Continued from here.
I Don't Get Anarchists II
Fri, 2010-03-19 06:53
#1
I Don't Get Anarchists II
Fri, 2010-03-19 06:57
#2
Zero Point of Systemic Collapse
The indifference to the plight of others and the supreme elevation of the self is what the corporate state seeks to instill in us. It uses fear, as well as hedonism, to thwart human compassion. We will have to continue to battle the mechanisms of the dominant culture, if for no other reason than to preserve through small, even tiny acts, our common humanity. We will have to resist the temptation to fold in on ourselves and to ignore the cruelty outside our door. Hope endures in these often imperceptible acts of defiance. This defiance, this capacity to say no, is what the psychopathic forces in control of our power systems seek to eradicate. As long as we are willing to defy these forces we have a chance, if not for ourselves, then at least for those who follow. As long as we defy these forces we remain alive. And for now this is the only victory possible.
Fri, 2010-03-19 07:19
#3
I find the several undercurrents in this article from the perspective of a white theologian to be problematic, and frankly disgusting. He does present a valid argument in many respects, however the conclusions are tainted with sentiments of the kind that might be found among rural ultra right survivalist communities who dig bunkers in their backyards.
Fri, 2010-03-19 19:05
#4
I find the several undercurrents in this article from the perspective of a white theologian to be problematic, and frankly disgusting. He does present a valid argument in many respects, however the conclusions are tainted with sentiments of the kind that might be found among rural ultra right survivalist communities who dig bunkers in their backyards.
He's not a theologian as far as I can see; he's a journalist who has written some books. (According to Wikipedia he has a degree in theology but that isn't usually considered enough to make you a theologian, any more than having a degree in philosophy makes you a philosopher.)
Also, "he shares some (unnamed) sentiments with far right survivalists" is not an argument. What sentiments? A fondness for barbecue? A belief in the superiority of white people? A disdain for liberal Christians? Distrust of government? Belief in complementary medicine? Contempt for the bourgeoisie? Generalized gloom? What disgusting sentiments does he share? Or is it disgusting to share any sentiment with far right survivalists (even something like, "I wouldn't be seen dead in a starbucks!")?
And is there something particularly bad about being a 'rural' survivalist?
(Just for the record, I disagree with quite a bit of he says.)
Fri, 2010-03-19 19:11
#5
He lost me at anarchists and plastic explosives. I hate straw men so I stopped reading. The anarchists in this day and age get pilloried for throwing rocks but he wants to tell them they shouldn't blow things up.
Sun, 2010-03-21 20:09
#6
Explosives are one way to go about it, buliding intentional communities beyond the state and capital is another
Sun, 2010-03-21 20:50
#7
Frustrated Mess
He lost me at anarchists and plastic explosives. I hate straw men so I stopped reading. The anarchists in this day and age get pilloried for throwing rocks but he wants to tell them they shouldn't blow things up.
If you read it in the context of an isolated statement, I agree with you. But if you read it in the context of a wider discussion where Derrick Jensen would argue plastic explosives to blow up things, not people, is a valid act of resistance, then it is worth reading and understanding. Derrick Jensen, I am relatively certain, identifies himself as an anarchist of sorts.
There will be growing movements to pull the peasants into competing camps of influence as the sense of impending doom grows larger.
Tue, 2010-03-23 02:26
#8
If you read it in the context of an isolated statement, I agree with you. But if you read it in the context of a wider discussion where Derrick Jensen would argue plastic explosives to blow up things, not people, is a valid act of resistance, then it is worth reading and understanding. Derrick Jensen, I am relatively certain, identifies himself as an anarchist of sorts.
There will be growing movements to pull the peasants into competing camps of influence as the sense of impending doom grows larger.
Nope
It's still a stupid argument as anyone steeped in anarchist history can tell you. Violence has never been a general tendency in anarchism perse nor has its opposite, even in the propaganda of the deed days you still had counterparts that were either non violent of wanted to save it more for open revolt, infact if you keep up with contemporary anarchist disscussion you'd know that specialized clandestine forms of revolt have become fairly unpopular, if anything its more of a marxist thing. Anarchism is really no more violent then any other emergent ideology that's trying to supplant an order.
Also it's debatable whether Jensen is an anarchist in the formal sense.
Tue, 2010-03-23 04:09
#9
Most people who are anarchists are not anarchists in the "formal" sense.
Besides, isn't Jensen basically the herald for anarcho-primitivism?
Tue, 2010-03-23 15:16
#10
Most people who are anarchist identify with the tradition and and are consistent on positions of apposing the state and capital. Chomsky is an example of someone who is not really an anarchist in the serious sense, he spends all of his time talking about strengthening the state as a means, dito with the late Howard Zinn. People like Bob Black and Hakeem Bey on the other hand are serious anarchists.
Jensen is not a primitivist perse though he does admire the cultures obviously, John Zerzan is.
Thu, 2010-03-25 08:06
#11
What sentiments?
But in any country, those who survive will need isolated areas of land as well as distance from urban areas, which will see the food deserts in the inner cities, as well as savage violence, leach out across the urban landscape as produce and goods become prohibitively expensive and state repression becomes harsher and harsher.
The question here would involve who would be welcome at those isolated survivalist enclaves. It certainly doesn't seem that he has those violent urban 'savages' in mind. A careful writer might have indicated that more strife could be expected in areas simply because of population density, in comparison with areas where livestock and wildlife outnumber the inhabitants. Instead he leaves open for interpretation a perspective of another sort.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:34
#12
Survivalist fantasies have little to do with anarchy. Could someone please change the title to reflect this threads content?
Thu, 2010-03-25 14:00
#13
remind
Slumberjack, I do not see that contention you make in his words....nor do those words you quoted @ #10 support your statement that rosal questioned you on from your post @ #2
You will have to come up with better examples, which I could not see in your link, in order to support your claim that his words are;
of the kind that might be found among rural ultra right survivalist communities who dig bunkers in their backyards.
Having said that, I think he says 2 different things and contradicts himself in his own musings. We can't have lost, as he says we have, if the power elite are:
perplexed and confused, clings to the disastrous principles of globalization and its outdated language to mask the looming political and economic vacuum.
Thu, 2010-03-25 14:14
#14
People like Bob Black and Hakeem Bey on the other hand are serious anarchists.
I used to read their articles in Anarchy magazine. The store where I used to buy that mag. closed long ago, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Is Anarchy still being published?
I have a Tedd Rall cartoon that I copied from Anarchy tacked to my office door. I looked for the same image on the Ted Rall website but couldn't find it.
Thu, 2010-03-25 14:28
#15
remind
what is the cartoon about?
scan and share my friend, scan and share....