symbioidlj | (no subject)

From an old USENET article I wrote(My reply is at the bottom) Sometimes I amaze myself, other times i don't. I like this, though:(it's a big read, but it's worth it, methinks)
---------------------------------

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:17:39 -0500, "cladatps" <cladatps@valkyrie.net>
> wrote:
> > Demanding stockholders pay CEOs six and eight digit wages to market more
> > money quarterly in the wholesale and retail cost of food demands the
> > consumer pay for this money and only get the food. This makes food
> > unaffordable for everyone that complies with Capitalism's demand.
>
> Why is it then that we only see hungry people in less capitalist or
> recently socialist places, and never see hungry people in highly
> capitalist places?

Hmm. I'm assuming that you live in a "highly capitalist place"? Most
likely the United States? Where do you see the hungry people in the "less
capitalist or recently socialist places"? On TV? Could it be that the
media, which is owned by capitalist corporations, has an interest in
promoting capitalism, and thusly, to prevent any sort of "workers
revolution"? What, pray tell, do you define as "socialist"? Is France
socialist or capitalist? The US? Russia? China? Zimbabwe? Or, by
"socialist" do you mean "third world"? I bet, if we looked up statistics,
you would find that there are more children per capita starving in the US
than in a more "socialist" country such as France or any number of European
countries. This is not to say that "socialism" or "communism" in it's
statist form is good. Being an anarchist, I dislike statism/heirarchy in
any form. But, please, don't tell me that under capitalism "no one is ever
hungry". I think you put it succinctly, though
thoughtlessly(purposelessly), when you talk about SEEing hungry people.

Media is about being a medium, a layer between you and reality. You don't
SEE these hungry people, because you're most likely secluded in your home
and workplace environment, and maybe a few trips to the shopping mall and
the grand canyon for some sight-seeing, or some other nice pristine dolled
up "nature" for you to see. What you see is something on newspapers, or TV
which other people feed you... I too, am guilty of seclusion. We all are
to a degree. The trick is to step outside of mediated reality into more and
more direct experience. If you ARE going to mediate your experience, you
have a wonderful opportunity(through public libraries, and now, through the
internet) to multi-mediate yourself, to open yourself to various "channels"
of data and information. The trick, then, is to work on reducing
preconceptions daily. Look at multiple information sources, even ones you
would tend to disagree with. You may find that there are gleaming jewels of
information, nuggets of truth within it all. You may disagree with the
conclusions, you may find that you will integrate this information into your
thought-structures(ie: memeplex) in new ways. This is all good. It is
through this method that I have arrived at my own stance today. I used to
be conservative, then a "libertarian"(as in the modern US political party
definition), and now anarchist(with various shuffles here and there between
various modes of statism) If you cling dogmatically to a belief structure,
you find it becomes your own personal religion, even if you claim to oppose
religion. I'm not asking you to not be a capitalist, but rather at the very
least, to seriously question the foundations of your thought processes. If
you can't question your very belief system without getting uptight, I
propose you have a serious problem(inflexibility, which leads to
inadaptability, which evolutionarily is "not a good thing"). If you can
question, and can modify your foundational memeplex after contemplating
multi-mediated reality(and disintermediated reality(ie: THE REAL WORLD, not
MTV's real world, but the living, breathing, honest to some deity, real
thing)), all the better for your (and humanity as a whole's) survival.

Another problem when having in discussions of this type is lack of personal
definitions. We assume that by using terms such as: "capitalism",
"socialism", "communism", and "anarchism" that other people share our
definition. Such is not the case. For instance, it may be that you think
the US is NOT a capitalist state, but socialist. You may think that only
laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism, whereas I perceive the current
system is the logical progression of capitalism: the subversion and
placation of any sort of revolutionary impetus of the workers, by the
capitalist system as a whole. Thus we now have workers
"institutions"(AFL-CIO, big labor, etc...) and supposedly socialist
programs(social welfare, public education, etc...), which are not intended
to bring about a socialist state, as you might believe(I'm assuming things
here, so forgive me if I'm wrong), but exist to further propagate the system
by limiting the level of discourse within a narrowly confined channel,
thusly giving workers and people illusions of power and freedom, whilst
further confining and constraining them.

When I ask you to multi-mediate yourself, I ask you to look up a history of
workers struggles, of radical labor... From the point of view of those
involved, not just from the establishment. We learned about the pinkertons
and the "robber barons" in high school, but that was a very narrow and
limited discourse(again, channeled along a certain path by the system) We
didn't really learn about the lengths that these monopolists and large
corporate entities used to crush workers struggles. The slaughter and
massacre of workers, and their families, by not only private police forces,
but also such grand American institutions as the National Guard. Capitalism
learned that in order to survive it had to moderate itself. If it didn't,
there would be massive civil unrest, and yes, even possibly revolution. So,
all the modern social programs in place that Laissez-faire capitalists view
as being a step towards socialism is merely a preventative measure by
capitalism itself to ensure it's own survival. This wasn't just something
that happened. There were debates between various capitalists about this
topic. The "reformists" won out. The "progressives" were in line with the
"reformists", and they opposed the socialists just as much as the
capitalists did... It was a matter of method, reform won out over hardline
laissez-fairism.... as is to be expected. Evolution comes through
moderation and change. Hopefully, the equilibrium of evolution is
punctuated by revolution every now and then.

It's a messy world out there. It's not black and white, so don't act like
it is, got it? This goes for self-proclaimed anarchists who hold the
"truths" as well, not just paranoid right-wingers, or libertarians, or
liberals, etc....

And Why, dear fucking god jehovah almight, fucking WHY??? Are there hardly
any actual anarchists discussing things here?(I read this on
alt.society.anarchy)(forgive me oh mighty libertarian friends if I deign to
call you anarchists)

I understand that these questions can't be answered in trite phrases, and
one liners... I'm not saying I have all the answers, and if I did, I would
be either a liar, or a crypto-fascist... or both(they're not really
exclusive). There is no one "truth"... Reality isn't simple, so why does
everyone pretend the answers are?(was that redundant?)

So, here's a big hearty "FUCK OFF!" to those who would hold fast to a rigid
dogma, whether that be religious or political. Is the line between the two
really that big, anyways?

Apologies if this goes out to multiple usegroups that would piss people off.
I just hit reply.

PLUR,
Sym