Fascism!

[massrock]

And yes, new political hypotheses ARE historical entities. Time passes rather quickly. Nothing is "new" forever.

Nah not really, not in the sense you meant of having a historical track record. I might have a new hypothesis in mind but until it has been tested in the arena of history it is not a historical thesis.

Either the communist hypothesis is the most basic ideological unit of communism, or it isn't the communist hypothesis.

I don't think so, it's just a name for something. There's no reverse determination there, the idea that a problem may be addressed, and that is all that's being referred to as far as I can see, would not always lead to the same actions, solutions or consequences.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nah not really, not in the sense you meant of having a historical track record. I might have a new hypothesis in mind but until it has been tested in the arena of history it is not a historical thesis.

I don't think so, it's just a name for something. There's no reverse determination there, the idea that a problem may be addressed, and that is all that's being referred to as far as I can see, would not always lead to the same actions, solutions or consequences.

To your first point: political hypotheses don't happen in one person's head. They are socially realized.

Second: If this hypothesis is so different, then explain how. How and when and by what means will it actualize a world with no dominant class? How will violence and authoritarianism be thwarted?

Until you can answer those questions, you're just making braggadocious statements.

 

[massrock]

I wasn't referring to the Cultural Revolution (his views on which aside), I was referring to a communist by any other name is a communist. that you can't dodge your way out of critiques of communism by simply falling back to "betrayals" & so on.

I know what you were referring to but you were replying to me so I was clarifying what I had meant.
There were references earlier on to murderousness which seemed to have something to do with readings of the expression 'cultural revolution'.

 

[massrock]

To your first point: political hypotheses don't happen in one person's head. They are socially realized.

Second: If this hypothesis is so different, then explain how. How and when and by what means will it actualize a world with no dominant class? How will violence and authoritarianism be thwarted?

Until you can answer those questions, you're just making braggadocious statements.

I'm wasn't saying I had a hypothesis, it was an example, a for instance to explain a point of logic.

And what's with the absolutism? Of course someone can have a political hypothesis in their head.

 

[mistadubalina]

awww nomad...i luv it when you talk dirty!

...what are you wearing ?

 

[nomadthethird]

Sigh. A point of logic? Or just a really bloated claim?

Absolutism? You must be joking.

You realize where the word "politics" comes from, right? It comes from the Greek word for "city". Politics is the discourse of the polis, the city.

You can think about political hypotheses in your mind, but they are only thoughts until they are shared among others in the polis. After they are shared in the polis, they become political realities.

I am not interested in the political hypotheses that only exist in individuals' minds and not in political reality.

 

[massrock]

I said

'I might have a new hypothesis in mind but until it has been tested in the arena of history it is not a historical thesis.'

That's a bloated claim is it?

Sorry I'm going to leave this for a while and let a few others chime in.

 

[massrock]

OK I lied,

Absolutism? You must be joking.

I mean this statement -

political hypotheses don't happen in one person's head. They are socially realized.

A hypothesis doesn't have to be realised to be a hypothesis.

Shall we let the thread zoom out a little to the bigger picture now?

 

[nomadthethird]

When you said "point of logic" I thought you were referring to the so-called communist hypothesis again.

 

[nomadthethird]

A hypothesis doesn't have to be realised to be a hypothesis.

Shall we let the thread zoom out a little to the bigger picture now?

It doesn't have to be, but I have no access to other people's secret or personal hypotheses. Therefore, I have little interest in them until they are shared.

 

[nomadthethird]

It's no use, this is a very boring conversation. It always goes back to jargon. I don't care about so-and-so's ontological jargon when it comes to practical political arguments or discussions.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

what my problem with the anarchists is their 'regulative Idea' (to use your logic against you), means = the ends (how absolute is that?).. this leaves us with very little to do (ill see you at the organic aisle)... i often read anarchist stuff and think, this is badiou, but with a small dick complex.. why are they so afraid to confront history (but at the same time, as far as i know, are pretty quick to dismiss previous anarchist movements)?.. (separate betrayals from the Truth).

don't lump me in with whatever your misguided notion of an "anarchist" is. & I don't fully endorse or dismiss any previous movement, they all have lessons which can be taken from them.

I simply reject anything beyond, as I've said, what I can see face to face. that's not to preclude solidarity, or to disengage from the world as it is, just that per the excellent Graeber quote (which I also heartily agree with btw) I'm highly skeptical of any system that claims to speak for an abstract "we", especially a system with such a bad historical record.

your line about refusing to confront history is rich, given that communists are the absolute kings of refusing to confront history, refusing to admit that their hypothesis (or "hypothesis") is simply wrong.

edit edit: i think we need each other. and we can name it whatever you like!

yes, except, you see, "your" side has the particularly nasty habit of rounding up everyone from "my" side (or anyone who will question the wisdom of Politburo) & shooting all of us as soon as you take power. it's happened time & time again. so, yunno, again, highly skeptical.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

david graeber: "Still, everywhere one finds the same core (anarchist) principles: decentralization, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and above all, the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun."

also, let me add that while as mentioned I heartily endorse the above I have two major caveat:

1 - there is nothing wrong with being overly ready for self-defense. not so much from the state - especially as I'm very dubious of any armed struggle that is not part of a popular movement, & of vanguardism in general - but for if & more likely when the state breaks down.

2 - I don't have any illusions about anarcho-buzzwords like mutual aid & voluntary assocation. they're all very nice so long as everyone has a full stomach but in a real crisis all that stuff goes by the wayside, unless it's built into a relationship with another person & not just some abstract platitude.

 

[mistadubalina]

i have a personal hypothesis

'guys dig chicks with big intellects like chicks dig guys with big dicks'

how would i test it ?

 

[nikbee]

i have a personal hypothesis

'guys dig chicks with big intellects like chicks dig guys with big dicks'

how would i test it ?

your hypothesis is a weak as your beats buddy.. go home.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Padraig still wins thread.

but it's quite a Pyrrhic victory isn't it, given that capitalism & consumerism blah blah blah keeps staggering on either way. also, eviscerating communists is shooting fish in a barrel, no honor in it really, more depressing than anything else. tho I appreciate the vote of confidence.

 

[mistadubalina]

your hypothesis is a weak as your beats buddy.. go home.

...if only i could

 

[swears]

I think any society that could get it's shit together enough to do away with money entirely and still feed/clothe/house/educate everyone would be the polar opposite of "anarchy".

 

[massrock]

the idea of any academic calling himself a communist being taken even half-seriously in the US is utterly laughable

Sorry to go all the way back to these earlier points padraig but just want to point out that it's hardly a guarantee of acceptance and cache in Europe either you know. Obviously the levels of anti communist propaganda in the US since the 50s has been far more intense than most places in Europe though. I guess that still runs deep, even among the young.

- & also, I'm not the first one to make this point, it's safe. a way to be in opposition w/o really having to risk anything.

Not sure i buy this. I think there must be any number of lines that are easier to take if someone was aiming for a kind of cynical pseudo-stance. Doesn't seem that safe or risk free to me, although yeah it's a job for some I suppose.

 

[massrock]

I think any society that could get it's shit together enough to do away with money entirely and still feed/clothe/house/educate everyone would be the polar opposite of "anarchy".

Aren't you reflecting there what is a common misapprehension of the implications of the word anarchy?

I agree with your point though, it would be proper.