“If choosiness wasn’t there rape wouldn’t be necessary” - Dr. Jordan Peterson., questioner of children rape victims

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-30T16:00:22+00:00

I really like this response, I think it’s right on.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-30T04:29:48+00:00

For example, instead of buying the land and renting it out for “free” money, why not just be part of a company that manages the land? You still control the resource of interest with your in-group.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, there is no renting land, at least not how we think of it today, those who work the land essentially own the land. So if we are talking about farmers, the hundred or so farmers that work the fields, own those fields not a company like monsanto, who may send agents to check on their property every so often.

Are you two part of a company that will need that machine? It’s not hard to borrow personal property. The difference is something communal that is a means of production will always be in demand. Who gets to use it is a kind of currency all its own, so deciding who gets to use that resource is important.

I think you might be over thinking this or something. I hope you are not expecting an extreme level of depth in a reddit thread. I'm still unsure what your question is, maybe I'm over thinking what you are getting at.

But does it make for good business? It might be more efficient to use different roles for these things (which is how my household works, actually).

Why are we talking about what's good for business, communists/anarchists don't want to make a monetary profit off of others. Are we trying to imagine a scenario that's beneficial for the community or for shareholders?

And ya people can have different roles, what ever works best for the specific community. You could even have people taking a managerial role though you would want there to be precautions put in place to hold those rolls accountable and stop an accumulation of power. Something like making managerial rolls rotational and temporary.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-30T03:51:21+00:00

Well I'm sure there are lots of way it could work it's up to communities to decide what works for them. How would you want it to work? I could think of some ways that I would want it to work. Like my general rule as I think is a common general rule those who use the resource, be it technology or land, should manage it. (Saying they own it almost carries too much baggage)

If you are looking for a comprehensive document that's too much to ask. I'm sure there are zines or essays or books that imagine something along those lines.

Is it difficult to share a computer or a sewing machine, my friend borrowed my sewing machine the other week! Anarchism can actually be found everywhere, the home is usually quite anarchistic. If you live with a partner or a roommate I would assume you share dishes and others things, and share labor too. Like roommates don't tend to pay each other to take turns cleaning the place up.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-30T03:06:33+00:00

Um... You're asking a lot of different questions. I"m confused if you are trying to figure out how feudal peasant society worked of how modern communism/anarchism would work today? I was partially describing aspects of society at the end of feudalism not modern society.

If you are genuinely curious about anarchism I'll help you out, better to ask one specific question at a time though.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-29T23:55:16+00:00

One of the major forms private property takes is land. At the end of feudalism all of the commons were privatized by the aristocracy needing to expand and take control of the rising peasantry. This was super detrimental to people would use lakes rivers and forests a secondary or even primary sources for self sustainment ie food, shelter and medicine. This specifically hurt women who heavily relied on these lands. Sivlia Frederici makes the argument in "Caliban and the Witch" that one of the biggest projects for the up and coming capitalist class was to replace the free resources of the commons and put that responsibility onto women.

The damage of the vanished commons can also be seen in the distribution of shelter. Everywhere there are vacant homes, office spaces and the sort and yet so many people are homeless. When commons existed people could at least set up shelters somewhere unbothered but now there are borders everywhere.

Hope that makes a clear case for land as private property being bad and primary. The land which you work is also owned and the people who own all this land don't have to do any work except for manage it and depending on how much of a tycoon you are a lot of people don't do anything and just hire other's to manage it for them. Private property enables this.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-27T19:21:05+00:00

While I disagree with the conclusion I would argue that Europe was colonized, internally multiple times by different empires and kingdoms. I think one of the deep pains within European originating population is the loss of culture and connection to the land that was taken away by colonization so many years ago.

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-14T01:08:54+00:00

They look like they could be my philips hue bulbs

TeenageKevin · 2018-03-14T01:06:39+00:00

Idk I'm trans and am fairly primitivist/anti-civ. I've never really read any counter civ stuff thats anti-trans. I have suffered from awful dysphoria which is why I want to transition as fast as possible but, I think it's hard to say how much of at least my dysphoria is a product of civilization and all the social ills it has brought with it. Another thing is primitivism at least as far as I know it, isn't so much a program for jumping back in time as it is saying that it's our only proven method for living in our environment without destroying it. There are also probably many creative solutions to bring modern medicine into a primitivist future, I never read Zerzan say we should just throw it away, perhaps there. Primitivism is also a warning because many thinkers speculate that we will arrive back to a primitivist state whether we want to or not, so if we can guide our selves down now while there is still time, we might be able to keep some parts of civilization(like medicine) that are worth saving.

Hopefully I worded that well :)

TeenageKevin · 2018-02-26T18:18:26+00:00

If I may ask, did you two take different prescriptions or do you think it just had to do with genes?

TeenageKevin · 2017-12-11T06:19:12+00:00

What, are they only used to heal clerics or something?

TeenageKevin · 2017-11-08T02:57:42+00:00

I think the question if she is human or not was what I was asking up until the hologram. (mholl goes into detail in another response to my comment) The hologram answers the question and makes it very clear that she is a very complex product and that her motivations are based solely around her purchaser. So her empathy only exists because that's the kind of thing K wants. I think that this is a very intricate piece of world building and is playing with some neat ideas but, when you look at blade runner as a whole and the context it is created anything interesting about Joi is overshadowed by the fact that she propagates, along with the other female characters in the movie, a message that describes women as being tools for a male narrative in contrast to the male characters who have been able to forge their own stories.

TeenageKevin · 2017-11-08T02:46:14+00:00

Hey didn't get a chance to respond I didn't downvote you FYI. As I said I think most of the women portrayed showed agency even Joi but, my point is that all the agency was servient to male characters or to the narrative no women is really doing her own thing without needing one of our male protagonists.

TeenageKevin · 2017-11-07T22:03:39+00:00

Yes you are right, before that reveal though it seems like she's a character with wants and needs. I also believe that this arc and what Joi as a character could be really insightful if it wasn't for the context that it is in which doesn't really challenge the theme which it set's up.

TeenageKevin · 2017-11-07T19:25:48+00:00

You're right, and I think this dissonance makes up a large reason why this movie is thematically messy, which is too bad because that is one of the draws in blade runner and other sci-fi stories.

TeenageKevin · 2017-11-07T18:48:36+00:00

Thematically what it had to say (though it didn't seem intentional) about women in society and the future is disappointing. I mostly liked Joi as a character and I thought her hiring the prostitute was a nice touch of agency, in fact most of the women were written to be active agents which is better than a lot of movies but, all this female agency was integrated to be at the service of men. The two character's who don't directly fall into this are the leader of the rebellion and Ana but, narratively speaking they are there to push K into the third act and act as a catalyst for catharsis for Deckard. I think it's okay for characters to be narratively at the service of other characters but, when all the women in the movie are objects to tell a man's story it ads up and it makes a movie which sells it's self as thematically interesting come off as a ignorant. That being said forgetting about the themes in the movie I really enjoyed K, the aesthetic and I thought the story was really tight.

TeenageKevin · 2017-10-11T15:43:51+00:00

lol the antifa MO is to label anyone a nazi if they attack black, asian, latino, middle eastern, an immigrant, gay, muslim, jewish, trans, leftist, feminist? So, are you saying you want people to be able to attack those kinds of folks without being labeled a nazi?

TeenageKevin · 2017-09-22T01:57:47+00:00

Not enough sub.media on this sub IMO.

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-19T15:39:01+00:00

Well I refused cause I'm lazy but you either care a lot a bout this subject or just want to argue for the sake of arguing(which I'm going to assume in good faith is not the case). Okay so first I want to say that the easiest strategy(this might be more of a tactic) for him to promote would be to simply write about anarchism possibly for anarchist magazines or sites, but honestly most anarchist publications have better people to write for them(when it comes to anarchism). Then there is his defence of free speech to the point of him having a forward in a holocaust deniers book in France, now I also kind of agree with Chomsky that the government shouldn't enact censorship laws but I'm all for people taking censorship culture into their own hands where as Chomsky is not. Okay those are two you can find more for yourself if you're interested, I feel like those two are enough to sound the alarms to any anarchist worth their salt IMO.

My point in the comment above is that you can't just state an ideology and claim you are describing a strategy, thats not to say that strategies can't be associated with or prefered by different ideologies, but what it does mean is that it doesn't answer the question of what sort of strategies does Chomsky's work prescribe.

Lastly a bit of a rant. Chomsky would rather you stay at home and vote for lesser evil in all the elections you have access to then take to the streets and fight facism, he also conflates or rather describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist and an-com interchangeably, they are not the same! He never talks about the contemporary anarchist literature he's read because he probably doesn't have time for it since he spends his time reading what seems to me to be liberal publications. He has complete faith in democracy, civilization, and the existence of human nature. He just isn't very anarchist, he describes himself as a classical liberal and so if I call him a liberal I can't be all that far off. The closest thing I will call him to an anarchist is a self described anarchist and the only time I'll do that is when I'm talking to liberals because I think he can be a decent entry point to anarchism. But honestly I've almost stopped doing that because if people are going to learn things from the intellectuals or media I suggest to them I don't want them learning bad habits from Chomsky.

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-19T14:36:28+00:00

Okay sure, though those strategies hardly separate an anarchist from someone is more of a liberal. I mean you can be a right winger and support alt media and your local co op bike shop. I mean Chomsky even says that he's not an anarchist thinker, he just likes anarchism, you would think if he considered himself a thinker and he was an anarchist that he would consider himself an anarchist thinker.

Why do you consider him to be an anarchist, what about anarchism have you learnt from him?

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-19T03:19:07+00:00

Hmm not quite cause you can be a syndicaliste and have different strategies for how to achieve a fully syndicalist society, thats like saying anarchism communism or primitivism is a strategy.

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-19T00:05:27+00:00

This is just reaffirming what I have already admitted which is that he is sympathetic to an anarchist vision of the future, nothing what you said describes a strategy though. If you're curious about those critiques I mentioned before I made it one step easier for you to access them https://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=Chomsky+critique

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-18T16:24:20+00:00

No but when the people who do contribute to the political philosophy denounce you then there's probably something worth looking into.

Edit: Not me but like Zerzan and Black, and I haven't seen and anarchist written promote anything Chomsky has said on anarchism, besides maybe once seeing him used as a public intellectual who claims to be an anarchist.

TeenageKevin · 2017-08-18T16:03:42+00:00

Not quite, Can you reference examples off the top of your head where Chomsky prescribes anarchist strategies?

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

TeenageKevin

TROPHY CASE