art
Junior Member
Posts: 77 
|
Post by art on Mar 1, 2015 15:37:46 GMT -5
I'd go further and state that, really, only technology makes successful revolution possible: the bringing together of millions of people working for one decisive end, using the force needed to alter a socio-economic order. As Trotsky I believe said, an idea once it seizes control of the masses becomes a material force. I would go further and call it a "machine". Revolutions don't just happen as a single event. There was a long time of preparation in the French absolutist state, centuries of formation among the bourgeoisie, that made that revolution possible. Then you only had real "revolution" for less than ten years before Napoleon takes over and effectively becomes a monarch crowned by the Pope himself. Then, Napoleon is defeated, there is a partial restoration, until the Republic is finally definitively declared after the Franco-Prussian War. And during this whole time, you have socialism, anarchism, etc. The "bourgeois revolution" is being completed precisely over the period of decades, in fits and starts, aborted actions (1848) and dead-ends. To say that "the French Revolution won" is a highly problematic statement.
The same is of course true with Russia. After the seizure of power, you have the civil war / War Communism, NEP, liquidation of the kulaks, forced collectivization of the peasantry, etc. Basically what capital "should" have done in Russia but didn't. It was revolutionary alright, but not in any way that we think about it, and not in the dreamy liberating sense. And that is not even to speak of the fate of the vast majority of supposed revolutionaries who carried out the revolution. Most credible theorists would summarize what happened in the Soviet Union as being akin to a trade union managing the most brutal parts of primitive accumulation itself. What does revolution even mean in that context? Just the creation of capitalism by other means.
It just seems you are using that word "revolution" and have no idea what it means. Uncle Ted seems to be doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thewildernist on Mar 1, 2015 15:39:35 GMT -5
Art: "Again, technology qua technology as we know if is something that has deeper roots in domestication, abstraction, etc. The first real technologies are religions, ideas, reifications, etc. Place these beside cars and industrial machinery and forklifts and stuff, it's clear what is driving what."
If I understand what you are saying, then I believe it to be idealistic nonsense. Ideas don't shape technologies as much as technologies shape ideas. What came first wasn't the "idea" of technology but the autonomous development of it through material circumstances, which in turn made environments more favorable to certain social structures and outlooks.
"There are ways to target civilization that don't require hierarchy and militaristic organization (good luck on building those anyways! Ha), and, as I've said, I think we have FAR more to learn about resistance from hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists than by reading about Revolutions."
Militaristic organization? Who ever claimed this? For sure revolutions have often only succeeded if they gained sympathy of a military force. But the revolutionaries themselves rarely engage in militaristic organization, unless they are an insurgency, and at least the way discussions are going with people right now, it looks like that's not even close to the strategy that we think will work. Social power is ten times more significant for our ends.
I've already talked about the hierarchy thing.
"They, like you, presume that "we can end" X, Y, or Z, if organized efficiently to do so."
And they were right! I don't understand how you can deny this. If you are saying the consequences of revolution aren't worth it, then that would be a rational argument that I could accept, but, while it is obvious that this is the case, you instead decide to go with the argument that revolution simply can't happen---and such a claim is ahistorical (in that a revolution happening is much more likely) and ultimately unprovable (in that it's impossible to prove a revolution won't happen just as it's impossible for us to prove a revolution will). It's about placing our bets, weighing the possibilities.
"The "low effectiveness" of indigenous resistance is a sheer numbers game and a part of colonial reality."
Well duh. But that likely isn't going to change, and playing numbers games with more powerful entities never ends in a success on any front. You've proven my point: this model has historically shown itself to be inadequate for the goal of ending industry.
I really don't understand your logic. If you are advocating primal war, what tangible outcome will it really bring other than the willing suicide of hundreds to thousands of people who fight? Do you not want an end to industry? Are you merely preaching that we are doomed?
|
|
|
|
Post by thewildernist on Mar 1, 2015 15:45:42 GMT -5
The "international" bit is the part I was least convinced of until I read about the process of civilizational collapse, Greer's theory of catabolic collapse, and when I read more into the technical underpinnings of our current industrial society. You are familiar with at least the first two things, I'm sure. Why don't these convince you (you, not RS)?
|
|
|
|
Post by KT on Mar 1, 2015 16:00:45 GMT -5
Dude, you are dense. I've said a number of times that talking to you is pointless and that holds true here as with anywhere. You simply AREN'T grasping concepts. Plain and simple. If I understand what you are saying, then I believe it to be idealistic nonsense. Ideas don't shape technologies as much as technologies shape ideas. What came first wasn't the "idea" of technology but the autonomous development of it through material circumstances, which in turn made environments more favorable to certain social structures and outlooks. Actually what Art is saying is exactly what Lewis Mumford said: technology is innately social, therefore the origins of technological power arise in the organization of labor. It's been echoed by nearly every critic of technology since, myself included. He's not saying the idea comes first, but that the first machine was, in Mumford's words (which I cite often): comprised of flesh and bone. Militaristic organization? Who ever claimed this? For sure revolutions have often only succeeded if they gained sympathy of a military force. But the revolutionaries themselves rarely engage in militaristic organization, unless they are an insurgency, and at least the way discussions are going with people right now, it looks like that's not even close to the strategy that we think will work. Social power is ten times more significant for our ends. You start out justifying gallows and now it's "social power"? If you're saying Revolutions happen without militaristic force and organization then there's nothing to say to you on the matter. That's just ridiculous. But either way, you're missing the point that's raised over and over again: how do you think you're going to get that "social power"? You seem to be the only one unable to put these pieces together yet you act like you have the answers here. You just don't get it. I've already talked about the hierarchy thing. Yeah, your'e for it. So why are you here? And they were right! I don't understand how you can deny this. If you are saying the consequences of revolution aren't worth it, then that would be a rational argument that I could accept, but, while it is obvious that this is the case, you instead decide to go with the argument that revolution simply can't happen---and such a claim is ahistorical (in that a revolution happening is much more likely) and ultimately unprovable (in that it's impossible to prove a revolution won't happen just as it's impossible for us to prove a revolution will). It's about placing our bets, weighing the possibilities. I have said time and time again that Revolutions are NOT worth it, but more so, as you tellingly missed, NONE have lived up to their propaganda. Revolutions die like Revolutionaries, in the fucking gallows. But I'm saying "YOUR" Revolution won't happen. I'll continue to publicly state that I'll take pretty much any bet on that measure. Well duh. But that likely isn't going to change, and playing numbers games with more powerful entities never ends in a success on any front. You've proven my point: this model has historically shown itself to be inadequate for the goal of ending industry. I didn't prove your point, you missed mine: the nature of society and the unintentional solidification of infrastructure and absolute global reliance on it is what has changed. Nothing about Revolutionary Ideologies alters that nor makes the point more obvious than it already is. I really don't understand your logic. If you are advocating primal war, what tangible outcome will it really bring other than the willing suicide of hundreds to thousands of people who fight? Do you not want an end to industry? Are you merely preaching that we are doomed? I'll take the opening statement there as a compliment. Primal war is about undoing and fighting domestication. That looks like a lot of things, but it's not some precious notion that we're going to have some glorious Ideological path that gets us through the collapse. The collapse is happening, right here, right now. It's a process. What our role in that is questionable. There are clear and pressing examples about how that impact could be much larger, but that's not a conversation to be had. It's not saying something insane like "let's have our Ideology and Revolution and we'll have Social Power with ten times more efficiency to enact Our Will to End Industry". That would be stupid, right? You want your cake and to eat it too. Things are far messier, but you're coming in here pretending that you have The Answer and you've already justified your gallows, but you're too fucking historically or socially unaware to recognize your own limitations. There's no discussion to be had here. I will continue to trash your Ideology and Revolution as I have and will any Ideology and Revolution, but AT LEAST most Revolutionaries can hold a consistent thought for a week. |
|
|
|
Post by thewildernist on Mar 1, 2015 16:20:22 GMT -5
"You start out justifying gallows and now it's "social power"?"
I am constantly wondering if you exaggerate because you really think in such black and white terms, if you exaggerate for simple rhetorical purposes, to make your counterargument look shinier. I won't try to go through any clarifications here, since I hope that most people can read the discussion and understand the nuance of what is said, despite your flattening it for whatever reasons you do.
"but more so, as you tellingly missed, NONE have lived up to their propaganda."
NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT REVOLUTIONS GIVE WHAT THEY PROMISE as far as utopias go. What matters is that they fulfill their promise to destroy their target society. If revolutionaries fail to put forth a utopia and refuse to enact one, this problem is very easily avoided. Please stop repeating points that have already been addressed.
"You want your cake and to eat it too. Things are far messier, but you're coming in here pretending that you have The Answer and you've already justified your gallows, but you're too fucking historically or socially unaware to recognize your own limitations."
There is no The Answer. There is the question of where we place our bets. Mine are firmly placed on revolution, but I do not pretend that this is going to be the right decision. In fact, I often think about what might happen if, a few years down the line, I become convinced otherwise because of the way the world is then. There is no correct answer machine here: there are people trying to come to terms with this reality and figuring out the best way to respond to it.
You incessantly refer to my age in these conversations, making claims such as that I'm "underread." I think it's obvious to anyone that this isn't true and you are only trying to do the only thing you know how to do well in an argument: attack ad hominem. I would go out on a limb here and say that I've read about as much as I could have possibly read about the topic at this point in my life, from all the do or dies, all historical documents related to EF! I could get my hands on, rows and rows of books on psychology, a few on the histories of revolution... etc. I say this not to brag, but to ask you to stop attacking my intelligence. It does nothing to advance the actual ideas you have, and, if those ideas are valid, they should be able to prove by themselves that what I am advocating is immature or naive.
Lastly, I just came here to explain the place The Wildernist and others in the movement are coming from. I think I've done that. It's not for you, Tucker, as it is neither possible nor desirable to convince you of these things. It is just helpful to have these things stated on a public forum, with references for people who want to learn more. So I am finish commenting on this thread, as you are no doubt happy about.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by art on Mar 1, 2015 16:27:35 GMT -5
Thanks, KT, that's what I was sort of getting at. All technology is is a method to organize human labor. A machine just does things that a person or a group of people could do by themselves but "made easier" or "more efficient" or whatever. My favorite example is the nomenclatura in ancient Roman society, which I believe was just a meatware Smartphone for dumb noblemen: a slave who walked around and told their master random things about passersby in the streets, reminded them of appointments, etc. Humans used to be "the computers" up until World War II often working in rooms performing calculations by hand. People in early modernity had memory tricks to memorize vast stores of useless information. You can get too mystified by technology until you begin to break it down into labor that humans and animals used to do (horsepower is a good word that demonstrates that). Under capitalism, humans often appear to be appendages of machines, but that's just because we have some impressive machines.
|
|
|
|
Post by thewildernist on Mar 1, 2015 16:32:09 GMT -5
Oh, and Art, I do appreciate the value you add to these discussions, even if I am critical of how much you sympathize with RS. Your writings and thought are intelligent and sober, and some of my colleagues (probably not the right word) agree (Ziqian --- you know him personally, I think). I look forward to further discussions with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by KT on Mar 2, 2015 10:00:24 GMT -5
I am constantly wondering if you exaggerate because you really think in such black and white terms, if you exaggerate for simple rhetorical purposes, to make your counterargument look shinier. I won't try to go through any clarifications here, since I hope that most people can read the discussion and understand the nuance of what is said, despite your flattening it for whatever reasons you do. Most people can read the discussions and understand the nuance, but you aren't one of them. You like to accuse me of exaggeration, but then I can back up these claims with direct quotes from you, often in the very same thread. This happens over and over with you. For example, this is what you said in this thread, yesterday: The first is that the damage a revolution might do with its potential gallows and morally questionable subcomponents is very small to the damage that might come about if such a revolution does not occur --- the worst of these outcomes being the destruction of all complex life on Earth (and this could perhaps be expanded, but by then we'd be sounding dramatic). NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT REVOLUTIONS GIVE WHAT THEY PROMISE as far as utopias go. What matters is that they fulfill their promise to destroy their target society. If revolutionaries fail to put forth a utopia and refuse to enact one, this problem is very easily avoided. Please stop repeating points that have already been addressed. I'm not talking about utopias. I'm talking about any semblance at all of what they proposed. If/when Revolutions die in the gallows, they have failed to reconcile that their goals (always "freedom" and "liberty", right?) and their incompatibility with mass society. Again, you didn't address this point, you simply don't understand it. There is no The Answer. There is the question of where we place our bets. Mine are firmly placed on revolution, but I do not pretend that this is going to be the right decision. In fact, I often think about what might happen if, a few years down the line, I become convinced otherwise because of the way the world is then. There is no correct answer machine here: there are people trying to come to terms with this reality and figuring out the best way to respond to it. This is more evidence that you both attempt to play the crowd and don't understand what you are saying. Ideology and Revolution are definitives. These are absolutes. The fact that you're already saying the very Revolution you plan on enacting is subject change based on your whims "a few years down the line". You incessantly refer to my age in these conversations, making claims such as that I'm "underread." I think it's obvious to anyone that this isn't true and you are only trying to do the only thing you know how to do well in an argument: attack ad hominem. I would go out on a limb here and say that I've read about as much as I could have possibly read about the topic at this point in my life, from all the do or dies, all historical documents related to EF! I could get my hands on, rows and rows of books on psychology, a few on the histories of revolution... etc. I say this not to brag, but to ask you to stop attacking my intelligence. It does nothing to advance the actual ideas you have, and, if those ideas are valid, they should be able to prove by themselves that what I am advocating is immature or naive. To be honest, it's not your age I find abhorrent, it's your ideas, goals, and fucking arrogance. We were all young once. I became friends with JZ when I was 19! Being young necessarily means that you do lack experience that others who've been around longer than you have, but you seem to think that what you've found through Google is a replacement or fill in for that knowledge and experience. I gave you a shot, but you're really fucking obnoxious and you continue peddling shit as some faux-authority on subjects you honestly know very little about. And most of what you do know is probably based off of people like me correcting your factually wrong assertions. Even here you're talking about yourself in insane ways and, yes, you are "under-read". My ideas stand on their own, but yours don't, that is why I'm going after you. You don't seem to recognize the implications of your own words and they change on a whim, but the core is repugnant. You're talking about branding Ideologies (yes, there have been multiple), you're trying to start a Revolution; these are absolutes. No matter how you try to package them up and sell them (meanwhile complaining about the lack of ad revenue from your blog), they are what they are. It's CLEAR that you don't get the ramifications of these things, which, as I repeatedly remind you, are never going to happen. But they are repugnant. This isn't school. We're not just sharing ideas, these things have implications. I have ZERO obligation to let you air your garbage uncontested. I don't owe you an ounce of respect and you certainly haven't earned a bit of it, despite what you think of yourself. I couldn't give two shits if you don't like my tone towards you. You want to be treated like an adult, well here it is, expect to be challenged for your stupid, ahistorical ideas. If you did expect to be taken seriously, perhaps you should have hunkered down and fleshed out ideas and THEN presented your "Ideology" instead of trying to co-opt long standing milieus/ideas and ride on Ted's coattails. What you've done is present Ideologies under different monikers and then change regularly what that name, core, and perspective is, but then get all fucking upset when someone holds you accountable for the things you said even hours beforehand. Lastly, I just came here to explain the place The Wildernist and others in the movement are coming from. I think I've done that. It's not for you, Tucker, as it is neither possible nor desirable to convince you of these things. It is just helpful to have these things stated on a public forum, with references for people who want to learn more. So I am finish commenting on this thread, as you are no doubt happy about. I doubt you're finished regrettably, but if you think you can use this as a means to spread your bullshit, then think again. |
|
|
|
Post by northernfrostbite on Mar 4, 2015 21:54:47 GMT -5
Has any revolution ever done anything other than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? Far from "destroying their targets" they've actually made authoritarian power more insidious. We all want civ gone, and who can't sympathize with a desire for revenge, but couching it in a framework of revolution is a dead end. It's also pure fantasy.
|
|
