Do you ever doubt your political beliefs?

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
May 24 2016 11:30
Gulai Polye wrote:
If you have a small collective around you, say 50 people who are anarchist

50 anarchists is a small collective?

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
May 24 2016 12:00
birdtiem wrote:
Yeah, pretty much the entire working class has the sense that nothing is going to change and there is no alternative, but I guess you waving your dick around in the air sets them straight.

I remember why I don't post on Internet forums, gross.

Well, at least your not imagineering away capitalist social relations because washing machines are now manufactured overseas.

I agree in part with your negative views on the state of 'the movement' and tried to indicate as much. It's pretty shit right now, that can't be denied - I just don't think it's because capitalism has fundamentally changed in anyway. Basically, the movement failed to adapt to a changing industrial landscape and shrunk as a result, almost to nothing. The exciting thing about the present period is that it seems to be, in a small way, re-emerging.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 24 2016 15:51
petey wrote:
50 anarchists is a small collective?

Sry i might have meant community..

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
May 24 2016 16:09
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
50 anarchists is a small collective?

Sry i might have meant community..

oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
May 24 2016 17:25

Yes i do. Its perfectly normal to doubt and question your own beliefs, especially at this point in time when things are so fucked up.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 24 2016 18:30
petey wrote:
oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

Would you exclude Proudhon too if he lived today?

Proudhon wrote:
We need to exchange our products for other products. It is our right that this exchange should be one of equivalents; and since we consume before we produce, it would be our duty, if we could control the matter, to see to it that our last product shall follow our last consumption. Suicide is fraudulent bankruptcy.

Also people might be anarchist without advertising it

light emitting diode
Offline
Joined: 25-05-15
May 24 2016 18:53
boozemonarchy wrote:
Not really. Also, to be clear, I don't think I or other libsoc folk actually have a handle on the 'truth' or even or think about their praxis that way. To me it is simply a more reasonable way to organize a society.
It won't be perfect - just better.

Well the way I see it, either you believe that there is an optimum (but not perfect) way to run society, or there isn't and all different ways are equally valid.

If we focus on the first of these two viewpoints, how do we prove that our proposed society is the optimum? Societies are complex things, and short of looking at an actual existing example of such a society (which doesn't exist), I don't see how you can prove this from theory alone. So you have to make a claim to have some exclusive access to 'the truth', in order to justify this viewpoint.

Zeronowhere wrote:
Work out your communism on a theoretical basis, to the point where it is certain, rather than relying on others' opinions or approval for it.

That's the problem though isn't it? If we are just accepting that it is certain as a foregone conclusion, and we are just looking for evidence to justify our beliefs, that is problematic.

boozemanarchy wrote:
I guess I can only speak for me, but honestly, I've run into very few libsoc folk who give me the impression of the self-important twaddle-delivering fringe-lord.

Neither have I, but then again must there not always be the implicit assumption that I'm right and everyone else is wrong if you've believe in libcom?

boozemanarchy wrote:
Funny how you are positioning yourself to tear down libsoc folk for religious pretension and delusion when you seem to be the one hauling yourself atop the mountain above the rabble.

Sorry this was not my intention, I was just trying to express my frustration. These are the kind of doubts that crop up in my head when I'm playing devil's advocate, and I was just trying to give voice to them.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
May 24 2016 22:18

I doubt my non-political beliefs a ton; but historical materialism is granite.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
May 25 2016 00:43
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

Would you exclude Proudhon too if he lived today?

Proudhon wrote:
We need to exchange our products for other products. It is our right that this exchange should be one of equivalents; and since we consume before we produce, it would be our duty, if we could control the matter, to see to it that our last product shall follow our last consumption. Suicide is fraudulent bankruptcy.

Also people might be anarchist without advertising it

well i cant speak for petey, but people basically fall into two groups on the subject of proudhon, there's those that say a misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, fanatical anti communist who stands in elections has no place in anarchism, and there are those who are wrong.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 25 2016 04:06
petey wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
50 anarchists is a small collective?

Sry i might have meant community..

oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

Here you can see a good sized community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfMpfBiuRww

Schmoopie's picture
Schmoopie
Offline
Joined: 28-04-16
May 25 2016 12:33

S. Artesian:

Quote:
...historical materialism is granite.

Like the Tablets of Stone.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
May 25 2016 12:43
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
50 anarchists is a small collective?

Sry i might have meant community..

oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

Here you can see a good sized community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfMpfBiuRww

thats not a community, its a punk show

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 25 2016 13:31

But the people who are there together form a community

Quote:
A community is a social unit of any size that shares common values, or that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a village or town). It is a group of people who are connected by durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties, and who usually define that relationship as important to their social identity and practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community
Granted a small minority might have travelled far to get to the punk show but i think most are from the same town and nearby vicinities

Zeronowhere
Offline
Joined: 5-03-09
May 25 2016 14:17
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
petey wrote:
50 anarchists is a small collective?

Sry i might have meant community..

oh i don't mean to quibble really. outside the annual anarchist book fair tho', i don't think i've met 50 committed anarchists in my life (i'm excluding 'market anarchists' and people i only know on the web).

Here you can see a good sized community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfMpfBiuRww

thats not a community, its a punk show

It turns out this conversation was always about pipe-bombs rather than Proudhon.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 25 2016 18:00
Zeronowhere wrote:
It turns out this conversation was always about pipe-bombs rather than Proudhon.

different strokes for different folks

birdtiem
Offline
Joined: 29-11-15
Jun 6 2016 04:31
boozemonarchy wrote:
Well, at least your not imagineering away capitalist social relations because washing machines are now manufactured overseas.

I agree in part with your negative views on the state of 'the movement' and tried to indicate as much. It's pretty shit right now, that can't be denied - I just don't think it's because capitalism has fundamentally changed in anyway. Basically, the movement failed to adapt to a changing industrial landscape and shrunk as a result, almost to nothing. The exciting thing about the present period is that it seems to be, in a small way, re-emerging.

I didn't say that capitalist social relations had fundamentally changed. That was something you read into my post in your rush to discount what I was saying... It's not something I believe.

At any rate, the whole subject of this thread is having doubts about one's political views. My point was that it seems to me the working class has been restructured in a way that has critically handicapped its ability to organize collectively and defend itself on even the most basic level (never mind going on the offensive). I am not sure if this explanation is correct (again, the thread is about having doubts), but I'm trying to find some way to account for what seems like a pretty unprecedented low level of working class struggle in e.g. the US (around 2010, everyone seemed to believe that we had entered a new era of mass working class struggle... I am kind of surprised that you seem to still believe that... I think most people have recognized that it didn't pan out that way). The counter-argument always seems to be something along the lines of, "no, class struggle has ebbs and flows, there have been times like this before, we're in a low level of struggle but things aren't any different than they've always been and it's just a matter of time before the working class returns to the stage etc etc". I don't find this convincing. It almost treats working class struggle as some mystical quality that vanishes and reappears unpredictably. Maybe there are better explanations than this and I just haven't come across them. But my main issue as far as my doubts are concerned is that I don't see what is going to change to enable the working class to begin collectively organizing in defense of its class interests on a mass scale again.

Or maybe I'm just a millennial born during the Reagan administration living in Bumfuck, USA and it's made me really shortsighted, and really it's just a matter of time before things pick up again. This would definitely be the most comforting explanation, but...