2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!
> There is a long-standing and widespread confusion in radical so- cial thought about whether consciousness is determined or not (vari- ously known as the base/superstructure problem, the subject/ object duality, or the relation between being and consciousness). A critic of this book’s strategy said that it presupposes an already-existing, wide- spread, anticapitalist consciousness. And since this critic didn’t be- lieve such a consciousness existed at present, where was it going to come from? He went on to say that perhaps if capitalism started to collapse and the survival of large numbers of people were at stake (actually, the survival of hundreds of millions of people is already at stake), perhaps then the strategy would catch on. The implication here is that radical consciousness is produced by historical conditions. This is a false way of looking at things. It leaves out the free, creative re- sponse people can make to their circumstances.
>>15665972This seems to necessitate too many contingent factors. If it was true it wouldn't need so much a thrust I'd imagine
>>15665972I think the point is to go back to where both sides agree and reinterpret the next step. Bottom-up approaches almost always, if not always, fail.
>>15665972I liked the book for its concrete hands-on approach. It can't be the complete solution, though. Any effort of this nature that succeeds and starts to spread will be met with the full force of capital's legal and propaganda machine. It seems a two-front approach is necessary to go from winning battles to winning the whole war. The book is full of tactical wisdom, regardless.
> Fortunately, there is a clear way out of this muddle: think strategically. My critic did not seem to be aware that he was talking about history rather than acting in it. This is always the case for those with objectivist leanings. They are always standing outside history looking in, rather than making history as an active participant. When we have a project, when we are trying to do something (goal-oriented action), then this whole false dilemma of subject/object evaporates. We look at what we have to work with and what stands in our way, and we take it from there. And where did we get the idea for this project? We created it, out of the blue.
>>15666153That's hegelian propaganda. The next step or second in history doesn't imply a lesser of previous. If you breed dogs those future material implications aren't indicative of dog itself. Similar w justice
Sorry about all the hyphens. >>15666079>Bottom-up approachesWhat do you mean?>>15666150Agreed. The political and military engagement Bookchin advocates is also needed.
>>15665972>This is a false way of looking at thingsBoy, that sure showed them
>>15666200I mean approaches that assume a hegelian future with disregard to present conditions almost never capture the population. Generally people want stability and progress. The correct answer would capture them both. The only times revolutions happen is due to the population feeling unstable. If anything progress might be a part of stability. But a better revolution is one which is more Lockean than rousseauian.
>>15666200I think an 'awakening' on a foundational issue is more appropriate. I think manufactured issues just isolate large portions of the population
>>15666260>The only times revolutions happen is due to the population feeling unstable.Right, agree. The book does outline a nice replacement, but he did start writing it while things were still fairly stable (compared to now anyway). >>15666274What manufactured issue?
>>15666306Any political issue I believe is manufactured. If there's an issue with food shortages it becoming a political issue is after the fact that it's a food shortage issue
>>15666306So for example I feel the concept of state hierarchies, that is the government, isn't and can't be addressed politically anymore than π being 3 can be addressed politically
>>15666353The issue of capitalism needing to go is a necessity, seeing as how we’ll have the ultimate food shortage crisis since the dinosaurs were wiped out.
>>15666362Math is pretty solidly fact. How a *polis* chooses to operate is always open to change. Unjustifiable hierarchies can be addressed. It’s not over our heads.
>>15666373Sure but if you don't develop an actual replacement to capitalism you get stuck w the same thing, or Revolution Bucks, and a restructuring of order. Similarly a political response to food shortages is a readjusting of food stock in particular organizations. There's nothing in politics about how to grow more groups, GMOs even how to grow potatoes. It's starting with the solution in a derivative position which just leads to headache.
>>15666400Sure I'd argue the truth is laid in fact and can be found by us period. I just don't think politics is definitionally capable of developing a solution. In millenia math has given us better foods, safety, entertainment etc. If a government (in some similar form) has lasted more than a century we praise them and they've still not done what math does on a regular basis. Even if the workers take over, that doesn't necessarily mean they have more food, money or even equality. Those issues are philosophical not political
>>15666401Well, we are developing the replacement, and that’s what the associations are for. Hammering out details for our own paths for the specifics of given locations >>15666418>I just don't think politics is definitionally capable of developing a solution.I’m sorry, solution to what?>Even if the workers take overThis book moves beyond just workers seizing. It calls for everyone to seize it all.
>>15666517If seizing solved anything then stealing would be virtuous. I can't seize biology questions as a mechanism of answer.A solution to food isn't in politics it's in food. Politics is probably well defined as a system of seizing.
>>15666577>then stealing would be virtuous.It’s always been considered such. Don’t you like Odysseus? > A solution to food isn't in politics it's in foodHence we seize the land before it all goes to famine. Covered in the book, if glibly.
>>15666599No I prefer iliad. If there's a drought or even an issue with issuance, seizing it won't grow more food but I get your point
>>15666700It is legal. It’s based on classification, but legalized for some.
>>15666599What did Odysseus steal? The sun god's cattle? And how did that work out? Have you even read Homer you fucking pseud? Odysseus lies his ass off, but he doesn't steal anything.
>>15666714Ah, classification again. Don’t steal from the gods.But Odysseus and his crew are known for being pirates.
>>15666729Butterfly never read Homer. This fat bitch lurked this board for years, and never once bothered to crack the foundational texts of western civilization. What a clown.
Well it was a good thread while it lasted. Thanks
>>15665972Secure your ethnos, or your notions of fixing/fighting capitalism won't amount to a hill of beans.
>>15666153>created it, out of the blue>making history as an active participantOh the hubris!
>>15670207> Marx pointed the way, long ago, when he wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire, AMen make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the [email protected] Unfortunately, this has been a difficult insight for radicals to absorb. They tend to forget about the first five words B AMen make their own [email protected] B and in- stead remember only that our actions are circumscribed by the past. Even one of my favorite group of theorists, now coming to be known as autonomous marxists, but who I always called anti-Bolshevik com- munists or Western marxists, is guilty all too often of writing about the working class from the outside, rather than from the inside as strategists for abolishing wage slavery.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE0neN9mvcY
> Marx pointed the way, long ago, when he wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” Unfortunately, this has been a difficult insight for radicals to absorb. They tend to forget about the first five words — “Men make their own history” —and instead remember only that our actions are circumscribed by the past. Even one of my favorite group of theorists, now coming to be known as autonomous marxists, but who I always called anti-Bolshevik com- munists or Western marxists, is guilty all too often of writing about the working class from the outside, rather than from the inside as strategists for abolishing wage slavery.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE0neN9mvcY