Freedom of the market is not applicable to society, because it will lead to control and rigid class structure based on the myth of individual freedom.
Indeed, the freedom that social activists strive for is based on the fallacy that freedom from coercion is a viable political outcome. The inherent violence in attempting to achieve such freedom shows that such freedom will always be subject to control by the elites of society.
For the ideal society free of rules will still require a method of social control, lest the alternative — chaos — lead to a feared breakdown of society.
The truth is, society does not need a centralized government to function — Gwangju is a good example of this. In the aftermath of the Park assassination of 1979, Gwangju formed an anarchistic society without central government, which threatened the control by the elites of South Korea of the Korean people.
In contrast, the freedom to create new ways of innovation is truly viable. Anything else is doomed to end in control of the People by the elites. A society that allows such control yet seeks to be free of it will continue to produce automatons, not people.
Ergo, social activism ought to focus on the freedom to be rather than the freedom from coercion which appears to be their current focus. By focusing solely on freedom from coercion, social activism will eventually result in the loss of the freedom their advocates fight for.
For freedom is actually about fulfilling your potential, not freeing oneself from coercion, which actually is a given within family dynamics.
So, yes, I'm all for sitting on your ass in Zen rather than this revolutionary bullshit.
Reference:
Gwangju: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju
Gawngju Democratization Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement
Showing posts with label anarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anarchy. Show all posts
20090131
Adbusters: Lest We Forget - the Speech That Never Was
Monday, December 10, 2001 11:11 - Gandhara Op-Ed
Adbusters implies that, by declaring war against terrorism, America confirmed being a victim to terrorism. Rather than being inspired to promote peace, the GW Bush government chose instead the forever war that has been the legacy of terrorism.
Yet the State now sees its country and the world through the myopic lens of a post-911 future where fear of terrorism has led to racial profiling, illegal body searches and x-ray technology that violates privacy.
Here is a part of the Adbuster article:
What Could Have Been: The speech that was never made, lest we forget
Fellow Americans, citizens of the world: Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
We cannot see inside the head of a terrorist, and yet today we understand clearly what it is he demands. A terrorist demands hate. He demands fear. Above all else, a terrorist demands war.
But a free people does not bend to the demands of terror.
Our friends and family members have died in the thousands, their bright lights of life made suddenly, brutally dark. To the world tonight I say that not one more innocent person will die in the name of this terrorist act. Not one more mother's son in America. Not one more beloved father in Afghanistan. Not one more infant child in Israel or in Palestine.
To the men and women in uniform I say: We all must hope that your soldiering days are done. Today you are our officers of law and our keepers of precious peace. You have been challenged by a terrible crime and make no mistake, this nation's hunger for justice is as strong as its love of peace. We look to you, to our police forces and our troops, to the elected representatives of our citizens, and to our friends and allies in the international community, to bring the full weight of law and of human dignity against the wrongdoers and criminals.
America is ever prepared to act, and to act alone if we must...
Original post: December 10, 2001 11:11H
Previous update: January 31, 2009 1857
Update posted: March 8, 2013 1355H
Adbusters: What Could Have Been: http://web.archive.org/web/20020206005225/http://adbusters.org/magazine/39/whatcould.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020206005225/http://adbusters.org/magazine/39/whatcould.html
Adbusters implies that, by declaring war against terrorism, America confirmed being a victim to terrorism. Rather than being inspired to promote peace, the GW Bush government chose instead the forever war that has been the legacy of terrorism.
Yet the State now sees its country and the world through the myopic lens of a post-911 future where fear of terrorism has led to racial profiling, illegal body searches and x-ray technology that violates privacy.
Here is a part of the Adbuster article:
What Could Have Been: The speech that was never made, lest we forget
Fellow Americans, citizens of the world: Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
We cannot see inside the head of a terrorist, and yet today we understand clearly what it is he demands. A terrorist demands hate. He demands fear. Above all else, a terrorist demands war.
But a free people does not bend to the demands of terror.
Our friends and family members have died in the thousands, their bright lights of life made suddenly, brutally dark. To the world tonight I say that not one more innocent person will die in the name of this terrorist act. Not one more mother's son in America. Not one more beloved father in Afghanistan. Not one more infant child in Israel or in Palestine.
To the men and women in uniform I say: We all must hope that your soldiering days are done. Today you are our officers of law and our keepers of precious peace. You have been challenged by a terrible crime and make no mistake, this nation's hunger for justice is as strong as its love of peace. We look to you, to our police forces and our troops, to the elected representatives of our citizens, and to our friends and allies in the international community, to bring the full weight of law and of human dignity against the wrongdoers and criminals.
America is ever prepared to act, and to act alone if we must...
Original post: December 10, 2001 11:11H
Previous update: January 31, 2009 1857
Update posted: March 8, 2013 1355H
Adbusters: What Could Have Been: http://web.archive.org/web/20020206005225/http://adbusters.org/magazine/39/whatcould.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020206005225/http://adbusters.org/magazine/39/whatcould.html
20080107
Jerry Rubin Quote Echoes Unabomb Manifesto 230
"What would happen if the white ideological Left took power? The hippie streets would be the first cleaned up by the 'socialist' pigs. We'd be forced to get haircuts and shaves every week. We'd have to bathe every night, and we'd go to jail for saying dirty words. Sex, except to produce children for the revolution, would be illegal. Psychedelic drugs would be capital crimes and beer drinking mandatory. Rock dancing would be taboo, and mini-skirts, Hollywood movies and comic books illegal." - Jerry Rubin
"The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois." - T. Kaczynski, unabomb manifesto 230
So, then if the unabomb manifesto author is merely rephrasing Rubin's quote, then surely Kaczinski is not the original author of the manifesto.
Indeed, quite probably Industrial Society and its Future was not originally penned by Kaczinski, as can be determined by the use of "we" and "us", two pronouns anarchists do not use but have been used by radicals writing in anonymity as part of a "domestic terrorist" group.
"The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois." - T. Kaczynski, unabomb manifesto 230
So, then if the unabomb manifesto author is merely rephrasing Rubin's quote, then surely Kaczinski is not the original author of the manifesto.
Indeed, quite probably Industrial Society and its Future was not originally penned by Kaczinski, as can be determined by the use of "we" and "us", two pronouns anarchists do not use but have been used by radicals writing in anonymity as part of a "domestic terrorist" group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)