Well fuck that then. I'd rather have capitalism.
Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
For a lot of the time it has been capitalism. And it isn't really a matter of what you, I or anybody else would rather have. As I said, you are not in control. You are at the mercy of historical forces. Imagine, for example, if the banks had gone down two years ago (and they almost did, remember.) The knock-on effects could have seen anything happen. But they just about kept their heads and patched up capitalism again. Until the next time. But there was nothing the likes of me or you could have done about it either way.
So do you think it's all pretty pointless then. Just gotta ride with whatever the fucks going on to the best of your ability, look after your own, and fuckin hope the shit doesn't hit the fan in our lifetimes? I can relate to that as it goes.
No-without clear political alternatives it's worse. 'Riding with whatever's going on' or resisting it-nothing is guaranteed.
Edie-not all lefties are as glib as Blaggers and his kind.
(I thought you were putting me on ignore, Mr B?)
Lletsa, despite being a magoo, is one of the few people on this website who talks sense.
On the contrary, it's because of being a blue...
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Funny that, because Marx never used the term either.
Marx talked about the "materialist conception of history", later referred to as "historical materialism" by Engels.
The German Ideology.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So you can blackmail some poor young woman into having sex with you.
"Let me do you up the wrong'un, and I'll make sure you don't have to attend any more revolutionary self-criticism sessions, comrade"
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
[quoe]kyser- you mean like bartering or exchange? What other rewards would there be for people who worked hard, took risks and wanted to better themselves? [/quote]
rover07 picked this up nicely, but to come back to this:
Bold bit - this is true whatever system of organising society you use. It's how you build that secure future - as atomised, singular family units with little reference to supporting those around you and a blinkered worldview that only sees it's immediate survival needs, or as larger groups that are capable of looking beyond the immediate need to stock up for winter for themselves. Human societies have only ever survived by following something close to the latter approach - lone wolves might prosper for a generation, but they die off pretty quickly after that.
Italics bit - this isn't about human nature, it's about conditioning. We're conditioned by capitalism to want certain things, to either accept or ignore certain types of socioeconomic relationships. To achieve a different kind of society that's based on what can be good about humans instead of bad, you change the conditioning.
The question that's never been adequately answered in all this, for me, is why hierarchies form in the first place? Why do human groups either volountarily or, by allowing themselves to be coerced, elevate individuals to power positions that mean they can 'lead'? This isn't so much an issue in the h-g tribe of a few famliy groups. in a society of millions for me it's a key question of human group psychology that we need to understand desparately before we can move forward.
rover07 picked this up nicely, but to come back to this:
Bold bit - this is true whatever system of organising society you use. It's how you build that secure future - as atomised, singular family units with little reference to supporting those around you and a blinkered worldview that only sees it's immediate survival needs, or as larger groups that are capable of looking beyond the immediate need to stock up for winter for themselves. Human societies have only ever survived by following something close to the latter approach - lone wolves might prosper for a generation, but they die off pretty quickly after that.
Italics bit - this isn't about human nature, it's about conditioning. We're conditioned by capitalism to want certain things, to either accept or ignore certain types of socioeconomic relationships. To achieve a different kind of society that's based on what can be good about humans instead of bad, you change the conditioning.
The question that's never been adequately answered in all this, for me, is why hierarchies form in the first place? Why do human groups either volountarily or, by allowing themselves to be coerced, elevate individuals to power positions that mean they can 'lead'? This isn't so much an issue in the h-g tribe of a few famliy groups. in a society of millions for me it's a key question of human group psychology that we need to understand desparately before we can move forward.
Kyser isn't it just cos a few people are more intelligent and can make better decisions more quickly. So people choose to trust there judgement calls.
You know I was reading this article about social capital and health outcomes the other day. Interesting the degree of difference having those connections outside your own family makes on stuff as unlikely as cancer 5year survival. People should think on about doing stuff like voluntary work and community work, turns out that it can have selfish rewards you might not expect.
You know I was reading this article about social capital and health outcomes the other day. Interesting the degree of difference having those connections outside your own family makes on stuff as unlikely as cancer 5year survival. People should think on about doing stuff like voluntary work and community work, turns out that it can have selfish rewards you might not expect.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Nope.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
C'mon - throughout history, do you really think those who ruled were elevated there because they were smarter and were better at making decisions? Do a google for 'lions foxes machiavelli'
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not even slightly.
It's currently (given that we live in a "democracy") the case that those who can represent themselves to the public as being "the best bet" form the government, but given that they can back out of any commitments they make to "the people" (as, for example, the Lib-Dems have done), the representations they offer are often bullshit, and we're left with mean, venal people making the decisions that govern our lives, people who may well be intelligent, but who are not necessarily motivated to "do the right thing".
While that's true, it's also somewhat militated against of you happen to live in a "bad" postcode. Social capital is powerful, but it's differentially powerful, depending on where you're from and where you are, how you speak, and a host of other factors.
Wisdom, cunning, courage and ferocity then.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Indeed. Or at least staff yourself with people who support you unquestioningly because you're ensuring their survival, who can be in both of those roles (say the cabinet of GWBJnr - thick as shit president, some scarily smart people underneath).
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
...
What? Total rubbish. You think people from bad postcodes don't know how to look after each other or build strong communities?
Opposite mate. It's the rich folks behind the gates who don't know there neighbours.The rich look after each others' interests far better than the poor, to the extent of skewing the entire political system in their favour. In contrast, the less well off in society are at the disadvantage of having experienced several deccades of social atomisation. Having grown up in one of the poorest areas in Manchester, I have to agree with whoever it was who said that the war of all against all has always raged among the poor. (That doesn't mean that may people didn't/don't look out for each other as well.)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I didn't say that, you plonker.What? Total rubbish. You think people from bad postcodes don't know how to look after each other or build strong communities?
I said that if you're from a "bad" postcode, your ability to use your social capital is affected and limited, just as it is by where you were born, what accent you speak with, loads of stuff.
That doesn't mean that you can't be from or build a strong community. It does mean that your community will very likely have suffered more from the effects of overt and covert policies to break class solidarities, though, than a community in a "good" postcode.
They don't have to, they have access to networks that make it easy for them to "spend" any social capital they need to.
Yer. Class solidarities. Not much of them eh. Strongest place I ever lived was in Leeds as it goes LLETSA. Never felt much class solidarity in S London (Brixton then Thamesmead), only among my wider family and within quite a narrow group of people a lot of who moved to Thamesmead for racist reasons, but I was only a kid when my parents were still in London. When I first moved to Leeds when our eldest was little we lived on the edge of Little London/ Woodhouse on this pedestrianised street. It was a shithole, mostly HA houses and hardly anyone worked the fucking lazy fuckersI didn't say that, you plonker.
I said that if you're from a "bad" postcode, your ability to use your social capital is affected and limited, just as it is by where you were born, what accent you speak with, loads of stuff.
That doesn't mean that you can't be from or build a strong community. It does mean that your community will very likely have suffered more from the effects of overt and covert policies to break class solidarities, though, than a community in a "good" postcode.
They don't have to, they have access to networks that make it easy for them to "spend" any social capital they need to.
, but people sat with the front doors open and on the street and I have to say it was the first time I knew literally everyone on the street (except the junkie hostel house and the squatters who kept themselves to themselves). I thought it was a northern thing, knowing everyone.I dunno though VP. Social capital aint about 'who you know' in a networking sense, is it. It's about who will listen to your shit, be kind and support you when life goes wrong (illness, divorce etc). You can't buy that can you.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
That's where you are waiting though innit Dot.Must you always drag it to the gutter comrade
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
unfair, I have only once scored at the job centre, out of many visits.
You picked a girl up down the jobcenter?
lolDotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
You picked a girl up down the jobcenter?
JSA= Jason Serviced Adequately
dumped via facebook though. Oh cruel fate.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
those doing the anarchist version of educating rita, badly.
Lol.
Have to say, this thread isn't the greatest advert for 'our ideas'.
Eds, we have people starving in the world, kids born into complete, abject, unavoidable poverty. Capitalism doesn't work. Surely a fairer distribution of wealth and resources would be better? It wouldn't need to rely on people being altruistic. If people have access to everything they need then there is no advantage to accumulating wealth. And we have enough for everybody, we can grow and produce enough food and medicine and build enough homes. Just not when a small percentage of the global population monopolises the majority of our wealth and resources.
Anyway, sounds like you've been lectured enough so I'll stop now.
Similar threads
