Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If the State is so vile, or not, How did it came to be in the first place ?
#1
There you go, read the title.
Reply
#2
How do vile things come into being? Good question.
Reply
#3
(Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:14:01 +0000, 11:14 AM)Zhachev Wrote:
(Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:17:09 +0000, 09:17 PM)|0|__|0| Wrote: There you go, read the title.

1. Humans became highly efficient foragers.

2. They formed sedentary communities in places where natural resources were abundant.

3. The State eventual arises out of a need to protect these interests.

Interesting question to keep the conversation going: is a beehive a city-state?

I don't get point number 3, since you can protect your interests without a state, you just need an army, for example there has been, Makho or ezln.


Beehive is more like a commune, im pretty sure there is no tyranny there, everyone's willingly.
Reply
#4
There is no one simple principa civitas. However: "The state of nature has the nature of a state." https://anti-civ.net/showthread.php?tid=18

(Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:50:58 +0000, 03:50 PM)Zhachev Wrote: Anarchists were crushed in Ukraine so we don't know how it would have ended.

Sure we do. It ended by them being crushed. They utterly failed to preserve any the above-mentioned interests.
Reply
#5
(Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:50:58 +0000, 03:50 PM)Zhachev Wrote: Anarchists were crushed in Ukraine so we don't know how it would have ended.

We know a little about the plans of the Makhnovchtchina, had they defeated the Red and White armies ranged against them. We know that they advocated the setting up of "peasant communes", called variously, "Communes of Work" [sic], "Free Communes" and "Commune Rosa Luxembourg" and that they proposed introducing barter in place of money as a means of exchange. 

Whether these Communes of Work would have been markedly different from any other place of work is questionable to say the least; and by retaining the concept of exchange (although in the form of barter), and hence rejecting the act of free giving, were they really revolutionising or merely reforming the present state of the world?
Reply
#6
(Fri, 02 Feb 2018 14:08:13 +0000, 02:08 PM)alexander Wrote: There is no one simple principa civitas. However: "The state of nature has the nature of a state." https://anti-civ.net/showthread.php?tid=18

(Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:50:58 +0000, 03:50 PM)Zhachev Wrote: Anarchists were crushed in Ukraine so we don't know how it would have ended.

Sure we do. It ended by them being crushed. They utterly failed to preserve any the above-mentioned interests.

Sorry if I'm being thick, Alexander, but what interests are you referring to?
Reply
#7
(Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:15:48 +0000, 03:15 PM)KyXen Wrote: Sorry if I'm being thick, Alexander, but what interests are you referring to?

See Zhachev's original post.
Reply
#8
So, in other words, the "anarchists" of Ukraine failed to preserve [recreate] an abundance of natural resources.

If the state were to fall tomorrow I would see the immediate necessity to pull down the fences that separate this world; to plant food bearing trees and bushes amongst the concrete; create all weather paths amongst the industrial sized fields... Melt guns into hoes...

That is just what my immediate actions would be. I am sure everyone would develop their own means of recreating the abundance of nature the day the Dollar/Pound/Yen falls.
Reply
#9
I have never read Camatte (https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/commrus1.htm). I will read it after Against Dietary Vegan.

I find a fork troublesome to my lower back compared to the African method of using a hoe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mANnikZcagU
Reply
#10
I read the first seven paragraphs of Against Dietary Veganism admiringly. You make things clear that needed to be made clear about the illusion of being able to change the present system of production at the point of consumption. Clearer than anything I have read.

At the beginning of the eighth paragraph I come up against a problem:

In attempting to escape nature, humans created civilization...

Human beings did not create civilisation: inhuman beings -- the expropriator classes -- created civilisation and appointed priestly castes to legitimise their expropriation. These priestly castes form the basis of all states.

...now the monopoly of violence once held by nature belongs to the State.

If this is true then my memory of throwing a projectile at the forces of order in the heat of battle was a figment of my imagination, or else at that moment I miraculously became a state official.

We can link the rise of persistent hominin carnivory with the emergence of increasingly complex behavior and culture.

I believe this to be true but how universal is this "persistant hominum carnivory"? Even in this modern era the vast majority of the population does not eat meat persistantly but only rarely due to cultural and economic preclusions.

The transition to meat consumption emerged parallel to things like: language, fire, technology, hunting parties, and eventually farming, housing, goods, mass society– perhaps even the first human socio-cultural groups.

This is simply untrue. There is no correlation between the consumption of meat and the development of language. In fact, it is quite the opposite or else it would have been the Neanderthal branch of hominoids that would have developed speech and not the human family in Africa.

Anthro-apologists -- apologists on behalf of The Man -- can go sling their hooks. Scientists -- the whores of Babylon -- can go do one!

Yes Zachev and Asima, the second half of the essay needs some serious revisions. I suggest revising it straight into the waste paper basket. Perhaps you had your collective heads in that very same basket for the last ten years when you wrote the following:

In most regions, the threats posed by manmade climate change seem a far greater danger to capitalism than revolution.

Kind regards,

J and K
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)