Fascism!

[josef k.]

f) Creates tribal societies.

 

[nomadthethird]

f) Creates tribal societies.

Hmmm... I would probably call them "imaginary communities" or "fantasmic communities" or just communities.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I do think there's a way in which nothing can regulate science, even though a lot of things rein it in...

if you mean "science" as a way of thinking, as in using the scientific method (even if it's not called that) to further knowledge, then yes. if you mean Science as in expensive equipment and research grants & so on then I think that can be reined pretty quick. tho I guess you're saying that knowledge is impossible to contain? which I think is true once its known - but - that often requires large amounts of $/time/training/etc.

If we could only get rid of the state, the war machine would start to shrivel up. Eventually it'd be tiny. You'd only have little regional wars over food like in the pre-colonial Americas. Science would potentially be our best bet toward making life better under those circumstances.

Not easy to do--not at all.

more like impossible unless it crumbles under its own weight. even then I'm skeptical.

what would sustain the enormous infrastructure required for science in such a world? who would make all the microscopes & computers & so on and then ship them from place to place? how would scientists communicate with each other, review each others' work (surely a massively important part of science) w/out an electric grid or telephones? and so on and so on...

tbc you are talking here too to a person who is quite sympathetic to many of these ideas...just saying.

 

[nomadthethird]

if you mean "science" as a way of thinking, as in using the scientific method (even if it's not called that) to further knowledge, then yes. if you mean Science as in expensive equipment and research grants & so on then I think that can be reined pretty quick. tho I guess you're saying that knowledge is impossible to contain? which I think is true once its known - but - that often requires large amounts of $/time/training/etc.



more like impossible unless it crumbles under its own weight. even then I'm skeptical.

what would sustain the enormous infrastructure required for science in such a world? who would make all the microscopes & computers & so on and then ship them from place to place? how would scientists communicate with each other, review each others' work (surely a massively important part of science) w/out an electric grid or telephones? and so on and so on...

tbc you are talking here too to a person who is quite sympathetic to many of these ideas...just saying.

Science doesn't need industry, that's one of capitalism's favorite lies.

 

[josef k.]

"If we could only get rid of the state, the war machine would start to shrivel up. Eventually it'd be tiny. You'd only have little regional wars over food like in the pre-colonial Americas. Science would potentially be our best bet toward making life better under those circumstances."

"So what's the plan?"

 

[nomadthethird]

"If we could only get rid of the state, the war machine would start to shrivel up. Eventually it'd be tiny. You'd only have little regional wars over food like in the pre-colonial Americas. Science would potentially be our best bet toward making life better under those circumstances."

"So what's the plan?"

My plan is to let the State extinctify itself, and to accelerate this process however and wherever possible.

Our current way of life will not continue for much longer, because it simply can't. We don't have the resources at our disposal to make it work.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think there is one, but nobody wants to hear it, because it doesn't involve enough power and therefore has little seductive allure.

There are tribal societies all over the world that exist without states, and are doing just fine. You aren't going to read about them in the papers, or see them on the TV, but they exist. And they're a great model for a future society.

I dunno, I'm quite skeptical - I think specifically from readings tons of green anarcho/primitivist/anti-civ literature. It's very much - I'd like to believe but I just can't, especially having seen how much of that stuff is rife with utopian fantasy, or perhaps dystopian fantasy, or some blending of the two.

I think any future society minus the state will much more closely resemble a place like Somalia than a tribal utopia. unfortunately. of course I very much hope I am wrong.

I agree that no one wants to hear that the best solution is always to use less, to make sacrifices, rather than to have your cake & eat it too - that we can maintain something so obviously unsustainable if we just tweak it a little bit here & there. It is very reminiscent of the American attitude towards war since WWII - that we can win wars on the cheap, w/o expending too much blood & treasure - which of course never, never works out.

 

[vimothy]

DEATH TO THE TECHNO-INDUSTRIAL MACHINE!!!

Thomas Krome? Regis and Female?

 

[josef k.]

the sky is falling!

 

[vimothy]

On performativity, I find the social life of theory fascinating. It's one of the reasons I love the financial crisis -- so many data points!

 

[josef k.]

good phrase: "the social life of theory"

fascinating

 

[nomadthethird]

I dunno, I'm quite skeptical - I think specifically from readings tons of green anarcho/primitivist/anti-civ literature. It's very much - I'd like to believe but I just can't, especially having seen how much of that stuff is rife with utopian fantasy, or perhaps dystopian fantasy, or some blending of the two.

I think any future society minus the state will much more closely resemble a place like Somalia than a tribal utopia. unfortunately. of course I very much hope I am wrong.

I agree that no one wants to hear that the best solution is always to use less, to make sacrifices, rather than to have your cake & eat it too - that we can maintain something so obviously unsustainable if we just tweak it a little bit here & there. It is very reminiscent of the American attitude towards war since WWII - that we can win wars on the cheap, w/o expending too much blood & treasure - which of course never, never works out.

But do you think it's got to be about utopia, or just the most healthy, sustainable form of living? I tend to go for the latter.

 

[vimothy]

The idea of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism -- I mistrust it, and I say this as someone with a strong libertarian streak. The state has a particular function WRT violence, that is, to monopolise it. The downsides of this are obvious: it's a sellers market, and all of humanity's greatest mass graves are the products of strongly authoritarian states. But it's important to recognise the positive effects of the state's monopoly on violence, namely, less violence.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

My plan is to let the State extinctify itself, and to accelerate this process however and wherever possible.

Our current way of life will not continue for much longer, because it simply can't. We don't have the resources at our disposal to make it work.

I used to think very much like this (not to imply that I was wrong then & right now or somesuch) - but I am not so sure anymore. Not that a collapse - or more likely a steep but less immediate deterioration or decay - isn't coming but that such a thing is probably not to be welcomed. I think it will mean a vast deal of suffering & misery & death. or in other words, the parts of the world that have been insulated from this will become more like the parts of the world that have not.

the bit about acceleration (quite common in anti-civ circles) is also, you're probably aware, dangerously similar thinking to say, Sendero Luminoso killing aid workers & reformists in order to bring on the revolution quicker. if in a watered down form cos most if not all anti-civ ppl are nice middle class Westerners, not desperate, hard-nosed Peruvian revolutionaries. I just think there's a tendency when talking this subject to gloss over the very, very grim implications of some of the things beind said. which I've been guilty of as much as anyone.

 

[nomadthethird]

The idea of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism -- I mistrust it, and I say this as someone with a strong libertarian streak. The state has a particular function WRT violence, that is, to monopolise it. The downsides of this are obvious: it's a sellers market, and all of humanity's greatest mass graves are the products of strongly authoritarian states. But it's important to recognise the positive effects of the state's monopoly on violence, namely, less violence.

Yeah, that's the argument I think most Marxists who aren't entirely anti-State would make?

I'm not sure about it...I hope it's true...it would be nice...

Padraig: in the end I have more questions than answers, too. I just think you can't ignore the problem of the state and expect to be able to build utopia.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But do you think it's got to be about utopia, or just the most healthy, sustainable form of living? I tend to go for the latter.

the latter of course. what I mean is the two often get mixed up hopelessly, especially when people start theorizing about tribal peoples & so on.

there's also the matter of what you do when people disagree with you about what the healthiest/most sustainable form of living is.

 

[vimothy]

there's also the matter of what you do when people disagree with you about what the healthiest/most sustainable form of living is.

I think that's quite an instructive problem if we are discussing the state. How would you go about solving it?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The idea of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism -- I mistrust it, and I say this as someone with a strong libertarian streak. The state has a particular function WRT violence, that is, to monopolise it. The downsides of this are obvious: it's a sellers market, and all of humanity's greatest mass graves are the products of strongly authoritarian states. But it's important to recognise the positive effects of the state's monopoly on violence, namely, less violence.

first off, let's distinguish very clearly between anarchism & anarcho-capitalism, two completely different things that have a little but not too much to do with each other.

your point about govts & violence is well taken (I'm reminded by either you or Mr BoShambles on failed states, badly paraphrasing - "A state's stability can be measured by how well it monopolizes violence within its own borders"), as anything it is of course a mixed bag. I think the general anarchist answer would be that 1) if you removed the economic motives (ignoring for a moment how you'd do so) behind a lot of violence then violence would greatly decrease & 2) if you alter unbalanced power dynamics - patriarchy, racism, sexism etc etc - (again, ignoring how) you'd decrease violence. so if you work on the underlying reasons. essentially leaving only crimes of passion. I'm not arguing for the soundness of this reasoning or not, just laying it out.

there is defintely some anarchist theorizing on crime & punishment in a world w/o a State - I think Malatesta wrote a treatise on it but maybe I'm wrong - as well as on violence.

I think most people, certainly most people I know & am friends with, are pretty realistic/pragmatic about this stuff. like, everyone I know who's bought land and started working on becoming more self-sustainable has also invested in guns.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This isn't just communism...

They didn't have much to them and did NOT explain why state-communism is not just communism.

...this is Marx & Spencers communism.

 

[josef k.]

The state is not only a problem, but also a solution.

...

a mediating force

&

an instrument of domination.

__

The state is contained in its instruments of domination.

instruments of mediation.

Alter those instruments and you change the state.

Alter the logic of those instruments.