#1
The Future is Here
Post rating: ~
Seeing the Umayyads go from preached against rich jerks to the cream of the caliphate makes my blood boil. And the same thing happens in many revolutions, the people in power just sort of seep their way back up? so what do you do?
#2
Poronto
Post rating: ~
tree of liberty blood of patriots
#3
The Future is Here
Post rating: ~
Do you think disentangling science from religion was a bad idea?
#4
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
feyerabend
#5
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
Muhammad didn't seize power from the Meccan elites in the first place, he basically just neutered their ability to abuse their power with the establishment of the shari'a. The Umayyads were corrupt and impious leaders but they didn't really harm the "Islamic revolution" if you will. Islam spread most dramatically under their reign, and given the nature of the times and of shari'a-based communities the role of the caliph and central governing authority was fairly minimal in most people's lives. Liquidating a class only really makes sense in the context of a modern nation-state, which is fundamentally a dictatorship of a certain class and far more intrusively managerial by nature.
#6
Poronto
Post rating: ~
david graeber makes a point about this when he talks about gift economies somewhere; anyone who accumulates resources is periodically forced by custom to give all of them away. im a stupid dumb fuckshit and everyone knows this anyway. Why Do I Post. (finding the bit)
#7
Post rating: ~

littlegreenpills posted:
david graeber makes a point about this when he talks about gift economies somewhere; anyone who accumulates resources is periodically forced by custom to give all of them away. im a stupid dumb fuckshit and everyone knows this anyway. Why Do I Post. (finding the bit)



ya in Debt he talks about how in a bunch of stateless societies the chiefs are the poorest ppl in the group because prestige/political influence is acquired by gifting so they're constantly giving their shit away, w/ the result that the leaders are highly respected paupers whose decisions rely entirely on moral authority because pretty much anyone else has the material resources to dissent

#8
Post rating: ~
where, if any, does true authority exist in modern nation states? in small-town-churches and in certain branches of academia?
#9
[account deactivated]
#10
Post rating: ~
All historical narratives are inconsistent.
#11
Post rating: +

tpaine posted:
inconsistency in a religious narrative, holy shit

haha, literally. holy shit. i couldn't make this up if i tried people


i dont know if you noticed, but reality is inconsistent

#12
Post rating: +
i wouldn't be depressed if you'd just gimme some amphetamines lady!
#13
[account deactivated]
#14
[account deactivated]
#15
The Future is Here
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:
Muhammad didn't seize power from the Meccan elites in the first place, he basically just neutered their ability to abuse their power with the establishment of the shari'a. The Umayyads were corrupt and impious leaders but they didn't really harm the "Islamic revolution" if you will. Islam spread most dramatically under their reign, and given the nature of the times and of shari'a-based communities the role of the caliph and central governing authority was fairly minimal in most people's lives. Liquidating a class only really makes sense in the context of a modern nation-state, which is fundamentally a dictatorship of a certain class and far more intrusively managerial by nature.


Oh yeah for sure. I was just referring to how inequality increased when they took over and they got their cronies rich. But the Islamic domain definitely expanded. I suppose i was thinking of counterrevolution in general.

gyrofry posted:
feyerabend


I read some of that guy's stuff and I totally agree!