Guevarista wrote:
I take your point, but I think it's important to be realistic about just how successful the ideology of greed has been and how successful the boss class have been demonising the notion that ordinary working people can and should exercise their collective power. Which I admit does depress the fuck out of me, so yes it is important to remember " the struggle and it will continue for as long as inequality, avarice and greed rule men's minds". I guess it's about realism without resignation.

dogsmilk wrote:
How do you expect to overthrow them exactly?
How many machine guns have you got?

andyh wrote:
No offence Andy, but you badly need to read up on some history.
And read some anarchist works. Something I'm beginning to suspect you have never done.

You know people should really read these old authors, the one's you've linked to Dogsmilk, Goldman, Kropotkin, Marx, even Proudhon, if even just to realize the thorough, thoughtfulness of their theories, their integrity, their analytical methods and reasoned conclusions.

It should illuminate to anyone aware of the conspiracy the dumbing down of society in the last century.
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/right...fferent-2171127.html

I think this dichotomy hints toward the establishment distrust of the Tavistock institute, specifically RD Laing, who based anti-psychiatry on empathy, a revolutionary approach to "Understanding" rather than "treating" mental "illness".

I'm no neuroscientist, but i think the amygdala get's a lot of bad press, i'm going to look into that subject more and see if there might be any allusion to the established ideology training certain areas of the brain to react emotionally.

andyh wrote:
That depends. Historically anarcho-syndicalists has a lot of faith in the general strike to tip things over the edge, though I would say that is unrealistic (though not as unrealistic under the the labour conditions of back in the day as those of today).

Personally, I don't see any reason for people to have to say "this would make the revolution happen" because nobody ever really knows what's going to happen. The way I see it, people should pursue a a range of activities moving oin the right direction, including trying to overcome 'the governmentalist capitalist within' and hope that one day you reach a tipping point.
You see, all these anarchists, commies and socialists failed to bring about their vision. But what they did do was create a tension that meant the bosses had to throw a bunch of reforms at the populace to keep them placated. And every person who gets better healthcare or working conditions or whatever because of that is a small victory IMO. Second prize oisn't ideal, but at least it's something. Whereas these days it's all the Hobbsian each against all and everyone is an aspirational consumer in competeition with everyone else - in a game rigged in favour of the boss class.

Guevarista wrote:
Yes and BOTH groups were authoritarian.
The media ofc don't bother to mention that.

dogsmilk wrote:
Just WTF is that supposed to mean?
What are the range of activities?

andyh wrote:
Can you provide evidence for this claim?

dogsmilk wrote:
What do you expect the mainstream to decide is left wing and right wing?

Tory voters = right wing
Labour voters = left wing

Pretty bloody obvious don't you think?

andyh wrote: You're worse than the mainstream, at least it has standards, i give up on you, is there an ignore function on this board?

www.alternet.org/story/154607/how_the_ri...gressives?page=0%2C1

andyh wrote:
Propaganda, organisation, protest - whatever.

But for example, anarcho-syndicalists would get on with doing all the things I've written about on this thread - promoting self organisation to encourage a revolutionary consciousness and both win reform and ultimately total self-management. Other people would have different emphases. Writing a radical blog is fine by me. At least it's something. That's why I say co-ops are a good thing - they are - they encourage people to think and act for themselves. They're just not enough on their own. But they can play a part. You'll never change things by saying We do this! And then all will be well..

I don't pretend to have a blueprint for the revolution. I don't have a manifesto. I wouldn't want one.

andyh wrote:
I don't know because it doesn't say. I certainly wouldn't see Labour as left wing. Maybe they do. Without knowing the exact criteria I'd be relectant to jump to a conclusion and decide it's correct because I jumped to it.

I would speculate they probably used some questionairre covering a range of attitudes. Asking "do you vote Labour or Conservative" and basing their judgement on that would be such a poor methodology I'd be kinda surprised if a neuroscientist employed it.

Guevarista wrote:
lol gue can't stand it when someone points out the obvious eh?
Is this brain experiment meant to show something useful eh?

Always the left v right with you.

dogsmilk wrote:
Put it this way, if we don't know the criteria then what relevance does the experiment have at all?

dogsmilk wrote:
You'll change things by protesting then...right

andyh wrote:
I have simply been saying co-operatives will never in a million years bring down the state and put an end to capitalism, but that they are of value. I do not know why I have to keep repeating the same thing.

I have also said co-operatives can be in harmony with anarcho-syndicalism. If a co-operative is collectively run by workers and workers all benefit equally from it, then this is very much in harmony with anarcho-syndicalist. Though from what I know Mondragon - despite being overall I'd say probably better than other big companies - doesn't live up to this. It may have been more anarcho-syndicalist orientated in its earlier days, I don't know.
But as I have provided I think ample evidence for, anarcho-syndicalism is very much focused on radical unions. And the ultimate goal of bossless workplaces run collectively by their participants represents a 'true'' co-operative. So an ideal anarcho-syndicalist workplace is basically a form of co-operative. But co-operatives, though often great for the people who work them them, generally have little interest in radical social change or a preoccupation with liberating the working class as a whole. They tend to be isolated individual concerns that operate within capitalism and intend to do so indefinitely. Whereas anarcho-syndicalism is a political philosophy rooted in class struggle anarchism. and wants to liberate workers.But not by telling them should all just start their own small business.
So they are not the same thing, but they have points of convergence.

andyh wrote: Who are you talking to?

andyh wrote:
Of course I have said nothing like 'you change things by protesting' and you are again just baldly misrepresenting what I've said.

But I do think protest is a component.

It may not change anything, but I think somebody, say, causing disruption at Menwith Hill is doing something certainly of no less validity than starting their own business and pocketing the tax money.

You really need to stop kidding yourself starting a business and ripping off the tax man is somehow a revolutionary act. If you want to play more radical than thou, go face down some security guards at BAE or something.

andyh wrote:
It indicates a phenomenon of possible interest, perhaps worthy of further investigation?