Message from @i dunno
Discord ID: 338556939585847306
Reee
Fucking commie dialectic
Classes are known to be as old as written history, worked pretty well for the most part
>worked well
except it was the cause for the most important revolutions
also what do you mean worked well? classes aren't something you implement
Yeah but things were stable until then werent they?
>Implying anything ever has been stable
>Except for all sorts of peasant revolutions
and slave revolts
I dont know maybe? For the better than slaves at least it was okaaaay for the time
And you do implement a class system i thought, doesnt india with the castes?
Implying that's been entirely stable either, or not being slowly liquidated as the country modernizes.
last time humanity was without classes was tribal societies, you don't have anything to compare class socities to
only eachother
which is the right thing to do
Caste and class exists as a means to protect the property of a small minority of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremecy of something. So long as material power invests itself into a small population and more have greater than the whole then there will be class conflict.
So long as the means by which further material property is made, if not reforms and reorganization of the way property is treated this process will forever persist.
The anti-aristocratic class reforms of the American and French revolutions were find for their time; when a single individual could only hold a piece of a market in proportion to his physical capability. But the owning of automation puts these ratios far out of whack.
To return to India: there has been Dalit uprisings, mostly after the 18th century. But the Greeks recorded a far taller class structure. Further, the Buddha was considerably critical of the caste system and Buddhism teaches against caste differences.
This small group of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremacy do so because they are capable of doing so, and if you are incapable of defending what you own, you don't deserve it anyway - this is the true nature of the world - not just for people, but for animals as well. Even if you took away everything today, and everyone had uniform resources - most would waste what they are given, some would save their portion, but there will always be those chosen few who will seize the resources others would have wasted.
You can only prevent this by having some of overwhelming state apparatus to hold back the flow of human nature - temporarily - until some future even breaks the levies and overwhelms the state.
Look at india - the lower caste shits in the streets even when they have the choice of toilets. In other words - they don't shit in the streets because they are disenfranchised - quite the opposite - they are disenfranchised because they shit in the streets. They were born trash, their children will be trash, and so will their line. This is the essence of the caste. The Ancients knew this - and yet we pretend that everyone is the same.
Human nature changes over time, and humanity, being a rational being, ought to control his own nature for the better. A strong state is the perfect apparatus for this, and in doing so would create a future human far in advance of naturalist who falsely assume it so be static or otherwise sacred in some way. Indeed Socialism is the perfected of man because only this kind of apparatus is objective about the best parts of the human condition, and not subject to primitive ideals like ethnocentrism or bias in group preferances.
The state is not the path to salvation, the individual is
"The individual himself is still the most recent invention.
For many generations, being separated from the herd was a punishment and guilt was acting not in accord with its interests."
(Friedrich Nietzsche)
Also Iām neither British nor American. This is just the most serious canal for discussions, so far.
EAT ASS
The future is too important to be left to individualism.
hi
Chopin it's time to establish a revolutionary base in Australia
I think the real challenge we face today is to combine individuality (not individualism) and the collective needs. We just can't return to the supremacy of the herd.
False dichotomy. The two are the same.
Only two genders
Deleuze seems more radically anarchist than stirner
Only two classes.
š
The bourgeois scum and the working class
I think you nailed it
what do you do when the gulag is too far away?
