Salude!!!!

Hi, I'm Corrbrias. I'm a post-anarchist neo-existentialist. By post-anarchist I mean post-structural and post-modern. Post-modernism is rebellion against the dominant culture. That's why I go by Corrbrias; it's my SCA name. post-structuralism is the belief that freedom is a choice, power is personal in nature, and power structures only exist because people believe in their existence, thus giving them legitimacy. I'm not saying I'm opposed to working to overthrow them, I'm saying my strategy for overthrowing them is to stop believing in them, and instead do what I believe in, which leads me to existentialism, which is the belief that existence precedes essence. My existence has been in contradiction to society, and thus I am an anarchist, and my essence is rebellion against the society that oppresses me. As for what kind of anarchism I would like if anything like that ever came about on a mass scale for an extended period of time, I'm thinking something like libertarian municipalism, but with an economy more like participatory economics, except that the guys who came up with that want to ban barter, and I think that would require a large and oppressive government. I don't even think they're really anarchists for that reason. But I still like the idea in general.

Corrbrias wrote:

Hi, I'm Corrbrias. I'm a post-anarchist neo-existentialist. By post-anarchist I mean post-structural and post-modern. Post-modernism is rebellion against the dominant culture. That's why I go by Corrbrias; it's my SCA name. post-structuralism is the belief that freedom is a choice, power is personal in nature, and power structures only exist because people believe in their existence, thus giving them legitimacy. I'm not saying I'm opposed to working to overthrow them, I'm saying my strategy for overthrowing them is to stop believing in them, and instead do what I believe in, which leads me to existentialism, which is the belief that existence precedes essence. My existence has been in contradiction to society, and thus I am an anarchist, and my essence is rebellion against the society that oppresses me. As for what kind of anarchism I would like if anything like that ever came about on a mass scale for an extended period of time, I'm thinking something like libertarian municipalism, but with an economy more like participatory economics, except that the guys who came up with that want to ban barter, and I think that would require a large and oppressive government. I don't even think they're really anarchists for that reason. But I still like the idea in general.

Wow! So many different classifications. I personally dont think that people have a choice on whether to be free or not, at least for right now. In order to make a living, we have to sell our labor power to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. Its either that or you're homeless. We dont have a choice on what to do in that instance because we dont own the means of production. Therefore were coerced into accumulating wealth that we'll never see. Its called exploitation. People cant just simply choose to be free. Thats a very abstract notion to adhere to.
Also, I mean you cant honestly believe that if people simply stop beleiving in the power structure, then it'll just go away. I dont think the power structure has any legitimacy obviously. But thats not going to make it go away. Even if millions of people simply didnt believe in it then it still would stay. So what is it going to take to dismantle the power structure? Its going to take a socialist revolution, consisting of the working class taking over the means of production and from that erecting a workers state capable of fighting off the ruling class. This is absolutely essential to the liberty of humanity.

Every notion is abstract. Power is an abstract notion. They can't control you if you don't allow them to. You can have a job, but do what you think needs to be done rather than what your boss tells you to do. If your boss doesn't like that then you will be confronting power, and therefore working to destroy power.

Welcome to the site, Corrbrias -- I can tell you'd make a very good revolutionary. In fact, you are one.
Keep on keeping on. I'm looking forward to what you will be willing to contribute to the site.

Salude.

Corrbrias wrote:

Every notion is abstract. Power is an abstract notion. They can't control you if you don't allow them to. You can have a job, but do what you think needs to be done rather than what your boss tells you to do. If your boss doesn't like that then you will be confronting power, and therefore working to destroy power.

I would disagree on the idea that "every notion is abstact". I think that idea in a lot of ways stems straight from the anarchist tradition. Historically, anarchism has in a lot of ways always been abstact. But there are ideas that have its concrete proof from the ground. Those ideas are not abstract but are very concrete, very real.

The notion that "they cant control you if you dont allow you to" really doesnt make much sense when you think about all of the power that the ruling class has right now around the world. Concretely speaking, the top 1% of society owns 95% of the worlds resources. Thats a power that is very concrete and very real and there's no evading this fact, not even if you simply try not to think about it, LOL. I think we have to look at this very concretely and say "Listen, how are the exploited and oppressed people of the world ever going to get the means of production and all of the resources that the ruling class owns into their own hands"???? Thats going to take not just some abstract idea about simply not thinking about things, but a actual tangible revolution where the working class takes hold of those means of production through economic, political, and military force whether we like the idea or not.

How do you know that "reality" is real? Maybe you're just dreaming. People can get their hands onto resources by quite literally getting their hands onto resources. If some other person decides to stop them, then there will be confrontation and denial of power.

hey corrbrias, welcome to our movement, im looking forward to reading your posts on here, since you know a great deal about this whole thing.

for everyone else, id like to state that i've known corrbrias for quite a while on the internet, and we have discussed philosophy a great deal.

as for what you are trying to explain, i think im getting it. you believe in a gradual revolution, which is nonviolent, and where the workers simply gain consciousness and act morally, meaning that they would do what is morally correct in any organization. this would mean that institutions like cooperatives would be formed, and new societies would rise in which the individual is very active in social life.
im not sure if this is what you mean though.

That's exactly what I mean.

thats more like traditional anarchism is it? kind of like how proudhon proposed it.

i personally think the idea should be to abolish money, or at least limit it as much as possible. a system should be designed to create as much consciousness as possible, and use inscentives other than money, like for example, intellectual gain.
the system should always be self sustaining, meaning even if we dont do a good job at educating the next generation, the way the system is set up would make the next generation keep moving in the right direction.

Corrbrias wrote:

How do you know that "reality" is real? Maybe you're just dreaming. People can get their hands onto resources by quite literally getting their hands onto resources. If some other person decides to stop them, then there will be confrontation and denial of power.

So youre basically just advocating stealing when you say "people can literally get their hands onto resources". Thats true, but we have to think about where thats going to get you concretely. Im a black/hispanic male living in Amerikkka. If i shoplifted, that would be the end of me for a while. So just simply challenging the power structure as an individual wont really get you far. It has to be a collective struggle involving the mass mobilization of millions of people from all walks of life, with a concrete plan to overthrow capitalism.

As to "whats real and not". I mean listen, we can wrestle around that for hours. The point is that you know youre typing on a computer right now to respond back to me. You can feel yourself sitting on that chair right now in an upright position. You can see yourself forced into work everyday to get a little something in return in order to secure your livelihood. Theres no evading that unless you organize with millions of other people for a dramatic change in society. This is very real. Historically, its been real. We can speculate for hours on whether what our eyes are perceiving through its reflections and the signal that is sent to our brain is real or not. We wont get real far. Lets just stick to what we know, and figure out how to change it. Were being exploited, the only way to not be exploited is by organizing with millions of others to overthrow capitalism. Thats the only way out!

I don't work when I don't want to. I travel, carrying everthing I need with me, sleeping wherever I want to, spending whatever little amount of money I have to to buy food. I don't like to do that a lot, so I don't, but I have done it.

If the only way out is to overthrow capitalism, then there is no way out, because that isn't going to happen. I think the only way out is to develop alternatives to capitalism, while simultaneously working to limit capitalism.

i kind of agree with Damien, because you cant really be worrying about wether reality is real or not. i used to be like that, then i just realize that reality is as it appears to the observer. the more open minded you are and the more you analyze it, the clearer it gets.

as for individualist action, i used to believe in that too, but now that im more into this whole thing, im realizing the power of gathering in groups. plus, usually, if you discuss things for a while you will come to a general agreement with people.

I agree that reality is as it appears to the observer. If it is real. I'm not worrying about it, I'm just saying nothing can really be proven to be 100% true. I'm totally in favor of group action. Especially action that develops alternatives to capitalism, and works to limit capitalism.

Damien wrote:

Corrbrias wrote:

How do you know that "reality" is real? Maybe you're just dreaming. People can get their hands onto resources by quite literally getting their hands onto resources. If some other person decides to stop them, then there will be confrontation and denial of power.

So youre basically just advocating stealing when you say "people can literally get their hands onto resources". Thats true, but we have to think about where thats going to get you concretely. Im a black/hispanic male living in Amerikkka. If i shoplifted, that would be the end of me for a while. So just simply challenging the power structure as an individual wont really get you far. It has to be a collective struggle involving the mass mobilization of millions of people from all walks of life, with a concrete plan to overthrow capitalism.

As to "whats real and not". I mean listen, we can wrestle around that for hours. The point is that you know youre typing on a computer right now to respond back to me. You can feel yourself sitting on that chair right now in an upright position. You can see yourself forced into work everyday to get a little something in return in order to secure your livelihood. Theres no evading that unless you organize with millions of other people for a dramatic change in society. This is very real. Historically, its been real. We can speculate for hours on whether what our eyes are perceiving through its reflections and the signal that is sent to our brain is real or not. We wont get real far. Lets just stick to what we know, and figure out how to change it. Were being exploited, the only way to not be exploited is by organizing with millions of others to overthrow capitalism. Thats the only way out!

Personally I think 'reality' in absolute sence is unknowable to the human mind. I think all we have to work from is our interpritations - imperfect as they may be. I think speculating on the absolute is pointless considering it cannot be understood via intellect.

Corrbrias wrote:

I don't work when I don't want to. I travel, carrying everthing I need with me, sleeping wherever I want to, spending whatever little amount of money I have to to buy food. I don't like to do that a lot, so I don't, but I have done it.

If the only way out is to overthrow capitalism, then there is no way out, because that isn't going to happen. I think the only way out is to develop alternatives to capitalism, while simultaneously working to limit capitalism.

This comment right here just really opitimizes the downfall of a good portion of anarchist theory. This notion that overthrowing capitalism is some sort of a insurmountable task, therefore the only action to resort to is individual action (ie: grafitti, dumpster diving, veganism, molotov cocktails, etc) I think ideas like these also have to do with the decimation of the left in a lot of different parts of the world as well.

Thats not even freedom first of all, because you can scarcely get by while doing something like that. Now just think of a mother with 3 kids who wants to adopt these types of methods in order to "oppose the power structure". Is that really feasible for her? Most likely not, but its probably feasible for a middle class individual, or someone influenced by middle class culture and politics who really doesnt have to worry night and day about the typical burdens that capitalism creates upon majority of people on this planet. There are billions of people around the world who live on less than $2 a day. Is it really feasible for them to just pack up their shit, leave their jobs and families and all that stuff, all for the sake of "opposing the power structure". Cmon now, this is obviously a very middle class ideology with middle class origins stemming from middle class people who live in advanced industrialized capitalist nations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Damien wrote:

Corrbrias wrote:

I don't work when I don't want to. I travel, carrying everthing I need with me, sleeping wherever I want to, spending whatever little amount of money I have to to buy food. I don't like to do that a lot, so I don't, but I have done it.

If the only way out is to overthrow capitalism, then there is no way out, because that isn't going to happen. I think the only way out is to develop alternatives to capitalism, while simultaneously working to limit capitalism.

This comment right here just really opitimizes the downfall of a good portion of anarchist theory. This notion that overthrowing capitalism is some sort of a insurmountable task, therefore the only action to resort to is individual action (ie: grafitti, dumpster diving, veganism, molotov cocktails, etc) I think ideas like these also have to do with the decimation of the left in a lot of different parts of the world as well.

Thats not even freedom first of all, because you can scarcely get by while doing something like that. Now just think of a mother with 3 kids who wants to adopt these types of methods in order to "oppose the power structure". Is that really feasible for her? Most likely not, but its probably feasible for a middle class individual, or someone influenced by middle class culture and politics who really doesnt have to worry night and day about the typical burdens that capitalism creates upon majority of people on this planet. There are billions of people around the world who live on less than $2 a day. Is it really feasible for them to just pack up their shit, leave their jobs and families and all that stuff, all for the sake of "opposing the power structure". Cmon now, this is obviously a very middle class ideology with middle class origins stemming from middle class people who live in advanced industrialized capitalist nations. Nothing more, nothing less.

well, you make a really good point. organizing in groups and creating alternative societies is ideal i think, because it allows for everyone to support one another.

Inkus2000 wrote:

Personally I think 'reality' in absolute sence is unknowable to the human mind. I think all we have to work from is our interpritations - imperfect as they may be. I think speculating on the absolute is pointless considering it cannot be understood via intellect.

there is only one reality, it just depends on how we chose to distort it.
reality can be unerstood through mental training. you can understand the nature of things quite easily. its not hard to understand that reality is material by nature, and if it werent material, it wouldnt be reality. its also easy to understand the idea of materialistic predeterminism. reality is therefore as it appears to the observer.

what is impossible for the human mind to understand is reality in detail. we can easily understand the nature, but the details are impossible to witness. this is caused both by sense limitations and the fact that your brain does not cover the entire universe (both are basically the same thing). if it did, then everything occuring within the universe would be manifested within your mind automatically, since after all, your mind is material.

god0fmusic wrote:

Damien wrote:

Corrbrias wrote:

I don't work when I don't want to. I travel, carrying everthing I need with me, sleeping wherever I want to, spending whatever little amount of money I have to to buy food. I don't like to do that a lot, so I don't, but I have done it.

If the only way out is to overthrow capitalism, then there is no way out, because that isn't going to happen. I think the only way out is to develop alternatives to capitalism, while simultaneously working to limit capitalism.

This comment right here just really opitimizes the downfall of a good portion of anarchist theory. This notion that overthrowing capitalism is some sort of a insurmountable task, therefore the only action to resort to is individual action (ie: grafitti, dumpster diving, veganism, molotov cocktails, etc) I think ideas like these also have to do with the decimation of the left in a lot of different parts of the world as well.

Thats not even freedom first of all, because you can scarcely get by while doing something like that. Now just think of a mother with 3 kids who wants to adopt these types of methods in order to "oppose the power structure". Is that really feasible for her? Most likely not, but its probably feasible for a middle class individual, or someone influenced by middle class culture and politics who really doesnt have to worry night and day about the typical burdens that capitalism creates upon majority of people on this planet. There are billions of people around the world who live on less than $2 a day. Is it really feasible for them to just pack up their shit, leave their jobs and families and all that stuff, all for the sake of "opposing the power structure". Cmon now, this is obviously a very middle class ideology with middle class origins stemming from middle class people who live in advanced industrialized capitalist nations. Nothing more, nothing less.

well, you make a really good point. organizing in groups and creating alternative societies is ideal i think, because it allows for everyone to support one another.

Its not just for the sake of "supporting one another". As activists, and specifically as revolutionaries, we should have a set principle on building the left wing movement in whatever country we reside. That means building up mass organizations, building campaigins, fighting against the right wing attack and the corporate offensive upon our livelihoods. That means building from the grassroots up.

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

Quote :

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

[/quote]


Anarchy is a de-centralized network of workers communes. The only thing I consider defeatist or contradictory is the notion that communism requires a centralized dictatorship before it can be realized.

BTW - Anarchy is an 'organized' movement - people often confuse de-centralization with disorganization.

Damien wrote:

Its not just for the sake of "supporting one another". As activists, and specifically as revolutionaries, we should have a set principle on building the left wing movement in whatever country we reside. That means building up mass organizations, building campaigins, fighting against the right wing attack and the corporate offensive upon our livelihoods. That means building from the grassroots up.

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

we have to build societies as in, we have to unite and participate in the economy and society. just like there are certain people who stick out in school, like the gangsters, or the hippies, or the nerds, we also need to stick out and create our own groups within society. but of course, we have to let other in and try to expand our movement.

I never said other people have to believe what I believe. I have created my beliefs to suit my needs, they should create their beliefs to suit their needs.

"there is only one reality, it just depends on how we chose to distort it.
reality can be unerstood through mental training. you can understand the nature of things quite easily. its not hard to understand that reality is material by nature, and if it werent material, it wouldnt be reality. its also easy to understand the idea of materialistic predeterminism. reality is therefore as it appears to the observer.

what is impossible for the human mind to understand is reality in detail. we can easily understand the nature, but the details are impossible to witness. this is caused both by sense limitations and the fact that your brain does not cover the entire universe (both are basically the same thing). if it did, then everything occuring within the universe would be manifested within your mind automatically, since after all, your mind is material".

That would be true is reality is real, which is impossible to prove, but we can work from that assumption.

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

Anarchy is a de-centralized network of workers communes. The only thing I consider defeatist or contradictory is the notion that communism requires a centralized dictatorship before it can be realized.

BTW - Anarchy is an 'organized' movement - people often confuse de-centralization with disorganization.[/quote]

I wasn't referring to Anarchy. I was referring to the whole "alternative societies" thing that was said before. Anarchists historically have at times advocated the abstention from capitalism by simply building independent communes that would hopefully grow into one giant one, and I think thats defeatist. I thought something like that was what the comrade I quoted was implying. I wasnt implying that Anarchism as a theory is defeatist.

Also, I dont think anyone said that for communism to be "realized", you'd have to have a centralized dictatorship. I advocate a workers democratic government that temporarily serves as merely a tool for the transition from capitalism to communism. Workers make up most of the population, so it wouldnt be a dictatorship in the sense of the historically typical minority exploiting the majority, but the majority retalitating against the ruling class and all of the tactics that it might employ in order to get control of the world again.

Damien wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

Anarchy is a de-centralized network of workers communes. The only thing I consider defeatist or contradictory is the notion that communism requires a centralized dictatorship before it can be realized.

BTW - Anarchy is an 'organized' movement - people often confuse de-centralization with disorganization.

I wasn't referring to Anarchy. I was referring to the whole "alternative societies" thing that was said before. Anarchists historically have at times advocated the abstention from capitalism by simply building independent communes that would hopefully grow into one giant one, and I think thats defeatist. I thought something like that was what the comrade I quoted was implying. I wasnt implying that Anarchism as a theory is defeatist.[/quote]


I would call them Collectivist movements as opposed to Anarchist - since Anarchy must 'actively' oppose capitalism.

Corrbrias wrote:

I never said other people have to believe what I believe. I have created my beliefs to suit my needs, they should create their beliefs to suit their needs.

"there is only one reality, it just depends on how we chose to distort it.
reality can be unerstood through mental training. you can understand the nature of things quite easily. its not hard to understand that reality is material by nature, and if it werent material, it wouldnt be reality. its also easy to understand the idea of materialistic predeterminism. reality is therefore as it appears to the observer.

what is impossible for the human mind to understand is reality in detail. we can easily understand the nature, but the details are impossible to witness. this is caused both by sense limitations and the fact that your brain does not cover the entire universe (both are basically the same thing). if it did, then everything occuring within the universe would be manifested within your mind automatically, since after all, your mind is material".

That would be true is reality is real, which is impossible to prove, but we can work from that assumption.

reality must be real, otherwise, who is the one questioning wether it's real or not?



"I would call them Collectivist movements as opposed to Anarchist - since Anarchy must 'actively' oppose capitalism."

that would be a better word for it. i do support collectivist movements as well as actively opposing capitalism. but eventually, you would have to support collectivist movements which would emerge within a collectivist society (thats kinda redundant isnt it?).
so socialists (refering to those who are willing to take action against the current social order and aim for communism) believe that first you should actively oppose capitalism, as well as form new models of society, right?

Inkus2000 wrote:

Damien wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

What do you mean by creating alternative societies????? Youre talking about seperate anarchistic enclaves or something like that??? Just sounds really cultish and defeatist.

Anarchy is a de-centralized network of workers communes. The only thing I consider defeatist or contradictory is the notion that communism requires a centralized dictatorship before it can be realized.

BTW - Anarchy is an 'organized' movement - people often confuse de-centralization with disorganization.

I wasn't referring to Anarchy. I was referring to the whole "alternative societies" thing that was said before. Anarchists historically have at times advocated the abstention from capitalism by simply building independent communes that would hopefully grow into one giant one, and I think thats defeatist. I thought something like that was what the comrade I quoted was implying. I wasnt implying that Anarchism as a theory is defeatist.

I would call them Collectivist movements as opposed to Anarchist - since Anarchy must 'actively' oppose capitalism.[/quote]

Well i was told by some anarchists that you can be a anarchist without classifying yourself as one, as long as you possess some anarchist principles. I dont know whether that was right or wrong, just what i was told. So the majority of anarchists who've advocated collectivist communes in the past might or might have not classified theirselves as anarchists. But I think it goes without saying that majority of those collectivist movements have in majority mostly consisted of anarchists. Hence the word "anarchistic". But i'll say "collectivist" in the future.

Also, I dont think anyone said that for communism to be "realized", you'd have to have a centralized dictatorship. I advocate a workers democratic government that temporarily serves as merely a tool for the transition from capitalism to communism. Workers make up most of the population, so it wouldnt be a dictatorship in the sense of the historically typical minority exploiting the majority, but the majority retalitating against the ruling class and all of the tactics that it might employ in order to get control of the world again. A revolutionary party is unfortunately essential to the workers revolution and the ultimate destruction of capitalism.