Anews podcast - episode 23

  • Posted on: 6 August 2017
  • By: thecollective

From The A News Podcast

Welcome to the anews podcast. This is episode 23 for August 4. This podcast covers anarchist activity, ideas, and conversations from the previous week.

Editorial: Capitalism and Anarchism, example: IGD

TOTW - Chasing Politics

A101 question: What do anarchists think of the word "revolution"?

this podcast

This podcast is the effort of many people. This week this podcast was
* sound edited by Linn O'Mable
* written by jackie and chisel
* narrated by chisel and a friend
* Thanks to A! and ariel for their help with the topic of the week
* Contact us at
To learn more

Introduction to anarchism:
Books and other anarchist material:
News and up to the minute commentary:



I think anarchists don't understand the point of revolution, according to Marx, is to not revolve, over and over. In fact, Marx's critique is a response to this very observation! His version of "revolution" is based on breaking this endless cycle of master and slave, oppressor and oppressed. It was his observation that the proletariat held some sort of basis for this to occur...for a revolution to end revolutions to occur. So anyways, the misreading of Marx by post-left anarchists is getting ridiculous and that is what happens when you wholesale reject a major thinker and make it a moral imperative to avoid understanding or even finding a way to communicate with ways of thinking that might attempt to shake the foundations of the left (endless cycles of revolutions and insurrections, endless revolt where change between the subject and the subjected doesn't occur). So while it is nice that anarchists try to take on things and make it sound like Marxism has nothing to offer, but this is ignorance and lies spread by people with an agenda. An agenda against Marxism.

I'm not a Marxist. I find all systems to be flawed, but it is appalling at how much anarchists misunderstand Marx, even today, and continue to spread this misinformation under the auspice of critical theory. Marxism IS critical theory. This isn't to say Stirnerites can't be critical thinkers. Quite the contrary. My observation of some egoists has lead me to believe they threw the baby out with the bathwater in regards to Marx and are attempting to remake the wheel. A wheel the ultra left already detailed and anarchists are only least when they are being somewhat relevant. Go out into the woods and jerk each other off. Make an infoshop where bums and wingnuts hang out. Design excellent critiques of leftism for the alt-right to use. Failure after failure, anarchists, anarchy, anarchism, all are at fault and this semantic game of dodging criticism by simply changing how you talk or the jargon for the concepts that have existed for ages, is fucking dead.

Anarchists. Give up on hating Marxism. Instead, understand it and then move past it. The attempts for the past 150 years hasn't been bad, but even overcoming theory from the 20s ultra left hardly is comprehended. Anarchists don't need to be Marxists, but seriously, everything from the post-left is an attempt to position anarchists as ultra leftists with baggage. Marxism has indeed failed, but anarchists aren't attacking it in a way to overcome. Anarchists may think they are negating Marxism. No, you aren't. Marxism may of weakened to the growth of postmodernism, but definitely not anarchism, which FAILED BEFORE 1917.

Sure, these Marxist-Leninist sects are annoying. The leftovers from the previous era, like Jacobins in the age of Bakunin, but this doesn't make end Marxism. In fact, if one were to pay attention to Marxism, most credible sourcing cites those who are critical of the Soviet Union and other "communist" states and the foundation for these criticisms happened before the resurgence of anarchists. By anarchists pretending history doesn't exist and that all Marxists are M-L, it erases the very influences the Situationists drew from as well as those that draw from them.

It isn't a make or break problem. Marxism isn't a necessary tradition. It isn't essential to anything and is by a way of interpreting things. Marxists in the past expressed themselves in dogmatic ways and they hardly can be taken as a whole as something that is correct without question. Instead, if one were to take the main points of Marxism and use it as the critical theory tool it is, one can benefit and also see that Marxism IS compatible with anarchist theory. Anyways, just figured I'd make note of this.

Show me a sociologist, that's what Marx was basically, and not a good one, where was I ? Show me a sociologist socialist whose critique wasn't hermeneutical and I'll show you a goddam foolish cosmologist. He stripped away the past indigeneous and extrapolated to an illusionary Utopia, that's a one way revolution with a transitional stage stuck in the middle to give the peasants some orientation time.

Can you suggest some starting places?

I think you're slinging venom at the wrong people. Post-left begins with the situationist, camatte, and perlman critiques of marx/marxism.

Shit. Can't forget the importance of foucault to some.

Well, I just got done listening to this and the previous week along with the FRR stuff on post left anarchy vs. capitalism. I am slinging my venom at the appropriate people.

For understanding Marxist basis, I'd recommend starting from episode 1 on Marxism Today podcast. He explains Marxism and how Marxism can be a tool of interpretation. It starts in August 2010 and just work backwards from there. Also the audiobook for the Communist Manifesto is free and available.

However, I've read a great deal of Marxist and related literature. Just the same, I've also read a great deal of egoist literature and enjoy the post-left. I just don't they are getting Marxism correct.

The fact that the anarchist project didn't achieve mass-level adherence prior to 1917 doesn't mean that it "failed". When/where was it the goal to gain popular mass traction, to become the new social order all of a sudden? Perhaps Kropotkin and his types wanted that, but this is definitely not the stuff that Libertad, Armand, Stirner, Novatore, Bonnot Gang, and even DeCleyre or Reclus were pushing towards. Not even Bakunin wanted mass-adherence to "anarchy" as a dominant social configuration. People make choices for themselves. When you want "all the world" to become anarchist there's a little problem in there, in the first place. I don't want, as the many people visiting this site, a Black Soviet Bloc. I don't want everybody to think and behave the same.

Totalitarian flattening of humans is as bad as any authoritarian regime or relationship. No it's worse actually... because with SOME authority relationships you can somewhat easily break them apart, subvert them, kill the king. But in a totalitarian order you haven't got other obvious options than attacking the people that enthusiastically support the regime.

Hence why outbursts of irrational and murderous violence against random people are the stuff we've been seeing happening around for a while. Adding relations of privilege to the totalitarian mix... this makes a lot of high school shooters, beyond just the Takfiri jihadists and the alt-right filth.

Democracy is the reason WHY. Asserting that everyone has equal rights when in fact that's just the winners who get the biggest pieces of the pie. Yes that has to do with class relationships within some kind of collectivistic capitalist totalitarian order, but I have a hard time talking about aspects like couple relationships or social clubs as "class relations", so there's some marxism in that, but marxism is also quite limited in scope.

Anarchists are not for the most part thinking that "history doesn't exist", but rather that there is no hierarchy in history. That historical evolution as an hegelian paradigm, which is at the roots of Marxism, doesn't exist. There is no sense in history. The wagon can come before the horse, and it often did. But that's because there is no "horse" or "wagon" in history. These are over-simplifications based on what was already Hegel's (and several other historians of the Enlightement) quite mediocre and ethnocentric view of human history.

Western civilization has not started in the Battle of Troy (for having heard, IRL, Leftists defending this notion like gravity, I can testify it's still a widespread conviction). Maybe you could provide a colorful and interesting argument about the "bicameral mind" having collapsed during that battle, then this event having paved way to the development of a new civilization, but to me this is as worthy for consideration as that other well-known fringe "anthropologist" of the '70s, Zacharia Sitchin, even if less goofy.

Evolution is a highly problematic theory, at least when it comes to general human history. It does make sense for explaining the distribution and particularities of species, of course.

Society's filled with "criticism dodgers". Those that you spook up as anarchists are only a sub-group of those same parochial, cultist people. Critique is not a very socially-attractive thing. It's often dissed as being too negative, "sanctimonious", "boring" or cynical.

Tho there's something to be said of how it could be COMMUNICATED better, starting with myself...

have the attention span to read all of this post! Damn shame. Keep the posts short for us millennials!

Growing plants takes time, necessary nutrients, and a good soil ideally with compost. Do not forget to hydrate regularly!

No, it failed. If you want to make a case about how minority tendencies of anarchy did things that aren't important to what I'm talking about, I find these stories interesting, some of them perhaps relevant, but they just aren't important to larger analysis that is attempting to break the continuing cycle of revolts which don't change power relations. Certainly individuals and small groups can have as many attempts to live limitless and when they die, they can have a good story. I'm not concerned about that and I'm not concerned about any union of egoists that may conflict with the powers that be unless they are seeking an end to systematic domination. This fascination with egoism and Stirner may satisfy the adherents, but being for things that aren't going to win, that leave systems of exploitation in place and aren't seeking to break this pattern, I can't stand with egoists any longer. It just isn't what I'm looking for.

There are plenty of normal people out there that are doing the same thing as egoists. It isn't a bad thing, but when it blocks abilities for growth and offers only small groups of friends while the machine grinds people, I can't say this is a viable praxis. I already see these groups of friends in non-egoists and they reach the same levels of individual revolt. They also have interesting stories, whether they are filled with phantoms or not. I understand egoists can have goals that aren't compatible with mine. So do non-egoists. My conversation can only move forward with those that want to see an end to systems of domination and break the class society.

What they egoists quite rightfully point out is that these systems are rooted in belief and behavior and everything else is a marginal consequence. There is no such thing as attacking a literal system or winning(which might as well be Charlie Sheen's winning). The constituted struggle is a phantasm based struggle not a corporeal physical overcoming based one. You can only disown the belief and behavior that drives the metaphorical machine. There is no actual machine that stands alone outside of belief and behavior.

Anarchy is simply not a historical event, it is beyond history always here and always now. Temporal first general and spatial second.

There is a such thing as attacking a literal system. You are breaking it down abstractly, so you won't be satisfied by playing inside your head. Marxism is an observational tool. Individuals observe things occurring and they draft theories on what they observe. If it is your prerogative to point out how things don't actually exist and yet these phantoms still dominate us, I can agree and disagree. Just pointing out a phantom doesn't change it and avoiding a supposed phantom can often end its impact in one's individual life. This isn't what I'm talking about though. To actually negate a phantom is to engage it and examine it. Is the phantom a social phenomenon? Is just ignoring it making it go away? Can we keep ignoring everything around us and it all just fade away? This is too simplistic, hasn't worked anywhere and won't work anywhere and there is a reason Marxism is a response to this kind of egoism.

There's is nothing in Stirner's mode of operating that ignores these systems, he simply understands that they are the marginal problem to the perennial problem of belief and behavior. What do you think his mode of insurrection(not revolution) entails. Insurrection is the active mode of taking on this behavior belief born integrated totality and orientating towards an anarchic mode of existence.

Marxism was not a response to the capitalistic egoism of Marx himself and his later imitators. Behind the great romantic equalitarian pretenses of marxists lies the despotism and self-interest of revolutionary "heroes" who're fighting for their own power accumulation, upon others. That was the whole point with the introductory expose in the "Ego and its Own", on how everyone does stuff at least partly out of self-interest, and the acknowledgement of this aspect is the root of egoism.

The communitarians and socialists have always had an issue recognizing this aspect in themselves, which made them hypocrites that rely on externalities to legimitate themselves in contradiction with their self-interest.

Was a reply to 10:51

"The communitarians and socialists have always had an issue recognizing this aspect in themselves" Largely untrue.

A misreading of the rhetoric might lead a stupid or reactionary person to believe this but only the worst type of authoritarian collectivism tries to completely dismiss the individual and their own interests. What is much more historically common, is people identifying collectively against whoever is hoarding wealth at the expense of everyone else. If that's "relying on externalities", then I suppose we're all looking forward to that day when there isn't such a clearly defined enemy.

What happens when you stop thinking? The dishes get done!

you may be able to hear and address the message!

And then we can see what happens when you're gone. As in "I can't miss you until you go away."

Emile's retired. This is his weird, neurotic idea of a permanent vacation. The fucker can probably afford to do whatever and he chooses to spend his time here, tilting at windmills.

You boys (and girls, too, I guess) say the meanest things.

Emile works for a living as the night manager at the local Dairy Queen. He can only "afford to do whatever he wants" because he lives at home with me but I don't mind. That's what mothers are for.

I do not know what "tilting at windmills" means, but I do know that my boy is very smart even if he does talk my ear off with all that philosophy stuff. Thank God Almighty for the Internet, which was invented so that boys suffering from verbal diarrhea like my dear Emile can hear themselves talk and leave their poor mothers alone to wash their Xanax down with cheap vodka from Poland.

Thank you and may clod bless,

Mrs. Emile
Sheffield, UK

Stirner's anarchistic egoism is a brand of egoism that clearly does not fit with the kind of capitalistic egoism promoted in this society. I'm not denying that such anarcho-egoism is strong in the sensitivities of many people, tho it is not being defined and discussed as such. Which is partly why some poorly informed people among them might bend towards the alt-right bullshit.

I want to see an end to the system of domination. That starts with stopping to relate to others through social media and even comment sections for "conversations". As you noticed, I'm totally pro having some level of online discussion with people I don't know, but that's as far it can go.

I'm sorry Sir Einzige, but you aren't making a new point. I already stated i have no interest in this style of thinking. It changes nothing and finds this lack of change satisfactory. There isn't anything wrong with individuals taking on the system (or arguing that no systems actually exist), but I have no interest in furthering a dialog here as I've chosen sides and am moving forward with those that observe reality and make analysis of power as well as examines revolts for the potential of forces that can challenge the control of the system and shake the tenability of class society. Good day.

Certainly the revolutionary record is encouraging for wannabe revolutionaries such as yourself in regards to stopping history and leviathan;)

Keep going after the batman ventriloquist's puppet.

Not a revolutionary not a wannabe. Perhaps "pro-revolutionary". Since you ignored my initial post to add an ignorant dig that only shows you misrepresent my point, I can only see you as a partisan and ideologue. I have nothing further to say to you.

To be pro-revolutionary is to take that nilhlocom cop out of separating you from the event. A revolution for the most part is a change of power players, occasionally it becomes more interesting but revolution is primarily about alien power and resources. I'm hardly an ideologue, in fact to be pro-revolution is to end up indirectly supporting a revolutionary ideology, and there is ALWAYS an ideology involved in any revolution.

Are you apologizing for misrepresenting my point? Are you acknowledging my point? No. This conversation can only continue if you actually engage what I wrote. Look at my opening comment and then your most recent. You are arguing against a strawman.

Re: nihcom. That's the point of that specific critique. It's to highlight unless you have your hands on the levers of production in the most vital sectors of the economy, and you are engaged in an active, direct confrontation with capital, there are no 'revolutionaries'.

May I interject? Thanks in other words revolutionaries are dupes of the State and capitalism, which returns Marx back to the old cultural binary identity belief based eschatological resembling pursuit of Utopian complex blah blah blah Don't bother replying you're boring,,,,,

This is a morally laden position against revolutionaries. They aren't bad people and most are guided by intentions based on their circumstances. Dupes of the state? No. That's not accurate. Some are, but in the context of nihilcom, the point is more about their ineffectiveness. Marx also didn't pursue utopia. That is fairly libelous, since he railed against utopian thinking. I think you are shooting from the hip and not reading the material needed to understand how to make a criticism.

Well I include slaves to the libidinous economy as being equivalent to being "dupes", but Marx wasn't strong on psychology, in fact Freud was a better sociologist by miles, and in being discontented with ones lot and seeking a better future comes close enough, from my readings, to be interpreted as a Utopian quest.

is that they have imagination and creativity something that Marx lacks. I've said before and I'll say again that you can basically use Stirner and Fourier as a starting point and ignore the 'ists' and isms that come afterwords. The thing about Stirner and Fourier is that they both address the others flaws. Stirner does not give details on what a world of intercoursive egoist union would look like. Fourier gives too much detail to the point of reifying a model of existence. The key with Charley is that you have too block out his model and formal blueprints and just focus on the underlying mode of living that he is getting at. Have that cynical egoism on hand to pop the balloon and be ready to leave the phalastery when things go south. What can be said about both is that neither are really presenting anything political or economic but social and within human scale. A post utopian egoist union is part of what should make up the 21st century idea of Neo-Anarchy.

Yeah post Utopian, I have to stop lapsing into an over cynical Brave New World perception and appreciate what some Scandinavian regions have attained, and to give Marxist Tool some acknowledgement that some Post-Marxist influences can sometimes have very pleasant outcomes. Nor am I a hater of Marx per se, maybe if he had indulged in some blow as Freud did his ideas would have flown into stratospheric regions, and Marxist Tool would be able to call himself Marxist Excelsior.

Which was cheating on Freud's behalf, and created some monstrous theories as the downside to artificial enhancement and revolutionary drives, thinking of the children's/adolescent's de-schooled and clean living alternative insurrection, from my own experiences, substances are a no-no for clear and focused outcomes.

This is a morally laden position against revolutionaries. They aren't bad people and most are guided by intentions based on their circumstances. Dupes of the state? No. That's not accurate. Some are, but in the context of nihilcom, the point is more about their ineffectiveness. Marx also didn't pursue utopia. That is fairly libelous, since he railed against utopian thinking. I think you are shooting from the hip and not reading the material needed to understand how to make a criticism.

Because I think anarchists can use Marxism, I've given myself a handle so others understand it is me giving my perspective.

P.S. this was written to Le Way.
P.P.S. I know the name isn't the best but "Marxism as a Tool" would get truncated.

I have decided to evolve to a revised name due to my own unique experiences. I realized that I was acctually shooting from my hip as a commenter suggested and that I should broaden my reading, and so I read some more about Marxist criminology which I had only ever glossed over previously, and my opinion of him as a sociologist has gone up quite a few notches and passed Freud. I must be fair and say that I am sitting at this desk and not in a prison cell because of Marxist sentiment having seeped over the centuries into the general ethos of welfare and social security institutions. I'm aware that a great many of these institutions are actually social siphoning mechanisms which compromise to and reform the existing social edifice, nevertheless the incremental effects have accumulated. Can accumulated increments be included as revolutionary? Is time a factor in defining revolution from evolution? Are not total differences in moral perceptions and the values society places on controlling its functionality the actual transforming concepts and not the slow deterministic evolutionary path,,,,deterministic because it places so much significance in its power to extrapolate from empirical data?

Anarchists can use some of Marx's work, but not that much. I prefer reading and using the Analytical Marxists who openly critiqued most of Marx's ideas.

The basic framework of Marxism creates another perspective, which can then be used as a tool, as part of other ways you may already be thinking in. I'd agree that Marxism has lost a lot of ground, both in its failures and it's successes.

Marxist analysis, yes, this is what I'm primarily referring to. The political programs of some communists, some socialists and some anarchists is based on finding answers to questions created through Marxist analysis.

The problem is it fails for fairly obvious reasons as Bob Black pointed out in his critique of it. The core proles aren't that special unless they themselves have some type of counter mode and idea of living. Obviously they are in a better position to put a stop to things then the book worm revolutionaries(Stirner pointed this out as much), but they invariably don't and if they did there is no guarantee that they might not do something stupid and recuperate things back into business without the basic idea of disowning work once and for all.

I'm not against the idea of getting the idea of anarchy to more vital points of social reproduction, I'm a BIG fan of affecting adolescents for example. Nothing would please me more then seeing a generation of adolescents SCARE THE LIVING SHIT out of the social order by refusing education. I would not view this as pro insurrection however. Just because the proles and pupils can shut things down better then we can does not mean they should be granted some privileged insurgent status. Insurrection is what anyone can do at anytime, that insurrection in a specific place would shut things down does not make them THE insurgents.

Haven't read the critique you mention. A total cessation of capitalist production on a global scale would grant everyone a sort of "privileged status" in that if it succeeded for months and longer people would perhaps begin to see they don't need capitalism and the bourgeoisie to survive. It would be felt and experienced in this situation as much as it is 'known' today by pro-revolutionaries.

A cessation of production would certainly halt things but Dupes is going on the narrow self interest of the worker belly to drive this process. This is what Bob Black tears to pieces by actually referencing an example of a vital worker work stoppage(The Air Traffic Controllers). Reagan essentially fired them all and replaced them with new workers. There's no reason why such a thing would not happen in that context without the more general integrated idea of insurrection and disownment backing that vital work stoppage up.

I know the ideas aspect is where those disgusting vanguardists can come into play but the nihcom argument is not the answer for fairly obvious reasons. The belly does not have a good record bringing social orders to an end. You need to integrate all the factors including the ideas people.

Quite frankly if you want a vital area shutdown I would put more effort into the learning reproduction(education) aspect of society then any of the prole sector. Unlike the latter the former has never been tried. You could say this would be pro-adolescent autonomy where the pro-seperation definition would make more sense seeing as we are no longer part of that vital learning reproduction segment of the populace.

This is an interesting side note. I would enjoy reading this Robert Black piece you are referring to. Do you have an url? Failing that, perhaps just the source. I enjoyed Nihilist Communism and would love to read a thoughtful reply.

It's actually pretty hard to fine on the internets as I've been trying to search for it to link. I think it's in anarchy 69 or 70 Mcquinn also did a critique in Modern Slavery 1 I believe which I have not read.

You know ziggy, you could save a lot of time by skipping to the part where you admit to not being a "realist".

Most of the debates you have with people boil down to this massive gap between your agenda of "non-realism" and most people interested in anarchism. This is on display here in your last paragraph where you toss out some creepy Aldous Huxley-esq brainwashing camp for teenagers. You're also wrong that it's never been tried.

tl;dr you love to point at the failings of the old left but your alternatives are completely impractical science fiction nonsense.

Here's some others who agree with me. I got there from going through Dupont's blogs ironically. I'm not sure how you can reconcile that dualist spook know as realism with anarchy. By all means try and explain the spook away.

Also how in fuck does my idea on children and adolescents boil down to brainwashing camps? You do realize that my project is the refusal of education and the realization of learning right RIGHT?. That's one of Stirnerian projects to be attempted as far as anarchy goes. The reason it makes sense is because all the other refusals have been tried to varying degrees of failure. It's not exactly lost on me that there is a potential paradox of adult vanguard to child adolescent. I've mentioned that before and stress that it must be guarded against at all cost. Mind you this is no different when we are taking about proles as opposed to pupils. And no I doubt it's ever been tried in the Stirnerian way that I imagine it. Please give an example for me to shoot down though.

It's all pie-in-the-sky noise dude, you're just some random wage techie, if I can believe your previous statements. You have no capacity to bring about massive changes to the way children are educated, it's all just ideas in your head. Meaningless without any capacity to act, which is what I mean by realism.

Opinions are only interesting if they can be turned in to action, otherwise you're just firing electrons in to cyberspace, same as the kids who won't stop photographing themselves.

So what. Also opinions are interesting on their own terms regardless of whether they are acted upon.

Quite so, the belly is actually the force which has no loyalty or intelligence, an army functions on its belly and takes orders from the provider. The wars and revolutions of the future will be cyber wars contolling the food and service providers and their infrastructure, thus, as you say, the pre-adolescent autonomy, the segregated from adult deschooled age layered terraced skill zones I imagine could not fathom ideological stances nor would they perceive and possess the mental processes brought about by instilled brainwashing or be capable of accepting Dupedom. This would be the clean break from traditional dogma and recuperation.

That's how war has always worked Le fool. You finally discovered gravity and act like you invented it.

But I don't actually "believe" in gravity. When something falls, I don't think "Hmm, gravity just happened. The mass of earth acted upon the apple and overcame the tensile strength of the apple stem and it fell"I just walk over and pick up the apple and eat it,,,,,,That's why I'm an anartist and you are a gravitist, thinkig of missiles and throwing rocks at things that annoy you. Sad.

Why on earth would you think it's sad to watch people take action about things they don't like? Take about slave morality ...

I'm referring to the binary warfare and the radicalism that all ideologies feed on. The big picture involving the survival of the earth and a new social paradigm for the future which no longer acts on moral imperatives but intuitively knows its own-ness and one-ness. I've transcended tantrums and other knee jerk emotions born out of ressentiment. We must rise above this apish conduct.

You're referring to a bunch of strawman nonsense that you always do. All this crap about "transcendence" is no better, that cheap new age mysticism worked on the baby boomers when they were young. You're at least 4 decades behind the times now.

You obviously have no comprehension of the power of the mind, noooo, not the hippy mystical stuff, I'm describing the essential un-indoctrinated infantile consciousness given full scope to its potential, which occurs, but only to a minority of mostly privileged or very lucky individuals. This isn't about prodigy but rather a more relaxed and innovative existence. So there you have it.

You obviously overestimate it. Billions and billions of minds and most of them matter so little ... perhaps all the chatter is just the vanity of little ants hmmm?

That's a very anthropocentric quality to attach to the humble ant! Shame on you, go back to your 4 walls and mirror!!!

Yes ... I'm anthropomorphizing ants to mock you. Congratulations on your reading comprehension.

Seriously though I have studied ant societies and it almost seems that they have a collective soul, but I think we've gone off thread enough as it is.

I have lived as an ant colony before, so you are right. There is also something like reincarnation, except there is no soul, but we are forever trapped in this endless loop until we ascend, then we can watch the universe like T.V. and that is like, what being god is. Praise her! I'm speaking of Sophia, of course, which is the only god that loves humanity. If you want, you could say she is responsible for humanism and all this great civilization.

I have no more to say to you.

I would have stopped your asinine ego-babble ages ago ...

Only the collective have the power to do that silly, so save your energy.

I meant if I could. Guaranteed I was bored of you first ;)

If you're familiar with the argument, you know nihcom highlights this scenario as more likely than proletarian revolution; the ecological situation being the main culprit or catalyst for said collapse.

Not the one you're replying to, and possibly you're into tunnel-shaped discussions, but anyways.. "Collapse" as through the nihcom and anticiv worldview tends to be this romantic ideal that is far too similar to the doomsday prophecies of past generations, hyping for a "poetic justice" kind of deus ex machina of our society.

It's very unlikely to happen by itself, governments will try to avoid it from happening, and while there is a high likelihood of collapse at some point. It is ongoing, and definitely not in the format that you, me or most sane enough people would like.

Yet another anon: I like the slow disintegration collapse hypothesis, which is arguably well under way already. The centres of the empire will be clueless until very late in the game but there's quite a few indicators if you're paying attention.

It won't be catastrophic failures for the most part, more of a slow boil for the frog, as in quality of life for most ordinary people as the police states expand and reactionary extremist groups proliferate. The wild card is obviously massive changes in the climate and cascades of unforeseen complications but either way ... They can only manage the effects up to capacity and then all kinds of things start happening fast.

I am not an anon because I have nothingness not to hide. Sorry to disappoint you, but the slow boil will take I guess about 200 years, so make yourself as comfortable as possible and order bulk popcorn, its going to be a fascinating show, and the good thing is that the earth will still be here for its midlife crisis, which is usually all stops pulled out and some absurdly hilarious creations to ponder over.

It's not "disappointing" ..? What's disappointing is how much degradation people will apparently tolerate, which you incessantly argue in favour of because you're Le fool ;)

A lot of things can happen in a century or so. Technological substitutionism is one of those things. Do not put it past this crafty monkey to figure this out, especially when you have worldwide rational inputs.

You sound like you take the John Michael Greer approach. He's much more reasonable then the other collapsists, we won't see what happens or maybe we will.

Yeah, I'm indifferent. Certainly confident I'd last a bit longer than the average bubble-dwelling yuppie in a catastrophic failure scenario but like another poster said, being excited for it is at best, naive or worse, has cliched religious overtones like so many doomsday cults.

I'm sure some people would be inspired to help each other and I'm sure others would love a murder-rape free-for-all so I'll be staying neutral on the subject! That goes double for trying to predict when. Only an arrogant ass or a demagogue would even try.

They keep finding more gas and oil and increasing efficiency in consumption for solar, tide and wind generators, protein/calorie production per acreage, cures for many diseases, aesthetics aside its looking very promising, quality of life is no longer a walk in pristine environments but the size and speed of ones iPod, though species diversity is failing in the larger mammalian class they are discovering more in the depths of oceans. I haven't read Greer but thanks for the intro sounds like we share some things including boundless optimism, incidentally I have witnessed some paranormal stuff which I regard as unfathomable parallel existences.

Species are disappearing, by the hundreds. The great coral reef has bleached up. The seas are becoming excessively acid. The weather is getting fucked up, as we're seeing gigantic releases of methane form the underground at many places, especially around the North Pole. That is your boiling frog.

Nothing desirable with it... since the mostly-cowardly and unresponsive humans are just keeping making the machine roll until they are the last ones left to be crushed. At this point, the prospect for a Matrix-like scenario for the future appears like doing justice to the great fuck-up of human society. An advanced AI with god-like powers would have all the reasons to keep humans in check and let the other life forms prosper.

Like I said, aesthetics aside, its going to be a pit, like the 1million crowded into 1 square mile in an Indian city, yet life goes on gleefully, this monkey is a survivor, millions of years of hardtimes AND STILL some time to laugh at all the folly,,,,,,who said "öh ye of little faith" or " Chin up chest out " ? You can't keep a good thing down, don't be a traitor to your species, as fucked up as they may be, we all had moms. I WANT SOME POPCORN,,,,,NOW!!!!!

because we are included in the world and the world is a transforming relational continuum; i.e. our viewing lenses are continually transforming in conjunction with the transforming viewfield that we are observing.

in other words, we can't step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and we are not the same people stepping into it.

we would have to 'exist absolutely in our own right' to sit here and have a God's eye view of the world 'out there' changing. this is physically impossible [it is an idealization coming from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar].

extinctions are a simplistic semantic construct, ... a being-and-logic based way of understanding the physical reality of relational transformation. If something 'out there' is changing, it means that we are changing since the world is given only once as a transforming relational continuum.

the earth's biosphere does not 'grow larger' when the human population 'grows' from 5 billion to 7 billion. that's not how ecosystems (interdependent relational webs) work. the biosphere is more like a balloon with many teats. if you squeeze one teat, another one bulges way out, or if one teat bulges way out, others shrink in reciprocal complement, and may no longer be visible as forms-in-themselves.

if you think that there are 'things-in-themselves' that pop out of nowhere and 'things-in-themselves' that disappear into nowhere, you are suffering from 'the bewitchment of understanding by language' [Wittgenstein]. the only possible dynamic in field-matter nonduality is relational transformation.

Space is unfolding and infolding out-of-and-into-itself [which Bohm compares to stretching toffee out, folding it back into itself, stretching, folding, stretching, folding etc. etc.]. Our concept of space as a three-dimensional emptiness populated here and there by 'local material things in themselves' is a semantic construction that should not be confused for the physical space of our actual experience; e.g;

"As the outcome of the labors of Lobatchevski, Bolyai, Gauss, and Riemann, the view has gradually obtained currency in the mathematical world, that that which we call space is a particular, actual case of a more general, conceivable case of multiple quantitative manifoldness. The space of sight and touch is a threefold manifoldness; it possesses three dimensions ; and every point in it can be defined by three distinct and independent data. But it is possible to conceive of a quadruple or even multiple space-like manifoldness. And the character of the manifoldness may also be differently conceived from the manifoldness of actual space. We regard this discovery, which is chiefly due to the labors of Riemann, as a very important one. The properties of actual space are here directly exhibited as objects of experience, and the pseudo-theories of geometry that seek to excogitate these properties by metaphysical arguments are overthrown."
Four dimensional space has a more relationally complex symmetry than three dimensional space in the following sense; "it is possible to move out of a finite straight line, without passing the extremities, through the second dimension ; out of a finite closed surface through the third ; and, analogously, out of a finite closed space, without passing through the enclosing boundaries, through the fourth dimension." -- Ernst Mach

hurricanes are relational forms in a transforming relational continuum and are said to have an average lifespan of nine days. realists would say that hurricanes 'really do exist'. pragmatist idealists would say that it is convenient to speak of them as if they really existed but they are, in physical reality' genetic expression that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence; i.e. they are 'appearances' or 'variations' in the relational structure of space;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger

Every relational form within nature, including human forms, are agents of transformation. As with multiple storms in the atmosphere, it is impossible to calculate the separate contributions of each or any one of them, including man, since causal agency does not jumpstart from a relational form; i.e. It is not possible to calculate the world dynamic with and without man or with and without Saddam; i.e. the whole interdependent web of relations transforms in an unknowable way.

It is only the names we give to features within the transforming relational continuum that 'come' and 'go' because they are features of interest to us. These relational features are the tip of an infinite iceberg; i.e. the spacetime continuum.

So emile is that puppet dork that was on the brilliant, right?

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.