arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 3, 2010 10:38:54 GMT -5
I mean, I can't say to you that inaction is less honest than you make it out to be, because after awhile it does become tedious and disheartening to keep trying and keep failing but I feel to be inactive in resisting a world that is miserable and unfair is to deny yourself any opportunity to find/make anything worthwhile out of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 3, 2010 11:43:42 GMT -5
I mean, I can't say to you that inaction is less honest than you make it out to be, because after awhile it does become tedious and disheartening to keep trying and keep failing but I feel to be inactive in resisting a world that is miserable and unfair is to deny yourself any opportunity to find/make anything worthwhile out of the world. very well put. i feel like if you're done trying to make yourself feel better even just a little, on a day to day basis and a personal level (obviously we all know none of us have a chance of changing anything) then what exactly are you doing still breathing? you care about the people close to you, and want things to be the best they can for you and the ones you love. you make efforts to be rid of the things that specifically make you miserable (in your case, its not putting yourself around a lot of people, quitting your job, not living at your moms anymore etc). i understand your negativity, obviously, you know me well enough, but you haven't completely given up, or you wouldn't even do those things, or be close to anyone at all.
|
|
xxx
still a stranger
Posts: 34
|
Post by xxx on May 3, 2010 12:15:36 GMT -5
it's obvious that our differences lay in a discrepancy on how we're using the word action. action in the way i'm using it isn't quitting your job, stealing food, moving out of your parents house, hanging with people i "care" about or other daily banalities. to me, that's survival--it's doing what i can to make this shithole (arguably) a little bit more tolerable. i WILL NOT confuse that with some sort of offensive or something of the sort that in actuality has the opportunity to change my material conditions which in turn will change the things that determine me. i think confusing these things a long time ago has served for a lot of problems within anarchist theory and praxis for a really long time now. let's put it to bed.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 4, 2010 8:38:41 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you Alex, none of us have a chance to change anything by ourselves, its true, BUT just because every community I have ever met has disappointed me is no excuse for allowing myself to grow disillusioned and jaded with the idea of community and, more importantly, community action as a whole.
Not that a community has a much better chance but making the world a better place is, at least in my eyes, completely necessary because the individual things that make me miserable are irrelevant, smaller symptoms of the actual source of my displeasure which is the very nature of human interaction and human society at this point and the only way to be free of that society, of the nature of all our interactions is to completely re-imagine who we are and what the world is.
|
|
xxx
still a stranger
Posts: 34
|
Post by xxx on May 4, 2010 11:08:31 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you Alex, none of us have a chance to change anything by ourselves, its true, BUT just because every community I have ever met has disappointed me is no excuse for allowing myself to grow disillusioned and jaded with the idea of community and, more importantly, community action as a whole. Not that a community has a much better chance but making the world a better place is, at least in my eyes, completely necessary because the individual things that make me miserable are irrelevant, smaller symptoms of the actual source of my displeasure which is the very nature of human interaction and human society at this point and the only way to be free of that society, of the nature of all our interactions is to completely re-imagine who we are and what the world is. should i take your not responding to what i said above you as agreeing with me? if not, it'd be nice to see your take on it. how about this, even though you DIDNT respond to me, i'll still respond to what's above me. arjay, you can keep throwing yourself up against the wall as much as you'd like. you're right, maybe there could be some "community" out there that will fulfill your needs and even better, be capable of action that can "re-imagine who we are and what the world is." but, how long can you believe this before you look yourself in the mirror and realize that you're chasing rainbows? after a while this turns into blind idealism based in no reality whatsoever as far as i'm concerned. what do these communities you speak of look like? how are they organized, and how do you think they'd be able to manifest the power and agency to turn this world upside down? maybe this part of the discussion can be saved for in person, but i'd be interested in you addressing the post that didn't get addressed and maybe the first paragraph of this.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 5, 2010 15:43:07 GMT -5
Well, as far as your previous post I feel as though "survival", to use your terminology has the same end result as "action", that is, making the world more inhabitable and less miserable and both should be part of our lives. So i'd rather not make any distinction between them at all. As far as your first paragraph, its very difficult to gauge where actual directed belief in organized communities of resistance stops being effectual and becomes blind idealism but I don't think I've reached that point yet and when I find myself strapped into idealism or, even worse, stuck in a routine that is undeniably not working I'll reevaluate my stance then and only then and, as I say I don't feel I'm at that point. Its a personal call.
|
|
xxx
still a stranger
Posts: 34
|
Post by xxx on May 5, 2010 16:08:41 GMT -5
Well, as far as your previous post I feel as though "survival", to use your terminology has the same end result as "action", that is, making the world more inhabitable and less miserable and both should be part of our lives. So i'd rather not make any distinction between them at all. As far as your first paragraph, its very difficult to gauge where actual directed belief in organized communities of resistance stops being effectual and becomes blind idealism but I don't think I've reached that point yet and when I find myself strapped into idealism or, even worse, stuck in a routine that is undeniably not working I'll reevaluate my stance then and only then and, as I say I don't feel I'm at that point. Its a personal call. retreats into it's a personal call are where i'm uninterested anymore. i have a desire to talk on a practical level, and that's not what that is. once this point is reached then seemingly there's nowhere else to go with this conversation and it's a shame. to your survival and action comparison--no. plain and simple, no. they do not warrant the same end result. survival is something that you do to limit the amount you're being beaten up--it's like trying to keep your head above water when there's no chance of actually getting out of the situation. action is taking the initiative beyond purely reactionary measures. so, all in all, they don't have the same results therefore i'd rather not use the same word. it seems like you're trying to blur the lines, but i think they're pretty apparent. to further illustrate my example: to slaves on a plantation survival would be organizing games to keep morale up, singing songs and things of that nature. action would be killing the masters and realizing that no matter how many songs they sing or games they play they will ALWAYS be viewed as commodities and therefore 2nd rate.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 5, 2010 16:22:41 GMT -5
to your survival and action comparison--no. plain and simple, no. they do not warrant the same end result. survival is something that you do to limit the amount you're being beaten up--it's like trying to keep your head above water when there's no chance of actually getting out of the situation. action is taking the initiative beyond purely reactionary measures. so, all in all, they don't have the same results therefore i'd rather not use the same word. it seems like you're trying to blur the lines, but i think they're pretty apparent. to further illustrate my example: to slaves on a plantation survival would be organizing games to keep morale up, singing songs and things of that nature. action would be killing the masters and realizing that no matter how many songs they sing or games they play they will ALWAYS be viewed as commodities and therefore 2nd rate. i agree with this and feel like its exactly what you're saying, people blur the lines. but in the end does it even matter if people like to call "survival" "action"? does misusing the term change the end result? no. i think you're right, rather than sing songs and play games to boost our morale, we need to kill the masters, but i dont hear anyone on this board claim they know how to or are doing just that. we're all just trying to figure out how to survive and wishing we knew how to take "action". for some its quitting jobs, for some its hopping trains, skateboarding, zines, feminism, challenging gender, whatever. its all just a matter of survival. maybe im just speaking for myself and a few others who i know in real life enough.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 5, 2010 17:44:37 GMT -5
I feel as though to the slaves playing games and killing the masters do have the same end result in that they make life more bearable for the slaves.
I misunderstood what you wanted as regards to community, you asked in your first paragraph when do you stop chasing rainbows so that's what I addressed.
In regards to the question of agency, communities and people in general only have the agency they allow themselves. Its a matter of what you are willing to do to reach your goals. Once you establish where that line is it's a matter of timing and planning. For instance, 10 people will not be able to kill anyone and have it be effective, and a larger group would not be well served by guerrilla actions that would serve the cause of the smaller group really well.
I'm sure you know the examples of communities that have thrived in opposition to government oppression at least as well as I do so I really don't feel the need to go into any specific examples of the fact that they can be an effective tool.
|
|
xxx
still a stranger
Posts: 34
|
Post by xxx on May 5, 2010 18:39:53 GMT -5
I feel as though to the slaves playing games and killing the masters do have the same end result in that they make life more bearable for the slaves. I misunderstood what you wanted as regards to community, you asked in your first paragraph when do you stop chasing rainbows so that's what I addressed. In regards to the question of agency, communities and people in general only have the agency they allow themselves. Its a matter of what you are willing to do to reach your goals. Once you establish where that line is it's a matter of timing and planning. For instance, 10 people will not be able to kill anyone and have it be effective, and a larger group would not be well served by guerrilla actions that would serve the cause of the smaller group really well. I'm sure you know the examples of communities that have thrived in opposition to government oppression at least as well as I do so I really don't feel the need to go into any specific examples of the fact that they can be an effective tool. arjay, really? you're going to tell me that slaves playing games and slaves liberating themselves from being slaves has the same end result? that's pretty insane. in one instance they'd be playing games to numb the fact that they'd be abused, confined and treated like second rate people and in the other well, they wouldn't be fucking slaves anymore! that is NOT the same end result. sure, if you wanna play the reduction game then i guess "they're making their lives better" or whatever, but you'd have to be an idiot if you think not being a slave anymore is the same as playing games to better swallow your servitude. communities and people in general only have the agency they allow themselves.this statement blows me away. you're trying to tell me that poor people are poor because they don't allow themselves to get rich? that starving children are starving because they make a conscious effort to stay that way? that rape victims can't stop rape because they don't allow themselves the agency to stop them? maybe you need to think that through a little bit better.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 6, 2010 13:05:49 GMT -5
That was not what I was saying. I don't believe that poor people are poor because they want to be or that starving people are starving because they want to be but its a matter of struggle against those conditions and a willingness to rob a bank and become rich thereby freeing yourself from those conditions does not equate to actually being able to enact that plan and have it serve your interests. If a person is willing to do whatever is necessary to serve their interests they have as much agency as it is possible to have, but for a poor man to rob a bank is not in his best interests and therefore his inaction in robbing that bank does not demonstrate a lack of agency but a lack of optimum condition.
Human agency is the ability of humans to make choices, not necessarily to enact those choices.
Secondly, if slaves are playing games it is to free themselves from the oppression they feel, if only temporarily, if they kill their masters it is also to free themselves from the oppression they feel. The only difference is in duration. Which makes no difference upon the end result being freedom from the oppression they feel.
|
|
xxx
still a stranger
Posts: 34
|
Post by xxx on May 6, 2010 13:47:43 GMT -5
first off, your definition of agency is completely wrong. that's not it. agency is the means or mode of acting or the condition of being in action. what seems to continue happening is you bend the words to fit your perception of what's happening in this conversation without realizing that they're not even close. a man not robbing a bank does represent a lack of optimal conditions, you're right--but those material conditions (that you seem to want to continue to ignore) are weighing down upon him limiting and successfully ridding him of his agency. he doesn't have the agency to act upon his desires. that's really the end. agency isn't the desire to act, it's the ability to act. end of story.
slaves playing games to ease their misery as slaves and slaves liberating themselves are completely different. you can reduce all you want, but the fact remains that slavery has implications of misery that are radically different than not being a slave. sure, they'd probably go on to being oppressed in other ways and life tends toward misery always--but the fact remains that it's not a matter of duration. it's a qualitative difference in material conditions that you can't deny.
|
|
scum
introduce yourself!
Posts: 6
|
Post by scum on May 6, 2010 14:10:45 GMT -5
i agree with this and feel like its exactly what you're saying, people blur the lines. but in the end does it even matter if people like to call "survival" "action"? does misusing the term change the end result? no. i think you're right, rather than sing songs and play games to boost our morale, we need to kill the masters, but i dont hear anyone on this board claim they know how to or are doing just that. we're all just trying to figure out how to survive and wishing we knew how to take "action". for some its quitting jobs, for some its hopping trains, skateboarding, zines, feminism, challenging gender, whatever. its all just a matter of survival. maybe im just speaking for myself and a few others who i know in real life enough. i take issue with your list of "matters of survival." only one seems to even address issues of survival (train hopping), with most of the rest seeming more like punk cliches than anything else. more importantly though, i'd challenge the inclusion of feminism in this list. feminism is a dialogue, a theory and a praxis. none of the other activities you mentioned are discourses, but instead just isolated activities, print media, or extreme sports. if your engagement with feminism is limited to slogans, attempting to turn every stupid thing into a "feminist" activity, or refusal of shaving (i.e. the punk scene's "feminism"), then it makes sense for you to see it as a matter of survival. however, critical engagement of feminist discourse would show it is more a dialogue on power (one that addresses the totality, if one considers the recent expansion of feminist theory and praxis coming from crazy bitches tired of liberal bullshit and identity politics) than any paltry lifestyle choice. (i don't want to argue whether or not feminism is a valid discourse, just that it is not a survival mechanism). and in regard to "i dont hear anyone on this board claim they know how to or are doing just that" - some people are engaging in a dedicated dialogue, experimenting, and finding possibilities for something more than activities that merely address survival. not everyone is playing lifestylist and calling it action. it's completely absurd to make assumptions as to what people are doing based on what people are posting on a message board. universal positivity and cynical resignment are two sides of the same coin. negate everything!
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 7, 2010 18:39:04 GMT -5
i wasn't making assumptions, i said "as far as i know", and i know everyone who posts on this board in real life. maybe you are experimenting on how to "kill the masters" or whatever. if you get anywhere with that, feel free to let me know. im more than intrigued.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on May 8, 2010 16:47:47 GMT -5
first off, your definition of agency is completely wrong. that's not it. agency is the means or mode of acting or the condition of being in action. what seems to continue happening is you bend the words to fit your perception of what's happening in this conversation without realizing that they're not even close. a man not robbing a bank does represent a lack of optimal conditions, you're right--but those material conditions (that you seem to want to continue to ignore) are weighing down upon him limiting and successfully ridding him of his agency. he doesn't have the agency to act upon his desires. that's really the end. agency isn't the desire to act, it's the ability to act. end of story. slaves playing games to ease their misery as slaves and slaves liberating themselves are completely different. you can reduce all you want, but the fact remains that slavery has implications of misery that are radically different than not being a slave. sure, they'd probably go on to being oppressed in other ways and life tends toward misery always--but the fact remains that it's not a matter of duration. it's a qualitative difference in material conditions that you can't deny. If that's your definition of agency then yes, i'll agree our ability to act is hampered but we give ourselves far more potential when we act as a group than when we act alone. I agree with Jay on this one. Though I wouldn't go so far as to call lifestyleism inaction, because you are attempting to effect change on your own existence within the system, I would question why you would want to change your existence within the system while not bothering to attempt to live without the system or destroy it all together. Not saying anyone on these boards does that, or doesn't do that, it was just convenient to draw those two things into opposition.
|
|