good i like the anarcho-moron line btwI think you've been having people replying with a smile on their face and that - people wanting to point out where you're going massively wrong..but...
“No passaran!”
- Thread starter e19896
- Start date
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
*shines torch in moon's eyes*Yeah i agree, but more importantly they do show that she/he has integrity, and appears to to be trying to break down the barriers of political sectarianism....
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you mean he's moon23 nice-but-dim? lots of people took the time to explain the error of his ways only to be met with incomprehension - he may give a shit, but his solution's no solution.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you're taking the pith with your edit.
I liked this, but can you honestly say that you've never called someone, or failing that thought of them, as being as being stupid because they were less enlightened than you?
So most of here can probably say, at the very least, that we're not racists....so therefore are we then not saying that we are more enlightened and educated than racists, no matter how 'soft' their racism might be?
..i was trying to be polite!
Whats your solution? i was exploring the possibility of a strong unionised workforce opposing the worse effects of capitalism.
It's an interesting point. I have often thought this about the theory of false counciousness that it relies on one person saying they are more enlightened then those who are fooled.
Hans Mangus Enzensberger who wrote the consciousness industry talks a lot about the idea of capitalism and culture manufacturing false counciousness. Essentialy is it possibly to say capitalism fools people to the extent where they are willing to be exploited. The attitude to some people to work might suggest this?
Is there something wrong about saying that racism is an objective (deontological moral wrong) Personaly i'm not so sure there is.
How though are we able to communicate this to people without being elitist and smug in our englithened state? That's how BNP portray as a smug elite, with their anti-interlectualism.
One other point about moral certianty is that some of the worse acts are committed by people in the name of morality, and enforcing it. Although I don't like post-modernism (bascially the idea that there are no moral phenoma only the moral interpretation of phenomma- Nietzche), does it as a liberal model stop the risk of people imposing their false morality on the rest of us?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To repeat myself, the balance you speak of is impossible. Such a balance presupposes the ability of the markets and the forces that you wish to see/believe can regulate it "light-handedly" to sustain a dynamic equilibrium (i.e. shifting in immediate reaction to new inputs from any party) between the forces.
Such a system can only ever be partial, and can only ever be reactive, so while it sounds great on a web page or in a text book, it can't and won't function "in the wild".
Changing the status quo won't make such a balance more or less attainable, changing the status quo merely shifts the direction in which it easiest to direct events.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
They're not balanced by it, they're shifted into more acceptable (at least for one of the parties) compromises at most. Balance in any social relationship is only possible in stasis, and social relationships are fluid.
Any such system would find it impossible to balance interests in a way that didn't favour one "side" over another, and grass roots participation wouldn't change that. What you propose is managerialism writ large, top-down control with the sop to those being "managed" of "grass roots participation" that would be reactive so therefore only capable of closing the stable door after the market horse has bolted.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Whoever the "other" is and whether they have legislative sanction or not. Economic compulsion is still compulsion.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I have faith in him. Just needs a little "re-education"Hey, it worked on me.
"So you've been to school for a year or two, and you know you've seen it all..."
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Social ownership and management of production?
I like his as an idea but wonder how it would work in practice could you imagine agreeing a constituion? just look at the sectarianism infighting that occurs when opposing the facisists.
I was looking at the Indymedia report on the leeds protest and its terrible. Bashing SWP and UAF for not taking on an Orange march etc you would think people would pull together. How could we possibly manage the means of production as a social grouping when we barley manage to march together against facists? Sorry to be pessimistic
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Do you "infight" with your work colleagues? Or do you just get on with it?
Well I have people in positions of authority over me so I have to ‘just get on with it’ or I would face recriminations. These are terms and conditions under which my Labor is exploited.
When working outside of work on voluntary projects with like minded people the relationships are generally more harmonious. The worse groups I have worked within are those that got obsessed with trying to legislate all the relationships under the name of making things more equitable, and the best are the anarchic ones where things get done by those who want to do them and these people naturally fall into leadership roles.
Of course yes, id like to think in time when tensions arising from capitalist exploitation are reduced harmonious relations would be more likely. Although I have not experienced a very communal form of living I suspect it would still be prone to some abuses of material and cultural power.
Similar threads
