Smash the State [Archive]

OrderedAnarchy

24th August 2007, 06:08

Despotism sucks. Humans have always lived with it. Monarchy, aristocracy, and even democracy are all just different versions of the same thing; tyranny. I am in the minority, and therefore no law effectively represents me. In any society where the majority, or any other group, rules, I will be excluded. Simply that someone else's representative happens to think marijuana is bad, or that the drinking age should be 21, is not a convincing reason for the state to arrest me for posession. Yet they do. Why? Not because the system has become fucked up. No, the system, the state, capitalism, is inherently fucked up. Aristotle knew it more than two millenia ago. Call me a nihilist, but I can see no road to communism but in the utter destruction of the state and establishment of complete autonomy of every human being. For, as Proudhon said, anarchy is order.

RedHal

24th August 2007, 10:33

you gotta fight! for your right to parrrrrrrrrrr TAAAAYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

gotta love 1st world anarkiddies, who cares about the sweatshops, ppl living in slums and starving. Damnit, you need your weed and booze!!!!!

Bilan

24th August 2007, 10:41

Monarchy, aristocracy, and even democracy are all just different versions of the same thing; tyranny.

Do you mean democratic states? Or the practice of democracy?
If the latter, are you aware of the practice of direct democracy?

I can see no road to communism but in the utter destruction of the state and establishment of complete autonomy of every human being.

= revolution :P

--------
RedHal

you gotta fight! for your right to parrrrrrrrrrr TAAAAYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gotta love 1st world anarkiddies, who cares about the sweatshops, ppl living in slums and starving. Damnit, you need your weed and booze!!!!!

:lol:

Raúl Duke

24th August 2007, 11:16

I am in the minority, and therefore no law effectively represents me. In any society where the majority, or any other group, rules, I will be excluded.

Actually, our so-called "democracies" (read: despotism of capital) bow to the interest of the capitalist elite.

I suppose you would be interested in consensus decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making)?

Majoritarian vs Consensus decision making (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=69777)

bcbm

24th August 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:33 am
you gotta fight! for your right to parrrrrrrrrrr TAAAAYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

gotta love 1st world anarkiddies, who cares about the sweatshops, ppl living in slums and starving. Damnit, you need your weed and booze!!!!!
Where do you live?

And while the OP comes off as fairly naive, its obviously a start in the right direction. You didn't drop out of the womb babbling about Mao.

Not entirely illiterate

24th August 2007, 19:30

Simply that someone else's representative happens to think marijuana is bad, or that the drinking age should be 21, is not a convincing reason for the state to arrest me for posession.

As much as I loathe law enforcement in the name of "public security" or whatever Ad Hoc-excuse they can come up with to steer the flock from the open meadow into their enclosed pastures, I agree with the common notion that Marijuana is something to be avoided. I also advocate against the use of alcohol, or any other similar substances that cloud your mind. With every grey breath of tobacco fumes, swig of alcohol and bite of artificially produced food, you become bonded to the physical imperfection of this world, and powerhouses like corporations and crime-lords alike is able to tie the noose around your neck just a little bit tighter.

These substances make you addicted, they serve no good function than the temporary dulling of useless pain you don't deserve to have in the first place, they put a veil of derangement over your senses and they drain what little economical resources you have available. Why bother? Any true revolutionary should show the finger to these people that live off your misery and dependency and strive for a lifestyle bereft of their poison.

No, the system, the state, capitalism, is inherently fucked up.

Agreed.

Call me a nihilist, but I can see no road to communism but in the utter destruction of the state and establishment of complete autonomy of every human being.

Nihilism is just an intellectual tool to witness the relation and development of circumstances beyond such subjective means as morals, laws, ethics, dogmas, common sense, table-manners and whatnot. What's wrong with that?

bcbm

24th August 2007, 19:42

I agree with the common notion that Marijuana is something to be avoided. I also advocate against the use of alcohol, or any other similar substances that cloud your mind.

Oh great, another puritan. <_<

With every grey breath of tobacco fumes, swig of alcohol and bite of artificially produced food, you become bonded to the physical imperfection of this world

Physical imperfection of this world? What kind of religious bullshit are you pushing? This world isn't imperfect (or perfect), it just is. The reality is that people have always, and continue to, enjoy smoking and drinking and that is perfectly fine. The only thing they "bond" you to is having a good time.

and powerhouses like corporations and crime-lords alike is able to tie the noose around your neck just a little bit tighter.

They've already got us where they want us, a few more bucks on X instead of Y doesn't mean shit.

they serve no good function than the temporary dulling of useless pain you don't deserve to have in the first place,

They serve a perfectly good function: reducing social anxieties and making a quick, cheap and easy good time for all involved. We don't drink because of "pain," we drink because it is enjoyable.

they put a veil of derangement over your senses

That's the point.

and they drain what little economical resources you have available.

Not any more than anything else you could be spending the money on.

Any true revolutionary should show the finger to these people that live off your misery and dependency and strive for a lifestyle bereft of their poison.

Well your revolution isn't going to be very popular, I can tell you that much. Being a revolutionary has nothing to do with being an ascetic and living some "pure" and "poison-free" lifestyle. If you don't want to, great, but fuck your moralistic crap.

Not entirely illiterate

24th August 2007, 20:33

Oh great, another puritan.

Granted, I'd make a very poor companion for clinging classes in a toast, but that's not why I am here. Now, please elaborate why a drug-free lifestyle evokes such ill emotion?

Physical imperfection of this world? What kind of religious bullshit are you pushing? This world isn't imperfect (or perfect), it just is.

As long as there is a physical state of being, it will remain imperfect; IE, having flaws. Only a non-physical existence can be perfect, and yes, it is something I advocate. Then, if you don't want to embrace it, that's too bad, but I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat.

he reality is that people have always, and continue to, enjoy smoking and drinking and that is perfectly fine. The only thing they "bond" you to is having a good time.

As the Chinese call it, "The joy and curse of life". Yes, consumption of narcotics is something deeply rooted into human culture, along with many other practices that makes one shrug and wonder, "How come we haven't outgrown this yet?". It nearly makes me sad when consumption of these substances seems to be an absolute necessity to "have a good time" in common opinion. The most joyful moments in my life have been absolutely dry, would I do anything but recommend them to anyone? Especially since these moments have often been spoiled when alcohol has entered the equation, turning friends into enemies and contemplative, focused minds into aggressive troublemakers.

That's the point.

And precisely what is the point with that?

Well your revolution isn't going to be very popular, I can tell you that much. Being a revolutionary has nothing to do with being an ascetic and living some "pure" and "poison-free" lifestyle.

It is my firm belief that being a revolutionary is being a warrior, and a warrior is useless if he is not prepared for war. Dousing your spirit with narcotics isn't a good way of preparing yourself. True, an ascetic lifestyle isn't an inherent trait of being a revolutionary, and I haven't said that. It has, however, its benefits. Have you tried it? It's not much to describe, it is indeed something to be experienced.

If you don't want to, great, but fuck your moralistic crap.

Morals, who spoke of morals? Morals are like daemons; arbitrary, subjective concepts that won't exist unless you delude yourself into accepting their physical existence, and after that, they'll hound you night and day. No, my friend, what I am doing is simply stating my opinion based on a fact; the use of drugs will have detrimental effects on your body, whether you like it or not.

And please, what's wrong with a bit of friendly attitude? I'm not your enemy. Your body has a cholecyst where all that gall fits nicely and comfortably, so keep it there, where it can do good.

Raúl Duke

24th August 2007, 20:43

It is my firm belief that being a revolutionary is being a warrior, and a warrior is useless if he is not prepared for war. Dousing your spirit with narcotics isn't a good way of preparing yourself. True, an ascetic lifestyle isn't an inherent trait of being a revolutionary, and I haven't said that. It has, however, its benefits. Have you tried it? It's not much to describe, it is indeed something to be experienced.

You make the revolution sound like the "rapture"....

We have to understand that the revolution will be made by common working class people who smoke, drink, dope,etc and who are sick of the shit and are ready to take matters in their own hands...not a group of "prepared warriors" (the modern version I think are "professional revolutionaries")

Only a non-physical existence can be perfect, and yes, it is something I advocate.

Sounds metaphysical...can you prove this non-physical existence you advocate exists?

Not entirely illiterate

24th August 2007, 21:15

First of all, thank you for being perhaps the first person to reply in a polite manner. Much appreciated.

We have to understand that the revolution will be made by common working class people who smoke, drink, dope,etc and who are sick of the shit and are ready to take matters in their own hands...not a group of "prepared warriors" (the modern version I think are "professional revolutionaries")

What I advocate is that the common working class people shall gradually fuse into the role to become closer and closer to the "professional revolutionary". It's not feasible that they can assert this role completely, since it requires a fairly strict lifestyle and more time than most workers can afford to spare.

What I am simply saying is; a population of dedicated, sober people that spend time strengthening their physique and cultivating an inner calm will be strong when need be. No totalitarian regime, usurper or whatever oppressor will ever be able to enslave a people that are dedicated, willing to stand up and fight for their ideal, and also very much capable of waging war if necessary.

Sounds metaphysical...can you prove this non-physical existence you advocate exists?

I am not a scientist, and I do not believe that science is sufficiently advanced to incorporate many aspects of non-physical life. This is not an attempt to discredit science; I wouldn't, for example, accuse 19th-century physics of being stupid because they couldn't produce a Theory of Relativity.

So, by scientific means, no, I cannot prove it. I can sense it through meditation and physical practice, but that's all. I cannot show it to anyone, and the languages I know lack the means of expressing it in a satisfactory manner. No, my friend, I am sorry, but I cannot prove it. Perhaps we will one day, but not now. Simply because something cannot be thoroughly proven by science does not mean it is something to be discarded as "religious nonsense".

bcbm

24th August 2007, 21:34

Originally posted by Not entirely [email protected] 24, 2007 01:33 pm
Granted, I'd make a very poor companion for clinging classes in a toast, but that's not why I am here. Now, please elaborate why a drug-free lifestyle evokes such ill emotion?
I don't care if you want to live a drug-free lifestyle: that's your business, not mine and far be it from me to tell you what is in your own best interest. My problem is with the way you phrase your choice, as though it is necessarily better than those who choose to use intoxicants.

As long as there is a physical state of being, it will remain imperfect; IE, having flaws. Only a non-physical existence can be perfect, and yes, it is something I advocate. Then, if you don't want to embrace it, that's too bad, but I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, as there isn't really any common ground to meet on. I'll keep in touch with material reality, "flaws" or no.

Yes, consumption of narcotics is something deeply rooted into human culture, along with many other practices that makes one shrug and wonder, "How come we haven't outgrown this yet?".

We haven't "outgrown" them because we like them and there's no good reason to out and out abandon something we've always enjoyed.

It nearly makes me sad when consumption of these substances seems to be an absolute necessity to "have a good time" in common opinion.

I'll agree that when it becomes an absolutely neccessity for one to have a good time, that's probably a bit much (though to each their own).

The most joyful moments in my life have been absolutely dry, would I do anything but recommend them to anyone? Especially since these moments have often been spoiled when alcohol has entered the equation, turning friends into enemies and contemplative, focused minds into aggressive troublemakers.

Yeah and do-gooder sober nags have ruined some of my drunken good times (or provided violent entertainment depending on their disposition), but I'm not going to knock them for it, unless they're trying to force shit upon me or make me feel like crap for making choices that ultimately don't harm anybody.

And aggressive troublemaking is a blast in the right context.

And precisely what is the point with that?

It provides an enjoyable break from sober existence and allows the exploration of alternative mindsets, facilitates greater social interaction for those of us who have some trouble in that area and can just be a plain old good time.

It is my firm belief that being a revolutionary is being a warrior, and a warrior is useless if he is not prepared for war. Dousing your spirit with narcotics isn't a good way of preparing yourself.

One can be in good "fighting form" and still enjoy life's little indulgences, and anyway I don't think sacrificing so many good things (surely you can't draw the line at only intoxicants...) in the name of some future revolution is any way to live.

True, an ascetic lifestyle isn't an inherent trait of being a revolutionary, and I haven't said that. It has, however, its benefits. Have you tried it? It's not much to describe, it is indeed something to be experienced.

Been there, done that: believe me, I used to be more of downer then you're coming off as.

No, my friend, what I am doing is simply stating my opinion based on a fact; the use of drugs will have detrimental effects on your body, whether you like it or not.

If you can maintain a balance between the things you're putting in and maintain some level of fitness, the effects are essentially negligible.

And please, what's wrong with a bit of friendly attitude? I'm not your enemy. Your body has a cholecyst where all that gall fits nicely and comfortably, so keep it there, where it can do good.

I don't appreciate the implication that I'm not a true revolutionary because I enjoy the drink.

RGacky3

26th August 2007, 02:15

Red Rebel

27th August 2007, 00:00

Smash the State

I'm sure the capitalist will support you.

OrderedAnarchy

27th August 2007, 00:03

Originally posted by Not entirely [email protected] 24, 2007 06:30 pm
As much as I loathe law enforcement in the name of "public security" or whatever Ad Hoc-excuse they can come up with to steer the flock from the open meadow into their enclosed pastures, I agree with the common notion that Marijuana is something to be avoided. I also advocate against the use of alcohol, or any other similar substances that cloud your mind. With every grey breath of tobacco fumes, swig of alcohol and bite of artificially produced food, you become bonded to the physical imperfection of this world, and powerhouses like corporations and crime-lords alike is able to tie the noose around your neck just a little bit tighter.
Thank you for making my point so clear, illiterate. The problem with the system is that it clumps people likeme, who make a minority and like pot, with people like you, who fit a majority that doesn't. Now, I'm sure your as anti-authoritarian as the rest of us, but even in a direct democracy, I would be out of luck as long as a majority deemed pot illegal.

I propose that the world's empires federate. Only when states are finally so small that the boss and worker live in the same neighborhood will there cease to be bosses and workers.

Raúl Duke

27th August 2007, 00:22

Only when states are finally so small that the boss and worker live in the same neighborhood will there cease to be bosses and workers.

We don't seek unity with out bosses....we seek to disposes them of their position and abolish the class system.

but even in a direct democracy, I would be out of luck as long as a majority deemed pot illegal.

However, you and people like you will have the abilty to speek about your position and show them your reasoning behind it. If you're right and get to influence people to your position than you may have a chance.

I don't think people want to waste resources on catching people with pot when we can put them up for better things.

You are also forgetting that this probably would differs from comune to comune.

Another thing...while I'm against a ban on pot or whatever else...it does seem you prioritize that over freedom..unless I'm wrong.

P.S. If you don't like direct democracy look up consensus decision making.

OrderedAnarchy

28th August 2007, 03:48

I didn't propose "unity" with them, but that no human is inherently, at birth, an evil one. Not even bosses, who are just as ignorant as those who believe their lies and propaganda. My Dad would be considered of the petty-bourgeosie, and I can tell you that the only way he can keep himself convinced that the system works is to wash his brain on a nightly basis with grotesque and blunt propaganda. No, the enemy is not the bourgeosie. It is the system, the empire, the state, that gives them power. Destroy the system, federate, and form tiny communes so that consensual existence can then exist, and the system that gives them power is gone.

Asstrumpet

28th August 2007, 04:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:48 am
I didn't propose "unity" with them, but that no human is inherently, at birth, an evil one. Not even bosses, who are just as ignorant as those who believe their lies and propaganda. My Dad would be considered of the petty-bourgeosie, and I can tell you that the only way he can keep himself convinced that the system works is to wash his brain on a nightly basis with grotesque and blunt propaganda. No, the enemy is not the bourgeosie. It is the system, the empire, the state, that gives them power. Destroy the system, federate, and form tiny communes so that consensual existence can then exist, and the system that gives them power is gone.
The system doesn't give them power. They are the system. If the Bourgeoise, like bosses and other leaders at Workplaces and companies, began to rebel, then the whole system would full apart. Unfortunately, the bourgeoise likes Capitalism because it gives them power.

In turn, we must destroy the Bourgeoise to destroy the system.

funkmasterswede

28th August 2007, 04:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:33 am
you gotta fight! for your right to parrrrrrrrrrr TAAAAYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

gotta love 1st world anarkiddies, who cares about the sweatshops, ppl living in slums and starving. Damnit, you need your weed and booze!!!!!
While I agree with your point, his point is relevant.

I think every person leftist or not is apalled by sweat shop labour. The problem is most don't have the will or won't pursue another way of obtaining the goods they need in their lives.

However, his issue, which is one of individual liberty, should not be overlooked. While the conception of the self is something that is impacted by social conditions, there is such a thing as the purely genetic phenotype that determines the functioning of the human mind and in turn what the individual views the self as. Thus individual liberty is an issue that should not be dismissed. When it is generally conducive to human flourishing to shrug it off as simply a bourgeois notion, seems awfully dogmatic.

Raúl Duke

28th August 2007, 10:06

No, the enemy is not the bourgeosie. It is the system, the empire, the state, that gives them power. Destroy the system, federate, and form tiny communes so that consensual existence can then exist, and the system that gives them power is gone.

While this is true to some extent....

However...

It shouldn't be expected that they (the bourgeoisie) will always go "silently through the night."

The case seems that once the people begin to take over (or "destory") the workplaces, etc they (the capitalists) either 1) surrender or 2)resist the revolution with all they got, because they sense, rightly or wrongly, that they will "lose everything".

No one here is stating that anyone is "evil" (I don't think this, especially how it's put, even exist); It's just that I believe that our (i.e., workers' and capitalists' interest) and theirs' interest are quite oppose to each other.

Also, notice I said "dispose them from their position". It doesn't mean that we have to kill every single cappie bastard, only that we must get them out of their position of power, which depending on the cases, might or might not require force/execution/etc.

OrderedAnarchy

28th August 2007, 23:24

Perhaps it was the bourgeoisie that established national capitalism. (Granted the original establishment of capitalist trading would have been nearly simultaneous with the emergence of said class from medieval aristocracies.) If that is the case, and if it is also true that the system gives them power, then it follows that national capitalism was created by them to secure their power, and that the only way of taking that power them. A general, cosmopolitan strike is the only way to halt their system and ultimately destroy it; without it, they will be naked, cold, and scared. That is when the proletariat will rise and take back what is theirs.

Asstrumpet

29th August 2007, 02:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:24 pm
Perhaps it was the bourgeoisie that established national capitalism. (Granted the original establishment of capitalist trading would have been nearly simultaneous with the emergence of said class from medieval aristocracies.) If that is the case, and if it is also true that the system gives them power, then it follows that national capitalism was created by them to secure their power, and that the only way of taking that power them. A general, cosmopolitan strike is the only way to halt their system and ultimately destroy it; without it, they will be naked, cold, and scared. That is when the proletariat will rise and take back what is theirs.
My theory of Revolution is as follows:

The Proletarians occupy their workplaces and either dispose of or disempower the bourgeoise in the workplace. Once the proletariat seizes control of their workplaces, they will have a hold on their area that cannot be denied. Strikes, protest, or even violence should be used to have the occupation take place.

Meanwhile, a band of guerillas does what they do best. Defend the Proletarian occupators and fight the bourgeoise and State. The skirmishes, if the guerilla campaign proves effective, will grow into warfare. The occupied workplaces that are large, such as supermarkets and warehouses and department stores could serve as a base.

Later into warfare with the State, if we are winning, the guerillas can elevate their campaign to a Conventional Warfare, and is, theoretically, the way to deal final blows to the bourgeoise.

Organizing the lumpen would be effective as well, to go...uh...riot, or something.

1. Rise of the Proletariat 2. Urban Guerilla on the State 3. Conventional Warfare to Revolution.