Anarchy

[Jenne]

Maybe if you became an anarchist, Jenne, the two would cancel each other out?

  One might even posit coming from there makes you one.  I think LA is a cool place if you don't take it seriously.  It's easy to be down on CA/LA these days, actually.  We are but a mockery of our former selves, after all.

[Cain]

Foucault believed the only way you could escape power relations would be to escape society entirely (and even then that wasn't a given, since a human personality was a result of societal power relations, and so may continue to have a subconscious impact), so pretty much the only reasonable option left which didn't involve meekly acquiesing was picking tactical battles, with an overall strategic aim of correcting currently existing, concrete wrongs.

As far as I understand him.  It's been a while, and I haven't read all his lectures with the necessary care and attention needed to have a full grasp of his political theory.

[Doktor Howl]

most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,

I do that.   

You don't run around yelling about it though.

*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*

Um, okay.   

Or more importantly, you don't run around yelling that you are an anarchist.

Point.

[Jenne]

Foucault believed the only way you could escape power relations would be to escape society entirely (and even then that wasn't a given, since a human personality was a result of societal power relations, and so may continue to have a subconscious impact), so pretty much the only reasonable option left which didn't involve meekly acquiesing was picking tactical battles, with an overall strategic aim of correcting currently existing, concrete wrongs.

As far as I understand him.  It's been a while, and I haven't read all his lectures with the necessary care and attention needed to have a full grasp of his political theory.

...that jives with my memory, too.  It's been a fuck of a long time for me.

[BadBeast]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel. 

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
   

[Adios]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel. 

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
   

Finally. A good use for the illegals. We draft them, send them to invade Mexico, welcome them back here as heroes, then deport them.

[Phox]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel. 

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
   

Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.

[Adios]

As long as there will be people there will be violence.

[Phox]

As long as there will be people there will be violence.

Exactly. There is nothing we can do about it, but sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Kurt Christ]

As long as there will be people life there will be violence.

Naked apes don't hold a monopoly there.

[BadBeast]

Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.

Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.

What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.

Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it.  I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.

Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.

What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.

Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it.  I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.

Also, you probably weren't swallowing E like Pez anymore, and could understand the concept of the nightstick.

[BadBeast]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.  

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
 

Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.

That's a good point. What will stop him, (or not) will be his own conscience. If he attacks a village, he has to take into account that he will have to be accountable for his actions.  In pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be  some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers  ever. And all without any central Government.  

[Phox]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.  

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
 

Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.

That's a good point. What will stop him, (or not) will be his own conscience. If he attacks a village, he has to take into account that he will have to be accountable for his actions.  In pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be  some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers  ever. And all without any central Government.  

Interesting stuff. I will think about this and get back to you later tonight when I get home from class.

[BadBeast]

Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.

Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.

What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.

Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it.  I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.

Also, you probably weren't swallowing E like Pez anymore, and could understand the concept of the nightstick.

It wasn't  E that stopped me understanding that, it was the alcohol. Every time. E makes it far less likely that I  even come into a confrontational situation, and if I do, the ''non aggresive'' facade the drug imbues, generally gets under the radar. Acid, they do not want to know. They will go so far out of their way, to avoid having anything to do with you if you're tripping. Something about it scares them, and it's not implied violence. Not quite sure what it is, but it works.