lungfish
lungfish
San Francisco
Post rating:
~
I'm assuming most of you worth your salt are now in favor of OWS if you weren't from the beginning. The main question is, what is going to happen to it? Its death has been declared a few times (due to rain, or whatever...) but it remains and has recently celebrated a month of occupation.
By remaining peaceful it has ensured it wasn't swept up early and now seems to be becoming a larger populist movement which may actually influence public opinion and the next presidential election. Although it is still uncomfortably associated with hippies, socialists, and all sorts of related kooks, it seems to have cleaned up its act to a considerable degree and is achieving more mainstream success.
As for me, if this results in the dissolution of some corporate corruption in politics, or some increases in taxes on the very rich (via Buffett Tax), then I approve of it. If they keep their focus on that, "the 1%", they should be fine, and can have a significant impact.
But if they start trying to make it about how they want free stuff, or their debts absolved, or makework programs, or how they hate our foreign interventions, then they've deviated too much and have lost my support. They need to stay on message: wealth distribution is absurdly in favor of the very rich, and huge corporations have too much influence in politics. The state needs the power to take on the wealthy.
By remaining peaceful it has ensured it wasn't swept up early and now seems to be becoming a larger populist movement which may actually influence public opinion and the next presidential election. Although it is still uncomfortably associated with hippies, socialists, and all sorts of related kooks, it seems to have cleaned up its act to a considerable degree and is achieving more mainstream success.
As for me, if this results in the dissolution of some corporate corruption in politics, or some increases in taxes on the very rich (via Buffett Tax), then I approve of it. If they keep their focus on that, "the 1%", they should be fine, and can have a significant impact.
But if they start trying to make it about how they want free stuff, or their debts absolved, or makework programs, or how they hate our foreign interventions, then they've deviated too much and have lost my support. They need to stay on message: wealth distribution is absurdly in favor of the very rich, and huge corporations have too much influence in politics. The state needs the power to take on the wealthy.
[account deactivated]
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
debt absolution is key if for no other reason than to establish a new paradigm
[account deactivated]
lungfish
lungfish
San Francisco
Post rating:
~
babyfinland posted:
debt absolution is key if for no other reason than to establish a new paradigm
The merits of debt aside, this is a revolutionary attitude that would ensure failure of the movement. Only by honing in on a change that can actually happen, and addressing that sole purpose, can OWS have a positive outcome for both the protesters and society at large. This was a big part of Zizek's point, about actually doing something that can be done, not just reminiscing on what a good time they had as malcontents.
This is why the media (and really the public) have been asking the protesters: What is your one demand? People are willing to hear it out. But they have to decide on a realistic goal that people can then discuss.
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
debt absolution is in no way revolutionary except in a paradigmatic sense, which the OWS has already achieved a platform for
thirdplace
thirdplace
Post rating:
~
The 99 versus 1 frame is also extremely self-limiting. If you think all problems flow from a small sliver of American society, then all your solutions are going to be small, too. The policy proposals that have been floating around the Occupy Wall Street movement – a financial transfer tax, forgiveness for student loans – are marginal.
The Occupy Wall Street movement may look radical, but its members’ ideas are less radical than those you might hear at your average Rotary Club...
|
\
The Occupy Wall Street movement may look radical, but its members’ ideas are less radical than those you might hear at your average Rotary Club...
|
\
thirdplace
thirdplace
Post rating:
~
huh i guess there's no way to edit attachments
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
famous obamabot autismlord Nate Silver has completed an analysis of the protests on the 15th.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-geography-of-occupying-wall-street-and-everywhere-else/
So he concludes that OWS had 75,000 people there. Note that he completely failed to include at least 20 protests in the dozens, a dozen in at least the high dozens to the low hundreds, and the protests in Detroit, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Boston. Also lmao at New York and LA having 6,700 and 5,000 people
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-geography-of-occupying-wall-street-and-everywhere-else/
So he concludes that OWS had 75,000 people there. Note that he completely failed to include at least 20 protests in the dozens, a dozen in at least the high dozens to the low hundreds, and the protests in Detroit, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Boston. Also lmao at New York and LA having 6,700 and 5,000 people
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
he's obamas' goebbels, and about as competent as being obamas' anything would imply
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
Impper I'm actually interested to hear your thoughts on the OWS, I'm going back and forth. The stuff about the 99% is obvious propaganda and the anarchist nonsense of creating a new society through free expression and liberal nonsense of winning over the police, the businessmen, the libertarians, and the tea party annoys me, but it is a national myth well suited for America. In many ways, anarchists haven't changed since Sorel advocated for people's power and economic rationality while simultaneously advocating national mythology based on lies and anti-scientific thinking. He was far more honest, but in today's society of the spectacle, twitter revolutions, the 99% and the people's assembly with their little rituals and people's mic (even when they have microphones), and living in a park with no discipline or intellectual unity based off donations from rich people is exactly the same ideology anarchists have been using forever updated for the internet age.
However, this willingness to pander, to lie to oneself as well as to others, and to combine revolution with fashionable trendiness is very effective. Anarchists revived the anti-globalization movement when the left seemed dead and are now having more success creating new possibilities and new modes of thought within capitalist hegemony than communists have since the 60s. In some ways, you're an anarchist because you believe in the unique characteristics of different cultures and the power of national mythology to warp and subvert the class struggle, especially in Britain and the USA.
My only real problem with the protests is they have not learned anything from the past, and anti-sciencism is useful as a myth to reject Stalin, Mao, accept liberalism and adapt to and find the weaknesses of propaganda rather than educate and clash directly with it. However, when it becomes internalized and the protesters have a fanatical devotion to non-violence based on a false history of the Indian independence movement and the Black liberation movement, then the actual realities of the world come into conflict with the protest. Also, the myth will eventually come into conflict with reality, and the movement will eventually stop growing and have to face that 99% of people do not have the same interests and that the police and military in the USA seems unlikely to ever side with the masses.
Finally, I have a problem with the intellectuals of the movement. Naomi Klein, David Graeber, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Michael Moore and yes Zizek who I've fallen out of love with, are well suited for liberalism and vague anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian flailing. However, most of what they say is either obvious and has been said far more radically in the past (it's usually watered down marxism), pandering to the crowd about "true" democracy and how awesome they are, or is propaganda of the democrats except applied as if the dems are not living up to their own ideology. There are some interesting ideas in the OWS about the geography of capitalism and using it to subvert hegemony (the zapatistas on the fringe vs. the OWS in the center), the negative power of the entertainment television character of American politics and how a sustained protest can remain in the superficial consciousness of people though the internet, the power of spiritual fulfillment as being essential to an effective counterpower in late capitalism, and a bunch of other ideas floating around in my head. The fact that none of these intellectuals are even approaching this and instead are pandering to the crowd and the present success is a very bad sign imo.
However, this willingness to pander, to lie to oneself as well as to others, and to combine revolution with fashionable trendiness is very effective. Anarchists revived the anti-globalization movement when the left seemed dead and are now having more success creating new possibilities and new modes of thought within capitalist hegemony than communists have since the 60s. In some ways, you're an anarchist because you believe in the unique characteristics of different cultures and the power of national mythology to warp and subvert the class struggle, especially in Britain and the USA.
My only real problem with the protests is they have not learned anything from the past, and anti-sciencism is useful as a myth to reject Stalin, Mao, accept liberalism and adapt to and find the weaknesses of propaganda rather than educate and clash directly with it. However, when it becomes internalized and the protesters have a fanatical devotion to non-violence based on a false history of the Indian independence movement and the Black liberation movement, then the actual realities of the world come into conflict with the protest. Also, the myth will eventually come into conflict with reality, and the movement will eventually stop growing and have to face that 99% of people do not have the same interests and that the police and military in the USA seems unlikely to ever side with the masses.
Finally, I have a problem with the intellectuals of the movement. Naomi Klein, David Graeber, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Michael Moore and yes Zizek who I've fallen out of love with, are well suited for liberalism and vague anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian flailing. However, most of what they say is either obvious and has been said far more radically in the past (it's usually watered down marxism), pandering to the crowd about "true" democracy and how awesome they are, or is propaganda of the democrats except applied as if the dems are not living up to their own ideology. There are some interesting ideas in the OWS about the geography of capitalism and using it to subvert hegemony (the zapatistas on the fringe vs. the OWS in the center), the negative power of the entertainment television character of American politics and how a sustained protest can remain in the superficial consciousness of people though the internet, the power of spiritual fulfillment as being essential to an effective counterpower in late capitalism, and a bunch of other ideas floating around in my head. The fact that none of these intellectuals are even approaching this and instead are pandering to the crowd and the present success is a very bad sign imo.
Edited by babyhueypnewton ()
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
you make a lot of great points and i think i agree with just about all of them. i think the fact that the ows is so ambiguous across the board is somewhat proof that it's tapped into something resembling a deleuzian event, a sort of action & a cultural narrative that has basically been ripped out of space-time and now simply Exists. while we can definitely point to contributing factors and that something similar was perhaps inevitable, it was also smoething that we could not have predicted and which should have some lasting cultural value.
additionally, i really love the "essence" of the movement, the very idea and fabric underpinning it, that is the word "occupy" - because somehow there has been a realization that protesting in itself doesn't accomplish something, but that the very processes of capitalism need to be disrupted. so send in the hippies, send in the professional activists, send in the anarchists and let them occupy the center of imperialism. the very obvious next step, when everybody realizes that "occupying" something isn't enough, is to "destroy" wall street. however i'm not under any illusions that the ows belligerents will come to this conclusion, particularly in the presence of the intellectual bankruptcy you mention. i think, in a way, that it comes back to america: our cultural production is pathetic, ahistorical, myopically self-centered, and so it's really no surprise that the rhetoric is so airheaded.
i also want to say that very obviously not enough is being done, that it's very tenuous right now, that things could be better, but these things can be said about anything. if this is a true event, then perhaps something more can be built, at least a space has been opened. "i love how" ows is so tepid that everybody has to use terms like "at least" and "if nothing else," but then what can you do?
additionally, i really love the "essence" of the movement, the very idea and fabric underpinning it, that is the word "occupy" - because somehow there has been a realization that protesting in itself doesn't accomplish something, but that the very processes of capitalism need to be disrupted. so send in the hippies, send in the professional activists, send in the anarchists and let them occupy the center of imperialism. the very obvious next step, when everybody realizes that "occupying" something isn't enough, is to "destroy" wall street. however i'm not under any illusions that the ows belligerents will come to this conclusion, particularly in the presence of the intellectual bankruptcy you mention. i think, in a way, that it comes back to america: our cultural production is pathetic, ahistorical, myopically self-centered, and so it's really no surprise that the rhetoric is so airheaded.
i also want to say that very obviously not enough is being done, that it's very tenuous right now, that things could be better, but these things can be said about anything. if this is a true event, then perhaps something more can be built, at least a space has been opened. "i love how" ows is so tepid that everybody has to use terms like "at least" and "if nothing else," but then what can you do?
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
One of my biggest problems is my main source of information on the protests, besides the HuffPo and the shitty news sites is GBS on the somethingawful forums. So most of the info I get is from the liberals, the less radical losers of the movement, and people who are so glad to do something off the internet they don't really have anything new to say. I would love to hear what the real organizers of the movement have to say, who may not be scientific marxists but at least through lifestyle anarchists are radically devoted to the destruction of society. The ironic thing is that because of the strong anti-vanguardist ideology of the movement, and the medium of "direct democracy" itself, makes it impossible for anyone to hear these voices or for the intellectuals to communicate with each other. If I may be so bold, intellectual and radical voices such as ours are lost in a crowd of rubbish, and even if we could get the people's mic our thoughts would be dumbed down into 2-3 word soundbites repeated through the crowd. People liked Zizek's speech precisely because it was empty, pandering, and short, and had none of the interesting parts of his philosophy. I would hope that the organizers write books about the process after the OWS inevitably fades (probably when it gets cold) so that lessons can actually emerge, but I sincerely doubt it looking at the Tahir Square protests and how nothing of value has emerged from those in Egypt or among the OWS.
As for what you said, you're absolutely right that the vague mythology of the protest has tapped into some general misery in our society and they've done a very good job navigating the weakest links of American hegemonic propaganda and avoiding it's strengths. Non-violence is one of these strengths and will be the death of the movement as you point out, since eventually the protest will have to destroy Wall Street or go home. It will have a lasting effect and change the idea of what's possible, since we've been living in the Reagan era and until now no resistance to capitalism was possible. Hopefully, the next movement will take that final step because the depression is not going anywhere and all it takes is a spark in Greece, India, or Palestine to create that step, just as the cultural revolution did and the bolshevik revolution did (and arguably the arab spring did though the limits of it as reflected in OWS are obvious).
As for what you said, you're absolutely right that the vague mythology of the protest has tapped into some general misery in our society and they've done a very good job navigating the weakest links of American hegemonic propaganda and avoiding it's strengths. Non-violence is one of these strengths and will be the death of the movement as you point out, since eventually the protest will have to destroy Wall Street or go home. It will have a lasting effect and change the idea of what's possible, since we've been living in the Reagan era and until now no resistance to capitalism was possible. Hopefully, the next movement will take that final step because the depression is not going anywhere and all it takes is a spark in Greece, India, or Palestine to create that step, just as the cultural revolution did and the bolshevik revolution did (and arguably the arab spring did though the limits of it as reflected in OWS are obvious).
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
its funny because the things you complain about being too watered down or whatever i think of as irrelevant and the true strength of the movement has nothing to do with whatever leftist tendencies it carries within it. You mention Egypt, which is fine, but Egypt has been astoundingly constructive and continues to be building a social revolution. You obviously don't know much about that since you dismiss it as proof that anarchists are wrong and you are right (which is bizarre, since communists have had a significant role to play in Egypt). basically i just dont think you can see the forest for the trees here, and if you think this sort of criticism is relevant at all then youve lost your mind. no one cares about doctrinal squabbling irl bro. these people are leaving you in the dust
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
babyfinland posted:
its funny because the things you complain about being too watered down or whatever i think of as irrelevant and the true strength of the movement has nothing to do with whatever leftist tendencies it carries within it. You mention Egypt, which is fine, but Egypt has been astoundingly constructive and continues to be building a social revolution. You obviously don't know much about that since you dismiss it as proof that anarchists are wrong and you are right (which is bizarre, since communists have had a significant role to play in Egypt). basically i just dont think you can see the forest for the trees here, and if you think this sort of criticism is relevant at all then youve lost your mind. no one cares about doctrinal squabbling irl bro. these people are leaving you in the dust
but this is just nonsense. you say that the strengths of the movement are not related to "leftist tendencies" but that's just a slur. "leftist tendencies" is actually short for ideologies, strategies, and organizations with long histories. there is obviously an ideology here, and it's an anarchist one which I've already pointed out has a long history in the syndicalist movement. what exactly are the strengths then? people who support this movement are scared to actually talk about what it means because they're scared of ideology, but the alternative is ignorance which is what you're showing wrt egypt. what exactly has happened in egypt and what is happening which shows you the decentralized occupation model is sufficient to overthrow state power?
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
Egypt is ongoing. i guess youre totally unfamiliar but Egypt has had strikes daily for years, has an independent labor union that is organizing general strikes and pushing for the overthrow of the military regime right now, and its going on like it was with Mubarak. but i guess its a failuer since you dont do your homework and it hasnt shown up on al jazeera yet
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
babyhueypnewton posted:
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.
marxism is a joke
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.marxism is a joke
hmm interesting. glad that you've internalized the reactionary aspects of islam and gone backwards in terms of ideological clarity and understanding of political economy and history. like im not even going to argue with you because your alternative ideology, which is islam, is so ridiculous that it's a waste of time. this forum has become internet muslims vs atheists and trolls, all of whom were rejected by wddp, and it looks like that's the way it's going to remain because the underlying assumptions of debates do not include things like "god is not real". I gotta say im pretty disappointed with how this forum turned out sorry.
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
babyhueypnewton posted:
babyfinland posted:
babyhueypnewton posted:
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.
marxism is a joke
hmm interesting. glad that you've internalized the reactionary aspects of islam and gone backwards in terms of ideological clarity and understanding of political economy and history. like im not even going to argue with you because your alternative ideology, which is islam, is so ridiculous that it's a waste of time. this forum has become internet muslims vs atheists and trolls, all of whom were rejected by wddp, and it looks like that's the way it's going to remain because the underlying assumptions of debates do not include things like "god is not real". I gotta say im pretty disappointed with how this forum turned out sorry.
dont be so quick to just condemn the whole forum! some day there will be way more posters.. some day......
NounsareVerbs
NounsareVerbs
Post rating:
~
God is what is left over when all intellect dissipates.
I talked with some regional OWS organizers. It really doesn't seem like the movement will "get much done," and if they do it will be in the form of tiny concessions that don't address the economic framing of our great nation. I don't think that the frame can be addressed at all without a horrid collapse of everyday living or a violent revolution - the former being inevitable in due time.
What is important to me about the movement is the gradual shift in class consciousness. As the Marxist says, if you negotiate with your employer for a raise or a better health plan - you have already lost - because you are participating in your bosses ideology and only confirming the exploitative relationship.
With these protests, we are seeing a greater amount of young people making more accurate realizations and learning to think outside of neoliberal ideology. This might not cause much change in the immediate state of politics - but it will be important in reinforcing the rank for future struggle.
I talked with some regional OWS organizers. It really doesn't seem like the movement will "get much done," and if they do it will be in the form of tiny concessions that don't address the economic framing of our great nation. I don't think that the frame can be addressed at all without a horrid collapse of everyday living or a violent revolution - the former being inevitable in due time.
What is important to me about the movement is the gradual shift in class consciousness. As the Marxist says, if you negotiate with your employer for a raise or a better health plan - you have already lost - because you are participating in your bosses ideology and only confirming the exploitative relationship.
With these protests, we are seeing a greater amount of young people making more accurate realizations and learning to think outside of neoliberal ideology. This might not cause much change in the immediate state of politics - but it will be important in reinforcing the rank for future struggle.
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
babyhueypnewton posted:babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.marxism is a joke
hmm interesting. glad that you've internalized the reactionary aspects of islam and gone backwards in terms of ideological clarity and understanding of political economy and history. like im not even going to argue with you because your alternative ideology, which is islam, is so ridiculous that it's a waste of time. this forum has become internet muslims vs atheists and trolls, all of whom were rejected by wddp, and it looks like that's the way it's going to remain because the underlying assumptions of debates do not include things like "god is not real". I gotta say im pretty disappointed with how this forum turned out sorry.
people always have to bring up islam whenever i dont agree with them
none of my objections to marxism has anything do with islam, it has to do with history
Crow
Crow
Post rating:
+
babyfinland posted:
babyhueypnewton posted:
there are a lot of people who think like you, in that discussions of the past aren't important and that sectarianism is the cause of the demise of the left. this is just poor linguistics because what these arguments are actually about is history and ideology, which are extremely important. when its ML vs. trots no one actually cares if trotsky was a good guy or was he actually working with the nazis or whatever. just like i dont actually care about bakunin vs marx when i talk to anarchists. the real strategic and ideological differences must be debated and anyone who rejects this is basically just a coward who's scared of confronting the truth.
marxism is a joke
certum est quia impossibile
jokes should be treated more seriously than anything
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
that is because you are a crazy ass conservative and the islam is a pretty obvious explanation, even if it isn't the real one
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
Impper posted:
that is because you are a crazy ass conservative and the islam is a pretty obvious explanation, even if it isn't the real one
i dont think its really valid to call me a "crazy conservative" because i have a nuanced historical sensibility
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
i don't know shit about your historical sensibility or any historical sensibility but i do nkow a crazy ass conservative when i see one, and it is you. Follow the law.
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
agreed
Hurricane_Faggot
Hurricane_Faggot
Post rating:
~
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/tfr/2654988309.html
Part of Occupy Wall Street? Real World 27 Wants You! (Battery Park)
MTV's Real World is seeking cast members to tell their unique stories on our show. If you are over the age of 20 and appear to be between the ages of 20-24, and the description below sounds like you, we want to hear from you!
Are you a part of the OCCUPY WALL STREET movement?
If so, please contact realworldcasting@bunim-murray.com. Your subject heading should be YOUR NAME and WALL STREET.
Please attach 3 RECENT PHOTOS and a brief BIO, including your full NAME, DATE OF BIRTH (for ID purposes only) as well as your CONTACT INFORMATION including PHONE #.
Edited by Hurricane_Faggot ()
blinkandwheeze
blinkandwheeze
Post rating:
~
Well gosh folks , I'm as atheist as the next guy, but i think a lot of you fellas are being mighty shortsighted with your eagerness to paint our posting pal babyfinland as simply a conservative! altho I certainly don't approve of his personal disinterest in political action (it may be for perverts and losers, but we're kidding ourselves if we don't identify with either of these) ...
But frankly I don't see how we can just disregard Islam as a political project in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, or at a time when organizations like Hizbollah or Hamas are active. Hizbollah especially I think we have much to learn from, how can we not treat with respect an organization, totally separate from the traditional coordinates of the party-state, dedicated to building an alternate infrastructure and network of resistance ?
it's especially interesting to me to see BHPN reject outright any discussion that might question the nonexistence of God , especially given his apparent interest in Foucault ... you know, one of the few clear political positions i see Foucault as having taken is a basic scepticism towards, or at least voicing a need for a reexamination of Marx's famous statement that 'Religion is the opium of the people' -
But frankly I don't see how we can just disregard Islam as a political project in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, or at a time when organizations like Hizbollah or Hamas are active. Hizbollah especially I think we have much to learn from, how can we not treat with respect an organization, totally separate from the traditional coordinates of the party-state, dedicated to building an alternate infrastructure and network of resistance ?
it's especially interesting to me to see BHPN reject outright any discussion that might question the nonexistence of God , especially given his apparent interest in Foucault ... you know, one of the few clear political positions i see Foucault as having taken is a basic scepticism towards, or at least voicing a need for a reexamination of Marx's famous statement that 'Religion is the opium of the people' -
I have heard some supporters of an Islamic government say that this statement of Marx might be true for Christianity, but it is not true for Islam, especially Shi'ite Islam. I have read several books on Islam and Shi'ism, and I totally agree with them because the role of Shi'ism in a political awakening, in maintaining political consciousness, in inciting and fomenting political awareness, is historically undeniable.
babyfinland may be a conservative, but is it because of islam? can we really reject any emancipatory kernel this ideology might offer us?
noavbazzer
noavbazzer
Post rating:
~
thats pretty much what foucault said before he stopped talking about islam altogether in the wake of what the iranian revolution became
blinkandwheeze
blinkandwheeze
Post rating:
~
noavbazzer posted:
thats pretty much what foucault said before he stopped talking about islam altogether in the wake of what the iranian revolution became
but does that undermine an understanding of islam as having a potential for the awakening of a revolutionary consciousness?
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
religion is not revolutionary in any way. stop defending things just because poors and browns like them, the fact that poors and browns like them is the problem
NounsareVerbs
NounsareVerbs
Post rating:
~
might you even say that religion is a kind of sedative for the proletariat majority?
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
yah
NounsareVerbs
NounsareVerbs
Post rating:
~
does that make buddhism the heroin of the bougie?
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
islam isn't revolutionary in a "destroy all tradition" kind of way but it certainly is anti-capitalist, like basically all religion when taken faithfully. any given religion is no more predisposed to right wing politics than atheism or marxism is. abrahamic religion is about being a good person and serving the absolute instead of the temporal. that is fundamentally antagonistic to capitalism, which demands basically the opposite
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
sounds p capitalist imo
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
Goethestein
Goethestein
Nippon
Post rating:
~
itt i own a br o on reddit
me, The 'Stein
according to what metric has the standard of living increased dramatically? we have less purchasing power parity, much higher debt, more restrictive laws on bankruptcy, fewer labor protections, higher poverty, lesser quality of health, equivalent life expectancy, lower social mobility, higher rates of depression...i certainly agree that we have Way More Awesome Videogame Consoles, though
Popular-Uprising-
By almost every standard. When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's I was in a very solid middle-class household. We had two 13-15inch TV's, three 'boom boxes", a ford pinto, and a crappy dodge minivan. There were maybe 5 channels on TV, there were no cell phones, and we never ate out. We also got to buy maybe 3 pairs of pants a year and a pair of new shoes.
Now, my family is in the exact same income bracket adjusted for inflation, and we have a 42-inch flat-screen, hundreds of channels, a stereo, 4 MP3 players, two video game consoles, a myriad of movies on the mediacenter, 4 laptops, 2 smartphones, a microwave, a huge fridge, and we can buy clothing pretty much whenever we need it. We eat out once or twice a month, our cars are much better than they were before, etc, etc.
Goatstein
"by almost every standard" - except the ones I listed, which are actually scientifically determined and empirically demonstrable. As opposed to anecdotal tales that Things Are Better Cuz I Got Neat Shit. Wow, your TV is a whole lot better than it was 30 years ago. You have a microwave oven. Big pimpin. Your flat screen, MP3 players, video game consoles, 4 laptops, 2 smartphones, microwave and fridge are likely worth a grand total of about $5000 total new, maybe half that if you tried to sell them. And I bet you have at least six to twenty times that $5000 in debt. Credit cards, student loans, car payments, medical debt, mortgage. If you don't then you're lucky and rare, plain and simple.
You're not wealthy, you're a serf with a couple of shiny baubles. You brag about eating out twice a month - dropping that big Ulysses S Grant at Chilis, eh big man? You can buy $10 T-shirts and $20 pants whenever you need them - look out, Sean Combs! And you know what? You ARE doing well, relatively speaking to other Americans today. I bet most people have either half the negligible material worth that you do, or at least twice the debt. Congrats! But your standard of living hasn't gone up, only the level of distraction from your own creeping poverty.