doe @exiliaex@masto.anarch.cc

@Somniostatic like there's a cool line that goes

"The early resisters have some clear and powerful conceptions; the generations that follow them eventually invert every one of these conceptions and turn the initial commitment on its head."

@Somniostatic "Against His-Story, Against Leviathan" brings up the concept of "inversion" in this kind of context a lot

@0utside0utsider (note to self; see if any of this "social fascism" from badiou corresponds with notions of "irrationality" wrt autonomous movements. as if they're holding the rest of society hostage with their irrationality)

@0utside0utsider i've been avoiding badiou because i keep hearing things like this about him but i really should just get him over with

@Fawn_Over_Fun oh, taken alone that part doesn't mean quite as much.

but in conjunction with its second half "and insofar as it prescribes a condition in which society should govern itself"

what i'm saying is that there are certain people, people that i would consider reactionary/conservative/sometimes outright fascist who call themselves marxists. but that the only marxist thing about them is that they believe 2 things.

1. that right now our society isn't controlled by the conscious decisions of the members involved, but is instead controlled by the will of capital.

*and*

2. that our society *should* be controlled, consciously, by the members of society.

when old timey marxists said that "society should be controlled by the members of society" they were saying that workers/worker parties should be the decision makers of society. this often meant that certain kind of people's got left out (disabled/queers/mentally ill)

(here, it should be noted that who marxists consider "the real members of society" aka. the workers, determines which "society" should be controlling society)

when reactionaries who call themselves marxists say it, they don't mean "people should work together, coordinate their power" like marxists do. they instead mean "this despot doing horrible things is actually just finally wresting his country and his people away from the clutches of capital, and is finally enacting THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" even though its just fashy bullshit

@Fawn_Over_Fun you can always ask for explanations (and you can usually even get one in return!)

it explains that odd marxist-pathologizing of despots as "enacting the will of the people" in places that aren't doing anything remotely socialist.

I maintain that there are many who claim the title marxist and communist who only "believe in marxism" insofar as it describes the condition of capital as a condition in which "society does not govern itself" and only insofar as it prescribes a society governing itself consciously.

@eris definitely one of his best

@juliusmartius@kolektiva.social interesting; there are aspects of that that i think i would say are in alignment with the intentions of my post but it's not quite what i was going for.

@juliusmartius@kolektiva.social no, i dont know what that is. can you enlighten me?

we need powers made living by us

i always remind myself

the body thay says i, in truth, says we

i want to build shrines that turn into temples because they serve others

@Mondobizarrro yeahhh lmaoooooo

awwwwwoooooooooooo

@adhdidact sorry, my question was phrased weird.

the question, to clarify, is: how can we rely on a notion of justice "of the people" when "the people" are often the source of injustice.

extra info for the question: i pose the question this way because of the way i understood your previous messages about how we shouldn't act like the state is the source of justice in this world since many times we, the people, have held the state as "unjust."

and while i agree with that; there are times we, the people, have held the state accountable... that accountability is on the basis of the people *as* a people.

100 pacifists aren't going to convince a state that their wars are unjust and evil. 100 pacifists can't hold the state accountable for its violence.

the movements which can hold the state accountable are movements which the state understands as "the will of the people" being exerted.

but, and here i will return to the phrase "constituent power/movements/etc" is that, the will of the people, not exactly the same foundations for the state's power and "justice" itself? are we really describing something separate from the state when we talk about constituent power?

@adhdidact the focal point of our disagreement is about the nature of constituent movements, movements which attempt to hold to some "universal legality" that is shared between them as "constituent members" of the greater whole.

how does a minority group achieve justice in a constituent model while actively struggling against the dominant-population of society's violence?

@DemonMama hell fucking yeah 💞