gravitate "...everyone here is wrong..."
home | profile | archive | RSS | scrap yard knives | glock | obama | my music | myspace
Photobucket

The Revolution Theory of Creation

Feb 4th, 2009 2:57:40 pm - Subscribe

The Revolution Theory holds that the creation and nature of the universe and all living things are best explained by a revolutionary process involving an infinite number of infinitely smaller revolutions, or alterations, of the substance of the universe. Revolution Theory is thus a scientific disagreement with competing theories of the creation of the universe, including, among others, the Theory of Evolution and the pseudoscientific Intelligent Design theory.

Revolution Theory proponents, like all scientists, believe that science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings, and without philosophic or religious assumptions. Some people believe that this is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and, thus, very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that can be perceived as impacting religion. However, like all true science, Revolution Theory is neutral with regard to religion. It is neither compatible with religion or incompatible with it. Revolution Theory makes no postulation as to whether the revolutions themselves are guided or unguided by any force, religious, intelligent or otherwise.

Revolution Theory came about because of significant problems in both the Theory of Evolution and the Intelligent Design theory, which share many flaws.

For example, neither theory provides any explanation whatsoever as to why humans like the taste of chocolate or appreciate fine art and music. There is no explanation in the Theory of Evolution as to how genes would code for chocolate or art, nor is there any indication of how random mutations (essentially chance) could bring about such tastes, since neither chocolate nor art contribute toward survival. Similarly, the postulation of an "intelligent designer" cannot explain why chocolate is fattening, why some people are allergic to chocolate, or why some people are blind or deaf and thus unable to appreciate visual arts and music. Further, since chocolate did not even exist until relatively recently in the time scale of the universe, an "intelligent designer" at the beginning of the universe could not possibly have pre-ordained a taste for chocolate.

In summary, Revolution Theory is the only theory to date that answers all of the questions about the origin and nature of the universe and life itself with both scientific objectivity and constitutional neutrality.
mood: accepted
Music: rev theory
(0) comments

i hope i didn't just give away the ending

Feb 4th, 2009 12:34:28 am - Subscribe

She wanted to be a nun
Until that fateful day we met
I beat the crucifix
In a game of Russian roulette
I burned my Beatles records
Because she hated number nine
She licked rock cocaine suckers
Laughed, said her moms doing mine
well, are you an illusion, or am I just getting stoned
Because I can't take it alone
I can't take it alone
I hope I didn't just give away the ending
We started limping,
Caught the handicap shuttle to town
And yelled "God's healed us"
As we ran off the bus the driver just frowned
By the way this girl was sexy and she wouldn't touch you
That may not be true
But I said it so you'd feel involved with this song
Are you an illusion
Or am I just getting stoned
Because I can't take it alone
I can't take it alone
I hope I didn't just give away the ending
We caught a fey taxi driver
I smiled the ride was free
I felt like Amsterdam
She wanted more drugs and maybe me
I told her dealer I was broke
He hired a camera man
We did a porno film for coke
I hear I'm big in Japan
Are you an illusion
Or am I just getting stoned
Because I can't take it alone
I can't take it alone
I hope I didn't just give away the ending
we went back to her kitchen
Put the coke all in a can
Tied up a T.V minister
In walked her dad
He started drinking coffee
Too much sugar on the go
He fell dead on the floor
He thought the coke was sweet'n'low
well are you an illusion
Or am I just getting stoned
Because I can't take it alone
I can't take it alone
I hope I didn't just give away the ending
Boy was she upset but then she stole her dad's wallet and
I drove him to the hospital
To sell all of his donatable body parts
And this is where she dies
They brought the depressed junkie in
She shot his Cyanide up
I guess she thought it was errol flynn
I'm blamed in the confusion
The police being phoned
I don't even love you
We weren't even friends
It's just that I can't take it alone
Uh, huh
I can't take it alone
I hope I didn't just give away the ending!
Aw Jesus, Ah shit
I think I just gave away the ending......
mood: sly
Music: jt - you made me
(0) comments

blast

Feb 4th, 2009 12:31:13 am - Subscribe

im about to blast
im about to fuck it up
im about to drop your mother's angel on the floor!
im gonna do it fast, how am i to shut you up
i got to free myself and quick im out the door
i want you BLAST!
i want you BLAST!
mood: chillin
Music: jt - you made me
(0) comments

christian anarchism

Feb 2nd, 2009 5:59:53 pm - Subscribe

First of all, let me clear up some of those ugly stereotypes about anarchist ideology. Let me start by saying that anarchy does not equal a society without morals, nor does anarchist philosophy encourage violence or disregard for the rights of others. An anarchist society is simply a society without laws. It has no laws because it doesn't need them. It is a place where everyone is moral enough to respect each others' rights. It is a society that does not accept a power structure that can impose its will over the masses. No matter how perfect a government, we all know that those in power can and will become corrupt and abuse their power. A government without corruption could only exist in an ideal world; but if we are talking about an ideal world, then why even bring government into it in the first place? Since government will always be corrupt in a less than ideal world, we should work to make this an ideal world so we can do away with government. We should not accept power structures that try to solve problems from lofty seats of authority. When we assign government leaders the duty of "fixing" society, we become lazy and apathetic. We may be able to pursue our temporal delights undisturbed, but in the meantime, the abuse of power becomes more severe, and the injustice that it brings about grows steadily. This is why we should not blindly accept the authority of the power structures around us, nor should we depend on them to solve society's problems. Rather, we should work from the ground up, on the individual level, to transform society as a whole so we can create a society where it is easy to be good and moral.

This is where the Christian aspect comes in. Christ taught that we should love our neighbor and treat him/her with respect. This spirit of charity has the potential to transform society. A society that practices charity is a society without injustice, and a society without injustice is an ideal world - a world that needs no government.

One might ask how someone could draw anarchist ideology from Christian idealogy. We can clearly see the answer to this in the life of Jesus Christ himself. Christ did not blindly accept the authority of the chief priests and scribes (who had most of the authority in Hebrew society); instead, he questioned what they taught and how they viewed the old laws. In so doing, He introduced an entirely new and revolutionary way of thinking that emphasized the importance of love over law. Christ saw that the chief priests and scribes were over-emphasizing the law itself and were using it to gain power for themselves. They had lost all sight of the original purpose of those laws. Thus, the laws had lost their effectiveness, because they had been corrupted. Form had taken precedence over function. Because of this, Christ used a new approach and directed his teachings more towards following a charitable life. By concentrating His teachings on charity, He put function over form. He knew that to make the world a better place, change had to begin with the individual's heart, so He taught us HOW to be good people instead of giving us laws that one had to follow in order to be good. Christ taught his revolutionary message not only by preaching, but especially by example, and it is by living by Christ's example that we can bring about the most positive change. Think about it: if everyone lived by Christ's example, would there be a need for governments?

While I realize that a world without governments is not likely, I still adhere to the belief that as believers in love and justice, we must always maintain a healthy cynicism when it comes to our dealings with the powers that govern our world. An anarchist philosophy has plenty of benefits for those living within a society with rigid structures and laws. Christian anarchist thought dictates that we always question, as Christ did, the powers that be. As in any situation, raising questions can only bring us closer to Truth.
mood: fine
Music: miser
(0) comments

dizzy up the girl. kill the terrorists.

Feb 2nd, 2009 5:54:07 pm - Subscribe

i remember back in the day. 1997-1999, particularly. seasons. first loves. rock and roll and a certain album. dizzy up the girl by the goo goo dolls.

this album is a part of me. i fell in love to it, stole it when i was a kid. played it everywhere. took shit from church goers who said it was a dark, dreary, secular record. the hell of it is, i can still sit down and listen to this album and feel the things i felt back then, to a lesser degree. nevertheless, i can tap back into then and there to some degree.

i remember being in new york city on a tour bus riding through Manhattan with dizzy up the girl spinning in my walkman. yes we had cd players back when i was growing up. the record is pure genius and it is hard to believe that it is nearly 11 years old. this album is tied as my favorite album of all time with SWIM by july for kings. nothing can touch these 2 albums. and i cant say one is my favorite or that i love one more than the other. i have to have them both with me. i will be buried with a copy of each of these albums.

im sick and tired of people trying to change what i think about certain things. i am a staunch supporter of Israel and their war against islamic parasitic terrorists. yet, i am supposed to be some pacifist pussy who attempts to understand why they fire rockets into israel and kill innocent jews (citizens). all the while, the state of Israel is somehow to blame for all this... its a crock of shit. i am getting ready to embark on a long paper about this and i am sure my main professor will attempt to sway my paper's content. some things never change. it has appeared to me that the far left wing 'progressivism' spewed on college campuses doesnt exist anywhere else in the world except for on these campuses. its a self-sustaining cycle of shit that doesnt work in the world. marxism does NOT work. in theory, it is lovely. but in practice, it isnt possible. you cant tell this to some of these far left fools because they are merely the offspring of a terrible, disgraceful time in this nation where people were against war and the united states and hated those of us in the military. well i say to hell with all of you. if you dont support the people (military) who keep you free and give you the right to feel the way you do and spew anti-american rhetoric, then get the hell out of this country and give your citizenship to a mexican who will gladly give his right arm to become a legal citizen of this nation.
mood: nostalgic & pissed
Music: all eyes on me - goo goo dolls
(0) comments

What is Authority

Jan 31st, 2009 9:49:41 pm - Subscribe

What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary linking and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden - it is even impossible. We may misunderstand them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis and the fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all our movements. thoughts and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence.

Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically, intellectually, and morally; we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?

In his relation to natural laws but one liberty is possible to man - that of recognising and applying them on an ever-extending scale of conformity with the object of collective and individual emancipation of humanisation which he pursues. These laws, once recognised, exercise an authority which is never disputed by the mass of men. One must, for instance, be at bottom either a fool or a theologician or at least a metaphysician, jurist or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four. One must have faith to imagine that fire will not burn nor water drown, except, indeed, recourse be had to some subterfuge founded in its turn on some other natural law. But these revolts, or rather, these attempts at or foolish fancies of an impossible revolt, are decidedly the exception: for, in general, it may be said that the mass of men, in their daily lives, acknowledge the government of common sense - that is, of the sum of the general laws generally recognised - in an almost absolute fashion.

The great misfortune is that a large number of natural laws, already established as such by science, remain unknown to the masses, thanks to the watchfulness of those tutelary governments that exist, as we know, only for the good of the people. There is another difficulty - namely, that the major portion of the natural laws connected with the development of human society, which are quite as necessary, invariable, fatal, as te laws that govern the physical world, have not been duly established and recognised by science itself.

Once they shall have been recognised by science, and then from science, by means of an extensive system of popular education and instruction, shall have passed into the consciousness of all, the question of liberty will be entirely solved. The most stubborn authorities must admit that then there will be no need either of political organisation or direction or legislation, three things which, whether they eminate from the will of the soverign or from the vote of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, and even should they conform to the system of natural laws - which has never been the case and never will be the case - are always equally fatal and hostile to the liberty of the masses from the very fact that they impose on them a system of external and therefore despotic laws.

The Liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual.

Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organisation of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but the laws but the laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such legislation and such organisation would be a monstrosity, and that, and that for two reasons: first, that human science is always and necessarily imperfect, and that, comparing what it has discovered with what remains to be discovered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that were we to try to force the practical life of men, collective as well as individual, into strict and exclusive conformity with the latest data of science, we should condemn society as well as individuals to suffer martyrdom on a bed of Procrustes, which would soon end by dislocating and stifling them, life ever remaining an infinitely greater thing than science.

The second reason is this: a society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientific academy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation, emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated without comprehending - such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.

But there is still a third reason which would render such a government impossible - namely that a scientific academy invested with a soverignty, so to speak, absolute, even if it were composed of the most illustrious men, would infallibly and soon end in its own moral and intellectual corruption. Even today, with the few privileges allowed them, such is the history of all academies. The greatest scientific genius, from the moment that he becomes an academian, an officially liscenced savant, inevitably lapses into sluggishness. He loses his spontenaity, his revolutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and savage energy characteristic of the grandest geniuses, ever called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the foundations of new. He undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom, what he loses in power of thought. In a word, he bocomes corrupted.

It is the characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the mind and heart of men. The privileged man, whether practically or economically, is a man depraved in mind and heart. That is a social law which admits of no exception, and is as applicable to entire nations as to classes, corporations and individuals. It is the law of equality, the supreme condition of liberty and humanity. The principle object of this treatise is precisely to demonstrate this truth in all the manifestations of social life.

A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.

But that which is true of scientific academies is also true of all constituent and legislative assemblies, even those chosen by universal suffrage. In the latter case they may renew their composition, it is true, but this does not prevent the formation in a few years' time of a body of politicans, privileged in fact though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to the direction of the public affairs of a country, finally form a sort of political aristocracy or oligarchy. Witness the United States of America and Switzerland.

Consequently, no external legislation and no authority - one, for that matter, being inseparable from the other, and both tending to the servitude of society and the degradation of the legislators themsleves.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. ions and even their directions Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination.

This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority, because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail, without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches of social life. And if such universality could ever be realised in a single man, and if he wished to take advantage thereof to impose his authority upon us, it would be necessary to drive this man out of society, because his authority would inevitably reduce all the others to slavery and imbecility. I do not think that society ought to maltreat men of genius as it has done hitherto: but niether do I think it should indulge them too far, still less accord them any privileges or exclusive rights whatsoever; and that for three reasons: first, because it would often mistake a charlatan for a man of genius; second, because, through such a system of privileges, it might transform into a charlatan even a real man of genius, demoralise him, and degrade him; and, finally, because it would establish a master over itself.
mood: stimulated
Music: The Becoming
(0) comments

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

Jan 31st, 2009 9:46:32 pm - Subscribe

Effect of the Great Principles Proclaimed by the French Revolution. From the time when the Revolution brought down to the masses its Gospel - not the mystic but the rational, not the heavenly but the earthly, not the divine but the human Gospel, the Gospel of the Rights of Man - ever since it proclaimed that all men are equal, that all men are entitled to liberty and equality, the masses of all European countries, of all the civilized world, awakening gradually from the sleep which had kept them in bondage ever since Christianity drugged them with its opium, began to ask themselves whether they too, had the right to equality, freedom, and humanity.

As soon as this question was posed, the people, guided by their admirable sound sense as well as by their instincts, realized that the first condition of their real emancipation, or of their humanization, was above all a radical change in their economic situation. The question of daily bread is to them justly the first question, for as it was noted by Aristotle, man, in order to think, in order to feel himself free, in order to become man, must be freed from the material cares of daily life. For that matter, the bourgeois, who are so vociferous in their outcries against the materialism of the people and who preach to the latter the abstinences of idealism, know it very well, for they themselves preach it only by word and not by example.

The second question arising before the people - that of leisure after work - is the indispensable condition of humanity. But bread and leisure can never be obtained apart from a radical transformation of existing society, and that explains why the Revolution, impelled by the implications of its own principles, gave birth to Socialism.

Socialism Is Justice...Socialism is justice. When we speak of justice, we understand thereby not the justice contained in the Codes and in Roman jurisprudence - which were based to a great extent upon facts of violence achieved by force, violence consecrated by time and by the benedictions of some church or other (Christian or pagan), and as such accepted as absolute principles, from which all law is to be deduced by a process of logical reasoning - no, we speak of that justice which is based solely upon human conscience, the justice to be found in the consciousness of every man - even in that of children - and which can be expressed in a single word: equity.

This universal justice which, owing to conquests by force and religious influences, has never yet prevailed in the political or juridical or economic worlds, should become the basis of the new world. Without it there can be neither liberty, nor republic, nor prosperity, nor peace. It then must govern our resolutions in order that we work effectively toward the establishment of peace. And this justice urges us to take upon ourselves the defense of the interests of the terribly maltreated people and demand their economic and social emancipation along with political freedom.

The Basic Principle of Socialism. We do not propose here, gentlemen, this or any other socialist system. What we demand now is the proclaiming anew of the great principle of the French Revolution: that every human being should have the material and moral means to develop all his humanity, a principle which, in our opinion, is to be translated into the following problem:

To organize society in such a manner that every individual, man or woman, should find, upon entering life, approximately equal means for the development of his or her diverse faculties and their utilization in his or her work. And to organize such a society that, rendering impossible the exploitation of anyone's labor, will enable every individual to enjoy the social wealth, which in reality is produced only by collective labor, but to enjoy it only in so far as he contributes directly toward the creation of that wealth.

State Socialism Rejected. The carrying out of this task will of course take centuries of development. But history has already brought it forth and henceforth we cannot ignore it without condemning ourselves to utter impotence. We hasten to add here that we vigorously reject any attempt at social organization which would not admit the fullest liberty of individuals and organizations, or which would require the setting up of any regimenting power whatever. In the name of freedom, which we recognize as the only foundation and the only creative principle of organization, economic or political, we shall protest against anything remotely resembling State Communism, or State Socialism.

Abolition of the Inheritance Law. The only thing which, in opinion, the State can and should do, is first to modify little by little inheritance law so as to arrive as soon as possible at its complete abolition. That law being purely a creation of the State, and one of the conditions of the very existence of the authoritarian and divine State can and should be abolished by freedom in the State. In other words, State should dissolve itself into a society freely organized in accord with the principles of justice. Inheritance right, in our opinion, should abolished, for so long as it exists there will be hereditary economic inequality, not the natural inequality of individuals, but the artificial man inequality of classes - and the latter will always beget hereditary equality in the development and shaping of minds, continuing to be source and consecration of all political and social inequalities. The task of justice is to establish equality for everyone, inasmuch that equality will depend upon the economic and political organization society - an equality with which everyone is going to begin his life, that everyone, guided by his own nature, will be the product of his own efforts. In our opinion, the property of the deceased should accrue to social fund for the instruction and education of children of both sexes including their maintenance from birth until they come of age. As Slavs and as Russians, we shall add that with us the fundamental social idea, bas upon the general and traditional instinct of our populations, is that las the property of all the people, should be owned only by those who cultivate it with their own hands.

We are convinced gentlemen, that this principle is just, that it is essential and inevitable condition of all serious social reform, and consequently Western Europe in turn will not fail to recognize and accept this principle, notwithstanding the difficulties of its realization in countries as in France, for instance where the majority of peasants own the land which they cultivate, but where most of those very peasants will soon end up by owning next to nothing, owing to the parceling out of land coming as the inevitable result of the political and economic system now prevailing in France. We shall, however, refrain from offering any proposals on the land question...We shall confine ourselves now to proposing the following declaration:

The Declaration of Socialism. "Convinced that the serious realization of liberty, justice, and peace will be impossible so long as the majority of the population remains dispossessed of elementary needs, so long as it is deprived of education and is condemned to political and social insignificance and slavery - in fact if not by law - by poverty as well as by the necessity of working without rest or leisure, producing all the wealth upon which the world now prides itself, and receiving in return only such a small pan thereof that it hardly suffices to assure its livelihood for the next day;

"Convinced that for all that mass of population, terribly maltreated for centuries, the problem of bread is the problem of mental emancipation, of freedom and humanity;

"Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality;

"The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the widest freedom."

Organization of Productive Forces in Place of Political Power. It is necessary to abolish completely, both in principle and in fact, all that which is called political power; for, so long as political power exists, there will be ruler and ruled, masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited. Once abolished, political power should be replaced by an organization of productive forces and economic service.

Notwithstanding the enormous development of modern states - a development which in its ultimate phase is quite logically reducing the State to an absurdity - it is becoming evident that the days of the State and the State principle are numbered. Already we can see approaching the full emancipation of the toiling masses and their free social organization, free from governmental intervention, formed by economic associations of the people and brushing aside all the old State frontiers and national distinctions, and having as its basis only productive labor, humanized labor, having one common interest in spite of its diversity.

The Ideal of the People. This ideal of course appears to the people as signifying first of all the end of want, the end of poverty, and the full satisfaction of all material needs by means of collective labor, equal and obligatory for all, and then, as the end of domination and the free organization of the people's lives in accordance with their needs - not from the top down, as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up, an organization formed by the people themselves, apart from all governments and parliaments, a free union of associations of agricultural and factory workers, of communes, regions, and nations, and finally, in the more remote future; the universal human brotherhood, triumphing above the ruins of all States.

The Program of a Free Society. Outside of the Mazzinian system which is the system of the republic in the form of a State, there is no other system but that of the republic as a commune, the republic as a federation, a Socialist and a genuine people's republic - the system of Anarchism. It is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at the abolition of the State, and the economic, altogether free organization of the people, an organization from below upward, by means of a federation.

...There will be no possibility of the existence of a political government, for this government will be transformed into a simple administration of common affairs.

Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all.

To all, with no distinction whatever, all the means of development, education, and upbringing, and the equal possibility of living while working.

Organizing of a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers associations, industrial as well as a agricultural, scientific as well as literary associations - first into a commune, then a federation communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into international fraternal association.

Correct Tactics During a Revolution. In a social revolution, which in everything is diametrically opposed to a political revolution, the a of individuals hardly count at all, whereas the spontaneous action of masses is everything. All that individuals can do is to clarify, propagate, and work out ideas corresponding to the popular instinct, and, what is more, to contribute their incessant efforts to revolutionary organization of the natural power of the masses - but nothing else beyond that; the rest can and should be done by the people themselves. Any other method would lead to political dictatorship, to the re-emergence of the State, of privileges of inequalities of all the oppressions of the State - that is, it would lead in a roundabout but logical way toward re-establishment of political, social, and economic slavery of the masses of people.

Varlin and all his friends, like all sincere Socialists, and in general like all workers born and brought up among the people, shared to a high degree this perfectly legitimate bias against the initiative coming from isolated individuals, against the domination exercised by superior individuals, and being above all consistent, they extended the same prejudice and distrust to their own persons.

Revolution by Decrees Is Doomed to Failure. Contrary to the ideas of the authoritarian Communists, altogether fallacious ideas in my opinion, that the Social Revolution can be decreed and organized by means of a dictatorship or a Constituent Assembly - our friends, the Parisian Social-Socialists, held the opinion that that revolution can be waged and brought to fits full development only through the spontaneous and continued mass action of groups and associations of the people.

Our Parisian friends were a thousand times right. For, indeed, there is no mind, much as it may be endowed with the quality of a genius; or if we speak of a collective dictatorship consisting of several hundred supremely endowed individuals - there is no combination of intellects so vast as to be able to embrace all the infinite multiplicity and diversity of the real interests, aspirations, wills, and needs constituting in their totality the collective will of the people; there is no intellect that can devise a social organization capable of satisfying each and all.

Such an organization would ever be a Procrustean bed into which violence, more or less sanctioned by the State, would force the unfortunate society. But it is this old system of organization based upon force that the Social Revolution should put an end to by giving full liberty to the masses, groups, communes, associations, and even individuals, and by destroying once and for all the historic cause of all violence - the very existence of the State, the fall of which will entail the destruction of all the iniquities of juridical right and all the falsehood of various cults, that right and those cults having ever been simply the complaisant consecration, ideal as well as real, of all violence represented, guaranteed, and authorized by the State.

It is evident that only when the State has ceased to exist humanity will obtain its freedom, and the true interests of society, of all groups, of all local organizations, and likewise of all the individuals forming such organization, will find their real satisfaction.

Free Organization to Follow Abolition of the State. Abolition of the State and the Church should be the first and indispensable condition of the real enfranchisement of society. It will be only after this that society can and should begin its own reorganization; that, however, should take place not from the top down, not according to an ideal plan mapped by a few sages or savants, and not by means of decrees issued by some dictatorial power or even by a National Assembly elected by universal suffrage. Such a system, as I have already said, inevitably would lead to the formation of a governmental aristocracy, that is, a class of persons which has nothing in common with the masses of people; and, to be sure, this class would again turn to exploiting and enthralling the masses under the pretext of common welfare or of the salvation of the State.

Freedom Must Go Hand-in-Hand With Equality. I am a convinced partisan of economic and social equality, for I know that outside of this equality, freedom, justice, human dignity, morality, and the well-being of individuals as well as the prosperity of nations are all nothing but so many falsehoods. But being at the same time a partisan of freedom - the first condition of humanity - I believe that equality should be established in the world by a spontaneous organization of labor and collective property, by the free organization of producers' associations into communes, and free federation of communes - but nowise by means of the supreme tutelary action of the State.

The Difference Between Authoritarian and Libertarian Revolution. It is this point which mainly divides the Socialists or revolutionary collectivists from the authoritarian Communists, the partisans of the absolute initiative of the State. The goal of both is the same: both parties want the creation of a new social order based exclusively upon collective labor, under economic conditions that are equal for all - that is, under conditions of collective ownership of the tools of production.

Only the Communists imagine that they can attain through development and organization of the political power of the working classes, and chiefly of the city proletariat, aided by bourgeois radicalism - whereas the revolutionary Socialists, the enemies of all ambiguous alliances, believe, on the contrary, that this common goal can be attained not through the political but through the social (and therefore anti-political) organization and power of the working masses of the cities and villages, including all those who, though belonging by birth to the higher classes, have broken with their past of their own free will, and have openly joined the proletariat and accepted its program.

The Methods of the Communists and the Anarchists. Hence the two different methods. The Communists believe that it is necessary to organize the forces of the workers in order to take possession of the political might of the State. The revolutionary Socialists organize with the view of destroying, or if you prefer a more refined expression, of liquidating the State. The Communists are the partisans of the principle and practice of authority, while revolutionary Socialists place their faith only in freedom. Both are equally the partisans of science, which is to destroy superstition and take the place of faith; but the first want to impose science upon the people, while the revolutionary collectivists try to diffuse science and knowledge among the people, so that the various groups of human society, when convinced by propaganda, may organize and spontaneously combine into federations, in accordance with their natural tendencies and their real interests, but never according to a plan traced in advance and imposed upon the ignorant masses by a few "superior" minds.

Revolutionary Socialists believe that there is much more of practical reason and intelligence in the instinctive aspirations and real needs of the masses of people than in the profound minds of all these learned doctors and self-appointed tutors of humanity, who, having before them the sorry examples of so many abortive attempts to make humanity happy, still intend to keep on working in the same direction. But revolutionary Socialists believe, on the contrary, that humanity has permitted itself to be ruled for a long time, much too long, and that the source of its misfortune lies not in this nor in any other form of government but in the principle and the very existence of the government, whatever its nature may be.

It is this difference of opinion, which already has become historic, that now exists between the scientific Communism, developed by the German school and partly accepted by American and English Socialists, and Proudhonism, extensively developed and pushed to its ultimate conclusions, and by now accepted by the proletariat of the Latin countries. Revolutionary Socialism has made its first brilliant and practical appearance in the Paris Commune.

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world.

Before creating, or rather aiding the people to create, this new organization, it is necessary to achieve a victory. It is necessary to overthrow that which is, in order to be able to establish that which should be...
mood: philosophical
Music: Atreyu
(0) comments

hard times

Jan 28th, 2009 5:46:42 pm - Subscribe

going through some hard times.

i could use some prayer.

thanks.
mood: somber
Music: miser
(0) comments

blackberry

Jan 27th, 2009 9:11:04 pm - Subscribe


Ok. This is my first blog from my blackberry. Just seeing if it works.
mood: nauseous
Music: nin
(2) comments

wake

Jan 27th, 2009 8:41:15 pm - Subscribe

thought she heard the angels singing, turns out it was falling leaves....
mood: sleazy
Music: mercy fall
(0) comments

navigation | template by clark tucker
next page