same on issuu site [https://issuu.com/monk51295/docs/deep_dive_pdf]
more of what inspired deck..
1\ while reading dawn of everything:
what ultimately matters is whether we can rediscover the freedoms that make us human in the first place..t
huge.. let’s do that.. let’s focus on that.. let’s org around that..
what if we treat people, form the beginning, as imaginative, intelligent, playful creatures who deserve to be understood as such..t
the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful possibilities than we tend to assume..t
this book is also something else (besides trying to lay down foundations for a anew world history): a quest to discover the right questions.. for about a decade now..we.. that is the two authors of this book.. have been engaged in a prolonged convo w each other about exactly these questions..(what should be biggest question we should be asking about history.. how do we characterize what has been lost.. is it really lost.. what does it imply about possibilities for social change today..
same time frame for me.. but prolonged convo about what legit free people are like .. what they need to be set/stay free.. and how 8b people can get there
was my deep dive
these .. our findings:
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people
on the indigenous critique.. revealing possibilities for human emancipation that, once disclosed, could hardly be ignored..
ideas expressed in that critique came to be perceived as such a menace to the fabric of european society that an entire body of theory was called into being, specifically to refute them..
2\ fragments re re read.. [75-85]
9\ one or several theories of alienation – this is the ultimate prize: what, precisely, are the possible dimensions of non alienated experience.. how might its modalities be catalogued or considered? .. people like john zerzan.. whittling away absolutely everything.. end up condemning the very existence of language, math, time keeping, music and all forms of art and representation.. they are all written off as forms of alienation.. leaving us w a kind of impossible evolutionary ideal.. true revolution could only mean somehow returning to that (perfect ape.. w unimaginable telepathic connection w fellows.. at one w wild nature.. )
actually need to go that deep.. ie: lit & num as colonialism.. language as control/enclosure.. representation as red flag.. need to get back/to non hierarchical listening ness (telepathic connection ness at one w nature ness).. findings from deep dive
need to: org around legit needs
there is of course no single anarchist program – nor could there really be – but it might be helpful to end by giving the reader some idea about current directions of thought and organizing
the point is that despite endless rhetoric about ‘complex, subtle, intractable issues’.. (justifying decades of expensive research by rich and their well paid flunkies). the anarchist program would probably have resolved most of them in 5-6 yrs.. but, you will say, these demands are entirely unrealistic.. true enough.. but why are they unrealistic? mainly, because those rich guys meeting in the waldorf would never stand for any of it. this is why we say they are themselves the problem
the struggle against work has always been central to anarchist organizing.. by this i mean, not the struggle for better worker conditions or higher wages, but the struggle to eliminate work, as a relation of domination, entirely.. t
still in relation to domination if naming.. time stamping.. in any way.. any form of m\a\p is domination ness
earn a living ness et al
hence the iww slogan ‘against the wage system’.. this is a long term goal of course.. in the shorter term, what can’t be eliminated can at least be reduced.. shorter work week et al
but has anyone carried out a *feasibility study (to 16 hr week.. 4 day/week.. 4 hr/day).. after all.. it has been repeatedly demo’d that a considerable chunk of the hours worked in america are only actually necessary to **compensate for problems created by fact that americans work too much
exactly.. this is *deep dive ness and **response to simona ness..
elim of advertising would also reduce production, shipping, and selling of unnecessary products, since those items people actually do want or need, they will still figure out a way to find out about..
rather than way to find out about.. way to make it themselves or not even think/want about it
we need to org around legit needs
as a means to undo our hierarchical listening so we can grok enough ness
elmin of radical ineq’s would mean we would no longer require services of most of the millions currently employed as doormen, private security forces, prison guards, or swat team.. not to mention the military.. beyond that.. *we’d have to do research.. financiers, insurers, and investment bankers are all essentially parasitic beings, but there might be some useful function in these sectors that could not simply be replaced w software..
*deep dive and simona ref.. our findings: need none of it..
minor note: admittedly, all of this presumes the total reorg of work, a kind of ‘after the revolution’ scenario which i’ve argued is a necessary tool to even begin to think about human possibilities.. even if revolution will probably never take such an apocalyptic form
again to simona ref
this of course brings up the ‘who will do the dirty jobs’ question.. one which always get thrown at anarchists or other utopians.. peter kropotkin long ago pointed out the fallacy of the argument.. there’s no particular reason dirty jobs have to exist.. if one divided up the unpleasant tasks equally, that would mean all the worlds’ top scientists and engineers would have to do them too; one could expect the creation of self-cleaning kitchens and coal-mining robots almost immediately..
rather.. wouldn’t create ie: robots to clean.. would be living in ways sans waste.. so dirty jobs et al irrelevant
all this happened completely below the radar screen of the corp media, which also *missed the point of the great mobilizations.. the org of these actions was meant to be a living illustration of what a truly democratic world might be like, from the festive puppets to the careful org of affinity groups and spokecouncils.. all operating w/o a leadership structure.. always based on principle of consensus-based direct democracy.. **it was the kind of org which most people would have, had they simply heard it proposed, written off as a pipe dream..
*missed pt.. which was what any form of democratic admin would be (is) like.. which to me is missing the point of legit free people..
yeah.. i see consensus et al as just replacing rep ness et al.. same song ness
and.. to the careful org of affinity groups.. we can do so much better.. ie: imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch in 8b souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to connect/coord us..
again.. great.. but not decentralized/diff/diverse enough
on good form of consensus
instead of voting proposal up and down, then, proposals are worked and reworked, scotched or reinvented, until one ends up w something everyone can live with..
point is.. this is diff dind of direct democracy.. but still sucks energy .. as noted in mid page.. oi oi oi ..
? why.. why can’t we all live w diff things? (today we can actually facil/welcome/dance-with that chaos)
and again – public consensus always oppresses someone(s) and is huge energy suck.. as noted mid page ie:
when it comes to the final state, actually ‘finding consensus’ there are two levels of possible objection: one can ‘stand aside’ which is to say ‘i don’t like this and won’t participate but wouldn’t stop anyone else from doing it’ or ‘block’ which has the effect of a veto.. one can only block if one feels a proposal is in violation of the fundamental principle or reason for being of a group
why waste our time on all that?.. not to mention that it changes us.. so that we’re not us
one could go on at length about the elab and surprisingly sophisticated methods that have been developed to ensure *all this works: modified consensus for large groups; consensus working so that don’t bring before large group unless have to as means of ensuring gender equity ( – in n america consensus process emerged more than anything thru feminist movement)
i guess the question is *all what.. because it hasn’t (and won’t) work toward a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for.. what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people
consensus ness won’t wake people up to that energy
3\ simona twitter convo
Let’s org around legit needs – that’s it! which also means to org around legit jobs, asking what’s the point with our jobs and demanding to work only for legit ends: those fulfilling human needs and enhancing human freedom and playfulness #care https://t.co/phSqe1rwJw
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/sonmi451it/status/1462471165440675842
quote tweeting me here:
@ayca_cu @davidgraeber ‘neither is there much point in speculating about it .. the question is how to create a situation where we could find out’ @davidgraeber’s fragments
let’s org around legit needs
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/monk51295/status/1462085721812987905
me: i think if we org’d around legit/deep/universal/essence needs.. we wouldn’t have to org for anything else.. i think most (if not all) things we think we need to org for now.. would become irrelevant
simona: not sure i understand
me: i think if we org’d deep enough.. that people truly felt free to be themselves.. and we trusted that.. things like work, school, politics, .. would become irrelevant.. all the things that keep taking up our time/energy now.. so we just assume we need to org them better.. rather than perhaps.. let them go
goes back to so much in first two (fragments and doe).. but mostly.. just about what i’ve seen
also add link to dd to image on deck and other things? and reload?
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people