other_life

bioconfused
well shit ok since no one seems to give a shit about this i'll try something looser, nonspecific.
the barbarian ideal in your life. communists are barbarians. civilisation presupposes a much longer history of high culture. it all goes in here... discuss.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I'm very unconvinced of this 'communists are barbarians' idea. At the very least, the reverse is certainly untrue: barbarian societies have tended to be the diametric opposite of the communist ideal. Rigidly hierarchical, with a race of divine priest-kings at the top, then a warrior aristocracy, then an amorphous mass of farmers and other labourers who were little better than slaves. Actual slavery widely practiced. Women unequivocally subordinate to men, carried off as the spoils of war.

I mean it's maybe not a bad analogy for the grotesque distortions of Marxism that happened under Stalin and Mao.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I guess there's also the concept of 'primitive communism', but that's found in band-level societies, which are very different from the tribal societies of 'barbarians' per se.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
woah woah woah slow down. Slavery was integral to the formation of capitalist civilisation. no slavery, no transformation from merchant capitalism to industrial capitalism.

Slavery existed very much so in tributary and pre-capitalist civilisations, though certainly in the islamic civilisations this slavery was the preserve of the palace class.

As for the text other life is referencing, the ICP call Malik there one pillar of civilisation, as well as Acheson.

I.E: they were saying Stalin was the apex of developing capitalist civilisation and they were right!
 

other_life

bioconfused
i guess i should better articulate this 'communists are barbarians', or rather 'communism is modified/higher-level barbarism' idea better. when i'm deeper into the ethnological notebooks i'll have more to say, finishing origin of the family would help also, then i can compare both to the other 4 texts in the political piece of this program of study: caliban and the witch, patriarchy and accumulation on the world scale, women's work and myths of male dominance. lil spitball: the afro-asian and indo-aryan societies we immediately think of when we hear 'barbarian' were not the only barbarians. so were all the matrilineal peoples they displaced (gimbutas is also in this program of study)
 

other_life

bioconfused
the barbarian ideal sets its face against snivelisation
I address myself to the lurker. You can choose one of two paths through life. You can be him, a lone voice in the wilderness who only goddy can judge, or you can be one of The Lads, having a laugh, judged by your Lad-peers for your banter and rising in status based on your contributions. You can act with sincerity and courage, or you can just have a laugh. Noble or normal. Pariah or Lad.
But know this, lurker at the threshold, you can always change your mind. The Lads await, smiling, ready to welcome you with open arms, holding no grudges. They thrive on friendship and not on opposition. They assimilate they don't destroy. They are The Lads. They are not your enemy. ))))))):love:(((((((
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
this was the article that's started bringing me around to thirdform's point of view, tea
https://isr.press/Tamas_Communism/index.html
we'll see where this study leads us...
Civilisation has certainly survived, such as it is, thanks to socialism, nuclear war has been averted...
Is this written in all seriousness?

I mean, in a sense it's correct, if "thanks to socialism" can be taken to mean "thanks to the end of Soviet socialism".
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
But why approach these things as a sensible telegraph reader tea? I don't see the point. Treat it as a system of logic. Take the arguments seriously. On the abstract plane. Don't think about the sausage casserole. Abstract out into realm of the eternal forms!
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
For it is communism that wishes to put an end to a whole comprehensive system of separations: to the separation of the producers and of the means of production; to the separation of the propertied and those without property; to the difference between citizens and non-citizens; to the difference between men and women; between adults and children...
Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
But why approach these things as a sensible telegraph reader tea? I don't see the point. Treat it as a system of logic. Take the arguments seriously. On the abstract plane. Don't think about the sausage casserole. Abstract out into realm of the eternal forms!
The line I highlighted just doesn't work on any level, concrete or abstract. To the extent that it even makes a claim definite enough to be agreed with or refuted. Does it mean socialism - socialist parties and movements - in Western countries were responsible for alleviating the risk of MAD? Seems unlikely, seeing as the GOP and Tories were in power when the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and general malaise.

I mean, if I'm failing to get something that's obvious to you, you could always explain what you're thinking rather doing the old


routine.
 
Top