CCCP's Workshop.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak


The french title is "L'Homme Révolté", the revolted man. Its in this book that there is this famous proverb : "I revolt, therefore we are".

That's the book, alright. A fine, fine piece of work. If I wanted to translate that, I'd probably go with "Man in Revolt", which still sounds pretty French. I'm not sure who chose to call the English version "The Rebel", but that does have the chunky sound that is likely to go over well with anglophones. I could picture " L' " making an editor assume he should use "the".

The party seal looks great. What is written on the scroll wrapping the wheat?

Was the comment "transcendence is gay" posted over at OT, made in person or was it about some form of non-AC transcendence? It does sound like the kind of comment it would take a real goon to make.

The flag design you posted on the flag thread is fantastic.

[Pandemoniak]

For our 201th post birthday, I suggest this logo for the CCCP.

[Main_Brain]

Post 200

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by lucky22


Forgive my misunderstanding here- discussing Anarchy in terms of escape from discipline or discussing Anarchy in terms of the people who discuss it in terms of escape from discipline? That is, if I am being unbearable, please pardon me.

I meant : some persons claims themselves anarchists, but just want tsome other kind of discipline or are actually nihilists. Some others dont claim themselves anarchist, but consider it the same. I cant bear persons who say "I m anarchist : lets throw stones at glasses", etc... neither can I bear persons who "use" anarchism only in order to apply a new kind of discipline.
Nothing related to you, AFAIK, you see.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by lucky22


Do you recall Durkheim's distinction between "communism" (similar in French to "communalism" I believe) and "socialism"? The Sioux (and our own CCCP) are a fine example of the first form of organization but did not account for complex division of labor.


If "The Revolt" is the same as "The Rebel", then as I recall Camus dismissed Marx' ultimate vision as having shown itself to be nieve, leading to his big blow-up with Sartre. I thought "The Rebel" was a great, great book. It introduced me to the details of pre-revolutionary Russian nihilism.

The french title is "L'Homme Révolté", the revolted man. Its in this book that there is this famous proverb : "I revolt, therefore we are".

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

I just cant bear people who speak of anarchy in these terms. To my ears, it sounds like "transcendance is gay". Unbearable.

Forgive my misunderstanding here- discussing Anarchy in terms of escape from discipline or discussing Anarchy in terms of the people who discuss it in terms of escape from discipline? That is, if I am being unbearable, please pardon me.

And I forget the idea of speaking about anarchy in the OT forum, just saying the word makes ten posts calling you a terrorist. No way to discuss.

It sure does get loud in there.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

There I say no, parties are not a step before the dissolution of state. Its organized and structured in a non-hierachical manner : the sioux political system is a good example : the Pow Wow organizes debate, and wiser members of the tribe are called or can come to discuss. Then the Pow Wow makes a decision, and every citizen of the tribe is free to apply it or not. Parties are (for some) or should be (for many) a community that shares common ideas, and discuss it and let everyone act freely. A party is just like a room in which people sit and discuss.

Do you recall Durkheim's distinction between "communism" (similar in French to "communalism" I believe) and "socialism"? The Sioux (and our own CCCP) are a fine example of the first form of organization but did not account for complex division of labor.

This famous disctinction between anarchism and marxism is founded by the very own concept of marx : "raise the proletarian as a dominant class". This is strictly revolutionnary : meaning like in "revolving" : things up goes down, and things down go up. These ideas are part of "The Revolt" from Albert Camus.

If "The Revolt" is the same as "The Rebel", then as I recall Camus dismissed Marx' ultimate vision as having shown itself to be nieve, leading to his big blow-up with Sartre. I thought "The Rebel" was a great, great book. It introduced me to the details of pre-revolutionary Russian nihilism.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by lucky22

I will go ahead and follow up on that Bakunin, and recommend The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, one of my very favorites- Marx' observation that one of the great prizes of modern revolutions is possession of the bureaucracy is a classic. I don't believe true anarchy can or wants to abandon a complex division of labor.

I gotta check out that. That might takes time.

I suppose I just get annoyed when shiftless cretins claim Anarchy when all they want is freedom from discipline. Discussions on this topic can make some of the FM vs Planned stuff here at 'Poly look downright tame, as I'm sure you are aware.

I just cant bear people who speak of anarchy in these terms. To my ears, it sounds like "transcendance is gay". Unbearable.
And I forget the idea of speaking about anarchy in the OT forum, just saying the word makes ten posts calling you a terrorist. No way to discuss.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by lucky22


Party platforms focus the power of sympathetic voters on specific issues very effectively in a voting democracy.

Until there I agree.

So yes, not to answer for Pan, but until our offspring evolve beyond the need for artifices such as the State (or faction) such organizations are of great utility. Unfortunately, not every voter has the time or inclination to be absolutely informed regarding every issue he or she has the responsibility of voting on.

There I say no, parties are not a step before the dissolution of state. Its organized and structured in a non-hierachical manner : the sioux political system is a good example : the Pow Wow organizes debate, and wiser members of the tribe are called or can come to discuss. Then the Pow Wow makes a decision, and every citizen of the tribe is free to apply it or not. Parties are (for some) or should be (for many) a community that shares common ideas, and discuss it and let everyone act freely. A party is just like a room in which people sit and discuss.

This famous disctinction between anarchism and marxism is founded by the very own concept of marx : "raise the proletarian as a dominant class". This is strictly revolutionnary : meaning like in "revolving" : things up goes down, and things down go up. These ideas are part of "The Revolt" from Albert Camus.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Maniac
Main_Brain raises a good question. Pandemoniak, as you are against the concept of state, how can you support the concept of parties? Or is it just a temporary organization to achieve to goal of destroying the state?

Party platforms focus the power of sympathetic voters on specific issues very effectively in a voting democracy. So yes, not to answer for Pan, but until our offspring evolve beyond the need for artifices such as the State (or faction) such organizations are of great utility. Unfortunately, not every voter has the time or inclination to be absolutely informed regarding every issue he or she has the responsibility of voting on.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
To Lucky22, structuralism and anarchism are not necessary uncompatible. There can be a structure in anarchism (and there has been one during the Paris Commune), as long as its not hierarchical.

I agree completely.

Refer to Bakunin's comments on the Marxist proletarian revolution theory for more informations.

I will go ahead and follow up on that Bakunin, and recommend The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, one of my very favorites- Marx' observation that one of the great prizes of modern revolutions is possession of the bureaucracy is a classic. I don't believe true anarchy can or wants to abandon a complex division of labor.
I suppose I just get annoyed when shiftless cretins claim Anarchy when all they want is freedom from discipline. Discussions on this topic can make some of the FM vs Planned stuff here at 'Poly look downright tame, as I'm sure you are aware.

[Maniac]

Main_Brain raises a good question. Pandemoniak, as you are against the concept of state, how can you support the concept of parties? Or is it just a temporary organization to achieve to goal of destroying the state?

[Pandemoniak]

To Main_Brain, I dont see the use to disband parties, as long as they dont ruin the game.

To Lucky22, structuralism and anarchism are not necessary uncompatible. There can be a structure in anarchism (and there has been one during the Paris Commune), as long as its not hierarchical. Refer to Bakunin's comments on the Marxist proletarian revolution theory for more informations.

[Main_Brain]

Mhh should'nt we try to eliminate Parties?

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Foreman Pandemoniak annoucement :

Comrade Tassadar left us.

...

Tassadar is our Comrade anyway, and I give him all my support.
May Comrades Marx and Engels be with him.

Man, what a bummer. All the best to him.