Page 30 of 57 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 846

Thread: josef k

  1. #436
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,573

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to IdleRich For This Useful Post:


  3. #437
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by catalog View Post
    these are interesting points you are making thirdform. you seem to be arguing for something beyond left and right (or i dunno, have i got that wrong?)
    I wouldn't say I'm beyond left and right. that is a fascist slogan after all. I'd say I'm far to the left of state socialism which doesn't really make me a leftist per se. Briefly I'm for anarchy but am not an anarchist. I still align with the communist camp for various reasons that are too tedious to go into here. put most simply i think marxism has a better explanation for its own political failures than a lot of anarchism. though of course the best anarchist currents are largely based on marx's analysis of capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by catalog View Post

    could you elaborate a bit more on this comment:

    "and of course revival of stalinist aesthetics are conducive to neoliberalism this is why k-punk got it totally wrong with capitalist realism."

    what do you mean by stalinist aesthetics, specifically, and why would they be conducive to neoliberalism? i can almost see it, but not quite, could do with some more detail.
    A) when you look at socialist revivals, bernie, corbyn, etc you can see that they do not plan to alter the make up of neoliberalism as a whole. a few small adjustments here and there, and a lot of hot air about welfare reform, but that's about it.
    B) as i wrote to a friend:
    people want to say there is a left liberal social democracy that is just a bit better than the right wing version but part of why hard core stalinism never took off here is because its surplus to requirements. It is literally unnecessary because there was never a large scale peasantry to industrialise. so it just ends up being strong authoritarian capitalist state authorities and institutions, and their concomitant cultural aestheticism. nothing more, nothing less.

    Social democracy is always dictatorial, it's just that the one we have in the UK conceals its militarised dictatorial power inside the seductive glove of democracy.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


  5. #438
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,104

    Default

    third, with all due respect you seem to criticize everything. maybe everything does suck, or have its unique faults. no perspective or political position is 100% "good".

    what, in your mind, is the ideal?

  6. #439

    Default

    i think marxism has a better explanation for its own political failures than a lot of anarchism.
    If only you could break out of your Marxist mental prison, you'd be a superb aphorist. There's a Nietzschean desperate to burst free here.

  7. #440
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    227

    Default

    hey thanks for those replies, nice one.
    i'm gonna stop thinking about it now and go back to the music!
    been listening to these clips today https://boomkat.com/products/carrega...ras-das-costas and very much enjoying.

  8. #441
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    third, with all due respect you seem to criticize everything. maybe everything does suck, or have its unique faults. no perspective or political position is 100% "good".

    what, in your mind, is the ideal?
    I don't have ideals. I don't have a programme that I want to personally establish. that will be a collective work involving millions, if not billions.

    My ideals are pretty banal when it comes to it, ensuring the minimising of disability/race/gendered discrimination, ending the interminable process of being left jobless, forging tighter and less alienated bonds in the community, avoiding socially harmful and wasteful production and by that end struggling for a lifestyle that isn't so predicated on a wage to survive, basic stuff that seems really simple but under capitalist configurations becomes a virtual impossibility.

  9. #442
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craner View Post
    If only you could break out of your Marxist mental prison, you'd be a superb aphorist. There's a Nietzschean desperate to burst free here.
    did that when i was 19, took too much speed and smoked loads of skunk, wrote about 10 essays on Nietzsche and got bored of him really quick. no idea how so many history people invest so much effort in him. he was a literary master, i agree, but a real cunt when it came to philosophy or history.

  10. #443

    Default

    OK, forget about the Nietzsche bit, it was a red herring, what about composing some non-Marxist aphorisms?

  11. #444

    Default

    that will be a collective work involving millions, if not billions
    You'll never get them to agree with each other. Zhao tried that once, and it ended up in genocidal biosphere.

  12. #445
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craner View Post
    You'll never get them to agree with each other. Zhao tried that once, and it ended up in genocidal biosphere.
    Zhao's politics are basically imperialist = bad anti-imperialist = good but America still has a right to exist. I'm actually far more dictatorial than that. abolish that country.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


  14. #446
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craner View Post
    OK, forget about the Nietzsche bit, it was a red herring, what about composing some non-Marxist aphorisms?
    I always do, but they are sexually profligate. hence u tend to glaze over them on the forum.

  15. #447
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdform View Post
    I don't have ideals. I don't have a programme that I want to personally establish. that will be a collective work involving millions, if not billions.

    My ideals are pretty banal when it comes to it, ensuring the minimising of disability/race/gendered discrimination, ending the interminable process of being left jobless, forging tighter and less alienated bonds in the community, avoiding socially harmful and wasteful production and by that end struggling for a lifestyle that isn't so predicated on a wage to survive, basic stuff that seems really simple but under capitalist configurations becomes a virtual impossibility.
    these ideals are great and agreed upon by many people. are there any political means to achieve them, or are we all just having a collective pipe dream?

  16. #448
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,359

    Default

    Thirds not stupid dont goad get the best out of him he's not a bear to be baited

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


  18. #449
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    these ideals are great and agreed upon by many people. are there any political means to achieve them, or are we all just having a collective pipe dream?
    depends on A) the type of agreement, B) which people corresponding to what sort of relation agree C) whether the agreeing itself is holistic or has unspoken assumptions. D) how we are going to get to that level and whether we will end up still agreeing on the same core principles. E) whether we have organisational capacity that has rigid criteria for functioning. variables that no individual can decide on their own. It's not that I'm abdicating responsibility, it's just not possible for me to comprehend global capitalism in its totality. it's not possible for any individuals or small mystically defined groups of individuals, even the capitalists themselves.

    That's why i'm not into politics. it's bigging up your tribe. i'm not about that.
    Last edited by thirdform; 03-05-2019 at 07:31 PM.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


  20. #450
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,265

    Default

    I really think this quote is relevant, hence why i don't really care for eat the rich. get rid of the rich more like.

    "Whereas, on the basis of capitalist production, the mass of direct producers is confronted by the social character of their production in the form of strictly regulating authority and a social mechanism of the labour-process organised as a complete hierarchy — this authority reaching its bearers, however, only as the personification of the conditions of labour in contrast to labour, and not as political or theocratic rulers as under earlier modes of production — among the bearers of this authority, the capitalists themselves, who confront one another only as commodity-owners, there reigns complete anarchy within which the social interrelations of production assert themselves only as an overwhelming natural law in relation to individual free will."
    Marx - capital vol 3.

    Here he ain't saying that capitalist production is inherently anarchic, that it is disorganised, here he is saying that to the proletarians it appears as strict centralisation. the complete process is centrally planned and hierarchised. however the capitalists are incapable of seeing it that way, because their profits are determined by fluctuations in labour composition, technology and competition with other companies. the proletarians only have competition amongst themselves in periods of unemployment or perpetually relative to that reserve army of labour. that chronic unemployed mass. this is we say the working class itself must be gotten rid of, because it is nothing but a class of capitalism. technology should not either be given a primary importance. if it's more profitable to manufacture in a sweatshop than a factory, a company will do so despite the superior advantages of mass scale manufacturing technology. that is the anarchy that is being spoken of here.

    In the USSR the exact opposite happened. A industrial and later post-industrial working class was created under revolutionary rhetoric, not abolished. It doesn't matter to the worker if the state is the capitalist or the boss. the same class relation still exists, and even these days companies deligate many executive functions that were classically bourgeois to the salaried bourgeois. the bourgeoisie as a personal class rendered superfluous. the state and the totalised corporations become the total capitalists, and individual capitalists themselves only act as *personifications* of this fact.
    Last edited by thirdform; 03-05-2019 at 07:43 PM.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


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
  •