It's also unfortunate that many of our comrades in the West have digested the patronizing tone of their imperial governments, and use it unconsciously with their comrades from the third world. Too many times, we found our comrades dictating with whom we should ally ourselves with, or how should we deal with our own causes like political Islаm, the Sуrian revolution, anti-government tactics, and radical environmental and feminist organizations. We appreciate the feedback and the exchange, and we think it's desired and needed, but we feel that there are a lot of subtle expectations that we should become another version of you. And we don't want to. Being on the other end of the equation, the one that has been getting drone missiles, uranium depleted shells, and imperialism for decades, we can honestly tell you that whatever you tried, it didn't work well for us, and it seems it didn't work for you as well.
20.5.13
Lеbаnоn, A Letter to North American Аnаrchists from Radical Веirut
From A-Infos:
10.5.13
On the disingenuous simplifications of right-wing libertarians
What is "freedom"? What is "property"? What are "rights"? They define these terms to eliminate all but one possible conclusion, which makes it impossible for them to reason outside their narrow right-wing economic framework.
Let's start with property: by applying a single term to a variety of economic relationships, they conflate our natural and innate understanding of possession with the feudal concept of land titles. To claim that owning the shirt on your back is equivalent to a claim on the goods and services produced by those laboring on a plot of ground on which you never step foot is lunacy. The landed classical liberal philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries recognized this definition as being particularly advantageous to them. Conceptually differentiating personal possessions from land and other capital which serves the needs of society only when operated in a cooperative fashion by multiple workers, is obvious to all but the most gluttonous materialist.
And rights? Does that include the right to deny others access to the means of obtaining food and shelter on the basis of your use of it as an investment? And how could it include the right to life while not recognizing the right to the basic necessities of survival? By defining rights selectively and conflating radically different uses of property, they establish an implicit set of rules that appears to create a moral justification for the hoarding of productive capital and resources on the part of a few while denying it to everyone else in society. And how about once one also then combines this particular type of property "right" with a labor market? Then they are in effect arguing for the right to exploit others, because those who lack productive property of their own must sell their labor to those who have it simply to survive, and receive as compensation less than the market value of the goods they produce.
And freedom for whom? In such a society where everything is owned, those with the most capital also have the most freedom. If you have nothing, then you have the freedom to starve, which is not any kind of freedom at all. And a society in which the vast majority of its members have no choice but to submit to the will of those who control access to the means of production is by every definition tyranny.
Let's start with property: by applying a single term to a variety of economic relationships, they conflate our natural and innate understanding of possession with the feudal concept of land titles. To claim that owning the shirt on your back is equivalent to a claim on the goods and services produced by those laboring on a plot of ground on which you never step foot is lunacy. The landed classical liberal philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries recognized this definition as being particularly advantageous to them. Conceptually differentiating personal possessions from land and other capital which serves the needs of society only when operated in a cooperative fashion by multiple workers, is obvious to all but the most gluttonous materialist.
And rights? Does that include the right to deny others access to the means of obtaining food and shelter on the basis of your use of it as an investment? And how could it include the right to life while not recognizing the right to the basic necessities of survival? By defining rights selectively and conflating radically different uses of property, they establish an implicit set of rules that appears to create a moral justification for the hoarding of productive capital and resources on the part of a few while denying it to everyone else in society. And how about once one also then combines this particular type of property "right" with a labor market? Then they are in effect arguing for the right to exploit others, because those who lack productive property of their own must sell their labor to those who have it simply to survive, and receive as compensation less than the market value of the goods they produce.
And freedom for whom? In such a society where everything is owned, those with the most capital also have the most freedom. If you have nothing, then you have the freedom to starve, which is not any kind of freedom at all. And a society in which the vast majority of its members have no choice but to submit to the will of those who control access to the means of production is by every definition tyranny.
9.5.13
Adwaita, c. 1750 – 23 March 2006
Weighing 250 kg (590 lb), Adwaita was a bachelor with no records of his progeny. He lived on a diet of wheat bran, carrots, lettuce, soaked gram, bread, grass and salt. His shell cracked and a wound developed a few months before his death from liver failure in March 2006.
The age of Adwaita at his death is estimated to have been around 255 years. If confirmed, this would have made Adwaita the oldest known tortoise of modern times, living longer than Harriet by 80 years, and Tu'i Malila by 67 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)