjects, however, it could be quite easy just to call you all trolls. Of course, people don't do that because it's a waste of time and doesn't actually create any interest debates. Instead they consistently engage with the arguments, even when the arguments are the same and made by the same stubborn, arrogant members who never seem to listen anyway.

You seem to be fundamentally confused.

Criticism doesn't need to good for it to be criticism. And there is a qualitative difference between even the worst sort of criticism and personal impressions. All BIXX does is post personal impressions, and I'm sorry, but that's completely besides the point. It's not interesting or relevant to the discussion, and given their other positions it's given people are going to be leery of them. Perhaps you could try to get yourself appointed administrator so that poor, poor BIXX and whoever else you decide to take under your wing can be protected from us mean people forever.

Бай Ганьо

20th November 2015, 13:26

I don't quite get it, how is any anniversary important?

One might discover historical events, movements, schools of thought, songs, etc. one didn't know before thanks to threads like this one. Spreading information (to next generations) is the primary function of anniversaries. What you do with that information is up to you. It's not because the vast majority of workers doesn't give a shit about (their) history - which I'm not so sure about - that we shouldn't post about it. What I personally don't like about anniversaries is when commemoration degenerates into creating a whole mythology of infallible heroes and prophets in people's minds.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 14:07

I have no idea what your motives are. Or rather, I could make some reasonable guesses, but it's not important for me to do so. I'm talking about your behaviour, which is a matter of public record on this site.

Ha, as opposed to what? Your exemplory behaviour?

As if BIXX is someone who joined yesterday. You're ignoring the entire context formed by their previous posts - including one where they openly supported a self-proclaimed reactionary organisation, and their long run of shitposting, crusades against individual members and so on - so that you can pretend that BIXX is the victim here. That might fool people who actually have joined yesterday. But it's not fooling anyone who has been here for some time.

This is a context of your own making. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it real. Don't make the mistake of thinking your interpretations are fact. This might seem like a difficult task for you, but you seem like a smart boy.

Ah, yes, my mistake, you were only appointed as a local mod, not a global mod. That certainly doesn't seem to be stopping you from throwing your weight around.

You're not a mod of any kind and it doesn't seem to stop you.

You seem to be fundamentally confused.

Criticism doesn't need to good for it to be criticism. And there is a qualitative difference between even the worst sort of criticism and personal impressions. All BIXX does is post personal impressions, and I'm sorry, but that's completely besides the point. It's not interesting or relevant to the discussion, and given their other positions it's given people are going to be leery of them.

It may seem like that to you, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't really see what the difference between an "impression" and an opinion is. In any case, what is relevant or interesting is not for you or anyone else to decide. If you don't agree with BIXX people can either ignore him or engage with what he's saying. Acting like petulant children isn't really very productive.

Perhaps you could try to get yourself appointed administrator so that poor, poor BIXX and whoever else you decide to take under your wing can be protected from us mean people forever.

Or you and others could just stop being bullies.

Ele'ill

20th November 2015, 14:13

You're neither a leftist, a revolutionary, or a labor activist, but a reactionary. Why should you get it?

ya they don't believe in your gods or afterlife they must be a reactionary

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 14:39

ya they don't believe in your gods or afterlife they must be a reactionary

No, I think wanting to turn back the clock 6,000 years is what makes that poster a reactionary. That he doesn't even identify as a leftist or a revolutionary is revealing enough, but when you throw in the Robinson Crusoe stuff, it is quite clear that the most a user with his views can do is disrupt and concern troll.

As to the subject of the thread itself, I think anniversaries can be important. Ritual and tradition are important. They can also be overdone, though, and of all those whose anniversaries deserve attention, I think Joe Hill is somewhere down the list, perhaps far enough to cross the line into overdone.

Bala Perdida

20th November 2015, 14:49

These jokesters. If they hadn't made that comment at all this thread would've been dead after 3 posts. Also to hell with your primitivist accusations. That's been elaborated on like 1000 times that that's not their intention as anticiv and accusing them of such at this point is just show's how hopelessly ignorant y'all are.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 14:51

Ele'ill

20th November 2015, 14:53

No, I think wanting to turn back the clock 6,000 years is what makes that poster a reactionary.

Where have they posted this? They are not a primitivist, you made this up entirely.

That he doesn't even identify as a leftist or a revolutionary is revealing enough, but when you throw in the Robin Crusoe stuff, it is quite clear that the most a user with his views can do is disrupt and concern troll.

Not being a leftist and being pessimistic about revolution as it was conceived of hundreds of years ago doesn't equate to `robin crusoe stuff`

As to the subject of the thread itself, I think anniversaries can be important. Ritual and tradition are important. They can also be overdone, though, and of all those whose anniversaries deserve attention, I think Joe Hill is somewhere down the list, perhaps far enough to cross the line into overdone.

I think ritual and tradition are the problem but thanks for the last part of this I think.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 14:58

Where have they posted this? They are not a primitivist, you made this up entirely.

You made up entirely I called that person a primitivist. I said they wanted to turn the clock back to a period before civilization. Civilization developed (at the latest) 6,000 years ago. I believe that makes my statement accurate.

Not being a leftist and being pessimistic about revolution as it was conceived of hundreds of years ago doesn't equate to `robin crusoe stuff`

Opposing civilization does. Unless the word is being redefined to mean something it has never meant before, a meaning that has no historical or political basis, we are talking about a scenario similar to Robinson Crusoe's fictional world.

Also, I don't think revolution today would unfold as it did hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean I would say I am not a revolutionary leftist.

I think ritual and tradition are the problem but thanks for the last part of this I think.

Why do you think they are the problem?

Bala Perdida

20th November 2015, 16:29

I don't see anybody using the word "primitivist" to describe anybody in this thread.

As if there's such a huge difference between accusing someone of 'wanting to turn the clock back' and calling them a primitivist. Either way, not the position. Opposing the violence and alienation of civilization doesn't mean having everyone cook on rocks to make them play nice.

A Revolutionary Tool

20th November 2015, 16:37

What is the point of knowing about any history? Joe Hill represents somebody who stood up and fought for working class people, he's a figure who can inspire other people to fight against the system. Therfore he must be brought down by the troll! If you don't want to talk about anniversaries and dates BIXX what the fuck are you doing in the history section?! You know what people talk about here? About the stuff that's happened in the past like union struggles in the U.S. and people that were part of that. So for example when the date Joe Hill's execution comes up people might talk about it.

Maybe you shouldn't come into a thread like this, understanding that people have a positive view of Joe Hill as an inspirational figure in the union movement, and feign like you have no freakin' idea why others here would start a thread commemorating Joe Hill. It smacks of being a disingenuous troll. It would be a thousand times better if you just tried making a criticism of Joe Hill and gave us a reason to not want to talk about Joe Hill in such a fashion. But I think you know that's not going to happen so you have to attack the idea of people even talking about historical figures like Joe Hill who inspire people. Joe Hill doesn't mean shit to you because that's your politics, just like Hitler's birthday doesn't mean shit to me because I'm not a Nazi. The fact that you need to constantly shit on people like Joe Hill shows your politics and how shitty they are.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 17:17

As if there's such a huge difference between accusing someone of 'wanting to turn the clock back' and calling them a primitivist. Either way, not the position. Opposing the violence and alienation of civilization doesn't mean having everyone cook on rocks to make them play nice.

Hey, I oppose the violence and alienation presently in civilization, too. I don't know a leftist who doesn't. I just don't confuse those problems with civilization itself, anymore than I would confuse a wart on somebody's hand with the essential being of the person, and claim that I am "anti-wart" as I murderously chase the man with an axe.

This has been brought to the attention of people who flirt with "anti-civ" positions. When asked to clarify what they believe anti-civ entails, and how it differs from left communism or platformism or any other tendency on the left, they have never given a clear or coherent response.

This leaves people with no choice but to assume they are using the word within the boundaries established by how the word civilization has been used up to now. That means if you want to eliminate civilization, and not just the alienation of civilization, you are wanting to turn the clock back 6,000 years at least.

I don't think BIXX is worth all the attention, to be honest. There is an ignore function on the forum that I have found useful. I just don't think it's accurate to accuse people who are pointing out the absurdity of BIXX's presence on the forum of "bullying" him. If I disliked blueberries and muffins, and posted a couple of thousand times on a forum for blueberry muffin lovers, claiming that I have something in common with them because I too enjoy non-muffin confections of various kinds even as I continuously raise issues against blueberry muffins and those who love them, I would understand if people quickly tired of my presence. In fact, I would consider what I was doing to be an attempt at harassment and bullying, even if I convinced enough people that chocolate chip cookies can be thought of as variations on the muffin.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 18:22

I just don't think it's accurate to accuse people who are pointing out the absurdity of BIXX's presence on the forum of "bullying" him. If I disliked blueberries and muffins, and posted a couple of thousand times on a forum for blueberry muffin lovers, claiming that I have something in common with them because I too enjoy non-muffin confections of various kinds even as I continuously raise issues against blueberry muffins and those who love them, I would understand if people quickly tired of my presence. In fact, I would consider what I was doing to be an attempt at harassment and bullying, even if I convinced enough people that chocolate chip cookies can be thought of as variations on the muffin.

There are countless people on this forum who engage their politics in the same way, with the same arguments. Everyone is guilty of this. The same arguments with the same responses are the basis of most of the debates on the forum. It is absurd to suggest any different. The difference is that what BIXX has to say doesn't conform to standards which the majority of people here hold sacrosanct. The response to this is to call him a reactionary and a troll. This, in my view, is bullying. It demonstrates a distinct refusal to engage with ideas that exist outside of the comfy paradigm you accept and a vindictiveness against those who don't conform. A response to this is not a snobbish refusal to accept there's anything worth responding to. I've seen members in this thread spend a lot of time working through the most absurd views in an attempt to engage...The truth is you guys just don't like BIXX because he doesn't think like you.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 18:38

There are countless people on this forum who engage their politics in the same way, with the same arguments. Everyone is guilty of this. The same arguments with the same responses are the basis of most of the debates on the forum. It is absurd to suggest any different. The difference is that what BIXX has to say doesn't conform to standards which the majority of people here hold sacrosanct. The response to this is to call him a reactionary and a troll. This, in my view, is bullying. It demonstrates a distinct refusal to engage with ideas that exist outside of the comfy paradigm you accept and a vindictiveness against those who don't conform. A response to this is not a snobbish refusal to accept there's anything worth responding to. I've seen members in this thread spend a lot of time working through the most absurd views in an attempt to engage...The truth is you guys just don't like BIXX because he doesn't think like you.

I don't know what "countless people on the forum who engage their politics the same way" means. That there are countless people on the forum who don't identify as either leftist or revolutionary, continuously raising doubts about the views of revolutionaries from a perspective they concede isn't revolutionary or leftist? Where are these people? Well, all of them except BIXX are restricted to the OI section. Other victims of bullying, obviously.

I don't think anybody here has said that there's nothing that BIXX says that is worth responding to, just as I'm sure the chocolate chip cookie lover on the blueberry muffin lovers' forum has things worth responding to. I know I haven't said that. The question isn't about the intrinsic worth of engaging a view, it's about how this space was created for engagement of views among people who share at least a broadly similar approach to the questions being discussed. Hence OI.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 19:01

I don't know what "countless people on the forum who engage their politics the same way" means. That there are countless people on the forum who don't identify as either leftist or revolutionary, continuously raising doubts about the views of revolutionaries from a perspective they concede isn't revolutionary or leftist? Where are these people? Well, all of them except BIXX are restricted to the OI section. Other victims of bullying, obviously.

You seem to be under the impression that people are unique when they enter threads. Every member of this forum says the same thing or has the same response to the threads that emerge. BIXX is not unique in the repetition of his arguments. I've see members have the same arguments in different threads at the same time. If we objected to members saying the same thing in debates we'd have no forum.

In my view it is entirely healthy to raise doubts in revolutionaries -- continuously if need be. Self-reflection has not been a familiar part of your tradition, but having the fundamentals of your belief system challenged should actually be something you embrace rather than catagorise as trollish. There are many people on the left who raise doubts about the prevailing standards of the left. This is good; it is necessary. You should encourage it.

don't think anybody here has said that there's nothing that BIXX says that is worth responding to, just as I'm sure the chocolate chip cookie lover on the blueberry muffin lovers' forum has things worth responding to. I know I haven't said that. The question isn't about the intrinsic worth of engaging a view, it's about how this space was created for engagement of views among people who share at least a broadly similar approach to the questions being discussed. Hence OI.

I share none of the approaches that 99% of the membership here have. Perhaps you think I should be restricted along with BIXX? I am not a leftist and I am cynical of revolution -- at least how the 99% prescribe it. I guess that is something BIXX and I have in common. As far as I understand it we also share a fervent anti-capitalism and a desire to fundamentally destroy bourgeois society. Are these restrictable offences? Or is it just restrictable not to call yourself a revolutionary leftist? If you are relying on the literal name of the board to provide cover for your scapegoating, then let's remember that we allow all sorts of people onto the board. The fact the name conforms to your particular brand of lefty-bullshit doesn't give you the privilege of dictating who is and isn't allowed to post here.

If engaging with BIXX and with me are not above you, then perhaps you can teach that humility to the rest of those here, instead of resorting to petty name calling and recrimination.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 19:14

You seem to be under the impression that people are unique when they enter threads. Every member of this forum says the same thing or has the same response to the threads that emerge. BIXX is not unique in the repetition of his arguments. I've see members have the same arguments in different threads at the same time. If we objected to members saying the same thing in debates we'd have no forum.

The issue people are raising with BIXX is not just that he repeats himself. If you think that, you aren't reading the thread carefully enough to be in a position to call what participants here are doing "bullying."

In my view it is entirely healthy to raise doubts in revolutionaries -- continuously if need be. Self-reflection has not been a familiar part of your tradition, but having the fundamentals of your belief system challenged should actually be something you embrace rather than catagorise as trollish. There are many people on the left who raise doubts about the prevailing standards of the left. This is good; it is necessary. You should encourage it.The moment revolutionaries take their convictions for granted is the day they stop being revolutionaries. Of course it is "healthy" to raise doubts about accepted truths. What appears to be going over your head is that people (not I, it should be noted) have taken issue with how this forum is designed to permit the raising of doubts only within the context of people who share or are genuinely considering adopting a revolutionary leftist perspective. If that is not the rationale behind the forum, and we just allow doubts to be raised from any perspective, then why are there bans and restrictions?

I share none of the approaches that 99% of the membership here have. Perhaps you think I should be restricted along with BIXX? I am not a leftist and I am cynical of revolution -- at least how the 99% prescribe it. I guess that is something BIXX and I have in common. As far as I understand it we also share a fervent anti-capitalism and a desire to fundamentally destroy bourgeois society. Are these restrictable offences? Or is it just restrictable not to call yourself a revolutionary leftist? If you are relying on the literal name of the board to provide cover for your scapegoating, then let's remember that we allow all sorts of people onto the board. The fact the name conforms to your particular brand of lefty-bullshit doesn't give you the privilege of dictating who is and isn't allowed to post here.I haven't said that anybody should be restricted. I am defending those who have said that from charges, made by you, that they are bullying somebody. I would appreciate it if you didn't insinuate that I am angling for administrative actions when I haven't.

You are correct that self-identification is not the basis for determining who is a leftist or who isn't. Certainly subjective anti-capitalism is not the same as leftism, though, so if that is the sole criterion for you to call somebody a leftist, then I think your definition is in dire need of reconsideration. A monarchist who desires to recreate a feudal structure is anti-capitalist, certainly not a leftist. And neither, in my view, is a person who wants to dismantle the progress introduced by civilization so as to allow nature to impose hierarchies that humans are currently imposing.

If engaging with BIXX and with me are not above you, then perhaps you can teach that humility to the rest of those here, instead of resorting to petty name calling and recrimination.I have engaged BIXX and others who are sympathetic with him before. The last time I engaged you just a few days ago, you unceremoniously cut the conversation off, accusing me of "dick swinging" or something like that. I don't think this places you in a good position to posture as a victim of people who refuse to engage you or take you seriously.

Shinyos

20th November 2015, 19:38

What does any of this petty drama have to do with anything that the OP said? This was possibly a thread that could've been discussed in regards with what Brandon has stated, and yet, people automatically attack others and start this pointless flame war.

Why can't people just ignore what has been said and move on?

These fights are nothing short of pathetic.

Бай Ганьо

20th November 2015, 19:53

Friday night in New York City, Amy Goodman will host a reading/presentation on Joe Hill’s life, writings and songs. For those unable to attend in person, it will livestream at: http://livestream.com/TheNewSchool/dont-mourn-organize The event begins at 7:00 pm EST, and is scheduled to wrap up at 8:25.

More on: http://joehill100.com/

Aslan

20th November 2015, 20:04

Can we just shut the fuck up and appreciate this martyr for our cause?! Come on guys!

BIXX

20th November 2015, 21:23

I appreciate what everyone has said in my favor, doubt I could have said it better myself.

One might discover historical events, movements, schools of thought, songs, etc. one didn't know before thanks to threads like this one. Spreading information (to next generations) is the primary function of anniversaries. What you do with that information is up to you. It's not because the vast majority of workers doesn't give a shit about (their) history - which I'm not so sure about - that we shouldn't post about it. What I personally don't like about anniversaries is when commemoration degenerates into creating a whole mythology of infallible heroes and prophets in people's minds.

I thanked this post, (take note assholes) because hem_day actually responded to my question. Even tho I disagree with them they tried. Jut want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that hem_day is doing what I ask all of you to do in every thread where you just start accusing me of being a troll.

I think the problem is that the anniversaries are spreading a tradition of struggle that's proven itself to be useless (that is, if these anniversaries are really accomplishing that task). Furthermore what I said earlier about these anniversaries being mostly a way to compare who is more revolutionary or leftist or cares more or whatever and one up one another.they just promote scene garbage. And they almost certainly do create an infallible hero mythology, out of some weird "respect for the dead" or whatever.I think the tradition is harmful, I think the weird celebrations are harmful, and I still see no reason why it should matter.

BIXX

20th November 2015, 21:28

Can we just shut the fuck up and appreciate this martyr for our cause?! Come on guys!

This is exactly the problem. We can't just "shut up and appreciate" something if it promotes a failed mode of resistance, and just sitting here appreciating it doesn't get shit done. In fact I think Joe hill might have had something to say about sitting here appreciating shit (based off the thread title): that's useless.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 21:34

This is exactly the problem. We can't just "shut up and appreciate" something if it promotes a failed mode of resistance, and just sitting here appreciating it doesn't get shit done. In fact I think Joe hill might have had something to say about sitting here appreciating shit (based off the thread title): that's useless.

What mode of resistance do you advocate?

BIXX

20th November 2015, 21:36

I don't.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 21:43

I don't.

Don't pretend you don't advocate anything. You advocate rejecting what you called a "failed mode of resistance" that you associate, I assume, with Joe Hill. You might claim your post didn't advocate that, but your denials would be purely semantic, as anybody who can read the thread is able to ascertain.

If you actually did refuse to advocate anything, a hypothetical which is belied by the content of your posts, it would be a subjectively apolitical position. That position is the functional equivalent of endorsing the political status quo and siding with capital.

BIXX

20th November 2015, 21:57

Don't pretend you don't advocate anything. You advocate rejecting what you called a "failed mode of resistance" that you associate, I assume, with Joe Hill. You might claim your post didn't advocate that, but your denials would be purely semantic, as anybody who can read the thread is able to ascertain.

If you actually did refuse to advocate anything, a hypothetical which is belied by the content of your posts, it would be a subjectively apolitical position. That position is the functional equivalent of endorsing the political status quo and siding with capital.

I thought you meant aside from realizing that leftist bullshit is bullshit.

I don't have a program, so no I don't advocate anything, but I spend a lot of time shitting on shit I know doesn't work.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 21:59

I thought you meant aside from realizing that leftist bullshit is bullshit.

I don't have a program, so no I don't advocate anything, but I spend a lot of time shitting on shit I know doesn't work.

You advocate not pursuing leftist strategies of attempting to overcome capitalism, while not advocating an alternative. You do realize this makes you a tacit supporter of the capitalist status quo, right?

Bala Perdida

20th November 2015, 22:08

Hey, I oppose the violence and alienation presently in civilization, too. I don't know a leftist who doesn't. I just don't confuse those problems with civilization itself, anymore than I would confuse a wart on somebody's hand with the essential being of the person, and claim that I am "anti-wart" as I murderously chase the man with an axe.It's hilarious that you fail to apply that analogy correctly. If the we had a problem with warts and decided that the problem was the man themselves, than we would be claiming to be "anti-man" and chase them with an axe. Violence and alienation are just two characteristics describing an entire body fault.

This has been brought to the attention of people who flirt with "anti-civ" positions. When asked to clarify what they believe anti-civ entails, and how it differs from left communism or platformism or any other tendency on the left, they have never given a clear or coherent response.
I'm not the greatest expert on theory, but if you want my take I can message you. You're probably not gonna buy it (lol) but I don't expect you to.

This leaves people with no choice but to assume they are using the word within the boundaries established by how the word civilization has been used up to now. That means if you want to eliminate civilization, and not just the alienation of civilization, you are wanting to turn the clock back 6,000 years at least.
"If you want to overthrow capitalism that means you want everyone to eat potatoes" That's you. That's what you sound like.

I don't think BIXX is worth all the attention, to be honest. There is an ignore function on the forum that I have found useful. I just don't think it's accurate to accuse people who are pointing out the absurdity of BIXX's presence on the forum of "bullying" him. If I disliked blueberries and muffins, and posted a couple of thousand times on a forum for blueberry muffin lovers, claiming that I have something in common with them because I too enjoy non-muffin confections of various kinds even as I continuously raise issues against blueberry muffins and those who love them, I would understand if people quickly tired of my presence. In fact, I would consider what I was doing to be an attempt at harassment and bullying, even if I convinced enough people that chocolate chip cookies can be thought of as variations on the muffin.

Well, you're rollin' with the trots. BIXX has their crew too. Puro Overthrow! All Power to the Communes lol

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 22:16

It's hilarious that you fail to apply that analogy correctly. If the we had a problem with warts and decided that the problem was the man themselves, than we would be claiming to be "anti-man" and chase them with an axe. Violence and alienation are just two characteristics describing an entire body fault.

I can tell you find it hilarious. Your posts do strike me as being made in good humour. Anyhow, no, I am not failing to render the analogy correctly. In the analogy and in what pass as "anti-civ theory," a conflation is made between an essential and an incidental characteristic. The essence of object bearing that characteristic comes in for attack, when the problem is really just a remediable incidental feature.

I'm not the greatest expert on theory, but if you want my take I can message you. You're probably not gonna buy it (lol) but I don't expect you to.Is there a reason you want to shunt the conversation off to behind closed doors?

"If you want to overthrow capitalism that means you want everyone to eat potatoes" That's you. That's what you sound like.No, I don't think pointing out the failure of anti-civ folks to provide a coherent definition of the thing that they oppose ("civilization"), to differentiate their understanding of the term from the one that is commonly accepted, sounds anything like what you said.

Well, you're rollin' with the trots. BIXX has their crew too. Puro Overthrow! All Power to the Communes lolBut only one of us is a revolutionary leftist on a forum for revolutionary leftists to discuss issues. Pointing this out is not bullying.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 22:55

The issue people are raising with BIXX is not just that he repeats himself. If you think that, you aren't reading the thread carefully enough to be in a position to call what participants here are doing "bullying."

I realise that people also think he is a primitivist and like yourself, wants to return the world to how it was 6,000 years ago (or whatever other rubbish people are saying). In the part of my post that you quoted, however, I was responding directly to this criticism that he is repetitive, as if it were somehow unique to BIXX.

The moment revolutionaries take their convictions for granted is the day they stop being revolutionaries. Of course it is "healthy" to raise doubts about accepted truths. What appears to be going over your head is that people (not I, it should be noted) have taken issue with how this forum is designed to permit the raising of doubts only within the context of people who share or are genuinely considering adopting a revolutionary leftist perspective. If that is not the rationale behind the forum, and we just allow doubts to be raised from any perspective, then why are there bans and restrictions?

There is a difference between the revolutionary left and revolutionary leftists. The board is called RevolutionaryLeft.com not RevolutionaryLeftists.com. For you, this distinction may seem irrelevant, but leftism is a very specific aspect of the left and does not encompass the broadness of the revolutionary left, which includes a wide range of political theories and tendencies.

The rationale behind this forum is to promote debate within the revolutionary left. As far as I can see, that does not preclude BIXX.

I haven't said that anybody should be restricted. I am defending those who have said that from charges, made by you, that they are bullying somebody. I would appreciate it if you didn't insinuate that I am angling for administrative actions when I haven't.

This innocent routine of yours is getting a bit old. You seem to think that meaning only exists if you literally spell something out, which I'm afraid isn't true. You didn't say specifically that you wanted any one to be restricted and I don't think you're angling for anything, but when you say, " Well, all of them except BIXX are restricted to the OI section," what meaning do you expect to be inferred from that?

You are correct that self-identification is not the basis for determining who is a leftist or who isn't. Certainly subjective anti-capitalism is not the same as leftism, though, so if that is the sole criterion for you to call somebody a leftist, then I think your definition is in dire need of reconsideration. A monarchist who desires to recreate a feudal structure is anti-capitalist, certainly not a leftist...

Your understanding of leftism and my understanding of leftism are two very different things. You seem to use the term "leftism" to mean a broad tendency of the left, whereas I understand leftism to mean a very specific aspect of the left. If someone described me as a leftist I would be insulted. The issue here isn't whether BIXX is a leftist or not, because he very clearly isn't, but whether his views fit within the left. I say they do. If you do not, then you are welcome to demonstrate that, as I believe you are already attempting to do in this thread.

...And neither, in my view, is a person who wants to dismantle the progress introduced by civilization so as to allow nature to impose hierarchies that humans are currently imposing.

Who are you referring to when you say this?

I have engaged BIXX and others who are sympathetic with him before. The last time I engaged you just a few days ago, you unceremoniously cut the conversation off, accusing me of "dick swinging" or something like that. I don't think this places you in a good position to posture as a victim of people who refuse to engage you or take you seriously.

I don't think I'm a victim. At the end of the day I couldn't care less what you think about me or my views. I stopped participating in that discussion with you because as far as I was concerned it was becoming more about you wanting to be right and less about actually interrogating the ideas. You're not interested in me or my opinions. You're not interested in actual, honest debate with me. You're interested in being right and about upholding your dogmatic standards. That's not interesting to me and I have no intention of spending time on it.

If you have engaged BIXX, then great. Others in this thread could learn something from you

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2015, 22:56

Can we just shut the fuck up and appreciate this martyr for our cause?! Come on guys!

But why? That's the question being asked.

BIXX

20th November 2015, 23:17

You advocate not pursuing leftist strategies of attempting to overcome capitalism, while not advocating an alternative. You do realize this makes you a tacit supporter of the capitalist status quo, right?

Actually it doesn't, I just want to see what other, emergent possibilities there are, so I don't advocate for what others should do but rather would like to see what they will do. I don't desire to control people- you do.

Ele'ill

20th November 2015, 23:25

You made up entirely I called that person a primitivist. I said they wanted to turn the clock back to a period before civilization. Civilization developed (at the latest) 6,000 years ago. I believe that makes my statement accurate.

As it has been said already in a reply, it is basically saying the same thing. I also don't understand where you got the idea that challenging various facets of civ, to destroy it, means we're gonna be 6,000 years behind. Unless you believe that lizard aliens in pyramid space ships gave us everything we ever had which I don't think you do. I think most of these discussions seem to revolve around a weird notion that anti-civ = destroy cities etc.. when it often has very little to do with physical things.

Opposing civilization does. Unless the word is being redefined to mean something it has never meant before, a meaning that has no historical or political basis, we are talking about a scenario similar to Robinson Crusoe's fictional world.

Maybe the hard to swallow truth here is you simply haven't engaged with these ideas in previous readings. They're not really new ideas at all and I'm having a difficult time believing that you and several other users both have never ever come across anti civ positions before, and don't understand what civilization means, or what anti-civ is supposed to mean. In the last thread on the subject it was practically a sing-a-long where someone, it may have been you, repeatedly asked what the definition was ever single time the description of it was posted. They were worded differently each time and I think they were adequate.

Also, I don't think revolution today would unfold as it did hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean I would say I am not a revolutionary leftist.

Okay that's fine but some people want to distance themselves from leftist bullshit for the specific reasons repeatedly posted by such people. Got another 'leftist bullshit' in this thread i think we're at like 12 now.

Why do you think they are the problem?

I dont' want to derail the thread too far although tbh I think Joe Hill would def. be on our side of this little debate but ritualized behavior and traditions strike me as being heavily rooted in identity, of something that has never actually existed outside of the scenes participating in said activities. And also because the rituals and traditions don't work.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 23:28

I realise that people also think he is a primitivist and like yourself, wants to return the world to how it was 6,000 years ago (or whatever other rubbish people are saying). In the part of my post that you quoted, however, I was responding directly to this criticism that he is repetitive, as if it were somehow unique to BIXX.

Civilization, as everybody I have ever seen describe it, developed 6,000 years ago at the latest. If somebody comes along and tells me they want to eliminate it, that will obviously appear to be an attempt to turn the clock back 6,000 years. If I ask for clarification, and don't receive any, I have no other choice but to remain with the default conclusion.

I agree with you, though, repetitiveness is not necessarily a flaw. Sometimes it can be a virtue.

There is a difference between the revolutionary left and revolutionary leftists. The board is called RevolutionaryLeft.com not RevolutionaryLeftists.com. For you, this distinction may seem irrelevant, but leftism is a very specific aspect of the left and does not encompass the broadness of the revolutionary left, which includes a wide range of political theories and tendencies.This distinction might be relevant for me, depending on how you explain what you think its relevance is. Do you intend to suggest that this forum is for just anybody to discuss revolutionary leftism? Fascists, too? The whole system of restricting people who are liberals, and banning people who are fascists, seems to suggest otherwise. Do you have an alternative explanation for why these mechanisms exist, besides the fact that this forum is for revolutionary leftists "of a wide range" to come together, rather than for just anybody to discuss revolutionary leftism and the ideas loosely linked to it?

The rationale behind this forum is to promote debate within the revolutionary left. As far as I can see, that does not preclude BIXX.Within it? As in, within the group of people who identify with the revolutionary left?

This innocent routine of yours is getting a bit old. You seem to think that meaning only exists if you literally spell something out, which I'm afraid isn't true. You didn't say specifically that you wanted any one to be restricted and I don't think you're angling for anything, but when you say, " Well, all of them except BIXX are restricted to the OI section," what meaning do you expect to be inferred from that?When I say that people who aren't leftists are uniformly restricted, and that BIXX is an exception, you should interpret that as me making an observation rather than advocating for any particular outcome. What is getting old is your habit of interpreting what people say in the most menacing possible light. It's just bad social skills.

Your understanding of leftism and my understanding of leftism are two very different things. You seem to use the term "leftism" to mean a broad tendency of the left, whereas I understand leftism to mean a very specific aspect of the left. If someone described me as a leftist I would be insulted. The issue here isn't whether BIXX is a leftist or not, because he very clearly isn't, but whether his views fit within the left. I say they do. If you do not, then you are welcome to demonstrate that, as I believe you are already attempting to do in this thread.I'm sure it will be a fun exercise in deconstruction to hear your definition of what "leftism" is, so allow me to ask: when you say this forum is for people who identify with leftism, what do you mean by "leftism"?

Who are you referring to when you say this?It means I see no evidence that people who claim to want to wipe away civilization are leftists. I don't think what I wrote was particularly obscure or difficult to decipher.

I don't think I'm a victim. At the end of the day I couldn't care less what you think about me or my views. I stopped participating in that discussion with you because as far as I was concerned it was becoming more about you wanting to be right and less about actually interrogating the ideas. You're not interested in me or my opinions. You're not interested in actual, honest debate with me. You're interested in being right and about upholding your dogmatic standards. That's not interesting to me and I have no intention of spending time on it.

If you have engaged BIXX, then great. Others in this thread could learn something from youYou are entitled to your opinion about me and my views. You're not entitled to attribute to me hidden interests that you think I am keeping hidden, at least not without being called out on it. Look, I have no horse in this race. You were apparently "appointed" moderator, so you must be doing something right socially, but I don't think your approach to discussion is an effective way to persuade people. Nor do I think it's in keeping with the level of behavior we all expect of the forum's leaders.

Spectre of Spartacism

20th November 2015, 23:49

As it has been said already in a reply, it is basically saying the same thing. I also don't understand where you got the idea that challenging various facets of civ, to destroy it, means we're gonna be 6,000 years behind. Unless you believe that lizard aliens in pyramid space ships gave us everything we ever had which I don't think you do. I think most of these discussions seem to revolve around a weird notion that anti-civ = destroy cities etc.. when it often has very little to do with physical things.

The problem comes when you don't clarify at all what you mean by civilization (the thing you want to destroy) or which aspects of it you oppose. As I just told TFU, if you don't clarify in a clear and coherent way, what do you expect people who are discussing with you to do? They'll stick with the definition everybody uses, and interpret anti-civ in that framework. It's not unreasonable, I don't think.

Maybe the hard to swallow truth here is you simply haven't engaged with these ideas in previous readings. They're not really new ideas at all and I'm having a difficult time believing that you and several other users both have never ever come across anti civ positions before, and don't understand what civilization means, or what anti-civ is supposed to mean. In the last thread on the subject it was practically a sing-a-long where someone, it may have been you, repeatedly asked what the definition was ever single time the description of it was posted. They were worded differently each time and I think they were adequate.

I don't pretend to have read everything. I ask a lot of questions. For some reason, this causes a lot of consternation, with some posters thinking that I have sinister intentions when I am just, well, asking questions. I am certainly not authority on "anti-civ" thought. That's why I have asked numerous times what anti-civ people's definition of "civilization" is. The difficulty arises when I don't get a serious answer, and then when I'm blamed and treated as stupid because I don't understand what the theory is.

In a thread from months ago, I asked you what civilization is and your response was "the lineage of a specific way of living that is not entirely or at all been broken from with critical left theory." Well, this is unclear, and it's not difficult to determine how. What is the nature of this "specific way"? What does it look like historically? I tried to probe you on this, and never got any help at all. Color me stupid, I guess, if other people consider this a clear and helpful definition. I don't.

Okay that's fine but some people want to distance themselves from leftist bullshit for the specific reasons repeatedly posted by such people. Got another 'leftist bullshit' in this thread i think we're at like 12 now.

If I wanted to distance myself from leftish bullshit, I wouldn't frequent a forum called revleft. If I wanted to distance myself from catholicism, I wouldn't go to a forum called catholictalk.com.

I dont' want to derail the thread too far although tbh I think Joe Hill would def. be on our side of this little debate but ritualized behavior and traditions strike me as being heavily rooted in identity, of something that has never actually existed outside of the scenes participating in said activities. And also because the rituals and traditions don't work.

Why do you think Joe Hill would side with those who, from what I can tell, have a predisposition to opposing tradition just because it is tradition?

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 00:09

Civilization, as everybody I have ever seen describe it, developed 6,000 years ago at the latest. If somebody comes along and tells me they want to eliminate it, that will obviously appear to be an attempt to turn the clock back 6,000 years. If I ask for clarification, and don't receive any, I have no other choice but to remain with the default conclusion.

I agree with you, though, repetitiveness is not necessarily a flaw. Sometimes it can be a virtue.

BIXX et al have clarified their point-of-view countless times.

This distinction might be relevant for me, depending on how you explain what you think its relevance is. Do you intend to suggest that this forum is for just anybody to discuss revolutionary leftism? Fascists, too? The whole system of restricting people who are liberals, and banning people who are fascists, seems to suggest otherwise. Do you have an alternative explanation for why these mechanisms exist, besides the fact that this forum is for revolutionary leftists "of a wide range" to come together, rather than for just anybody to discuss revolutionary leftism and the ideas loosely linked to it?

No, I am not suggesting that this forum is for anyone who wants to discuss revolutionary leftism. What I'm saying is that the term "leftism" means something different to the two of us. When you say this is a board for "revolutionary leftists" what that means to me is that this forum is exclusive to a very specific part of the left.

In 2003 when I joined the board it was full of all manner of lunatic -- mostly homophobes. Over time the board became more structured as the purpose of the board and what it was intended to be was focused. Back then it was called Che-Lives.com, but as the board and politics developed and matured, the board changed its name to RevolutionaryLeft.com. When the guidelines were written (pretty much by me) the term "leftist" meant very much how you are using it. This term, however, no longer really applies to the board, as its meaning has developed into something beyond just being a catch-all for the entire revolutionary left. Leftism is a specific part of the left that not everyone on the revolutionary left would associate themselves with. The membership has changed, the board has changed, its members' politics have changed. Unfortunately there's no longer a mechanism to allow the board to reflect those changes, but I don't think the board of a decade ago is the board now.

Within it? As in, within the group of people who identify with the revolutionary left?

Well, what is the revolutionary left? I don't think it comes down to identifying. I think it comes down to where your politics lies on the political spectrum. Perhaps it's too prescriptive and I'm not sure BIXX would necessarily associate himself with the term "revolutionary left," but I think any idea that challenges bourgeois society from a class position in an effort for a fundamental transformation of society can broadly be defined as revolutionary left. I think the board should be a space for all those people, from Stalin to Camatte, Bakunin to Trotsky, Tiqqun to the Fourth International, Pannekoek to Dauvé, Théorie Communiste to Hoxhaism. There is room here for everyone.

But that does not mean we should allow social democrats to post across the board, or allow Strasserists to post here at all. They clearly do not fall into the spectrum of the revolutionary left and we should always have a no platform policy for left-fascists.

When I say that people who aren't leftists are uniformly restricted, and that BIXX is an exception, you should interpret that as me making an observation rather than advocating for any particular outcome.

You want me to believe that in a thread in which you criticise BIXX for not being a leftist, point out that non-leftists are restricted, yet BIXX is an exception, that you are not, at least, tacitly implying that BIXX should be restricted?

In any case, he isn't an exception. I am not a leftist. Nor is Ele'ill and I would wager that Bala Perdida isn't either.

What is getting old is your habit of interpreting what people say in the most menacing possible light. It's just bad social skills.

You've given me absolutely no reason to think any differently of you. Telling me that I have bad social skills is a perfect example.

I'm sure it will be a fun exercise in deconstruction to hear your definition of what "leftism" is, so allow me to ask: when you say this forum is for people who identify with leftism, what do you mean by "leftism"?

This is a place for people who are leftists and people who are not leftists.

Leftism refers to that section of the left that is concerned with programme, party building, parliamentarianism and/or the struggles for reform. It might be useful to think of it as the right of the revolutionary left.

It means I see no evidence that people who claim to want to wipe away civilization are leftists. I don't think what I wrote was particularly obscure or difficult to decipher.

Right, but who are these people? Surely you're talking about someone specific, otherwise saying it is just a bit weird.

You are entitled to your opinion about me and my views. You're not entitled to attribute to me hidden interests that you think I am keeping hidden, at least not without being called out on it. Look, I have no horse in this race. You were apparently "appointed" moderator, so you must be doing something right socially, but I don't think your approach to discussion is a great way of influencing people.

I don't think your interests are hidden. I think they are blatantly obvious. I mean, the fact you think my purpose here is to "influence" people sort of gives you away. I don't want to change anyone's mind. I want to interrogate ideas and be challenged because it helps me develop my politics. Sometimes this is possible, mostly it is not.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 00:37

For some reason the forum setup is preventing me from quoting, but I will say that trying to explain something is different than explaining it. I quoted a post ago where Ele'ill tried to explain something, but where I think he failed miserably. Maybe the problem is me. Sometimes I have been slow to pick things up in life. Who knows? All I can say is that, whatever their intentions, their definition of this thing called "civilization" that they oppose has not been clarified to me at all. I still, to this day, have no idea what they mean when they say they "oppose civilization" except for opposing what the rest of us understand as civilization.

On the topic of definitions, you say that leftism is different than left. Okay, I can envision how that might possibly be the case. Do you care to elaborate? I would genuinely like to hear what you think the difference is. What does it mean for a person to be a part of the left, but not a leftist? Where is a line drawn between the two? Do you think, as you seem to suggest, that people who are a part of the non-leftist left don't have a program?

Regarding your questioning of my motives I have little to say. Apart from noting that my intentions about who should or shouldn't be posting here are entirely irrelevant (as I am not a forum leader), I would just point out that I haven't deeply considered the issue of whether the forum's attitude regarding who is or isn't able to to post here is a good or a bad thing. It's a complicated issue. If you think it's a sinister and underhanded act to point out that non-leftists are almost entirely restricted, and that Bixx doesn't appear to me to be a leftist (and by his own admission isn't one), then so be it. Run wild with your fantasies.

On the issue of influencing people, why is that necessarily a bad thing? As seems to be the default mode with you, every thing possible seems to be interpreted in the worst possible way.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 00:46

All I can say is that, whatever their intentions, their definition of this thing called "civilization" that they oppose has not been clarified to me at all. I still, to this day, have no idea what they mean when they say they "oppose civilization" except for opposing what the rest of us understand as civilization.

Well what is civilisation to you? I get the impression it means "progress"(?)

On the topic of definitions, you say that leftism is different than left. Okay, I can envision how that might possibly be the case. Do you care to elaborate? I would genuinely like to hear what you think the difference is. What does it mean for a person to be a part of the left, but not a leftist? Where is a line drawn between the two?

Baffling.

If leftism refers to that section of the left concerned with programme, party building, parliamentarianism and/or the struggles for reform, then there remains the rest of the left who are not concerned with that.

Regarding your questioning of my motives I have little to say. Apart from noting that my intentions about who should or shouldn't be posting here are entirely irrelevant (as I am not a forum leader), I would just point out that I haven't deeply considered the issue of whether the forum's attitude regarding who is or isn't able to to post here is a good or a bad thing. It's a complicated issue. If you think it's a sinister and underhanded act to point out that non-leftists are almost entirely restricted, and that Bixx doesn't appear to me to be a leftist (and by his own admission isn't one), then so be it. Run wild with your fantasies.

I don't think it's sinister, I just don't buy into this idea that you didn't mean to imply that BIXX should be restricted.

He is not a leftist. Neither am I.

On the issue of influencing people, why is that necessarily a bad thing? As seems to be the default mode with you, every thing possible seems to be interpreted in the worst possible way.

It's not necessarily bad in itself...When Trotskyists see it as an objective, however, then it becomes necessarily bad. The idea of Trotskyists influencing people is the stuff of nightmares.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 00:58

Well what is civilisation to you? I get the impression it means "progress"(?)

Have you read the discussions I have had with Bixx and Ell'Ill? If you did, you'd see pretty clearly that I think that civilization represented progress overall, but that it carried with it some downsides as well. If you want to believe civilization was entirely negative, I pose to you the question I asked in my earlier discussion of the issue: why would humans undertake the project of civilization? Forced by a divine entity, maybe? They did it because, in view of the choices open to them, it was the least worst and was somewhat rational.

On the issue of definitions, I generally prefer Colin Renfrew's take. To me civilization is not a "stage" but rather a process by which humankind seeks to control its environment in order to better satisfy its needs. This would encompass tools and technology, as well as advances in the division of labor that accompany the development of those tools. There are other archaeologists and anthropologists who are more specific with their definition, elaborating criteria like a written language, etc. I don't have any problems with their definitions per se, but I think the essence here is that civilization is a condition that is reproduced in humanity's struggle inside of a nature that was not consciously designed with humans in mind.

Baffling.

If leftism refers to that section of the left concerned with programme, party building, parliamentarianism and/or the struggles for reform, then there remains the rest of the left...

I contest the premise that there is a section of a political left that doesn't have a program. If you're political, you have a program, whether you enunciate it or not. If youre not avowedly political, and try to refrain from getting your hands dirty, you're just going along with the status quo program. It's not like you are free from ties to any political program regardless. To think otherwise is to try to carve out for yourself, in an essentially liberal and patriarchal fashion, a neutral zone free from class, gender, and racial commitments where you hope to make political judgments. Think the "initial position" of John Rawls, the great latter-day liberal philospher-saint.

I don't think its sinister, I just don't buy into this idea that you didn't mean to imply that BIXX should be restricted.

He is not a leftist. Neither am I.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion. Everybody else is entitled to theirs, too.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 01:23

Have you read the discussions I have had with Bixx and Ell'Ill? If you did, you'd see pretty clearly that I think that civilization represented progress overall, but that it carried with it some downsides as well. If you want to believe civilization was entirely negative, I pose to you the question I asked in my earlier discussion of the issue: why would humans undertake the project of civilization? Forced by a divine entity, maybe? They did it because, in view of the choices open to them, it was the least worst and was somewhat rational.

On the issue of definitions, I generally prefer Colin Renfrew's take. To me civilization is not a "stage" but rather a process by which humankind seeks to control its environment in order to better satisfy its needs. This would encompass tools and technology, as well as advances in the division of labor that accompany the development of those tools. There are other archaeologists and anthropologists who are more specific with their definition, elaborating criteria like a written language, etc. I don't have any problems with their definitions per se, but I think the essence here is that civilization is a condition that is reproduced in humanity's struggle inside of a nature that was not consciously designed with humans in mind.

So for you, civilisation is nothing but the sum of the way humans have produced their existences? You don't think that humans could develop the products of their existence without that being civilisation?

I contest the premise that there is a section of a political left that doesn't have a program. If you're political, you have a program, whether you enunciate it or not. If youre not avowedly political, and try to refrain from getting your hands dirty, you're just going along with the status quo program. It's not like you are free from ties to any political program regardless. To think otherwise is to try to carve out for yourself, in an essentially liberal and patriarchal fashion, a neutral zone free from class, gender, and racial commitments where you hope to make political judgments. Think the "initial position" of John Rawls, the great latter-day liberal philospher-saint.

Even if what you're saying is true, which I'm not convinced of, it doesn't somehow mitigate the way that leftists prescribe their strategic objectives and how they intend to arrive at them. Leftists use the "programme" as a very specific piece of political organising and it is that which I am referring to.

But anyhow, this is beside the point. The point is that there are leftists and there are non-leftists, all of whom reside within the left.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 01:30

So for you, civilisation is nothing but the sum of the way humans have produced their existences? You don't think that humans could develop the products of their existence without that being civilisation?

I think you may have misinterpreted my definition. When I say that civilization is a process by which humans have resisted the domination of nature, I am referring to the way in which this struggle becomes manifest in the material culture of a society. Among these are, as I said, cities, new tools, a written language. So it's not like I am saying that civilization has always exited.

Even if what you're saying is true, which I'm not convinced of, it doesn't somehow mitigate the way that leftists prescribe their strategic objectives and how they intend to arrive at them. Leftists use the "programme" as a very specific piece of political organising and it is that which I am referring to.Yet both are part of the "left," according to you? On what basis do you group them together? What makes them a part of this "left," even if they both have different strategic objectives and organizing principles?

BIXX

21st November 2015, 03:36

I think you may have misinterpreted my definition. When I say that civilization is a process by which humans have resisted the domination of nature, I am referring to the way in which this struggle becomes manifest in the material culture of a society. Among these are, as I said, cities, new tools, a written language. So it's not like I am saying that civilization has always exited.

The way humans have done that ("resisted the domination of nature", which I really don't think is what civ is, but rather, aiming for domination of everything) cannot be separated from domination of other people, "nature", etc...

The history of civ begins with slavery, and that slavery hasn't ceased to this day. It is that which defines civ. There has been no other part of civilization that has remained constant except for the invention and reinvention of slavery. That is on the basis that I oppose civ, for its continued domination of my existence and the existence of those I hold dear.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 03:41

The way humans have done that ("resisted the domination of nature", which I really don't think is what civ is, but rather, aiming for domination of everything) cannot be separated from domination of other people, "nature", etc...

The history of civ begins with slavery, and that slavery hasn't ceased to this day. It is that which defines civ. There has been no other part of civilization that has remained constant except for the invention and reinvention of slavery. That is on the basis that I oppose civ, for its continued domination of my existence and the existence of those I hold dear.

What is your definition of civilization?

A Revolutionary Tool

21st November 2015, 04:14

The problem is that BIXX doesn't actually provide criticism of Joe Hill and say why we shouldn't be remembering him but instead wanders into yet another thread just to say he doesn't care.

Some of us do care though because Joe Hill might have had an impact on us and our thinking and maybe we need a little more from BIXX then he doesn't care before we just abandon the memory of Joe Hill and throw him in the trash bin. I mean really, an objection to a thread about Joe Hill in the history section of a revolutionary leftist forum on the 100th anniversary of his execution, are you fucking kidding me?! This is not trolling? Not only that but an objection without any real criticism?

Why doesn't BIXX like Joe Hill, why shouldn't we bring Joe Hill up? Because Joe Hill didn't destroy capitalism, because billions of workers along with him still have to work. I don't remember Joe Hill because he defeated capitalism, I remember him because he's that spirit of resistance to capitalism that makes people want to stand up to it even it means having to face execution. There is Power in a Union was one of the first songs I learned how to play on my guitar because the chord progression is easy to learn and it's a great song. To say these things don't matter means to ditch the history of these movements and how they have changed my perspective on the world.

But who cares about the U.S. labor movement and things you may learn from it! I should just abandon everything I've ever thought because BIXX doesn't care and that must mean I have no reason to.

motion denied

21st November 2015, 05:57

some of you are just 2 cool huh

BIXX

21st November 2015, 05:59

It's not Joe Hill specifically that I don't like, its the left in general. And in regards to the objection I have to the pointless celebrations I think Joe Hill would be on my side.

To the trot:

Civ is the totality of that domination, everything that is tied up in that domination.

Civ is the domination.

Civ is the active coercion of beings into prespecified modes of existence.

Those are just a few examples of definitions of civ but historically it doesn't matter you'll just say "wah that doesn't make sense". Stop pretending to be stupid. Or maybe just stop being stupid if you can.

Lord Testicles

21st November 2015, 11:59

It's not Joe Hill specifically that I don't like, its the left in general.

Then what are you doing on a leftist forum?

To the trot:

Civ is the totality of that domination, everything that is tied up in that domination.

Civ is the domination.

Civ is the active coercion of beings into prespecified modes of existence. Those are just a few examples of definitions of civ but historically it doesn't matter you'll just say "wah that doesn't make sense". Stop pretending to be stupid. Or maybe just stop being stupid if you can.

Or... you know, articulate yourself. If your definition of civilization is "Civilization is the domination" then I think people are more than entitled to say "that doesn't make sense" and expect you to explain further. But really, if you want to talk about anti-civ politics then you should start a thread, since I don't have the faintest fucking clue what Joe Hill has to do with civilization apart from the fact that he was born into it like every other poor fuck.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 13:14

Then what are you doing on a leftist forum?

Liking the left isn't a precondition of being a member. Why would anyone like the left? It's mostly a pile of shit.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 13:28

I think you may have misinterpreted my definition. When I say that civilization is a process by which humans have resisted the domination of nature, I am referring to the way in which this struggle becomes manifest in the material culture of a society. Among these are, as I said, cities, new tools, a written language. So it's not like I am saying that civilization has always exited.

Right, okay, let me try again: do you think the "domination of nature" could happen outside of the emergence of civilisation? Is civilisation a distinct process or is it an inevitable, consuming process?

Yet both are part of the "left," according to you? On what basis do you group them together? What makes them a part of this "left," even if they both have different strategic objectives and organizing principles?

I've answered this question already.

I said, "I think any idea that challenges bourgeois society from a class position in an effort for a fundamental transformation of society can broadly be defined as revolutionary left. I think the board should be a space for all those people, from Stalin to Camatte, Bakunin to Trotsky, Tiqqun to the Fourth International, Pannekoek to Dauvé, Théorie Communiste to Hoxhaism."

#FF0000

21st November 2015, 13:36

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 14:47

I said, "I think any idea that challenges bourgeois society from a class position in an effort for a fundamental transformation of society can broadly be defined as revolutionary left. I think the board should be a space for all those people, from Stalin to Camatte, Bakunin to Trotsky, Tiqqun to the Fourth International, Pannekoek to Dauvé, Théorie Communiste to Hoxhaism."

Okay, fair enough, though according to your definition, libertarians (or worse) who want to transform society in fundamental ways from the perspective of the petty bourgeoisie would also qualify as "revolutionary left." Be that as it may, would you mind explaining to me how opposing civilization as "the domination" is a challenge to bourgeois society from a class position? The last I checked this "domination" called civilization encompasses people of all classes. All of us live in civilization, and without singling out specific aspects of it (like singling out the wart on a hand of a person) that benefits one class over others, it cannot be a "revolutionary left" position even according to your own flawed definition.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 14:55

Actually it doesn't, I just want to see what other, emergent possibilities there are, so I don't advocate for what others should do but rather would like to see what they will do.

You can claim what you're doing doesn't tacitly support capitalism because you don't intend for it to, but what you intend and what you actually are doing can be two different things. If you opt not to challenge capitalism out of fear of "controlling people" and shit on people who are trying to challenge capitalism from an egalitarian perspective, you're supporting capitalism regardless of what you think you're doing in your nifty little head.

I don't desire to control people- you do.Do you have evidence to back this claim up that I desire to control people?

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 15:02

Okay, fair enough, though according to your definition, libertarians (or worse) who want to transform society in fundamental ways from the perspective of the petty bourgeoisie would also qualify as "revolutionary left."

I didn't say transform society in fundamental ways, I said a fundamental transformation of society.

But sure, the words 'anti-capitalist' should probably be more prominent in my definition.

Be that as it may, would you mind explaining to me how opposing civilization as "the domination" is a challenge to bourgeois society from a class position? The last I checked this "domination" called civilization encompasses people of all classes. All of us live in civilization, and without singling out specific aspects of it (like singling out the wart on a hand of a person) that benefits one class over others, it cannot be a "revolutionary left" position even according to your own flawed definition.

Would you mind answering my questions?

You could try reading this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

Do you have evidence to back this claim up that I desire to control people?

Yes, it's called Trotskyism.

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 15:07

I didn't say transform society in fundamental ways, I said a fundamental transformation of society.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you suggesting that "transform society in fundamental ways" has a different substantive meaning than "fundamental transformation of society"?

But sure, the words 'anti-capitalist' should probably be more prominent in my definition.Which still wouldn't close the door on the groups I mentioned earlier: monarchists who are anti-capitalist from the class perspective of feudal lords, etc. Would you consider a monarchist to be a part of the revolutionary left?

Would you mind answering my questions?

You could try reading this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm Is there a specific passage in that text that you'd like to point out that you think demonstrates that opposing civilization is rooted in an anti-capitalist class perspective? I asked you, not Camatte, a question.

Yes, it's called Trotskyism.This just rephrases the claim I was asking proof for. Where is your evidence that "Trotskyism" wants to control people? (Not that I would expect somebody who accepted an appointment as a moderator to control content producers on the forum would be averse to the notion of "controlling people.")

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 15:22

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you suggesting that "transform society in fundamental ways" has a different substantive meaning than "fundamental transformation of society"?

That is exactly what I am saying. The first implies that existing society should have fundamentals of it transformed (which fundamentals I'm not sure). The latter implies a complete negation of existing society.

Although I'm coming to realise that parsing words is probably going to be a common theme with you.

Which still wouldn't close the door on the groups I mentioned earlier: monarchists who are anti-capitalist from the class perspective of feudal lords, etc. Would you consider a monarchist to be a part of the revolutionary left?

Once again you display your complete and utter contempt for discussion. If you continue to ask such ridiculous, trollish questions, you will find that I am going to stop talking to you again.

Of course I don't fucking think a monarchist is part of the revolutionary left. If my definition is inadequate, then perhaps look at the parameters I laid out to get a better understanding of the things I am talking about (i.e. Stalin to Camatte). Perhaps you could work with me to better define what I mean -- to pull out the central principles that unite all of these things. Unless of course you just want to deny that anything outside of "leftism" is actually part of the left. In which case fine, but at least be honest about it.

Is there a specific passage in that text that you'd like to point out that you think demonstrates that opposing civilization is rooted in an anti-capitalist class perspective? I asked you, not Camatte, a question.

Camatte explains far better than I could. Especially when you are already having such difficulty understanding me. My suggestion would be to read it and then if you have further questions, we can discuss it. In fact, I think I started a thread on it somewhere. I'm not entirely sure you're that serious though -- perhaps that's just down to my bad social skills, but something tells me interrogating ideas in order to learn and develop isn't really high on your agenda.

This just rephrases the claim I was asking proof for. Where is your evidence that "Trotskyism" wants to control people? (Not that I would expect somebody who accepted an appointment as a moderator to control content producers on the forum would be averse to the notion of "controlling people.")

It is inherent within the ideology.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 15:34

This might also help http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dave-antagonism-jacques-camatte-and-the-new-politics-of-liberation

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 15:41

That is exactly what I am saying. The first implies that existing society should have fundamentals of it transformed (which fundamentals I'm not sure). The latter implies a complete negation of existing society.

Although I'm coming to realise that parsing words is probably going to be a common theme with you.

Before you accuse people of overzealously parsing words, let's remember that this tangent began when you insisted that "transforming society in fundamental ways" was a lot different than "fundamental transformation of society." I don't mind criticism, I only ask that it be coherent and fair.

Without specifying what should be negated in existing society, it's impossible to know the political content of what this transformation entails. Wiping out all human life would certainly be a total negation of society, but I fail to see how that can be reconciled with a class-based perspective or even a vaguely progressive one.

Once again you display your complete and utter contempt for discussion. If you continue to ask such ridiculous, trollish questions, you will find that I am going to stop talking to you again.

Of course I don't fucking think a monarchist is part of the revolutionary left. If my definition is inadequate, then perhaps look at the parameters I laid out to get a better understanding of the things I am talking about (i.e. Stalin to Camatte). Perhaps you could work with me to better define what I mean -- to pull out the central principles that unite all of these things. Unless of course you just want to deny that anything outside of "leftism" is actually part of the left. In which case fine, but at least be honest about it.Look, if you defend BIXX and accuse others of bullying him on the basis of a definition of "revolutionary left" you've invented, don't be surprised when people challenge your definition and point out how it is so capacious that it lets in a variety of questionable political positions. There's nothing trollish about it.

My understanding of leftism is that, at a minimum, it would have to entail a desire to (1) radically reorder society (2) to make it egalitarian (3) in accordance with maximizing everybody's ability to flourish as individuals by reducing as much as possible their subservience to nature's dictates.

People who pursue this goal are "leftists," and the ideas and practices they espouse are "left" ideas. I think the distinction you are making between strategic programs and the like is an important one, but not one that divides leftists from non-leftists within a broader "left." You're the first person I've seen make this distinction, or the distinction between a leftist and "left ideas." As far as I can tell, it seems an arbitrary division designed to force a conclusion you desire for other reasons.

Camatte explains far better than I could. Especially when you are already having such difficulty understanding me. My suggestion would be to read it and then if you have further questions, we can discuss it. In fact, I think I started a thread on it somewhere. I'm not entirely sure you're that serious though -- perhaps that's just down to my bad social skills, but something tells me interrogating ideas in order to learn and develop isn't really high on your agenda.I've skimmed the piece. In keeping with a poststructuralist twist on Camatte's earlier commitments to Shachtmanism, it argues that the proletariat is a "myth" that is still trapped inside the discursive universe of capitalism and is therefore bound to reproduce capitalist relations. It doesn't argue from the perspective of any class, and calls for "humanity" to destroy capitalism. It raises the same question I earlier posed of you, to which you responded by pasting the Camatte link: how does this view of "humanity" resisting capitalism have a class perspective? Is capitalism being opposed from the perspective of the bourgeoisie? The proletariat? Some other class? In my view, the work shades into a rhetorically overwrought and overintellectualized, eco-fetishizing populism. At this point in Camatte's career, I would definitely not describe him as a "leftist" or his ideas as "left."

It is inherent within the ideology.How so? As a Trotskyist, I'd genuinely like to know.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2015, 16:17

Before you accuse people of overzealously parsing words, let's remember that this tangent began when you insisted that "transforming society in fundamental ways" was a lot different than "fundamental transformation of society." I don't mind criticism, I only ask that it be coherent and fair.

The sentences mean completely different things. I genuinely don't understand how you are not able to see that.

Without specifying what should be negated in existing society, it's impossible to know the political content of what this transformation entails. Wiping out all human life would certainly be a total negation of society, but I fail to see how that can be reconciled with a class-based perspective or even a vaguely progressive one.

Well, I gave capitalism and bourgeois society as two things. When I said from a class position, I assumed it would be clear that I didn't mean from those who are petite-bourgeoisie or the ruling class.

Look, if you defend BIXX and accuse others of bullying him on the basis of a definition of "revolutionary left" you've invented, don't be surprised when people challenge your definition and point out how it is so capacious that it lets in a variety of questionable political positions. There's nothing trollish about it.

The definition of revolutionary left is not the basis of the bullying. The basis of bullying is that BIXX doesn't conform to your sacred dogmas and criticises them. This, apparently, is justification to call him a reactionary, a troll and dismiss his views entirely.

The definition of the revolutionary left came about because you and others seem to think that not identifying as a leftist, which BIXX and I do not, means that we shouldn't be here. I am attempting to point out to you that when BIXX and I say "I am not a leftist," this means something entirely different to what you mean.

My understanding of leftism is that, at a minimum, it would have to entail a desire to (1) radically reorder society (2) to make it egalitarian (3) in accordance with maximizing everybody's ability to flourish as individuals by reducing as much as possible their subservience to nature's dictates.

People who pursue this goal are "leftists," and the ideas and practices they espouse are "left" ideas. I think the distinction you are making between strategic programs and the like is an important one, but not one that divides leftists from non-leftists within a broader "left." You're the first person I've seen make this distinction, or the distinction between a leftist and "left ideas." As far as I can tell, it seems an arbitrary division designed to force a conclusion you desire for other reasons.

What reasons would those be? :confused:

The distinction is made by those outside of leftism within the left in order to distinguish us from you. That's not arbitrary, that's necessary. When I say I'm a communist, I don't want to be associated with people like you. "Leftism" is therefore a good way to describe your ideology. Your definition of leftism is all fine and well, but when we get into what really matters, i.e. the specifics of how you want to achieve this little dream of yours, we can see there is a profound schism.

I've skimmed the piece. In keeping with a poststructuralist twist on Camatte's earlier commitments to Shachtmanism, it argues that the proletariat is a "myth" that is still trapped inside the discursive universe of capitalism and is therefore bound to reproduce capitalist relations. It doesn't argue from the perspective of any class, and calls for "humanity" to destroy capitalism. It raises the same question I earlier posed of you, to which you responded by pasting the Camatte link: how does this view of "humanity" resisting capitalism have a class perspective? Is capitalism being opposed from the perspective of the bourgeoisie? The proletariat? Some other class? In my view, the work shades into a rhetorically overwrought and overintellectualized, eco-fetishizing populism. At this point in Camatte's career, I would definitely not describe him as a "leftist" or his ideas as "left."

The whole premise of the argument is based on class. The argument proceeds from that axiom. The divergence comes because of Camatte's understanding of the restructured nature of capitalism, capitalism's "escape" as Camatte terms it, its domestication of humanity and communism as a revolt against civilisation.

How so? As a Trotskyist, I'd genuinely like to know.

What would your objective be from me engaging in a conversation with you about Trotskyism?

Spectre of Spartacism

21st November 2015, 17:25

The sentences mean completely different things. I genuinely don't understand how you are not able to see that.

It is extreme parsing, and I genuinely don't understand how you are not able to see that.

Well, I gave capitalism and bourgeois society as two things. When I said from a class position, I assumed it would be clear that I didn't mean from those who are petite-bourgeoisie or the ruling class.Actually it wasn't clear, because neither BIXX nor the author whose work you linked have any interest in transforming society from the perspective of the working class.

The definition of revolutionary left is not the basis of the bullying. The basis of bullying is that BIXX doesn't conform to your sacred dogmas and criticises them. This, apparently, is justification to call him a reactionary, a troll and dismiss his views entirely.Then, when you realize that what you call "sacred dogmas" is little more than what people understand "the left" to be, it becomes clear that, yes, your peculiar definition and its distance from practically everybody else's is the basis for what are actually inappropriate accusations.

The definition of the revolutionary left came about because you and others seem to think that not identifying as a leftist, which BIXX and I do not, means that we shouldn't be here. I am attempting to point out to you that when BIXX and I say "I am not a leftist," this means something entirely different to what you mean.Well, we're working on two different levels here. One is your claim that people are bullying Bixx because they don't like his ideas, when I think it is clear that what is happening is that people don't consider Bixx's ideas to be objectively leftist and therefore consider his participation here to be one long act of bad faith. Because most people don't want to try to have a discussion about what left politics means objectively (after looking at our exchange here, they are probably feeling justified in that), they have just pointed out that Bixx doesn't even subjectively identify with the left.

To try to cram a square peg in a round hole, and justify a non-leftist's participation on a leftist forum, you are going into hyper-deconstructive mode about how when Bixx says he doesn't belong to the left, he means "our left," but that he does really belong a left of some sort... that you proceed to define in a way that, as I have shown, either lets in a variety of questionable creatures or, the minute you begin to be more specific, leaves Bixx's politics and ideas out.

The distinction is made by those outside of leftism within the left in order to distinguish us from you. That's not arbitrary, that's necessary. When I say I'm a communist, I don't want to be associated with people like you. "Leftism" is therefore a good way to describe your ideology. Your definition of leftism is all fine and well, but when we get into what really matters, i.e. the specifics of how you want to achieve this little dream of yours, we can see there is a profound schism.The distinction is made by whom outside of leftism but within the left? Where are these people who make this distinction between a broader left and a narrow core of "leftists"? I suppose it's a possibility that there are many people besides you who make this distinction, but so far, the only person I've seen make it is you.

The whole premise of the argument is based on class. The argument proceeds from that axiom. The divergence comes because of Camatte's understanding of the restructured nature of capitalism, capitalism's "escape" as Camatte terms it, its domestication of humanity and communism as a revolt against civilisation.No, the whole premise of the argument is that all ideas about classes need to be opposed because they are all "myths" that trap people within a capitalist system. Earlier you said you assumed it was clear that people would interpret your definition of "left" as encompassing people who are writing from a working-class anti-capitalist perspective. Well, you can't write from that perspective as anything more than a parody if you simultaneously claim that such a perspective is mythological.

A key passage in Camatte's work is where he says, "The same shortcoming affected the participants of May '68 and made it possible for them to perceive themselves according to the old schemas. It is becoming increasingly obvious that these active participants were men and women who were personally and very intimately involved in the life and functioning of capital, and more especially were having to justify and maintain its representation, [6] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm#fn5) who then went into revolt against it. But their revolt is completely recuperable as long as it moves on the worn out road of class struggle which aspires to awaken the proletariat and make it accomplish its mission."

This is the tried and true "post-marxist" analysis of how discourse about class is an act of power that simultaneously reinforces and perpetuates the thing is attempting to oppose, whether the class rhetoric is proletarian or not. Reduced to "representations" and signifiers, class becomes a trap that Camatte thinks needs to be discursively undone from the outside rather than overcome from the inside by the people who actually occupy those positions objectively.

What would your objective be from me engaging in a conversation with you about Trotskyism?Well, for starters, it would allow you to substantiate your accusations that Trotskyism has the goal of "controlling people." Hey, it's okay if you don't want to engage. We'll just chalk up your accusation to flaming.

BIXX

21st November 2015, 21:30

yo i like BIXX n i'd say i'm sympathetic to his views (don't agree with them be understand where they're coming from) but the derailing of threads until every single one ends up just like this one should probably stop.

I actually agree with you, except that in every thread I go into people come in and say I'm a troll. Furthermore all of my views come from one central idea, so when people question me further of course I'm gonna get closer to that central idea in discussion.

BIXX

21st November 2015, 21:40

Then what are you doing on a leftist forum?

Or... you know, articulate yourself. If your definition of civilization is "Civilization is the domination" then I think people are more than entitled to say "that doesn't make sense" and expect you to explain further. But really, if you want to talk about anti-civ politics then you should start a thread, since I don't have the faintest fucking clue what Joe Hill has to do with civilization apart from the fact that he was born into it like every other poor fuck.

Skinz, I gave you three definitions to work with, if you can't even get closer to an understanding based on them then you're not listening.

Ele'ill

23rd November 2015, 14:33

I pose to you the question I asked in my earlier discussion of the issue: why would humans undertake the project of civilization? Forced by a divine entity, maybe? They did it because, in view of the choices open to them, it was the least worst and was somewhat rational.

Sorry, I am jumping from this point into the current part of the thread because it has relevance. If you have a historical view of humans, as being a homogenous think tank working together to move forward, occasionally hijacked by terrible groups, then I understand your position and view of civ although I don't believe you view history in this way and am unsure why you would go to such great lengths to delegitimize the anti-civ position(s). I think most people were forced through slavery/war, displacement, starvation, sexism, Religion, the destruction of diverse human communities and their breaking and assimilation into the form of living we'd call civ. Later on probably any values coherently tieing people to activities responsible for life were destroyed by civ's new divine entities that begged further reproduction of civ.

It's not about a puritanical view of human history though. I think the world has always been a cold and dangerous place. But this doesn't work as an apology for the above, or as an excuse to ignore the above.

Spectre of Spartacism

23rd November 2015, 14:44

If you have a historical view of humans, as being a homogenous think tank working together to move forward, occasionally hijacked by terrible groups, then I understand your position and view of civ although I don't believe you view history in this way and am unsure why you would go to such great lengths to delegitimize the anti-civ position(s).

Where have I espoused a "think tank" view of humanity? This implies the choice to adopt what anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians call "civilization" was the result of a global committee meeting. In reality, the process developed unevenly across a relatively wide span of time, in parts of the world with minimal contact with one another. It did so because people in those areas, facing relatively similar conditions, made choices that were somewhat rational in light of the options open to them. Far from a rational choice or individualistic understanding of humanity, the explanation I present here is one that takes into account the historically conditioned and contextual nature of decisions.

I think most people were forced through slavery/war, displacement, starvation, sexism, Religion, the destruction of diverse human communities and their breaking and assimilation into the form of living we'd call civ. Later on probably any values coherently tieing people to activities responsible for life were destroyed by civ's new divine entities that begged further reproduction of civ.Your claim that people were forced through war, starvation, etc., is compatible with my point that civilization was a project undertaken by collective groups of people in response to conditions that were obviously less than ideal. (You phrase it so generally that I can't say for certain whether it is a part of my point or not.) It was a decision that, in view of the options open to them, allowed to make a kind of progress, to improve their lives in comparison to the conditions that they were experiencing at the time.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a thread on this if you wish to continue this exchange, because I don't want this thread to be derailed any more than it already has.

Comrade #138672

23rd November 2015, 15:04

Liking the left isn't a precondition of being a member. Why would anyone like the left? It's mostly a pile of shit.The left has the dual problem of endlessly splitting in ever smaller marginal sects and calling for "unity" at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons. I do not know how we can overcome that. :(

The Feral Underclass

23rd November 2015, 18:59

The left has the dual problem of endlessly splitting in ever smaller marginal sects and calling for "unity" at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons. I do not know how we can overcome that. :(

I think there are several things we can do.

1. Stop looking at revolution as something that happens in the distant future
2. Abandon leftism.
3. Marry insurrection with communising measures.

BIXX

23rd November 2015, 19:15

Where have I espoused a "think tank" view of humanity? This implies the choice to adopt what anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians call "civilization" was the result of a global committee meeting. In reality, the process developed unevenly across a relatively wide span of time, in parts of the world with minimal contact with one another.

Your post above clearly implied a think tank idea of history (the post the Ele'ill quoted).

It did so because people in those areas, facing relatively similar conditions, made choices that were somewhat rational in light of the options open to them. Far from a rational choice or individualistic understanding of humanity, the explanation I present here is one that takes into account the historically conditioned and contextual nature of decisions.
OK, so the response was (without fail) to take hostage and enslave as of yet uncivilized people.

Your claim that people were forced through war, starvation, etc., is compatible with my point that civilization was a project undertaken by collective groups of people in response to conditions that were obviously less than ideal.
Oh shit, so you point is that we shouldn't oppose civ because it was entirely derivivednfrom groups acting in their self interest and enslaving other groups and has been doing that ever since the beginning of civ? In that case we shouldn't oppose capitalism either, because the bourgeoisie were rational in doing that too huh?

You mistake is saying humans I'm general thought it was better, realistically it was only better for a few humans, many many humans tried to resist/flee but eventually failed.

It was a decision that, in view of the options open to them, allowed to make a kind of progress, to improve their lives in comparison to the conditions that they were experiencing at the time.

Through exploitation and slavery, and only good for a small subset of humans. It seems to me you use progress to hide the fact that it was really just enslavement.

Spectre of Spartacism

23rd November 2015, 19:40

Your post above clearly implied a think tank idea of history (the post the Ele'ill quoted).

How so? I thought I made it very clear that the development of civilization was a process that unfolded through ad hoc decisions undertaken within specific contexts to address specific problems. This idea that people came together and said, "Welp, let's create civilization! Shall we capitalize the 'c' or leave it lowercase?" is a caricature that you've invented. It has nothing to do with what I have written.

OK, so the response was (without fail) to take hostage and enslave as of yet uncivilized people.No anthropologist, historian, or archaeologist argues that civilization began through the taking of slaves (though the enslavement of people did occur both before and after civilization had developed). If you have evidence that enslavement was the mechanism through which civilization formed, or would like to cite an academic who claims it is, I'm open to seeing what you can scrape together.

Oh shit, so you point is that we shouldn't oppose civ because it was entirely derivivednfrom groups acting in their self interest and enslaving other groups and has been doing that ever since the beginning of civ? In that case we shouldn't oppose capitalism either, because the bourgeoisie were rational in doing that too huh?What I call civilization encapsulated the outcome of decisions that represented a form of progress over humans' prior relationship to the environment and to one another, which is why humans (being somewhat rational) made those series of decisions in the first place. As I pointed out in an earlier thread where I was attempting to discuss this with you, the progressive solution of those earlier problems brought new problems that had to be solved. It's baseless and brooding pessimism to believe that we should reverse humankind's prior solutions and introduce much older problems because of our assumed inability to solve the new problems those earlier solutions created.

I have no idea if you and I are talking about the same thing, though, when we use the word "civilization" because as of yet, you've not defined the term in a way is operationally useful for discussion.

For the record, hostage taking and forced acquisition of humans as "property" began long before civilization. This is why it is silly to define civilization as "the domination." Many forms of domination existed before the rise of settled agriculture, cities, writing, a division of labor, etc.

You mistake is saying humans I'm general thought it was better, realistically it was only better for a few humans, many many humans tried to resist/flee but eventually failed.Where is your evidence for this? Where is your argument for this? I see only claims without either.

Through exploitation and slavery, and only good for a small subset of humans. It seems to me you use progress to hide the fact that it was really just enslavement.See my comments above. Your understanding of the history of slavery and human relations in hunter-gatherer bands is, shall we say, underwhelming.