annatar1914 wrote:Very well said, @Wellsy .
I agree, but in my opinion that means the practical near-abolition of the State in order for this process to be carried out.
As in anarcho-capitalism, a kind of feudalism in which capitalists have their own fiefdom. The thing I question though is why not play out the continued struggle between different factions of capitalists for state control? It is an effective tool and we live at a scale much larger than during feudalism which seems to be at a time of great economic retardation and the country/rural predominates in a way and hence the very fragmented structure compared to the more central authority of the state.
I see it as a stripping back of the state to its clear role of class dominance/oppression, where it becomes more blatantly the will of a capitalist class without any gesture to even being representative of the 'universal' will, which simply doesn't exist.
Possibly anomalous, some still think that reform of the system is workable and even inevitable. I personally think that it is not.
Well everything has to breakdown eventually, even in attempting to keep things the same, they must change. I think many see reform because they don't like to consider the prospect of what a change means for themselves.
The radical is exemplified as a true believer who wishes to actualize their beliefs rather than hold them off.
To break the yoke of habits means: if all men are equal, than all men are to be effectively treated as equal; if blacks are also human, they should be immediately treated as such. Recall the early stages of the struggle against slavery in the US, which, even prior to the Civil War, culminated in the armed conflict between the gradualism of compassionate liberals and the unique figure of John Brown:
African Americans were caricatures of people, they were characterized as buffoons and minstrels, they were the butt-end of jokes in American society. And even the abolitionists, as antislavery as they were, the majority of them did not see African Americans as equals. The majority of them, and this was something that African Americans complained about all the time, were willing to work for the end of slavery in the South but they were not willing to work to end discrimination in the North. /.../ John Brown wasn't like that. For him, practicing egalitarianism was a first step toward ending slavery. And African Americans who came in contact with him knew this immediately. He made it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by saying it, he made it clear by what he did. 
For this reason, John Brown is the KEY political figure in the history of US: in his fervently Christian "radical abolitionism," he came closest to introducing the Jacobin logic into the US political landscape: "John Brown considered himself a complete egalitarian. And it was very important for him to practice egalitarianism on every level. /.../ He made it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by saying it, he made it clear by what he did."  Today even, long after slavery was abolished, Brown is the dividing figure in American collective memory; those whites who support Brown are all the more precious - among them, surprisingly, Henry David Thoreau, the great opponent of violence: against the standard dismissal of Brown as blood-thirsty, foolish and insane, Thoreau  painted a portrait of a peerless man whose embracement of a cause was unparalleled; he even goes as far as to liken Brown's execution (he states that he regards Brown as dead before his actual death) to Christ. Thoreau vents at the scores of those who have voiced their displeasure and scorn for John Brown: the same people can't relate to Brown because of their concrete stances and "dead" existences; they are truly not living, only a handful of men have lived.
We all compromise with the imperfect state, but a true believer is dangerous, even if it is in the idea of US liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which the nation claims to stand upon. As such concepts are never realized as they can in the mind and thus their pursuit is always a criticism of the present and a call for action/change.
Many, my self find comfort in the present state of things somewhat. I live a better life than I could've imagined despite of the problems and limitations of the US. I'm no revolutionary but seek out a simple life.
BUt unlike reformers I assert that they want things tweaked where the solution to problems requires a fundmanetal change, that the problems emerge from things which are essential to capitalism.
Yes, the clans of private Oligarchs will strangle the government which they will own entirely, siphoning off every last bit of the people's wealth as they do so. Think ''Ukraine'' and ''last days of the Roman Republic'' for what is coming.
Indeed, they can't stand to leave any sort of wealth outside of their hands. I see it in AUstralia with people's retirement investments - superannuation, a massive cash cow that they always want to try and find a way to capture.
It will always end in Caesarism or foreign conquest.
Well, the revolution at home allows people to have their emotional outburst whilst not really solving the basis of the revolution.https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Führer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today’s technical resources while maintaining the property system. It goes without saying that the Fascist apotheosis of war does not employ such arguments.
And the above makes a similar point in that the war at home itself can then lead to the war abroad.
I think you've done a pretty good case of that anyways, making predictions.
I feel the future much like my life as an unclear haze.
Though having said what I said, I know how to consider Zizek's contrary characterization here"http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2011/05/christianitys-perversion-zizek-and.html
One should thus invert the existentialist commonplace according to which, when we are engaged in a present historical process, we perceive it as full of possibilities, and ourselves as agents free to choose among them; while, to a retrospective view, the same process appears as fully determined and necessary, with no room for alternatives: on the contrary, it is the engaged agents who perceive themselves as caught in a Destiny, merely reacting to it, while, retrospectively, from the standpoint of later observation, we can discern alternatives in the past, possibilities of events taking a different path.
Revolutionaries (the context is discussing Jesus and William Wallace) are characterized as called to destiny.
We're in the ''Long Emergency'' as some have put it. It goes on long enough and slowly enough that most people simply don't realize they're in it.
Easier to block it out and anesthetize ourselves, out of side out of mind
Sometimes even the panicked look for explanations and call to action I consider cynically as being of the same sort.
I pick certain years to illustrate major turning points; 1914, 1933, 1989, 2008, 2020. One look and you can see why I think they're important markers along the journey, but note that these years extend across what would be an entire human lifetime for some.
Our experience of time has definitely shortened, I know I don't quite have the historical sense some have, particularly the more busy I get in day to day life, your sense of living gets more immediate. Even though I do like to daydream.
-For Ethical Politics