counter-culture inside pop-culture

[Egeides]

What you are discussing seems to be about quality vs quantity. Information becoming senseless repetition, ideas or products becoming just all the same and disconnected (i.e. w/o connections bringing quality), things being all the same and senseless in industrial repetition.

The "industrial repetition" part is interesting as some kind of Butlerian Jihad-ish idea. Objects are produced without reason, only for anyone to do whatever with and to produce it as a goal in itself. Full circle.

Fascism(s) reacted to this by bringing national "sense", Marx reacted by demanding equal places setting one in relation to collective (thus forming sense).

[Dude_Doc]

Objects are produced without reason, only for anyone to do whatever with and to produce it as a goal in itself. Full circle.

Hmm, I wouldn't say without reason. The sole reason for this industrial circle is to gain power and wealth - anyone can't do anything with what's been produced since everyone doesn't own it - only a handful does. If there were other means for gaining power, they would use it.

Fascism(s) reacted to this by bringing national "sense",

Fascism is actually an extension of capitalism. Fascism helps the state oppression of ordinary workers - let alone people as a whole. This "sense" is only another form of propaganda, which concentrates on the nation and the trust of the leader/state, and a propaganda which I must say is at least "honest" with it's propaganda, rather than capitalism's focus on "freedom" (which supposedly can only exist under a free market).

Marx reacted by demanding equal places setting one in relation to collective (thus forming sense).

Yes - to steer the industrial machine so that it serves all.

[Sneakgab]

It seems that many people are already fairly immersed in the ''$h!t bucket''. I haven't done research, but this seems to the be case from research done by other members in the past.

Despite this, there has been no ''resistance''/movement for change. Is it simply the sad case that people always wait to be fully submerged in the $h!t bucket before doing something? or is there something different then as compared to now.

I feel that these differences should be analyzed carefully by anyone interesting in effecting change. Just off the top of my head; one of the major differences seem to be that back then the ''oppressors'' weren't shy about showing themselves as such. Slave tradersowners seemed to flaunt the fact rather than hide it while monarchs made no secret about their ''divine right'' to rule. Nowadays, de facto dictators/oligarchies like to pretend that they have been perfectly democratically elected by the combine will of the people (by that I mean, not the preffered option out of the few (if any) choices but actually the party envisioned/ wished for by the majority). Zimbabwe anyone, or perhaps America (yay, a choice btw two parties that are the same and ruled by the same corporates :P)

I wonder how clear it is to most how greatly their beloved ''democracy'' and freedom have compromised? Yet another question that seems worthwile answering for one desiring change. It is important to know wether people think they are ruled democratically or whether they know they are not and choose to do nothing.

''and a lack of organization ''

To that I reply, with some degree of enthusiasm: Then start a damn organization already. Make it one that is initially undemanding, so there is no reason not to participate regardless of how unpromising the effort may be. I think that many here would participate simply for the heck of it:D

[Sneakgab]

Well, once again I'm feeling a bit ranty. Probably this horrid weather... I

can't stand it when it is hot and dry; I find that I can only function

efficiently in cold and rainy weather. Hence, I guess I shall post something a

bit better thought out once the weather makes a turn for the better... lol.

Anyone remember the heat variable brains of the trolls in Terry Pratchett's

books. Something like that seems to be the case with me ;D though I do assert

that my general intellect is far above that of you're usual troll monster

however (A reply in advance to any crude and/or snide jokes or such) >:( ;D

Anyone occasionally get the feeling that this is where the buck stops nowadays?

Everyone has agreed there is a problem but nothing is done. Is it simply

impossible to do anything about it, or is it just that all hope is lost as some

have said? If the case is the latter then we know that this state of

powerlessness is only an illusion. Off all the points of my rant I would say

this is the most important one that needs addressing.

Of course, we could wait until people are sufficiently immersed in the ''sh!t

bucket'', but is there no hope of acting BEFORE things become unbearable and

were all swimming with the fishes due to irrevocable (given only a reasonable

time) climate changes (positive radiative forcing) caused directly by cheap mass

production whose masters directing it do not wish it to be rendered less

profitable by environmental concerns, and hence is indirectly caused by the

corporate masters of industry?

If there is hope, then it lies amongst the reasonable who clearly see the

problems of the capitalist world and how to rectify them given sufficient power.

The foolish masses can rarely be convinced of anything by a single indivual or

small group without repute as they become wrapped up in drone-like behaviour and

misguided passionsilly beliefs/concerns (Patriotism, nationalism,e.t.c.) and

deal with these intellectuals attempting to convince them like insane people.

Generally speaking only the most adverse of conditions and/or propoganda seems

to rile the masses. Unfortunately, as is typically the case, propoganda and

rhetoric are of course on the side of the ''oppressors''. Lest the intellectuals

intervene in some other fashion the apparent alternative would be waiting for

said adverse condtions. Even then, would any here be completely surprised if the

inevitable eventual desperation and anger of the masses just leads to

nationalist,fascist, e.t.c regimes? If the power is given to one (ie:masses) who

knows not the scource of the problems or how to correct or soothe them then it

is expected that the eventual solution would not be wholly satisfactory to say

the least. More likely though, some indivual would capitalize on the rage of the

masses with HIS own rhetoric and propogande to create a state benefitting him

and perhaps a few others in one way or another (much the same way in which

previous revolutions against various kinds of dictators such as kings and the

like only led to capitalism despite a (now readily apparent) ''better'' solution

and form of governance (Considering the lack of governance in some forms of

envisioned society that may not be the best word, but it will suffice). Well, I

guess you could call capitalism a significant improvement over serfdom (back

then at least. With time who knows just how bad the effects of capitalism may

get) so in retrospect maybe those revolutions WERE succesful in generally

bettering peoples lives. That may be up to date and to be honest I haven't

really spent the time thinking on. Regardless, however, the point is that change

born out of waiting for the masses to become so miserable as to force (in the

case of their lives being at risk) or encourage (in the case of having nothing

to lose) their hand may not be that positive a change any may eventually result

to a return to capitalism anyway (in a cyclic fashion. Revolution against

capitalism - foolish and/or self serving people manipulate events and people to

form a dictatorship or more controlled capitalism - in the former people get

sick of dictatorship and revolt, but are manipulated by words of freedom and

liberty as they were before and thusly set up a capitalist state again which

becomes more and more ''laizes faire''. In the latter case the dictatorship and

revolt are shortcutted and the apathy and foolishness of the masses results

again in a system becoming more and more Laizes faire.

I'm not saying that this is guaranteed to be the case, but it a scenario that

concerns me some what none the less. Obviously this is a tall and perhaps

unrealistic order, but I for one would definetely prefer it if the change was

directed by intellectuals BEFORE the masses came to the point of demanding

change. This way the fore-mentioned danger is avoided.

That is my experience lately at least. I have trouble convincing the general

fools I find of the most simplistic and obvious things of ''the sky is blue''

nature. I'm not sure if it just me but the majority of people seem to be getting

dumber and more drone-like by the moment. Perhaps it has always been so, but

might I suggest that therein lies on the afore-mentioned differences of import

between now and there? (Of course we have wide-schooling and the like nowadays,

but remember that there is an obvious difference between intelligence and a

wealth of knowlegde/facts).

If only people would (on a more regular basis) stop and THINK about things and

what they are doing. People in SA seem to be becoming more and more prone to

skipping hte thinking/considering stage of their actions and just doing

senseless and/or natural/conservative seeming (ie: voting ANC, after which the

ANC members fri^$in voted Zuma in for heaven's sake) things in addition to

simply not thinking about the nature of their lives in general (philosophizing,

really). Speaking of which, it also seems that the little interest in philosophy

is decreasing around here as well, with most viewing it as outlandish and

useless... something of a joke.

In summary, what needs to be done is the gathering of the rationale in an

serious organization that can gain sufficient repute to be taken seriously by

the masses. It is true that such people are often not in precise agreement on

much, but surely they can all agree that they would rather have something that

is less than a perfect picture of their ideal in place of this horrifying

capitalist world which will soon have it's problems and negative effects

exacerbated by globalism?

Surely, the ''wize'' men who follow the various branches of socialism,

communism, anarchism, and other ideals would be reasonable enough to put aside

their minor differences to the effort of creating something that everyone would

be able to agree is closer to the following of their respective ideals or simply

better than something approaching Laizzes-faire capitalism.

Anyway, though it was in uncertain terms, my lost post was a suggestion to form

some kind of non-demanding organization. You could say that the most of the

board members here are sufficiently intelligent enough to be in general

agreement on the ills of capitalism. Doesn't this suggest that perhaps we are

only a few steps away from developing something akin to an ideal on some matters

that is common enough? Surely there are at least a few who here would be willing

to join under said cause even if it was not COMPLETELY to their liking or

agreement.

If yes, then perhaps we reach the point where it is neccesary to take the first

step and take/plan (or try to plan) some kind of effective action.