Thursday, December 2, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
If you like Nestor Makhno, the theoretical discussions of Platformism, or Anarchism in the Russian Revolution, enjoy.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
I feel obliged for some reason to make a post. I don't have many things to say or many topics to explore, aside from news for the blog. Upon certain realizations I've been pondering discontinuation. But one of the reasons this blog may find value is its digital library, which serves as the blog best defense for its self-preservation.
The digital library is something I want to elaborate and evolve. When I did the Chomsky dissemination binge, I found that it was a total pain in that ass, and that with so many articles, it clogged up the library. Therefore, I am going to create a page for all the articles, and then provide a link to that page in the library. Thus, one article of Chomsky, or anyone else, for a large compilation.
Regarding discontinuation, the blog has seemed to come to halt. A halt to what would seem to be underdeveloped thought, largely influenced by people much clearer than I. There is one blog post idea, yet it is a transcription of something I wrote on a receit about Nestor Makhno, likely from last year. The problem would seem to be that, since I have few original things to say, and since most original things to say, I don't make public (although this would be the place to make it public, so I'll remember to jot it down when something comes on), this is either a waste of time, a vacant blog, or something to be molded into something else.
Initially I had wanted this to be something of a reporting journal (high in the sky, I realise), particularly focused on the activist movements. There's really no reason I should exclude myself from this, since it would be disempowering otherwise to dismiss my opinions of events, however there are others who's opinions, being far more richer and informed than mine, who would better replace my initiative.
Thenceforth I wanted to have a blog in which I would explain theories and concepts. My reasons for turning away from this have already been stated.
And now we come to here, a collection of links calling itself a library next to a vacant blog, without or unaware of material to fill. So the drive for transformation becomes apparent. What may perhaps happen is a commentary or critique of writings by others, such as The Coming Insurrection and what not. This is informal, so likely a combination of many things.
If anyone would have any suggestions of any kind, please comment.
p.s. Perhaps the reader was annoyed by the part of 'original things to say'. Perhaps not, regardles I will explain: Those original thoughts I do have are fairly small or detatched, and happen only every other while, so that is why they rarely find their way to the blog.
The Stranger creates emptiness and paints it with colours in vain, yet colourful empitness created by the Stranger, must necessarily be strange colourful emptiness...Ultimately strange fake visions...
Friday, September 24, 2010
Year 501: The Conquest Continues
The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many
Keeping the Rabble in Line
Secrets Lies and Democracy
What Uncle Sam Really Wants and a flaming review
9-11 and on 9-11
Preventive War: The Supreme Crime
The New War Against Terror
Anarchism, Marxism, and Hope for the Future
Class Warfare (audio)
Fateful Triangle +
Hegemony or Survival
(incomplete) Media Control
On Miseducation OR
On Osama Bin Laden
The War in Afghanistan
Philosophy and Public Philosophy
Pirates and Emperors, Old and New
Powers and Prospects
The Culture of Terrorism
The Propaganda System
Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace
Who are the Global Terrorists
You Are Being Lied To
If any of these links somehow fucks up, please let me know.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
"My definition of human rights is this: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Your "definition of human rights" is the usual individualist oriented ideology that supports neoliberal doctrine. In turn justifying hegemonist corporate/capitalist atrocities and obviously in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's probably the different premises that is making this clash, from one that emphasizes property and the worries of the wealthy, to one that emphasizes universal welfare and the needs of the poor.
"But the fact remains that government has made it clear that they will be expected to continue to shoulder more and more financial burdens to pay for some politician's wet dream. That is what they seek to escape."
Oh boo hoo, the multi-billion dollar machine is expected to pay the federal government to help single mothers feed their children.
I think that your understanding of this situation is pretty flawed, not surprising considering the apparent neoliberal indoctrination. In this situation there are three entities: the corporations, the political entity (government), and the poor people. In this situation is John Dewey's efficient observation that "Government is the shadow cast on society by big business", most accurate and fitting. For one thing, big businesses, or as Chomsky appropriately calls them, "unaccountable private tyrannies," pretty much control the government to do the bidding of the "National interests," namely the interests of the rich and the strong. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels effectively illustrated the use of the government in the Communist Manifesto (I'm not a Communist BTW): "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." The poor people are left out of the decision-making process, which is not democracy, but in this case a plutocracy. But there is sometimes a burst of democracy where people try to force the government to care about them. The people try to realize material security, and pretty much Article 23.
Therefore that "politician's wet dream" you speak of is the guarantee of education, healthcare, in effect, material security of the people.
The real "politician's wet dream" you speak of is when the government is paid to ensure that the rich stay rich, the people are not heard, the Universal Declaration is ignored, and that the people who are powerful enough to pay the money to control the government live comfortably.
"Here's another fact: I don't care.
Taxes are a form of theft, done under the threat of force (e.g., give us your money or face the law). Regardless of their alleged uses (sorry, but I don't support punishing the wealthy for the problems of the poor. They earned that wealth and it is theirs to use as they please), it is immoral. And forcing more taxes on businesses that are already struggling to get money isn't going to help them expand, which is what leads to more employment."
That's funny, I took you for a patriot American exceptionalist.
Taxes aren't a form of theft. I want to pay taxes because it will go to the welfare of my community (in a just society, but we live in a hegemonist society so it goes to keeping the rich rich and to killing strangers to secure "National interests"). If you want to go around making bold pronouncements based in ideology like "Taxes are a form of theft", how about this? Wages are a form of slavery, and slavery is immoral (not to mention a violation of the UDHR). Today, the rich don't pay taxes, they live in comfort. Using the system above, the government (in the ‘80s, when troubles in the economy started off) lightened taxes on the rich, and laid heavy taxes in the poor. Taxes stopped going to the welfare of the people, but the luxury of the rich. To illustrate, the poor work as slaves to the masterly rich, and pay taxes which go to paying for the perfection of the military state or the limousine.
Let's look at one of the good things that taxes fund - education. Public education allows for the economy to become stronger. A more efficient education allows for the learning of skills which is crucial to the strengthening of an economy.
Where do the problems of the poor come from? The worker is only paid enough to survive. The sick are denied treatment because they are sick poor. The young are denied excellent education because their parents are blue collar and are meant to dwell within the caste. The poor don't receive the money to live in dignity (which, by the way, violates Article 25). America is not a meritocracy. There is an illusion that is common among citizenry (because they've been indoctrinated) that if you're rich, it's because you've worked very, very hard. It's true for the small business, but for the giant, they are rich because of ruthlessness, violation of treaties with workers, and working in the system above of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Essentially, the rich are so rich not because of honest work, but efforts toward vicious class war and inheritance.
Taxes may be immoral when it goes to war and fraud, but they are not at all immoral when they go to funding education and welfare, eventually healthcare (which is a human right). What is immoral is that some drive expensive cars, while many live hardship and submit to others because ‘they work harder', and it is declared that there is equality.
Now imagine a world where the plutocracy has total control of life, there being no obstacle such as a potentially democratic political institution to impose accountability. No social security, no medicare, no institutions sponsored by tax to protect people's material security. Not hard to imagine, especially in the Third World (where this reality exists). People would be given only enough money to survive and propagate more slaves to serve the lavish masters. Not to mention the horrifying working conditions.
Behind the colorful patriotic, and nationalist preaching in neoliberal doctrine, this is the goal, the victory of the class war.
"Land has no value in and of itself (honestly, you're talking about DIRT); its value is based on how it may improve the life of man (e.g., growing food, providing natural resources, etc). Also, if the land in question is privately owned, the owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with it, as the right to property includes the right to use and disposal."
I am not talking about dirt, I am talking about water. Take for instance hydrofracking, where thanks to dismantling laws to protect water, companies use unsafe drilling methods that pollute water. Let's imagine that someone allows a company to drill on their land, it poisons their water, and their neighbor's groundwater. What right does someone have to ruin someone else's water? Watch Gasland for the account.
"I would like to see you show me proof of what you're claiming. I've seen what the people like you define as slavery and how you blow things out of proportion."
Read Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky
Read No Logo by Naomi Klein
Watch : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4513202692382805096
Pilger does pretty good movies, and Chomsky is refreshingly objective.
"And what kind of governments do those countries have?"
These countries have dictatorships that obey the companies that fund them. Without these dictatorships, there would be labor laws, and the effort to out source would not have happened.
Now justify it for me =)"
So then I stopped being so active in writing. After Wage-Slavery, which I amended (mainly the last paragraph I disagreed with), I didn't really think I could make anything else that could match up to it. But I am working more now. But since there's such large gaps it also turned into a disseminating blog. Real useful, since I have such a large audience to disseminate to...
Finally, I have plans to make it somewhat a library. On the Anarchist Publications/Library, I have slowly been getting more items. So I have decided to expand on this process. One might ask, Dr. Fish, if you do not have any readers, why would you do this? Dr. Fish might say "I have nothing better to do."
So news items for the blog, things to develop:
- an article for the Burning Library (1800's)
- another article for the Burning Library (American Power and the New Mandarins?)
- something on Afghanistan and the campaign to dismantle the media and smother the publics with propaganda.
- What is Democracy or The Possibility of Democracy
- a rant about Jesus, and why he's so special
- a an arguement with a neoliberal
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Sweeney/Thompson 11-month moratorium back to life. Last week several
Republicans came out in support of the moratorium, and Senate
leadership took up the issue. Now, as the Legislature returns to
session and many expect the bill to come to a vote, oil and gas
corporations are increasing the pressure on legislators in an effort
to defeat a moratorium. The industry has devoted more than $1 million
this year to lobbying the Governor and Legislature, with $350,000
spent just since May.
Gas corporations are pinning their hopes on politics as usual, but
we’ve come too far to let the industry stop us now! The wind is at
our backs, but we need to make our voices heard in this final push to
get a bill passed.
CALL our leaders in Albany and tell them to stand up to the corporate
bullies. We need them to do everything they can to build and maintain
support for the moratorium in the face of this threat to our water and
Senate Majority Leader John Sampson
Senator Antoine Thompson
Assembly Majority Leader Sheldon Silver
[read more about industry lobbying in today's Times Herald-Record:
Please forward widely.
Friday, July 9, 2010
And the Fourth has begun.
You say it's a joke,
But when you see the starving and bleeding,
it's nothing but the war we face.
The piper plays for the plastic audience.
As a theatre screen burns,
And the fire spreads throughout the city,
Throughout the countryside,
Throughout the metropolis,
Thoughout the entire world,
An International Youth stands to speak,
Our composition is blood,
And our expression is soul.
As the audience melts,
As the hollow dolls leak oil,
As the piper finally dies,
The lycanthropes notice that somethign went wrong.
Maybe it's that their children bleed for nothing.
Maybe it's that their water burns.
Perhaps the soma salesman was finally shot.
Perhaps it has come and gone,
We are already the dead.
July 7th, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Obama says he is angry at BP for the oil spill. Then why did he not drive for enforcing the safety protocol and regulations that would have prevented this tragedy? The aggression and avarice coupl;ed with the indiffreence towards the survival of the planet as long as their mansion remains uneffected, being allowed to run amok is also the fault of our failed attempt at a Welfare State.
Resolutions from the most collaborationist to Revolutionary:
1-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the State to remind them of how Privatized Tyranny running amok leads to discontents in the populace, particularly that most affected. Which will lead to a few more safety regulations and restrictions on how said tyrannies will play a role in oil production and extraction.
2-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the populace to put stresses on the State and the Oil Bourgeoisie to do the functions mentioned above.
3-Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call to people that States and Corporations are never to be trusted, and that any good is done by the will of democracy, real authentic democracy. And this wake-up call will lead to a bit more of authentic democracy.
4- Maybe this will help point out that Capitalism is a dangerous system, and when looked at from the point of view of the decent human being, a flawed system, as it gaurantees an extreme imbalance of wealth and power, and will culminate towards the desctruction of the Neoliberal-Capitalist regime and the creation of the democratic and egalitarian society everyone longs for.
Who knows? Maybe nothing will happen.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The text below summarises some initial thoughts on Wednesday’s tragic events by some of us here at Occupied London. English and Greek versions follow – please disseminate.
Κάποιες πρώτες σκέψεις πάνω στα τραγικά γεγονότα της Τετάρτης (5/5) από κάποιους/ες από εμάς του Occupied London. Ακολουθεί αγγλική και ελληνική έκδοση του κειμένου, παρακαλούμε διαδώστε το.
What do we honestly have to say about Wednesday’s events?
What do the events of Wednesday (5/5) honestly mean for the anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement? How do we stand in the face of the deaths of these three people – regardless of who caused them? Where do we stand as humans and as people in struggle? Us, who do not accept that there are such things as “isolated incidents” (of police or state brutality) and who point the finger, on a daily basis, at the violence exercised by the state and the capitalist system. Us, who have the courage to call things by their name; us who expose those who torture migrants in police stations or those who play around with our lives from inside glamorous offices and TV studios. So, what do we have to say now?
We could hide behind the statement issued by the Union of Bank Workers (OTOE) or the accusations by employees of the bank branch; or we could keep it at the fact that the deceased had been forced to stay in a building with no fire protection – and locked up, even. We could keep it at what a scum-bag is Vgenopoulos, the owner of the bank; or at how this tragic incident will be used to leash out some unprecedented repression. Whoever (dared to) pass through Exarcheia on Wednesday night already has a clear picture of this. But this is not where the issue lies.
The issue is for us to see what share of the responsibilities falls on us, on all of us. We are all jointly responsible. Yes, we are right to fight with all our powers against the unjust measures imposed upon us; we are right to dedicate all our strength and our creativity toward a better world. But as political beings, we are equally responsible for every single one of our political choices, for the means we have impropriated and for our silence every time that we did not admit to our weaknesses and our mistakes. Us, who do not suck up to the people in order to gain in votes, us who have no interest in exploiting anyone, have the capacity, under these tragic circumstances, to be honest with ourselves and with those around us.
What the greek anarchist movement is experiencing at the moment is some total numbness. Because there are pressurising conditions for some tough self-criticism that is going to hurt. Beyond the horror of the fact that people have died who were on “our side”, the side of the workers – workers under extremely difficult conditions who would have quite possibly chosen to march by our side if things were different in their workplace – beyond this, were are hereby also confronted with demonstrator/s who put the lives of people in danger. Even if (and this goes without question) there was no intention to kill, this is a matter of essence that can hold much discussion – some discussion regarding the aims that we set and the means that we chose.
The incident did not happen at night, at some sabotage action. It happened during the largest demonstration in contemporary greek history. And here is where a series of painful questions emerge: Overall, in a demonstration of 150-200,000, unprecedented in the last few years, is there really a need for some “upgraded” violence? When you see thousands shouting “burn, burn Parliament” and swear at the cops, does another burnt bank really have anything more to offer to the movement?
When the movement itself turns massive – say like in December 2008 – what can an action offer, if this action exceeds the limits of what a society can take (at least at a present moment), or if this action puts human lives at danger?
When we take to the streets we are one with the people around us; we are next to them, by their side, with them – this is, at the end of the day, why we work our arses off writing texts and posters – and our own clauses are a single parameter in the many that converge. The time has come for us to talk frankly about violence and to critically examine a specific culture of violence that has been developing in Greece in the past few years. Our movement has not been strengthened because of the dynamic means it sometimes uses but rather, because of its political articulation. December 2008 did not turn historical only because thousands picked up and threw stones and molotovs, but mainly because of its political and social characteristics – and its rich legacies at this level. Of course we respond to the violence exercised upon us, and yet we are called in turn to talk about our political choices as well as the means we have impropriated, recognising our -and their – limits.
When we speak of freedom, it means that at every single moment we doubt what yesterday we took for granted. That we dare to go all the way and, avoiding some cliché political wordings, to look at things straight into the eye, as they are. It is clear that since we do not consider violence to be an end to itself, we should not allow it to cast shadows to the political dimension of our actions. We are neither murderers nor saints. We are part of a social movement, with our weaknesses and our mistakes. Today, instead of feeling stronger after such an enormous demonstration we feel numb, to say the least. This in itself speaks volumes. We must turn this tragic experience into soul-searching and inspire one another since at the end of the day, we all act based on our consciousness. And the cultivation of such a collective consciousness is what is at stake._
Thank you Occupied London.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Mean while... As the worker suffers from the plight of political disenfranchisement, an absence of economic liberty, a continual drop in her focus by the charade of the mass media, and ultimately a humiliating defeat for her dignity, the capitalist who owns her, reaps the benefits of her labors as a capital, and enjoys the luxuries of that capital through economic subsistence, political power, a decent education, and an elevation of his status. In this setting, we see the likelyhood of the persistence of class, that is the inheritance of the class a child was born into. The child of the worker has fewer chances of a decent and excellent education than the child of the capitalist.
Surely someone will respond alike Milton Friedman and attempt to quote Adam Smith out of era (18th century, and 21st century are different centuries) to say that the worker has as much freedom as the capitalist and has the option to quit her job from the capitalist if he treats her unfairly. Regarding the former, to consider the material conditions of the worker, and the wealth of the capitalist, this is a ridiculous and condescending lie. Regarding the latter, Bakunin said it best,
"Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh." (Bakunin)
So it is seen that the worker is always in a sort of serfdom to her masters, the capitalists. No matter the turbulance of the economy, the worker suffers more than the capitalist.
Someone may say, yes I see that capitalism can be oppressive, but is it true to call it 'slavery'? Again, Bakunin says it best,
"M. Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in his magnificent work Das Kapital2 that if the contract freely entered into by the vendors of money -in the form of wages - and the vendors of their own labor -that is, between the employer and the workers - were concluded not for a definite and limited term only, but for one's whole life, it would constitute real slavery. Concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom. Yes, transitory and voluntary from the juridical point of view, but nowise from the point of view of economic possibility. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." (ibid.)
I admit that times have changed, and that technological advances and class mobility has increased, but it must not be forgot, that class mobility in one country, is at the expense of class mobility in another.
Hopefully I have helped to clear away the delusions of liberty and equality in Capitalism. But what hope does the worker have in achieving her liberties and rights? A Social Revolution would be most appropriate in gauranteeing the rights of all, maintaining that it is led by the people and not a vanguard (such as a militia or a party).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
If you read the article, you'll see how the police and the city care nothing about its inhabitants. The DA has put the incident off, and plans to postpone serious investigation for a while. Sadly, police brutality and thug persecution against the LGBT community, or any community is not surprising. Power easily corrupts, and this is evident with the entirety of history. When racists and homphobes, in essence, fascists, are given weapons to fully embody fascism, and serve the interests of the State or the Bourgeoisie, what else can be expected? Pig violence against people is what some might call, institutional violence, or institutional terrorism. The established institution, that of the police department, whether directly satisfying their own fascist instincts, or assaulting people based on a bourgeois' whims, uses the powers that it has available to attack and persecute the people.
Personally, I deny that any kind of police should have a right to exist (I'm not saying that the individual police officers should be slayed regardless of action, that should be saved for the climate of the cool and objective court). An institution that gives weapons and the right to assault is an evil institution, and I would oppose such institution even in the Post-Revolutionary Order, because that institution would inevitably become its own aristocracy, or obedient to the aristocracy that gave them the power to be professional thugs.
I am sure that someone will say to me, "Sure, power corrupts, but I have met police officers that have been courteous to me and reasonably fair and kind to me before. Not all cops are pigs." I agree. Not all cops are pigs. But those cops who aren't pigs, aren't real cops. [The policeofficer's job is to keep the rabble in line. A "liberal police officer" is not quite qualified for the job. Ergo, they are not necessarily real cops/pigs.]
I personally believe that there should be no institution as the police, and that people can handle themselves without the meddling of trigger happy thugs. I am absolutely sure someone woulkd respond "Don't be a fool! Police can be aggressive, but they are a necessary evil for the other thugs, the drug pddling gangs that also patrol our streets!" The latter is true. But what I suggest, a quake of democracy to rid our cities of the tyranny of the institutional terrorists, why should such a quake stop at the destruction of the police department? First of all, the drug peddlers are their own underground capitalists, as capitalists and thugs, uncaring to the damage they cause to the people. No, this quake would destroy every institution of tyranny that plagues the Human Race.
"But how would be deal with our conflicts, as assuredly we would have them."
Certainly, conflict is a part of human nature (as is any criminal act). I propose that we use forms of mediation and courts of reasonable democratic and objective jurors, courts in the immediacy of the incident. Accountability and punishment, will be minor (or major, according to the severity of the crime), amounting mainly to dialogue with the victim (with the consent of the victim of course) and forms of rehabilitation.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
I'm tired of being lower on the class strata, and missing out on advantages my peers have, and being a proletarian!
I'm tired of being betrayed (by my brothers), my sex-organ used as a weapon to dominate our sisters (&others)!
I'm tired of my skin being acquainted with oppression and discrimination, and the evil of the world!
I'm tired of stale and static relationships!
I'm tired of always searching for the answer above me!
I'm tired of searching for the answer below me!
I'm tired of seeing the answer brought away to cynicism when I see the beautiful minds of my people turn toward their inner death!
I'm tired of this fragile fucking world, and the disease it has sprung upon itself.
I wish to awake to the Human Revolution tomorrow, where we all are equal, regardless of ability, sex, gender, race, and history. I wish to wake up tomorrow, and see friends and families restored to what they should have always been. I wish to wake up and see prosperity for us all. I wish to wake up tomorrow and see... the life I can stand living.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
But as I was wasting my time thinking about the world, I took the premise that a major goal of civilization is to make food, that entity upon which Humanity survives, free, gauranteeing huge leaps upon the ladder of which our decendants shall call advancement. Food Not Bombs can be too fragile an organization to allow for a constant outlet of free food, as well as it not reaching the entire population.
So it comes down to the farmers to supply the food, as they actually do anyway. I imagined the local farmer(s) being able to supply its nearby city (we'll call that the commune, in the 19th century sense of the word), as is the case in Ithaca. If they were to supply the commune with food for free, then the capitalist or bank that really owns that property (bank extorting mortgage, capitalist as landlord extorting rent) will evict the farmer because they will not be able to pay for the martgage/rent. They will also not be able to maintain their equipment, and so production will falter anyway. [The farmer will not be able to give food away for free in current conditions]
Therefore, it lies in making the land free and the maintainance for equipment available. The only way to make the land free is to initiate a Social Revolution, in which the farmer becomes the true owner of the property, and maintainance becomes available from the local commune. [only revolution will allow the farmer to become true owner of his/her porperty, thus enabling her/him to give his/her produce to the commune free of charge]
Few mintues passed and I realized I had come to the same conclusion every other Anarchist/Socialist had come to. To dispel at least one myth about positivist Anarchy (post-revolutionary period aspect), money, or some form of currency would still exist, just most things would be made so they will be free.
For James Guillaume's 'On Building the New Social Order':
for Petr Kropotkin's Conquest of bread:
both are descriptions of positivist Anarchy. (first one's a quick read)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Yet, the Organic movement has turned into some kind of pompous status to use in the power complex. Our culture assigns some kind of dignity to purchasing Organic foods (that may not be produced with harmful chemical additives, but most assuredly with the more successful, are produced with the labor of classical capitalist exploitation) that the poor are not as able to purchase. The Organic Reformation has turned into the hypocritical social strata despotism that it was started to defeat. The petty bourgeoisie are the only ones that can afford the organic food prices, thus giving them the delusion that they are better than the true proletarians who are too desperate to bother buying the high prices necessitated by the bourgeois system.
The Organic Reformation is growing though. Demand keeps growing as the supply becomes more available, spurred on by the opportunities provided by the growing demand of the organic produce markets, increasing the supply, lowering the prices brought on by the competition essential to bourgeois production, increasing demand, increasing supply, lowering prices, increasing demand, etc. until the organic produce markets begin to be equal to the artificial produce markets and is accessible by the proletariat. This is bourgeois development. Once the Organic Reformation completes, the organic produce markets have spread to numerous industries and the market has become large enough to trump the artificial markets, the Social Revolution would place organic production under the worker's control, networked by industry associations, creating the anarchist economy.
I see this as very possible and good. I also see the Organic Reformation possible under Anarchist production. It just amounts to a question of which method would be best. In my opinion I think the Organic Reformation would happen faster under Anarchist production. Someone else may see Anarchist production as too unstable or hectic to allow such a progress in as fast a time as bourgeois production. Nobody really knows because the problem with theory is that it is based off of fact ascended into speculation.