Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:14 am

jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:04 am wrote:
TheBlackSheep » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:36 am wrote:Does modern Marxism-Lenninism (and its anarchist variant) still advocate an elite to pave the way for the liberation of the 'lethargic masses' and instate centralized planning?


Very likely. This is the trouble with 'anarchist' variants, it may be just lip service. The only real way of telling is to get up close** and avoid wordy generalistions from the distance provided by obscure internet forums

The Left are by far more experienced at this though, and have been doing it for decades. The Right are a long way behind and are easier to spot.
Hess's piece is a good yardstick.

**I would count developing an online relationship as 'up close'.


Vague aspersions from a source you can surely trust: a supporter of National Anarchism!


Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby TheBlackSheep » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:34 am

American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:14 am wrote:
jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:04 am wrote:
TheBlackSheep » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:36 am wrote:Does modern Marxism-Lenninism (and its anarchist variant) still advocate an elite to pave the way for the liberation of the 'lethargic masses' and instate centralized planning?


Very likely. This is the trouble with 'anarchist' variants, it may be just lip service. The only real way of telling is to get up close** and avoid wordy generalistions from the distance provided by obscure internet forums

The Left are by far more experienced at this though, and have been doing it for decades. The Right are a long way behind and are easier to spot.
Hess's piece is a good yardstick.

**I would count developing an online relationship as 'up close'.


Vague aspersions from a source you can surely trust: a supporter of National Anarchism!


Image


*and to instate centralized planning [correction]

AD, you seem to be implying I cannot trust Jakells response. Can you tell me if the form of anarchism you are advocating supports those positions initially expressed by Lennin and Marx?
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:44 pm

TheBlackSheep » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:34 am wrote:
American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:14 am wrote:
jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:04 am wrote:
TheBlackSheep » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:36 am wrote:Does modern Marxism-Lenninism (and its anarchist variant) still advocate an elite to pave the way for the liberation of the 'lethargic masses' and instate centralized planning?


Very likely. This is the trouble with 'anarchist' variants, it may be just lip service. The only real way of telling is to get up close** and avoid wordy generalistions from the distance provided by obscure internet forums

The Left are by far more experienced at this though, and have been doing it for decades. The Right are a long way behind and are easier to spot.
Hess's piece is a good yardstick.

**I would count developing an online relationship as 'up close'.


Vague aspersions from a source you can surely trust: a supporter of National Anarchism!


Image


*and to instate centralized planning [correction]

AD, you seem to be implying I cannot trust Jakells response. Can you tell me if the form of anarchism you are advocating supports those positions initially expressed by Lennin and Marx?


Certain things of Marx, like for example class analysis. Lenin, not really- certainly not the vanguard parties, democratic centralism, party line etc. that are generally associated with him.

Jakell, as you seem to recommend direct contact, will you ever tell us what your specific associations with anarchists generally recognized as anarchists and anti-fascists generally recognized as anti-fascists are? Because you don't really seem to know even the most basic things about what you're talking about, especially for somebody who suggests they have thirty plus years of experience there...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:09 pm

I've already said what needs to be said, and can think of little to add. You seem to require some sort of concentrated critique in a strict format, I, and most people, don't do that.

Your constant repititions demonstrate to me that you have made your mind up and that nothing will change that. It's clear to me from other board memeber that this sort of attitude is your idiom and I don't wish to get entangled in that more than necessary,
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:30 pm

jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:09 pm wrote:I've already said what needs to be said, and can think of little to add. You seem to require some sort of concentrated critique in a strict format, I, and most people, don't do that.

Your constant repititions demonstrate to me that you have made your mind up and that nothing will change that. It's clear to me from other board memeber that this sort of attitude is your idiom and I don't wish to get entangled in that more than necessary,


I know you can read. I didn't ask for your critique, I asked, "Jakell, as you seem to recommend direct contact, will you ever tell us what your specific associations with anarchists generally recognized as anarchists and anti-fascists generally recognized as anti-fascists are? Because you don't really seem to know even the most basic things about what you're talking about, especially for somebody who suggests they have thirty plus years of experience there..."

But you don't have to explain your "authoritative" claims- you never did yet and it's extremely doubtful that you ever will.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:43 pm

Correct. I have not made any 'authoritative' claims and will not be attempting to do so in the future.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:55 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:49 pm

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Interview from, Beating Fascism: Anarchist anti-fascism in theory and practice

Here’s a discussion (late 2005, each in their personal capacity) between somebody from the Kate Sharpley Library, a member of Class War (from the UK) and a North American comrade connected with ‘Three Way Fight’, an anti-fascist web log.

Anti-fascism Now

KSL: What’s your background in anti-fascism?
CW: I got involved with the anti-fascist movement after moving to London in 1992. I saw the ‘Battle of Waterloo’ on TV and thought – I want to be involved in that!

I wrote off to AFA a couple of times, but never got a reply. By that time I had joined Class War, and I just got involved in stuff from there. Usually we would just tag along on events organised by other anti-fascists – usually AFA if it was an action, but we would do our own thing around East London, or tag along with what used to be quite a big group of non-aligned anti-fascists around East London.

By the time AFA was coming to an end in the UK, I was convinced that a range of tactics was needed against fascism, and that direct action would need to be an option in any strategy. I was briefly involved with the No Platform group, and when that petered out I was one of the people who formed Antifa.

3WF: After several years of being active in punk and skinhead circles I came to see that radical anti-authoritarian politics had to be intersecting with a broader layer of people outside of a sub-cultural scene. I started doing Anarchist Black Cross work and got behind the support for an antifascist who was being charged with assault on a Nazi. The Anti Fascist Defense Committee (AFDC) had been created in Minneapolis, Minnesota by various anarchists and anti-racists. Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation was also a key publicizer of the case and defense, with the defendant being a L&R member, as well as having been one of the founders of ARA in the late 1980’s. This defense campaign was around 1993.

With the ABC we were both supporting active militants (like in the case of the AFDC) as well as long time political prisoners (many of whom were Black/New African, Puerto Rican, and Native American/Indigenous). This work was a way to open up dialogue around the whole prison system concept and how ‘law and order’ had, and continues to be, a mechanism for social control, and within the context of the United States, disproportionately affecting poor people and people of color.

The ABC was a positive way of showing radical anarchist politics in motion. By working in united fronts with other groups we would bring our perspectives into the mix and by doing that hopefully contribute to the building of ourselves and our movement by being seen as committed, principled, and serious.

It was around this time that several anarchists and ABC groups started to develop relationships with Lorenzo Komboa Ervin. His book Anarchism and the Black Revolution had a real impact on many class struggle anti-racist anarchists. The fact that Ervin had also been involved with community (and personal) self-defense against White fascist attacks further cemented the link between militant anti-racism, class struggle politics, and revolutionary anarchism.

I had moved to Chicago, Illinois by now and through the ABC was working on different anti-police brutality, anti-prison, and anti-gentrification projects. The work was not necessarily antifascist, but we were always trying to come from a politic that had critical perspectives based on race and class (as well as gender and age).

For some of us, our ABC work started closer collaborations with antifascist projects like ARA. Eventually, the ABC group I had been involved in kinda liquidated itself into ARA. I have been involved expressly with ARA or antifascist politics since then.

KSL: What are the roots of ARA? What have been its most notable successes?
3WF: ARA formed in 1987 when there was a major rift in the skinhead scene between anti-racists and the White Power skins. ARA was created by the Baldies, a multi-racial skinhead crew in Minneapolis. Originally ARA was to be a vehicle to build a larger anti-racist presence to take on the Nazis but it really remained a skinhead movement for the first couple years of it’s life. The reputation of ARA and the Baldies got around the country and you started having ARA and anti-racist skinhead alliances form. The punk press like Maximum Rock and Roll magazine promoted ARA and reported on anti-nazi actions. Actually, MRR is where a lot of us in other parts of the country first heard about the Baldies and ARA, sometime around ’87 and ’88.

By the early 1990’s ARA had morphed into a broader youth oriented movement. It was overwhelmingly anarchist, but had a political openness that prevented it from becoming an exclusionary sect. Also, it was a fighting movement and that really set it apart from much of the left who talked the game but failed to put the boot in.

During the 1990’s ARA started to develop a more popular presence. Different chapters initiated projects ranging from anti-nazi activity, to attacking more institutionalized racism. This later aspect usually materialized as Cop Watch which was a way to monitor and disrupt police in our cities.

I would say that some of the success of ARA was that it was the largest antifascist movement in the US and Canada. During the 1990’s I think it would be fair to say that ARA politicized hundreds of militants and had hundreds more gravitating to it, not necessarily part of a core, but forming the essential periphery. Around 1997 an easy estimate of ARA’s numbers would be 1500-2000 people.

ARA had an uncompromising political edge as well as having a cultural aspect that attracted people. People felt like they were part of a real scene. Militants organized, traveled, and built a movement in a period when there was no internet (wow imagine that – ha!) We had a real network that was based on direct contact and relationships. You could travel to all kinds of cities and there would be an ARA crew to hook up with. More importantly, we were a direct challenge to racist and fascist groups who were trying to organize. Point one of ARA’s unifying plank is:
‘We Go Where They Go. Whenever the fascists are organizing or active in public were there. Never let the fascists have the streets!’

ARA took this seriously. All over the US and Canada from big cities to small towns, if the fascists were active, ARA would organize to shut them down and make it as difficult for them to function as we could. Obviously we had varying success. Sometimes we could smash the fash. Other times we would have to accept a defeat if we were outmanoeuvred and unable to take the ground. Even in those situations ARA tried to make an impact, but sometimes the battle was lost even if the war still went on.

Other instances saw ARA taking on the cops who would be mobilized to defend fascist gatherings. People wanted to get to the fascists and the wall of cops would become one more target of anger. You could have hundreds or thousands of people in some cities come out to protest the fascists. With these numbers you had all kinds of political agendas and perspectives mixing it up. ARA tried to relate to militant and working class anti-racists and ARA’ers would throw themselves into the thick of things. This got ARA recognized by a lot of people. It kinda built a situation where you either loved ARA or hated it, but could never ignore it.

ARA was definitely a big part in making it impossible for some fascist groups from operating. Organizations like the fascist World Church of the Creator eventually could not operate publicly without massive police protection. Even their cadre became targets in their own neighborhoods. I would say that ARA contributed in a big way to the demise of several fascist operations.

KSL: What’re you doing now?
3WF: The US antifascist movement is at a low point currently. For good or bad, groups like ARA follow the same patterns as the fascists. When open fascists are active, so is ARA. When there is no fascist organizing, ARA just kinda flounders. This lack of consistency and the inability to articulate a broader program has lead several militants to step back and rethink our agenda.

I think that fascist groups, like left groups, have periods of growth and action, while also having periods where there is uncertainty over political direction and strategy. What I think is constant is Fascism as an ideology with the potential to pop up and take advantage of situations that have become socially and politically polarized, especially around race, economics and culture. Antifascists need to be developing a broad analysis that considers where the fascist trends could and will emerge.

Unfortunately, most antifascist organizing exists to just engage the fascists on a quasi-military basis. The strategic and more ideological considerations are dealt with on such a minimal basis that sometimes it seems that they are not there at all. I think there is a danger of retreating into our heads and getting so caught up in abstract theorizing that we become do nothing, but there is also a real tendency to just act without an accompanying analysis.

CW: There is a lot to do at the moment. Simply gathering intelligence and being aware of far-right strategy, groups and activists is an enormous task. Anti-fascists in the UK are re-grouping at the moment, at a time when the fascists have never been stronger in this country. We are playing catch up. On a personal level I have spent a lot of time this year studying far-right websites (both UK and US sites) and a lot of time training at the gym – feeding the brain and the body!

KSL: Fascism is shit – is there anything else to say about it?
3WF: I think many people look at fascism and say, ‘What a load of crap. How could anyone really believe that stuff?’ Even many antifascists look at the fascist movement as a joke, violent, but a joke. No doubt the fascist movements have their share of the knuckle-draggers, idiots, and the politically inept, but don’t all movements have these types? I would actually say that in a real fascist movement, the more inept and foolish would be eliminated from the ranks. Fascism prides itself on ability, commitment, and sacrifice.

Fascist movements of the past were popular because they offered a total ideology with accompanying programs for action. Millions embraced fascism not because these people were stupid but because fascism provided a vision for social transformation amidst a time of international crisis. Fascism was able to mobilize masses of people.

I think this is important. The perspective I hold essentially sees fascism as a real movement of ideas that can draw people in and motivate them. It is a ideology and world view we are gonna have to compete with on more than a physical or military level.

CW: Fascism is a dynamic political ideology that seeks to appeal to all classes, to unite those classes within a strong state, under the control of a hierarchical elite. Usually race is a key component of fascism, and it is always staunchly anti-socialist, and opposed to any independent organisation of the working class. Fascism is usually opposed to internationalism, unless that internationalism is based on race.


http://threewayfight.blogspot.com/2005/ ... scism.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:04 pm

Wow, Class War is a name I haven't heard since the eighties. Hard to top the notoriety that they had from those days.

I've noticed how all your 'separate' threads start to look the same AD. You may as well just have the one.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:43 pm

Classical fascism took shape in an era of European industrialization and nation-building, competing colonial empires, and an international Communist movement inspired by the recent Bolshevik Revolution. Now both old-style colonialism and state socialism have almost vanished, while corporate globalization is shifting industries across the world and reshaping nation-states. Far-right movements are responding to these changes in various ways. They promote nostalgia for old empires but also right-wing anti-imperialism, old-style nationalisms but also internationalist and decentralized versions of authoritarian politics. They tap into a backlash against the left but also grow where the left’s weakness has opened space for other kinds of insurgent movements. And they promote different versions of anti-elitism, often targeting U.S. or multinational capital but sometimes focusing more on local elites.

(Lyons, "Two Ways of Looking at Fascism")
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby TheBlackSheep » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:39 am

While in certain ways I don't disagree with the stance of anti-fascism, I might wonder if such a narrow focus will ultimately be useful. It seems to me like a great portion of the population aren't fascist and the same might go for powerful individuals and even institutions that contribute to massive inequality and suffering. I probably see more greed and callousness playing a part with powerful people. With the average person it's probably a feeling of powerlessness, plus not really knowing what exactly is going on, and on top of that being lured by cheap thrills that help them forget the moment which they keep returning to to fill the void left from their lack of ability to self-determine their lives...

It would be interesting to hear from you (American Dream) what you might see as either an outcome or a way of life to work towards, etc.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:48 am

TheBlackSheep » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:39 am wrote:While in certain ways I don't disagree with the stance of anti-fascism, I might wonder if such a narrow focus will ultimately be useful. It seems to me like a great portion of the population aren't fascist and the same might go for powerful individuals and even institutions that contribute to massive inequality and suffering. I probably see more greed and callousness playing a part with powerful people. With the average person it's probably a feeling of powerlessness, plus not really knowing what exactly is going on, and on top of that being lured by cheap thrills that help them forget the moment which they keep returning to to fill the void left from their lack of ability to self-determine their lives...


The trouble with having 'anti-fascism' as a stance is that 'fascism' itself is ill defined, it's usage in the world today is extremely broad and sloppy.

To be 'anti' something defines your dynamism, it is not a passive thing, and I would be very careful of subscribing to something that will lead you to be in opposition to a phantom, madness and obsession lay in that direction. In other words, it is more important to be clear about your oppositions, if you have any, than to be clear about your positive goals (which are also important).

There's also the fact that labeling yourself as an AF also feeds the human craving to see oneself as an actor in the Good/Evil dimension (nicely alluded to in your final sentence above), somewhere else where madness can lie
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:49 am

TheBlackSheep » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:39 am wrote:While in certain ways I don't disagree with the stance of anti-fascism, I might wonder if such a narrow focus will ultimately be useful. It seems to me like a great portion of the population aren't fascist and the same might go for powerful individuals and even institutions that contribute to massive inequality and suffering. I probably see more greed and callousness playing a part with powerful people. With the average person it's probably a feeling of powerlessness, plus not really knowing what exactly is going on, and on top of that being lured by cheap thrills that help them forget the moment which they keep returning to to fill the void left from their lack of ability to self-determine their lives...

It would be interesting to hear from you (American Dream) what you might see as either an outcome or a way of life to work towards, etc.


Given that my last experience of TheBlackSheep was that of you (in effect) working together with jakell to put words in my mouth, i.e. to grossly misrepresent my position, maybe you could explain what you mean by, "in certain ways I don't disagree with the stance of anti-fascism" and what sort of politics you do support- and most especially, since you have effectively included jakell in this, what your thoughts are on Third Positionism/National Anarchism and all that neo-fascist shite...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby TheBlackSheep » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:55 am

I'm not really sure what you are referring to when you say that I worked with Jakell to put words in your mouth. Do you mean when I asked if you adhered to Marx's stance of central planning and Lennin's call for an elite group to lead a revolution on behalf of the masses? Because that was meant as a question, not as a statement that you had advocated those things. Perhaps it was something else I said, you could tell me what it was and we can see if I had meant to do so in actuality. What Jakell posts is his own responsibility, him and I are not really aquainted beyond the few posts we've made in this and perhaps some other threads, as I'm sure he will testify.

You asked me what sort of politics I do support, I'm not sure how much you want me to go into that. Since I have never really agree in entirety with any active government or any one political doctrine I'm afraid I can't give you a straightforward answer, I would probably have to write an elaborate speech that will still not give an entirely clear view of my political positions. To avoid copping out I will say a few words about my views in the conclusion of this post though.

As for Third Position/National Anarchism, I was not really familiar with those terms before they were brought up in this post, so my analysis of them will probably be insufficient, but I will respond to what I vague understanding I take of them from a browse of their wikipedia pages.

As for National Anarchism, firstly I don't believe in nationalism and never have. I think that people have more commonality to share among each other than difference. I hope I will make that point a little clearer in what I say later about my own views. And I don't advocate militancy. Those seem to be some of the key defining qualities of that movement, so I couldn't say that appeals to me or reflects any of my beliefs.

I have to admit that I don't know if I understand the Third Position very much by its wiki description. Based off this statement from the wiki:

"Third Positionists tend to advocate for the ownership of the means of producing goods and services to be distributed as widely as possible among the "productive members of society", seek alliances with separatists of ethnicity and race other than their own to achieve peaceful ethnic and racial segregation"

I couldn't say I agree with it for a number of reasons. Again similar to what I said regarding the National Anarchism, I don't believe in separating people and I think it would be better if people learned to see their commonality. (that being said, I think people are going to be different and I'm fine with that, but it does not lead me to believe in any necessity of segregation, in fact I think the blending of diverse ideas would allow for a more dynamic society with evolving ideas).

And it also says that the means of production would be owned among as wide as possible a group of the productive members of society. The first part of that I think could be interpreted in a lot of ways, and I should admit I don't really know what it would mean in practice for many people to own the means of production besides perhaps that they would all have the ability to access them at any given time... and if that was the case I don't really see how a distinction could be made of the "productive members" and the non-productive ones because if the means of production were held as open it would seem that any member who goes to access them and produces something would be in that sense a productive member, so I'm not really sure where the distribution comes into it... beyond that I probably see a lot of people as being useful to society that aren't considered so in the mainstream ideology as it is already... so I don't think I would adhere to that.

As for my own political views, like I said they definitely cannot be encapsulated adequately in a single blog post, definitely not of reasonable length, but none the less I will try to give some indications of them.

My notion of the political hinges in a lot of ways on education, which should be voluntary but also open. I have to admit I find some paradoxes in my own mind on this regard, because I see a reason for information not being entirely free, because there would be an issue of how do those who discover, compile, etc. information support themselves if it becomes entirely free? So that becomes a huge issue for my beliefs about education. But in any case, it is important for individuals in a society to educate themselves and each other and to be able to face each other with open questions, so as to better understand the motives of other acting individuals. This is one reason why I have a big problem with heirarchical organization, because subordinates are often not entitled to asking such open questions and an authority figure does not feel the necessity to answer them.

On the other hand, if someone decides they do not want to answer a question, that status can be used to infer reasoning, which again helps to understand motives. Pragmatically a person does not need the answer to the question proper but only to have asked the question and receive some sort of response (such as the response of no answer) to make an inference about the situation.

A lot of what I believe is based off the thought that we as humans have not left the state of nature. A division has been made in most philosophy between nature and convention, but as I see it convention is enforced by certain qualities of nature. For example a law is only held as convention in so far as a natural force (a band of society in agreement, by whatever means) enforces that law.

In other words that last fact creates a highly paradoxical situation for both my political beliefs as well as their possibilities as a practice (take the example above of education).

I think that it will be necessary for individuals to create their situation without real recourse to a higher authority, not because I don't think an authority should act on their behalf, but in many ways they probably just wont. It seems to me that it has generally been through individuals (or groups) attaining possession of power, in whatever form, that has granted them concessions in the political climate or else enabled them to maintain their arena. A lot of these means to the attainment of power have not been admirable (in my opinion) and again such is another paradox of life...

That's a bit of what I believe politically. It is due to a sense of ambivalence about life. It seems like much of what I have to do as a human to survive is not really something I would like to be doing. I do not really want to give into that so a lot of my life is striving away from the inescapable, and so it seems that for all the attempts I make at looking at life pragmatically I find myself in a position devoid of much of what might make life worth living.

I am willing to expand if you would like me to. You could tell me when I worked to put words in your mouth and we'll see if we can clear it up... if that is what in fact I was doing I will at least admit to it.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby Sounder » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:01 am

The trouble with having 'anti-fascism' as a stance is that 'fascism' itself is ill defined, it's usage in the world today is extremely broad and sloppy.

To be 'anti' something defines your dynamism, it is not a passive thing, and I would be very careful of subscribing to something that will lead you to be in opposition to a phantom, madness and obsession lay in that direction. In other words, it is more important to be clear about your oppositions, if you have any, than to be clear about your positive goals (which are also important).

There's also the fact that labeling yourself as an AF also feeds the human craving to see oneself as an actor in the Good/Evil dimension (nicely alluded to in your final sentence above), somewhere else where madness can lie


Bingo jakell, AD feeds empire by 'pumping the dichotomy'.

There can be no Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory that doesn't care to address the issue of how all of us are manipulated.

Let alone to think, as some surrealists do, that one must be on a particular team to be able to do anything rigorous.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests