William Gibson Books www.williamgibsonboard.com www.williamgibsonboard.com News of the day & Current Issues Capitalism will the kill the planet, not communism.
www.williamgibsonboard.com www.williamgibsonboard.com News of the day & Current Issues Capitalism will the kill the planet, not communism. Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Member |
Alright, hold on, ... in the first place, I like this post, a simple perspective that gives context to much of your previous prescriptions for Anarchy--and the above segment is a deciscive illustration of your point here; "Life is long." as they say. But screaming "I'm an American! You don't fuck with us!" over and over, You know you can't just leave it at that! ... You're waiting for me to ask? Now, who were you trying to kill, why, and how did you get from homocidal maniac to the cuddly Janos we all know and love to debate? History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
|
Member |
And furthermore, "rock the suburbs" is great, but it doesn't preclude organizing on a larger scale, does it? Surely in the 21st Century, "making do with the tools one has" will involve concerned individuals banding together on an increasingly global scale? The problem of unsustainability will eventually require an international consensus and exertion.
And, as we saw in the wake of Katrina, climate change and the systemic pathology of global corporations along with the [edit]governments that represent them[/edit], are likely to leave lots and lots of--in some cases, instantly--underprivaledged people on our doorstep (i.e., Bangladesh). Assuming, of course, you're the one who still has a doorstep. [Crazy Carlos is about to chime in, "It's only the people on the coasts" so I'll just say, "It's the economy, stupid!" and leave it at that.] This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan, History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Just like Quiet Riot did? The Lithos School of Curiousity is now enrolling |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'll have you know I was there, in the 1980s, at that concert, and no, absolutely not like Quiet Riot did--more like Black Sabbath did after thier opener, except with Ozzy instead of Ian Gillan, or whoever it was at the time. History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Was it with Randy?
The Lithos School of Curiousity is now enrolling |
|||
|
|
Member |
Nah. Sadly, it was after Randy fell from on high.
 History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
Member |
Statement: Capitalism will the kill the planet, not communism.
Response: The meta-nam-shub must be rediscovered and unleashed on the world's knowledge workers.  |
|||
|
Member |
Well sorry, it took so long to chime back in that a few people got distracted, by of all things, Quiet Riot! I saw Ozzy the year after Randy died, I think Brad Gillis was still with him, then I seen he on the Bark at the Moon tour with Jake E Lee. I never went to another of his shows, even though Oz Fest comes around every year. Family life took its toll on my concert going so I have to pick and choose very carefully!
Now that that's out of the way, back to the meaningful stuff! Mmmm, funny, I knew I would be called on my chromatic mishap, I was in a hurry, so 'brown' was all I could think of! And yea, I guess the LP party’s website has been assimilated into the mainstream of American culture, which I guess they're doing it to try to attract attention to themselves and thus more members. Sad really, but so much of American politics is....
Simply put, very true and even scientifically correct! Janos, I think the form of anarchy you have laid out, would be a very good system, in small groups. (Don’t ask me how small) But on a larger scale, for various reasons, a more structured system must be in place, mostly for time when expediency is need for decision making and the like. Other than that, I'd be up for it!!! And finally... This is my take, from my perspective, POV and personal experience. I believe individual freedom, when it can, should rule above all other matters. Free people are more creative, more innovative and very much happier living life if this is the case. I also believe that it is our 'natural' state of being and thus, the state we should always strive to reach. First, there is the law (and to some extent, a government), which does not prevent us from doing harm to one another, but only makes sure some form of accountability is there. It cannot ever make me like a person or group of people, nor can it make me hate a person or group of people, that alone is my choice. It can punish me if I overtly demonstrate this hate, but it cannot change my heart or the way I feel. Thus, the law is not all we need. (to me, any government's main duty is the enforcement of the law, however few or many there are. Therefore, for the rest of the post, they are interchangable) I will say, before I continue, that I am a practicing Christian (Baptist, if you must know.) and that I am using my faith as an example of a partial solution. (BTW - any references to others that call themselves Christians and me, is invalid because I'm not them and I may not agree with what they did or said. Just like not all Marxist are like Hitler! ;0 ) The God(including Jesus) that I know and the Bible describes, tell me to do what the law can never accomplish. In Genisis, God tells man that he is the Steward of the Earth. This doesn't mean it's ours, only that we're to take care of it, like house sitting. There are several references in the Old and New Testement's that use stewardship in parable and all of them castigate those that do irresposible things while the 'lord' is away. In the form of Jesus, He gives us two short sentances that take care of the rest. Have no other God before the Lord God (meaning, greed and lust or anything that is all consuming of your life) and Love your neighbor(everybody) as yourself. Using these two fundamental principles as a guide, solves most all the problems that the law does not. Follow these laws and there will be no need for man's laws, but since we already know the nature of man, he cannot ever do this fully, so Man's laws are needed as a secondary restraint. We would be charitable, honest, loving, compassionate and responsible for not only ourselves, but our fellow man. Now I definatly think that religion is probably not well thought of here (I'm guessing, so no offense), but I do believe that the principle I mentioned above, if practice (with or without God) would go along way to creating a better place to live. Some of you might say this counters with my definition of freedom, but I say, it's only my opinion and I am free to believe this and live this way. You are, of course, free not too  Anyway, the whole point of all that was to illustrate that any form of law is not an end. There must be something else involved to alter or change us as human beings, that makes us want to care for the gifts we enjoy. P.S. As a side note, Communism would mess the planet up far more quickly thatn capitalism would, just look at Chernobyl... This message has been edited. Last edited by: IamWhatIam, 011010110100100111001010100101001010100101010100011100101001010 Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration... |
|||
|
Member |
If anything, I was a 'softer' person before the incident. In 2000, I was travelling by myself through most of Europe, North Africa, and Turkey. I was in the more remote parts of the Sahara for about two weeks when I and a temporary friend were taken hostage by criminal/muslim extremists. It's a very long story - the easiest way to describe it all is to say that I gained their respect and was let go, whereupon I recovered from shock, had a psychological breakdown as much related two being silent in the desert for two weeks prior as the incident, and started to go back and kill them. In the end, my buddy managed to take control of the vehicle, we ended up in the mountains, and after getting lost and nearly freezing to death (another long story), were taken in and brought back to health by a family of Berber shepards. In terms of the incident, I found out later that I was very definitely not alone in this encounter; there's actually a brief warning in Lonely Planet: Morocco. Unfortunately, a brief google search did nothing to turn it up. I've been encouraged to write the whole thing out by friends, maybe I will someday, but for now, it would just take too long. Morocco is a *safe* country to visit, and worthwhile - I'm returning in April this next year.
No, it doesn't preclude it at all - but it certainly doesn't place a high value on it. Before considering the issues of international moral position and relation, it is probably better to claim our autonomy for our own, materially, and philosophically. This will have a far greater effect on international trade and relationship than any global exchange could attempt to achieve.
If you follow activist politics, you may be aware of the alternative conferences that occur around the big power meetings, they go by the name "global people's forum". One of the more recent one(s) was in Johannesburg, in 2002. Well.. ..there were actually 3. The 'official one' was dominated by non-profits and ngo's. The 'revolutionary' one held a bunch of radicals and communists, lots of hardcore radical types. It was some distance from the first. And in a small town, there was one populated by a number of anarchists, and a bunch of actual local poor people (not their mascots or 'leaders') who were just as happy to see everyone go home. I think the thing about recognizing harm in your own community, as opposed to the more 'symbolic' or 'cause-celebre' movements, is that is actually will require a great deal more conflict if you wish to do something about it. Maybe you live in suburbs in which a hospital generates electricity through coal or has a waste incinerator. The emissions are a provable assault on you. It's considerably easier to advocate for a national law change on emissions, or to work to help a worse situation from afar, than to say, kick that generator out of your town through a *local consensus* - or even - stop that assualt directly by whatever means are necessary to defend yourself. Because it means you will suffer the consequences of these actions. I think that is a good thing - and better for your local, and global society as a whole, than any sort of global consensus (often a proxy to colonialism) or ngo work.
But that's it exactly. We are all the world's knowledge-workers - we all produce truth and culture. Capitalism, Communism, are mostly just formalized justifications for social practices and (forgive me) "signs". Without this recognition, our opportunity to change the formalized system, through 'formal challenges', will be as grandiose and silly as boycotting Starbucks.
I think first, you should consider whether 'expediency' actually exists in state hierarchy, or bureaucracy, or in private capitalist organizations at all. I say, nope. If you want a material reference - New Orleans. Consider that the only expediency in that crisis came from regular people on the ground near the affected areas. And the other thing is 'improving the morality of power' is a process that does not require as much knowledge and intelligence, as a constant struggle from those that give their autonomy to the few. In Canada, we have a strong union history, and that struggle is much more pronounced than in the US, where most of the knowledge, memory, and activity of said struggle has vanished. We live better in Canada, if due to anything, the cultural comfort of the lower status-classes in waging war on those who will benefit from their work. Within a formalized hierarchy, it is this struggle that matters much more than any technocratic accounting of votes, ideas, or goods. Regarding scale - I can propose a 'solution' and an 'alternative' to your question. Solutions - replacable delegates, so no priviliged peer group is established representationally (noone gets to be a 'congressperson' or 'parlimentarian' for very long, at any level). Small or Vast federations of communities which trade and interact as they see fit. One thing about this also is, recognizing personal autonomy doesn't necessarily even require the social 'individualization' of people, so the above solutions may not even be relevant if cultural changes take place. Alternative - The thing (again) is though, is that in the sense of nation-states, 'anarchy' doesn't exist anyway. So I can't offer you an anarchist solution to having responsibilities for such a large group of dissimilar identities and desires. It's that 'trying to measure one thing by the standards of another' thing again. What I can say, is that, to argue a refrain from this thread - it is probably better to think of solutions in the personal and local interaction and production of truth - as the solutions will more likely require you to acknowledge the autonomy of those involved. If you critique of scale involves, say, technological production, and not political consensus, then I can only offer that it does not require hiearchy to make a vaccumn cleaner, at all.
I strongly disagree. The history of the invention of law, the pentitentiary, etc - is not as much based on the social contract (came later) but rather, the desire of kings and cartels to take the place of victims, and establish an objective truth by which they could take a share of the penace, or rewards. Eventually, as rule-of-law was established, the governing could fully take the place of the victim through the new agent, the prosecutor, and not only accrue land and goods, but also - more importantly - the autonomy of the accused, and the victim, as well.
I was raised Baptist for a bit, but left it for 'secular humanism', and later, an investigation of mahayana buddism and British Romanticism. Mea Culpa- I'm bad at all of them, and comfortable with that. I've known Christians of every political persusasion, and lived on the ocassional Catholic Worker Farm. http://www.catholicworker.org/
Without too much a desire to argue technicalities, or meaning, which is yours alone - I do wish to say, that I believe for the Hibiru, 'have no other God' more or less meant, 'stop worshipping all those other ones!'.
The failure of man to "fully love" you mention actually isn't all that different than the current religion of power, progressivism and it's relationship to romantic freedom. We're always reforming and improving our prisons, hospitals, schools, and institutions, forever failing. (and failing to recognize the possibility that these systems were created more or less as a place of purification, constant penace and improvement, and are so alientated from human desire to be laughable). But let me thank you for being direct about your religious beliefs and opinions. I wish more people would recognize where they place faith, and stop hiding behind the shrouds of rationalism and narrative history.
It's not entirely related, but seeing as my mother was almost trampled last night while working security for the Pixies, I'd thought I'd post these clever lyrics in their honour 
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Well, and after he left Quiet Riot. Sigh, Randy, you never did get the chance to settle your beef with Eddie... Jake is great. Got some of his Badlands stuff (there's a bunch of rocking boots over at http://www.guitars101.com of Ozzy, VH and heaps). Still trying to learn "Slow Down". The Lithos School of Curiousity is now enrolling |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well janos, in my strict interpritation, the law I refer to is of the basic set of 'natural' rules that our species live by. Namly, laws against murder, thievery and the like, nothing completly derived from Man in and of itself, just his general relationship to his fellow man.
And I'll have to say that money and power can be a god, just like and idol or ideal can. Now I do believe it also means other 'gods' as in other deities, but most of the World has a hard time dealing with the nature and belief in one God, much less many! My honesty to all of you, is really to let you know where I'm coming from when I type all the crap. I try to live an okay life as a human and my faith helps me when I'm weak and I don't want to do the right thing. It doesn't always work, but it certainly helps! I will have to say, that my 'love' is a bit more harsh than simply giving people something. I believe if you love someone you will help them, by instructing them on how not to repeat the same mistake again. 011010110100100111001010100101001010100101010100011100101001010 Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration... |
|||
|
Member |
if you want a real taste of what communism does for the environment, take a long drink from the river volga...
the problem with socialists or communists is that they can't support themselves on their own & march on anyone else that won't join them... communists cannot tolerate any differences of opinion without calling themselves into question... ALL RIGHTS RESERVED COPYRIGHT MMV THIS IS NOT AN OFFER ACCEPT ONLY AT YOUR OWN RISK |
|||
|
|
Member |
If you're familiar with Southern Preaching in Church, you know that our sermons are fairly exceptional in their creativity and relevance. Once, while travelling through Virginia with the baptist preacher Leslie Lee, (he was assisting me on an environmental racism project) I caught a few sermons at different churches. The forumla is fairly simple - take one thing - make it a representation of something else. "I'm sick and tired, of being sick and tired"..is one example; another is what you wrote above
The problem I have as a critic, is that while such a method can very effectively speak to the human experience, its ever-shifting representational system - while it may seem to be consistent, or logical - really is not. This wouldn't be a problem with me *at all* - except for the fact that the system itself claims a logic and consistency with the rest of the world - not just the faith of observant.
This I have no issue with - and I want to be clear - I do value faith. And honesty.
I don't agree with the meaning here as what love represents or instructs, in that state of agrippa, but I do not wish to argue an article of faith. |
|||
|
|
Member |
love & whatnot have nothing to do with it...
socialism is when the crown/state has an unlimited ability to spend backed by the full faith & credit of the subject citizens... how much people earn is determined by how much they serve the state/crown... this is what is practiced in the west... communism is when everyone gets paid the same (except for the communist leaders of course!) like how in cuba every one gets 300 pesos a month except for the doctors or factory managers that get 500 pesos a month... interestingly, china once took the 'great leap forward' into communism & starved over eight million of their own people... now they have gone socialist like the west, at least they don't pretend to elect leaders with fake elections like they do here, so in that sense they are more honest the main problem with communism or socialism is that whoever is in charge will bogart all the goodies for themselves while everyone else starves... like sally struthers in south park...  the other problem with communism & socialism is that it cannot live & let live, hence the need to march on anyone that will not march with them, especially those pesky hebrews that like to practice their own religion instead of worshipping the socialist leaders... socialism, communism, imperialism or any other collectivism cannot tolerate any difference in opinion or individuality... if some are allowed to exist on their own outside the commune then the commune becomes threatened with loosing slaves errr, comrades, & it's very existence is threatened... ALL RIGHTS RESERVED COPYRIGHT MMV THIS IS NOT AN OFFER ACCEPT ONLY AT YOUR OWN RISK |
|||
|
|
Member |
Sorry it took awhile to get back to this.
Well, life is long, I hope you find the time. "the world is not made of atoms, but of stories." -don't remember
Strictly tongue-in-cheek. 
Maybe I'm missing something (the longer your posts, the less self-contained, it would seem), but in my neighborhood, the concept of community seems to only stretch around the block, as the occassional gunshots testify. If we're talking about falling back on the neighborhood instead of the police, I will need to be better armed. Not that I take them for granted, mind: the people on the block look out for each other, and I try to be a good neighbor too. But Modern life is gesselschaft (for lack of a better term), and we have bad neighbors too. Or the Gretna cops who blocked the only escape route from of the city and shot at anyone who approached? They said their first loyalty was to the people of Gretna.
Is Starbucks really so all powerful? It doesn't seem to present near as steep--or inevitable--a task as weening the industrial world off of oil. I mean, after finding power for the industrial rise of China (where 37% of the world's population lives), and somehow not blow each other to bits over the last dregs (back to Easter Island). Obviously, oil wasn't a causal factor in WWII, but being a world war, it was a resource war from the outset, oil being far more precious than blood in an all out fight. And all this before any consideration of the tax climate change will, sooner or later, impose on more vital resources. I'm not sure your argument fully appreciates the extent to which it's economic interdependence, as opposed to autonomy, that is maintaining what peace we have on this shrinking planet --so far, it's trade-ties that ensure any war with China will be a net loss. Nor have you addressed the environmental factors that foster or discourage altruism in nature (i.e., the divergent pathways of bonobos and chimps, in my link; or the cautionary tale of Easter Island).
I agree, if we're still talking about corporate/consumer culture being maladapted to environmental change --but I don't see how it's expedient to pin the solution on lofty goals such as capitalism, communism or anarchy, if that's what you mean(?). I can sooner imagine the existing machinery and economies of the world retooling--that is, being compelled to--not because of altruism; I don't think anyone here pretends that morality has anything to do with markets. I mean, sweet Jesus, the Moral Majority has subsidiaries producing porn. The efficiency of capitalism, if you want to call it that, is that it is unencumbered by moral values of any kind. OTOH, if history is any judge, the only things to successfully compel big business has been mass movements like organized labor, consumer pressure and democratic legislation. Hardly 'cause celebres' at this late date. And btw, instead of Starbucks, as I'm sure you know, what really renders all grass-roots efforts grandiose and silly in the U.S. is the Supreme Court verdict that cold hard cash amounts to "free speech" in the electoral process. Sort of puts the autonomous individual, or neighborhood, at a disadvantage.
Hmm, I'm all for anything that mitigates ideological laziness (ideology as laziness?), but it sounds like no one in office would have time to figure anything out. I like the federations of small communities if they're able to work in concert (a big if), but I can't see how they would trouble a corporation with multi-national mobility, otherwise. And besides, where's the entertainment value? The drama of political theatre? O.K., O.K., but we're cutting off the broadcast if it runs into The Apprentice. (like a lot of people, I have no idea how to communicate except through *signs*).
How so? What sort of cultural changes?
Well, I'm can't say how much of the above is substantive argument, and how much is just semantics working at cross-purposes, or both. I'll just say that I have great respect for this idea of recognizing the autonomy of others, grave doubts about the extent to which anyone truly posesses this autonomy, 'individuation', in themselves. And then there's all the external factors, the logistics of dwindling resources, and the things that have always made 'recognizing of the autonomy of others' so problematic. "Human, all too human." - Nietzsche  This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan, History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Thanks for the critique and responses Etruscan - I'm on a delay here - but I'll write back as soon as I get the opportunity.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Same here, actually. I have to replace my video card, now. So if you don't hear from me for a stretch, you'll know something went disastrously wrong.
History is the excavation of graves--essential work, if one is to understand the graves that await us in the future. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'm sorry, I have to respond to this.... I'm afraid your wrong about this. You see, no matter what form of government you have, whether it exists today or will soon be invented, if people don't care(love) about themselves AND their fellow man, we will all be doomed to a self-destructive future. 011010110100100111001010100101001010100101010100011100101001010 Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration... |
|||
|
|
Member |
|