KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am an anarchist. I am an antichrist.
Anyway.
The Plan is that the SPGB on behalf of the working class takes control of state forces via the democratic process. I am merely being realistic in envisaging the likely scenario, given historical precedents. Y’see, I don’t think you’ve thought this all through.
Popular consciousness for sure, but it depends on what sort of democracy you’re talking about doesn’t it? I’m afraid I have no trust in existing representative democracy.
Makhno the monster? Durutti the dictator? Mmm…
Of course we’re talking about the transitional period (ho ho ho). On the one hand neutralisation of the armed forces. Fair enough. Except I don’t believe it. On the other using against pro-capitalists. Or whoever else is giving you gyp. Much more likely. I mean you don’t go to all that trouble to take over the power of the state (including its tanks), just to piss it away.
Jings! Did no bugger larf at my pink tank? You’re as humourless as the idpol anarchists.
What sort of anarchist are you? I thought they believed in a violent insurrection to smash the state but how can you do this if you have a conscientious objection to tanks and guns and armoured cars?
Or are you a namby pamby Tolstoy pacifist anarchist who thinks that the capitalist class will just give up their power and property if you disobediently sit in the middle of some road bridge?
Makes more sense to take the control of the means of political coercion out of their hands, so they can’t use it against us and that we can use it against them if they are so stupid as to attempt to resist the democratically expressed will of the majority to establish socialism.
I’ve got no particular objection to tanks. Indeed, Facebook seems to think I love them since I get ads for tank related stuff all the time. I’m not as bad as my son though, who can actually tell the difference between a Mark I and a Mark IV. That is very tankified.
Tanks (and other means of state power) should, naturally be taken out of “their” hands. However, I would suggest that “our” hands, in the sense of a socialist government (sic), would be just as bad.
Perhaps the solution lies in workers’ control. For us tank fans, this would have the advantage of increasing the variety of armament, colour schemes, etc. All tanks should be like Stompie, the Old Kent Road T-34:
Yes. Absolutely. Not that bad. Got some good bits what you can nick (permeate people not parties). That’s Mengels. What more can you reasonably expect? And, yes, administration and government are pretty much the same. If you wish to use the powers of the state through the electoral system, what has to be done is what has to be done. Socialist government. I think it’s a bad idea. But then I’m an ex- ain’t I.
“Every technological development” should be neither welcomed nor condemned. Did the Socialist Standard enthuse about the coming of the telephone? Or radio? Or the car? Of course not. They had a bit more sense. Clearly you have swallowed Star Trek whole. Partially Automated Reasonably Sufficient Socialism is quite adequate, thank you very much.
Oi loikes a noice strawman me. Fuck sake, anyone would think I was an anprim wandered in astray. Still, this sort of defensive overreaction makes me think I’ve touched a raw nerve. I think you’re all a bit suspicious of the advantages of tech really. “tool” pretty much sums it up. Within its historic setting, whether it’s smartphones or smoke signals is irrelevant. The message, or rather the method, is the thing. And to return to the goddamn point (such sidestepping!). The message and methods of the Shitegeistery Penis Project is totally unacceptable. What the hell are you doing toadying up to these elitists? Fuck ’em. And the shitty Labour Party.
However, as we slowly sink under the rising floodwaters, we will be able to take comfort in playing kiddie games on our stupidphones.
I am not bleating at technology in itself but technological determination, the idea that advanced technology “prepares the way” for socialism. I have, as usual, over-egged the pudding and stuck a lovely strawman as the cherry on top.
Yuck! How vile. Of course we should be dismissive of Corbynistas. What kind of goddamn Spugubber are you? It’s the wanky Labour Party. To say nothing of green whingers. The “relationship between their politics and capitalism” is quite simple. They accept capitalism as a given, meaning their whining, puking and simpering is quite useless. What about the poor? What about the environment? Capitalism screws the poor. Capitalism screws the environment. Fuck capitalism. This sort of simplicity and oppositionism is why the MLs are thriving.
Yes indeed. An excellent analogy which goes further since the utopian socialists had different ideas about the final outcome also (so far as such things were made plain). To extend it to anarchists has a point but in modern terms is stretching it a bit. Freedom, so far as it exists anymore, are pretty much social insertionists these days, more class struggle than idpol bungle.
How far has Shitegeist deviated from Fresco? My recent exchange on Faecesbook suggests not very far. Or rather far enough for their bhoy to throw up his hands in horror at my accusations of elitism and technocracy. Despite it being blatantly obvious. Old Stalinists usually do that as well. Which kind of leads back to the Seventh. What class, or subsection of the working class if you prefer, do they represent? I am thinking that although utopian style they might couch their propaganda in all-inclusive terms, that professionalism thing is going to appeal to professionals. Or would be professionals anyhow.
Technological determinism. Meh. Surely we should be able to assess from our own experience and knowledge that technological advance is totally unrelated to social advance. We are more alienated from each other, less cooperative, than we were forty years ago. I think it no coincidence that the less developed areas of Spain were more communist during the revolution.
Big fish in small ponds. Well. There is a very very big hole being dug next to the small pond right this very moment. When they connect, we all get to escape. Then all sorts of possibilities open up for the little fish (because none of us is actually big at all).
KAZ has put his finger on another difference. They are “Utopian” moneyfreers who appeal to all people of good will while we are class-struggle moneyfreers. They are Robert Owen. We are Karl Marx. Still we do have the same objective and Owen wasn’t that bad.
Lumme lawks!
That wasn’t my point at all. Indeed, you’ve just demonstrated why concentrating purely on the superficial similiarities (moneylessness) and differences (class) is erroneous.
Libertarian communists and Frescoists do not share a common goal. They are technocrats who aim at a society run by professionals – something thoroughly anti-socialist. Free access to them is a product of technological advance a la Star Trek. To the libcomma, universal distribution is a consequence, and a fairly minor one at that, of common ownership and control.
Obviously, I’ve swallowed the Seventh whole but fuck these guys. Collaboration my arse. My current lot did some “round-tables” with some nearly theres. And now we have to not answer the door when they ring. I kid you not. When the left communists turn up we hide behind the settee and pretend no one’s at home. God knows what the Shitegeisters would be like if you encouraged them.
And Robert Owen was that bad. He was an appalling person with an appalling history of fucking good workers about. The original labour bleeder.
Howdy!
Not really the place but kind of connected since the MFP is its political wing. Has the esspeegeebee ever properly analysed Zeitgeist? I know there’s this:
but by focusing on class it misses most of the serious flaws of Shitegeist.
Or a thread on this? Maybe it’s there. Let me go find the search button.
