This is somewhat basic, but has far-reaching consequences. In an organization there are people with formal power which is upheld by the organization or the larger society it exists in. These are the bosses. There are also people with informal power, who make people to do things despite lacking formal backing. These are called leaders. There are also people who come up with new ideas. These are called inventors. There are also people who offer emotional support. They don’t have a formal label because their work is not considered valuable in an economy where workers are disposable, despite it having a real impact on the efficiency of the organization. There are also Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve just coined this neologism so feel free to adopt/reject it. Spectral Anarchism, or Sparkism, approaches society as though it were a continuum or spectrum, a multifaceted world in which social constructs are interwoven and dependently-arisen. (Other possible terms include Continuous Anarchism, Intersectional Anarchism, Fluid Anarchism, Fluid Democracy, Inter-anarchism, Rainbow Anarchism, Spectral Democracy and Interocracy). It is a simultaneous critique against all hierarchies reasoning that one hierarchy will lean on another in such a way that all must be torn down – for if only one or a few are torn down the remaining ones will go on the defensive and strengthen each other. I have written about these different facets of Anarchism before, but not been able to formulate a unifying concept until now (well, I hope I have managed it with this post.) What follows is for the most part copy-pastes I have gathered into a comprehensive narrative from other blog posts I’ve made.
For me anarchism means no hierarchies. Hierarchies are social Read the rest of this entry »
Socialism alone can’t solve social problems because society is much more than the division of labour. All social problems seem to be like the problem of labour, but solving the problem of labour doesn’t mean that the other problems will be solved simply by association. In contrast, anarchism addresses all problems at all levels simultaneously. Thus the Left can be part of anarchism, but anarchism is broader than the Left.
This reasoning can be applied to veganism, anti-statism, anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, indigenous rights and so on and so forth. These and others are potential allies of anarchism and also part of anarchism, but to make this clear let’s take patriarchy as an example by comparison to capitalism. Capitalism was initiated by the capitalists, not the workers, and this division has persisted. The propaganda and the law enforcement really only offer one solution to the workers; to become capitalists themselves and thereby reaffirm the system.
Similarly, it is men who have benefitted the most from owning their wives through the institution of marriage. The propaganda and the law enforcement again only offer one solution to e.g. non-male and non-straight people: striving for equality in the form of an equal share in the ownership in a formal marriage, which thereby reinforces the system.
Obviously, the ultimate solution in both cases must be to tear down these structures rather than attempt to push one individual up the ladder at a time, even though it pains us to see all the people on the bottom. However, if we can’t figure out how to solve the structural problems, we are forced to fight for equality within the system until we figure it out.
P.S. Previously I have described anarchism as part of socialism and historically there is some truth to that, in particular regarding the fact that anarchists were part of the First International and then got kicked out. However, there were anarchists already before then. D.S.
That’s basically the title of this article on Female Sexuality.
It references a study which found that women who identify as straight apparently got aroused by looking at other women. I haven’t looked into the study but let’s assume that these findings are correct. I don’t think this is surprising.
Democracy “will in practice lead to the destruction of a people’s true values”
I think your Hitler quotes show mainly buzzwords and populism. I think he used nationalism because it was the most popular ism at the time.
“preservation and intensification of the race”
“primarily serve the preservation of physical life”
Preservation might be a good word to describe fascism, or maybe bodily self-defense, or Read the rest of this entry »
In the early 20th century, people in different fields started questioning long-held truths. E.g. the group of philosophers known as the Frankfurt school developed something called critical theory, influenced by Marx’s questioning of economics. People started realizing that knowledge was subjective and reinterpreted established facts with a more sceptical mindset, in part placing more emphasis on how upbringing, that is environment and culture, influence our perspective on reality. However, the term Cultural Marxism is a more recent invention. Some people, probably coming to the debate from a variety of starting points, have banded together in reaction to this scepticism united by their opposition to what they have labelled Cultural Marxism. Judging from the list in the article on Cultural Marxism on Metapedia, they are concerned about criticism against whites, males, heterosexuals, Christians, Westerners and the nuclear family.
The people who use the term Cultural Marxism might not all be concerned with all six issues, but as any reactionary movement, they havn’t unified behind a common ideology, they only pick and choose among any research that can be utilized in their opposition. It might seem like the reactionaries should be the ones to carry a label, rather than those they have decided should be grouped together, but without a common ideology they remain reactionaries. Labelling them doesn’t work for the same reason that the label Cultural Marxism doesn’t work; “Cultural Marxists” and “anti-Cultural Marxists” are both equally ideologically heterogeneous groups.
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 »