Do you think the next wave of politicians will be better?

[The War Report]

This is the kind of answer I was looking for. You are right in how people can now basically find any article to support their arguments. You also have to worry about the people that watch one or two videos on YouTube and now they know what's up.

Look at the internet and how much bullshyt gets leaked and how hard it is to really keep a secret. The internet in this form won't last though. Like you guys say it's the wild west out here .

I look at the dudes my age and I'm like how are these guys going to have my brain on lock.

You can do that with traditional media. Newspapers, TV networks, radio shows, political gatherings, etc.

 

[TrueEpic08]

what do you have to say to the occupy movement and the canadian student spring and the greek and spanish movements that are overwhelmingly against austerity? how exactly are you supposed to suggest any austerity even jokingly to a society that is dead broke? can you do it w/o violating democracy itself?

marx predicts that its in the capitalist push to exploit society more and more that ultimately kick starts an new invigoration in society to take more control over it

what do you have to say about that

Lots of levels to go through here.

1. What would I say to all of these "Occupy" and "Spring" movements? Stop appealing to politicians and other powers whose sole function is to alienate the people from themselves in the political sense and thus act for them. It never works out in your favor. What happened in Egypt is a perfect example of this. Instead, you already have a sustainable community that can work in an anarchic way outside of the current system to some extent. Engage in direct action and dual power to change the means of your life and create a community dedicated to performing and materializing the desires of the populace instead of engaging in political alienation by appealing to powers whose sole job is to not do this.

2. It's not about suggesting austerity, its about the bounds of debate on the political economy being grounded in capitalist, liberal economic discourse. Even the Keynesians and New Keynesians implicitly believe in those ideals as a general equivalent through which debate moves and is mediated. Specifically, these are economic ideals which prescribe very specifically to the state form, and until you get away from that, austerity will always be an option within that semiosphere, that sphere of reference in which we all have to live. It's not about the suggestion of austerity to the masses, its about the existience of that signifier in a cognitive space and sphere of reference that is structured by binary oppositions and question/answer discourse. As long as that exists, and as long as these debates stay situated within that liberal political economic sphere, austerity will always exist as a signifier and will always be suggested to somebody and taken up by somebody.

To simplify, austerity will not go away until the very structure of discourse is radically altered (although this is only one example of this cultural dominant's effects, it's a REALLY good one).

3. Democracy functions in partially the same way that austerity functions above, as a signifier inherent to the structure of discourse in Western political economies. That does NOT mean that it actually exists in any material way (check the ACTA/TPP debates for a current example of what I'm getting at), but that it can function as a code that people will use in discourse and people will reify into a certain type of "being" from there. And then there are binary oppositions debating "democracy," which in itself guarantees it a certain type of reality.

The difference between austerity and democracy here is that austerity is a signifier and a code through wich those that have the most prominent position in bounding and managing discourse want to make reality, so it is a very real threat, while democracy is the opposite, so it holds a reality guaranteed exclusively by discourse and oppositions regarding it. But if you look at the world, could you say that "democracy" exists?

That word is something that I personally don't think about very often anymore, because it doesn't lead to any solutions when you think of it as real, rather than as a very prominent symptom of the way that the system works. (I read a lot of Debord and Baudrillard, which influences my thoughts on politics and discourse a great deal. Reading their theories might make mine make more sense).

4. On Marx, note that the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkenheimer, Marcuse, Habermas, Benjamin to some extent, and Bertolt Brecht was affiliated as well) came into being post-WWII due to the very question of way that theory you're taking about hasn't happened yet. 70 to 80 years later, it STILL hasn't happened yet. I don't say this to say that Marxian economics or social sciences are wrong (They're VERY prescient in their analyses of society that still hold up today. I rely on his theories of Value-Form, Commodity Fetishism and Alienation very heavily in particular), but that this very formulation is misguided.

Marx didn't take into consideration the fluidity of capitalism and the elements surrounding it (mediatization and the hypermobility and fluidity of captial especially) partially because he lived in a time where he couldn't possibly have taken that into consideration. Therefore capitalism survives, and that very theory becomes an eschatology (an example of an eschatology would be the second coming in Christian theology). Now, what Marx says is fundamentally RIGHT, but there's a gap when you consider the way that capitalism has developed and become immanent throughout society. The spectacle that what Marx said is happening is NOT happening is a key part of this. Therefore Marx's theory about the end of capitalism is not enough. You have to plan for it. And that's where dual power comes in. You can't just wait or it to happen, you have to plan for it.

There's much more to all of that, but I gotta get to class. Besides, I've already written enough for one session.

 

[Yuzo]

1. What would I say to all of these "Occupy" and "Spring" movements? Stop appealing to politicians and other powers whose sole function is to alienate the people from themselves in the political sense and thus act for them. It never works out in your favor.

so your answer is to stop participating in a democracy?

2. It's not about suggesting austerity, its about the bounds of debate on the political economy being grounded in capitalist, liberal economic discourse. Even the Keynesians and New Keynesians implicitly believe in those ideals as a general equivalent through which debate moves and is mediated. Specifically, these are economic ideals which prescribe very specifically to the state form, and until you get away from that, austerity will always be an option within that semiosphere, that sphere of reference in which we all have to live. It's not about the suggestion of austerity to the masses, its about the existience of that signifier in a cognitive space and sphere of reference that is structured by binary oppositions and question/answer discourse. As long as that exists, and as long as these debates stay situated within that liberal political economic sphere, austerity will always exist as a signifier and will always be suggested to somebody and taken up by somebody.

To simplify, austerity will not go away until the very structure of discourse is radically altered (although this is only one example of this cultural dominant's effects, it's a REALLY good one).

so yeah you really are not following what is happening in europe right now.

here is a re-cap of events happening right now

[YOUTUBE]na7PRGUgLwI[/YOUTUBE]

the question is, if it doesnt matter if people are against austerity or not, why are we seeing austerity getting more and more phased out across europe? this objectively is contradicting the narrative youre trying to create. so how can you explain these events?

3. Democracy functions in partially the same way that austerity functions above, as a signifier inherent to the structure of discourse in Western political economies. That does NOT mean that it actually exists in any material way (check the ACTA/TPP debates for a current example of what I'm getting at), but that it can function as a code that people will use in discourse and people will reify into a certain type of "being" from there. And then there are binary oppositions debating "democracy," which in itself guarantees it a certain type of reality.

The difference between austerity and democracy here is that austerity is a signifier and a code through wich those that have the most prominent position in bounding and managing discourse want to make reality, so it is a very real threat, while democracy is the opposite, so it holds a reality guaranteed exclusively by discourse and oppositions regarding it. But if you look at the world, could you say that "democracy" exists?

um yeah bruh it actually does. you say youve read marx or at least know something about it so then you must know something about the interplay between capitalists and the working class and the limitations that this relationship puts directly onto capitalists. ie they cant just do whatever they want. they actually have to think about us too since we make their products and buy their products. an example marx uses is that the capitalist would want us to work 24/7 for him but a limit that is placed on him by objectivity is that we would actually start to die of exhaustion. so we wouldnt really be able to buy that much stuff from him anymore, let alone make any of it, being that we're dead and everything.

therefore the point of democracy is to put checks like that onto the capitalist so that they dont work us 24/7 or set up child factories or get rid of stuff like social security. the only reason anything like that even exists is because of...... democracy.

4. On Marx, note that the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkenheimer, Marcuse, Habermas, Benjamin to some extent, and Bertolt Brecht was affiliated as well) came into being post-WWII due to the very question of way that theory you're taking about hasn't happened yet. 70 to 80 years later, it STILL hasn't happened yet. I don't say this to say that Marxian economics or social sciences are wrong (They're VERY prescient in their analyses of society that still hold up today. I rely on his theories of Value-Form, Commodity Fetishism and Alienation very heavily in particular), but that this very formulation is misguided.

Marx didn't take into consideration the fluidity of capitalism and the elements surrounding it (mediatization and the hypermobility and fluidity of captial especially) partially because he lived in a time where he couldn't possibly have taken that into consideration. Therefore capitalism survives, and that very theory becomes an eschatology (an example of an eschatology would be the second coming in Christian theology). Now, what Marx says is fundamentally RIGHT, but there's a gap when you consider the way that capitalism has developed and become immanent throughout society. The spectacle that what Marx said is happening is NOT happening is a key part of this. Therefore Marx's theory about the end of capitalism is not enough. You have to plan for it. And that's where dual power comes in. You can't just wait or it to happen, you have to plan for it.

There's much more to all of that, but I gotta get to class. Besides, I've already written enough for one session.

in like the 70's or 90's things werent as bad as they are now so you couldnt say marx was really right about all of the things he was saying. but the world today is very different and actually many of the things marx was predicting are starting to become glaringly true ie things like the reserve army of unemployed he talked about being used as a device by capitalists to permanantly supress wages all while forcing a great speedup in the labor from those who actually are employed. this is EXACTLY whats happeing right now where all the jobs everybody used to have got outsourced creating a huge reserve army of the unemployed and every job remaining is for skilled workers that must do 2x the work they would normally do all for stagnant wages since they have no options to move up or go and work somewhere else in an economy like this.

 

[TrueEpic08]

so your answer is to stop participating in a democracy?

Depends on what you mean by "democracy".

If you mean by "democracy" what we traditionally define as democracy, state forms which hold free elections which then install leaders who may or may not share the majority of our views and then may or may not act upon those beliefs, then the answer is yes.

If you mean by "democracy" a government of the people who come together to govern themselves collectively, then the answer is no.

I'm thinking more of a socialist anarchist formation that governs themselves as independently of the state form as they possibly can. Independent anarchist communes, to some extent. Take that as you will.

so yeah you really are not following what is happening in europe right now.

here is a re-cap of events happening right now

[YOUTUBE]na7PRGUgLwI[/YOUTUBE]

the question is, if it doesnt matter if people are against austerity or not, why are we seeing austerity getting more and more phased out across europe? this objectively is contradicting the narrative youre trying to create. so how can you explain these events?

Yeah, I have actually been following this.

I know about the French national vote, the inability of the Greek government to bring together a coalition government and the German state vote which probably indicates that the Christian Democrats will be out and the Social Democrats and Greens will be in.

I also know about the fact that austerity's not really stopping either. The EU's still pushing it's package, and the two parties in Greece that agreed to that same austerity package nearly got half of the seats in Parliament there. Not to mention the mess over in the US, with Wisconsin governor Scott Walker still having 50% approval ratings and the like.

But that last part wouldn't really matter to my point, which is the death of austerity. You're only talking about the regression of austerity. If you're talking about the latter, then great, you have some success. Not nearly as much as you believe you're having, because all of that still relies upon a flawed, alienating non-democracy that may or may not respond to the populaces wishes (and if you pay attention to recent history with Obama, he sure didn't), but some. It still doesn't matter because it's part of a discourse and political economy that takes austerity as one of its key tenants, a spectre that will still exist and haunt discourse even if all of this were overturned and we were running Keynesian policies. If you're fine with that, then that's cool.

I'm arguing for a way to completely eliminate austerity, because that spectre will always be there, and even if it doesn't exist here, it will exist in other parts of the world because of the way that discourse on economics is organized around that liberal political economic model. Remember that even while we were running Keynesian economic models here in the 60s, austerity was running rampant in Latin America and Indonesia. It wasn't here because there wasn't a perceived need for it within that section of the discourse, which changed radically during the 1980s. In order to engender the death of austerity, the entire discourse and dominant/ideology must be led to death. That is what I'm talking about there.

um yeah bruh it actually does. you say youve read marx or at least know something about it so then you must know something about the interplay between capitalists and the working class and the limitations that this relationship puts directly onto capitalists. ie they cant just do whatever they want. they actually have to think about us too since we make their products and buy their products. an example marx uses is that the capitalist would want us to work 24/7 for him but a limit that is placed on him by objectivity is that we would actually start to die of exhaustion. so we wouldnt really be able to buy that much stuff from him anymore, let alone make any of it, being that we're dead and everything.

therefore the point of democracy is to put checks like that onto the capitalist so that they dont work us 24/7 or set up child factories or get rid of stuff like social security. the only reason anything like that even exists is because of...... democracy.

You actually deconstructed your own point there. All of those limitations on capitalist exploitation only exist because of the fact that it is counterproductive to the capitalist project. And the capitalist project changes over time. We're not talking about the industrial society of production here (and even then, life was more about what was consumed and used than what was produced), we're talking about the consumer society of reproduction (of everything, not just industrial reproduction). And no consumers in a consumer society (culture industry; society of the spectacle [a much more accurate term than "consumer society, but alas]) is completely pointless.

The state is only a symptom of this, and one that squares very well with Marx's theory of the state: it works as a guarantor of the dominant social force in the state, which is the bourgeois capitalist class. It wouldn't matter at all if it was "democratic" (the first sense mentioned above) or not, someone would have enforced those laws if for no other reason than there is no progression of the capitalist cultural project without it in a consumer society. Remember that it was Otto Von Bismark's idea within a MONARCHY to provide comprehensive national health coverage not out of altruism, but because it aided Prussia's militarist-economic project.

And refer to my first response above when I ask that bolded question. "Democracy" in that first sense obviously exists. I'm asking if "democracy" in the second sense exists. My answer is that it doesn't on any national or international scale.

in like the 70's or 90's things werent as bad as they are now so you couldnt say marx was really right about all of the things he was saying. but the world today is very different and actually many of the things marx was predicting are starting to become glaringly true ie things like the reserve army of unemployed he talked about being used as a device by capitalists to permanantly supress wages all while forcing a great speedup in the labor from those who actually are employed. this is EXACTLY whats happeing right now where all the jobs everybody used to have got outsourced creating a huge reserve army of the unemployed and every job remaining is for skilled workers that must do 2x the work they would normally do all for stagnant wages since they have no options to move up or go and work somewhere else in an economy like this.

The problem was this phrase: "The spectacle that what Marx said is happening is NOT happening is a key part of this." This was my mistake. That should have read: "The spectacle that what Marx said will happen (referring to the revolution,not the conditions for it) is NOT happening is a key part of this.

Everywhere else in that paragraph, I believe that I actually made it explicit that all of the conditions for revolution are being met. What I was saying that this has happened time and time again, yet we still end up with a capitalist political economic system in the end, and a part of that is because we treat the revolution as a fait accompli, rather than something that has to be planned for and carried out explicitly. We raise it to eschatology (I REALLY meant that Christian comparison) in the same way that Christians believe that the second coming will just happen, when that never was the case. What needs to be done is not to wait on anything, whether that be politicians or some revolution always in suspense, but to engage in direct action now. That is why I said what I said about all of the Occupy/Spain/Etc. movements.

 

[Pool_Shark]

True Epic and Yuzo did you guys post on Sohh? Really interesting debate thanks.

 

[kevm3]

You actually have to have people with integrity to get things changed. Politicians' moral fiber never was that high, but now it's at an all time low. All the information on the internet allows us to do is to get a clearer picture of just how badly we're getting gamed.

 

[Serious]

You actually have to have people with integrity to get things changed. Politicians' moral fiber never was that high, but now it's at an all time low. All the information on the internet allows us to do is to get a clearer picture of just how badly we're getting gamed.

It's actually scary. At times I don't even want to know the truth, yet I kept on snooping for more information. Politicians are cold-blooded millionaires

 

[Yuzo]

You're only talking about the regression of austerity. If you're talking about the latter, then great, you have some success. Not nearly as much as you believe you're having, because all of that still relies upon a flawed, alienating non-democracy that may or may not respond to the populaces wishes (and if you pay attention to recent history with Obama, he sure didn't), but some. It still doesn't matter because it's part of a discourse and political economy that takes austerity as one of its key tenants, a spectre that will still exist and haunt discourse even if all of this were overturned and we were running Keynesian policies. If you're fine with that, then that's cool.

so to recap

you: *opinion* austerity will not go away

me: *fact* its going away in europe thanks to social protests/movements

you: *opinion* It still doesn't matter because it's part of a discourse and political economy that takes austerity as one of its key tenants, a spectre that will still exist and haunt discourse

so lol @ your conclusion about this being "it doesnt matter"

greece: huge victory against austerity and un-checked capitalism doing whatever it wants

you: it doesnt matter

You actually deconstructed your own point there. All of those limitations on capitalist exploitation only exist because of the fact that it is counterproductive to the capitalist project. And the capitalist project changes over time. We're not talking about the industrial society of production here (and even then, life was more about what was consumed and used than what was produced), we're talking about the consumer society of reproduction (of everything, not just industrial reproduction). And no consumers in a consumer society (culture industry; society of the spectacle [a much more accurate term than "consumer society, but alas]) is completely pointless.

The state is only a symptom of this, and one that squares very well with Marx's theory of the state: it works as a guarantor of the dominant social force in the state, which is the bourgeois capitalist class. It wouldn't matter at all if it was "democratic" (the first sense mentioned above) or not, someone would have enforced those laws if for no other reason than there is no progression of the capitalist cultural project without it in a consumer society. Remember that it was Otto Von Bismark's idea within a MONARCHY to provide comprehensive national health coverage not out of altruism, but because it aided Prussia's militarist-economic project.

yo i honestly had to read this like 4x and i still dont really know what youre trying to say at all. i mean i know other people are reading this thread too so can yall like tell me what you think this means or what you think its supposed to mean? please really look at what this dude just typed like actually look at it

my original point was that capitalists aka rich ass people have to put a limit on things they can do to us because they need us to make and buy things. therefore we have a big say in what happens in society since they actually need us for it to work and for them to get rich in it; they cant just do whatever to us.

thats why we have a right to ask for stuff like healthcare or public education aka create social movements and fight for our rights

so idk what his reply is supposed to actually be about?? somebody please look at it and explain it

The problem was this phrase: "The spectacle that what Marx said is happening is NOT happening is a key part of this." This was my mistake. That should have read: "The spectacle that what Marx said will happen (referring to the revolution,not the conditions for it) is NOT happening is a key part of this.

uh nah marx still predicts that this stuff would happen eg occupy movement, greek x spanish x french movements, canadian student movement etc

if marx was alive right now he'd be like see told yall so. movements like this never existed on this scale b4 because these capitalists were never this straight up thugged out like this since like the 1800's through the early 1900's when they forced kids to work for 16 hours in factories that gave them cancer and caused thm to die at like 25

capitalists are starting to get slick with outsourcing and austerity so yeah marx predicts that whenever they get cute like that and mess with society, society will start to do stuff like the occupy movements

so its all going according to marx's predictions so far, as far as i can see. its really people like you that are like nah protesting will never work that are standing in the way, as far as i can tell.

Everywhere else in that paragraph, I believe that I actually made it explicit that all of the conditions for revolution are being met. What I was saying that this has happened time and time again, yet we still end up with a capitalist political economic system in the end, and a part of that is because we treat the revolution as a fait accompli, rather than something that has to be planned for and carried out explicitly. We raise it to eschatology (I REALLY meant that Christian comparison) in the same way that Christians believe that the second coming will just happen, when that never was the case. What needs to be done is not to wait on anything, whether that be politicians or some revolution always in suspense, but to engage in direct action now. That is why I said what I said about all of the Occupy/Spain/Etc. movements.

what is direct action now tho? you really dont see protests and social/youth movements as a key part of that? i dont understand why youre so dissmissive to these things. please explain why you think thats not a big deal like you been saying especially when its always been social movements that ever gave us anything we have in society eg civil rights etc

 

[TrueEpic08]

so to recap

you: *opinion* austerity will not go away

me: *fact* its going away in europe thanks to social protests/movements

you: *opinion* It still doesn't matter because it's part of a discourse and political economy that takes austerity as one of its key tenants, a spectre that will still exist and haunt discourse

so lol @ your conclusion about this being "it doesnt matter"

greece: huge victory against austerity and un-checked capitalism doing whatever it wants

you: it doesnt matter

I feel that you're not actually reading what I'm writing, so I'll just put this in bold letters here: We are not arguing on the same level. You are arguing on the material level, I'm arguing on the high-metaphysical/'pataphysical (that is, pas ta physique or, rather, pâte à physique. Rep to those who actually understand this and its relevance to what I'm saying here). You are arguing for a disappearance of austerity because of the fact that some people decided they wanted a different type of liberal economics governing their lives, I'm saying that none of that comes even remotely close to making it disappear due to the fact that it is an integral part of the liberal capitalist cultural dominant that it exists in. Austerity in inherent within that system and will not ever go away. It can only regress and work as a binary determining option alongside things such as "Keynesianism" and "Progressiveism". I'm not being oblique here, we're just not arguing the same thing.

And even if I decided to bracket the meta/possibly-'pataphysics and argue in the material, it still doesn't matter because the people have no power or say in international economic organizations, who are the true setters of economic policy. I see that you ignored the fact that the EU are still pushing austerity packages, that the UK is still doing it, despite the fact that in continually leads to recession and discontent among the people. What I'm saying is that just because the people are rejecting it doesn't mean that it will actually go away because they are still dependent on those liberal economic formulations for their conceptions of economics and thus still situate themselves within that dominant, as well as the fact that they have no actual deciding power within that dominant. International Organizations do. Until they just stop participating in it and build a society directly, this will always be the case.

And one more thing, there is no such thing as "facts". There is only "truth". And that is really only our way of representing the happenings of the real within our own minds and constructed beings (that is, our imaginaries) and creating narratives out of it. And then you get into the fact that there is no real, but a constructed coalesced hyperreal...(this is all very psychoanalytic sociology and 'pataphysics. If you don't get it, don't worry about it)

yo i honestly had to read this like 4x and i still dont really know what youre trying to say at all. i mean i know other people are reading this thread too so can yall like tell me what you think this means or what you think its supposed to mean? please really look at what this dude just typed like actually look at it

my original point was that capitalists aka rich ass people have to put a limit on things they can do to us because they need us to make and buy things. therefore we have a big say in what happens in society since they actually need us for it to work and for them to get rich in it; they cant just do whatever to us.

thats why we have a right to ask for stuff like healthcare or public education aka create social movements and fight for our rights

so idk what his reply is supposed to actually be about?? somebody please look at it and explain it

Was it really that oblique? My bad, I didn't mean it to be that. The last paragraph above is an example of me being sort of oblique (but in my opinion, comprehensible. But this is just me). I thought my response there was one of my most comprehensible and least oblique responses yet. My advice would be to read it once, then read without all of the parentheses and brackets, then read it again. That should make it more comprehensible (At least it does when I'm reading someone like Derrida).

But anyway, what I'm saying is that what you just typed there is completely right, but don't actually follow from one another. Those two things are not causal, but more of a moral right. I'm saying that all of those reforms would have happened in some form, within whatever state form because it is not good for the capitalist project, not because of people protesting. Now, if you want marginally more,then you can protest in the conventional fashion, but I'm a very holistic type of guy. I desire everything for everybody.

uh nah marx still predicts that this stuff would happen eg occupy movement, greek x spanish x french movements, canadian student movement etc

if marx was alive right now he'd be like see told yall so. movements like this never existed on this scale b4 because these capitalists were never this straight up thugged out like this since like the 1800's through the early 1900's when they forced kids to work for 16 hours in factories that gave them cancer and caused thm to die at like 25

capitalists are starting to get slick with outsourcing and austerity so yeah marx predicts that whenever they get cute like that and mess with society, society will start to do stuff like the occupy movements

so its all going according to marx's predictions so far, as far as i can see. its really people like you that are like nah protesting will never work that are standing in the way, as far as i can tell.

what is direct action now tho? you really dont see protests and social/youth movements as a key part of that? i dont understand why youre so dissmissive to these things. please explain why you think thats not a big deal like you been saying especially when its always been social movements that ever gave us anything we have in society eg civil rights etc

I'll just take both of these together.

You are still missing my point. When I'm talking about Marx in this context, I'm talking specifically about the shift from all of these protests to a systemic revolution from capitalism to socialism/pure communism. I didn't say that Marx wasn't right about the growing conditions for it, I'm specifically talking about that one shift. These types of possible revolutions have happened time and time again throughout history, yet we always are stuck with this same capitalist model and dominant. I'm just saying that we can't wait and appeal to the same political economic model or the same people within that model to change things, societies must be created with our own hands as people, not citizens, and communally, not politically.

That's what I'm saying when I use the word "direct action". I'm very pro-organization, but I'm thinking something in the vein of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movements in South Africa or some of the farmer's movements in places like Mali (I don't know whether to use the Zapatistas here due to their dealings with the Mexican government being radically against what I mean here,among other things) rather than the comparatively tame Occupy movements.

 

[Yuzo]

I feel that you're not actually reading what I'm writing, so I'll just put this in bold letters here: We are not arguing on the same level. You are arguing on the material level, I'm arguing on the high-metaphysical/'pataphysical (that is, pas ta physique or, rather, pâte à physique. Rep to those who actually understand this and its relevance to what I'm saying here). You are arguing for a disappearance of austerity because of the fact that some people decided they wanted a different type of liberal economics governing their lives, I'm saying that none of that comes even remotely close to making it disappear due to the fact that it is an integral part of the liberal capitalist cultural dominant that it exists in. Austerity in inherent within that system and will not ever go away. It can only regress and work as a binary determining option alongside things such as "Keynesianism" and "Progressiveism". I'm not being oblique here, we're just not arguing the same thing.

And even if I decided to bracket the meta/possibly-'pataphysics and argue in the material, it still doesn't matter because the people have no power or say in international economic organizations, who are the true setters of economic policy. I see that you ignored the fact that the EU are still pushing austerity packages, that the UK is still doing it, despite the fact that in continually leads to recession and discontent among the people. What I'm saying is that just because the people are rejecting it doesn't mean that it will actually go away because they are still dependent on those liberal economic formulations for their conceptions of economics and thus still situate themselves within that dominant, as well as the fact that they have no actual deciding power within that dominant. International Organizations do. Until they just stop participating in it and build a society directly, this will always be the case.

And one more thing, there is no such thing as "facts". There is only "truth". And that is really only our way of representing the happenings of the real within our own minds and constructed beings (that is, our imaginaries) and creating narratives out of it. And then you get into the fact that there is no real, but a constructed coalesced hyperreal...(this is all very psychoanalytic sociology and 'pataphysics. If you don't get it, don't worry about it)

lets talk about the fact that you keep downplaying that in a democracy if we dont want something to happen then it wont happen. youre sitting up here acting like we have no power or no say

its only from people being soft and uninvolved that we become powerless. so you sitting up here talking about austerity can never be overcome on some darth vader shyt and downplaying the significance of protests and movements looks sus

I'm saying that all of those reforms would have happened in some form, within whatever state form because it is not good for the capitalist project, not because of people protesting.

oh alright hey lets not protest for our civil rights cuz they'll probly just give them to us one of these days and lets not protest these wars and these high ass college tuitions check this out i read derrida

I'll just take both of these together.

You are still missing my point. When I'm talking about Marx in this context, I'm talking specifically about the shift from all of these protests to a systemic revolution from capitalism to socialism/pure communism. I didn't say that Marx wasn't right about the growing conditions for it, I'm specifically talking about that one shift. These types of possible revolutions have happened time and time again throughout history, yet we always are stuck with this same capitalist model and dominant. I'm just saying that we can't wait and appeal to the same political economic model or the same people within that model to change things, societies must be created with our own hands as people, not citizens, and communally, not politically.

so are you saying that we should just straight up not participate in the democratic process

 

[TrueEpic08]

lets talk about the fact that you keep downplaying that in a democracy if we dont want something to happen then it wont happen. youre sitting up here acting like we have no power or no say

its only from people being soft and uninvolved that we become powerless. so you sitting up here talking about austerity can never be overcome on some darth vader shyt and downplaying the significance of protests and movements looks sus



oh alright hey lets not protest for our civil rights cuz they'll probly just give them to us one of these days and lets not protest these wars and these high ass college tuitions check this out i read derrida



so are you saying that we should just straight up not participate in the democratic process

Connect the two points that I'm mainly talking about here. You're taking each point in the abstract when you should be taking them together.

Nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE, did I say that I don't support protest or communes absolutely. I just want a different type of protest than what is currently being done. Why do you think I made the Abahlali baseMjondolo comparison? Because that's the type of communal organization that I think is most effective: prefigurative, based on anarchic, non-hierarchal principles internally, dual power in relation to the state form (and really, you say I'm wanting to work outside of democracies. AbM is FAR more democratic than anything in the state form can be by the nature of the way both are structured. I want to work outside of a certain conception of democracy. Direct democracy vs. the state form's mediated democracy), as well as performative in what it wants to achieve.

Why the hell do you keep ignoring the points where I specifically detail what I would do in lieu of what is being done right now in order to try and make these points?

 

[Yuzo]

Nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE, did I say that I don't support protest

Beyond everything said in this thread, you have to understand something about information on the internet: Just because you have all of it at your hands doesn't mean that you will seek it out, read/listen to it, and digest it. Most of the time, people like to do the same thing that they do in the corporeal world anyway: Find masses of information that support their polemics and completely shut themselves off from oppositional discourses.

The internet is such an object that it becomes far easier to do things like this. So I actually predict an increase in easily manipulated fundamentalist-style politicians that corporations, traders and others who direct liquid capital flows will puppeteer to their whims.

^ first post saying how people are going to just keep being mindless/inactive which reveals what kind of success of these new global protests/movements you think are having/will have ie not very much

Even to the "disenchanted," there is nothing to sell, so to speak, for its already within the narrative of America that we all learn. Those that actively embrace it will fall right in line with those who already are hand in hand with these interests, and the "disenchanted" will simply fall in line and allow themselves to be influenced in a way similar to the Nietzschean Last Man: Because their lives and minds are relatively comfortable with the narrative and forms of discourse that exist already, despite their "disenchantment," there is really no reason to become active, because its already comfortable for them.

^ and again

So to answer the question succinctly, can you sell all of that to them? What is there to sell? They already believe in all of it.

^ and again

thats when i start asking what you think about europe protests/movements which actually are very involved and participatory and popular

What would I say to all of these "Occupy" and "Spring" movements? Stop appealing to politicians and other powers whose sole function is to alienate the people from themselves in the political sense and thus act for them. It never works out in your favor.

and you tell them to stop doing that despite the proof that its been working eg greece overwhelmingly rejecting austerity, and the french electing hollande

and you start talking about creating some type of new society or "socialist anarchist formation" instead of participating in the democratic process that had achieved these aforementioned things directly via protests/movements

which you think are better "than the comparatively tame Occupy movements"

.....which are objectively demonstrating that the democratic process can be successful....

so sounds like youve been downplaying it from the start. and when confronted with the global movements and what theyve actually been doing via the democratic process you start saying that its still not good enough compared to your vague alternative lol

aight lets say that maybe your alternative really is better then idk

but that doesnt take away from the fact that you are downplaying the role society has been having in trying to change this corrupt system that has been exploiting it.

and ultimately, i disagree with your first point that society WONT get involved and try to have a bigger and more active role. it already is doing that in europe which can be substantiated, and we will have to see, like the threadstarter was asking, if we can do some of these things here in the states too. i have hope for that maybe you dont.

 

[TrueEpic08]

^ first post saying how people are going to just keep being mindless/inactive which reveals what kind of success of these new global protests/movements you think are having/will have ie not very much



^ and again



^ and again

thats when i start asking what you think about europe protests/movements which actually are very involved and participatory and popular



and you tell them to stop doing that despite the proof that its been working eg greece overwhelmingly rejecting austerity, and the french electing hollande

and you start talking about creating some type of new society or "socialist anarchist formation" instead of participating in the democratic process that had achieved these aforementioned things directly via protests/movements

which you think are better "than the comparatively tame Occupy movements"

.....which are objectively demonstrating that the democratic process can be successful....

so sounds like youve been downplaying it from the start. and when confronted with the global movements and what theyve actually been doing via the democratic process you start saying that its still not good enough compared to your vague alternative lol

aight lets say that maybe your alternative really is better then idk

but that doesnt take away from the fact that you are downplaying the role society has been having in trying to change this corrupt system that has been exploiting it.

and ultimately, i disagree with your first point that society WONT get involved and try to have a bigger and more active role. it already is doing that in europe which can be substantiated, and we will have to see, like the threadstarter was asking, if we can do some of these things here in the states too. i have hope for that maybe you dont.

I did say that, didn't I. Thanks for reminding me.

I won't retract that, because that had nothing to do with my point about protesting in the way that you're thinking about it. It had to do with systemic revolution, as in, against the capitalist political economy and the money form. It had nothing to do with being inactive, but with acting within the same bounds that you've already been acting in because it is what you're used to and most comfortable with instead of creating and performing a new, more directly democratic and communally controlled society. You're "ultimately disagreeing" with a point I never made.

And that "It never works out in your favor" line? That was about specific demands of the populace being met. It always gets distorted, delayed and twisted because that's the way in which the political system works. Tell me, you're Black, right (don't worry, I'm Black as well)? Well have those politicians truly made EVERY effort possible to meet our demand that we are treated as full existences along White males? How about women? GLBT community? Latinos? American Indians? Muslims? I mean, I could go on, because even as gains have been made, none of those communities are seen as full existences, and may not ever be seen as such. I believe that must not be asked for, but communally performed as a society if we are ever to gain it. Same for economic equality (though the very nature of the sign "economic" may exclude "equality" from it...).

And why do you ignore me giving CONCRETE examples of my alternative forms of protest in AbM, farmer's movements in Africa and (possibly) the Zapatistas? Why do you keep ignoring this to make your point?

You say I'm ignoring the role that society is playing. I'm really not. I'm just saying that they're doing the wrong thing in the wrong way, and if they don't want to have to do the same thing over and over as events happen throughout the years, they need to think of a different method of organization, because the capitalist political economy takes "austerity" as something inherent within its actions as a general equivalent ("production," "stimulus," and other terms used by liberals in relation to the political economy are inherent terms as well), and thus there will ALWAYS be a way to play it against something in a binary movement and get back to it. When I say "It will not go away," THIS right here is what I mean.

And as for Hollande and the Greek reelection? Remember, they're still members of the EU and that the ND/PASOK coalition were two seats away from winning and implementing the EU's latest austerity measures anyway. The people may want change, but not much has actually wanted changed yet, partially because they appeal to channels fundamentally opposed to that. So let's give it 3 years. If we see a change and no pushback, and austerity completely disappears from discourse in any form, then maybe you are right. But I've seen to much to think that this will be anything but the same function of the same system in some respect.

I still feel like you're not reading what I write here, because you're saying that I'm making points that I absolutely never made, and accusing me of not commenting on things that I clearly commented on.