TOTW: Fighting Oppression

  • Posted on: 11 July 2017
  • By: thecollective

There seem to me to be two main ways that people come at fighting oppression. One way is to think about how all the things are similar/the same. I think antifa is that style in practice if not in theory. The other way is the style of (for example) Black Lives Matter, which takes a group of people with (what many consider to be) a primary identifying characteristic and organizes around that. To look at these at these models with a critical eye (there are positive aspects to them too, of course), one of these smooshes everyone together to fight a lowest common denominator enemy while the other is prone to competition between oppressed peoples (who has it worst?)... (and also smooshes together people who have little in common, but that's for a different point).

Some anarchists are in line with one or both of those styles, Others reject the idea of fighting oppression at all, at least as its commonly understood--determining that as much evil has been done in the name of liberating people as in the name of capitalism (for example).

What is a way to fight against people being treated badly that doesn't fall in to the trap of treating everyone like they're the same as everyone else? Who has done a good job of recognizing individual autonomy while still addressing the categorical systemic problems of this society? Or is massing people together in groups necessary to make change? Insurrection-from-Italy seemed like it was starting to address some of this, but insurrection-in-the-u.s. seems (at least from the outside) like its taking on characteristics of the leftism of the 60s.

Good luck to us all.

category: 

Comments

This is a poignant post. Would this oppression TOTW specifies include oppression of nonhumans or is this site purely anthropocentric as I don't see many (if any) posts regarding the plight of nonhumans and the ubiquitous idea that nonhumans are merely property and have no inherent value. Where are the green anarchists and the vegan anarchists or do vegan anarchist posts get taken down or are they bombarded with troll posts so vegans don't bother anymore posting on this site? So, to conclude, by far the most oppressed are nonhumans, particularly those oppressed on farms I would argue.

"people" only refers to humans?

Humans and nonhumans can be considered 'people'. Anyway, to oppress another reflects upon the oppressor too. Please read and/or listen to Layla AbdelRahim about the onset of the 'predatory' human mindset. Predatory to become oppressive. Layla traces the roots of human domination aka now, I would contend, as human suffocation of all else. So, you see 12.07 above there are links to suss out: where has this human on human oppression come from historically speaking. There is a well-known poem: "First they came" by Martin Niemöller. Oppression is intersectional.

check your comment and then rd mine fully. catch up!

while it is PHYSICALLY impossible to isolate 'humans' or any other 'inhabitants' from the matrix of relational interdependencies constituted by the 'habitat' they are situationally included in, it is rhetorically possible to do so, if one is employing a non-relational language such as the noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific languages. this is done by semantically imputing 'independent being' to relational forms that are, in physical reality, bound together in interdependent relations [ignoring the relational interdependencies]. by notionally equipping these 'independent beings' with their own 'jumpstart genetic agency', we can construct dynamics that APPEAR to be [in the semantic reality we construct] actualized by the independent beings with no sign of the relational interdependencies that show that such 'individuals' are not at all 'independent' but derive their power and direction from the relational dynamics they are situationally (interdependently) included in. nietzsche describes this semantic trickery ['bewitchment of understanding by language'] as follows;

"“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

so, you are right. rhetoric that concerns only humans [e.g. the oppression of humans by humans] is not capturing anything physically real since it is impossible to isolate the dynamics of humans from the relational dynamics of nature. such semantic simplification is convenient in that it delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] but confusing it for 'reality' is getting us into trouble.

The biggest problem with our acknowledgement of it is how it's been channeled, funneled, compartmented then put into boxes, mainly through identity politics. Oppression is all over the place in/out this society. It just has several aspects and degrees of intensity... like comparing cell phone antennas to machist oppression of females, they both are endemic and real, even if the first seems way lighter and indirect than the latter

Cell phones can be seen as instruments against oppression, yet their radio waves are toxic, and the devices are also intoxicating people's behavior, making them exceedingly dependent to the telescreens... they've taken over communications between humans.

How about actually knowing people? Growing from physical location, identify commonalities, but don't stress sameness. From what I can tell, this fear of sameness is just some irrational anarchist garbage residue from bad theory. Listen to some more Ramones and snort another one. For those that can find common purpose together, it is usually through exposing real problems we share with actual institutions. It isn't our consumerism that makes us any different from each other. Someone buys wine and eats at five star restaurants another drinks malt liquor and eats ramen noodles, but common experiences are found outside of these individual choices.

It is by comparing our lives with the lives of others around us that we see oppression and exploitation, see our subjected condition beyond how we make choices down to the very point that our choices are often framed by the distractions of commodities. We can see how we are all thrown into situations of systematic complexity, where our lives are more often in the hands of powerful bureaucracies, be they corporate, state or civil. We can also see the sameness in the human experience. Love. Hate. The passions we feel. The lived experiences we share. The common problems individuals and groups run into that can bring relation. People live, people die. Our joys and sorrows matter more than how the narratives are reified by leftist ideology.

Neither antifa nor BLM offer a way forward. Both are political reifications of more complex problems, simplified to good/evil narratives. Oppression is real, but how we handle it needs to be discussed more. Typical, common responses usually end up within the non-profit industry. Most anarchists I know rail against institutions, yet our normal lives requires us to interact with them. For me, this brings me back to the Conjure House's egoist communism, which seems to still be developing, but Dr. Bones' answers to problems are far more nuanced than most egoists and most anarchists. I was just listening to his interview on Revolutionary Left Radio and he exposes that we can interact with institutions as individuals and not just act as if every institution is so essentially fucked that we can't even have real world situations with institutions as anarchists.

I'll provide some quotes in a future comment should it seem to provide any further insight to this discussion.

I fail to see how you manage to call "nuanced" what is just more commie ideology. Of course we always need a communist to tell us north from south. Because stfu you anarchist and submit to the Man.

Perhaps it is commie ideology? I'm still enjoying the novelty of Dr. Bones and it would be more fun to humor an exploration of his views. I imagine that some middle ground can be found with this post left thinker and while flawed, it is a breath of fresh air. The stale Stirner ideology that permeates here could learn something from Dr. Bones' take on Stirner, which is more in line with how history views Stirner, as a socialist.

They're not supposed to "offer a way forward", they're not a political platform or a particularly flexible set of tactics IMO.

They're meant to address a very narrow set of issues and/or tactical situations and there's nothing inherently wrong with this although people will misuse or misunderstand the purpose of a tool, which says nothing about the tool.

The more that an effective organizing method is able to manifest a street presence, the more bad noise tends to get directed at it which in my eyes, ends up being a backhanded compliment. Antifa exploded in the US because it was relevant and more effective than anything else that was laying around for people to pick up at the time. If you find it lacking, feel free to show everyone something better. I for one, enjoy Dr. Bones' writing but sure as fuck won't be relying on a some hippy mystic to save my ass from bloodthirsty reactionaries.

... both ... and..?
Any concept that lays down diagrams
of connectivity, new perspectives , new approaches and new ways
In different styles can become effective in broadening autonomy
In our everyday lives. Transient and durable efforts to enhance
the range of autounamous spaces , our autonomous Zones of creativity
and praxis. It happens all the time, everywhere.
Get Out-There with whomever.

Should be considered.

"Who has done a good job of recognizing individual autonomy............Insurrection-from-Italy seems (at least from the outside)...."

thecollective: How have the italian anarchists done a better job of helping people while also respecting their autonomy/subjectivity than the american ones have?

Known oppressor is that Anews infamous tribe aka 'The Dia Tribe' led by 'Emile The Text Wall.'

The basic reality of collective bargaining: whether it's unions, riots, rent-strikes or squats; means that you figure out how to mass together (which means identifying with each other) and coexist long enough to take advantage of the ancient power of the fierce mass of people. This is older, more natural to our species and far less toxic than money, albeit more fragile and unpleasant!

AFAIK the only other option is expropriation of wealth from the capitalists and redistributing it in tactical ways that don't get immediately reabsorbed. For example, embezzling money and funding radical spaces that last long enough to build up communities around them. Contrast that with just spending the money on immediate needs, nothing wrong with hungry people stealing food but it's a very short-term gain.

IMHO those are the only two ways to wield enough power to even make a dent in any serious form of oppression. Either you build up collective counter-power, overwhelming the systems of oppression, however temporarily OR you can run a scam that redistributes wealth. Most everything else is probably just a tempest in a teapot and largely ignored by the powers that be because it doesn't represent a real threat.

There's no mistaking the moment when you pass the threshold of symbolic action and become a real threat. You'll know by the swift response! As for those who "reject fighting oppression" because "much evil has been done in the name of liberating people", that's not a very impressive argument to me. At best, it's a rationalization for paralysis.

History isn't over and pointing to the past as an excuse for not even attempting to make the future better is … pathetic.

There's nothing to fight that's the problem. Oppression is never tangibly defined unlike say domination which is very real and beyond an identity structured grievance.

Way to mince words to try and sound clever. I'm quoting the damned TOTW, it's not even my phrasing and obviously we're not interested in semantic games of gotcha! Fine, you prefer the term domination, it barely matters in this context.

I enjoyed this post. It is something I'm coming to grips with. Kind of the failure of anarchy after leftism is the lack of real answers. I've looked a lot at small group tactics and there is something to them, but I also found I was putting too much into wishful thinking. I agree with the critique of democracy but that doesn't mean I reject it. I agree with its critique at its best and its worst. At best democracy is problematic by how it centralizes decision making into particular groups while not recognizing other groups outside it as holding the same level of legitimate authority. There is the obvious problems with majorities and even more so with consensus where lowest common denominators are turned towards, tyranny of the majority or tyranny of mediocrity. That's at best. At worst, the obvious failings of democratic states in history, both in how they use democracy in a limited manner almost without exception in the entire history of civilization and in how the society didn't add up as ideal beyond another face for how to empower a rich or powerful person's life.

I say this to define myself as critical, but accepting of democracy because it is beneficial still. When used as a way for people to connect, it can lead them towards sharing decision making with others they wouldn't of tried to otherwise, connecting with others and showing our values in a group setting. More becomes possible by using methods that get more people involved. I say this not as a maxim, as there are limits to how size can be beneficial, but we should already be talking about thousands of people doing actions everyday in our own local area and that still wouldn't be enough, but people's lives would be changing, the idea of community becomes stronger and we exist with each other in our lives more often. This may be a different kind of freedom than seeking a spot out in the woods to get away from it all, in fact it might be the opposite of it, but it is still freeing to be around people you are sharing experiences with, even if the experiences are based on holding our own in street combat or enduring whatever the state dreams up to suppress these larger democratic groups.

This isn't to knock other ways of doing things, but more to explore the benefits of democracy and what anarchists give up when they move themselves away from everything democratic. Small, informal groups certainly can work, but just as with democracy, they aren't the only way. This isn't a call for unity either, as we should unite when we want, but why not understand how we can benefit, so we know what we want?

So on the sameness or difference scale, I'd like to go with difference, we can group together specifically first, then network with others once we know what we want. While I'm not so certain about BLM, I do know anarchists can benefit from getting specific and particular with each other and then group together rather than assume similarity and then grow, if at least to give anarchists time to figure themselves out. Anyway, just some thoughts, trying to figure something out.

Though the problem with anti-oppression ideology is that enfranchisement is the end goal which is a make equal and alike process. Being against domination is more to the point and does not entail a political economic enfranchisement program.

i will just state the point that my brief comment [that was removed] elaborated on.

we do not have to assume that organisation is 'positivist' as is implicit in your comment. by positivist organisation i am referring to multiple participants coming together to achieve a common purpose/intention.

the primary source of organisation in nature is, nevertheless, 'negative' or 'epigenetic' as in Lamarckism. in a relational dynamic, a 'need' can develop which inductively actualizes a coming together to 'fill a need'. for example, if someone's house burns down, the need for a new home can inductively actualize the coming together of a group of people to resolve the need [no blueprints needed].. we experience this negatively induced actualizing of organisation as 'rising to the occasion.

in the field/matter nonduality of nature, epigenetic inductive influence is the primary organising influence. Kropotkin 'saw this' in 'Mutual Aid' but he was loathe to break with Darwinism, so he 'watered it down' to try to keep it 'Darwinian'. nietzsche, on the other hand, had no problem in rejecting the positivist organizing constraint imposed in Darwinism [all genetics, no epigenetics]. Now we know that 'genes cannot express themselves' but must be epigenetically actualized;

“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’

noun and verb language and grammar pressures us to use the positivist organizing assumption by having the 'subject' launch the action. in relational languages, it is the other way around; i.e. relational tensions inductively actualize genetic expression, as in the example of the need that inductively actualizes resolution when a newt loses an eye; epigenetic influence inductively actualizes the regenerative expression. this is general in nature (field-matter nonduality) but noun-and-verb language-and-grammar 'reverses it' and makes all organisation 'positivist' or 'subject-launched'.

e.g. the evolution of microbial communities. as you might imagine, as various organisms come together, a relational complex forms wherein niches open up that inductively actualize new organisation and evolutionary development. research shows the following;

“It is normally assumed that the recombination of genes generates innovation and that this innovation is then judged as useful or not through natural selection. Genetic information presumably serves as a blueprint that controls the features of organisms and their communities. However, studies of bacterial associations in continuous culture suggest that innovation also flows in the reverse direction, from the structure of the community to the structure of the nucleic acid. In this situation, it may be the structure and architecture of the community that serves the initial blueprint.” — ‘Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities by Douglas E. Caldwell et al, Manual of Environmental Microbiology.

epigenetics is 'negative organisation' or 'inductively actualized organisation' and you will find it cropping up in many places because science and scientific thinking has been constraining our concept of 'organisation' to positive organisation and not even looking for epigenetic sourcing of organization.

the primary source of organisation in nature is, nevertheless, 'negative' or 'epigenetic' as in Lamarckism. in a relational dynamic, a 'need' can develop which inductively actualizes a coming together to 'fill a need'. for example, if someone's house burns down, the need for a new home can inductively actualize the coming together of a group of people to resolve the need [no blueprints needed].. we experience this negatively induced actualizing of organisation as 'rising to the occasion.

we do not have to assume that organisation is 'positivist' as is implicit in your comment. by positivist organisation i am referring to multiple participants coming together to achieve a common purpose/intention.

“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’

i will just state the point that my brief comment [that was removed] elaborated on.

in the field/matter nonduality of nature, epigenetic inductive influence is the primary organising influence. Kropotkin 'saw this' in 'Mutual Aid' but he was loathe to break with Darwinism, so he 'watered it down' to try to keep it 'Darwinian'. nietzsche, on the other hand, had no problem in rejecting the positivist organizing constraint imposed in Darwinism [all genetics, no epigenetics]. Now we know that 'genes cannot express themselves' but must be epigenetically actualized;

e.g. the evolution of microbial communities. as you might imagine, as various organisms come together, a relational complex forms wherein niches open up that inductively actualize new organisation and evolutionary development. research shows the following;

noun and verb language and grammar pressures us to use the positivist organizing assumption by having the 'subject' launch the action. in relational languages, it is the other way around; i.e. relational tensions inductively actualize genetic expression, as in the example of the need that inductively actualizes resolution when a newt loses an eye; epigenetic influence inductively actualizes the regenerative expression. this is general in nature (field-matter nonduality) but noun-and-verb language-and-grammar 'reverses it' and makes all organisation 'positivist' or 'subject-launched'.

epigenetics is 'negative organisation' or 'inductively actualized organisation' and you will find it cropping up in many places because science and scientific thinking has been constraining our concept of 'organisation' to positive organisation and not even looking for epigenetic sourcing of organization.

“It is normally assumed that the recombination of genes generates innovation and that this innovation is then judged as useful or not through natural selection. Genetic information presumably serves as a blueprint that controls the features of organisms and their communities. However, studies of bacterial associations in continuous culture suggest that innovation also flows in the reverse direction, from the structure of the community to the structure of the nucleic acid. In this situation, it may be the structure and architecture of the community that serves the initial blueprint.” — ‘Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities by Douglas E. Caldwell et al, Manual of Environmental Microbiology.

This was written as a reply to 16:17 The basic reality. Some odd reason it appeared under another commenter's post. Apologies for any confusion.

I'm the one who wrote that post and as I've stated many times, I'm completely uninterested in your overwrought, pointlessly mystified, rambling, hippy crap Emile. But I acknowledge that since I post as anon, there's no way for you to keep track. Sorry for the confusion! ;)

Thanks! I feel where you're coming from. It's funny because I always get called a "leftist" for zeroing in on that lack of substance, even though I identify primarily with the blackest of black flags.

I'm an egoist and a nihilist with only the slightest sympathy for the commune because I've tasted those moments of collective power and never forgotten.

I've been broke and homeless and my friends and comrades helped me. I've fought in a few pitched street battles and other moments of real struggle and it's just obvious that your comrades are the only thing keeping you from being beaten, jailed or killed.

So then I say - of fucking course we need to identify with each other and mass together along some sort of lines of affinity.

And some folks with a chip on their shoulder mistake that for the leftism of the past. But I'm actually just talking about goals that can't possibly be accomplished alone.

Can there be a clarification to the point on Italy? Maybe this was the case in the past or is the case amomg some but it's a generalization that is over simplifying

Fredy Perlman 'The Reproduction of Daily Life' Etienne de la Boetie 'Discourse on Voluntary Servitude' Larkin Rose 'The Jones Plantation' All these are worth checking out and showing to those who need a bit of encouragement to shake off the state. Also, I think anarchists are associated with violence whereas the state isn't so much in the hearts and minds of many. Violence begets violence, yes you be on the 'winning side' but those who lose will re-organise and so it goes. Anarchy and mass society isn't possible as there isn't sufficient space to permit differing values to live side by side. This reduction of space regarding humans may have been why civilisation came in to existence: to try and live together and reduce constant clashes? Human circumstances have to change: mindset has to change. Perhaps humans via the controlled use of fire set off the ticking time-bomb now identified as oppression (and repression)? Controlled use of fire enabled humans so much control and the rippling out effect from the epi-centre (of controlled use of fire) has hit the sides and now the ripples are returning to us! Controlled use of fire is a constant from the initial first use to the combustion engine, nuclear energy... it's all to do with controlled use of fire, combustion. Expansion is based on fire via military and just about everything else. And we fight and oppress to keep the fire burning! Food for thought?

the error of 'ego', of the notion of our 'independent being' is what gives rise to the notion of our 'local authorship' or locally originating 'genetic agency' as implicit in 'humans controlled use of fire'.

the relationship between humans and fire merits further investigation; i.e. this is, as you say, 'food for thought'.

a world given only once, with both humans and fire within it implies a connection, but the 'error of ego' [dualism] sets humans apart from fire and depicts 'fire' as something that humans 'can use'. is our 'being'-based language bewitching our understanding?

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Western humans got noun-and-verb language, and from it, the notion of humans as 'independent beings', and from that, the notion of 'independent systems' such as sovereign states. grammar has given us analytical logic so that we can explain the independent behaviour of the state in terms of its internal independent components called 'citizens', and so on and so forth, ... an entire 'semantic reality' constructed EXCLUSIVELY BY WESTERN CIVILIZEDS who 'got' noun-and-verb language and with it, science.

science is a follow-on from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar; i.e. science assumes the 'existence' of 'independent systems' and explains 'their behaviour' analytically, in terms of the imputed 'genetic agency' of their internal components, losing sight of the innate relational essence of nature and the inherent relational INTERDEPENDENCE of nature's forms [epigenetic influence]..

what looms large in the imagery of 'humans controlling fire' is the dualist split between the human conceptualized as an 'independent being' and the physical phenomenon of transformation (fire). if the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum [Schroedinger et al] then everything is 'made out of fire' and no-one is in control of fire.

the sailor taps the energy of the wind [energy-flow] he is situationally included in, he 'makes sail' but he does not 'control the wind', and neither does the man who 'makes a fire' 'control fire'. in both cases man taps into the transformative power inherent in nature that is responsible for constituting 'him' and everything, as well.

the major source of conflict in the Western civilized world is, as nietzsche says, 'grammar', the dualist notion of man, of his 'independent being' and the 'independent being' of his sovereign states. this notion of 'independent being' is ludicrous, a 'great stupidity' as nietzsche says, but it is a 'great stupidity' that characterizes Western civilization and its elevating of grammar (semantic reality constructions) over the physical reality of actual experience.

as a result, some are going to suffer from oppression in the real-world relational space where interdependence is fundamental, when it is inhabited by people who believe that everyone is 'independent' and must strive to maximize their self-interests in win/lose competitions with 'independent others'. such oppression is relational as in;

"the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle.

we can 'leave the change in the coke machine' (condition the commons so that it is nurturing for our brothers and sisters) or we can extract all the nurturance from it for our own consumption (or hold onto the surplus and use it to extort and manipulate have-not others). as we know, the experience of living in a common space with space-nurturers is very different from the experience of living in a common space with space-depleters. in the latter case, the experience is oppressive like being suffocated and starved at the hands of your brothers even though it is done indirectly and responsibility is 'laundered out' by the mediating relational medium of our common living space

the relationship between humans and fire merits further investigation; i.e. this is, as you say, 'food for thought'.

a world given only once, with both humans and fire within it implies a connection, but the 'error of ego' [dualism] sets humans apart from fire and depicts 'fire' as something that humans 'can use'. is our 'being'-based language bewitching our understanding?

the error of 'ego', of the notion of our 'independent being' is what gives rise to the notion of our 'local authorship' or locally originating 'genetic agency' as implicit in 'humans controlled use of fire'.

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

what looms large in the imagery of 'humans controlling fire' is the dualist split between the human conceptualized as an 'independent being' and the physical phenomenon of transformation (fire). if the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum [Schroedinger et al] then everything is 'made out of fire' and no-one is in control of fire.

science is a follow-on from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar; i.e. science assumes the 'existence' of 'independent systems' and explains 'their behaviour' analytically, in terms of the imputed 'genetic agency' of their internal components, losing sight of the innate relational essence of nature and the inherent relational INTERDEPENDENCE of nature's forms [epigenetic influence]..

we can 'leave the change in the coke machine' (condition the commons so that it is nurturing for our brothers and sisters) or we can extract all the nurturance from it for our own consumption (or hold onto the surplus and use it to extort and manipulate have-not others). as we know, the experience of living in a common space with space-nurturers is very different from the experience of living in a common space with space-depleters. in the latter case, the experience is oppressive like being suffocated and starved at the hands of your brothers even though it is done indirectly and responsibility is 'laundered out' by the mediating relational medium of our common living space

the sailor taps the energy of the wind [energy-flow] he is situationally included in, he 'makes sail' but he does not 'control the wind', and neither does the man who 'makes a fire' 'control fire'. in both cases man taps into the transformative power inherent in nature that is responsible for constituting 'him' and everything, as well.

the major source of conflict in the Western civilized world is, as nietzsche says, 'grammar', the dualist notion of man, of his 'independent being' and the 'independent being' of his sovereign states. this notion of 'independent being' is ludicrous, a 'great stupidity' as nietzsche says, but it is a 'great stupidity' that characterizes Western civilization and its elevating of grammar (semantic reality constructions) over the physical reality of actual experience.

as a result, some are going to suffer from oppression in the real-world relational space where interdependence is fundamental, when it is inhabited by people who believe that everyone is 'independent' and must strive to maximize their self-interests in win/lose competitions with 'independent others'. such oppression is relational as in;

"the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle.

Western humans got noun-and-verb language, and from it, the notion of humans as 'independent beings', and from that, the notion of 'independent systems' such as sovereign states. grammar has given us analytical logic so that we can explain the independent behaviour of the state in terms of its internal independent components called 'citizens', and so on and so forth, ... an entire 'semantic reality' constructed EXCLUSIVELY BY WESTERN CIVILIZEDS who 'got' noun-and-verb language and with it, science.

Oppression is having no voice. Well, not one being alive today or since the beginning has ever been asked: "Would you like to be born?" So, we're all fuckin' oppressed!!! :-(

Today's biggest oppression: giving you the impression of having a voice while in fact the spectacle and its privileged actors is talking for you.

… sigh. Both of you are completely wrong but at least the 2nd poster is nursing a persecution complex, slightly less boring than whining about being born like a 13 y.o. slamming their bedroom door.

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.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
Q
j
r
x
j
C
G
Enter the code without spaces.