Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: acid communism

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    well, i think i agree which is why i think the avant-garde needs to be reunited with the psychedelic which is, after all, just my way of saying the religious.

    this is a point of contention between myself and znore who writes the grapejuice blog.
    he thinks the new is just commodity fetishism and that we need a return to the neolithic. i don't quite know what that means.


    This podcast was exciting in bits, and also found myself hoping this thinking can get an upgrade... worth a listen, have been enjoying Jeremy Gilbert a lot lately. Main points of contention are 1. the 60s aesthetic, music and references, which might be a necessary starting point but I hope things can evolve to something current / futurist and 2. the distancing from use of psychedelic drugs, and lack of discussion or understanding of current and changing uses of psychedelic use. These points might correlate with what you're saying in that avant-garde thread, gonna work through that now.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    Its important to think of the psychedelic as a mode of experience and not as a genre.

    I dont know anything about communism. Third form handles that line of questioning.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    Its important to think of the psychedelic as a mode of experience and not as a genre.

    I dont know anything about communism. Third form handles that line of questioning.
    yeah there's issues of conflation and confusion between substance, aesthetic and effect (all are obviously connected), but that 60s explosion was so potent that we have cultural 'lock-in' around its output. it's interesting to think about how psychedelic modes of experience, the boundary dissolving, 'technologies of non-self' as gilbert calls them might be used for consciousness raising now, getting us to care about politics, art, each other, the planet

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    oh god. not novara.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    this is the problem k-punk's science fiction materialism (im using that as a compliment) wasn't able to diagnose the historical failures of the left. aesthetically amazing, body without organs but you can't really do history with it cos its too predicated on the imminent. so what happens with Gilbert and all is they start reverting to the failures of the 2nd international.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdform View Post
    my contention is this: communism is like the qur'an. it will either win or it will lose. it was not a created doctrine so much as an accumulated historical doctrine realised through extremely long stretches of time condensations. If it is wrong then it should be abandoned entirely. It does not need to be modified, updated or revised, let alone rebranded. it was the same theory in 1844 and it will be the exact same theory in 2050. all the nuts and bolts of class based gender, race and disability politics are contained within the kernel of the economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844.

    What communists need to do, however, is interface with peoples cultural needs, and situate them in the historical trajectory of societal transformation. this is why I don't understand the reversion to archaism. floyd tels us nothing relevant today.
    so it's the aesthetic stuff that's part of the issue in terms of wider engagement, cultural needs, you think? unless you're into psychedelics or a communist, both 'acid' and 'communism' separately evoke boring imagery, woo-woo crusty graphic design or bleak and humourless. what exciting stuff should we plugging into, what emerging ideas, technologies should we be joining dots between?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    For me the conversation is the model. What I try to do on dissensus is a kind of precursor to what I hope to do on a larger scale in the meat-district.
    A conversation is a kind of microcosm of a 'scene' after all. How do you drive particpation without diluting quality of contrubution. How do you build momentum so its no longer dependent on its initial catalysts. How do you nurture without mollycoddling. How do you ensure its robust enough to thrive on dissent, criticism, disagreement without it losing its essential unity of purpose and direction.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to luka For This Useful Post:


  9. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    My assumption, or act of faith, is that if you can meet peoples needs, creative, intellectual, spiritual, emotional etc within the conversation you can work out from there.

    You've won the space in which to work. You've harnessed the energies and can direct them to a greater goal, ultimately, the creation of a human society. The same principles apply.

  10. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    I dont want to build an audience I want a peer group.

  11. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    Think of how a word like 'jazz' operated for decades as an umbrella for a conversation and an active sphere of investigation, containing all sorts of disparate, contradictory visions and modes of operation. Harnessed those energies,those competitive duelling energies, to a single purpose.

  12. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,600

    Default

    And part of this is trust. So I dont have to be solely dependent on my own responses, my own information gathering, my own knowledge base, my own judgement. A conversation has multiple vantages. Many eyes, many ears, speaks from many mouths. Distributed throughout space. Sometimes the speaker/sometimes the listener. It works much better that way.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •