"The political and philosophical challenge of the Western human rights approach note the Western view to human rights turn universalism into cultural and economic imperialism and neo-colonialism. Particularly from the African point of view the Western concept is also seen hypocritical, since throughout history, it has taken seriously into account only the rights of the Western people allowing economic, political, and social exploitation of African and other colonies. In the history of the Western right tradition the same scholars that defended successfully to existence of such natural rights of individuals as fight to life, property, and liberty as John Locke, for instance, had no problems in simultaneously morally justifying slave trade, eco- nomic exploitation of “less civilized parts of the world,” and in general the colonial rule. The situation has not changed much since the early days of the liberal market economy and the emergence of the capitalist economy, the Western powers still focus on protecting their own rights to life, liberty (particularly in trade), and property, despite the fact that the true demand for equality would require them to share their affluence in resources, their power in markets, and their political authority in global matters."
—Hellsten, S. K. (2004). Human rights in Africa: From communitarian values to utilitarian practice. Human Rights Review, 5(2), 61–85.
Posted at 1:40 PM - October 25, 2012.
"Abstraction, the tool of enlightenment, treats its objects as did fate, the notion of which it rejects: it liquidates them. Under the leveling domination of abstraction (which makes everything in nature repeatable), and of industry (for which abstraction ordains repetition), the freedom themselves finally came to form that “herd” which Hegel has declared to be the result of the Enlightenment."
Dialectic of Enlightenment - Adorno & Horkheimer
Posted at 2:31 PM - June 14, 2012.
"But because the unique self never wholly disappeared, even after the liberalistic epoch, the Enlightenment has always sympathised with the social impulse. The unity of the manipulated collective consists in the negation of each individual: for individuality makes a mockery of the kind of society which would turn all individuals to the one collectivity. The horde which so assuredly appears in the organisation of the Hitler Youth is not a return to barbarism but the triumph of repressive equality, the disclosure through peers of the parity of the right to injustice. The phony Fascist mythology is shown to be the genuine myth of antiquity, insofar as the genuine one saw retribution, whereas the false one blindly doles it out to the sacrifices. Every attempt to break the natural thralldom, because nature is broken, enters all the more deeply into that natural enslavement. Hence the course of European civilisation."
Dialectic of Enlightenment - Adorno & Horkheimer
Posted at 2:30 PM - June 14, 2012.
"Enlightenment dissolves the injustice of the old inequality - unmediated lordship and mastery - but at the same time perpetuates it in universal mediation, in the relation of any one existent to any other. It does what Kierkegaard praises his Protestant ethic for, and what in the Heraclean epic cycle is one of the primal images of mythic power; it excises the incommensurable. Not only are qualities dissolved in thought, but men are brought to actual conformity. The blessing that the market does not enquire after one’s birth is paid for by the barterer, in that he models the potentialities that are his by birth on the production of the commodities that can be bought in the market. Men were given their individuality as unique in each case, different to all others, so that it might all the more surely be made the same as any other."
Dialectic of Enlightenment - Adorno & Horkheimer
Posted at 2:29 PM - June 14, 2012.
"The principle of immanence, the explanation of every event as repetition, that the Enlightenment upholds against mythic imagination, is the principle of myth itself. That arid wisdom that holds there is nothing new under the sun, because all the pieces in the meaningless game have been played, and all the great thoughts have already been thought, and because all possible discoveries can be construed in advance and all men are decided on adaptation as the means of self-preservation - that dry sagacity merely reproduces the fantastic wisdom that it supposedly rejects: the sanction of fate that in retribution relentlessly remakes what has already been. What was different is equalised. That is the verdict which critically determines the limits of possible experience. The identity of everything with everything else is paid for in that nothing may at the same time be identical with itself."
Dialectic of Enlightenment - Adorno & Horkheimer
Posted at 2:27 PM - June 14, 2012.

anticapitalist replied to your quote: ows [Occupy Wall Street] and the tp [Tea Party]…

I agree mostly, but not the idea of using collectivism vs individualism. Because socialism is more individualistic/gives each person more liberty than capitalism ever would. idk. random minirant.

Individualism isn’t the ideology that necessarily most benefits the individual as a person, it’s the one that most values the idea of the individual as a moral core.

pieceinthepuzzlehumanity replied to your quote: ows [Occupy Wall Street] and the tp [Tea Party]…

Whoever wrote this has no concept of the tradition left/right poly spectrum, nor do they have a grasp of the broader poly compass dichotomies of authoritarian/libertarian|individualist/collectivist positions, unless they do and this is intentional.

I think they’re just some USD with a warped sense of political reality, commenting on a site for people who have similar warped understandings :P

Posted at 11:12 PM - December 29, 2011.

Capitalist philosophy criticises that collectivist ideals deny the human will, yet it’s the most hardline free-marketeers that most ardently take a deterministic stance on social forces.  Trusting in the invisible hand of the market and lacking an analysis of the agency behind actions and their potentiality, free-marketeers not only deny human will they go to great lengths to ignore it.

Posted at 10:57 PM - December 29, 2011.
"No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center"
—Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792 (via paleblued0t)
Posted at 10:35 PM - September 24, 2011. source.
Posted at 7:28 AM - September 07, 2011. source.

liberationfrequency:

 

  1. la-vie-est-politiques said: Bourgeois. Bourgeois. Bourgeois.

- Dogmatic Marxist who wants to force everyone to live by his ideology and economic model. Good luck with that, I’m sure socialisms next attempts at creating a workers paradise won’t kill anyone that doesn’t agree with them. 

Yeah, ok.

Where’s the critique of the nature of freedom, you use the word without connecting it to what it could, should or does mean.

Where’s the critique of the nature of the state, you use the word without connecting it to what it could, should or does mean.

Where’s the understanding of the nature of how societies interconnect and interrelate, how the ideological and cultural hegemonies function.

These concepts of voluntaryism presume the world to live in a stasis where power hangs itself in an imaginary equilibrium that simply does not and can not exist.  These concepts of economic freedoms delve into individualism without realising that no man is an island.

You think capitalist societies driven by the free market will cater for the disabled, who cannot work without support because of their disabilities, and therefore have no money to command the market?  You think they’ll cater for the elderly who are too old and infirm to work and may not have had jobs well paying enough to save up?  You think there’ll be no hegemonic control, or more the point you think that fuel and transport will be so accessible, that people can just up sticks and say “wayup, I’m bored of this now, time to go to the collectivist community because they’ll support me!”?

If you think I’m really that dogmatic a marxist you’re confused.  If you think I want to force everybody to accept my interpretation of politics you’re also wrong.  I’m more than happy to interact and work with anarchists (hell I’ve argued for it) and I’m one of the least sectarian people you’ll meet.  What I will not put up with are people who promote bourgeois concepts and bourgeois arguments under the guise of being a goal for liberation.

Posted at 12:19 AM - August 21, 2011. source.

The pure individual does not exist

marxandsparks:

thespiritofyamato:

If all labor is social, then there is no pure individual. Everyone must be cognizant, in some ways, of the mass.

THIS! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS! 

a proper understanding of the dialectical relationship between individual and class is the only way to fully grasp communism both as end and also “real movement against the current state of things”. 

You sir have made my night.  

Posted at 10:30 PM - July 27, 2011. source.
marxandsparks:

effusionofbiopower:

marxandsparks:



Its A Trap!

The argument that “Autonomous Spaces” are ineffective and can be expressed as simply as this:
 
We 	are animals that require certain means of subsistence or we die.


The 	means of subsistence is also the means of production 


Capitalism 	is a totality which controls and determines the means of production. 


To 	exist autonomously from it is to exist autonomously from the means 	of production. 
Conclusion: 	an autonomous space and in-fact a rejection of the class war of Political Economy  in favour of a purely industrial class war is a utopian trap and will kill us. 
We must instead smash capitalism, not hide from it. Destruction can not be done through isolated acts of industrial sabotage but through the capture of power and hegemony by the working class. 


i think that yr view on autonomous spaces is at best, limited, at worst ignoring a long history of autonomous spaces being staging ground for actual resistance to capitalism (specifically autonomous spaces in Greece, Italy, Germany, etc.).  Not to be argumentative but we also don’t need the means of production in the first world in order to meet subsistence (ask any autonomous-Marxist, anarchist, crust punk, etc.) so much is wasted that so much is available… inflexible dogmatism is more dangerous than anything and the idea that we, the proletarians, can simply seize the means of production and abolish the state and the bourgeois in one fell swoop is, given this stage of capitalist development, laughable. 

some one took the bait. Swwweeet. 
i assume your talking about gaining subsistence thought the cast-offs of capitalism right? hoe many single income/single parent/any familes can live like that? none. 
the whole movement is elitist. it is the politics of the elect. “we the young (and often wealthy) can afford to live outside of capital and as such are aboslved from its corasive influence” fuck that shit. 
The politics of the liberated space is an extension of lifestyle anarchist counter-revolution. 
the process of occupying a “space” is revolutionary, this is self evident. To occupy a factory and stop the production of capital is tremendous. For workers to choose self determination and produce according to democratic means, to form a workers co-op is a radical step. To occupy a hospital and refuse to allow its closure against the logic of capital - choosing the lives of our class not the profit of the bourgeois is revolutionary and i would never question that. to stand against capital is a heroic act.   
The self contradiction of “occupation” is that capitalism is its own flow of determination, its own dialectical totality and as such it can’t be countered by fortifications. Once the factory is occupied, eventually it must start up its labour once again, still determined by the flow of capital, only now it is a cancer, the proletarian revolutionaries create the means of their own oppression once again because to eat they must sell themselves, only now with the problem of being a threat to the system and the system will unite against it (see La Fabrica Sin Patron in Argentina). The other option again is to simply refuse to make capital, however, the system will flow around the occupied space and the people with in it will leach the life from the comrades outside. The third option is abandonment of the space back to capital so there can be no victory in stagnation.
While this example may seem to fit only to the factory model, i challenge any one to find me a place under the domination of capitalism not in the business of the production of capital or a space not occupied by Capitalism. 
David Cameron’s big society calls out for people to occupy their services for just this reason - the space will produce capital at the expense of the worker no matter what only in the Big Society they do not need a boss to yoke them. 
The Occupations and economic blockades can only be used as weapons, while the class war remains a gorrilla war used as tools of sabotage not as fortresses. 
We the workers own nothing, that is how we know ourselves, we are nomadic, ripped from the earth by capital and as such a stationary war over land is not in our nature so the field of our conflict is in the means of mode of production not geography. General Strike, or that action of the whole class regardless of geographical location that stops the flow of capital is the mechanism by which we show our strength and assume the position of Dual Power calling the bourgeois out to fight for geography once we have thrown of the shackles of being workers at all. 
Fight for the Working Class. (geography be damned) 
(my rule of thumb is when picturing revolutionaries, make them a single mothers of colour with a disabled child - is she able to take part in this revolutionary act? if not its not revolution its adventurism.)  

This is definitely worth reading through.  It’s important that as a part of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, we mustn’t fetishise individual or localised acts of rebellion (petty theft, autonomous spaces, black bloc).  We have to recognise what part they do or even can play within the broader class struggle.   We must consider the effect they have on building, reinforcing and advancing class conscience and seizing the means of production.
If an act doesn’t or can’t do these things we have to separate from paradigms of thought that laud these actions.  While significant for a select milieu of individuals in breaking free from forms of thinking about ones own position relative to the state and class, they often aren’t and won’t be significant in building class solidarity.
The phrase “The Revolution is in the mind” is true only so far.  Once you as an individual have reached the turning point of understanding, that must be married with actions as a part of the class to realise that revolution materially.
To put it another way, I agree with marxandsparks.

marxandsparks:

effusionofbiopower:

marxandsparks:

Its A Trap!

The argument that “Autonomous Spaces” are ineffective and can be expressed as simply as this:

  1. We are animals that require certain means of subsistence or we die.

  2. The means of subsistence is also the means of production

  3. Capitalism is a totality which controls and determines the means of production.

  4. To exist autonomously from it is to exist autonomously from the means of production.

    Conclusion: an autonomous space and in-fact a rejection of the class war of Political Economy  in favour of a purely industrial class war is a utopian trap and will kill us. 

    We must instead smash capitalism, not hide from it. Destruction can not be done through isolated acts of industrial sabotage but through the capture of power and hegemony by the working class. 

i think that yr view on autonomous spaces is at best, limited, at worst ignoring a long history of autonomous spaces being staging ground for actual resistance to capitalism (specifically autonomous spaces in Greece, Italy, Germany, etc.).  Not to be argumentative but we also don’t need the means of production in the first world in order to meet subsistence (ask any autonomous-Marxist, anarchist, crust punk, etc.) so much is wasted that so much is available… inflexible dogmatism is more dangerous than anything and the idea that we, the proletarians, can simply seize the means of production and abolish the state and the bourgeois in one fell swoop is, given this stage of capitalist development, laughable. 

some one took the bait. Swwweeet. 

i assume your talking about gaining subsistence thought the cast-offs of capitalism right? hoe many single income/single parent/any familes can live like that? none. 

the whole movement is elitist. it is the politics of the elect. “we the young (and often wealthy) can afford to live outside of capital and as such are aboslved from its corasive influence” fuck that shit. 

The politics of the liberated space is an extension of lifestyle anarchist counter-revolution. 

the process of occupying a “space” is revolutionary, this is self evident. To occupy a factory and stop the production of capital is tremendous. For workers to choose self determination and produce according to democratic means, to form a workers co-op is a radical step. To occupy a hospital and refuse to allow its closure against the logic of capital - choosing the lives of our class not the profit of the bourgeois is revolutionary and i would never question that. to stand against capital is a heroic act.   

The self contradiction of “occupation” is that capitalism is its own flow of determination, its own dialectical totality and as such it can’t be countered by fortifications. Once the factory is occupied, eventually it must start up its labour once again, still determined by the flow of capital, only now it is a cancer, the proletarian revolutionaries create the means of their own oppression once again because to eat they must sell themselves, only now with the problem of being a threat to the system and the system will unite against it (see La Fabrica Sin Patron in Argentina). The other option again is to simply refuse to make capital, however, the system will flow around the occupied space and the people with in it will leach the life from the comrades outside. The third option is abandonment of the space back to capital so there can be no victory in stagnation.

While this example may seem to fit only to the factory model, i challenge any one to find me a place under the domination of capitalism not in the business of the production of capital or a space not occupied by Capitalism. 

David Cameron’s big society calls out for people to occupy their services for just this reason - the space will produce capital at the expense of the worker no matter what only in the Big Society they do not need a boss to yoke them. 

The Occupations and economic blockades can only be used as weapons, while the class war remains a gorrilla war used as tools of sabotage not as fortresses. 

We the workers own nothing, that is how we know ourselves, we are nomadic, ripped from the earth by capital and as such a stationary war over land is not in our nature so the field of our conflict is in the means of mode of production not geography. General Strike, or that action of the whole class regardless of geographical location that stops the flow of capital is the mechanism by which we show our strength and assume the position of Dual Power calling the bourgeois out to fight for geography once we have thrown of the shackles of being workers at all. 

Fight for the Working Class. (geography be damned) 

(my rule of thumb is when picturing revolutionaries, make them a single mothers of colour with a disabled child - is she able to take part in this revolutionary act? if not its not revolution its adventurism.)  

This is definitely worth reading through.  It’s important that as a part of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, we mustn’t fetishise individual or localised acts of rebellion (petty theft, autonomous spaces, black bloc).  We have to recognise what part they do or even can play within the broader class struggle.   We must consider the effect they have on building, reinforcing and advancing class conscience and seizing the means of production.

If an act doesn’t or can’t do these things we have to separate from paradigms of thought that laud these actions.  While significant for a select milieu of individuals in breaking free from forms of thinking about ones own position relative to the state and class, they often aren’t and won’t be significant in building class solidarity.

The phrase “The Revolution is in the mind” is true only so far.  Once you as an individual have reached the turning point of understanding, that must be married with actions as a part of the class to realise that revolution materially.

To put it another way, I agree with marxandsparks.

Posted at 7:26 PM - July 27, 2011. source.

Society cannot exist independent of individuals.

coeus:

But you try it, though. Go ahead. Make a society without individuals. I dare you

In which case we need to define what an individual is.

Am I an individual in the sense that I inhabit a body that is separate from yours?  A biologically distinct meatbag distinct from the other meatbags that inhabit the planet.  Is my cat an individual member of a society because it is also a meatbag distinct from other meatbags?  Or is the definition of being an individual in the sense of being an active human being forms opinions and takes action?

I would tend towards the second.  So then the question is how we can be active human beings, and what we can do with those activities.

In the current material conditions we live do we have the space, time and skills to all be able to produce the food on which we survive?

No.  We don’t have the land on which to individually farm for ourselves or raise the livestock for ourselves as individuals.  Many people live in apartment blocks where they don’t have gardens at all, in urban housing with very limited garden space, suburban houses with more but not a great amount of garden space.  Even with allotment spaces that doesn’t add up to the sort of soil for you to be able to produce a balanced, or even unbalanced, diet throughout the course of the year.  Instead the space is grouped together so that the produce from a particular area can be focussed so that a maximum yield for the maximum people can be gained.

No.  We don’t have the time to each individually work the land for our own individual produce.  With a variety of other things we need to be doing such as making clothes to keep us warm and dry, making housing to keep us sheltered, finding fresh water to keep us hydrated.  If you then become seriously injured, as an individual, there’s a choice you must make between treating your injury and trying to recover versus tending the fields to make sure you have something to eat.

No.  We don’t have the skills, for a similar reason to above the way our society works is that we practise a particular skill so that we can do that activity to the best of our ability.   Our farmers spend a lifetime farming and know what they’re doing, our doctors spending a lifetime practising medicine and develop knowledge that makes them good at their job and so on.  If we were individuals, and had to do every task ourselves because there’s no society to provide different necessities for us, we’d not be able to develop the level of workmanship that would make the work done the best possible, neither would it allow for the rate of development and advancement that specialisation facilitates.

So looking only at food, being an individual is pretty problematic.  Instead of being individuals, we have society.  Society enables us to exist and have the time to do the things we want to.  Society provides us with education and training so that we can build on the knowledge of our ancestors, society provides us with housing so that we don’t die of exposure, society provides us with food so that we can eat, society provides us with water so that we can drink, society provides us with sewer systems so that we don’t pollute our water supply with our own faeces.  Society provides us with medical care when we’re ill, with modes of transportation that mean you don’t have to walk from A to B.  Society provides us with social networks where we can make friends, find shared interests, build a conscious awareness of other people in the world.  In turn they create a support group to provide for you where you’re unable to provide for yourself.

What is there worth doing as an individual that isn’t facilitated and made possible by society?  So maybe the original premise is bunk in that it places primacy on the individual enabling the existence of society, because it fails to consider even the existence of the individual let alone the nature of society.

Maybe there’s a dialectical relationship between the individual and society whereby society is a collection of individuals, but without that society those individuals would not be able to exist.  Maybe the ideological and cultural expectation amongst contemporary society has become so focussed on the primacy of the individual that it forgets the importance of the society as a functioning whole, atomising people into their own personal struggles rather than being able to connect with the wider community on how to forward the whole of humanity rather than just a select few privileged individuals.

I dare you to live without society.

Posted at 6:17 PM - July 21, 2011. source.