One self-proclaimed anarchist calling another a nihilist reminds me of the American Democrat calling an anti-war progressive isolationist.
Anti-Statism aside, lefties who see the Democrats for the irredeemable spectre that they are simply cannot be put into one chest of drawers, let alone one drawer and, in this regard, cannot be expected to agree upon functional action. And different folks with entirely divergent investments in life cannot be expected to see the opportunities and risks involved in going forward in the same light, let alone same reality tunnel.
For some, the most radical question is whether or not the formation of a third party to challenge the establishment is tenable. Others are convinced that voting is a waste of organizational energy which can only lead to more of the same, irrespective of the ideals of the party in question.
Yet, still, the latter of those two cannot agree upon just what it is that constitutes effective and positive, substantive change when it comes to putting an end the status quo. There is this nagging "engagement versus withdrawal" straw-man of a question.
I personally find the observation that when one withholds from the official economy one's labor and fruits thereof that one is "damaging the commons and those who don't have the luxury to do the same" to be so wide of the mark that it is difficult to know how to respond.
Indeed, because it seems obvious to me - just as obvious that the American president is not battling Republicans, but doing the will of big money - that one must choose which commons one wants to be a part of. Paying my taxes on time will do no more for a poor family in Detroit or Guben than voting for a Democrat or the SPD will.
As a matter of fact, the oft touted benefits of voting for "the viable alternative" as bulwark against the "ever-increasing scary faction" are but an infectious side-effect of their corruption and mendacity; likewise, any penny I place over the table is as likely a part of willful oppression as it is poverty's diminishment.
One can do no better for the working poor than to tell them to go cold turkey. Fuck that commons. Regarding the mother who cashiers at Aldi - running to and from stocking the shelves every time another customer brings his booty to the checkout: No matter how I choose to live my life, I couldn't deliver unto her the privilege of choice any better than I could convince a Democrat to vote for Cynthia McKinney, or an SPDler Sahra Wagenknecht.
Or maybe I could. But it sure as hell ain't gonna be by shopping at mother-fucking Aldi or forming a union. The union makes us strong, but what about those who aren't us? Has this strength led to the ability to more effectively share the same? If the movement from FDR to LBJ was so empowering, why does it have no critical mass? Why is it not sustainable?
While I'm grazing the subject of the byproducts of indirect democracy: the aforementioned former Georgia congressperson and Green Party candidate for the Presidency of those United States has, not for the first time, noted the Libyan lie and how Bo Rama's policies are not good for Africans or African-Americans. But to get any kind of press she had to go on "a pro-Khaddafi television station" and the medium became the message of that story - with the mumbling implication of the black on black on black nature of her criticism.
But as Fred Hampton would tell Ms. McKinney, had he not been murdered in his sleep by American law enforcement for the crime of not being the state: Putting a Black man in the White House don't mean shit. Not that she doesn't recognize this as self-evident; I imagine it was just her way of lampooning post-racial politics.
If you don't believe the obvious truth that the first and foremost and most probably exclusive reason to drop bombs in Africa is to enrich the financiers at the top of the pyramid, then you probably believe that the snot trickling down from Mister Moneybags' nose will lead to a better society as long as "the middle class" gets its greedy paws on it first.
There doesn't have to be an Illuminati to make this so. The simple fact is: the most powerful, official governing bodies on Planet Earth are throwing their weight behind "the Libyan rebels" in the same fashion that the Carlyle Group and associates (or the not willing to disassociates) ordained Hamid Karzai successor to the Taliban - and as a consequence the newest breath of freedom to endure.
In short: It is not even a remotely tenable argument that "at least it will result in ending tyranny". What is happening now in Libya and what will emerge from it is quite exclusively and intentionally all-inclusive collateral damage. If democracy arises from the ashes, it will be taxed to fund more collateral.
As anyone who reads my other pages knows already, I'm off to Tuczno. Come along if you can find the way and 're into that sort of thing. I'd bring a waterproof tent.
Anti-Statism aside, lefties who see the Democrats for the irredeemable spectre that they are simply cannot be put into one chest of drawers, let alone one drawer and, in this regard, cannot be expected to agree upon functional action. And different folks with entirely divergent investments in life cannot be expected to see the opportunities and risks involved in going forward in the same light, let alone same reality tunnel.
For some, the most radical question is whether or not the formation of a third party to challenge the establishment is tenable. Others are convinced that voting is a waste of organizational energy which can only lead to more of the same, irrespective of the ideals of the party in question.
Yet, still, the latter of those two cannot agree upon just what it is that constitutes effective and positive, substantive change when it comes to putting an end the status quo. There is this nagging "engagement versus withdrawal" straw-man of a question.
I personally find the observation that when one withholds from the official economy one's labor and fruits thereof that one is "damaging the commons and those who don't have the luxury to do the same" to be so wide of the mark that it is difficult to know how to respond.
Indeed, because it seems obvious to me - just as obvious that the American president is not battling Republicans, but doing the will of big money - that one must choose which commons one wants to be a part of. Paying my taxes on time will do no more for a poor family in Detroit or Guben than voting for a Democrat or the SPD will.
As a matter of fact, the oft touted benefits of voting for "the viable alternative" as bulwark against the "ever-increasing scary faction" are but an infectious side-effect of their corruption and mendacity; likewise, any penny I place over the table is as likely a part of willful oppression as it is poverty's diminishment.
One can do no better for the working poor than to tell them to go cold turkey. Fuck that commons. Regarding the mother who cashiers at Aldi - running to and from stocking the shelves every time another customer brings his booty to the checkout: No matter how I choose to live my life, I couldn't deliver unto her the privilege of choice any better than I could convince a Democrat to vote for Cynthia McKinney, or an SPDler Sahra Wagenknecht.
Or maybe I could. But it sure as hell ain't gonna be by shopping at mother-fucking Aldi or forming a union. The union makes us strong, but what about those who aren't us? Has this strength led to the ability to more effectively share the same? If the movement from FDR to LBJ was so empowering, why does it have no critical mass? Why is it not sustainable?
While I'm grazing the subject of the byproducts of indirect democracy: the aforementioned former Georgia congressperson and Green Party candidate for the Presidency of those United States has, not for the first time, noted the Libyan lie and how Bo Rama's policies are not good for Africans or African-Americans. But to get any kind of press she had to go on "a pro-Khaddafi television station" and the medium became the message of that story - with the mumbling implication of the black on black on black nature of her criticism.
But as Fred Hampton would tell Ms. McKinney, had he not been murdered in his sleep by American law enforcement for the crime of not being the state: Putting a Black man in the White House don't mean shit. Not that she doesn't recognize this as self-evident; I imagine it was just her way of lampooning post-racial politics.
If you don't believe the obvious truth that the first and foremost and most probably exclusive reason to drop bombs in Africa is to enrich the financiers at the top of the pyramid, then you probably believe that the snot trickling down from Mister Moneybags' nose will lead to a better society as long as "the middle class" gets its greedy paws on it first.
There doesn't have to be an Illuminati to make this so. The simple fact is: the most powerful, official governing bodies on Planet Earth are throwing their weight behind "the Libyan rebels" in the same fashion that the Carlyle Group and associates (or the not willing to disassociates) ordained Hamid Karzai successor to the Taliban - and as a consequence the newest breath of freedom to endure.
In short: It is not even a remotely tenable argument that "at least it will result in ending tyranny". What is happening now in Libya and what will emerge from it is quite exclusively and intentionally all-inclusive collateral damage. If democracy arises from the ashes, it will be taxed to fund more collateral.
_______________
As anyone who reads my other pages knows already, I'm off to Tuczno. Come along if you can find the way and 're into that sort of thing. I'd bring a waterproof tent.
