|
Josef bugman posted:Nothing that results in the deaths of that many people is able to be brushed off as simply "poorly implemented". Why not? The principle was sound. Eradicating the staggering structural violence of capital via an intense campaign of bloodshed makes perfect sense. Some people have to die, we'll never bring down capitalism without being willing to meet it with ruthless force. Where Mao went wrong was in permitting (or at least failing to prevent) the explosion of that bloodshed into wanton terror and chaos. Had it been more focused on the actual ideological enemies, the cultural revolution would have been a perfectly good policy. In its broad sense I love the idea - utterly destroying the 'four olds'. Can you imagine how liberating it must have felt to be a former Chinese peasant digging up and pissing on the bones of the Emperors? It's just a shame that the bloodshed wasn't more precisely targeted.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
For reference the actual withdrawal agreement is literally the one theresa may drew up except with "technological solution" scribbled over the bit about northern ireland in red crayon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Why not? The principle was sound. Eradicating the staggering structural violence of capital via an intense campaign of bloodshed makes perfect sense. Some people have to die, we'll never bring down capitalism without being willing to meet it with ruthless force. Where Mao went wrong was in permitting (or at least failing to prevent) the explosion of that bloodshed into wanton terror and chaos. Had it been more focused on the actual ideological enemies, the cultural revolution would have been a perfectly good policy. In its broad sense I love the idea - utterly destroying the 'four olds'. Can you imagine how liberating it must have felt to be a former Chinese peasant digging up and pissing on the bones of the Emperors? It's just a shame that the bloodshed wasn't more precisely targeted. Perhaps one might suggest that it is actually very difficult to contain bloodshed once unleashed. That an intense campaign of violence necessitates finding as many targets as are necessary to sustain itself, once initiated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Why not? The principle was sound. Eradicating the staggering structural violence of capital via an intense campaign of bloodshed makes perfect sense. Some people have to die, we'll never bring down capitalism without being willing to meet it with ruthless force. Where Mao went wrong was in permitting (or at least failing to prevent) the explosion of that bloodshed into wanton terror and chaos. Had it been more focused on the actual ideological enemies, the cultural revolution would have been a perfectly good policy. In its broad sense I love the idea - utterly destroying the 'four olds'. Can you imagine how liberating it must have felt to be a former Chinese peasant digging up and pissing on the bones of the Emperors? It's just a shame that the bloodshed wasn't more precisely targeted. Because it's an attempt not to move beyond something but to instead revel in crushing something that you used to be. It's not growth that helps anyone, it's not designed to actually improve anything it's a purely reactionary burning of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps one might suggest that it is actually very difficult to contain bloodshed once unleashed. That an intense campaign of violence necessitates finding as many targets as are necessary to sustain itself, once initiated. That's why you don't enact your bloodshed by handing rifles to every enthusiastic 17 year old I guess Josef bugman posted:Because it's an attempt not to move beyond something but to instead revel in crushing something that you used to be. It's not growth that helps anyone, it's not designed to actually improve anything it's a purely reactionary burning of things. I would posit, and I'm being totally serious here, that at the ideological level you must utterly crush what you used to be if you're ever to move beyond it
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Like today, what would happen if you told people "let's just start killing everyone who has wronged us" Yes you might kill a lot of actually horrible people but you'd probably also kill a lot of, like, people with beards or funny hats or who don't pass the paper bag test or who are gender nonconforming or all sorts of other people you likely don't want to kill. Orgiastic liberating violence not spilling over into other targets relies on extreme ideological penetration into all aspects of society, to the point it supplants all other prejudices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
if you want cadre control of the execution of violence, rather than diffusing arms to the masses, you probably want more Lenin and less Mao in your M-L breakfast cereal
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I would posit, and I'm being totally serious here, that at the ideological level you must utterly crush what you used to be if you're ever to move beyond it No. You need to live with it. Every right and every wrong you've done happened and cannot be simply swept away by declaring it so and removing all references to it. It'd be like if there had been a full on revolution here in the 1900's and we just plain swept everything away and then declared that all of the stuff we currently have is new and isn't based on colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like today, what would happen if you told people "let's just start killing everyone who has wronged us" Yes, yes, but I'm talking about violence within an established though unstable state i.e. the Cultural Revolution, and I agree that the approach of 'arming a bunch of angry teenagers and telling them to go hog wild killing all the ideological enemies with no oversight' was a very poorly thought out plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:can you still become a ghost if you are cremated? "Don't burn me! Please... don't burn me!" (Of all the creepy horror stuff the show's ever done, that was probably the most likely to hit kids the hardest - if they'd recently had a relative die and be cremated, at least.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
ronya posted:if you want cadre control of the execution of violence, rather than diffusing arms to the masses, you probably want more Lenin and less Mao in your M-L breakfast cereal Only time in my life Ronya has made my point more succinctly than I have lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I would posit, and I'm being totally serious here, that at the ideological level you must utterly crush what you used to be if you're ever to move beyond it Yes, you do, but you can't achieve that by exorting people who have not already been ideologically crushed, into violence. Because they won't be doing the crushing in the name of your preferred ideology. It also presents a problem if your ideology is not centered around crushing things generally? People into crushing generally create societies based around crushing. And the only one of those I might be OK living in is the one where Ms A is general secretary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The government has signed up to a one year transition agreement which basically keeps everything the same until they sort it out. gently caress I was afraid of that. I mean, it's still probably better than tomorrow being immediate no deal, but this is poo poo too. Also I better start using all the stuff I bought last year for my Brexit stockpile since it's gonna go out of date this year anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, you do, but you can't achieve that by exorting people who have not already been ideologically crushed, into violence. Because they won't be doing the crushing in the name of your preferred ideology. We're getting our wires crossed here. I pretty much agree that mass orgiastic violence is A Bad Thing. I don't think the cultural revolution was good, because it was poorly executed. The reason that it was poorly executed is that the bloodshed was allowed to spiral out of control via the enlistment of the masses - people were left to adopt wildly diverse variations on Correctness and often used their newfound power to settle completely unrelated scores + act in generally awful ways. Nevertheless, the idea of cultural revolution (the eradication of the old) was good, in principle. Hence, a better plan in the context of an actually existing state (revolutions themselves are, of course, a whole different thing) would be more precisely targeted violence vs specific threats via the security apparatus. That way you keep full control over the process, and you avoid the wanton chaos of (multi-)militia justice. I.e., yes, more Lenin than Mao, though the latter did have some solid ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
I disagree with both the actual (mass deaths) and theoretical (eradication of the old things) levels of it. One of the best ways to truly destroy something is to make it so that it is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Shyrka posted:gently caress I was afraid of that. Don't worry, you'll be making a new stockpile around November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I disagree with both the actual (mass deaths) and theoretical (eradication of the old things) levels of it. How do you make capitalism irrelevant without destroying it though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
I don't really think you can "control" the application of violence. Because within a state having the ideological violence ministry, you end up with that being chock full of people who just like killing other people, and they end up finding as many people as they need to justify the continued existence of the killing people office. Like your entire idea relies on the the possibility of an incorruptable immortal decision maker who decides accurately who to and not to kill, and that their actions would not result in any sort of undesirable drift in society's attitude towards violence and who it should be applied to. Which I'm not sure is a thing that is possible? I'm not even sure it's possible on the individual level. Like yes if you gave me magic powers and a gun I could think of a lot of people who the world would be better off without, but if I actually started shooting them I am pretty sure I'd end up shooting a lot of people who really shouldn't be shot, after a little while. Because the transformation into someone who makes that decision on a regular basis would very likely change my attitude towards other people in general, and my ability to make decisions about life and death. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really think you can "control" the application of violence. You certainly CAN control the application of violence, capitalism does an excellent job of keeping the application of violence under its control Whether you can control the application of violence in destroying the system that currently regulates it is probably a different matter...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
the instability was a deliberate part of Maoism; the purpose of continuous struggle was as a necessary part of continuous ideological improvement. Socialist truth emerges through revolutionary struggle... the moment you allow that the revolutionary strugglers - in particular the rural peasantry - might not be a superior source of the truth, you have left the core of Maoist thought, which holds that the sole error of the masses is that they hold their ideology in a disorganized and incoherent fashion and your sole role as the Party vanguard is to organize these ideas, but these ideas cannot be wrong as such; they are kernels of the socialist truth and their essential character must be correct. This is because the only valid purpose of ideas is itself to further the cycle of revolutionary struggle. To notice that people are starving is to demoralize the struggle and hence to uphold a bourgeois truth, rather than a socialist truth, and the upholding of bourgeois truths must resisted and destroyed - epistemology itself is an article of class struggle and only socialist truths are permissible
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:How do you make capitalism irrelevant without destroying it though? Because Capitalism, as much as anything else, get's shown to be poo poo by what you've built. Maybe I'm too much of a soc dem, but I do think that destroying historic things because it makes you feel good is kind of trying to do the hard work (getting rid of the structures that allowed these things to flourish) through easy means (it's gone now, and everything is back to how it should be).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:We're getting our wires crossed here. I pretty much agree that mass orgiastic violence is A Bad Thing. _____________________\ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:You certainly CAN control the application of violence, capitalism does an excellent job of keeping the application of violence under its control I don't think it does, though. Capitalism isn't an intentional system, it's an aggregate one. There is no central capitalism office that makes decisions about who to kill to keep capitalism stable (even if there are actual organizations that do that like the CIA) but rather, capitalism is sort of... the resultant state of a temporarily stable application of violence? Like the violence is the foundation, employer/employee rich/poor have/have not is the basic relationship and form of violence in the world, and we call the society that results from that, capitalism. Capitalism does not control the application of violence, rather a semi-stable form of systemic violence produces capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Shyrka posted:Genuinely what the gently caress is going on? I'm not being dense or funny here, I have no clue what's going on. And that's exactly the way the government and the media want it The UK media is like US level bad these days, jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think it does, though. Capitalism isn't an intentional system, it's an aggregate one. There is no central capitalism office that makes decisions about who to kill to keep capitalism stable (even if there are actual organizations that do that like the CIA) but rather, capitalism is sort of... the resultant state of a temporarily stable application of violence? Does it matter? The violence is controlled and applied in ways which further a system. Ergo, it is possible to control violence to further a system, even if the violence is what brought that system about in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Still less ridiculous than the Anglican God though. Wasn't Anglican God created by Henry V because he wanted to bang someone other than his wife and the nasty Pope said no? Kinda like Cameron, Brexit and the EU now that you think of it .
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Shyrka posted:gently caress I was afraid of that. I think the time for concern is going to be when the transition agreement runs out, which we'll see over the course of the year what, if anything, they manage to put in place to mitigate that. I believe it can possibly be extended, but broadly we have no way of knowing what's going to happen because it's entirely up to the government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
sociologically the practice of mass participation in ritualized humiliation and solidarity building exercises in seen also in... say... boot camps and cults. There is no denying that it is effective in building solidarity in a way unseen in other human institutions although of course your drill sgt ceases to have a terror role in your life in three months
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Does it matter? Well, yes it matters because thomaspaine is suggesting the idea of consciously controlling the application of violence to create a particular society, which is completely the opposite of the idea that stable forms of systemic violence are what define the shape of society. It's like suggesting that because you can control the sails on a ship to make it move, you can therefore bolt the ship to the floor and play with the sails to change the direction of the wind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Wasn't Anglican God created by Henry V because he wanted to bang someone other than his wife and the nasty Pope said no? It still has uncomfortable links with the State. ronya posted:sociologically the practice of mass participation in ritualized humiliation and solidarity building exercises in seen also in... say... boot camps and cults. There is no denying that it is effective in building solidarity in a way unseen in other human institutions
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the time for concern is going to be when the transition agreement runs out, which we'll see over the course of the year what, if anything, they manage to put in place to mitigate that. I believe it can possibly be extended, but broadly we have no way of knowing what's going to happen because it's entirely up to the government. It's part of the withdrawal agreement that we can extend for a year if we need to. Johnson, being a moron, says he won't. He can't be forced to do so, but he may flip on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's part of the withdrawal agreement that we can extend for a year if we need to. Johnson, being a moron, says he won't. He can't be forced to do so, but he may flip on that. Also whether or not an extra year would make much difference anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:https://twitter.com/MorganPaulett/status/1223246955595419648?s=19 Also, while I'm here: Ash Crimson posted:The english... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Just noticedZ the IVth posted:Henry V It was Henry IIX, not V, but yeah the rest isn't far off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Just noticed Regnal numbers use VIII not IIX
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
You do this just to hurt people, don't you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
mehall posted:Regnal numbers use VIII not IIX
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Why not? The principle was sound. Eradicating the staggering structural violence of capital via an intense campaign of bloodshed makes perfect sense. Some people have to die, we'll never bring down capitalism without being willing to meet it with ruthless force. Where Mao went wrong was in permitting (or at least failing to prevent) the explosion of that bloodshed into wanton terror and chaos. Had it been more focused on the actual ideological enemies, the cultural revolution would have been a perfectly good policy. In its broad sense I love the idea - utterly destroying the 'four olds'. Can you imagine how liberating it must have felt to be a former Chinese peasant digging up and pissing on the bones of the Emperors? It's just a shame that the bloodshed wasn't more precisely targeted. the Maoist destroy the four olds/uphold the four news campaign was intensely nationalist - the purpose of digging up and desecrating corpses was not to celebrate the destruction of an internal enemy (although internal enemies certainly abounded) who is not part of 'us', but as kind of mutual self-sacrifice of a shared Chinese history in order to build a shared Chinese future the best person to desecrate a corpse of a Confucian monk is not a peasant oppressed by generations of feudalism, now victorious above it, but instead a Confucian descendant who is now boldly renouncing his heritage, that kind of thing. Hence, students should engage in ideological struggle with teachers and children with parents, etc etc. this is not quite the same as the tribalistic streak in contemporary British leftism ronya fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You do this just to hurt people, don't you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Henry IIIIIIII Distant ancestor of Jess philips?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:30
|
|
