McKinley was assassinated by a guy who was considered to radical for the anarchist community. 

Thanks for your response, riverrun.

I think it's unfortunate that radical elements can otherwise tarnish a whole group. For instance, I think the ALF's tactics are hurting their cause. People aren't going to have a rational discussion about ethical responsibilities towards animals with people who are basically terrorists.

That being said, I really want to look into anarchism more, at least so I know what I'm talking about. I have a libertarian bent anyway, so I might like it. I feel very alienated with consumerism in the US.

There was a TED lecturer (its on youtube) speaking about this very point: That the excess of choice is actually extremely damaging to the human psyche. More psychologists and economists are catching onto this realisation all the time.

As far as anarchist philosophy goes I think this introduction is by far the best online.

Tim. 

Word to that man. Are you vegan?

As an biologist, the only thing I can say is that from an evolutionry standpoint of a self-intersted organism that is required to co-operate in societies to survive, anarchism is simply not a feasible solution. However, I despise the idea of a totally free market because people are invariably solely interested in profit, so in a free market environment, nuclear plants could store waste next to schools, that is why there needs to be some form of check and balance between socialism and capitalism. i am not an economist, the only thing I can say is that from an evolutionary standpoint, capitalism makes perfect sense.

 

granted, I strongly disagree with this overly consumerist culture, and think the wealth of the united states is obscene, but sometimes people forget what we owe to capitalism. I live in China, I have seen with my own eyes a quarter billion people lifted out of poverty. The world is changing. This Chomskian ideology is dying. With the introduction of three billion people to the market, the driving force of tommorow will be India and China.

Also, explain to me exactly how in an anarchist society I am supposed to get my money to do scientific research?

I despise the right wing more than I do the left (I'm not American, so partisan politics never appealed to me), but today I get to use one of my favorite quotes.

-If you're not a socialist at twenty you have no heart, if you're still a socialist at age forty, you have no brain

 

Also, I would not get my morals from a man like Noam Chomsky. He once acted as an apologist for the killing fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap Forward, (he said that criticism of these was anti-communist propagand. Is he insane? I have been to the killing fields, and to Tianamen Square) and the Faurisson affair. Also, he was recommened by Chavez, who is a tyrant. 

Right on, I give you all of my respect for your efforts. I've been vegan for a year but I'm really unhealthy. I was vegetarian 2 years before that but lived off of cheese pizza. I went vegan to force myself to eat healthier. It worked at first, but I need to learn how to cook more, as you said. I live in buffalo with limited options, but it can be really easy depending on where you live. If the choice is available it's certainly an ethical one to make.

My knowledge of anarchism is very limited, but I'll give you my opinion on some of the things you have said.

 

 

I think I almost agree with you because of the point I made that peter singer points out, however, what anarchism really does is that it questions authority and askes whether that authority is legitimate or not. For example, we could say that the police force is unjust and supports the ruling class, but if we were to just do away with the police force there would obviously be outright chaos. When you study anarchist ideas it questions how we can reform the system without something that is illegitimate  in a rational way. So although it might seem unreasonable to be an anarchist by only scratching on the surface of it, I think we certainly need to be progressive. Progressive in the sense that we work towards a much more free democracy where it really is "we the people" and not "we the corporations" or "we the rich and privileged." Haha, I'm no economist either though, but anarchism sounds very naive to the average laymen.

 

 

I'm not too familiar with china and this subject, but is that really capitalism we should be thanking? Doesn't China have an extremely authoritarian communist system, but also with a free market? In my science class we talked about china for a little bit, and how it has managed to feed everyone through their policies. But I'm not sure about this issue. 

 

Well, after studying some of the anarchist ideas, it is extremely scienitific in it's nature. From what I know, it advocates reforming the system into a humanistic society where we make science an important responsibility. The argument could also be made that we spend so much money on pointless nonsense right now that there would be billions of dollars available for research. Just look at how much the US spends on its military budget. It's absurd!

 

 

I've heard that quote before and I really like it. I hope I'm not some leftist mess when I'm 50, haha.

 

 

Ehh, I haven't looked into him that much, but I don't that alone would be a reason to dissmiss him. You can take moral teachings from anything and dissmiss the rest, like the christians do! haha.
I've been meaning to ask someone about Chavez though. It seems to me that is he is misrepresented and portrayed as this horrible person, especailly the US. Can you tell me what you know about chavez and the sources of where you got the information on him? I once watched an interested documentary on him and it demonstrated how the US backed a coup against him, but they deliberatley used lies against him to protect their resources they were trying to steal.

 

These are excellent points, chosenbypasta. But I was merely arguing against the economics of anarchism. The politics of secular humanism are excellent things we need more of.

We do need a less hypocritical democracy, one where we do not spend 400 billion dollars on tanks and guns.

Also, the fact that anarchism is very scientific does not necessarily mean it's economic system will be able to give scientists enough money to do the work they need to do, but again, I was only arguing against anarchist economics.

China's politics are slowly evolving. Human rights have drastically improved within the last decade. It is still very authorarian however (since I hold a Canadian passport, I am not under this system, and I live in Hong Kong now anyway). When the USSR fell, the Russians tried to pull off economic and political overhaul simeltaneously, with the result that both collapsed. The Chinese are gradually introducing both to keep the country stable.

 

The US has had some appalling practices in backing the worst regimes on the planet during the cold war, and still today. This is inexcusable. But that doesn't excuse chavez for being an asshole. Chavez claims venezuala is a socialist democacy. It is neither. It is listed as an authoratarian state and chavez managed the economy so badly that it is in tatters. 

 

 

 

Hi riverrun

I'll just say the same thing that I did to chosenbypasta. I agree with the politics of secular humanism, which is endorsed by anarchism. But the economic system it puts forth is just not practical.

I do not use evolution to support the status quo. I despise the massive power of large corporations, and consumerist culture. I just use evolution to support the idea of a system whereby people advance in society by working, purchasing goods and services from an organization whose driving force is profit, which tends to breed effeciency. Obviously this needs some balance from the state. 

I'll have to look into the Chomsky thing. I always hated him because I am Jewish and have strong ties with the Israelis, who is always bashing (he once said that Hamas was more conduicive to peace, a terrorist organization) 

Quick point about the economics of universities. I don't think that taxation can be considered as part of any kind of neo-liberal market place, that would be absurd. The funding system for any of the Universities that I have connections with (Harvard, MIT in the States for example) is largely provided by taxation. I did some work at Cambridge university with their Zoology dept. (it was fantastic to get to see Darwins original collection and work on a 3d scan of one of the few Dodo skeletons that remain) but I remember the massive outcry when the Wellcome trust came along with private capital and attempted to hijack the whole system.

Another direct example would be my work with the BBC in London as part of a "blue sky" innovation lab called "Imagineering", again it worked because it was outside the risk-averse world of capital: It was paid for by a compulsory tax (roughly £100 per household - with a TV - per year)... This is a fundamentally regressive tax redolent of the worst excesses of Stalinist Russia right in the heart-land of so-called post-Thatcher privatisation. My point is that we need to separate rhetoric from reality when it comes to the real economic systems that we live within and always be open to systems that will be more equitable as we move forward.

Tim. 

Tim, you are much more educated on the subject of anarchism, and I must say, it's an honor to finally hear from someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to this subject. However, I think deludedgod made a good point right here that needs to be addressed:

"I do not use evolution to support the status quo. I despise the massive power of large corporations, and consumerist culture. I just use evolution to support the idea of a system whereby people advance in society by working, purchasing goods and services from an organization whose driving force is profit, which tends to breed effeciency. Obviously this needs some balance from the state."

I haven't been studying anti-capitalism as of lately, so I'll leave that up to someone else to address. 

 

Yet, people have great difficulty advancing though work, there is the view that the workers are exploited under capitalism, experiments in worker control have yielded higher efficiency, competition kills competition, wage slavery, etc.

Would it not be selfish to avoid oppression and exploitation? Cooperation can arise through selfish means.

Where do you currently get the money?

Great debate guys.. I've put together some general responses below, and will publish a follow up on participatory  / anarchist economics later today.

Just to reiterate: My central concern in bringing anarchism to the table is its central questioning of unaccountable power. The ethical framework that, if you like, underwrites my position has been called Universal Utilitarianism. It can be summed up in the maxim:

Minimise actual and potential harm, maximise actual and potential happiness.

The formal relations are important for me: we must act first to minimise harm before we attempt to maximise happiness. This concept draws on Kant's categorical imperative, on the rule-base utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill and on John Rawls' Theory of Justice (and others). This system is universal but not predicated on an external objective set of discoverable laws or Gods. These moral systems are remnants of the dark age, though still extremely prevalent. They are based on our shared natures as one animal of many on earth, and upon our never-ending search for happiness, be it in the hallowed halls of the latest Shopping Mall, where we pay homage to our newer Gods, in travelling the foothills of Peru or in writing a response to the RRS forum...

TINA!

Margaret Thatcher said, of neo-liberal economics, her copy of Hayek in her handbag: “There is no alternative!” This was the rallying cry of Kings and Queens (elected to rule over us by divine right), Slave Owners (“It's better to own someone than rent them! We treat them better in the south than you wage slavery types up north!” they would tell us). Its really nothing new. Cynically speaking I would say that indentured forms of slavery were overthrown because they did not produce sufficient demand and therefore ultimately failed as a method of accumulating profit. The inherent logic of capitalism is expansion and exploitation and it should be clear to anyone that this simply cannot continue indefinitely. It also causes more much more harm than good if one is familiar with global economic realities, and if one accepts my ethical maxim above then capitalism is simply immoral. Gradualist reform, revolution or auto-implosion? It is impossible to predict what will happen, my own choice is to stay as far outside it as possible, and criticise it from that space. Interestingly I only really come to understand the oppressive nature of the system after considerable intellectual effort. This is unfortunate and proved demonstrably just how effective the entire system really is. Someone once said “you only realise the strength of the tide when you try to swim against it”. Very true. It is also precisely because of our human natures and what evolutionary psychology tells us about ourselves (which is not very much, currently) that renders capitalism incoherent as a long term model. To compound human capacities towards selfishness with an economic system that inherently promotes selfishness; that atomises us and acts as a solvent over human social relations; that turns all into a commodity or fetish, must be challenged.

Religion and its discontents.

It's worth noting that the Rational Response Squad's ultimate vision would be the overthrown of religion, a force that has been consciously used to ensure the poor tolerate their oppressors and a system that “gives a gold-plated excuse not to think” [Daniel Dennett]. In light of this and the inherent questioning of hierarchy and subordination (to either God or State) that the overthrow of such an ideology would entail, it is important to consider the relevance of alternative bottom-up / rhizomatic / net-centric structures that minimise unneeded hierarchy. I believe that the religious 'meme' predisposes humans to an unquestioning acceptance of a particular vector relationship to power, a surrendering of this world (the only one we currently have proof of [lets not get into string theory, lol], and a further entrenchment of current forms of hierarchy. It also reinforces the corrupting ontology of “original sin” and predisposes us to a neo-Hegelian teleology based on sheer fantasy, and a psychological incapacity to confront our own mortality... and if that wasn't bad enough,

On a deeper existential level I consider it at least worthy of discussion that capitalism and its enshrining of legal fictions as immortal structures / bodies in the form of the Corporation is a response to our own deepest irrational fears and will one day be recognised as such; perhaps appearing as Ozymandian museum pieces dating to the late dark ages (ie: the 21st century), an age still gripped by deception, delusion and fear, made palatable by the psychic paralysis brought on by excessive unimportant forms of choice. See Neil Postmans book 'Amusing ourselves to Death. Basic Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

It is very common to hear statements about “American democracy” and “Chavez is a dictator / tyrant” in contemporary discourse. I think its a useful exercise to unpack them and see how they stack up against reality. This is just the simple application of scientific methodology to cultural analysis. Its very common to hear neo-liberals and neo-cons wax lyrical about the wonders of Adam Smith as the grandfather of modern capitalism. Smith is someone we are meant to quote, but not read. The very fact that he spent a sizeable portion of his key text critical of Mercantilism over 'waxing lyrical' about capitalism should be enough to ring alarm bells. The penny dropped for me when I went back to his 'Wealth of Nations” and “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and realised that the poster boy for capitalism was actually nothing of the sort (the invisible hand is mentioned once briefly in the entire book, and Smith railed against the dangers of capitalism and offered a profound analysis of how it would destroy “Sympathy” amongst people. He spoke of how the “masters of man” as “principal architects” would bring “dreadful misfortune” to humanity. Now, in the age of full spectrum dominance and the race to both control, own and militarise space, we our tobecome the “master of the universe” [to quote the Financial Times]

Since then I have made the effort to actually read first hand sources. This has helped me understand the extent to which we live within a web of carefully constructed / selected narratives which ensure minimal criticism of the truly powerful [“Government is the shadow cast by big business over society” - William James] and minimal understanding of how the world really works (religion is simply one aspect of this, and by no means the most important, if we are to consider human rights and egalitarian principles important). As long as we allow ourselves to be fed “emotionally potent simplifications” by the corporate press, our capacity to know and understand the whole will continue to atrophy.

Democracy? Where?

The American system isn't and never was a democracy, as formally defined by serious scholars of political science. It's actually a polyarchy with a formal façade of democracy, sufficient to maintain the delusion. The population are considered spectators, not participants, and their job is to elect electors, who in turn elect the “noble men” who know on which side their bread is buttered and can save the “rambling herd” from themselves. James Madison explained it best when he said, during the American constitutional convention, that the main goal of the new system has to be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and has to be designed so that it achieves that end. This is the founding of the American constitutional system, so nobody, as to be expected, nobody studies it. You can’t even find it in the academic scholarship unless you really look hard.

On the other hand Chavez's Bolivarian revolution, wealth redistribution and overwhelming popular support within a system which has 7 private media outlets (all highly critical of him) versus one state owned TV channel is much closer (though far form perfect) to democracy than the American system. If Chavez had been elected by a court, and subsequently had been found to have deliberately denied thousands of key voters their right to vote - you can imagine the chorus of “Dictator!” coming from the Oil executives. Of course this is precisely what happened when Bush was elected by the Supreme Court after the outrage of Florida. Furthermore no-one in Venezuela has called for the assassination of Bush. However the American TV evangelist Pat Robertson called for Chavez's assassination live on his privately owned 'christian' TV Channel.

Finally, lets look at the economy. The facts rather than the headlines, are what count.

A look at macroeconomic indicators shows that the Venezuelan economy is performing well. Economic growth has been the fastest in Latin America for each of the past two years. In the last quarter of 2006 growth continued apace, registering 9.3%. Yet in the midst of the economic boom, inflation has been halved. This year, at least one forecaster expects Venezuela to experience its lowest inflation in 18 years though it will still be one of the highest in Latin America. Declining inflation in the midst of an economic boom, while not unprecedented, is atypical and suggests pragmatic economic management.

Factoring in social indicators, Venezuelan economic performance looks even better. Unemployment has been steadily dropping, reaching 10.1% in 2006. In 2005 the government's index of social well-being reached its highest level in 10 years. Incomes of the poor doubled in the past two years. The poverty rate, which had been increasing for most of the past twenty-five years, has been dropping. In fact, the World Bank recently noted that "Venezuela has achieved substantial improvements in the fight against poverty."

A failed economy or one in which the nepotist class, drunk from a half century of exploitation, have suddenly awoken with an almighty hangover?

Tim.

Yet, people have great difficulty advancing though work, there is the view that the workers are exploited under capitalism, experiments in worker control have yielded higher efficiency, competition kills competition, wage slavery, etc.

This is true. Capitalism should be less exploitave. But look at the alternatives. The reason every other market system has failed is because there is no incentive for people to work. Feudalism? Forget it, you owe everything to the King, you own nothing, socialism and communism? The state owns everything, you own nothing, and if society is supposedly completely classless (which is ridiculous, the communist countries were incredibly class-divided, 95% peasantry and 5% ruling elite in Maoist China)nobody can advance whatsoever in society.

 

I can provide a good example of this. I live in China and am fairly versed in Chinese modern history.

When Mao ze Dong took over China in 1949, the first thing he implemented was agrarian reform. He took land away from landlords, killed many, and redistributed it so each peasant got an identical fair share. During this first reform, peasants owned their own land completley, with no state grip. They were very happy because the communists had made good on their promise. China was also industrializing under a five year plan, and industries, with the help of the Russians (who were destalinizing after his death in 1952) had partial private control so factory workers were paid good wages. China's curious mix of public and private economy worked very well until 1953, when Mao decided to socialize agriculture and force everyone into Russian style kolchos or collectives. Now, people still owned some land, but everyone shared tools and equipment. People were less happy. Industry too, was state controlled.

 

Mao was satisfied even though his people were not, until he came up with his next insane scheme in 1957: the great leap forward. The premise was that China would undertake a quantum leap and catch up with the USA in thirty years. To do this, Mao undertook the final stage of communist agricultural dogma, and forced everyone into communes literally overnight in 1958. The communes were massive complexes often with 30,000 families. It provided schooling, nursing, hospitals, and housing, and the best (i mean worst) part was that no-one owned everything. All land was state-controlled, all tools were state controlled, all everything was state controlled. It was a miserable cradle to the grave system.

 At the same time, Mao believed that steel was the gauge of a nation's economy, so to launch "satellites to heaven" and raise steel output along with industrial chemicals, fertilizers, military machinery and agriculture, he ordered thousands of little backyard steel furnaces to be built in the communes, and people to melt all their possessions to make steel to boost the numbers.  During the great leap forward, Mao may have come closer than any nation to acheiving marxist-leninist genuine communism.

It was a disaster. People were so intent on making steel that crops rotted and died. Steel was useless and brittle, as the Chinese lacked the sophisticated ultra heat treatment and refining machinery. 98% of it had to be scrapped. China's crude logistical system broke down entirely. Agriculture relied on crude, outdated communist methods like packing fertilizer so thick that children could stand on it (a famous 1958 picture in a Beijing newspaper). The satellites to heaven were so rigorously enforced that corrupt officials cooked the books instead of facing steep punishment for failing quotas. The state took from the peasants accordingly and millions starved over the next three years.

 

This is what happens in a supposedly utopian equal society. This is why the need to advance is necessary. 

 And societal advancement has no intrinsic value.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd disagree. A human is a selfish creature that needs to co-operate in society to survive. But if he cannot promote his own self-interests, like making money, his incentive to work will flag. People have no instinctive concept of "greater good", there are two ways to overcome this. The first and most commonly employed method throughout history was simply for the elite to subjugate the people. Then the wanton to advance was overome by the pressing needs of survival and food. But in a society which operates on a free market, people need to climb the rungs, or at least believe they can climb the rungs, to work. Capitalism works because it gives people incentives that quell their evolutionary requisites.

Humans don't need to cooperate in societies to survive.

I would say that is instinctive of any complex organism to work in societies. Certianly, when humans first arose and had definitely not tamed their world they definitely needed societies, or rather clans. Even if this is just a family clan, which many animals, like lions, operate in.  Large societies merely represent social evolution from clans as technology advanced. Certainly, for a modern world to be sustained, society is vital.

Nor can you prove that a society is a requirement to give motive to a person to work.

But if I can prove that society is fundamental to evolutionary instinct, then I don't need to, because all complex organisms work in societies. 

The individual came before the society

It is true that evolutionary gene drift works on individuals, but the lines of speciation can be blurry (25 notches pan/hominid in four million years is alot of divergence) that would not be noticable. For advanced organisms, society came with the individual.  The only organisms that do not need others to survive are phototrophic plants and lithotrophic prokaryotes.

As for capitalism, it works the same way a monarchy does. The rich are born into it, the poor have a small and nearly insignificant chance to attain it on their own. Mostly through marriage. Though the odd fluke does happen. Regardless, the rich do nothing and make money off the backs of the poors work. Hardly an ideal economy.

True enough. But I stick up for it simply because it is better than any other system so far. The key point about capitalism is that it can make more people well-off than any other system. There will still be inequality, but nothing compared to fuedalism or "communism". China's capitalist boom lifted 250,000,000 out of poverty. 

 

 

A modern(technological and defensive) world. But not our species. All our species needs to exist is fuel and sex. Your argument of complex organisms is inapplicable. There are a great many complex organisms on this planet that have no society at all, yet manage to function and survive with little trouble.

And to obtain that fuel and sex almost always requires reliance on others, and even if it did not require reliance, the point I made was that evolution has primed us to exist in society because it is advantegeous, not because it was necessary. That is why some complex organisms can operate indepedently, so I retract my earlier point. The correct thing to say would be that many complex animals work in societies.  

yet not all complex organisms work in societies(ex: sharks). Even worse, many simple organisms work in societies(ex: ants).

We have different understandings of the word complex. An ant is a complex organism from a biological standpoint.

The problem though is that it's just a longer road. There's more equality at the beginning, but the further down the road you travel the less equality there is at the end of it. The gap between the rich and poor has been steadily widening now for who knows how long. Certainly my entire lifetime. People who were once referred to as middle class, had a home, car, etc, can today not even afford an apartment. The only thing capitalism can lead to is revolution. Eventually the poor will be sick of being poor and remove the heads of the rich. Which may not in and of itself be a bad thing, but such conflicts are completely unpredictable.

 

If there is one thing that we have learned from history, it is that every revolution carries within the seeds of it's own destruction. 

There is one thing that makes evolutionary biology different to capitalism, and that is the idea of the constant struggle for power.

In evolution, there was a false pre-Darwinian Theory put forth by Lamarck. It stated that Natural Selection shaped the most fit individuals. This is incorrect. Natural Selection does something  different with the same effect, it eliminates the weak, it doesn't select the strong.

 

But capitalism is lamarckian in nature. Companies evolve out of necessity, it is not an elimination of the weak, but a shaping of the strong. Because companies are guided by "intelligent design" unlike evolution, there is no random process of genetic mutation probability to rely on. Economic dynamism comes from a strive for excellence, not a destruction of those who are not.  

Really interesting observations. Im not sure there exist too many untenuous connections between the corporation and evolution besides the idea that they both evolve. Perhaps if we were to discover eight dinosaur skeletons the size of countries we could start drawing meaningful connections.

Lamarckianism seems to be making an obscure come back in biology, but that's for another discussion. I would tend to view them (corporations) more as parasites (take the 'race to the bottom' of the global south economies, and capitalisms preference for oppressive ecologies (regimes) who consciously disempower their citizens.. Indeed in the 19th century the approach to the "free market" in the fittest economies (the British empire) was to "kick away the ladder".. Protectionism was the key to successfull growth of both the British and American economies, something we are determined to deny to the least developed regions now. If Britain had taken seriously Ricardo's rather silly notion of comparative advantage we would have a population consisting mainly of sheep.

As you will know better than me deludedgod, the countries that survived the late 90s asian crisis were the ones who didn't listen to the free marketeers but implemented firmly non-capitalist principles in order to protect their economies from the ravages of capital flight and inflation.

It remains to be seen what happens when China truly comes online in the next few years. My gf is from Singapore and has lived in Shanghai for years.. she has observed the positive and negative effects of capitalism in the region (including the crisis of the late 90s... Giovanni Arrighi has written on the global cycles of capitalism, and the dangers ahead... History has not ended.

From a fairly mainstream perspective The Long Tail (by the editor of Wired) is an example as to the importance for business to monetise the 'less' or 'least fit' parts of the new economy.. the rare books, rare songs etc....

Corporations as abstract legal fictions have no parallel with evolutionary theory, unless one wants to make the case that the corporation (body) is the extended phenotype of the humanity that shapes each one... 

Wow, didn't expect this discussion to expand so drastically over night. So many great points raised.

I just have one other point I wanted to bring up. As far as working towards a gradual change and informing people on these concepts, shouldn't anarchists/marxists/progressives be working on educating the people about something like the green party? A people's movement is going to take like at least 300 million people. It is something that is going to happen (or at least have to happen hopefully) naturally. It's not something that can be done by implanting these ideas by force.

If these ideals are going to be carried out, it seems like we should be doing things to work towards a society where they are even possible. We can sit here and lay out this perfect idea of how the world should be, but George Bush is still screwing everyone over as we speak.

I think the capitalism that Ralph Nader advocates is much more reasonable and compatible with the ideas that deludedgod is mentioning.

 

I don't think this discussion was intended to figure out what needs to be done right now anyways, but I just wanted to bring that up. The only thing I can think of right now is informing people about all of the great arguments Noam Chomsky makes in 'Manufacturing Consent.'

Hey chosenbypasta

I hope you're feeling al dente today. lol

I have shown Manufacturing Consent in a couple of cafes. Hired a screen, had a few beers and a Q+A. Went really well, it is always interesting to witness peoples reactions to what he actually says for the first time.

I also used a combination of split cam and the webcam community software Camfrog to stream the film (and others) from a server into a private online 'screening room' (just a room on a server with password access to prevent the need for constant moderation). Maybe we could try screening some films with RRS. I dont really know the main guys who run it yet, but they sound like a great bunch.

I've had a quick play with the web software they use, the quality seems pretty good for streaming.

T.

Hi kriz, welcome to the board. I just started making more time to post on here as well and it's a great place to learn.
Although I haven't studied Chavez very much I think I have to agree with you. I saw that documentary "the revolution will not be televised" and Chavez seems like a very honest and moral person to me. It seems that all the negative talk about him IS propaganda.
I wanted to ask all of the other anti-capitalists in here, how do you deal with being an anti-capitalist in a capitalist world? I get really miserable thinking about politics all of the time. It has really bashed my mental health thinking about the nature of the system of a whole and how it directly affects everything.

I'm just trying so hard to accept the world for what it is and do my part to encourage people to think more rationally and make better choices.  It's pretty clear at this point for me, however, that there is no turning back. There is no possible way I could escape and completely numb myself from society. There is no way I could ever give a fuck about american idol. Never! 

Hi Chosenbypasta,

You raise really important points. Anyone exposed to capitalism will almost certainly find Chomsky and other anarchists thinkers as insane, and they are often literally charcterised as such in the media. I'm not a great fan of popular culture but The Matrix is probably as good a parallel as you can find (fight club and american psycho are worthy of mention) of the almost parallel realities the emerge from deeper understanding. It's much like the ways in which a physicist who understands n-dimensional space or Einstein's spacetime (and the idea that gravity isn't even a force) will diverge radically in their conception of the world from, say, a creationist.  

Brian Flemming (the guy who made the great documentary The God Who Wasn't There) commented on his blog recently that being on TV (he doesn't have one) caused him to laugh. I totally relate to this: Watching Fox (and even BBC) news for me is almost surreal these days... [ironically I used to be a Creative Director for the BBC and so was a 'corporate guy' for about 5 yrs.] Even walking around the city and observing consumption in practice is wierd.  

I must admit that I have disconnected myself for the past few years increasingly from the mainstream. I dont use banks, cars etc... I spend a sizeable portion of my time working on my writing and music. the biggest difficulty has been finding sources of income: I usually resort to web projects (I have about 11 years experience of web and motion graphics stuff), but I dont get paid for anything that I really enjoy.

Chomsky, after inventing the modern field of Linguistics, decided to stay at MIT. I can understand the choice but I've committed to remaining 'supra-institutional' as an auto-didact in my own work. Im in my 30s now, but I can remember when I was in my early 20s and got as far outside political awareness as possible. I was a percussionist and drummer in Jazz and Rock bands. Life is certainly much easier when you aren't aware of injustice, mendacity and corruption on a global scale and I've often thought about going back to that (in fact I recorded an album last year), but I find the intellectual challenges and pursuits that interest far more compelling and impossible to renege on. I'm doomed! LOL

In personal correspondence with Chomsky I asked him about options regarding survival within and without the system. He had this to say:

It's easy, and there is a simple formula, borrowed from the old Communist Party days.  There was a notion "critical support." Meaning, lending support for every crime of state or other power center, but distancing oneself by affecting a high moral tone and regretting that one has to compromise one's own magnificent values to support "the lesser evil."  It's also useful to be able to claim a dissident past (in the West today, to claim to have participated in some student activity in the 60s). It's an old genre, and it wins great acclaim.  It requires no credentials at all, though one who pursues this path is likely to gain academic credentials.  There are innumerable examples.  Michael Ignatieff is a good example (though it's true that he has an irrelevant Phd and published a rather arcane scholarly book about 30 years ago, unrelated to his later fame and fortune).  Yesterday's New York Times (maybe the book review) had an adulatory article on leading intellectuals, mostly of the same type.  The most prominent, and respected, was Paul Berman, an incredible fraud and liar, exposed over and over, but it doesn't matter, because of the very valuable contributions he can make in critical support.

Of course, the response depends not on credentials but on subordination to power.  Thus Bertrand Russell had magnificent credentials, but was utterly reviled because he was too honest and independent.  For examples of those who elicit a different reaction, just take the press, intellectual journals, etc., and see who is revered.

I realize you are rejecting that well-travelled path.  But the consequences follow, no matter how rich the credentials.  It's possible to proceed, and to be influential among people who matter (which excludes elite sectors, generally).  But one should have no illusions about the reactions.  As history demonstrates dramatically, intellectuals (writers, academics, etc.) tend to be servants of power, and while there are exceptions, usually at the margins, the core sectors do not treat them with kid gloves, to put it mildly.

 Chomsky also often quotes Gramsci's line: "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

Communities like this certainly help, as do local communities and any grass-roots groups. It's impossible to do it alone.

Tim. 

I'm starting to think that Japan is the counter example for everything.

However, economics is used under capitalism the same way religion was in the middle ages to justify the status quo.

An economic system is important to have in a society, but that doesn't mean that capitalism is the best one.

Still, the profit motive still exists.

Maybe you would like to check out: section C of An Anarchist FAQ