Comrade-Z
31st July 2006, 23:47
These following quotes are taken from this thread over at jesusradicals.com:
http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2182
On pacifism:
Most of us are pacifists, including myself. That is the most consistent Christian position. Most anarchists who are not Christian are also pacifist though...
???
I don't believe that any possible human action, including murder, can be wrong at all times and in all places. I don't think violence [against people] is wise when non-violent direct action can do so much.
My pacifism is active pacifism, in the lines of Gandhi and... well, Jesus. So no, I wouldn't kill or harm a capitalist. About the executions of the Romanovs, they deserved it and it was a way of avoiding a counter revolution from outside, but I don't think it was the good way.
About the burning of churches and everything, it touches me closer since I'm spanish. You know, exactly *that* was a reason a lot of spanish peasants and workers turned to Franco. It wasn't a smart move, and it backfired with a lot of repression and right now in Spain anarchism is just a shadow of what it used to be in the 30's. Some people feel about it kinda like germans about the nazis (not so strong, though). So... I think it was wrong. It destroyed a lot of cultural heritage, killed a lot of non-fighters and accomplished about nothing.
Well, I don't know, do you think killing most, many or any capitalists will remove al hierarchies and bring about equal society? You know you're not fighting people, you're fighting ideas. No matter how many you kill, it's the philosophy that you must destroy, and you can only do this by showing that an alternative is possible beyond doubt. That's the way absolute monarchy substituted true feudalism and democracy substituted feudalism. You have to change the paradigm, and that's not done with bullets.
Gross historical ignorance! And such idealism!
That might be true. But you know, the killing on a revolutionary war can get very big, with hard ideological purges on both sides. With each killing both sides get more extreme not more intimidated ("they killed my dad, they might be right but now I have to kill them"). So I don't know which way would cause more overall death, and for me the death of a prole is the same as the death of a capitalist.
What he's really concerned about is "overall death" in the abstract, completely divorced from its class context. Consequently, he believes that "the death of a prole is the same as the death of a capitalist." :o Idealism to the extreme.
On leadership:
Think about America's military and police might. You would need a massive violent uprising to dethrone such and oppresive state. Lets say you do dethrone the pigs with violence? Well, your violent uprising is going to have to have LEADERSHIP.....throughout history the only real succesful wars and uprisings that withstood time are ones with great leadership. And Anarchy is simply not based upon leadership. All you would have is a bunch of violence....which brings me to Christianity. That has no place with Christian resistance.
Leadership...........
Christ is the perfect king. Perfection that no other could attain on earth. So I don't think that is relevant to any other earthly leadership. And also I think most importantly Christ to me is like a best friend more than a leader. Someone that I could always trust and rely on. He made a bridge between me and Him where I dont feel like I am constantly kissing ass and bowing down.
I see the myth of the "benevolent king" still persists with some....
There is no getting around some form of leadership...even anarchists have leaders to some degree. The nature of that leadership is what is in question...is the person leading by voluntary consent or by coercion?
Jesus is the divine wisdom in human flesh. We should recognize him by his wisdom (legitimate authority) and his not taking rule (illegitimate authority). It is my choice who to become, and there are no right answers there, but there are ways that make me that person, and there are ways that make me some other person, and without His guidance I might become someone who I do not wish to become.
Leadership is nice. But the informal asambleary sort, you know, the kind of "this man has been working here about 20 years now. Maybe he is right when he says I should wear safety gloves". Leadership among equals it's not the same as authority or laws.
I don't see Jesus as a leader but as an example. You know, he doesn't order, he asks, he calls you to a task, then you choose if you want to do it.
When I mean "history" I mean basically throughout humankind. Any time we violently uprise we have to have leadership. Violence without direction is just pure chaos. How could it not be chaos Z? You say sophisticated......but how could you have an uprising with so many sophisticated and perfect people??
That just doesn''t add up. And how could they possibly have a clue on their goals and what they are doing without someone directing and calling major shots? I just dont get it. All throughout the history of warfare of man the succesful and longterm victorys have been backed by amazing leadership. And one more thing.....how much better are we than our ancestors living in caves? I think we've taken progressive steps back rather than forward.
So,
1. History revolves around the brilliance of "Great Leaders."
2. Leadership is inevitable (I never thought I'd see the day when self-proclaimed "anarchists" would be apologizing for leadership!)
3. That primitivist turd near the end is just a taste of things to come....
Sounds nice...but cmon-every group like that looks to a leader. Some people are simply born leaders and they are gifted in that way and naturally lead....but not in a commanding authoritarian sort of way.
So some people are simply "born superior." We must truly live in a meritocracy, then! :rolleyes:
Hmmmm.....Yes, working as equals-BUT THERE STILL IS LEADERSHIP IN THE MIDST!
How could the proletartiat class be impacting society and especially the pigs that run this world without orginization and leadership. That is simply unfathomable. You have leaders that organize zines, communtiy gardens, ect...ect...there is always someone that is head man/women with the founding ideas. Structure dictates movement. Without it there is simply chaos. But maybe we are at a misunderstanding on the definition of leadership. We must be. I dont see a leader as being a self centered egotistical pig hell bent for control and absolute order under hi/here critical eye. I simpy see a leader as being someone with skills to bring people together and a talented eye for the best tactical manuevers(if the leader is directing a violent uprising). A leader most imprtantly is an EQUAL. Most importantly an Equal simply playing a role in a movement created from the combined energy of many people. I believe we both share the same ideals and perhaps we are debating on something we could come to an agreement on.
So, without leaders, there is "chaos"! Oh no, mob rule! No wonder they don't like the idea of violent revolution. Their petit-bourgeois class nature is emerging....
And it seems like every time the issue of leadership comes up, they try a "two steps forward, one step back" strategy. They vociferously argue that leadership is necessary and inevitable (why they feel so attached to this concept when they go on tto stipulate that leaders are "nothing special" confounds me), and then they stipulate, "Well, by leaders, we don't really mean anything special. We just mean a sort of "loving father" that people look up to." Like the Czar, eh?
If you believe that leadership is truly "inevitable, although not a big deal," then why argue about it so strongly in the first place? It will crop up whether you want it or not.
On abortion:
Why would that be an "anarchist" position either? I know anarchists who are not Christian who would not be gungho about abortion and believe it ought to be avoided if at all possible and should not be performed simply on a fancy. Being pro-choice woudl not mean being pro-abortion as your second question definitely reads to me. While I do not think people should have abortions, I am also not willing to pay police and a big government to stop them from it. I am a Mennonite, and Mennonites call upon each other to adopt children (I know tons of Mennonites who have adopted children). The early Christians used to go to the trash heaps and pick up babies that were thrown there because the parents did not want them...most ly because they were girls (so early Christianity was disproportionately made up of women).
All I know is my gut says 'maybe.' [In response to "do you support abortion on demand?] I support birth control and I support effective community support and adoption.
I would not treat pregnancy as a STD. I am against abortion because it's lost human potential, usually only done because people can't afford a kid while keeping their living standards, but I wouldn't do anything to stop a woman from doing it.
Actually I have recently paid for an abortion for a friend. I first offered to finance the baby with half my salary for the first few years, then I offered to help them give the baby in adoption, and when they refused both I gave him the money.
I believe adoption and community support should be a better option than abortion.
He's "against abortion" but wouldn't do anything to stop it. Yeah, kind of like how some people "don't care for black people, personally" but "wouldn't do anything to harm black people." My ass! What this person is really saying is "If I could stop people from getting abortions, I would, but since it's unlikely that I will be able to, I'm just going to criticize abortion until things change in my favor."
No, there are too many options for that to be a right. I believe in equality, and that simply is not equality. I believe in the statement do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Now, would you want someone to abort you. I dont think anyone would.
Yes, but protecting all that would be overstretching the argument. It's a lot easier to allow the community to help out and bring up all the "unwanted kids" than to protect all sperm.
It's also cultural. We have been raised thinking that having kids will stall our careers, cost us a lot of money and not allow us time to leave. In our paradigm kids are not a blessing, they are a luxury. I believe we can change that.
So, in other words, IF it were feasible to enforce the "protection" of sperm, they would do that! :o
And they want people to have more kids??? :wacko:
In responding to my post "So you are willing to grant equality to collections of cells which are not yet socially-interacting members of society, while at the same time denying women equality with men concerning control over their own bodies? Or is it just an unfortunate fact that women must deal with this? Are women to be punished in this way for simply being women?" They say,
You know z, thats just life. An unfortunate fact. Yes, I will say this ,
SHIT HAPPENS
Seriously. I know people that grew up in broken families...they had no choice. My dads cousin unfairly died of lung cancer and she didnt smoke. It goes on an on. Its just how it is. The burden of man. Life is not fair. Bit I do not think it is ok to take this out on innocence. You dont ever have to worry about being aborted...obviously. But try to think man, if you were in that situation you would want life no matter what. Most non -suicidal human beings would!
On human desire being innately "evil":
Why would that be an "anarchist" position in any case? Anarchism, at least in the bakunin kroptkin mode, is not about individual pursuit of their own happiness, but about mutual aid, and local control of decision that effect the community, and building communities without the need for violence. Pusuit of our own happiness sounds more like an american individualist position, than anything else. It leads to self-centered nihilism when taken to the extreme is violent.
Capitalism is about pursuing one's own wishes and fancies, it depends on it.
A very deluded conception of capitalism. It would seem that he opposes capitalism despite the fact that he thinks it offers more individual freedom. It's almost as if he secretly thinks that "capitalism is the better deal" but has been convinced that it iis "morally wrong."
Yes-to me that is a symbol of capitalism. Happiness and pleasure is means different things to people, but unfortunately it means stomping on the face of someone else to get it.
The people that I met that are pursuing their own desires have been peopl I wanted to be 10 million miles away from. How could you ever trust an individual like this. A perfect example is George Bush. Egomaniac.
You and I both understand that the pressures of capitalism have made the intentions of man for thhe most part evil and ill-willed. And I dont mean that we ALL think like that. Definitely not. But the modern technology aged pursuit of happiness has turned into something rather disgusting.
But you know, if you remove the actual hierarchy and we go to a classless world, but then you don't remove that egoism that takes you to try and become dictator when you have the strength then you'll only remove one hierarchy to substitute it with a new one.
We have natural solidarity of interests now. But maybe after the revolution the tallest/strongest/most charismatic proletarian will feel that he deserves more than he gets. After all he is producing 10 and getting 5 when his neighbour is getting the same and producing 4. If he plays his cards right he might succeed in making a new hierarchy, even an undercover one.
I tried to explain that rulership takes two to tango: willing rulers and willing subjects. If people are not willing to be subjects, then all the Stalinist aspirations in the world won't amount to anything. I get the feeling that this person does not think people, in general, are capable of restraining themselves from wanting to be subjects(?), so we need to restrain other people's "selfish desires" to be "Stalin 2.0" to make up for that. Sorry, not gonna work.
On Marxism and Idealism:
The idea of class conflict is way outmoded. The marxist analysis was correct for its time in the mid 19th century at the rise of industrialism, but the idea of simply raising class consciousness so that the industrial worker or whoever, would throw off the chains of oppression is no longer viable...the technological soceity has bought and sold the worker...the workers live comfortable lives.
Instead, anarchism, the anarchism I know raises the bar and says, it is not simply science and and rational analysis that must come into play, and a change in economic relationships, but ethics that must come into the field. It raises the bar for the individual and says, even if a total thing is not possible, it is possible to strive for it, to work in our own lives.
Idealism triumphs! Or tries to...but that's all that really matters. :lol:
We can't observe any material substrate - we observe objects and events and their interrelationships, but we can regard these as interactions between these objects and events (or their component parts) without reference to any material substrate.
This has got to be the most pathetic attempt at refuting materialism that I have ever seen! :lol:
On class peace and class collaboration:
Well, I don't think so. I see that we might be able to start a few anarchist rural communes, that might set an example and more people would try to do the same, and more, and more... and maybe small capitalists (shop owners, family corporations) would try to get in. If we show it can work maybe it will take a century or two and we could make it.
Yeah, family corporations...like the Waltons! :lol:
This is the appeal of the Owenites and other utopian socialists. "If only we could show our capitalist masters that our system is better for everybody, they would adopt it!"
Why? I mean, most people who start a small shop, a bar or stuff like that do it to become self employed and work on what they like. They're trying to make a living out of their work, not trying to become rich, so if they see the happiness and true equality of an anarchist commune why would they need to see violence in order to join in?
On primitivism: :o
I will have to whole heartedly disagree. I am sort of a primitivist and am basically anti-civilization. Food supplies- yeah, our food supplies are so good that over weight, diabetes, cancer, heart problems are all rampant from our abundant "food supplies"
Medicine-we know have hospitals that refuse to embrace holistic medicine and dish out harmful prescription drugs like it was candy. Medicine has become a multi billion dollar industry consumed by the almighty dollar. Great.
Communication-
This goes far from being a basic need to simply a impractical technology age nuiscance. EVery where I go some rat bastard is yapping into his cell phone disturbing my peace. And throughout america and the world communication is used as a way to spy on people. Look at the U.K. (especially london)
How can we appreciate communictation when it has infringed on our basic right and NEED for privacy!
Knowledge-of course I appreciate knowledge and learning. But what have we done with it z? We've developed bombs, guns, harmful foods, cars....Im not saying knowledge does not have positive aspects! Not at all. But the negative has given us as humans a big kick in the ass. I think z, much of what you say is based upon the ideal anarchist society....and I'm sorry-but a majority of the world unfortunately does not and most likely will not embrace those ideals. Which to me is very sad.
Sexual Freedom-
I just simply dont understand this one because Ive explored my sexual freedom and all I found was hurt and pain. Im going to use an analogy here(anal.....hahahah)
I think the 40 year old virgin was such a great example of how "sexual freedom" really is not freedom at all. Those guys going through all these relationships...cheating and so forth were really in the end , unhappy. And to me that rang true because I was waiting for the one. And personally that was fine....then I explored that freedom for about a year and felt very hurt empty and shallow because of it. Now this may be where we will have to agree to disagree on this one because Im pretty stuborn on this. But well see.
Surrounded, I'm also a bit primitivist, but not as hardcore as you. It's true that the massive cities and markets of most modern economic and political systems have brought a lot of problems, but it's the new communication technologies that might allow us to have the advantages of the city without the hidden costs. Teleworking, fast movement of supplies and free and fast exchange of ideas can make us have all the power of millions of minds and arms while living on small communities, even of the hunter-gatherers that most primitivists would want if we had good satellite communications and some small stable settlements. But again this is off-topic.
This is where Christian "anarchism," or religion of any type, inevitably leads! :o
I have lower expectations for convincing Christian anarchists of a viable revolutionary communist, self-emancipating proletarian programme of action than I do for convincing atheist proletarians who are apathetic or weakly pro-capitalist of this same position. I think atheist proletarians are more likely to join us, even if their revolutionary potential is lying dormant right now, because they at least have the illusion of freedom and control. They value their own freedom, power, and desires, so when they perceive that those things are being denied to them, they will have every reason to revolt and change the circumstances in their favor. And they will have the consciousness, unclouded by religious hogwash, to accomplish it.
Whereas the Christian "anarchist" is solely preoccupied with making the world "morally right" and pleasing god. His theoretical foundation for action is set upon an illogical, unfirm expanse of ideological quicksand which can be manipulated in the most illogical ways. This leaves the Christian "anarchist" movement extremely vulnerable to ideological diversion and/or institutional co-option. All someone needs to do is come along and give a "convincing" (by their standards) argument for why god commands people to do x, y, and z reactionary things, and what logical defense do the Christian "anarchists" have? They could say, "I received a revelation last night, and God told me that everyone is not to be troubled by earthly usurpations of power and wealth--that these are inconsequential things when compared to the glory of God and His kingdom in heaven, and to place importance on these material matters is to doubt God's final reckoning with those who trespass against God's laws on Earth; to revolt is to usurp God's responsibility of correcting these misdeeds; to revolt is to place importance on the fleeting material pleasures of this world and to doubt God's final, eternal, infinite heavenly reward to those who live justly in the earthly realm." How can Christian "anarchists" respond to this? Can they say "You LIE!"? But how is this person's assertions backed by any less evidence than Jesus's were? Unless you believe that Jesus really did produce miracles. Unless you believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Therefore, all this con-man has to do is invent a body of literature about how these revelations cured himself and many others of diseases, and make it sound convincing, and then get a large amount of social inertia behind it (in other words, get a large following of godsuckers behind it), and once the number of duped reaches a critical mass, suddenly, this con-man looks just as convincing as Christianity.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e326/Zeiter/religionkillsfolksdead.jpg
http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2182
On pacifism:
Most of us are pacifists, including myself. That is the most consistent Christian position. Most anarchists who are not Christian are also pacifist though...
???
I don't believe that any possible human action, including murder, can be wrong at all times and in all places. I don't think violence [against people] is wise when non-violent direct action can do so much.
My pacifism is active pacifism, in the lines of Gandhi and... well, Jesus. So no, I wouldn't kill or harm a capitalist. About the executions of the Romanovs, they deserved it and it was a way of avoiding a counter revolution from outside, but I don't think it was the good way.
About the burning of churches and everything, it touches me closer since I'm spanish. You know, exactly *that* was a reason a lot of spanish peasants and workers turned to Franco. It wasn't a smart move, and it backfired with a lot of repression and right now in Spain anarchism is just a shadow of what it used to be in the 30's. Some people feel about it kinda like germans about the nazis (not so strong, though). So... I think it was wrong. It destroyed a lot of cultural heritage, killed a lot of non-fighters and accomplished about nothing.
Well, I don't know, do you think killing most, many or any capitalists will remove al hierarchies and bring about equal society? You know you're not fighting people, you're fighting ideas. No matter how many you kill, it's the philosophy that you must destroy, and you can only do this by showing that an alternative is possible beyond doubt. That's the way absolute monarchy substituted true feudalism and democracy substituted feudalism. You have to change the paradigm, and that's not done with bullets.
Gross historical ignorance! And such idealism!
That might be true. But you know, the killing on a revolutionary war can get very big, with hard ideological purges on both sides. With each killing both sides get more extreme not more intimidated ("they killed my dad, they might be right but now I have to kill them"). So I don't know which way would cause more overall death, and for me the death of a prole is the same as the death of a capitalist.
What he's really concerned about is "overall death" in the abstract, completely divorced from its class context. Consequently, he believes that "the death of a prole is the same as the death of a capitalist." :o Idealism to the extreme.
On leadership:
Think about America's military and police might. You would need a massive violent uprising to dethrone such and oppresive state. Lets say you do dethrone the pigs with violence? Well, your violent uprising is going to have to have LEADERSHIP.....throughout history the only real succesful wars and uprisings that withstood time are ones with great leadership. And Anarchy is simply not based upon leadership. All you would have is a bunch of violence....which brings me to Christianity. That has no place with Christian resistance.
Leadership...........
Christ is the perfect king. Perfection that no other could attain on earth. So I don't think that is relevant to any other earthly leadership. And also I think most importantly Christ to me is like a best friend more than a leader. Someone that I could always trust and rely on. He made a bridge between me and Him where I dont feel like I am constantly kissing ass and bowing down.
I see the myth of the "benevolent king" still persists with some....
There is no getting around some form of leadership...even anarchists have leaders to some degree. The nature of that leadership is what is in question...is the person leading by voluntary consent or by coercion?
Jesus is the divine wisdom in human flesh. We should recognize him by his wisdom (legitimate authority) and his not taking rule (illegitimate authority). It is my choice who to become, and there are no right answers there, but there are ways that make me that person, and there are ways that make me some other person, and without His guidance I might become someone who I do not wish to become.
Leadership is nice. But the informal asambleary sort, you know, the kind of "this man has been working here about 20 years now. Maybe he is right when he says I should wear safety gloves". Leadership among equals it's not the same as authority or laws.
I don't see Jesus as a leader but as an example. You know, he doesn't order, he asks, he calls you to a task, then you choose if you want to do it.
When I mean "history" I mean basically throughout humankind. Any time we violently uprise we have to have leadership. Violence without direction is just pure chaos. How could it not be chaos Z? You say sophisticated......but how could you have an uprising with so many sophisticated and perfect people??
That just doesn''t add up. And how could they possibly have a clue on their goals and what they are doing without someone directing and calling major shots? I just dont get it. All throughout the history of warfare of man the succesful and longterm victorys have been backed by amazing leadership. And one more thing.....how much better are we than our ancestors living in caves? I think we've taken progressive steps back rather than forward.
So,
1. History revolves around the brilliance of "Great Leaders."
2. Leadership is inevitable (I never thought I'd see the day when self-proclaimed "anarchists" would be apologizing for leadership!)
3. That primitivist turd near the end is just a taste of things to come....
Sounds nice...but cmon-every group like that looks to a leader. Some people are simply born leaders and they are gifted in that way and naturally lead....but not in a commanding authoritarian sort of way.
So some people are simply "born superior." We must truly live in a meritocracy, then! :rolleyes:
Hmmmm.....Yes, working as equals-BUT THERE STILL IS LEADERSHIP IN THE MIDST!
How could the proletartiat class be impacting society and especially the pigs that run this world without orginization and leadership. That is simply unfathomable. You have leaders that organize zines, communtiy gardens, ect...ect...there is always someone that is head man/women with the founding ideas. Structure dictates movement. Without it there is simply chaos. But maybe we are at a misunderstanding on the definition of leadership. We must be. I dont see a leader as being a self centered egotistical pig hell bent for control and absolute order under hi/here critical eye. I simpy see a leader as being someone with skills to bring people together and a talented eye for the best tactical manuevers(if the leader is directing a violent uprising). A leader most imprtantly is an EQUAL. Most importantly an Equal simply playing a role in a movement created from the combined energy of many people. I believe we both share the same ideals and perhaps we are debating on something we could come to an agreement on.
So, without leaders, there is "chaos"! Oh no, mob rule! No wonder they don't like the idea of violent revolution. Their petit-bourgeois class nature is emerging....
And it seems like every time the issue of leadership comes up, they try a "two steps forward, one step back" strategy. They vociferously argue that leadership is necessary and inevitable (why they feel so attached to this concept when they go on tto stipulate that leaders are "nothing special" confounds me), and then they stipulate, "Well, by leaders, we don't really mean anything special. We just mean a sort of "loving father" that people look up to." Like the Czar, eh?
If you believe that leadership is truly "inevitable, although not a big deal," then why argue about it so strongly in the first place? It will crop up whether you want it or not.
On abortion:
Why would that be an "anarchist" position either? I know anarchists who are not Christian who would not be gungho about abortion and believe it ought to be avoided if at all possible and should not be performed simply on a fancy. Being pro-choice woudl not mean being pro-abortion as your second question definitely reads to me. While I do not think people should have abortions, I am also not willing to pay police and a big government to stop them from it. I am a Mennonite, and Mennonites call upon each other to adopt children (I know tons of Mennonites who have adopted children). The early Christians used to go to the trash heaps and pick up babies that were thrown there because the parents did not want them...most ly because they were girls (so early Christianity was disproportionately made up of women).
All I know is my gut says 'maybe.' [In response to "do you support abortion on demand?] I support birth control and I support effective community support and adoption.
I would not treat pregnancy as a STD. I am against abortion because it's lost human potential, usually only done because people can't afford a kid while keeping their living standards, but I wouldn't do anything to stop a woman from doing it.
Actually I have recently paid for an abortion for a friend. I first offered to finance the baby with half my salary for the first few years, then I offered to help them give the baby in adoption, and when they refused both I gave him the money.
I believe adoption and community support should be a better option than abortion.
He's "against abortion" but wouldn't do anything to stop it. Yeah, kind of like how some people "don't care for black people, personally" but "wouldn't do anything to harm black people." My ass! What this person is really saying is "If I could stop people from getting abortions, I would, but since it's unlikely that I will be able to, I'm just going to criticize abortion until things change in my favor."
No, there are too many options for that to be a right. I believe in equality, and that simply is not equality. I believe in the statement do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Now, would you want someone to abort you. I dont think anyone would.
Yes, but protecting all that would be overstretching the argument. It's a lot easier to allow the community to help out and bring up all the "unwanted kids" than to protect all sperm.
It's also cultural. We have been raised thinking that having kids will stall our careers, cost us a lot of money and not allow us time to leave. In our paradigm kids are not a blessing, they are a luxury. I believe we can change that.
So, in other words, IF it were feasible to enforce the "protection" of sperm, they would do that! :o
And they want people to have more kids??? :wacko:
In responding to my post "So you are willing to grant equality to collections of cells which are not yet socially-interacting members of society, while at the same time denying women equality with men concerning control over their own bodies? Or is it just an unfortunate fact that women must deal with this? Are women to be punished in this way for simply being women?" They say,
You know z, thats just life. An unfortunate fact. Yes, I will say this ,
SHIT HAPPENS
Seriously. I know people that grew up in broken families...they had no choice. My dads cousin unfairly died of lung cancer and she didnt smoke. It goes on an on. Its just how it is. The burden of man. Life is not fair. Bit I do not think it is ok to take this out on innocence. You dont ever have to worry about being aborted...obviously. But try to think man, if you were in that situation you would want life no matter what. Most non -suicidal human beings would!
On human desire being innately "evil":
Why would that be an "anarchist" position in any case? Anarchism, at least in the bakunin kroptkin mode, is not about individual pursuit of their own happiness, but about mutual aid, and local control of decision that effect the community, and building communities without the need for violence. Pusuit of our own happiness sounds more like an american individualist position, than anything else. It leads to self-centered nihilism when taken to the extreme is violent.
Capitalism is about pursuing one's own wishes and fancies, it depends on it.
A very deluded conception of capitalism. It would seem that he opposes capitalism despite the fact that he thinks it offers more individual freedom. It's almost as if he secretly thinks that "capitalism is the better deal" but has been convinced that it iis "morally wrong."
Yes-to me that is a symbol of capitalism. Happiness and pleasure is means different things to people, but unfortunately it means stomping on the face of someone else to get it.
The people that I met that are pursuing their own desires have been peopl I wanted to be 10 million miles away from. How could you ever trust an individual like this. A perfect example is George Bush. Egomaniac.
You and I both understand that the pressures of capitalism have made the intentions of man for thhe most part evil and ill-willed. And I dont mean that we ALL think like that. Definitely not. But the modern technology aged pursuit of happiness has turned into something rather disgusting.
But you know, if you remove the actual hierarchy and we go to a classless world, but then you don't remove that egoism that takes you to try and become dictator when you have the strength then you'll only remove one hierarchy to substitute it with a new one.
We have natural solidarity of interests now. But maybe after the revolution the tallest/strongest/most charismatic proletarian will feel that he deserves more than he gets. After all he is producing 10 and getting 5 when his neighbour is getting the same and producing 4. If he plays his cards right he might succeed in making a new hierarchy, even an undercover one.
I tried to explain that rulership takes two to tango: willing rulers and willing subjects. If people are not willing to be subjects, then all the Stalinist aspirations in the world won't amount to anything. I get the feeling that this person does not think people, in general, are capable of restraining themselves from wanting to be subjects(?), so we need to restrain other people's "selfish desires" to be "Stalin 2.0" to make up for that. Sorry, not gonna work.
On Marxism and Idealism:
The idea of class conflict is way outmoded. The marxist analysis was correct for its time in the mid 19th century at the rise of industrialism, but the idea of simply raising class consciousness so that the industrial worker or whoever, would throw off the chains of oppression is no longer viable...the technological soceity has bought and sold the worker...the workers live comfortable lives.
Instead, anarchism, the anarchism I know raises the bar and says, it is not simply science and and rational analysis that must come into play, and a change in economic relationships, but ethics that must come into the field. It raises the bar for the individual and says, even if a total thing is not possible, it is possible to strive for it, to work in our own lives.
Idealism triumphs! Or tries to...but that's all that really matters. :lol:
We can't observe any material substrate - we observe objects and events and their interrelationships, but we can regard these as interactions between these objects and events (or their component parts) without reference to any material substrate.
This has got to be the most pathetic attempt at refuting materialism that I have ever seen! :lol:
On class peace and class collaboration:
Well, I don't think so. I see that we might be able to start a few anarchist rural communes, that might set an example and more people would try to do the same, and more, and more... and maybe small capitalists (shop owners, family corporations) would try to get in. If we show it can work maybe it will take a century or two and we could make it.
Yeah, family corporations...like the Waltons! :lol:
This is the appeal of the Owenites and other utopian socialists. "If only we could show our capitalist masters that our system is better for everybody, they would adopt it!"
Why? I mean, most people who start a small shop, a bar or stuff like that do it to become self employed and work on what they like. They're trying to make a living out of their work, not trying to become rich, so if they see the happiness and true equality of an anarchist commune why would they need to see violence in order to join in?
On primitivism: :o
I will have to whole heartedly disagree. I am sort of a primitivist and am basically anti-civilization. Food supplies- yeah, our food supplies are so good that over weight, diabetes, cancer, heart problems are all rampant from our abundant "food supplies"
Medicine-we know have hospitals that refuse to embrace holistic medicine and dish out harmful prescription drugs like it was candy. Medicine has become a multi billion dollar industry consumed by the almighty dollar. Great.
Communication-
This goes far from being a basic need to simply a impractical technology age nuiscance. EVery where I go some rat bastard is yapping into his cell phone disturbing my peace. And throughout america and the world communication is used as a way to spy on people. Look at the U.K. (especially london)
How can we appreciate communictation when it has infringed on our basic right and NEED for privacy!
Knowledge-of course I appreciate knowledge and learning. But what have we done with it z? We've developed bombs, guns, harmful foods, cars....Im not saying knowledge does not have positive aspects! Not at all. But the negative has given us as humans a big kick in the ass. I think z, much of what you say is based upon the ideal anarchist society....and I'm sorry-but a majority of the world unfortunately does not and most likely will not embrace those ideals. Which to me is very sad.
Sexual Freedom-
I just simply dont understand this one because Ive explored my sexual freedom and all I found was hurt and pain. Im going to use an analogy here(anal.....hahahah)
I think the 40 year old virgin was such a great example of how "sexual freedom" really is not freedom at all. Those guys going through all these relationships...cheating and so forth were really in the end , unhappy. And to me that rang true because I was waiting for the one. And personally that was fine....then I explored that freedom for about a year and felt very hurt empty and shallow because of it. Now this may be where we will have to agree to disagree on this one because Im pretty stuborn on this. But well see.
Surrounded, I'm also a bit primitivist, but not as hardcore as you. It's true that the massive cities and markets of most modern economic and political systems have brought a lot of problems, but it's the new communication technologies that might allow us to have the advantages of the city without the hidden costs. Teleworking, fast movement of supplies and free and fast exchange of ideas can make us have all the power of millions of minds and arms while living on small communities, even of the hunter-gatherers that most primitivists would want if we had good satellite communications and some small stable settlements. But again this is off-topic.
This is where Christian "anarchism," or religion of any type, inevitably leads! :o
I have lower expectations for convincing Christian anarchists of a viable revolutionary communist, self-emancipating proletarian programme of action than I do for convincing atheist proletarians who are apathetic or weakly pro-capitalist of this same position. I think atheist proletarians are more likely to join us, even if their revolutionary potential is lying dormant right now, because they at least have the illusion of freedom and control. They value their own freedom, power, and desires, so when they perceive that those things are being denied to them, they will have every reason to revolt and change the circumstances in their favor. And they will have the consciousness, unclouded by religious hogwash, to accomplish it.
Whereas the Christian "anarchist" is solely preoccupied with making the world "morally right" and pleasing god. His theoretical foundation for action is set upon an illogical, unfirm expanse of ideological quicksand which can be manipulated in the most illogical ways. This leaves the Christian "anarchist" movement extremely vulnerable to ideological diversion and/or institutional co-option. All someone needs to do is come along and give a "convincing" (by their standards) argument for why god commands people to do x, y, and z reactionary things, and what logical defense do the Christian "anarchists" have? They could say, "I received a revelation last night, and God told me that everyone is not to be troubled by earthly usurpations of power and wealth--that these are inconsequential things when compared to the glory of God and His kingdom in heaven, and to place importance on these material matters is to doubt God's final reckoning with those who trespass against God's laws on Earth; to revolt is to usurp God's responsibility of correcting these misdeeds; to revolt is to place importance on the fleeting material pleasures of this world and to doubt God's final, eternal, infinite heavenly reward to those who live justly in the earthly realm." How can Christian "anarchists" respond to this? Can they say "You LIE!"? But how is this person's assertions backed by any less evidence than Jesus's were? Unless you believe that Jesus really did produce miracles. Unless you believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Therefore, all this con-man has to do is invent a body of literature about how these revelations cured himself and many others of diseases, and make it sound convincing, and then get a large amount of social inertia behind it (in other words, get a large following of godsuckers behind it), and once the number of duped reaches a critical mass, suddenly, this con-man looks just as convincing as Christianity.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e326/Zeiter/religionkillsfolksdead.jpg