You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I'm interested in thinking about this a bit more.

only a virulently self-sacrificial morality that places catharsis over wisdom

What about jouissance?
Bellamy makes it sounds like people are dutifully trudging off to riot and suffer in mere reaction, as passive victims.

rioting, aggressively confronting police, destroying public and private property — all of which accomplish next to nothing when civic and economic activity returns to normalcy one or several days later, but which often result in arrests, fines, incarceration, and injury for the activists involved.

But what about the long game? Looking at an individual riot doesn't seem to do the situation justice.
It seems to me that rioting is one kind of meaningful action among an ecosystem of actions taking place over a long period which could effect radical change, if radical change is really possible at all. And if it isn't, I think there are probably many uses for a riot, even short term.

It seems Bellamy's critique here is mostly just simplistic egoism + Nietzschean ressentiment. Which makes me think he's detached from the reasons that people riot, which seem to be more than that.

I'm also curious about the alternative to rioting. Is is just desertion? I often wonder about his pan-secessionism.


[deleted] wrote (edited )


deadresonance wrote

Ah yes, agorism.


[deleted] wrote


deadresonance wrote

This is...strawman. Unless I misunderstand something here.

Let's keep this conversation, contextualized in the particular sub-thread we're having here.

In this context, I am going to say, that Agorist beliefs...i mean, i used to be a libertarian. I live in USA. I sold drugs. I feel I know the scene. I don't know if I can really subscribe anymore, after the experiences I had with this type of person who identifies with this type of ideology. The reason being, market based solutions consistently fuck over marginalized people.

My alternative, that I am am committed to instead, is revolutionary communist action. Specifically, the de-commoditization action. So it's, anti-market. You can perhaps understand my sceptisism, even my cynicism, perhaps?

I am interested in a productive conversation where you express your views and we have a good back and forth.


[deleted] wrote


deadresonance wrote (edited )

we should wait then destroy and kill so we can finally prevent suffering.

Not at all, again you are strawmanning my words..accept this, then try to respond to what I am actually saying.

My position, consistently, is that it is not helpful to engage in market based solutions, because the market invariably will disfavor those without capital or resources and will reify marginalization. I believe it is better to de-commoditize things, to help people now, by attacking the market system itself.

I believe it is incalculably naiive to think that one can control market forces for some kind of revolutionary purpose. It's like someone saying that they can control industrial systems for their own benefit.

Can you clarify how this agorist position, is in principles different than the dengist ideology underneath the contemporary chinese mainland's state? I suppose there's a greater trust in market forces, and a dislike of policing actions, but how do you actually implement something like agorism without a state anyway? Preserving the market forces and dynamic, without police?

Wars are taught by the most desperate, poor and marginalized people.

That's who I am, and who the people I care about are. Poor, marginalized, and at least a little desperate and fearful of what's yet to come

You are the one with the position that will fuck over the most marginalized people.

Oh, I don't know about that. Why don't you take your Black capitalism nonsense over to killer mike's TV show, lol