Philosophical anarchism, mk 2

[jack]

Erm, class struggle? Lots of petit bourgeois thought in this thread.

Lots of ad hominum in this sentance.

Is that your response to everything? I called the various opinions petit bourgeois, not any specific person.

Get a new fucking bitch word.

[Francois Tremblay]

It's nice that you think the opinions are scum, but WHY do you think they are scum?

[jack]

It's nice that you think the opinions are scum, but WHY do you think they are scum?

I didn't say "scum".

They are representations of blatant liberalism. Things like "evolution not revolution" and "gradual change" and all that shit are liberal buzzwords and copouts from actually engaging in or promoting revolutionary activity. Hence they're petit-bourgeois since they pose no threat to the system itself, only an annoyance to those at the very top (the bourgeosie).

[jack]

Lots of petit bourgeois thought in this thread.

What does that even mean?

It depends

If your name is Karl Marx and you have a colleague called Engels then it means a member of the working classes who by virtue of his craft has access to some parts of Bourgeois society

If your one of the idiots who likes to think they are fulfilling the vision of marx it just means 'scum' (Actually it's usually meant to mean the middle classes to the best of my understanding)

No. Essentially it refers to small business owners, the self employed, artists, artisans etc. In some cases it can be applied to people like managers (though that's less often).

[Francois Tremblay]

It's nice that you think the opinions are scum, but WHY do you think they are scum?

I didn't say "scum".

They are representations of blatant liberalism. Things like "evolution not revolution" and "gradual change" and all that shit are liberal buzzwords and copouts from actually engaging in or promoting revolutionary activity. Hence they're petit-bourgeois since they pose no threat to the system itself, only an annoyance to those at the very top (the bourgeosie).

"The system" is kept into existence solely because of its legitimacy. The only way to take away its legitimacy is by evolving people to separate themselves from the system and consider it as an entity in itself. Therefore what you said is absolutely, totally wrong. Revolution does not affect a system's legitimacy, and no revolution has been able to do so. Indeed, revolutions set themselves up very neatly as battles between factions, between segments, not against a system.

[leadhead]

It's nice that you think the opinions are scum, but WHY do you think they are scum?

I didn't say "scum".

They are representations of blatant liberalism. Things like "evolution not revolution" and "gradual change" and all that shit are liberal buzzwords and copouts from actually engaging in or promoting revolutionary activity. Hence they're petit-bourgeois since they pose no threat to the system itself, only an annoyance to those at the very top (the bourgeosie).

"The system" is kept into existence solely because of its legitimacy. The only way to take away its legitimacy is by evolving people to separate themselves from the system and consider it as an entity in itself. Therefore what you said is absolutely, totally wrong. Revolution does not affect a system's legitimacy, and no revolution has been able to do so. Indeed, revolutions set themselves up very neatly as battles between factions, between segments, not against a system.

That is very misleading... it is only so because a revolution upon so called civilization to the scale that would be needed has never been attempted.

We are also in uncharted waters so there is actually no pat answer to this problem. I kinda think that it requires a bit of both ideas because step numero uno on the path to evolving people to separate themselves from the system and to consider it as a different entity from yourself is to "act" in a manner that distinguishes yourself from the system. This first act would almost have to be insurrection of some degree to broadcast the visual image into the mind that it is a logical option to react in a direct manner against a system that has basically incubated your mind since birth. The act is the key to unifying people to this concept....a catalyst. It is loud, clear and simple and is much more difficult to twist and bend with rhetoric and emotional non sequitur arguments.

If your first act is passive and not loud and clear, then people wont hear it, you allow the system the time to rebut it with deception, if you build any sort of momentum it is much more difficult to keep it going.

However, after a certain amount of time, you must start teaching, discussing and defining ideologies more aligned to the natural state so that the objectives of the road ahead are clearly defined. I think this part is the evolution part.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh so now evolution is not false but one part of the whole process. Just like how socialism is a part of the whole process to communism.

When you can't suppress, co-opt. Standard capital-democratic strategy. I'm not surprised you're an expert at it.

[FirePirate]

Natural rights, egoism and Nihilism, and apathetic towards authority (I couldn`t take it seriously, but could not force myself to throw a punch cause it isn`t worth it).

[leadhead]

Oh so now evolution is not false but one part of the whole process. Just like how socialism is a part of the whole process to communism.

When you can't suppress, co-opt. Standard capital-democratic strategy. I'm not surprised you're an expert at it.[/quote]

Are you talking about the other thread we had about this? Yeah, I think it was Noleaders and Y debating it out...when I saw some of their ideas in there, I changed my thinking a little bit.

Not sure what the rest of your post is talking about.

[Francois Tremblay]

No, I'm replying to your latest post.

[leadhead]

No, I'm replying to your latest post.

Oh so now (as opposed to when?) evolution is not false but one part of the whole process. Just like how socialism is a part of the whole process to communism.

When you can't suppress, co-opt. Standard capital-democratic strategy(is there anymore to this like when I cant do x I do y?). I'm not surprised you're an expert at it.

[Francois Tremblay]

Uh, I'm not sure what your questions are exactly.

[leadhead]

Natural rights, egoism and Nihilism, and apathetic towards authority (I couldn`t take it seriously, but could not force myself to throw a punch cause it isn`t worth it).

Classify and label it all you want. Starting communes to show the way has been done time and time again and is aliken to nuns doing it in 3rd world countries or Waco texas and we certainly know how that turned out. Get serious, just because statists incorporate revolution to effect change to different flavors of capitalism doesnt mean it is a part of capitalism or the state.

[leadhead]

Uh, I'm not sure what your questions are exactly.

likewise, could you rephrase your post?

[Noleaders]

Erm, class struggle? Lots of petit bourgeois thought in this thread.

Lots of ad hominum in this sentance.

Is that your response to everything? I called the various opinions petit bourgeois, not any specific person.

Get a new fucking bitch word.

Dismissing a theory simply because it is "petit bourgeois" rather than giving a logical argument as to why its false is pretty much the definition of ad hominum.