Hard News: Te Qaeda and the God Squad
938 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 38 Newer→ Last
-
And I'm way more comfortable with that with the more absolutist ideas I linked to earlier. I'm just a bit suspicious of utopian solutions predicated on "smashing the state".
I think it was Tom Stoppard (or one of his characters) who said folks who talk about "smashing the state" are seldom around to clean up the mess - especially when it involves grave-digging. But utopian visions do have their charms - no mess, no fuss, no disappointment or frsutration. No bloody people.
-
I should probably point out that I conceive of anarchism as a moral, rather than political, philosophy.
I'd go into the implications of this, but I'm afraid my after-work drinks didn't fizzle out and I too have an opening to go to.
In the meantime, it's a bit flagrant, but here's some stuff I've prepared earlier.
-
Feeling disaffected or alienated by advanced consumer capitalism?
I wanna buy the cure now.
Sick of a meaningless existence in a hostile and contingent world?
The universe is hostile and contingent. Forget the cure just give me the cyanide capsules.
Sort of Woody Allen, which is a complimant.
-
Revolution is the Mother that eats it's own children.
The above quote always leaps to mind whenever the subject of anarchy is raised - and a virtual chocolate fish to whoever can remind me who said it. I think I first read it in French, so that might be a clue.
-
I'm also very suspicious of - or rather, more often that not just generally irritated by - any worldview that suggests smashing functioning-but-faulty systems in an attempt to institute perfect ones from scratch.
I'd personally observe from experience that if you're going to do anything creative you need to be able to contribute some positive ideas to the situations you find yourself in. If all your opinions about something are "X, Y and Z suck and should be smashed" then your opinions are worthless to anybody trying to actually get something of value done.
Just to pick one very objectively testable example of why this kind of stuff is destructive: There are many good explanations in the world of software development why "The big rewrite" - chucking out all this ugly, complicated, flaky code you have and starting from scratch with clean, clear perfection - pretty much never works and is largely a dumb idea. All this "Smash the state, smash capitalism" stuff seems to me to be the cultural equivalent of a big rewrite, and it seems stupid for most of the same reasons.
If you want some good practical explanations of why it's a very bad idea in software systems, try:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
http://www.chadfowler.com/2006/12/27/the-big-rewriteMany of those reasons seem spookily applicable to the kinds of extremist politics that require total social change as a starting point, too. Putting it simply: it's easier to think in terms of imagined outcomes than it actually is to deal with the practicalities of what you're suggesting.
-
Doesn't anyone read Hobbes anymore?
Nope, we're Calvinists.
-
Winston Churchill did NOT say that democracy was the worst form of government.
Here's what he actually said:
Yup, that's what I linked to as well.
-
Finn, totally agree from personal experience. The bigger the system, the worse the mess.
This is not to say totally ratshit POS software shouldn't be rewritten, but that's not 'functioning but faulty', it's the software equivalent of living in Iraq. And it's usually the result, as in Iraq, of a previous rewrite that was rushed through by incompetent or corrupt (or both) management.
These ideas always come from management. Any engineer looks at the previous bunch of engineers, counts the person-centuries they spent building the system, divides by a number proportional to their ego, and works out they couldn't do it in a lifetime. Management looks at their ego-ridden estimate, and works out the timeframe it's needed in, divides the first by the second, and hires that number of monkeys. Then they blame the engineer when the timeframe is reached and they haven't got out of the analysis phase. The engineer blames the monkeys. The monkeys get fired, and fresh untrained monkeys are hired, which adds a lot of extra training time. Eventually the engineer and the manager are fired (or promoted sideways for their amazing work).
So at the end the only real outcome is that a lot of monkeys got training. Which is good for society and bad for the company. Kind of funny how capitalism works sometimes.
It's not so funny in politics, though, where in this analogy society is the company, and bureaucrats are the monkeys. The engineer is the philosopher, and the manager is the politician.
And since in realpolitik, all engineers are actually bureaucrats, all managers are philosophers and all politicians are monkeys, neither society nor companies prosper under such an approach.
-
Capitalism is a great system, because it takes into account human nature. A quote from someone not necessarily smarter than, but definitely more successful than me.
I understand the math of capitalism, and how the few successes are so large they pay for all the failures and then some. But at any given moment, the majority of resources in a capitalist system are being pushed over a cliff by morons. This fascinates me. And it’s clearly the reason that humans rule the earth. We found a system to harness the power of stupid.
-
3410,
__ RB,
With respect, the only thing you've proved this afternoon is your own prejudice. It's like a straw man factory in here.__ - 3410It's not prejudice. It's an opinion you might wish to discuss. What do you think about the potential for a society with no elected leaders, law enforcement or commerce? How would you achieve it? Would anything but a tiny minority of people really embrace it of their own free will? How do you deal with people who insist on being capitalists or armed robbers?
I'm interested by the ideas outlined in those two manifestos, just not particularly impressed by the thinking.
I did have much more sympathy for the third page I linked to -- and it's interesting that, as Andrew pointed out, it is not unlike the Declaration of Independence. - RB
OK. You quote the Civil Rights Defence Committee's "What is Anarchism?" page, and comment that "It's a bit patronising, isn't it?" Considering the scope of the subject matter, that’s a remarkably weak comeback for one so leaned as yourself, sir. My response would be “If that’s the best complaint you can come up with, I think they’ve done rather well.”
The kind of state violence that is committed daily on the poor all over the world, the poverty and wars are reasons that the state needs to be smashed.. - Radical Youth
I'm just a bit suspicious of utopian solutions predicated on "smashing the state". - RB
“The state” is a social construct (i.e. an idea), not a physical entity. Talking about “smashing” it is a call to overcome one idea with a better one; it is not a call to violence. For example:
“smashing racists” = violent extremism;
“smashing racism” ≠ violent extremism, right?I think “utopian” is a bit strong. Idealistic, perhaps.
Neither of the two local primers I linked to venture on what you'd do should even a few citizens think differently and, say, insisted on comporting themselves as capitalists. It's implicitly assumed that everyone will agree - RB.
The same problem exists in any Western liberal democracy. My guess is that anarchists would consider capitalistic wealth-accumulation a crime, and would treat in much the same way that a Western liberal democracy would treat theft. Besides, I just think it’s a wee bit disingenuous to hold a one page primer to the standard of being a complete exposition of an entire philosophy.
Would [an anarchist society] also contain pockets of, say, armed robbers or simple thieves? - RB
That's another one of the things I love about contemporary society, there are no more thieves, armed robbers or murderers anymore and the political elite work harmoniously with their corporate counterparts for the benefit of humanity *vomits*.- Yoza
There you go again. Dehumanising anyone who participates in democratic politics is a handy way of not having to think about the much messier reality of people's hopes, dreams and motives. Every cop's a bad cop, and every politician is a sock puppet of the capitalist elite. - RB
Yoza’s point is that one should not hold an “an anarchist society” to a standard which one is not willing to equally apply to our society as it now exists if one wishes to make a comparison between the virtues of the two. Your characterization of Yoza’s comment bears very little relation to his comment or the point he or she makes with it.
In the end, we're talking about a 19 year old guy who could be on remand for god know's how long. I've been told (yeah, I know) that Omar Hamed has received a lot of undue bother from the authorities due to his name. If John Minto and Ross Meurant agree that the police are racist, I'd say there's a good chance it might be true.
Just had a thought, regarding the SST's claim of a threat against GWB:
If you're tapping someone's phone, right, how much difference is there between "We're going shooting in the bush" and "We're going to shoot Bush"? Makes ya think.Lastly, sometimes I wish I, too, had the ability to go back and edit my comments. ;)
-
Wow didn't things rattle along.
I been told some of the family fought for the Tzar (a good story at least).I'm not an Anachist for the same reason I'm not a pacifist - I don't trust the other b'stards.
Andrew gotta agree (at least to the greater degree), Tame iti holds some position through his lineage, sure there were freedoms but various families control of resources were then traded with others, enriching intra/inter-iwi. I find the concept of Maori Anachisim a bit odd.
Why quote Churchill - he was a wanker. Why lose a battle once when you could lose it twice - Gallipoli.
Rule of law would be great if it wasn't for the lack of a constitution & aunty Helen making it illegal for Maori to go to court to test property rights. By the way those same property rights (Foreshore & Seabed) are held by Pakeha with Blue Water title (pre 1840s) and other commercial / Pakeha companies - Port companies - Yauht clubs etc.
And now Princess Helen will get to point her septor and claim "You" are a terrorist with one cast of her magic wand. -
“The state” is a social construct (i.e. an idea), not a physical entity. Talking about “smashing” it is a call to overcome one idea with a better one; it is not a call to violence. For example:
“smashing racists” = violent extremism;
“smashing racism” ≠ violent extremism, right?(in a much better temper now one is home and, er, refuelled)
But "smash" is a verb with violent connotations. To me if you say "smash the state" I assume you mean armed revolution. Honestly, that's my very first impression. If you have other things in mind I think "smash" is a very poor choice of word.
Likewise, someone upthread said "anarchism is more a challenge to the self-serving authority of elite groups than it is any kind of dogmatic belief."
Well, crikey, paint me black and call me an anarchist! Except that clearly there is a great deal more to the various flavours of anarchism than that. It's like saying Christianity is all about loving your neighbour. Yeah no.
I prefer it when people spontaneously organise themselves in ways that suit them, and I want a society where that happens as much as possible. But some people are spoilers and need curbing. That curbing function IS the state, with or without a formal constitution. You can't live in a world free of compromise and paradox if it's got actual people in it.
Sometimes I think anarchists' problem is they think too small. They have problems with the state as it is, and they can't conceive of how to change it practically, so they imagine just getting rid of it by magic. Incremental change somehow seems harder than the revolutionary convulsion that sorts it all out.
Note to Michael F: I have spoken to relatives of mine who remember the nobles being taken out in their white shirts to be shot. (White shirts are an important class signifier when everyone is really filthy poor). You know what? That didn't turn out so well in the end.
-
Not only that, I think "smash" is a useless word when talking about ideas. It suggests that your mode of thinking is one defined by opposition and aggression, and that you're likely to be blind to even points of obvious, mutually beneficial agreement.
Ideas can be very substantial things. Ideas about society (and the actions and structures that result from those ideas) underly our ability to feed our kids and not get beaten on the streets by roaming gangs of thieves - and, all complaining aside, even the worst off in NZ are still doing pretty OK compared to some of the nastier bits of Africa in this respect. Things here could certainly be a shitload worse. So, trying to claim that "smashing" the prevailing thinking about society is somehow benign and non-threatening is pretty facile.
-
"I have spoken to relatives of mine who remember the nobles being taken out in their white shirts to be shot."
Which explains why we don't have strong links back there - name chages of towns is a hoot to work through as well.
-
I prefer it when people spontaneously organise themselves in ways that suit them, and I want a society where that happens as much as possible. But some people are spoilers and need curbing. That curbing function IS the state, with or without a formal constitution. You can't live in a world free of compromise and paradox if it's got actual people in it.
You're halfway there, mate.
-
Ha ha, if everything belonged to everybody, there'd be nothing to steal.
That ignores that fact that people like owning things and stopping them doing that will take an awful lot of very nasty coercion. To that I imagine you would reply "but people only want to own things because capitalist society brainwashes them".
Ha ha, ridiculous. Look at your assumptions.
-
Ha ha, if everything belonged to everybody, there'd be nothing to steal
That is certainly true. It does carry the cost that you live in a world where there is nothing worth stealing.
-
Look. honestly, it's all about how you live your life. It's about meaning and integrity.
Bollocks to your political revolution. Bollocks to your Establishment posturing (I'm talking to you, RB).
What matters is ideas. And art is the medium for ideas that affect society for now and evermore.
-
Nice one David. Do you live your life in an anarchic way? Can I come and just help myself to your stuff right now?
-
From David Cauchi's strange manifesto:
What is known is that there have been at least two major outbreaks of the transdimensional avant-garde thought virus in the recent historical past: in northern Italy during the early 15th century
Ergot.
and in Europe during the early 20th century.
Absinthe.
-
From David Cauchi's strange manifesto:
What is known is that there have been at least two major outbreaks of the transdimensional avant-garde thought virus in the recent historical past: in northern Italy during the early 15th century
Ergot.
and in Europe during the early 20th century.
Absinthe.
-
Having just waded through the last 5 pages (!) of discussion:
Bollocks to posturing, whether it be establishment, anti-establishment, Socratic, ballet, or modern dance.
In particular, bollocks to the waving of bollocks: that kind of posturing hardly constitutes a rational argument, and seems an especially odd rhetorical flourish to support the claim that "what matters is ideas".
Further to that: I would suggest that what matters even more is people having and sharing ideas, because
ideas by themselves can't accomplish much that is positive in the real world; ideas that ignore real behaviour of real people, especially so.
On the other hand, people without ideas... that doesn't seem much of a basis for society either.
So my vote would be for people with ideas that respond to people. -
I'm not sure how I missed this but if there're after Jim O'Dea who are they protecting?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472202Gotta love BBC Neanderthal were gingers
-
What matters is ideas. And art is the medium for ideas that affect society for now and evermore.
Seems to me the last hundred years (at least) have consisted of technology affecting society and art struggling (and often failing) to keep up. People who write software now have far more impact than people who write poetry.
-
So my vote would be for ...
Voting is just a construct designed to fool the proletariat into thinking they have free choice, when in fact they have none. Observe how the 'free-ist' democracies have the lowest voter turnouts.
</I was joking, but now I'm not so sure>People who write software now have far more impact than people who write poetry.
You could have said the same thing about road engineers. And Paris Hilton.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.