Mutualism identifies the near-infinite problems of current markets and attempts to get rid of these by first of all getting rid of the state. If I understand it correctly, mutualism is essentially based on the cost principle. The cost principle means that “market actors themselves will engage only in transactions where the benefits are sufficient to pay for the real costs.” Read the rest of this entry »
A black wall, ever present;
it sings to me, it resonates within me,
although it consumes all sound.
A topless tower of force,
yet it stands as if petrified.
I swirl about with eyes closed,
yet it follows me.
I move joyfully to the incessant, droning knells
yet I am a mere puppet.
Unwillingly I stop and stare,
it is everything,
yet it fades before me like a memory.
It grabs my hand and gently turns me in the dance,
yet the mystery ensnares me.
I fly and swim, to escape the unknown,
and yet the black wall finds me.
It expands towards me,
yet I keep swirling.
Serfdom, the Black Death and the 100 Years’ War set the austere preconditions for the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381, ultimately triggered by a random tax collector. The revolt was suppressed but fear of another rebellion led to a small reform in the royal council, a decrease in war expenditure and more careful management of local political power. Revolt and reform represent two possible results of the pressure of resistance, explode or vent respectively. A reform is in this sense a compromise between revolutionary and reactionary forces designed to temporarily calm things down to maintain the status quo. The pattern can be described as suffering -> trigger -> revolt -> reaction -> reform -> repeated suffering. Each of these steps may involve a complex of different phenomena and each step may be repeated more than once before advancing.
I’m going to focus on Europe here, but I’ll skip a lot of details, including the entire Reformation although it follows the same pattern. In 18th century France the conditions were nobility, war, austerity -> leading to the reform of a general assembly -> back to the same preconditions -> triggered by the dismissal of the finance minister -> the Storming of the Bastille -> Louis XVI failed to react -> reform for male suffrage and abolition of feudalism -> Prussia, Austria, Britain and others declared war on the French Republic -> Napoleon reconstructed France as an empire and conquered much of Europe -> nationalism fought back -> Communist Manifesto -> Bismarck countered the workers’ movement by uniting the German nation through war and reintroducing the reform of male suffrage -> Serb revolutionary killed heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire triggering WW1 -> WW2 -> Cold War -> Today we have hundreds of armed conflicts caused by centuries of oppression of varying and intersecting character, dozens of resistance movements (including Black Power, Gay Pride, Feminism, Animal Liberation, Anonymous, indigenous’ rights, anti-colonialism et cetera) and consequently a long array of reforms.
Karl Marx interpreted history as a material dialectic between haves and have-nots. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 was a call to workers to usurp the capitalists. This didn’t work. Why?
Since I wrote a post on the status of capitalism, I thought this could be an informative extension. With Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle-East, it is interesting to speculate on what the future holds for the EU and its neighbourhood.
So, I had this idea of separating capitalism from politics, much like the separation of church and state. It’s fairly simply and although it would be very difficult to implement, I don’t see any major drawbacks. I’ve also added an old idea about a communist state below. Obviously I still prefer my neurocracy, but it’s always useful to test other ideas.
Historically, anarchism in the Americas, Spain and now Syria sprung out of war. The Russian and Chinese revolutions as well. The French revolution happened just after the U.S. revolution and major French military losses over there. The U.S. revolution is less clear to me, but the there are general tendencies to identify.
1st: The chaotic state and disorganized production, logistics, temporary housing etc allowed for an easier transmission to a new system since the old one wasn’t really present anymore.
50,000 shares on facebook – an open letter about groups of boys harassing girls highlights the deep roots of social problems in Sweden, hiding under a veneer of perfection.
The first ones to be blamed are immigrants, mainly muslims, for having a degrading view of women. The strength of that voice is consistent with the 13 % who voted for the protectionists/isolationists/nationalists/social conservatives, the Sweden Democrats.
However, the phenomenon is the same as it has been for decades and even in this specific case ethnicity was not a factor. Some men and boys, regardless of age and ethnicity, whether drunk or not, whether alone or in groups, behave deplorably towards women when nobody is around.
Because that’s what it’s really about; what we do when nobody is looking, and that’s probably why nobody knows how to fix the problem, because they don’t understand what they don’t see.
Let’s try to reason in lack of direct experience. The parents have not instilled sensible values in their kids; this is part of it. The school and the teachers have failed on this point as well; sure. Hormones turn teenagers into lunatics; ok. Peer pressure; yes.
Society is also at fault on a more general scale. The streamlined neoliberalism has no time for kids, to the point where kids at day cares are always sick because the diseases are always present at the day cares because parents can’t just not show up at work when their kids are sick. The separation of parent and child is even more fundamental. Whereas e.g. the San people allow their kids to play amongst themselves, they are always in the vicinity of the parents and a division between parent and adult is prevented by repeatedly crossing over any border before it manifests. The quality time in our culture between parent and child, and don’t even mention other adults, is artificial and isolated from reality, the kids don’t take part in the parents’ everyday activities and the parents don’t take part in the kids’ everyday activities.
In this case, the city centre is peppered with private schools and when the kids leave the school grounds to hang out on the street corners, smoking cigarettes, looking cool, smacking girls on the ass, calling them whores if they fight back, the schools give away their responsibility, a responsibility already given away to the schools by the parents.
Should men (and other women) who pass by such a scene intervene? Yes. Would the scene even take place if an adult walked past? No. Is it any different from when an adult man spies a lone woman late at night in an empty public space with no witnesses around? No.
It is no different from peeing in the shower when nobody is looking either. Or spewing vile hatred over random strangers online from behind the anonymous safety of a computer screen. There is no empathy – the Other is reduced to an object in the Self’s own theatre play called My Life.
To solve the problem, it is not enough to blame one person. The solution is to tear down walls, the walls between me and others, the walls between the schools and the rest of society, between adults and children, between job and spare time; and all of these things can exist together.
Constantly keeping an eye on each other would be counterproductive, but there should be connecting points between all these actors and stages to allow for natural flows between the adult world and the teenagers’ world and the kids’ world, between the schools, day cares, corporate offices, factories, parks, warehouses, cafés, cinemas; to the point where these borders no longer seem like borders.
If you want to fix this problem, no matter where you’re starting from, you have to reach out, talk, listen, incorporate, communicate, share, involve; everyone, sure, but most importantly, the perpetrators.
It has occurred to me that I need to relate my view on progress to other people’s for the sake of clarity. So, I’m gonna phrase this as singular, dual and plural. This is not to be confused with the dualism of a physical and metaphysical world though, as that is an issue on a separate axis relative to this categorization. Anyway, a singular view of progress is expressed by Carlyle. A dual view of progress is expressed by Hegel and Marx. These point to a goal, a forward progress and betterment. My pluralistic view is one of emergence, with no specific orientation, but just wild and uncertain growth and decline.
“For Carlyle, chaotic events demanded what he called ‘heroes’ to take control over the Read the rest of this entry »
Some 7,000 years ago, the idea of private property became institutionalized, facilitated by the appearance of monarchy and a religion of servitude. This culture has come to dominate the world, but recently the masses have become increasingly aware of the flaws in the system and the need for change.
Capitalism, or private property, fails in that it enhances the difference between those who have capital yields and those who have work wages. Although private property is not necessarily evil in itself, already from the start this inequality was maintained by a class system, with the son of god Read the rest of this entry »
Insertion: I realized I can define this rather simply, so I made this short insertion. One of the dictionary definition of property is synonymous with quality, trait, characteristic, feature and attribute. A thing or person owns these properties, but one might as well say that these properties are part of that thing or person or that a person or thing is equal to the sum of those properties. This means replacing ‘has’ with ‘is’. What the text underneath spells out is simply that what you ‘are’ I would consider to be justified property, but you can’t claim to own anything that is beyond what you are. Taking something that is external to yourself would thus be akin to stealing.
Neurocracy consists of an ontological foundation, an epistemological foundation, a moral foundation, a moral principle and an economic system.
I believe the world is entirely physical and that there is no metaphysical (free) will.
The epistemological foundation is that of relativism and that science is the best method for knowledge in lack of an absolute truth. All things grow from the bottom up, even the Big Bang might be just a local bulge in the fabric of energy. There is no objective justification for Read the rest of this entry »
Socialism arose as a struggle for equality in Europe as a combined result of protests from different layers of society against other or sometimes the same layers of society. I’d argue that Protestantism was the pre-cursor to this movement, starting with events like the burning of Jan Hus at the stake in 1415 for criticizing the power of the Pope. In 1600, Giordani Bruno was also burned at the stake for suggesting Read the rest of this entry »
Anarcho-pacifism in my view consists of two principles:
Strife against hierarchies, towards peace.
I contend that anarcho-pacifism defined this way can incorporate not only all anarchists, but also all pacifists and even all socialists and liberals and a bunch of other people. Anarcho-pacifism is a tendency within anarchism caused by several people who were both anarchists and pacifists and it is not an ideology in its own right, which is what I aim to remedy with this post. Anarcho-pacifism in its combined state goes beyond the promotion of peace and the rejection of the state. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The point of departure for my thought-process is India 1,800 years ago. Read the rest of this entry »
A: Alla demokratiska statsskick gör en avvägning mellan folkviljans genomslag och möjligheten att få till ett effektivt styre av ett land. Sverige också, se bara på fyraprocentsspärren. 4,0 procent betyder “välkommen in”, 3,99 procent betyder “dig bryr vi oss inte om, inte ett skvatt faktiskt”.
OM det är så att blockpolitiken är här för att stanna och OM det finns tre block som vägrar prata med varandra så går det inte att få till ett effektivt styre. Svaret är då att införa ett valsystem som ger möjlighet att skapa just detta. Svaret är inte att tricksa och begränsa hur våra folkvalda får rösta.
This was the most well-known slogan of the French Revolution 1789 and it means freedom, equality and brotherhood.
I’ve been trying to understand #gamergate lately, thinking it’s a 21st century Western middle-class teenager grassroots protest and as such indicates where the entire world is heading. Whether that is wise or not is debatable. Either way, my idea of what needs to be done in society is centered around the notion that a lot of structures have been created, for various reasons, and that these structures are in part designed to prevent and slow down changes aimed at improving the living conditions of the general population, even including animals. In other words, those who are currently being favoured by the structures are fighting to maintain the status quo. This is not a simplistic view though, as not all structures are bad and not all progressive ideas are good. Read the rest of this entry »