Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Here's the Deal

Posted 5 months ago on Feb. 16, 2014, 8:40 a.m. EST by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All right you silly fukers. Are you ready? I know many of you do not like me, and that is fine. I am content with that. It's alright. At least by now you should be well aware that I am not going to sit here and lie to you. I will simply tell it as it appears to be - or not - and explain why this is so. That - along with cheering the movement - is all I have ever done.

I have come to a clear understanding that much, though not entirely all, of philosophy is and has become an utterly useless endeavor. This is because it comes to us from the Academy, or more properly, from Academia. It draws the best and the brightest of intellects given to rumination over the most problematic aspects of human behavior, society, and culture - and yet as it does so it cannot entirely divorce itself from the power structure of the society within which it resides.

This has been true as far back as Socrates, and his tea.

The temptation to tell truth to power by anyone of average intelligence and a civic inclination can be overwhelming when one spots grotesque inefficiency and a senseless squandering of resources. Yet to do so does encompass certain risks. History is clear about this.

To address this simple and inescapable fact, those who teach philosophy must, over time, have come to a simple solution if they are to ensure the survival of themselves and their most gifted students. Such solutions can be nothing short of curbs to the genius of youth, such curbs presenting a clear conflict with existential belief in an era of social corruption and moral decay and must produce a high degree of cynicism and disdain. This can be the only explanation for the rise of nihilism early in the 19th century.

But what is true?

Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian Communism Does Not, and almost certainly Cannot Exist

What we see in Libertarian Communism, whose aim is to produce a society where everyone represents their own interests, is a form of nihilism applied to social organization. This is itself entirely contradictory - for if nihilism posits that nothing has value then any form of social organization is simply ridiculus and a complete waste of time. And so the question does arise - Why? Why organize anything at all?

The answer is quite simple, it is because we must. To do nothing is not an option. We simply must do something. And so those within academia have settled on a solution that does blunt the threat a mass of organized discontent must produce. The discontented masses present little threat so long as each individual represents themselves and no one else. But once one of them arises to organize and to lead . . . we have seen what happens.

By why is it not possible to organize a society around principles of Libertarian Communism? And why must this simple reality be readily apparent to the brightest of scholars among us and throughout history?

It is not possible to use Libertarian Communism as a governing philosophy simply because throughout seven thousand years of planting seeds, much of humanity has not been able to love thy neighbor. The Christian tradition tells us that the rise of the law was because of that express inability. The Greek and Latin tradition demonstrates where the absence of law must lead. These two traditions make a similar pronouncement, and all of human history both before and since does seem to confirm it. It is simply not possible to organize large communities around principles of lawlessness.

If we are honest with ourselves, then we must admit, our own experience with the General Assembly process as applied during the Occupation of Wall Street does confirm the impossibility of Libertarian Communism.

.

As to why individuals such as Chomsky would hold forth such fallacy before the public as virtue to be desired above all else, one is left to speculate. Idealism, perhaps; or a thin cloak given to power itself as the leadership of dissent is neutered. What is clear is that in his discussions of the day, Chomsky is not speaking to us. He is speaking to power. He is speaking in symbols.

This must be the explanation for Chomsky's response when asked:

Do you think the left in general could become another oppressed population in the future?

where he said:

  • I don't think there's much of a threat there. I doubt that there'll be anything like what there was in the 60s. We're nowhere near the days of COINTELPRO.*

IF his statement were true, he would be free to shed his fallacious adherence to a philosophical dead end.

.



.

Someone should tell Chomsky, I just dissed his ass as politely as I may.

Perhaps next we will examine the meaning, etymology, application and consequence of the terms: neo.liberal and neo.conservative . . .

There is one time and one time only to tell the truth:

That Time Is NOW



.

On Philosophy -


On the Surveillance Industrial Complex -


Other -

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

So what are you proposing?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

create a network to where the peoples post can be verified as true in source

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

You can read, can't cha?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34986) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

Perhaps You would be better off asking if it can comprehend what it reads?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

face book is private property

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

I see you think GAs were a waste of time, and whatnot, and stated we must do something quite a few times...

Just wondering what it is. Whats the plan? Keep things as they are and run candidates? Keep things as they are and create new parties? Create a new system and try out in small places? Educate the masses and hope they come up with it?

I mean, everyone knows how frustrating GAs are. Nothing like debating whether general stack serves a purpose or not, or my favorite- debating if debate should be part of the GA- but whats the end game?

I see a lot of what won't work, with little in the scope what will in any level of detail provided for what wont

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

create a publicly verifiable system though the use of unique identification

which anyone and everyone can count

to express counter opinions that cannot be discounted as a minority

[-] 0 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

http://whatthenmustwedo.org/

Changing the infrastructure of the economy into one by the people might be the first step.

We just have to really want it.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

It's a mater of standing as a citizen with a name

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Actually what I implied was that the organizing principle behind which the GA was founded was a waste of time. In fact, attempting to maintain that the GA was in fact organized around anarchist principles is itself a hypocrisy, patently false, and demonstrably so. Even in the attempt, the process itself became unwieldy.

And the only solution I have posed in this essay is right in your face, there at the end in bold face print, if you have eyes that can see. I confess, it is only a beginning, but in reality it is the only practical, only credible, place from which one may begin . . .

for your exclusive benefit, I'll repeat myself:

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

Yes, I saw that. I'm just not sure what kind of message that is if you stand in front of occupy and declare that your plan for action is to simply tell the truth.

I like the simplicity of it, and its certainly important, just not sure what to do with it afterwards. So you get everyone to agree to start telling the truth.... Then what? Is this going on the assumption that if that happens, everything else will take care of itself?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

keep telling the truth

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

I like the simplicity of it,

It is, I insist, among the most Radical of traditions known to man.

Imagine just one thousand of us, banded together under a commitment to simply tell the truth - and do so while offering a political alternative that the public can accept.

. . . .Just Imagine . . .

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

Oh I can imagine it very well, and I think it would be a good rallying call, just curious as to what the political alternative you are envisioning looks like, because the topic will eventually come up.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

What ever it is it must embrace the basic and irrefutable facets of the Human Condition, it must allow each individual to grow as individuals at their own pace and in their own good time, and it must be sufficiently streamlined that it may respond to the necessities of the moment on short notice and provide for the needs of the people in a timely and equitable manner, regardless of whether that necessity is engendered by man < industry > or by nature < global warming >.

And it must be easily understood and quickly embraced by the vast proportion of citizens of the nation, and so quickly implemented by the people.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34986) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

And it must be easily understood and quickly embraced by the vast proportion of citizens of the nation, and so quickly implemented by the people.

Quite - no legalese mumbo-jumbo billion and a half multi-verbose words - to express a single thought that can be fully represented in full meaning by a single sentence with fewer than three compound words.

[-] 0 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

Any thoughts on the actual structuring you are proposing?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

yes I do, I do have some thoughts on that most recent proposal of mine.

We can turn to sources such as nodisinfo.com who promote some of the most vile examples of yellow journalism - in this case the chicagotribune.com explores the owner and profiteer in some small detail: Cassim K. Igram writes about government theories, herbal medicine under aliases -

This particular site is estimated to be worth $102,240.00 - since there are no ads this revenue must be generated by selling its email list.

Let me repeat:

We purchase email lists from this and other similar websites that promote both conspiracy and herbal remedies, searching for paranoid libertarians whose lives and emotional states can be shown to have been destabilized by environmental conditions . . .

and apply

.

what? were you expecting something else?

[-] -3 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

i don't know at the moment I am busy researching the days bus accidents

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

people like routine

rules of procedure occur naturally

[-] 0 points by fightingthe1percent (0) from New York, NY 5 months ago

Nobody hates you, we just find you boring beyond belief. You're at the wrong place. Like a rabbi preaching his religion in a church, or a hockey player on a football field. You post against anarcho-syndicalism which is the core foundation of Occupy, an anarchy-communist movement. It makes no sense. What do you expect? That Occupy becomes just like your Democrats? What would be the point of changing Occupy to something else? We already have groups and movements for what you believe in, why not leave us with what we believe in?

What we see in Libertarian Communism, whose aim is to produce a society where everyone represents their own interests

This shows you don't understand Libertarian Communism. It's not about the personal interests of individuals. That's capitalism. Libertarian Communism is about the interests of the population as a whole.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago


fightingthe1percent:

Nobody hates you, we just find you boring beyond belief. You're at the wrong place. Like a rabbi preaching his religion in a church, or a hockey player on a football field. You post against anarcho-syndicalism which is the core foundation of Occupy, an anarchy-communist movement. It makes no sense. What do you expect? That Occupy becomes just like your Democrats? What would be the point of changing Occupy to something else? We already have groups and movements for what you believe in, why not leave us with what we believe in?

  • What we see in Libertarian Communism, whose aim is to produce a society where everyone represents their own interests

This shows you don't understand Libertarian Communism. It's not about the personal interests of individuals. That's capitalism. Libertarian Communism is about the interests of the population as a whole.

fightingthe1percent



a) I'm sure Nobody hates me, and if Nobody is alone in that respect, then all I can say is I simply have not tried hard enough . . .

b) My assumption is and has been all along that the core of OWS was in fact Opposition to the One Percent, rather than dogmatic adherence to a demonstrably false philosophy that depends entirely on deceit if it is to stand at all.

And what is Libertarian Communism?

  • Anarcho-syndicalists seek to organise with other militant workers who agree with their revolutionary aims and principles. Initially, this takes the form of local groups and industrial networks, but as these grow in size and influence they can begin to take on union functions such as advising fellow workers and initiating direct action like work-to-rules, strikes and occupations.

  • The role of anarcho-syndicalist networks and unions is not to try and recruit every worker, but to advocate and organise mass meetings of all workers involved in each struggle so that the workers involved retain control. Within these mass meetings anarcho-syndicalists argue for the principles of solidarity, direct action and self-organisation.

  • In this way anarcho-syndicalism is completely different to trade unionism, which seeks to represent our economic interests, and the so-called ‘workers parties’ which seek to represent our political interests. Instead, anarcho-syndicalism unites the political and the economic and opposes representation in favour of self-organisation.

  • By organising this way, we learn to act for ourselves, exercising our power without being led by union officials or political vanguards. This calls into question the way society is organised and prefiguring the world we want to create, without bosses or rulers: libertarian communism.

An exercise of power without leadership within any group is and must be entirely about the personal interests of each individual - it is and must be the epitome of self actualization and empowerment.

And this is why Libertarians and Nihilists tend to go so well together, for the final conclusion of Libertarian - the freedom or the Liberty of self determination - is nothing less than the complete annihilation of every other consideration.

It is a deceit, a delusion.

.

Philosophy died as it gave birth to Nihilism. I would be remiss if I did not point out this simple reality - after 200 years there it lies. Dead and Stinking.

.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

well the san diego GA made a move to protest TTP

TTP world economic rules determined in secret by the Elite and they're elected officials

I felt the efforts as a distraction as the people of the world

determine the economic should determine trade

and not some private interest

so complaining about their "rules" gave this fringe group some sort of authority

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

I don't understand what you mean.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

TTP suggests how international corporations will do contracts

these rules are determined by an elite populations

People/Nation will determine how they will act on their own and are only obligated to considered TTP if they choose to acknowledge that group has legitimate standing. Complaining about rules set forth by a illegitimate group (TTP) means that we take this group as an authority.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Like it or not, if that elite group can come up with a plan that leaders of other national governments will both: Sign and Adhere to [at least in some fashion] -

then they are an authority - legitimate or not.

When their behavior and advocacy runs contrary to the interest and well being of others, including whole nations - we have no choice. We must stand up and oppose that authority. There are only three ways one may conduct such opposition that I know of:

  1. Bend the opponent to your will via some form of coercion.
  2. Kill the opponent and hope it serves as a lesson to other like minded individuals
  3. Prove to the world the nature of the authority is in fact illegitimate and untrustworthy, and therefore not to be followed - and that sufficient numbers of people are aware and discontent over that fact, and that that discontent is in fact going to continue to grow despite best efforts to the contrary.
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

no rules not open for consideration by the people can be considered legitimized by the people

this false control is achieved through created money

trade between nations had always existed and doesn't need ttp

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

I have heard of it, I do not know what is in it, and while I have a small sense of the economic theory that is supposedly behind it, I am not sufficiently conversant to discuss its particulars nor to evaluate the degree to which the theory conforms to practice - or not.

What I do know is that there was an agreement with Canada and Mexico, reasons were put forth for its justification, there were various rules including environmental, there were economic winners and losers as a result. The worst aspect of it that I am aware of revolves around the environmental rules, which while in place are not followed in Mexico, with horrendous consequences.

Given the minimal amount of my knowledge concerning these agreements, my suggestion cannot rise beyond the premise -

  • the international community would do far better to establish an incontestable degree of fairness and accountability with regard to current economic and trade agreements before engaging in further parchment parades.
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

leave it to the "experts?"

Mexico should establish environmental standards

global warming doesn't care

I could say the tpp does not have the interest of the people

as it is not brokered with the people

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

leave it to the "experts?"

Surely it isn't that complicated, is it? I mean, do I really need a degree in electrical engineering and do we all need to arrive at a consensus before the electrical work can begin? Or can we simply trust the electrician is going to follow the directions, and the regulations, in providing the finished product?

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

we can trust that all electrons will act alike

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34986) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

Matt - SERIOUSLY - enough with your cryptic crap already - put something out in full - explain your thought A to Z or Just don't bother to say anything at all.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.

https://twitter.com/OccupyWallSt

can't follow this

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34986) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

Why tell me that you have been blocked?

It has nothing to do with me - I didn't block you.

It appears to have everything to do with you.

Hence my prior comment (s) to you regarding your cryptic crap.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (32593) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 minutes ago

Being passive aggressive? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

prefer to stay on topic

Passive aggressive is the lack of response i get from corps when i ask for a job

http://occupywallst.org/forum/job-i-need-a-job/

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

can anyone name any example within nature, where a leaderless organization of . . . anything other than fish . . . may be said to exist?

[-] -1 points by JamesWhitaker (11) from New York, NY 5 months ago

I suggest you read a book on anarcho-communism, or talk to OWS founders and intellectuals on the topic. You confuse it with anarcho-individualism. It makes me sad when people spread false information about anarcho-communism, especially when it's from basic ignorance. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves before tackling complicated subjects in public discourse.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Does reading this count?

Anarcho-syndicalism is anarchism applied to the workers’ movement. From small educational groups to mass revolutionary unions, libertarian organisation grows and is controlled from the bottom up.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to organise with other militant workers who agree with their revolutionary aims and principles. Initially, this takes the form of local groups and industrial networks, but as these grow in size and influence they can begin to take on union functions such as advising fellow workers and initiating direct action like work-to-rules, strikes and occupations.

The role of anarcho-syndicalist networks and unions is not to try and recruit every worker, but to advocate and organise mass meetings of all workers involved in each struggle so that the workers involved retain control. Within these mass meetings anarcho-syndicalists argue for the principles of solidarity, direct action and self-organisation.

In this way anarcho-syndicalism is completely different to trade unionism, which seeks to represent our economic interests, and the so-called ‘workers parties’ which seek to represent our political interests. Instead, anarcho-syndicalism unites the political and the economic and opposes representation in favour of self-organisation.

By organising this way, we learn to act for ourselves, exercising our power without being led by union officials or political vanguards. This calls into question the way society is organised and prefiguring the world we want to create, without bosses or rulers: libertarian communism.

.

HOnestly, I'm doing my very best not to be led.

Solldarity

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

thanks

[-] -3 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

It was linked in the OP - Jimmy must have missed it.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

it says he's from manhatten

is anyone on here from new york ?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

I doubt it. Maybe. Its probably trashy and he read my last email so now he's pretending to be someone.

who knows.

[-] -1 points by JamesWhitaker (11) from New York, NY 5 months ago

It's a good start, but reading and understanding are two different things. You contradict this text in your OP on several occasions. You should really read a whole book on the subject if you wish to be able to fluidly discuss it in a manner that makes sense and is in tune with what anarcho-communism is and isn't.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

You contradict this text in your OP on several occasions

No I didn't, for if I had you would be certain to point them out. The fact is anarcho-syndicalism most often contradicts itself as soon as it is applied. I've seen it happen. With my own eyes.

In any case, I did not dwell on Libertarian Communism, or Anarcho-syndicalism, at any great length so it would be remarkable if I had found some way to contradict the definition of the term with my current usage.

You can keep insisting otherwise of course. The evidence is above, for everyone to see.

What really irritates the shit out of me is the simple fact that Anarcho-cyndicalism is so easily confused with good ol Libertarian Repelicanism that they are quite content to let OWS direct the conversation so long as they provide the definition of terms.

Fuk them.

It really does irk me no end.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Who can say that a refusal to embrace Truth will produce a life worth living, or a nation worth keeping . . .

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

If we are honest with ourselves, then we must admit, our own experience with the General Assembly process as applied during the Occupation of Wall Street does confirm the impossibility of Libertarian Communism.

That impossibility rests with one simple fact - and that is the human Ego. The human ego is a component of the human condition, one that makes self governance in a complete absence of boundaries utterly impossible. If we cannot govern ourselves in such condition, then how can we possibly produce a social construct that will? We cannot, and any attempt to do so is simply a refusal to accept what is a natural part of the Human Condition.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Interviewer:

  • Did you just apply Nihilism to Nihilist Political Theory?

ZenDog:

  • You could say that, I guess. Some might argue that I have actually applied Nihilism to that which gave it birth, that sacred cow known as philosophy. Not reason and logic itself, but rather the entire breadth of culture that has grown up around it, and held it aloft as a virtue. It is a patricide that is perhaps long overdue.

Interviewer:

  • If that is true, and if philosophy has now been cast aside as you suggest, then where are we left?

ZenDog:

  • . . . Enlightenment?
[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

here we are - I trust I'm not the only one who wants to keep these fine threads near the top, eh?

sure, sure . . .

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

yeah-ya - here's the deal . . .

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Where principles of Libertarian philosophy become harnessed to produce corporate lawlessness, Libertarian philosophy ceases to be a friend of the people.

Where Libertarian Communism becomes relabeled on the one hand, while utterly impossible on the other, it becomes a deceit, one designed to drive the public to distraction.

[-] -3 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

flip mutherfuker flip

[+] -4 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Philosophy is dead!

Long Live Philosophy!

.

wait

what does that mean?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

philosophy often relates to abstract ideas

and is prone to loss anchor with material reality

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

if it cannot reconcile the abstract with the real then it has not discovered truth - about anything at all, rather it has engaged in a systematized process of self congratulatory flatulation.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

and here i was thinking not to disturb you

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

hahaaa

bwa hahahahaaaaaaa

[-] -1 points by shooz (17714) 5 months ago

It means objectivism is still very much with us.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13178) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Objectivism: the meta-ethical doctrine that there are certain moral truths that are independent of the attitudes of any individuals

Yess, but let us have proof. Find a Nihilist, and remove their fingernails. If Nihilism IS, than it is neither wrong to do so, nor will they even complain.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17714) 5 months ago

Add in a dose of Ayn Rand and it turns into a religion for the 1%.