A video where I explain to subscribers of my Youtube channel what The Greatest Never Collective is about and how the songs I display for thee on Youtube are a part of it !
A video where I explain to subscribers of my Youtube channel what The Greatest Never Collective is about and how the songs I display for thee on Youtube are a part of it !
While Anarchism is widely thought to be a means of achieving a communist society as an alternative to Marxist methods, this is not always nor inherently true. The idea that it can be however certainly is.
Anarchism may also be the ends in of itself. It may also facilitate a capitalist economy (e.g Anarcho-Capitalism), as well as non-communist forms of socialism such as collectivism and syndicalism.
What is Anarcho-Syndicalism though? What makes it any different than other strains of anarchism and socialism? The way I see it, is that it allows for the simultaneous facilitation of both socialist, AND capitalist economic systems in a very interesting way.
An Anarcho-Syndicalist commune is a directly democratic faction with public ownership of the means of production, which generally requires a two thirds consensus for all decision making.
It’s almost as if you were to take a workers union, and a corporation; derive the middle point therefrom, and implement it as an autonomous and collectivized community.
Right about now your probably thinking “Well this sounds very socialist yes, but how would this facilitate capitalism, where’s the economic competition involved here?” Well within the syndicate, none.
The economic competition would result from the competition with other syndicates and or co existing forms of society. Different groups of people would want different rules and would have to split up into different syndicates. The examples are endless.
One might want only the production of necessary goods like food, shelter, clothing, and medicine to be publicly owned with luxury production being privately owned, some might want it all to be owned by the group.. SPLIT!
One might want too allow certain types of drug use, one might not… SPLIT!
One might want religious principals, the other might be inherently atheistic… SPLIT!
One might want principals from X religion, one might want principals from Y religion, some might want religious freedom as long as you have a religion or believe in god, some might want complete autonomy of belief… DOUBLE SPLIT!
I could go on all day, but the idea is that economic competition would likely occur between these different split syndicates, as they would be specializing differently, likely resulting in the production of different types of food, clothing, luxury goods, technologies etc, giving plenty of incentive for inter syndicate trade relations and therefore economic competition.
This would like wise give everyone the ability to choose a community that fits with the way that they wanna live, so long as that way is viable enough to sustain a thriving syndicate. It also preserves the rights of popular sovereignty by requiring the two thirds rule to pass legislature, as well as allowing for the reorganization and correction from the bottom upward if the leadership becomes corrupt and or begins to conflict with the interests of the participants/workers.
Charles had been having a not very so good day at the office. Likely due to lack of sleep and a quarrel with his Fiance the night before, his head space was in a state of slightly agitated chaos.
He had been with this firm long enough that he had a little unspoken wiggle room when it came to the rules so he left for break a little early. About twenty-three minutes to be precise.
Instead of heading toward his car for a brisk hoon over to his normal lunch spot, he instead set his gaze on a bench, kitty corner to the office entrance. He sluggishly proceeded until the bench greeted him.
He took a seat and watched as the oncoming traffic whirled in both directions. Before long he was almost in a state of entrancement. It felt so soothing to watch the cars go by, it felt very dynamic unlike his current state of existence.
He thought about how the cars all moved so fast that no single vehicle stayed in his field of vision for more than a brief moment, that every given second was an entirely new display. He would focus in on one car and watch it until it left a field of vision and than picked another one.
He also thought about how life for the majority of us was the opposite. How we hold onto things because they give us some sort of comfort; the comfort of an identity, of knowing what and who one is. We wake up and put on the same act every day. With our favorite sports teams, our favorite music genres, favorite movies, political and religious affiliations, our family, our social circles our professions, our hobbies, etc.
Its as if when presented with freedom, we gravitate towards a voluntary-sort of imprisonment. But of course it’s all the difference when it’s an imprisonment that we may at least take pride in, as the chains are of our own design and all of what the chains may be bound too is likewise ours to decide.
This thought was interrupted by a squirrel that ran into his field of vision. Oddly it didn’t seem scared to be staring eye to eye with a being multitudes larger in size. Carl found this a little peculiar.
Not nearly as peculiar however as when it looked up at him and began to speak. It said “Why are you here?”
Carl looked baffled slightly slipping on his words with a dumbfounded look plastered across his face he replied: “Well I don’t know, because of god, or because my parents reproduced or something, can I ask why and how your talking to me?”
The squirrel responded in a voice that was now a little irritated and slightly pressured.
“Did I say it was your turn to ask questions? Never mind that, no I didn’t mean like existentially, I mean why are you sitting on my bench this is where I come every day after I get done stashing my acorns and other loot.”
“Oh my apologies I didn’t mean to intrude, ill get going now.” Carl said as he stood up and began walking towards his car. He questioned weather it was a dream but it felt extremely real and lucid, furthermore he never woke up having dozed off on the bench as he expected, as far as he can surmise he was awake. Furthermore he wondered what kind of loot a squirrel might be storing besides acorns.
He went too his car and contemplated getting something to eat thinking maybe some food would level him out. He did, and went back to the office and worked straight through the break. He drew the conclusion that his mind was playing tricks on him and wrote it off as some sort of daydream and never brought it up.
Why must their always be a point every time we string together our words and ideas into some form of composition or another. Is writing itself not enough of an art that it may not be conducted purely for it’s own sake?
Why must we worry ourselves with developing the purpose prior, when the readers are going to derive their own purposes from it anyways? They don’t care about why we wrote it anyhow. Unless they are trying to understand how you wrote it, than what they truly care about is why they’re reading it. Therefore it is better to say something than to waste your time worrying about what it is you might want to say, and why.
That is not to imply premeditated work is bad; but I’ve never found it particularly sensible to premeditate something which is intended to be original. Rather, I find it best to leave the matter up to unconscious forces. By feeding my brain with masses of whatever stimulus it’s calling for, whether it be visual art, literature, music, social interaction, film etc.
What ensues is a sort of melting pot of creativity; a churning mixture of ideas, sounds, visions, quotes, and words. Than when all is finished, my brain begins to inform me, like my microwave beeping to signal that my peach-hibiscus tea is ready. If I neglect this task of release, it grows louder and harder to ignore. It does not however signal this verbally. It notifies me in the form of a weird sort of anxiety or pressure.
A pulsing and often painful urgency that grows in intensity the longer I try to fight it off. Never ceasing to torment all levels of my consciousness until I eventually take to pen, keyboard, or instrument. It is the same force that compels me away from mundane and fruitless uses of time. The same that haunts me with every minute I spend working in conventional labor.
It’s as a chain or a rope, always leading me towards the act of creation. Always pulling me through endless acquisition of knowledge and skill building. Persistently dragging me up a hill. A tall mountainous hill that is rocky and often steep. The difficulty of the climb is however irrelevant.
Resistance as well as inaction prove futile, countless attempts at both have shown no end save for agony and despair. If one ignores this calling, they may as well be digging their own grave with their bare hands, only to cowardly crawl inside and await in patient sorrow for starvation and the elements to gradually overcome them.
If one answers the call, they may or may not find success. Whether they do or not is irrelevant; what follows after will be identical either way: building upon what they’ve already created, and striving to out due their current and previous accomplishments with something new. A cycle that will persist for the entirety of their existences.
There may be brief moments of self appreciation upon fulfilling tasks, completing projects and reaching milestones, but that is a light refreshment rather than the true reward. The real enjoyment comes from the process of creation in of itself. The reward is the experience. When you listen to a song, you are not listening merely to have heard it, and likewise when you sing a song you are not singing merely to have sung it.
If you have done something a thousand times, is it because you wanted to perfect it? Or is it because you enjoy doing it so much that you are compelled to do it a thousand times? I don’t believe I could will myself to do something a thousand times if I did not enjoy it or the outcome.
This shows us obsession is no less a source of mastery than dedication. After all what is obsession? You could label obsession a negative trait or a defect and perhaps in extreme instances, or those where the obsession involves detriment to others it is. However in it’s milder, and more benign or controlled forms is a sort of voluntary dedication. That is to say a peculiar type of dedication that does not seem to require effort, and if it does, it does not feel like it does.
For example someone who is obsessed with a particular author may read all of their books back to back and learn everything that author had to teach, something which for others may feel treacherously boring. They may practice an instrument arduously for hours a day and not for a single minute feel that they are obligated to do so.
We are thus propelled both forward and upward, not by financial necessity nor material enticement, but by spiritual necessity and an insatiable lust for the labors of life in and of themselves. We create not to have created or to be creators but simply for the pleasure to create again.
The sun does not rise to give the energy of light that allows our crops to photosynthesize. It rises because of the earth’s tendencies to rotate and revolve around it. Likewise if someone derives enjoyment or utility from something I wrote, as great as that is, would not make it the reason why I wrote it.
It may be the reason why I choose to distribute some of my work, but I was writing long before that. Just as most painters were like busying themselves with brush in hand long before anybody genuinely enjoyed their work. Ergo if one is going to pursue something anyways, they may as well attempt to make the most out of it.
If you take the time to craft or create your going to get better over time. Similarly if you do something consistently, why not put in the effort of doing it well? Arduous practice aside, this may consist of studying the deeper logic behind it, acquiring related skills and sub skills that directly or indirectly lend support to the primary, and finding new ways to adapt and apply these skills to different areas and patterns of creation in order to manifest innovative ideas and solve new types of problems.
If we take the time to develop a craft which could lend to the entertainment and utility of others, why not distribute it? If your gonna work on something regardless of weather or not it earns you wealth, why not do so in a way that opens up the potential to earn wealth with it?
I like many creative types, started writing without any purpose beyond feeling a sort of internal need to write. As we continue however, we create new opportunities for additional purposes. In a similar sense you could call this article is a microcosm of that phenomena
Furthermore if you do the right thing for the right reasons, does that permit one the right to expect the right results? Maybe not, but it ought too. To some of you this article may not have said a word. Some of you might be a little more adept at reading between the lines. If a picture tells a thousand words than certainly a thousand words must paint a picture. What kind of picture did this paint for you?
Realistically not much has or ever will change in terms of our goals. Our path remains the same. What has changed; is the detail of our perspective and the depths of our understanding on where that path is leading us.
The Greatest Never as an association, has ascribed itself to the long term goal of transforming into and establishing it’s presence and functionality as a non-specific Artist Collective.
You may be familiar with the term collectivism, though i’m assuming most of you probably aren’t. If by chance you are, than it’s likely you may have heard it tossed around with other big name economic and political ideas like communism, socialism, and anarchism.
In relation to these, collectivism is one of socialism’s many ideological offspring. Simultaneously collectivism itself also has many different sub-types and interpretations.
Broadly speaking one could generalize it as economically resembling a form of libertarian-communism while being both anarchistic in nature and functioning like a direct-democracy in terms of it’s administration.
To answer more specifically we must define collectivism.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides the following definitions for collectivism both of which are applicable:
1. A political and economic theory advocating collective control over production and distribution. Also a system marked by such control (collective).
2. Emphasis on the Collective rather than individual action or identity.
So a collective is essentially a system; in our case a small autonomous, mixed-motive organization; in which the means of production, and distribution are collectively shared. So an artist crollective would simply be a collective that shared their means to create works of art, as well as market, promote, showcase and distribute such works.
On a very basic level we already have this established. Any member of the team is able to promote just about any creative work they want on TGN or any of it’s related platforms. Reguardless of whether it’s for profit or not, TGN is our collective hub and utility for reaching an audience and showcasing things that we’ve done, made, want to say. etc.
For the sake of building upon and entertaining my fantastical visions, what if we somehow managed to step up our size in one way or another. That way could be anything from finding a patron, releasing a high selling album, or book, or even just organizing ourselves better and being more consistent, efficient, and proactive with our content creation and output.
I suppose if that were to happen the next step would be to acquire a warehouse. Therei Set up an office, a couple DIY recording studio, practice and jam area, acquire a variety of instruments, art supplies, areas for painting, sculpting, modeling, crafting etc, bookshelves full of resources and areas to write, think, and work. Create and maintain our own promotional platforms like newsletters, magazines, etc.
Even more fantastical what would the step after that be? Operating our own venues? museums? libraries?laboratories? studios? radio station? etc? I should stop myself, this is getting too good. Though such talk sounds ambitious and crazy, I know it is, but I’ve always found it better to dream big, and I believe I speak for most of the crew here at TGN when I say that.
Just to clarify this is not collective profit system. Obviously if money was made using the collective equipment, we would expect a very minuscule return to help pay for supplied equipment, and a minuscule cut to contribute to charity.
The idea is not to make money off it’s members, but if the capital is for the benefit of each, than everyone who’s receiving a monetary benefit ought to be doing their part to keep it afloat. Not that we wouldn’t love to see our members contributing as much excess to the growth of the collective as possible, but we understand that won’t be in everyone’s best interest, but perhaps a few of us will be inclined to do so.
If non-for profit, or if for profit but none was made, than obviously we would not expect any form of monetary contribution. However their are many ways each of us could contribute that wouldn’t cost anything but our time and effort; the more we can manage to accomplish through DIY tactics the better.
Socialism has never worked right? Cry the yuppies; who are already lined up to give me a hundred reasons why socialism only works on paper. Most of which are likely derived from a conservative twitter page.
Socialism however contrary to popular belief, is a broad umbrella term rather than a concrete system. Many commonly conflate socialism with it’s ideological offshoots such as , Collectivism, Communism, Mutualism as well as various forms of anarchist, socialist, and communist ideology.
It’s true that all of the above have their roots in socialism, along with many other strains of ideology. The key concept common among all forms of socialism is the social/communal ownership of the means of production.
This means that instead of controlling private corporations controlling production and manufacturing, it would be controlled socially or communally.
1. by the state (communism, fascism),
2.by the workers (anarchism, Anarcho-communism ),
3.by voluntary associations (collectivism, Mutualism, Anarcho-syndicalism)
I am not advocating for a full fledged revolutionary uprooting of capitalism, but in the same breath I think it would be quite far from the worst thing to happen to our species.
While of course, the young revolutionary forces revived time and time again by the Fiery works of Marx and Proudhon always make for a great story; usually leave a positive mark on society (provided they didn’t attempt any violent revolutionary tactics) and have a lot to offer in terms of education on a surprisingly wide variety of fronts.
I don’t by any means believe a large scale socialist revolution is either sufficient or necessary for our salvation. But do believe a lot of our problems could be fixed by the adoption of various elements of socialism into our society.
I don’t see a violent revolution on the horizon, what I do see however is a revolution of knowledge and ideas. A revolution of economic systems and Socio-political policy. A revolution in technology and science. A socio-techonomic war of words and numbers if you will.
Some people are always going to prefer the competition; and we should not be fast to stop them for the fruits of their battle are rapid and significant advancements in technology, research and policy.
As for the ones whom wouldn’t benefit from nor wish to participate in an economic and social system based on constant competition with their peers. I do believe some sort of alternative remedy is in need, and indeed it already exists to a certain extent.
Examples would be advent the productive commune or collective. This would allow liberation from the clutches of capitalist realism without actually having to subversively change anything.
This is possible because a group of people living communally could focus on some sort of export in order to pay taxes and maintain their property, without requiring any internal economic competition.
Earlier I noted there are many forms of socialist ideology, and each of those containing many different sub forms, and methods of implementation.
Regardless of exactly what system is used in this context I believe they can all be described with the branch terms: proxy society and micro society.
Due to functioning as mini societies within a society, some may rather function similar to a corporation ran in alternative social and economic fashion. Some may be both a corporation and a communal living area.
Even Google has their own village for employees!
That being said the systems I describe throughout the essay are based on my respective interpretation and how I would implement these type of ideas based on my currently limited but ever growing understanding of socialist economic and political systems.
NOTE: not to be taken as a set in stone description of a communal society/collecgive society, they all have their flavors and variations
Think about it, because this has already been done by many. What if the hundred socialist thinkers in x square miles, decided to throw down on a large plot of land, live communally under their own terms, and as a collective, contribute some form of tangible and or intellectual export for the rest of the outer society without necessarily being required to be apart of it.
Many Amish communities do just that and export/sell their crops and farmed goods.
Artist collectives focus on the export of intellectual property. They may live collectively but for many it’s purely about the work. Why though?
Benefits to working in a collective
1. Access to resources and equipment,
2. Sets the stage for collective productivity & enhanced collaboration,
3. Working toward a common goal or with people who share a common worldview/ideology
4. The freedom of creative expression that goes with producing music and other artwork outside the main industry labels and standards.
5. To avoid a traditional capitalist work setting.
6. To feel and be a part of something bigger.
A settlement, organization and or productive association where the means of production would be communally or collectively maintained controlled, and distributed through a system of possession (as opposed to a system of property. )
Where everyone can retain autonomy and individualism the sense that their talents and aspirations would shape their overall purposes within the group and that any work undertaken would be purely voluntary in nature.
Team leaders may be appointed for the sake of things like bookkeeping, budgeting, business related communications, and as a sort of administrator.
Besides administrative tasks this system will put everyone in a position of increased responsibility for themselves and their productivity. Unlike a typical work setting, a collective requires everyone to be their own manager, since their is no inherent group management.
The collective interest would overrule all higher group-level decision making in a profoundly democratic fashion. Everyone who contributes whether that is monitarily, or through the group labor/task system gets a vote. Membership in itself does not earn a vote, one has to be useful and make some form of contribution to the collective as a whole. One cannot buy more votes or a greater position by donating or working more towards group efforts. The only thing this will get you is more respect, appreciation, and potentially an administrative positions.
This creates a decentralized system of consensus and decision making. Where anyone who contributes, has an equal say and representation in the affairs of the whole.
Anyone would be able to leave at any given time. People who are violent, troublesome, subversively destructive or in some way or another; intentionally trying to hinder productivity or make the work of the group more difficult would be forced away from the settlement, as peacefully as the situation allows.
Another key prerequisite required to make this work would be a productive and mutualistically beneficial relationship with the host country.
This will be absolutely necessary if a communal/collective setting wants its existence to be tolerated. As a benefit of functioning independently within a larger capitalist society, it would have no real need for a military force.
In a traditional communal society: The Individual member would not directly deal with money.
Since The work of each member toward the export of some type of goods would be essential to providing necessities to members as well as paying taxes and property fees that go with existing within the host country.
All external economic affairs would be decided by the commune. Everyone who does their part is provided for. No economic competition or market systems exist within the internal life of the commune.
Now on to my preferred approach:
If this was a collectivist work setting such as an artist collective this would function a bit differently in terms of productivity, economic distribution and group finance.
For example if I was running an artist collective,Anyone who used collective resources to produce, market and or publish/sell art, music, literature etc would obviously keep their profit.
Yet they would be highly encouraged (though never coerced or required) to return at least a minuscule portion of their profit back to the collective and a minuscule portion to charity.
If the collective was successful enough; food and quarters may be offered to members but even in that case living there would not be a requirement for membership.
Aside from individual projects the ‘team leaders’ would organize group projects in which we would come together to work on something for the sake of raising money to keep the collective afloat.
The idea is to be able to function without relying on income from the self-guided work individual members; making sure everyone has the right to their own profits and the right to create non profit work if they so desire.
Group work may consist of group art/music projects, but there may be other forms of unrelated group work too depending on the situation.
The group could for example own a greenhouse and ask everyone to go tend it, for a small portion of their time each day, with the growth exported for collective money(with a small amount of whatever was grown being allocated to whomever took the time to tend it.)
Alternative group work could also be self guided; any way someone can think of to help the collective will earn them respect and notoriety within the group.
Its a bit of a gray area because theirs lots of ways this can be done, but it seems it would be important to diversify the groups sources of income, so-as not too rely too heavily on any one form of export.
While one technically cannot be forced to participate in group work as with contributing a share, team members may become disgruntled if someone is constantly using up resources and equipment to make money without ever contributing monetarily nor through effort on group work.
If the people democratically vote someone out for being a leach than so be it.
1. Encourage productive collaboration on other projects,
2. Increased interconnectedness, better inter-group relationships.
3 Develops a sense of culture and community within the group.
4. Helps lesser known members establish credibility and build a following in their respective industry by creating something alongside better known members.
5. Generating collective income; any excess would primarily be used for better equipment, supplies, and advertising/marketing solutions. (Or in a full fledged communal society used to provide everyone with food, shelter, toiletries, etc.)
6. Increased potential for creativity due to collective brain power being utilized for a common goal.
I hope this helps shed some light on alternative economic and political systems; as well as some light on the direction this group is headed in.
If you found this piece to be interesting, useful, inspiring, stupid, boring, or however you have it please let us know in the comments, we want your feedback so give it here!
The sound of sirens come rushing through your peripherals like long extended gunshots with the tone color of a shot-clock buzzer. A quick gust of hard wind smacks your body like a tree branch as a monstrous life-saving steel death trap plows by you en route.
A quick change of gaze to the leftward bow of your visionary plain reveals a four story red-brick building, burning like a mother*#$@er. The roof is already halfway disintegrated, people are pouring out the doors and windows like syrup through a pasta strainer. The whole thing is a mess!
You and your companion keep walking until you reach the street corner, there you park it and 180 your view for a more lengthy observation and a cigarette. “Glad I don’t live here.” your comrade mentions half to himself; you nod in agreement.
The firefighters are giving their best frenzied effort to douse the bright blistering chaos, but it seems they are up against quite an a opponent. Meanwhile a role call was being done. We walked over and inquired about how it went, and were quite relieved to hear nobody had been hurt.
After walking away you look back with a devilish grin and exclaim with an ere of childlike excitement that sounded almost manic “Well if their all out we might as well let her burn to the ground. #*!% that building! why do we need it anyways? can’t we just send them too a commune or a gulag or something? Better yet, Let them eat cake!”
We couldn’t help but laugh at our spitefully crude humor. The way we saw it, laughter was a medicine, no matter how you procure it; as long as it isn’t intentionally at someone else’s expense, no harm done.
By the time the firefighters had finished putting out the fire, the building was little more than a foundation, a few support beams, and a couple of the first story walls. Nobody seemed to be able to pick out the cause of the fire.
That is until later that evening, when a bunch of empty cans of gasoline were discovered in the woods nearby. This baffled the inhabitants of the building and many of the town itself.
Shortly after, police arrived at the homes of you and your comrade, after a few questions you were acquainted with a stylish pair of matching silver bracelets.
You see your comrade at the station who’s already ratted you out, you try to duke it out in the station, but when handcuffed and interrupted by four officers trying to get you to chill the $#!@ out; not much progress is made.
Ironically, It was only the comrade who had participated, you were actually clueless until now, however he had somehow woven a way too include you into the story for only god knows what reason.
Despite your innocence you both spend 5 years in prison for arson and destruction of public property. Maybe you shouldn’t have burnt that building down scumbag, you ever think of that one?
The morals of the story are
Original text available free at Marxists.org
On our journey through anarchist philosophy, we arrive at the fourth stop.
In Hindsight, I wish I had arrived here first. The archetypal treatise known as ‘what is property? has helped me to understand the rest of the reading at a far deeper level than I had been able to ascertain prior.
Having gone through most of the works of Mikhail Bakunin, several by William Godwin, and a brief but enjoyable stop at ‘The Communist Manifesto’ by Karl Marx; We now find ourselves at the literary doorstep of Pierre Joseph Proudhon as he lends assistance toward our understanding of the state, our place (within), and how we think about the government and our lives as a whole.
I would almost go so far as call it the Anarchist version of the communist manifesto. If Marx dealt with the who and the how of the state and revolution; Proudhon dealt with the what and the why.
While their comparison requires one to speak in terms of apples and oranges; Proudhon seems to have peered both deeper into the roots of society, as well as having done so with better spirit and intention than Marx and at the same time falls short on Marx’s ability to verbally paint detailed pictures of societal constructs and functions as well as predict the course of their (r)evolutions.
1. “What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once.”(Proudhon 1840)
At first our mind does not wish to reconcile these two phenomena as identical; but upon closer inspection we may begin to see the parallel. Murder is too end the life of another through execution. Slavery forces one to forfeit their life for the sake of somebody’s profit. If one is too live merely for someone else’s gain, and that alone; are they truly better off than dead?
If one is doing so for a good reason such as a parent living purely for their children or an activist living purely for their cause than certainly, because those things hold a legitimate importance and bear meaning too the individual.
However if one is living purely for the profit of a malignant superior whom they did not choose, than I say they may as well seek liberation or die trying.
While the majority of us do not live under such conditions this may just as fluently speak to smaller more personal instances, which may only pose a risk to certain degrees of comfort, wealth, free time and or reputation. A perfect example would be liberation from a destructive addiction, a toxic partner, an unfair landlord or a shitty job that has a hold on you.
2. “What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? “(Proudhon 1840)
If we are a mere microcosm of the earth; than any attempt to lay claim on it is in fact a glorified act of robbery.
If you go hiking through the woods and catch a tick, does that tick now legally possess the right to unpack, set up shop, start a dynasty, partition your skin, seize your bodies means of production and create a monopoly on your skin cells and hair follicles?
Didn’t think so; most of us would likely remove it as soon as we were aware of it’s presence, which causes one too wonder if this is part of the planet’s agenda.
The irony here is that some conservative thinkers are fond of deeming those who collect social security parasites; while this in a sense this may be true, they are in fact only leaching off a larger and more destructive parasite. In another sense this need not be true. Unlike real parasites, every parasitic force in this world has the ability to become a mutualite. That is too say that you contribute something to your host. If every parasite underwent this transformation, the world would be a perfect place.
This is not communism, this is not too say you work only for the state, but you work for the state and yourself. I believe however taxes aren’t a very good way to accomplish this. Charity, and investments into the quality of life of the public at whatever reasonable level you can afford, ought to be mandatory and replace the idea of taxation.
That said a perfect society, would be a capitalist direct-democratic society in which anyone with wealth and power was an egalitarian who thought like a Green-Market Socialist, an Anarcho-syndicalist , or an outright saint. Those who believe such a feet to be out of reach will be in for a rude awakening.
This was also the war cry of 2000s anarcho-punk band Wingnut dishwashers Union on their track ‘Proudhon in Manhattan’ “Throw your hands in the air cause property is robbery.”
Proudhon makes it a point to inform us that utilizing what he has left us will require arduous deductive reasoning in order to read between the overlapping borders of his ideological web.
The process of deducing additional information from the cross reference of two statements will be key in the analysis of his work.
That is to say that we view all that we are met with in terms of how our mind wants us too see it. To say that our individual perspectives are sculpted by and in conformity with our worldview.
That while our worldview may grow and change it always serves to reconcile our experiences and knowledge with it’s own most primitive form.
If the mind cannot produce ideas which are purely independent of what it is exposed to, it would still however possess the ability to take shape and execute functions which exist independently of the mind.
Systems like anarchism and communism may be modeled and replicated in the mind while existing independently of it’s container.
Likewise our minds may take variants of pre-determined shapes according to what types of problems we want too solve, what kind of tasks we wish to complete, and how we wish to exist and portray ourselves.
This allows archetypal personality types such as Tyrant, Artist, Peasant, Merchant and Scholar to take forms which are transient of the minds they occupy.
For something to exist:
2. Must be identifiable with some form of categorically qualitative property (mode)
3. Must have the ability to interact with other somethings (relation)
4. Must be rationally quantifiable. (number)
9. “Even when we are fighting against a principle which our mind thinks false … we obey it while attacking it” (Proudhon 1840)
This speaks to a strange situation many who seek communities or roles of resistance find themselves in. It causes one to antagonize the host from the inside, yet itself being a working component of that society.
Kinda like an unending game of ‘devils advocate’; in which ones mind is always always at odds with the bodies actions due to ideological or emotional friction created by the subjected scenario therein.
10. This principle, impaired by our ignorance, is honored and cherished; for if it were not cherished it would harm nobody, it would be without influence … what is it? Can it be religion? (Proudhon 1840)
The answer is yes.
People have used religion as an excuse to do harm but this does not make any religion inherently harmful. One may also make the same claim about the Arts, Philosophy and Mathematics. For all of these exist primarily to serve as tools for our mental canvas and a point of reference for thoughts and ideas.
The exception being religion (and art depending on how you look at it) in serving for it’s subscribers as a way to facilitate spiritual growth or a ‘personal connection’ with God/Universe/Allah/Yahweh if you believe in that sort of thing.
Faith is something I would probably recommend purely because it has improved my quality of life, but everyone is and ought to always be free to form their own choices and beliefs.
The last thing I want is too appear as if I’m telling anybody what they ought to believe; unless that consists of telling people to believe in equal opportunity, non-violence, and freedom of speech.
This age old wisdom is still repeated today as the golden rule of ‘treat others how you’d like to be treated’ I don’t think the fact that it carries a tremendous amount of merit on any and every level of the social sphere needs much explaining.
Well this just covers the tip of the iceberg for this work, but I don’t wanna drag you along all day just quite yet. If you find this sort of stuff interesting, by all means read the original text! I hope all of you have a wonderful day, and let us not forget ladies and gentleman: PROPERTY IS ROBBERY!
Ars Gratia Artis Ad Victorium
Another half Latin half English poem from the chaotick blisse side project!!