Posted 3 years ago on Feb. 16, 2014, 8:40 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
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?
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:
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.
There is one time and one time only to tell the truth:
That Time Is NOW
On Philosophy -
- Part I: Here's the Deal
- Part II: ZenDog Zen
- Part III: Just A Little More Zen
- Anarcho - Capitalism v Syndicalism
On the Surveillance Industrial Complex -
- thanks for fuking up the web page
- This Surveillance Issue Isn't That Difficult To Grasp Is It?
- Comment: Why Should A Person Care . . .
- Comment: Pussy Riot . . .