I've got no beef by-and-large with SNP politics. Smaller entities hurt fewer people: unless larger entities get aggressive and smaller entities can't coaleasce around coherent opposition.

Not practical right now, but, in general - stand. It's what I intend to do eventually.

Reading between the lines I think you're saying we have to saw london off and let it float away. I agree.

I would but no one would vote for me and I do not support/agree with the democratic process.

I believe you are decieving yourself on both counts.

Haha. To get voted for you have to appeal to the middle classes because they're the ones with enough of a (perceived) stake to actually bother voting. That sums up why I am opposed to deomcracy and hints at why I would not get voted for.

 

I don't believe it's right that 'the majority' (whatever way you cut it) makes decisions for the rest. They will never act in the interests of the rest unless they coincide with their own.

 

And when you pull it apart, even the above isn't happening. I do not believe that our democracy causes the preferences of the majority to be realised effectively (not, as I say, that I would see that as a good thing anyway).

 

So we have the illusion of an illusion of a system that would work.

All that being said (and I don't disagree with what you say), what other existing system of representation would you prefer?

The key that is missing from the picture at present, however, is pragmatism, as Manwhore hints at.

I am known in the artfag business as the Artwhore par excellence so worry not.

I can't think of a broadside I have found properly offensive: certainly not when they are witty and in the spirit of badinage.

I understood all of that except



which looks almost French, as if I'm supposed to get it. But I don't. Hmm.

Anyway, goodo. :Y

Ah, ok. Yes.

I'm not really sure.

 

Well, essentially I suppose I'm a communist. I believe it's possible to get to a position where the state becomes redundant and that that is desirable. It's how to get there that's the problem. I say I'm a communist rather than an anarchist because I don't believe we can get there 'naturally'. We need an intermediary stage where we're all deconditioned and everything is very heavily controlled.

 

But yeah, I'm absolutely unsure as to how we get there and whether it's even possible in the face of the weight of ideology/naturalisation/historicisation/conditioning we exist under, while the system that needs that stuff is still ongoing.

 

So, I suppose I'm saying we need some sort of fucking big shakeup followed by some heavily directed rebuilding, but yeah, I do not know what that form the shakeup would take.

 

Aye though, I really don't like democracy. I dislike the ... bullshit of it. I mean... take those celebrations of the anniversary of the abolution of slavery - everyone quite universally sees that as a good thing. But the only difference between then and now is that our slaves are invisible to us, on another continent. That's just an example. I hate how democracy hides things and pretends things and relies on all these illusions (opne of those illusions being that 'the market' can repair the above situation, for example). I feel dirty living in a world like that.

 

So I'd honestly rather have monarchy or theocracy than democracy. At least they're transparent.

In that same abstracted sense, I'm an anarchist. But anarchism depends on a philosophical adherence to anarchist principles in all who exist within the anarchist state. As soon as anybody acts duplicitously, it's fucked. Same goes (at least for the state hierarchy) within communism.

As I kinda said last post, I can't really accept any pragmatism that accepts the way we live and the way we cause other people to live to live like we do.

I don't buy that that can be repaired by markets and that these middle class fucks buying free trade chocolate and feeling good about themselves because they believe they're <takes a deep breath, continues>

To me, that sort of pragmatism is indistinguishable from evil.

(I realise I'm 'no better'/not doing anything about this.Except thinking about it :(( )

Aye. Though I do believe that people, in their natural state (i.e. without conditioning) will act in an anarchist/communist way. That's what the period of heavily controlled de/reconditioning would be about.

Hmm. And who would we trust to run the reconditioning programme?

That's the problem innit. Not so much the who to get to do it but who is the 'we' who get to do the trusting.

 

So I'm sort of in favour of destroying what we have and hoping something better arises. And if not, starting again. Apocalyptic-communism. I do realise this is not very pragmatic.

 

Aside from that... I think Marx was right in that we're headed towards that state anyway. It's just so painfully slow. So... being a bit more pragmatic, it's down to producers of culture to, at least, question current conditioning and expose illusions and that, I suppose.

Having said that, I think it should be realised that the current system isn't sustainable. Looking ahead many years, as the standard of living in the second and third worlds catches up to our own then who are we <i>all</i> going to look to to do our manual labour?

 

I think it's a safe assertio that capitalism can only really function where there is imbalance. We're going to have to find another way.

Mind you, your assumption that social levelling is an inevitability can be questioned, I'm afraid.

I should coco. We in The Cabal didn't invent AIDS for nothing, you know. Got to keep those black men from crawling up the channel tunnel and dirtying the gene pool.