quote:

I do have a bit of trouble separating money from power, largely because those with power tend to have a great deal of money. So would "redistribution of Power" necessarily also be "redistribution of wealth?"

In as much as you're willing to accept currency to begin with - absolutely, since money is the currency exhange of power, not goods or labor value.

U.S. "libertarian" advocacy of just limiting government while ignoring the accumulation of wealth mostly comes from plantation philosophies invented during the Slave Days, whether or not they know it. It's basically a 'white power' doctrine, from a certain perspective.

And this is the dominant theory among the US heads of state, even if they don't actually practice it.

Damn you're long... fingered!

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:
As weird as it sounds, blaming people for their own problems, as opposed to the government is often a liberating act - when it takes into account the construction and use of power.

-------------------

But, when you realize everyday people of all classes as still having their own autonomy and power, despite the fact that every day, they give it to the few, then we have some possibility at changing the discourse. And you make more friends, in my experience.

And that, my friends is the whole point of freedom. To realise this for yourself and act accordingly.

I can't say that I really disagree with much you said Janos, although I'll preface my sentiment by saying that I'm looking from a mostly 'now, forward' view and not from an idealistic one. I will say that Capitalism is just an economic model, nothing more, spawned from the idea of free-markets and it should not be used to 'rule' anybody without their consent.

The only thing we need to 'all just get along', is the rule of law that prevents us from harming one another, after that, we can run ourselves however we want. We cannot forget that their will always, always be people in our society that either want to hurt us or want to live off of us, so there is an ultimate need for basic restrictions to prevent that from happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:
U.S. "libertarian" advocacy of just limiting government while ignoring the accumulation of wealth mostly comes from plantation philosophies invented during the Slave Days, whether or not they know it. It's basically a 'white power' doctrine, from a certain perspective.

I'm curious as to your definition of the term Libritarian on this issue, plus, I'd like to know that if the Chinese had been in America first, would you be saying 'brown power'?

Now if you mean the conservatives and republicians, disregard the above query....

To maintain a certain "jingoistic consistency," IamWhatIam, wouldn't it by "yellow power"? Brown power would be the Mexicans/Central/South Americans, while East Indians have been called "black" for so long within the context of British colonialism, they'll be included in "black power." . Yeah, I'm joking. Really. (the internet, where deadpan is more deadpan than Stephen Wright).

Anyway, yeah, if the Chinese held with doctrines that limited the success of other races in order to maintain their own status, I'd imagine "brown" (or whatever) power would be applied here. However, since we're dealing with world history on this planet, and in particular American history in Janos's comment, I'd have to say that "white power" as Janos deploys it here is appropriate.

As for U.S.-brand libertarianism, see http://www.lp.org/. Near as I can understand it, Janos hits the nail on the head. Small government, social liberties. Like being a Democrat without the social programs.

I still consider unlimited capitalism as an individualistic system because you do not have social requirements, only formal requirements depending on the contract you have signed. No contract, no obligation and no benefits.

Of course, what was in theory an agreement between individuals in the XVIIIth century has now been coopted by corporations.

Anyway, I dislike all of them, but I prefer a socialist republic with high social participation in the accountability process (such as Switzerland) is one way to go. A pity that high participation and interest in the political process is going down, rather than up, all around the West.

I do like anarchy in principle, but I believe it can only work when there is unlimited space available for people. Or in a fully closed system where people are brought up that way. But that is why I am not an Anarchist.

José

quote:

Originally posted by JRE:
I do like anarchy in principle, but I believe it can only work when there is unlimited space available for people.

I think you hit the nail on the head, with that. I tend to think altruism--in the wild, or in the context of civilization--is not at all unnatural (if not neccesarilly prevalent). All things being equal, I think most people have basically decent instincts that are only challenged when there is simply not enough to go around. As the saying goes, 'Justice comes after a full belly.' For example, it's much easier to find societies formed around altruistic principles--a recognition of interdependence--amoung hunter-gatherer societies (at least, within them, if not quite so often between them). But then, of course, historical trends begun in the distant past set the pace for future competition and hegemony--where the scarcity results from greed, i.e., Cain slew Abel (agriculturalists displaced hunter/pastoralists)--and thereafter such trends become awfully difficult to reverse. It seems to me that Janos' link between progressivism and hegemony goes all the back to the dawn of agriculture.

But Janos, while I think I understand what you mean by "pastoralist" (as opposed to something about nomadic herdsmen): as pie-in-the-sky mirage (whether glimpsed at the pinnacle of the Marxist dialectic, or a Catholic notion of heaven). But let's not forget the profound influence of the Protestant trajectory. Are you familiar with Max Weber's Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic?

I have really enjoyed the informative thoughts. It was more than I hoped for. So..

quote:

I don't really care if it is government or private, as long as it pays attention to the needs and desires of the citizens

So possibly a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government? (an old friend of mine used to make this point), but 'you can't keep all the people happy all the time', to paraphrase ol' Abe, and it seems that the more complex a society (of whatever kind) becomes, the more likely the result is an underclass of poorly paid people making sure that the better paid ones are able to have the services they want 24x7. Even ancient Greece, which gave us Democracy, was based on the use of slaves.

So, in the light of the above, dear contributors, can any large society be sustainable? (I stick to 'large' because many native peoples(e.g. native australians) have a society which has changed little over hundreds of years).

quote:

Originally posted by heavymessinge.g. native australians) have a society which has changed little over hundreds of years).

A) They're called Aborigines,

B) You haven't been down here lately, have you?

A benevolent dictatorship can be a good government in some senses, but as a dictatorship it is one of the most likely to be abused, and it fails in one place that I think is fairly important: giving people a chance to control their own destiny. It is at least as important for people to make their own decisions as it is for them to make the "right" decisions.

Are large and just societies sustainable? I believe it is possible, but that's more of an optimistic article of faith than anything.

If I knew how to make them happen I wouldn't be here, I'd be out making them happen.

Benevolent is moot. The dictator's got me worried. Unless said dictator is me.

quote:

Originally posted by Heavy Messing:
Even ancient Greece, which gave us Democracy, was based on the use of slaves.

+ spreading "Freedom and democracy" through imperialist hegemony is as old as the Peloponnesian War.

quote:

So, in the light of the above, dear contributors, can any large society be sustainable?

And the alternative to sustainability is ... ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan,

quote:

A) They're called Aborigines,

B) You haven't been down here lately, have you?

A. I take your point somewhat, but I wanted to use an inclusive phrase that would be specific (and wouldn't offend anyone) as there are other aboriginal peoples around the world, however I now find I could have used 'indigenous Australians' or 'Australian Aborigine'. wikipedia
I figured they used their own names for themselves, which turned out to be correct. "Aboriginal people from different parts of Australia have their own names for themselves like Anangu, Koori, Yamaji, Noongar, Nunga, Murri, Wiradjuri etc." But then you knew that already as you live there.

B. No, not lately. Why, have they been given their land back yet? Or do you mean that very few of them live in the old way?

I was trying to make the point (not well as it happens) that aboriginal societies (which tend to be simple rather than complex) (be they from Australia or not) have historically lasted a long time, and therefore, was 'complexity' a factor relating to sustainability? (Maybe I shoulda just said that! )

As to 'sustainability' I was referring to the continuance of a society in a recognisable form, so the alternative would be non-continuance. e.g. the Roman Empire as a society no longer exists in its economic, social, and environmental aspects. (That will probably produce a discussion about 'at what point as a society changes is it no longer the same society and becomes another one?') but please feel free.

quote:

Originally posted by Heavy Messing:
As to 'sustainability' I was referring to the continuance of a society in a recognisable form, so the alternative would be non-continuance. e.g. the Roman Empire as a society no longer exists in its economic, social, and environmental aspects.

I was thinking more along the lines of, e.g., the dinosaur.

But you're example makes more sense in short run, considering that the Roman Empire was followed by the dark ages: the garden of ancient civilization going to seed in the West, preserved for posterity only in the annals of Arab and Jewish scholars. The same process can be seen in microcosm in the experience of the Easter Islanders.

For example, the term "pacific" derives it's connotation of peacefulness from the laid back temperament of the varied Polynesian cultures that took root in the nutrient rich islands of the South Pacific. That was the case on Easter Island, until they deforested it, severly restricting the supply of wood for canoes to bring in the bounty of the sea. From this point on, the archaeological record shows innovations not seen before on the island, such as flaked-obsidian spearpoints, and fortifications. In short, once the pinch was sincerely felt, the infighting over dwindling resources scarred their culture beyond recognition so that, by the time the first European explorers arrived, the few, impoverished inhabitants that remained could not even recall the meaning of the monolithic stone heads, much less the gravity defying secret of their architecture.

Then, of course, there's always the aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina--all it takes to thrust us into the Iron Age is to shut off the juice--but don't get me wrong, pessimism is never an option: death doesn't need any help. Bringing culture and commerce up to speed with environmental realities, does.

Dum spiro spero. = While I breath, I hope.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan,

quote:

And that, my friends is the whole point of freedom. To realise this for yourself and act accordingly.

I basically agree, and enjoy this point. Thanks. The only exception I'll take is that I don't agree that freedom has a purpose, or dianoia, since it isnt' necessarily the result of a narrative. So instead I'll call the conclusion above one of the primary benefits.

quote:

I'm curious as to your definition of the term Libritarian on this issue

quote:

s for U.S.-brand libertarianism, see http://www.lp.org/.

Image from the main page of the site.
The libertarian party in the US tends to be populated by a disproportional number of divorced or disaffected upper-middle-class white women and men. There is a a smaller tendency in the party towards Thomas-Jefferson-style agriculturalism, but it's a limited influence. The party is without a doubt one of the more ignorant and racist parties in the United States - but they wouldn't understand why.

quote:

Anyway, yeah, if the Chinese held with doctrines that limited the success of other races in order to maintain their own status, I'd imagine "brown" (or whatever) power would be applied here. However, since we're dealing with world history on this planet, and in particular American history in Janos's comment, I'd have to say that "white power" as Janos deploys it here is appropriate.

Thanks. I should've been less ethno-centric here - I'm from the countryside of Virginia - "white power" is the rallying cry of externally proud white supremacy groups. You can see the same politics in, say, Urban Developement, or the structure of Red Cross Relief for those affected by Katrina, and though it's silent to those unaffected, that cry comes across as obvious if not external, to many of those affected by the policies of the above groups.

quote:

I still consider unlimited capitalism as an individualistic system because you do not have social requirements, only formal requirements depending on the contract you have signed. No contract, no obligation and no benefits.

Well, yeah "theoretically" that's true. But Capitalism is full of contracts, everywhere, thousands of tons of formal requirements, and the whole 'contract' thing is a joke for the majority of the population.

quote:

Anyway, I dislike all of them, but I prefer a socialist republic with high social participation in the accountability process (such as Switzerland) is one way to go

Within the context of government, I prefer exactly the same thing and have even worked for the NDP here in Canada to support that.

quote:

I do like anarchy in principle, but I believe it can only work when there is unlimited space available for people. Or in a fully closed system where people are brought up that way. But that is why I am not an Anarchist.

I think that for many, the largest problem in anarch(ism) is the idea of responsibility.

I think that's the core of it, and I'll post on that and autonomy some other time.

But basically, my answer to the question of whether or not it could work (for people in a country) - is not to only concern yourself with whether it would work for *you*.

Because, in practicing anarchy, the role of cultural identity and responsbility considerably changes, and whom you are responsible for changes as well.

This isn't to approve of those who retire to intentional communities, or adopt anarchy as a philosophy by which a person is suddenly exempted from the responsbility to a community with which they still clearly identify.

It's more that I view capitalism and socialism "anthropologically" in terms of sexual, judicial, 'gender', and other practices. In discussing a new 'system' by which people should live anarchy fails - and that is a good thing.

Anarchy isn't a system or an end to be posited upon the populace for their own good. It is that sort of thinking, which requires a solution for the human condition - example:

quote:

Not so much capitalism, as the stupidity and lack of long-term vision of too many people.

Which has led to the *progressivism* of such modern organizations as Bush and party, Al Qaeda, the Colonialists, the NeoCons, basically, those who hurt in the name of the good, for the good, and by the knowledge of the good.

So to me, anarchy can be practiced day to day - it's practice will conflict not as often with overt political institutions as much as the varying form of resistance and recreation of them interpersonally.

So what I'm saying is, to assume that anarchy needs a 'fully closed system' to 'work' is problematic - you're attempting to evaluate an entirely different way of being in the language of another (progressivism).

It's similar to trying to explain Buddhism in the language of Roman Catholicism - it cannot communicate or understand the 'other' effectively.

quote:

Of course, what was in theory an agreement between individuals in the XVIIIth century has now been coopted by corporations.

According to some of my friends, that is also what happened to punk music :/

The story of 'co-option' really makes no sense. For one thing, capital theory and punk music was just as influenced by power and 'corruption' then, as now, and second; it was always just a theory - purity is a interesting idea, but it's not testable or really much of anything.

What purity does fit though, is a certain technique of power.

The romantic hero (progressivism, or pure-small capitalism in this case) journey to the underworld to return a society to the pastoral purity or vision that it once embraced.

To talk about things in the sense of co-option paints us as either the oppressed, or more likely, the heroes. The governments of the earth are spectacular at this, and the social contract was popularized for, and fits nicely with, this narrative. At the most obvious, we see it as a 'duck and cover' nuclear advisement - in our language (us homeland security uses the feminine 'home' sense, a once-removed reference to motherland - as it is the duty of the hero to protect the sacred feminine) - and in the obvious maneouvering of race-baiting polticians and charity organizations.

So, I don't like to think in terms of co-option, as it is often dangerous, it supports ethnic superiorism, and more than anything supports the sort of power than can eventually turn on you.

That said, the "Romantics" back in Britain (keats, shelley, byron, et al) - a group which has a lot to do with the problems of ethnic nation-states today, are a pretty fun read and have a lot to say worth listening to.

just rambling now...it's been an interesting thread.

For one, I'm glad we keep coming back to the same themes in many different threads - there's no reason not to argue to a point of recognizable differences.


I had a much longer post, involving a response on the Weber issue (yes, I've read, appreciate the cultural analysis, but don't agree, Marx is probably as close, Foucault got it better with his analysis of judical practices and the negotiation of personal autonomy in the 17-19th century)...but...my browsers interaction with the board somehow reset, losing the info. I haven't been to respond timely to any posts - it may take me a few days to do so. Great discussion! Let's keep it going.

Janos

I think the thing I most enjoy about your theory of anarchy, Janos, is that it can work within systems precisely because it takes on notions not only of individual autonomy but also of social responsibility.

This is something I'm trying to tangle with in my dissertation: where's the space for action? To what extent can identity be concrete or fluid and that individual still be engaged and capable of exerting some kind of force on their cultural milieu? It's all very tough stuff to tease apart, largely because I'm still a bit un-self-critical when it comes to my own feelings of empowered/powerlessness/what have you and my relationship to/participation in government. My gut feeling is that one should make do with the tools one has. If that means grass-roots movements to infiltrate existing political structures, then so be it(?)

And isn't that Libertarian site just surreally tacky?

if someone ain't done it, i'm gonna hafta quote carlin here, when he said it was narcissism that we'd think we could possibly ever hurt the planet. the planet will be here long after we're fossils, and will repair any "damage" we'll ever do to it. mother earth, when push comes to shove, can be a real bitch. (see also, dec. 2004/tsunami.)

Nice... I think that "we're going to wreck the planet" does sort of imply "make it uninhabitable for humans." The problem becomes: how many other animals, as similar to us as they are ('cept maybe cockroaches) will go with us? Humans will have measurable short-term effects, and who knows what will happen when we're gone. But we are having measurable short-term effects.

life feeds on life.

I just ran across a quote by Jean Beaudrillard I really like: "The day the world ends, no one will be there, just as no one was there when it began. This is a scandal. Such a scandal for the human race that it is indeed capable collectively, out of spite, of hastening the end of the world by all possible means just so it can enjoy the show."

He's a crank, but he's a fun crank.

quote:

To what extent can identity be concrete or fluid and that individual still be engaged and capable of exerting some kind of force on their cultural milieu? It's all very tough stuff to tease apart, largely because I'm still a bit un-self-critical when it comes to my own feelings of empowered/powerlessness/what have you and my relationship to/participation in government. My gut feeling is that one should make do with the tools one has.

In this respect, I can only speak to you as a single person - not offer you a prescription for social change.

I think that it is better to [identify] those aspects of power which most immediately affect your day to day experience in sexuality, in conflict-resolution and creation, in your work, and your immediate experience as all the people and actions you see in the course of a day.

Since the experience of formal government is generally a small one within that larger image of everyday experience, it should probably be treated with that sort of relevance.

I'm not advocating "just letting things flow" or "if we're good people, things will change" by saying the above. That's just aristo-hippie dilletantism.

What I'm suggesting is that, whether your identity is fairly concrete as an American middle-class male, or as fluid as a collection of karmic memories; the acknowledgement of how you create and produce power, day to day - as well as an active engagement with all aspects of society - the rich, the bums, everyone - will possibly give you a better sense of comfort about your own identity, whether it is 'concrete' or 'fluid'.

From this perception, it is only for you to decide how much you wish to conflict with those existing socially informal and formal productions which you encounter.

You may even realize yourself as a priviliged individual in a neo-colonial world - who honestly does not wish to threaten their benefits as accrued so far by actual change. That's okay, as far as I am concerned.

I think that in producing narrative about ourselves, we often forget 'where we come from'. I remember once driving very fast across the Sahara, hell-bent on killing two men who were currently sitting in a cafe - and I was willing to also kill those sitting nearby to accomplish this goal. I was screaming "I'm an American! You don't fuck with us!" over and over, with a few variations.

This action was very much in conflict with my current story about myself as a global citizen who didn't identify with the darker aspects of my country.

So to answer your question, I guess what I am saying is that as you learn to place your narrative and identity within context, there may not even be a desire to 'exert a directed force on the cultural milieu'. If there is such a desire, and you know it, it will direct such a force honestly in almost every action you involve yourself in.

quote:

If that means grass-roots movements to infiltrate existing political structures, then so be it(?)

In addition to making do with the tools one has, I think we should make do with the knowledge one has.

The Romantic glamour of 'grass-roots' movements is a striking thing, wonderful poetry, but it's often a shibboleth for a form of social control.

I can relate hundreds of stories about middle/upper middle class white activists seeking to start a grass-roots movement in poor neighborhoods, and then abandoning them when:
a. Things got rough
b. Poor people wanted to be in charge of said movement
c. They got bored and moved on to something else
d. Funding dried up.

In whatever case, the effect was the same, as people of lower status now had even less control over their own lives, a sense of alienation from politics than would benefit them, and often, halfway completed housing and political projects that caused people to suffer more.

This isn't a result of the failing of the educated activists to use the proper technique of 'development', but rather, an accurate recognition that they never really had a huge stake in improving an area of the city they don't live in, and are protected from.

So I think it is better to simply practice the politics of change, if you wish, in the area of the larger society which you do know and interact with regularly. If you live in the suburbs, rock the suburbs.

Part of the reason Capitalism and it's judiciary, and other formalized forms of power can recreate themselves so effectively is because the autonomy of 'oppressed individuals' such as the poor, is constantly culled and concentrated into persons who have little benefit in actually changing things.

This can be a large union boss, an academic, activists, non-profits, just as easily as any factory manager. It is probably better for those honestly seeking social change to get to know as many people on their street, not as friends, but as recognizable individuals.

In the sense of formal government, they'll show up at the point at which those persons who surround you start to agree. Regulations!

quote:

I think the thing I most enjoy about your theory of anarchy, Janos, is that it can work within systems precisely because it takes on notions not only of individual autonomy but also of social responsibility.

Thank you. I very much appreciate this statement.