The Most Rebellious World View

[speed]

Surely, I didn't (and couldn't) mean "without income". Basically, I have low financial needs (split rent/utilities with my woman, etc.) which are met by interest from investments (from previous work, as well as a considerable insurance policy). So, I didn't mean to imply I was making some noble stand against working and thus suffer a pauper's life- basically I can afford not to work, and because I see labor as so central to one's existence, choose to spend the energy/time other ways (such as my studies, my relationships, learning actual skills (woodworking, brewing, etc.).

I'd like to get a hold of a similar insurance policy!

Labor is an interesting things these days. Its essentially worthless as so few of us produce anything. The old economic definition of labor is thus worthless. Time plus labor no longer equals output. In fact, our modern work environment is totally antiquated.

Anyway, I think thats a very noble thing you're doing Justin S. To learn real skills and have time for personal growth. I even work directly with government and the citizens, and I feel my job an absolutely pointless artificial and almost unneeded exercise. At nothing else, I could finish my weekly duties in less than half the time I have to be at work; and far more efficiently if I did it at home.

Anyway, I've always had a rather aristocratic view of work, and find it a great burden on my time and energy. I am also repulsed by the Puritan bourgeois work ethic of America, that continues to erode the social, mental, and physical life of our country--working long hours in pointless jobs, with little vacation, no gaurenteed sick days, leave time, maternity leave, overtime (for anyone not an hourly employee), etc; not to mention the vacuous soul-sucking nature of jobs sitting in a cubicle in front of a computer, in god awful meetings, or schlepping product onto some Walmart shelf.

 

[Justin S.]

It was my father's life insurance policy, so it comes with a deep cost.

I view "labor" as the combination of energy economy (of which we utilize and also are a part of) and relationality (in the broadest sense), labor thought existentially, not as some fabricated artifact of economic thought.

As you say speed, Modern "work" is no work at all, but a function of discipline (in a true Foucaultian sense). Jobs are certainly not optimized for "efficiency", "productivity", etc.- any talk of these kind of principles at any level is an absolute joke. The purpose is discipline- of the body, of time, of thought.

So, now that I see this as the case there is no turning back- From here on I'll be out of a job, too busy working .

 

[speed]

It was my father's life insurance policy, so it comes with a deep cost.

I view "labor" as the combination of energy economy (of which we utilize and also are a part of) and relationality (in the broadest sense), labor thought existentially, not as some fabricated artifact of economic thought.

As you say speed, Modern "work" is no work at all, but a function of discipline (in a true Foucaultian sense). Jobs are certainly not optimized for "efficiency", "productivity", etc.- any talk of these kind of principles at any level is an absolute joke. The purpose is discipline- of the body, of time, of thought.

So, now that I see this as the case there is no turning back- From here on I'll be out of a job, too busy working .

I've been on such a huge French kick lately: Bataille, Foucault, Debord, Baudrillard. You take a Foucault position on this. I think thats only half-true. Debord would say work provides the means for our economic engine of postmodern capitalism (monopolisitic capitalism with its marketing, over-consumption, needs consumers, etc) to continue running smoothly, even though 95% of jobs are bureaucratic in one way or the other (either bureaucratic working for a company, or a government), or unneeded. Bataille and Baudrillard would go one step further; in fac, Baudrillard says modern work is nothing more than the postmodern societal status system (as other traditional forms of society have been destroyed by the egalitarian force of bourgeois capitalism): instead of a traditional order, etc; we use our jobs and the material signs they allow us to accumulate, to define our status. -

 

[Justin S.]

I don't see how those other notions conflict with the position I briefly mentioned. Rather, they seem to be subsumed under it. Of course there is reasoning, motivations, goals, strategic thinking behind economic policies, etc. However, all this is also part of the economy of power- its ground is human psychology.

 

[speed]

I don't see how those other notions conflict with the position I briefly mentioned. Rather, they seem to be subsumed under it. Of course there is reasoning, motivations, goals, strategic thinking behind economic policies, etc. However, all this is also part of the economy of power- its ground is human psychology.

Oh no, I said half-right (perhaps not the best of terms), and was trying to add to your Foucault argument as the reason why such discipline is enforced.

You know, my Discipline and Punish thread was wildly unsuccessful. Perhaps you need to sex it up a bit Justin S.

 

[OldScratch]

Surely, I didn't (and couldn't) mean "without income". Basically, I have low financial needs (split rent/utilities with my woman, etc.) which are met by interest from investments (from previous work, as well as a considerable insurance policy). So, I didn't mean to imply I was making some noble stand against working and thus suffer a pauper's life- basically I can afford not to work, and because I see labor as so central to one's existence, choose to spend the energy/time other ways (such as my studies, my relationships, learning actual skills (woodworking, brewing, etc.).

I see - I should have figured it might be something like this. Still, I wondered if perhaps you had discovered some magic formula to circumvent the daily grind of American working life...and I was going to demand that you share this knowledge
(On a serious note - my condolences with regard to your father...that is a high 'cost' indeed)

 

[OldScratch]

I'd like to get a hold of a similar insurance policy!

Labor is an interesting things these days. Its essentially worthless as so few of us produce anything. The old economic definition of labor is thus worthless. Time plus labor no longer equals output. In fact, our modern work environment is totally antiquated.

Anyway, I think thats a very noble thing you're doing Justin S. To learn real skills and have time for personal growth. I even work directly with government and the citizens, and I feel my job an absolutely pointless artificial and almost unneeded exercise. At nothing else, I could finish my weekly duties in less than half the time I have to be at work; and far more efficiently if I did it at home.

Anyway, I've always had a rather aristocratic view of work, and find it a great burden on my time and energy. I am also repulsed by the Puritan bourgeois work ethic of America, that continues to erode the social, mental, and physical life of our country--working long hours in pointless jobs, with little vacation, no gaurenteed sick days, leave time, maternity leave, overtime (for anyone not an hourly employee), etc; not to mention the vacuous soul-sucking nature of jobs sitting in a cubicle in front of a computer, in god awful meetings, or schlepping product onto some Walmart shelf.

"Looking for work in order to be paid: in civilized countries today almost all men are at one in doing that. For all of them work is a means and not an end in itself. Hence they are not very refined in thier choice of work, if only it pays well. But there are, if only rarely, men who would rather perish than work without any pleasure in their work. They are choosy, hard to satisfy, and do not care for ample rewards, if the work itself is not the reward of rewards."
- Friedrich Nietzsche (The Gay Science sec. 42 "Work and Boredom")

I always recall this as few are so guilty of this as I have been!!

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Yes I agree that if the person in question was some kind of extreme Christian or Buddhist it would be less rebellious for them to have this anti-materialist outlook.

Two people who are the ultimate rebels by the above definition then would be the unabomber Ted Kaczynski and the Finnish ecophilosopher Pentti Linkola.

But they do have minimal posessions.

kaczynski stands apart because he actually acted strategically and physically to push society towards breakdown which could open up conditions for new forms of anarchic existence to arise. this is not the strategy many anarchists take to achieve their goals, but that is probably because many anarchists are simply marxists minus the state. they don't challenge industrialization, specialization, agriculture, and a wide variety of other foundations of civilization. i also think it is interesting that many assume ted to have worked by himself, but there is a belief held by some that he worked as part of a group, the FC standing for freedom club. if he is portrayed as a lone nut-job who couldn't socialize properly, then it is much less of burden for people to deal with as he can written off quite easily. the elf and alf, which are somewhat similar to ted in woldview, operate in decentralized, small scale groups.

ted associated with both john zerzan and kevin tucker, who i think are are on the cutting edge of rebellion/renegade praxis(i'd prefer the term renegade praxis and you'll see why if you've read Fredy Perlman's Against His-Story, Against Leviathan. rebel imples an acceptance of civilization's foundations, ala anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, situationism, etc. whereas renegade has a historical meaning associated with those who "went indian" in the united states during the 17th through 19th centuries.) zerzan's main thrust is to problematize symbolic thought, more or less rejecting it in the name of a "primal wholeness." his ideas are not totally original, as daoists in ancient china said many similar things about technology, language, etc. however, his insight on modern conditions about symbolic thought is unique and inspiring. tucker puts out a zine called species traitor which continues in the vein of ted's analysis of the industrial system's weak points to be attacked.

are you familiar with zerzan, tucker, perlman, derrick jensen, etc? i saw in another thread that you sympathize with anarchism, so i'm just curious if you have any thoughts about these people and the horribly labelled "anarcho-primitivist" perspective. uke:

 

[Seditious]

I don't know about 'rebellious' but I think the geneva conventions are a fuckin joke (or in particular the concept of crimes against humanity), and that's not common (and I guess someone could misperceive something unconventional as being nothing but rebellion)

 

[Norsemaiden]

When the rebellion is not just against something, but - as a result of being against something- comes up with a new concept or ideology then you have the Hegelian: thesis / antithesis / synthesis .

Many conclusions can be reached only by reacting against something and then that reaction bringing about a realisation.

The new ideology or world view owes its very existence to the thing that it is reacting against.

What may appear to some people as being reactionary (ie. against the new "progress" and favouring a return to values of the past) is really far more likely to be a new development itself, having been formed by a process of being an antithesis, reacting against that which it finds unacceptable or hostile.

Crucified Spartacus, I am not familiar with those writers you mention. I should try to find out more. Interesting post you made.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Crucified Spartacus, I am not familiar with those writers you mention. I should try to find out more. Interesting post you made.

i've never heard of Pentti Linkola, so we both have some new shit to think about.

i'm familiar with some of Linkola's ideas, labelled "eco-fascism," but i've never read anything by him. from a brief look at him he sounds a little like Dr. Peters from 12 Monkeys.

Green Anarchist is one of the first anti-civilization zines put out closer to where you are located. i think it started in England in the 1980's. maybe that would be of interest to you. however, i think there are two versions of the zine now because of splits in views. one is more radical then the other, so beware if you do any research on it. the radical version of Green Anarchist spawned Green Anarchy, which is located in the states, something i write for.
there is a pretty good, short summary of the history of Green Anarchist here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Anarchist

and for green anarchy, a nice, short little summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchy

 

[speed]

There was a rather lengthy Work thread a year ago that may be of some interest: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/222520-work.html

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

There was a rather lengthy Work thread a year ago that may be of some interest: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/222520-work.html

http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

i don't agree with everything black says, but it is a pretty original and inspiring piece.

 

[Norsemaiden]

http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

i don't agree with everything black says, but it is a pretty original and inspiring piece.

That was a wonderful article. Just one of the many points that are well made:

As Smith observed: "The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."

I'm glad I don't have any prospect of having to get a job until sometime after I am 50.

Crucified Spartacus - I sent you a PM yesterday - incase you didn't notice.

 

[speed]

http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

i don't agree with everything black says, but it is a pretty original and inspiring piece.

I really enjoyed that article. Especially his prose. Who is this Bill Black?

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

I really enjoyed that article. Especially his prose. Who is this Bill Black?

here's an excerpt about Black from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black

Beginning in the late 1970s, Bob Black was one of the earliest to advocate what is now called Post-left anarchy. His writing style is vociferously confrontational, criticizing many of the perceived sacred cows of leftist, anarchist, and activist thought. An unaffiliated New Leftist in his college years, Black became dissatisfied with authoritarian socialist ideology and after discovering anarchism he spent much of his energy analyzing authoritarian tendencies within ostensibly "anti-authoritarian" groups. In his essay "My Anarchism Problem" he writes: "To call yourself an anarchist is to invite identification with an unpredictable array of associations, an ensemble which is unlikely to mean the same thing to any two people, including any two anarchists.". Though not actually an anarcho-primitivist, he sometimes writes for and has strongly influenced anarcho-primitivist publications.

 

[speed]

here's an excerpt about Black from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black

Beginning in the late 1970s, Bob Black was one of the earliest to advocate what is now called Post-left anarchy. His writing style is vociferously confrontational, criticizing many of the perceived sacred cows of leftist, anarchist, and activist thought. An unaffiliated New Leftist in his college years, Black became dissatisfied with authoritarian socialist ideology and after discovering anarchism he spent much of his energy analyzing authoritarian tendencies within ostensibly "anti-authoritarian" groups. In his essay "My Anarchism Problem" he writes: "To call yourself an anarchist is to invite identification with an unpredictable array of associations, an ensemble which is unlikely to mean the same thing to any two people, including any two anarchists.". Though not actually an anarcho-primitivist, he sometimes writes for and has strongly influenced anarcho-primitivist publications.

He sounds highly interesting. Being a nihilistic pagan anarchist myself, I think I'd probably enjoy his works.


This passage really stands out:

The degradation which most workers experience on the job is the sum of assorted indignities which can be denominated as "discipline." Foucault has complexified this phenomenon but it is simple enough. Discipline consists of the totality of totalitarian controls at the workplace -- surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc. Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital. It is something historically original and horrible. It was beyond the capacities of such demonic dictators of yore as Nero and Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible. For all their bad intentions they just didn't have the machinery to control their subjects as thoroughly as modern despots do. Discipline is the distinctively diabolical modern mode of control, it is an innovative intrusion which must be interdicted at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

He sounds highly interesting. Being a nihilistic pagan anarchist myself, I think I'd probably enjoy his works.


This passage really stands out:

The degradation which most workers experience on the job is the sum of assorted indignities which can be denominated as "discipline." Foucault has complexified this phenomenon but it is simple enough. Discipline consists of the totality of totalitarian controls at the workplace -- surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc. Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital. It is something historically original and horrible. It was beyond the capacities of such demonic dictators of yore as Nero and Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible. For all their bad intentions they just didn't have the machinery to control their subjects as thoroughly as modern despots do. Discipline is the distinctively diabolical modern mode of control, it is an innovative intrusion which must be interdicted at the earliest opportunity.

i'd recommend his book anarchy after leftism. it's real short but is packed with witty criticism.

if you like that passage from black's essay, you will probably love http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/continuingappeal.htm

for example, this excerpt goes along well with the passage you cited from black. perlmans' work is full of comparative historical analysis. "The Maoist model offers itself to security guards and students the world over as a tried and tested methodology of power, as a scientific strategy of national liberation. Generally known as Mao-Zedong-Thought, 7 this science offers aspiring chairmen and cadres the prospect of unprecedented power over living beings, human activities and even thoughts. The pope and priests of the Catholic Church, with all their inquisitions and confessions, never had such power, not because they would have rejected it, but because they lacked the instruments made available by modern science and technology."

 

[speed]

i'd recommend his book anarchy after leftism. it's real short but is packed with witty criticism.

And I'd recommend Debord, Baudrillard, Foucault, Marcuse, Bataille to you. And of course Lafarque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue

I actually had a rather cool economics prof in Grad school recommend Lafarque to me. He was of course, not a right-winger.

Welcome to the board by the way.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

And I'd recommend Debord, Baudrillard, Foucault, Marcuse, Bataille to you. And of course Lafarque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue

I actually had a rather cool economics prof in Grad school recommend Lafarque to me. He was of course, not a right-winger.

Welcome to the board by the way.

i've read debord's society of the spectacle. i liked parts of it, but i don't agree with a lot of his conclusions. baudrillard was highly influential for me, especially The Mirror of Production and For A Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. Foucault's Discipline and Punish was also very influential for me. I read Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, but like the Situationists, i don't agree with their conclusions. never read Bataille, and i plan on reading Lafargue's Right To Be Lazy soon.

yeah, i've been on the symphony x board before, but never posted over there or even read it that often except a few times. looks like there is a lot of cool people in the Philosopher section. i never even knew there was such a thing till the other day.

so i just finished reading right to be lazy. i thought there were some good points made, but i think his whole "the machine is the saviour of humanity, the god" is pretty sad and typical.