Hey dudes, are you feeling the love?

I've just accepted a place at Staffs this term, to do History and Philosphy (part time). Hope you all have some good news yourselves today.

Peace, out.

BTW Is it just me, or is the Austrian guy, who held a girl prisoner for the past eight years and killed himself after she escaped, or does he look a lot like he should be one of the brothers Hitchens (ex-Trots-always Trots ha ha think Kronstat)?

Primitivism 2. (in relation and consequence to Marxism)

Something that has been on my mind recently is the relation between historical materialism and Primitivism, especially since this is such a big part of the libertarian left in the United States. I also find myself often wondering if there is a trade-off between material well being and individual autonomy and spirituality, and I would have to say that this is an inevitable result of proletarianisation, and the development of the modern nation state and the myths used to justify it.

Put this way, a proletarian revolution is almost impossible in the three most developed nations (being the UK, or even just England, the US and a united Germany) or the nations that have been proletarianised the longest (i.e. where the process began contemporary to Messrs Bakunin and Marx)

A "workers revolution" would be impossible in other nations without the liquidation of the state. The state is itself a capitalist entity and works on the same laws. A "workers state" (surely a contradiction in terms anyway) would always be forced to compete with the "big three", so a proletarian revolution in roughly Marxist terms requires the total liquidation of the national and state institutions of Germany, the US and the UK.

Comments on Primitivism (and Anarchism) 1.

Obviously Primitivism is a controversial subject. Is it Anarchism? I would first say that I do not consider myself to be a Primitivist, although, like Marxism, it is a view of the world and society that should be considered, whether as Anarchism or not.

I happen to believe that there is no single "Anarchism". Anarchism is the natural will of the masses at any time towards solidarity and against heirarchy. Intellectual Anarchists can of course analyse this natural urge and use arguments to justify it, but for one individual to define Anarchism is itself authoritarian, as would be a "Union of Anarchists" who's express purpose is to define and perpetuate it's own brand of Anarchism (but that's an argument for another day)

In a sense, Primitivism is a logical offshoot of Communitarian Individualism. Primitivists obviously believe advanced technology, while advancing mankind materially, has left him, both individually and collectively, emotionally and spiritually dead. Historically, it could be stated that history is on their side. Civilisations always end, and the modern liberal democracies are not even 150 years old, compared to, say, the Roman Republic, but human society always moves on, and in the case of the Mayan civilisation survive, arguably to this day, by reverting to a less advanced state.

Primitivism is also consistent, mainly because it is the only "economic" system that could exist, with Individualist Anarchism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789617.stm

"More must be needed to fight extremism" Why does this have to focus on the extremism of minorities? I've met plenty of (I think pretty much all white) people who had what could definitely be considered extremist views.

"Muslims, all they do is stay with their own and watch al-Jazeera". Effectivley quoting Mary Kenny (or some other bitch from the Daily Lynchmob), here. Plenty of "indigenous" Brits watch nothing but American imports or Australian soaps on TV, and there's no call for these individuals to be oppressed (the bitch actually suggested that there should be measures taken to deprive the minority of British muslims who consider, for whatever reason, suicide bombers to be martyrs).

There is this implicit suggestion in the right-wing press that thousands of "innocent" (I use quotation marts for who exactly is innocent?) people should be locked up (for how long?) simply for having a misguided opinion.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/1731831.php

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/347969.html
A further use of state oppression, particularly used in so-calle liberal democracies is to define what political belielfs are acceptable and what is not acceptable.

The state is defined as the legal monopoly of terroristic violence.

It is not enough for anarchists to define the state in terms of a monopoly of violence. The emphasis should be on who is and who isn't allowed to use violence, which is defined by laws. Laws create three castes: the state apparatus granted the legal use of violence (in many cases property owners), the masses, who may only use violence in certain curcumstances (once again, to protect private property in many case, or representatives of vassal states for example in the Mongol empire) and owtlaws, who often can be (if not overtly) encouraged or at least allowed to have viollence perpetrated on them.

The importance of laws shows up the impotence of government. A slave state is expensive, and a state-capitalist economy, while not automatically dependent on private property, is headed by and requires the support of borgeois and intellectuals who do. Hence, the prevalance of gun use in the United States and Columbia. In fact, a rational individual in some cases ought to support an absolute monopoly of violence, without government tacitally encouraging it.

The ultimate test of this is the BNP's promise to give every adult (responsible or overwise?) an SA-80 assault rifle "for home protection" and the triaining to use one.Og course, I doubt the police would be so forgiving for people carrying knives or other weapons. This is the government effectively dictating morality: what terror is and isn't acceptable.

This worship of the state and laws assumes that people have no morality of their own. However, there are many "morals", whether through evolution or upbringing, that human beings naturally have.
Most people could never murder another human being. Ever. But National Armies train people to do this all the time.