“Work gets more and more of the good conscience to its side: the desire for enjoyment is already called ‘the need for recreation,’ and even begins to be ashamed of itself. “One owes it to one's health,” people say, when they are caught on a country trip. Yes, it might soon go so far that one could not yield to the desire for the vita contemplativa (i.e., excursions with thoughts and friends), without self-contempt and bad conscience.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
👍1
Forwarded from /r/COMPLETEANARCHY
Stop obeying! The government and the police are your enemies.
https://redd.it/17g4x91
@COMPLETE_ANARCHY
https://redd.it/17g4x91
@COMPLETE_ANARCHY
“The most industrious of all ages—ours—does not know how to make anything of all its industriousness and money, except always still more money and still more industriousness; for it requires more genius to spend than to acquire. —Well, we shall have our “grandchildren”!”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
Forwarded from Disobey
“To the activity of priestly minds belongs especially what one often hears called ‘moral influence’.
Moral influence takes its start where humiliation begins; yes, it is nothing else than this humiliation itself, the breaking and bending of the temper [Mutes] down to humility [Demut]. If I call to someone to run away when a rock is to be blasted, I exert no moral influence by this demand; if I say to a child ‘you will go hungry if you will not eat what is put on the table’, this is not moral influence. But, if I say to it, ‘you will pray, honour your parents, respect the crucifix, speak the truth, for this belongs to man and is man's calling’, or even ‘this is God's will’, then moral influence is complete; then a man is to bend before the calling of man, be tractable, become humble, give up his will for an alien one which is set up as rule and law; he is to abase himself before something higher: self-abasement. ‘He that abaseth himself shall be exalted’ [Matthew 23:12 etc]. Yes, yes, children must early be made to practise piety, godliness, and propriety; a person of good breeding is one into whom ‘good maxims’ have been instilled and impressed, poured in through a funnel [eingetrichtert], thrashed in and preached in.”
Moral influence takes its start where humiliation begins; yes, it is nothing else than this humiliation itself, the breaking and bending of the temper [Mutes] down to humility [Demut]. If I call to someone to run away when a rock is to be blasted, I exert no moral influence by this demand; if I say to a child ‘you will go hungry if you will not eat what is put on the table’, this is not moral influence. But, if I say to it, ‘you will pray, honour your parents, respect the crucifix, speak the truth, for this belongs to man and is man's calling’, or even ‘this is God's will’, then moral influence is complete; then a man is to bend before the calling of man, be tractable, become humble, give up his will for an alien one which is set up as rule and law; he is to abase himself before something higher: self-abasement. ‘He that abaseth himself shall be exalted’ [Matthew 23:12 etc]. Yes, yes, children must early be made to practise piety, godliness, and propriety; a person of good breeding is one into whom ‘good maxims’ have been instilled and impressed, poured in through a funnel [eingetrichtert], thrashed in and preached in.”
Forwarded from Disobey
Disobey
“To the activity of priestly minds belongs especially what one often hears called ‘moral influence’. Moral influence takes its start where humiliation begins; yes, it is nothing else than this humiliation itself, the breaking and bending of the temper [Mutes]…
“If one shrugs his shoulders at this, at once the good wring their hands despairingly, and cry: ‘But, for heaven's sake, if one is to give children no good instruction, why, then they will run straight into the jaws of sin, and become good-for-nothings!’ Gently, you prophets of evil. Good-for-nothing in your sense they certainly will become; but your sense happens to be a very good-for-nothing sense. The impudent rogues will no longer let anything be whined and chattered into them by you, and will have no sympathy for all the follies for which you have been raving and drivelling since the memory of man began; they will abolish the law of inheritance; they will not be willing to inherit your stupidities as you inherited them from your fathers; they destroy inherited sin. If you command them, ‘Bend before the Most High’, they will answer: ‘If he wants to bend us, let him come himself and do it; we, at least, will not bend of our own accord.’ And, if you threaten them with his wrath and his punishment, they will take it like being threatened with the bogey-man. If you are no more successful in making them afraid of ghosts, then the dominion of ghosts is at an end, and nurses' tales find no – faith.
And is it not precisely the liberals again that press for good education and improvement of the educational system? For how could their liberalism, their ‘liberty within the bounds of law’, come about without discipline? Even if they do not exactly educate to the fear of God, yet they demand the fear of man all the more strictly, and awaken ‘enthusiasm for the truly human calling’ by discipline.”
— Max Stirner
And is it not precisely the liberals again that press for good education and improvement of the educational system? For how could their liberalism, their ‘liberty within the bounds of law’, come about without discipline? Even if they do not exactly educate to the fear of God, yet they demand the fear of man all the more strictly, and awaken ‘enthusiasm for the truly human calling’ by discipline.”
— Max Stirner
“In every prevalent morality and religion: the reasons and purposes for habits are always lies that are added only after some people begin to attack these habits and to ask for reasons and purposes. At this point the conservatives of all ages are thoroughly dishonest: they add lies.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
“Under the regime of the bourgeoisie, the workers always fall into the hands of the possessors, i.e., of those who have any bit of state property (and everything that can be possessed is state property, belongs to the state, and is only a fief of the individual) at their disposal, especially money and land; therefore, into the hands of the capitalists. The worker cannot realize on his labour to the extent of the value that it has for the consumer. ‘Work is badly paid!’ The capitalist has the greatest profit from it. —Only the work of those who enhance the glory and the power of the state, the work of high state servants, is well, and more than well, paid. The state pays well so that its ‘good bourgeois citizens,’ the possessors, can pay badly without danger; through good pay, it secures for itself its servants, from which it forms a protecting power, a ‘police’ (to the police belong soldiers, officials of all kinds, i.e., of justice, education, etc.—in short, the whole ‘machinery of state’) for the ‘good bourgeois citizens,’ and the ‘good bourgeois citizens’ gladly pay high taxes to it in order to pay so much lower wages to their workers.
But the class of workers, because they are unprotected in what they essentially are (since they don't enjoy state protection as workers, but as subjects of the state they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called legal protection), remains a hostile power against this state, this state of possessors, this ‘bourgeois monarchy.’ Its principle, work, is not recognized according to its value; it is exploited, a spoil of war of the possessors, the enemy.
The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there.
The state is founded on the—slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property
But the class of workers, because they are unprotected in what they essentially are (since they don't enjoy state protection as workers, but as subjects of the state they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called legal protection), remains a hostile power against this state, this state of possessors, this ‘bourgeois monarchy.’ Its principle, work, is not recognized according to its value; it is exploited, a spoil of war of the possessors, the enemy.
The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there.
The state is founded on the—slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property
“Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests — individual liberty — and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis — economic liberty — without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding — god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his independence, his will, his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formerly made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, ‘No society is free so long as the individual is not so! ...’”
— Peter Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution
— Peter Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution
When I assert that Libertarianism is fundamentally left-wing and that right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist (it should be called Propertarianism instead of libertarianism), it's not because I think that language is objective or universal or that words are static with objective, concrete meanings.
On the contrary, it's precisely because I understand how language is flexible and how it's manipulated by the ruling class, that I reject the right-wing attempts at manipulating language for their propaganda... especially of a word that has left-wing origins and history.
I consider the right-wing usage of the term as only a fringe part of the history of the term and concept, as cunning right-wing attempts to (mis)appropriate our term for their stupid propaganda, as they themselves admitted indeed.
Yes, I gatekeep terms, especially certain terms that I like, if reactionaries attempt to appropriate them.
That's how language works, that's how power dynamics work in society.
If you concede that a right-wing version of libertarianism exists, you give it a certain legitimacy even if you disagree with it.
Right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist. Right-wing anarchism doesn't exist. Libertarianism, aka anarchism, is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
In terms of my political views, I usually describe myself as an anarchist, sometimes as a libertarian, which is just a synonym for anarchist.
But when I sometimes use the phrase "libertarian socialism" it's only as an attack against that ugly ideology of Propertarianism, to emphasize that libertarianism is socialist, not because I think there's a non-socialist (i.e., capitalist, exploitative) form of libertarianism; or to specify that I'm referring to a libertarian version of socialism, as opposed to authoritarian "socialism" (which I don't consider legitimate either, but that's a discussion for another day).
On the contrary, it's precisely because I understand how language is flexible and how it's manipulated by the ruling class, that I reject the right-wing attempts at manipulating language for their propaganda... especially of a word that has left-wing origins and history.
I consider the right-wing usage of the term as only a fringe part of the history of the term and concept, as cunning right-wing attempts to (mis)appropriate our term for their stupid propaganda, as they themselves admitted indeed.
Yes, I gatekeep terms, especially certain terms that I like, if reactionaries attempt to appropriate them.
That's how language works, that's how power dynamics work in society.
If you concede that a right-wing version of libertarianism exists, you give it a certain legitimacy even if you disagree with it.
Right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist. Right-wing anarchism doesn't exist. Libertarianism, aka anarchism, is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
In terms of my political views, I usually describe myself as an anarchist, sometimes as a libertarian, which is just a synonym for anarchist.
But when I sometimes use the phrase "libertarian socialism" it's only as an attack against that ugly ideology of Propertarianism, to emphasize that libertarianism is socialist, not because I think there's a non-socialist (i.e., capitalist, exploitative) form of libertarianism; or to specify that I'm referring to a libertarian version of socialism, as opposed to authoritarian "socialism" (which I don't consider legitimate either, but that's a discussion for another day).
Liberalism ≠ Libertarianism
These two terms may sound similar to many but they are distinct and fundamentally different.
One is concerned with the economy; the other with the individual — the individual's freedom and wellbeing.
Liberalism's end is the economy — economic growth etc; it's all about the economy, the economy is its "fundamental reality". The individual is regarded only as a means for this end. Liberalism is a spook, it is based on spooks. “Private property lives by grace of the law.… it is not a fact…but a fiction, a thought.”
Libertarianism is concerned with the individual — their freedom, autonomy and wellbeing. The economy is not seen as an end or even as a reality in itself, but rather as a result of the interactions between individuals with respect to production and consumption; and the desirable sort of "economy" is the interactions between free people — i.e., socialism/communism; no longer seen as a separate entity in itself.
The Propertarians, who falsely call themselves libertarians, are actually liberals, which they too acknowledge, but since the term "liberal" became vague, acquiring a meaning somewhat different from what they wanted, they tried to appropriate our term "libertarian". Their ideology is a variant of classical liberalism.
Libertarianism and liberalism are, again, fundamentally different and, in this sense, diametrically opposed.
These two terms may sound similar to many but they are distinct and fundamentally different.
One is concerned with the economy; the other with the individual — the individual's freedom and wellbeing.
Liberalism's end is the economy — economic growth etc; it's all about the economy, the economy is its "fundamental reality". The individual is regarded only as a means for this end. Liberalism is a spook, it is based on spooks. “Private property lives by grace of the law.… it is not a fact…but a fiction, a thought.”
Libertarianism is concerned with the individual — their freedom, autonomy and wellbeing. The economy is not seen as an end or even as a reality in itself, but rather as a result of the interactions between individuals with respect to production and consumption; and the desirable sort of "economy" is the interactions between free people — i.e., socialism/communism; no longer seen as a separate entity in itself.
The Propertarians, who falsely call themselves libertarians, are actually liberals, which they too acknowledge, but since the term "liberal" became vague, acquiring a meaning somewhat different from what they wanted, they tried to appropriate our term "libertarian". Their ideology is a variant of classical liberalism.
Libertarianism and liberalism are, again, fundamentally different and, in this sense, diametrically opposed.
The eulogists of work.
Behind the glorification of 'work' and the tireless talk of the 'blessings of work' I find the same thought as behind the praise of impersonal activity for the public benefit: the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work – and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late – that such work is the best police, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions. In that way a society in which the members continually work hard will have more security: and security is now adored as the supreme goddess...
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day
Behind the glorification of 'work' and the tireless talk of the 'blessings of work' I find the same thought as behind the praise of impersonal activity for the public benefit: the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work – and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late – that such work is the best police, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions. In that way a society in which the members continually work hard will have more security: and security is now adored as the supreme goddess...
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day