#not trying to reform an institution that is impossible to reform | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

transmutationisms · 1 year

Note

serious question but do you personally believe there is a way to approach psychiatry in a way that uplifts and upholds patient autonomy and wellness or is the entire trade essentially fucked haha. Btw this is an ask coming from a 3rd year med student—with a background of severe mental illness—who is considering a residency in psychiatry after receiving life-saving care in high school pertaining to said conditions. (I have peers who have been involuntarily hospitalized and treated horribly in psych wards, with approaches i patently disagree with, but was lucky not to experience. I don’t like modern american medicine’s approach to mental illness; “throw pills” at it to “make it go away” ie. a problem of overprescribing, inadequate and non-holistic approach to mental health, and i feel a lot of that can be attributed to the capitalistic framework. I also def agree with you that so much of what can be considered normal human responses to traumatic events/normal human suffering can be unnecessarily pathologized—a great example being the whole “chemical imbalances in the brain is the ONLY reason why im like this” argument that ive unfortunately fallen hard for when i was younger and am still currently dismantling within myself…and like dont even get me started on this field’s history of demonizing POC, women, LGBT, etc). Like i deeply love my psych rotations so far, and i utterly feel in my gut that this is the manner in which i would like to help people—a lot of whom are just like me—but im wondering if there is a way to reconcile these aspects in a way that one can feel morally okay participating within such an imperfect system, in ur opinion… ngghhhhhh i just want to be a good doctor to my patients…

(ps i love all ur writing and analysis on succession!! big fan mwah <333)

i don't mean to sound unduly pissy at you, specifically, but i do have to say: every single time i've talked about antipsych or broader criticism of medicine on this website, i immediately get a wave of responses like this, from doctors/nurses/psychs/students of the above, asking me to, like, reassure them that they're not doing something immoral or un-communist or whatever by having or pursuing these jobs. and it's honestly frustrating. why is it that these conversations get re-framed around this particular line of inquiry and medical ego-soothing? why is it that when i say "the medical encounter is not structured to protect patient autonomy or well-being," so many people hear something more along the lines of "doctors are mean and i wish they were nicer"? why is it that it's impossible to discuss the philosophical and structural violence of academic and clinical medicine without it becoming a referendum on the individual morality of doctors?

i'm choosing to read you in good faith because i think it's possible to re-re-frame this line of questioning to demonstrate to you the sorts of critiques and inquiries i find more interesting and more conducive to patient autonomy and liberation. so, let me pick apart a few lines of this ask.

"is the entire trade essentially fucked?"

if you're thinking of trying to 'reform' the project of medical psychology within existing infrastructures and institutions, then yeah, it's fucked. if you're still assuming that affective distress can only be 'treated' within this medical apparatus (despite, again, no psychiatric dx satisfying any pathologist's understanding of a 'disease' ie an aberration from 'normal' physiological functioning) then you're not challenging the things that actually make psychiatry violent. you're simply fantasising about making the violence nicer.

"I don’t like modern american medicine’s approach to mental illness; “throw pills” at it to “make it go away” ie. a problem of overprescribing, inadequate and non-holistic approach to mental health, and i feel a lot of that can be attributed to the capitalistic framework."

i hate when i talk about psychotropic drugs being marketed to patients using lies like the chemical imbalance myth, and then pushed on patients—including through outright force—by psychiatrists, and the discussion gets re-framed as one about 'overprescribing'. my problem is not with people taking drugs. i am, in fact, so pro-drugs that i think even the ones administered in a clinical setting sometimes have value. my issue is with, again, the provision of misleading or outright false information, the use of force and coercion to put patients on such drugs in order to force social conformity and employability, and the general model of medicine and medical psychology that assumes patients ought to be passive recipients of medical enlightenment rather than active participants in their own treatment who are given the agency to decide when and how to engage with any form of curative or meliorative intervention.

'holistic' medicine and psychiatry do not solve this problem! they are not a paradigm shift because they continue to locate expertise and epistemological authority with the credentialed physician, and to position patients as too sick, stupid, or helpless to do anything but receive and comply with the medical interventions. there are certainly psychotropic drugs that are demonstrably more harmful than others (antipsychotics, for example), and some that are demonstrably prescribed to patients who do not benefit from them and are even harmed by them. conversely, there are certainly forms of intervention besides pharmaceuticals that people may find helpful. but my general critique here is aimed less at haggling over specific methods of intervention, and more at the ideological and philosophical tenets of medicine that cause any interventions to be imposed by force or coercion on patients, then framed as being 'for their own good'. were suffering people given the information and autonomy to actually choose whether and how to engage in any kind of intervention, some might still choose drugs! my position here is not one of moralising drugs, but making the act of taking them one that is freely chosen and available as an option without relying on physician determination of a patient's interests over their own assessment of their needs and wants.

"so much of what can be considered normal human responses to traumatic events/normal human suffering can be unnecessarily pathologized"

true, but don't misunderstand me as saying that drugs or any other form of intervention should be forcibly withheld from those who do want them and are made fully aware of what risks and harms seeking them could entail. again, this would still be an authoritarian model; my critique is aimed at increasing patient autonomy, not at creating equally authoritarian and empowered doctors who just have slightly different treatment philosophies.

"dont even get me started on this field’s history of demonizing POC, women, LGBT, etc"

ok, framing this as "demonisation" tells me that you're not understanding that, again, this is a systemic and structural critique. it is certainly true that a great many doctors currently are, and have historically have been, outright racist, trans/misogynist, ableist, and so on. framing this as a problem of a well-intentioned discipline being corrupted by some assholes is getting it backwards. medicine attracts prejudiced people, not to mention strengthens and promotes these prejudices in its entire training and practice infrastructures, because of its underlying philosophical orientation toward enforcing 'normality' as defined by 18th-century statistics and 19th-century human sciences that explicitly place white, cis, able-bodied european men as the normal ideal that everyone else is inferior to or failing to live up to. doctors who really nicely tell you that you're too fat are still using bmi charts that come from the statistical anthropometry of adolphe quételet and the flawed actuarial calculations of metlife insurance. doctors who really nicely deny you access to transition surgery are still operating under a paradigm that gives the practitioner authority over expressions and embodiments of gender. the issue isn't 'demonisation', it's that medicine and psychiatry explicitly attempt to render judgments about who and what is 'normal' and therefore socially 'healthy', and enforce those standards on patients. this is not a promotion of patient well-being, but of social conformity.

"i deeply love my psych rotations so far, and i utterly feel in my gut that this is the manner in which i would like to help people"

let me ask you a few questions. you say that you like your psych rotations... but how do your patients feel about them? is their autonomy protected? are they in treatment by free choice, and free to leave any time they wish? are they treated as human beings with full self-determination? if you witnessed a situation in which a patient was coerced or forced into a certain treatment, or in which you were not sure whether they were consenting with full knowledge or freedom, would you feel empowered to intervene? or would doing so threaten your career by exposing you to anger and retaliation from your higher-ups? what higher-ups will you be exposed to as a resident, and then as a practicing physician? could you practice in a way that committed fully, 100%, to patient autonomy if you were working at someone else's practice, or in a hospital or clinic? could you, according to current medical guidelines, even if you had your own practice?

when you say "this is the manner in which i would like to help people", what do you mean by "this"? can you define your philosophy of treatment, and the relationship and power dynamic you want to have with any future patients? is it one in which you hold authority over them and see yourself as determining what's in their 'best interests', even over their own expressed wishes? have you connected with patient advocates, psych survivors (other than your friends), and radical psychiatrists and anti-psychiatrists who may espouse heterodox treatment philosophies that you could consider? do you think such philosophies are sufficient for protecting patient autonomy and well-being, or are they still models that position the physician's judgment and authority over that of the patient?

"im wondering if there is a way to reconcile these aspects in a way that one can feel morally okay participating within such an imperfect system"

and here is the crux of the problem with this entire ask. you are wondering how to sleep at night, if you are participating in a career you find morally distasteful. where, though, do your patients enter into that equation? do you worry about how they sleep at night, after having interacted with a system of social violence that may very well have traumatised them under the guise of providing help? why does your own guilty conscience worry you more than violations of your patients' bodies, minds, and basic self-determination?

i can't tell you whether your career path is morally acceptable to you. i don't think this type of guilt or self-flagellation is fruitful and i don't think it helps protect patients. i don't, frankly, have a handy roadmap sitting around for creating a new system of medicine and health care that rests on patient autonomy. affective distress is real, and is not something we should have to bear alone or with the risk of having violence inflicted upon us. what you need to ask yourself is: how does the medical model and establishment serve people experiencing such distress? how does it perpetuate violence against them? and how do you see yourself countering, or perpetuating, such violence as someone operating within this discipline? what would it mean to be a 'good' actor within a violent system, if you do indeed believe that such a thing is ontologically possible?

#sorry for LONG ASS POST #psychiatry

714 notes · View notes

nogoodsheepstealing-greatgrandma · 2 years

Text

Daenerys is 14

And she does stay in Slavers Bay and try to rebuild the economy. Source: A Dance With Dragons.

She spends much of the book trying to negotiate new trade deals with the Lhazarene and the Qartheen, trying to plant new olive groves and bean fields, trying to reform the guilds membership so former slaves can earn proper wages as skilled craftsmen. She tries to assimilate with Meereenese culture to ease a peaceful transition of power, she consults with their priestess, she adopts their religious rites and their uncomfortable traditional dress, she agrees under pressure to marry a Meereenese noble (she doesn't force anyone into marriage at dragonpoint like in the show). And she goes out personally to feed and care for the sick and starving refugees at her door, she tries to set up quarantine zones to slow the spread of infection.

And yeah she falls short. But the odds are stacked against her. She's 14, for starters. And before she arrived the slavers burnt all the olive groves and salted the soil so she couldn't use them, and as she calculates it will take 30 years before the land will be truly productive again. She also has the Meereenese slaving class working very hard to sabotage her by funding domestic terrorism within the city. And she has to deal with a refugee crisis, a famine, a plague, and an alliance of pro-Slavery states forming a blockade around Meereen and threatening to siege the city.

True the refugee crisis is arguably due to her leaving Astapor. She set up a new government, but she should have stayed longer to consolidate it. But she is only 14, and her main adviser/parental figure is too busy being a pro-slavery pedophile.

And the fall of Astapor isn't completely on her shoulders. She left adults in charge, people with qualifications and who knew the land and people better than she did. They had political agency and responsibility. As did Cleon. He could have chosen not to overthrow the Council and name himself King. He could have chosen to heed Daenerys when she told him "don't start a war with the Yunkai". And the Yunkai could have chosen not to slaughter Astapor and chase the refugees to Meereen. They could have simply removed Cleon and then recognised Daenerys had no part in his actions. The Yunkai could have chosen not to then declare war on Meereen.

The institution of slavery is complicated to overthrow and complicated to replace and even complicated in the ways it reasserts itself. Daenerys isn't the only actor here who determines the fate of Slavers Bay (though if she unleashes her dragons she can certainly become the most decisive actor again). The entire point of ADWD is that it's much more complicated than that - its GRRM's answer to "what was Aragorn's tax policy?". She is a 14 year old child who does her best against impossible odds, and who explicitly puts any dreams of Westeros on hold indefinitely. Time and time again she is offered the chance and means to sail for Westeros, and she turns it down each time because she knows she can't leave the people of Meereen behind to die.

And hopefully the lesson she learns by the end of ADWD is that she has to stop being conciliatory towards the slaving class. She spares the lives of hostages, she opens the fighting pits for them, she gives up her body in marriage, and still they try to poison her to install Hizdhar as King. Mercy isn't a weakness, but the people who have a vested interest in slavery aren't going to stop just because you ask them nicely (like that garbage show GOT seems to think). She's got to use her dragons.

No, critiquing her failures isn't the same as defending slavery. But claiming that she never tried, and ignoring the odds stacked against her, is false. As for blaming her for Slavers Bay falling into chaos and suffering... First off, again, she isn't the only responsible actor with agency - I maintain that the fall of Astapor was pretty much out of her hands. And second, it ignores the massive scale of human suffering that already gripped slavers bay. The daily violence inflicted on slaves - the families torn apart, the lives destroyed, the children mutilated, the thousands of dead babies killed to initiate the Unsullied, the tortures and crucifixions and whippings and executions and rapes.

Ignoring that isn't that far off from defending slavery. Claiming that the violence that overthrew slavery is worse than the violence that is slavery isn't that far off from defending slavery. Should no one ever dare strike off a slaves chains just because they can't account for the violence that could come after? Is the crucifixion of child-murdering Slavers worse than the crucifixion of innocent children?

Or to bring up another literary scenario with more moral equivalency and ambiguity - was the Tenth plague upon the firstborns of Egypt worse than the mass culling of infant slaves? Who do you blame for the Ten Plagues of Egypt? Should Moses have left well enough alone?

#fandom nonsense #daenerys targaryen #asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #breaker of chains #daenerys defense squad #meereen #daenerys meta #dany meta #dany #dany defence squad #pro daenerys #pro daenerys targaryen #anti got

395 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months

Text

J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?

Firstly, it must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within capitalism is not the same as reformism. Reformism is the idea that reforms within capitalism are enough in themselves and attempts to change the system are impossible (and not desirable). As such all anarchists are against this form of reformism — we think that the system can be (and should be) changed and until that happens any reforms, no matter how essential, will not get to the root of social problems.

In addition, particularly in the old social democratic labour movement, reformism also meant the belief that social reforms could be used to transform capitalism into socialism. In this sense, only Individualist anarchists and Mutualists can be considered reformist as they think their system of mutual banking can reform capitalism into a free system. However, in contrast to Social Democracy, such anarchists think that such reforms cannot come about via government action, but only by people creating their own alternatives and solutions by their own actions:

“But experience testifies and philosophy demonstrates, contrary to that prejudice, that any revolution, to be effective, must be spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of the authorities but from the bowels of the people: that government is reactionary rather than revolutionary: that it could not have any expertise in revolutions, given that society, to which that secret is alone revealed, does not show itself through legislative decree but rather through the spontaneity of its manifestations: that, ultimately, the only connection between government and labour is that labour, in organising itself, has the abrogation of government as its mission.” [Proudhon, No Gods, No Master, vol. 1, p. 52]

So, anarchists oppose reformism because it takes the steam out of revolutionary movements by providing easy, decidedly short-term “solutions” to deep social problems. In this way, reformists can present the public with they’ve done and say “look, all is better now. The system worked.” Trouble is that over time, the problems will only continue to grow because the reforms did not tackle them in the first place. To use Alexander Berkman’s excellent analogy:

“If you should carry out [the reformers’] ideas in your personal life, you would not have a rotten tooth that aches pulled out all at once. You would have it pulled out a little to-day, some more next week, for several months or years, and by then you would be ready to pull it out altogether, so it should not hurt so much. That is the logic of the reformer. Don’t be ‘too hasty,’ don’t pull a bad tooth out all at once.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 64]

Rather than seek to change the root cause of the problems (namely in a hierarchical, oppressive and exploitative system), reformists try to make the symptoms better. In the words of Berkman again:

“Suppose a pipe burst in your house. You can put a bucket under the break to catch the escaping water. You can keep on putting buckets there, but as long as you do not mend the broken pipe, the leakage will continue, no matter how much you may swear about it … until you repair the broken social pipe.” [Op. Cit., pp. 67–8]

What reformism fails to do is fix the underlying root causes of the real problems society faces. Therefore, reformists try to pass laws which reduce the level of pollution rather than work to end a system in which it makes economic sense to pollute. Or they pass laws to improve working conditions and safety while failing to get rid of the wage slavery which creates the bosses whose interests are served by them ignoring those laws and regulations. The list is endless. Ultimately, reformism fails because reformists “believe in good faith that it is possible to eliminate the existing social evils by recognising and respecting, in practice if not in theory, the basic political and economic institutions which are the cause of, as well as the prop that supports these evils.” [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 82]

Revolutionaries, in contrast to reformists, fight both symptoms and the root causes. They recognise that as long as the cause of the evil remains, any attempts to fight the symptoms, however necessary, will never get to the root of the problem. There is no doubt that we have to fight the symptoms, however revolutionaries recognise that this struggle is not an end in itself and should be considered purely as a means of increasing working class strength and social power within society until such time as capitalism and the state (i.e. the root causes of most problems) can be abolished.

Reformists also tend to objectify the people whom they are “helping”: they envision them as helpless, formless masses who need the wisdom and guidance of the “best and the brightest” to lead them to the Promised Land. Reformists mean well, but this is altruism borne of ignorance, which is destructive over the long run. Freedom cannot be given and so any attempt to impose reforms from above cannot help but ensure that people are treated as children, incapable of making their own decisions and, ultimately, dependent on bureaucrats to govern them. This can be seen from public housing. As Colin Ward argues, the “whole tragedy of publicly provided non-profit housing for rent and the evolution of this form of tenure in Britain is that the local authorities have simply taken over, though less flexibly, the role of the landlord, together with all the dependency and resentment that it engenders.” [Housing: An Anarchist Approach, p. 184] This feature of reformism was skilfully used by the right-wing to undermine publicly supported housing and other aspects of the welfare state. The reformist social-democrats reaped what they had sown.

Reformism often amounts to little more than an altruistic contempt for the masses, who are considered as little more than victims who need to be provided for by state. The idea that we may have our own visions of what we want is ignored and replaced by the vision of the reformists who enact legislation for us and make “reforms” from the top-down. Little wonder such reforms can be counter-productive — they cannot grasp the complexity of life and the needs of those subject to them. Reformists effectively say, “don’t do anything, we’ll do it for you.” You can see why anarchists would loathe this sentiment; anarchists are the consummate do-it-yourselfers, and there’s nothing reformists hate more than people who can take care of themselves, who will not let them “help” them.

Reformists may mean well, but they do not grasp the larger picture — by focusing exclusively on narrow aspects of a problem, they choose to believe that is the whole problem. In this wilfully narrow examination of pressing social ills, reformists are, more often than not, counter-productive. The disaster of the urban rebuilding projects in the United States (and similar projects in Britain which moved inter-city working class communities into edge of town developments during the 1950s and 1960s) are an example of reformism at work: upset at the growing slums, reformists supported projects that destroyed the ghettos and built brand-new housing for working class people to live in. They looked nice (initially), but they did nothing to address the problem of poverty and indeed created more problems by breaking up communities and neighbourhoods.

Logically, it makes no sense. Why dance around a problem when you can attack it directly? Reformists dilute social movements, softening and weakening them over time. The AFL-CIO labour unions in the USA, like the ones in Western Europe, killed the labour movement by narrowing and channelling labour activity and taking power from the workers themselves, where it belongs, and placing it the hands of a bureaucracy. The British Labour Party, after over 100 years of reformist practice, has done little more than manage capitalism, seen most of its reforms undermined by right-wing governments (and by the following Labour governments!) and the creation of a leadership of the party (in the shape of New Labour) which was in most ways as right-wing as the Conservative Party (if not more so, as shown once they were in power). Bakunin would not have been surprised.

Also, it is funny to hear left-wing “revolutionaries” and “radicals” put forward the reformist line that the capitalist state can help working people (indeed be used to abolish itself!). Despite the fact that leftists blame the state and capitalism for most of the problems we face, they usually turn to the capitalist state to remedy the situation, not by leaving people alone, but by becoming more involved in people’s lives. They support government housing, government jobs, welfare, government-funded and regulated child care, government-funded drug “treatment,” and other government-centred programmes and activities. If a capitalist (and racist/sexist/authoritarian) government is the problem, how can it be depended upon to change things to the benefit of working class people or other oppressed sections of the population? Surely any reforms passed by the state will not solve the problem? As Malatesta suggested:

“Governments and the privileged classes are naturally always guided by instincts of self-preservation, of consolidation and the development of their powers and privileges; and when they consent to reforms it is either because they consider that they will serve their ends or because they do not feel strong enough to resist, and give in, fearing what might otherwise be a worse alternative.” [Op. Cit., p. 81]

Therefore, reforms gained by direct action are of a different quality and nature than those passed by reformist politicians — these latter will only serve the interests of the ruling class as they do not threaten their privileges while the former have the potential for real change.

This is not to say that Anarchists oppose all state-based reforms nor that we join with the right in seeking to destroy them (or, for that matter, with “left” politicians in seeking to “reform” them, i.e., reduce them). Without a popular social movement creating alternatives to state welfare, so-called “reform” by the state almost always means attacks on the most vulnerable elements in society in the interests of capital. As anarchists are against both state and capitalism, we can oppose such reforms without contradiction while, at the same time, arguing that welfare for the rich should be abolished long before welfare for the many is even thought about. See section J.5.15 for more discussion on the welfare state and anarchist perspectives on it.

Instead of encouraging working class people to organise themselves and create their own alternatives and solutions to their problem (which can supplement, and ultimately replace, whatever welfare state activity which is actually useful), reformists and other radicals urge people to get the state to act for them. However, the state is not the community and so whatever the state does for people you can be sure it will be in its interests, not theirs. As Kropotkin put it:

“We maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which the minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges … the economic and political liberation of man will have to create new forms for its expression in life, instead of those established by the State. “Consequently, the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those constructive powers of the labouring masses of the people which at all great moments of history came forward to accomplish the necessary changes … “This is also why the Anarchists refuse to accept the functions of legislators or servants of the State. We know that the social revolution will not be accomplished by means of laws. Laws only follow the accomplished facts … a law remains a dead letter so long as there are not on the spot the living forces required for making of the tendencies expressed in the law an accomplished fact. “On the other hand … the Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers’ organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, — the State. “Such a struggle … better than any other indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present conditions of work [and life in general], while it opens his [or her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his [or her] thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist and the State.” [Environment and Evolution, pp. 82–3]

Therefore, while seeking reforms, anarchists are against reformism and reformists. Reforms are not seen as an end in themselves but rather a means of changing society from the bottom-up and a step in that direction:

“Each step towards economic freedom, each victory won over Capitalism will be at the same time a step towards political liberty — towards liberation from the yoke of the State … And each step towards taking from the State any one of its powers and attributes will be helping the masses to win a victory over Capitalism.” [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 95]

However, no matter what, anarchists “will never recognise the institutions; we will take or win all possible reforms with the same spirit that one tears occupied territory from the enemy’s grasp in order to keep advancing, and we will always remain enemies of every government.” Therefore, it is “not true to say” that anarchists “are systematically opposed to improvements, to reforms. They oppose the reformists on the one hand because their methods are less effective for securing reforms from government and employers, who only give in through fear, and because very often the reforms they prefer are those which not only bring doubtful immediate benefits, but also serve to consolidate the existing regime and to give the workers a vested interest in its continued existence.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 81 and p. 83]

Only working class people, by our own actions and organisations, getting the state and capital out of the way can produce an improvement in our lives, indeed it is the only thing that will lead to real changes for the better. Encouraging people to rely on themselves instead of the state or capital can lead to self-sufficient, independent, and, hopefully, more rebellious people. Working class people, despite having fewer options in a number of areas in our lives, due both to hierarchy and restrictive laws, still are capable of making choices about our actions, organising our own lives and are responsible for the consequences of our decisions. We are also more than able to determine what is and is not a good reform to existing institutions and do not need politicians informing us what is in our best interests (particularly when it is the right seeking to abolish those parts of the state not geared purely to defending property). To think otherwise is to infantilise us, to consider us less fully human than other people and reproduce the classic capitalist vision of working class people as means of production, to be used, abused, and discarded as required. Such thinking lays the basis for paternalistic interventions in our lives by the state, ensuring our continued dependence and inequality — and the continued existence of capitalism and the state. Ultimately, there are two options:

“The oppressed either ask for and welcome improvements as a benefit graciously conceded, recognise the legitimacy of the power which is over them, and so do more harm than good by helping to slow down, or divert . .. the processes of emancipation. Or instead they demand and impose improvements by their action, and welcome them as partial victories over the class enemy, using them as a spur to greater achievements, and thus a valid help and a preparation to the total overthrow of privilege, that is, for the revolution.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 81]

Reformism encourages the first attitude within people and so ensures the impoverishment of the human spirit. Anarchism encourages the second attitude and so ensures the enrichment of humanity and the possibility of meaningful change. Why think that ordinary people cannot arrange their lives for themselves as well as Government people can arrange it not for themselves but for others?

12 notes · View notes

corvid-corvette-coven · 8 months

Text

Watch me ramble and speculate wildly off the top of my head about TMAGP’s new fear paradigm

VAGUE SPOILERS FOR THE MAGNUS PROTOCOL EP2

the ramblings of a madwoman

The fears have been severely reshuffled in TMP

These fears might have entered TMAGP’s universe recently

Or otherwise haven’t shaped history to the same degree as the TMA universe

The magnus institute still existed though

Which implies the events of Jonah Magnus’s life, barnabus bennett, etc happened

But the magnus institute was not relocated to London, and was in Manchester… which could mean a lot

Maybe

A. The original Jonah Magnus never attempted the watchers crown, or any version thereof, he died a natural death, and the institute continued until that fire (which may or may not have been intentional)

B. Many of the events of TMA did happen the same, with the exception of a lot of the webs spinning and key events around the 70s and 90s when the OIAR or whatever was formed and the magnus institute crumbled.

C. Jonah DID live or some other influences to do with the institute and the eye happened and strands that have not yet revealed themselves will lead us to discovering this OIAR or whatever is some extrapolation of that original mission

I feel like jonah being the villain again is weak sauce tho

the series is yet to reveal its finish line OBVIOUSLY cos only 2 eps are out but there is a puzzle in my mind that is being filled out slowly, and i’m only guessing from these pieces and reasonable expectations of our boy Jonny.

Any of those being said, the way Jon, Martin, and Jonah have entered this world in some form or another, which implies there was an active change made as a result of the apocalypse and the events of MAG200 ( 😭 )

They could have been unwillingly injected into this program, or maybe the program was born when they were, if it’s intentionally nonsensical or otherwise jumbled it might be a creation of some new or old entity

Maybe in this new world smirkes 14 doesn’t apply at all, and whatever otherworldly playdough made those original entities was reformed and remoulded to newer, more apt designs for our modern day, no longer based in ancient cultures and primal motivations.

Self image coupled with flesh based self mutilation and an almost corruptive force that drains the first true joy the victim felt regarding their appearance once they strayed further and further from themselves to achieve an idealised form is ALOT to try to define as a single known entity

They were gifted this beautiful design, and once they were finally at peace with their look, they gained an itch to go further, more and more unnatural, they pursued perfection and paid the price.

Maybe multiple entities may claim a victim,

The tattooist might have been an avatar of a new eye esq entity that takes a more active role?

Then the victim was claimed as by some sort of flesh adjacent entity that contains the unrealised potential of the flesh from TMA originally (more self image and impossible standards than body horror)

#tmagp #tmagp spoilers #tma #tmagp podcast #the magnus archives #fan theories #the magnus protocol #yapping

28 notes · View notes

doomhamster · 4 months

Text

I think honestly the problem with Ulder Ravengard as a character, or rather with fandom's perception of him, is that he gets a QUADRUPLE whammy of "can't do anything right".

Ulder is a parent. Which, in fandom and especially on this site, means people are not only primed to see the mistake he DID make wrt Wyll as unforgivable (and as solely Ulder's fault despite any other factors in the situation, like, you know, manipulative devils) but to believe that since he COULD make such a mistake he must be a bad parent and a bad person overall. Must have been abusive, cold, demanding, you name it.

Ulder is a cop. Which means it doesn't matter that we're told he's spent the past decade since taking command of the Flaming Fist trying to clear up the corruption - he hasn't succeeded, and he should've known it's not worth trying because wanting to reform a corrupt institution is stupid and immoral.

Ulder is a political leader. Which means anything that's wrong in Baldur's Gate is his fault, because he should have fixed it. Even if that would've demanded he install himself as a dictator, keep citizens under unacceptable (and in the setting, frankly impossible) levels of surveillance, and downright thought control at times. (I've seen claims Ulder is to blame for... some people in Baldur's Gate being racist against tieflings? It proves he must be racist himself or he wouldn't "allow" citizens to hold such views? Do you people hear yourselves?)

And of course, finally and most damningly, Ulder is a black man. Which gets him and all his decisions judged more harshly than they'd ever be otherwise - even, a lot of the time, by the same people who are rightfully furious when the rest of fandom does that to Wyll.

#doomie's baldur's gate tag #ulder ravengard

11 notes · View notes

coffeeandstrawberries · 6 months

Text

Since the original post with all editions is getting way too long to reblog, I am making a new one. I would like to address a couple of things brought up by @eypril-eypril:

just because some institutions can be reformed in a positive and meaningful way doesn't mean all institutions can be reformed. institutions are not homogenous. we can have different opinions on this but i don't believe the monarchy is an institution that can be reformed because its too problematic at its core. personally i don't think it's fair to compare the parliament to the monarchy, the parliament is after all the monarchy's successor.

1. "Monarchy can't be reformed because it's too problematic at its core"

It is a very general statement so let's narrow it down to the Swedish monarchy since it makes the most sense in the context of Young Royals.

In 1980 Riksdag adopted changes to Act of Succession of 1810, which established absolute primogeniture, guaranteeing the right of an eldest child to inherite the throne regardless of sex. Thanks to that, one day Crown Princess Victoria will become the first female Swedish monarch in the modern age.

On LGBTQ+ issues the Swedish monarchy came a long way from King Gustav V being blackmailed over his affair with a man in 1950s to King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia having a lunch under rainbow flags in a gay-owned restaurant in 2000 to Crown Princess Victoria making speeches at prides and being voted as Straight Person of the Year by the readership of QX magazine.

Those are two examples of changes brought from outside and from within the monarchy. They are might be not fast enough or not radical enough for some people but those are changes nevertheless. Opinions about the impossibility for the monarchy to be reformed are simply not supported by facts.

2. "Not all institutions can be reformed"

All institutions can be reformed. Absolutely each and every institution can be reformed. What was created by humans can be improved by other humans. All you need is consensus within society on what kind of changes should be brought to a dysfunction institution, political will to implement them, time and resources.

The most needed changes are rarely if ever come from an institution itself. A good example would be the problem of sexual abuse in US military. It was reported to the command for years with no success. It took the media coverage, involvement of Congress, Department of Justice and many other organizations to achieve something.

I appreciate whenever people are trying to make arguments instead of yelling — a rare thing in the fandom. If we could talk more about facts instead of personal beliefs, that would be awesome.

#young royals: context #yr fandom

10 notes · View notes

zyrafowe-sny · 1 year

Note

Gonna go nuts with this (sideblog just fyi is goldenheart-supremacy)

Ask game - 16, 17, 20

Thanks so much for the ask!

General note about headcanons: I very much enjoy hearing other people's takes (and sometimes entertain incompatible ideas of my own). There are so many potential backstories, so many ways the story could continue, and so many ways to develop worldbuilding.

16 - Do you have any headcanons about how Ballister and Ambrosius met?

I like to think Ambrosius witnessed Ballister defending someone (possibly Ambrosius himself - have not yet decided) from a bully or a thief. Ambrosius then told Ballister that he was brave and strong enough to be a knight, and that encouraged Ballister to break into the training grounds. After Ballister was caught, Ambrosius absolutely begged all the influential adults in his life - and he knows quite a few - to let him become a knight. ND Stevenson pointed out that Ballister's sword is an old repurposed Goldenloin sword, so at some point when the queen/the Institute were still deciding what to do with Ballister, Ambrosius was searching his family's armory for the perfect sword for him. Of course, when Ballister officially starts knight training, they become fast friends.

17 - Do you have any headcanons about how Ballister and Ambrosius started dating?

I think Ballister became aware of his romantic feelings first, but didn't want to say anything. Not everyone at the Institute approved of their friendship, and of course he was also well aware of the expectations Ambrosius faced as Gloreth's descendant. He valued their friendship, and didn't want to risk that for an impossible romantic relationship.

I am not immune to the fandom idea that one day Ambrosius became flustered after Ballister knocked him down in training. Maybe Ballister gave him a hand up and they accidentally got a little close. Maybe something subtle in Ballister's body language gave something away about his own feelings. Ambrosius already was Ballister's biggest fan, so he fell hard and fast. He also had to be the one to make the first move and convince Ballister that they could make it work.

I do think that they kept the romantic side of their relationship private before the knighting ceremony. They'd already been best friends for years, so them spending a lot of time together wasn't that suspicious.

20 - What do you think happened to the Institute?

Hah - if I ever manage to finish a WIP I'm working on, I might go into this in more depth. (EDIT: Whoops, I typed more than I expected.)

Generally, I think there'll be a period of debate over whether to try to keep the Institute mostly as-is (with a new Director), reform it, or eliminate it. At first, some people might still be afraid of what's outside the wall. Some people might be afraid of what would happen to public safety inside the wall if the Institute were eliminated. Noble families might not want to lose some of their status/influence, which was highly tied to the Institute.

On the other hand, the Institute was burning through so many resources for a threat that by all appearances wasn't actually real - it might be better to use that money for a better cause (schools, libraries, social programs, etc). Video footage would also show that most of the damage to the city was caused by the Institute, not Nimona. People might not be aware of just how much surveillance is going on - they might not be happy if that comes out. There may already have been some commoners who were critical of the Institute/the political system.

(All of this is also so closely tied to the need for police reform/the defund-the-police movement, at least in the United States.)

I lean towards dissolving the Institute and transforming its pieces into new organizations with better oversight. For instance - former Institute knights could form sports leagues if they want to keep duels/tourneys/etc (and start letting commoners participate). A new organization responsible for public safety would absolutely need to train new commoner recruits (and vet and retrain any interested knights) to deescalate instead of going straight to shooting. It's not actually clear that anyone at the Institute was all that good at crime solving (real police often aren't either). There might be coordinated exploration of what's beyond the wall, which may benefit from some former Institute resources/personnel. Academics could investigate old Institute records.

Peaceful handover of power is generally better than an all-out revolution, so while I definitely expect at least some pushback from the First Families, I think they would eventually concede to changes to the political system and the elimination of the Institute.

Here's the link to the Nimona ask game if anyone wants to send or receive asks!

#thanks for the ask!#ask game #Nimona ask game #nimona #happy to take more questions or send people questions

22 notes · View notes

autonomystic · 8 months

Text

difficult for me to not settle into a totally cynical place about the immediate future of global politics at this juncture. we are in a place where the main two options presented to us in the face of Climate Leviathan (the ongoing transformation of the capitalist state and its approach to "security," emerging from the convergence of climate change, repro-futurist/anti-feminist/racist anxiety about demography and migration, polarized wealth and power, shifts in imperial legitimacy, hegemonic crises like the Palestinian genocide and the pandemic) are:

the typical liberal psychological profile: a kind of Keynesian anxiety about civilizational precarity but a reluctance to try and do anything radical about it - the sort of wishful thinking embodied in the belief that a fundamentally dysfunctional democracy can have its ship righted and put to global benefit through piecemeal, non-radical reforms, and

the reactionary cocktail of reshaping the world into something even crueler through sheer will and out of spite, a death instinct that wants to drag everyone into a deeper and deeper hell for the sake of reigning over it. "the enemy has not ceased to be victorious."

unless something is done about it, beyond yoking ourselves to reformism for its own sake and civil disobedience, the future looks like more social surveillance, more economic dispossession, more alienation, more barbed-wire walls, more drownings and butchery and desperation. it's not immediately obvious to me what that "something" is; figuring that out seems like something that can't be done theoretically but only in communal practice, in a historical moment: "to blast open the continuum of history."

but it doesn't have to be that way - it is possible to make something different even if we don't know how long it might take and what it might take. even if we don't get it together, I doubt the awful circumstances we're observing and that I've described will last forever - but the suffering that is coming doesn't *have to*, it's not an inevitability, it's the product of choices being made every day.

we all need to be political realists now but demand the impossible. we need fortitude now. we need to build unity and solidarity and alternative institutions and where there is no foundation for those things (and there are so many areas where there isn't), we need to make one. start honing your body and your community into war by other means, against the rulers that would see you driven before them.

9 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 1 year

Text

Les révolutions ont du moins l'avantage de hâter l'accomplissement des idées admises, mais dont la mise en pratique est difficile ou audacieuse ; elles hâtent l'éclosion de l'avenir paresseux.

Louis-Auguste Martin, L'esprit moral du XIXe siècle (1855)

The Fifth Republic is the name of France’s current government. It began in 1958, after a coup at the hands of the French military in colonial Algeria convinced officials in Paris to dissolve Parliament. Fearing that the military could extend their control beyond Africa, the government called former general Charles de Gaulle out of retirement to hold the country together, as he did during the post-liberation years of World War II. To do so, he crafted a new constitution. Under this government, the president has substantial power, holds a term of five years (it was originally seven) and, following a change to the constitution in 1962, is directly elected by the French people. (de Gaulle held the position until 1968.)

This system of government differs dramatically from previous republics, which relied on parliamentary rule. In the Fifth Republic, the head-of-state appoints a prime minister to lead the Parliament (which is comprised of a Senate and a National Assembly), controls the armed forces and France’s nuclear arsenal, can dissolve Parliament, and can hold referendums on laws or constitutional changes.

One caveat to the president’s powers is the possibility of “cohabitation,” when the president is from a different political party than the majority of politicians in the parliament. In these cases, the president must choose a prime minister who will be accepted by the parliament, and the two share powers of governing more equitably.

But while the conditions are likely not there to bring about a sixth republic in France, the current crisis could lead to other institutional changes.

Indeed, Macron already tried to amend the constitution during his first term, with a plan to add proportional voting to the parliamentary elections and to reduce the number of MPs.

He tried again after the "Yellow Vests" protest, with a reform that would have made it easier for the parliament and citizens to launch a shared referendum, but the law didn't come to fruition.

Will the Fifth Republic last?

French political commentators and scholars have been trying to answer this question since the Fifth Republic was first founded, and it’s impossible to do more than make educated guesses. Since de Gaulle first wrote out its constitution, there have been 24 revisions of it, which have affected 2/3 of its articles. Subsequent changes to the republic have even increased the president’s clout. A 1962 referendum had the president elected by popular vote, and a 2000 referendum resulted in an alignment of the presidential and parliamentary election calendars – something that has almost always resulted in an absolute majority for the president.

So far the constitution’s flexibility and the force of the past presidents has kept the Fifth afloat. But far left agitator and presidential candidate Jen-Luc Mélenchon has been leading a march for the “sixth republic” and Marine Le Pen talking about radically reshaping France’s domestic policies, there’s no telling what might happen by the time Macron leaves office and a new President is ushered in.

Many believe that a certain regime of politics is coming to an end, of which Emmanuel Macron is the epilogue. It is both the end of a regime in the political-institutional sense – hyper-presidentialism and the weakening of counter-powers – but also the exhaustion of a certain regime of "belief" in politics, i.e., the credit we give to men and institutions. It is a symbolic crisis as much as a legal-political one.

I suspect the Fifth Republic will chug along just fine. There may be a few bits of tinkering but not much. I suspect - much like the debates for Proportional Representation in the UK, politicians of all stripes say one thing but do the opposite one in power - once someone like Marine Le Pen comes into power (she is favoured to win the next presidential elections after Macron steps aside) then I doubt she would voluntarily give up her presidential powers any more than any other politician wanting to exercise power to make policy.

At the heart of these debates of changing the Fifth Republic is the very idea of France itself as it faces changes in its society and the challenges therein. In the mind of General de Gaulle, the French presidential system was intended to reaffirm France's independence and sovereignty in the bipolar world of the Cold War. Never have both appeared so threatened.

The decline of state sovereignty is a global phenomenon at the crossroads of several simultaneous revolutions. The first is the history of capitalism, with the financialisation and globalisation of markets and the new supranational actors that are the multinationals. The second is the institutional history of Europe, with the construction of Europe, which is deconstructing the nation-states of which it is composed. The third is the history of information and communication technologies with the emergence of the GAFA [Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon] and the new authoritarian algorithmic governance that is being imposed on States and citizens. And finally there is the strategic history of Europe with the end of the Cold War and the integration of France into the Western bloc under the aegis of NATO.

Any of these would be challenging for the nation state, but all five at once is enough to make any stable democracy shudder at the foundations.

Photo: President Emmanuel Macron presides over the fête nationale ceremony on the Champs-Elysées, 14 July 2023.

#louis-auguste martin #quote #french revolution #revolution #france #bastille day #fete nationale #champs elysées #paris #president de gaulle #fifth republic #constitution #president macron #macron #politics #democracy #republic

24 notes · View notes

himedanshicult · 24 days

Text

Like everyone else concerned with Palestinian life, I’ve been thinking a lot about what can be done to stop the current genocide. The very notion feels ridiculous given that ruling classes across the world are invested in Palestine’s destruction. That’s no reason to stop, though; it’s actually a fantastic incentive to keep going. Long odds are the upshot of any good politics.

I’m probably not alone in sometimes feeling overwhelmed and pessimistic, but there’s one thing I insist on: we cannot let the genocide kill our imagination. It’s tempting to seek some kind of relief in the shadow of celebrity politicians, but we have to think beyond what is sold to us as pragmatism because Palestinians deserve better than cynicism or dissimulation.

Not everything we do will tangibly affect Palestine’s liberation, but each act should nevertheless be calibrated toward the possibility of Palestine’s liberation. The distinction is critical: the great majority of us cannot directly aid on-the-ground resistance, but we can maintain a sensibility that honors the dignity of Palestine’s national movement. At the very least we have to stop trying to impress the wrong people.

Palestinians inside Gaza are speaking. Palestinians who have escaped Gaza are speaking. Palestinians brutalized in Khalil and Tulkarem are speaking. Palestinian fugitives and prisoners are speaking. Palestinian students with no university to attend are speaking.

Do you hear them invoking the Democratic Party as any kind of solution to the Zionist genocide? Are they begging us to vote harder? To have more dialogue? To improve our careers?

No. You hear them emphasizing freedom, self-respect, defiance, martyrdom, strength, and resilience. They sound nothing like the liberal political class or anyone trying to persuade luminaries of that class to be less genocidal.

Why, then, would anybody concerned with Palestinian life devote energy to the Democratic Party? It’s a rotten institution. It has nothing to do with Palestine’s liberation. Indeed, the Party bears significant responsibility for the current genocide. A lot of moral deception or outright evil is required to shrug off this fact.

I’m not speaking of voting strategy or civic life (topics about which I’ve already said plenty). I’m concerned that a vibrant history of recalcitrance and creativity among diasporic Palestinians is quickly being lost to U.S. exceptionalism.

By tethering Palestine to the electoral circus—even temporarily, even obliquely—we concede that a hostile system the ruling class likes to call “democracy” supersedes Palestine’s liberation. Infiltrating or reforming this “democracy” is damn-near impossible and in the most optimistic scenario it still wouldn’t materially assist Palestine’s liberation. The idea is so unrealistic, so without precedent, that it doesn’t even qualify as magical thinking. It’s better described as messianic ignorance.

The moment we append Palestine to this electoral circus the entire conversation is lost to Israel. I don’t want to reduce the matter to personal intention; some folks are earnest, others are self-serving. Rather, I’m pointing out that when we enter a space in which Palestinians are expendable by design then we will either have to disavow fundamental tenets of Palestine’s national movement or we will ourselves be expended. No amount of pleading will change this reality. It’s like trying to plant a tropical garden in Alaska.

We’re a year into unspeakable brutality, so let’s keep it simple: there is no electoral solution to the problem of Zionist genocide. If anything useful comes about in the United States, then it will be at cross-purposes with all these silly dreams of American redemption.

If you want to talk about Democrats as a better alternative to Trump and polish up the other talking points that arrive in four-year increments, then sure, fine, go for it (although this too is a waste of time). Just don’t use Palestine as a rhetorical device in your capitulation to imperial common wisdom. Declaring that Palestinians face threats greater than actual genocide or that Palestine must remain secondary to domestic issues (as if it isn’t fully domesticated already) is a slovenly argument that only generates embarrassment and ill-will. Embrace your liberalism and be off so those of us who refuse to sacrifice Palestine for access to an inhospitable system can be marginalized in peace.

But remember: nobody in Gaza is expecting American salvation. They don’t dream of an audience with the genocidaire. They dream of life. They dream of justice. They dream of freedom. Each of those dreams is seeded in the gardens of the Eastern Mediterranean.

2 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 2 years

Note

So, not asking this to be down on Biden or his admin, they have legit done some INCREDIBLE things, but because I know I don't have enough understanding or info to judge for myself. With how much of a threat the current SCOTUS is to... everything, what are the reasons Biden hasn't pushed to expand the number of judges to what it could be based on the precedent of the last time it was expanded and then staffed it with progressives, do you think?

I have written many posts about SCOTUS and SCOTUS expansion, which I can't be arsed to go find right now. In short, it does not require a constitutional amendment to expand the court (which would be impossible since iirc constitutional amendments require 2/3 of the Senate to vote in favor, and you'd have a hard time getting one Republican to vote to expand SCOTUS, let alone 17). In 2021, the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand SCOTUS (that page explains the rationale and also has a link to the actual text of the legislation, should you be interested in reading it). The plan is to introduce four new justices to expand the court to 13 seats, to match the 13 federal judicial circuits. The last time it was expanded was in 1869, when there were 9 circuits. You can say, uh, that things have changed.

However, obviously, the Republicans have played a long game to hijack and reshape SCOTUS to do exactly what it's now doing, and the last thing they want is anything that makes it more equitable or takes away that automatic and near-absolute power. As far as they are concerned, SCOTUS is now pretty much perfect, and they would howl bloody murder about any attempts to change it, even when McConnell brazenly cheated in plain sight to force Gorsuch and Barrett onto the bench and Kavanaugh's confirmation was also brimful with shady shit. They don't care about fairness, they care about their power, and as you say, SCOTUS in its current incarnation is basically a perfect system for unaccountable right-wing minority autocratic rule, even as the American electorate continues to reject it in actual democratic institutions. So indeed, why hasn't Biden come out more vocally in favor of court reform?

First, as I have said before, SCOTUS reform is still (for better or worse) regarded as political kryptonite for Democrats, especially a student of American politics like Biden. I have mentioned Franklin D. Roosevelt's brief attempt to expand SCOTUS in 1934, to help with getting the New Deal through, but which went down in flames so badly that all of his successors were leery of trying it again. Biden is, as noted, also a fairly orthodox old-school American politician who believes that American institutions can still (mostly) do the job, and is reluctant to drastically reshape them. I do think he's getting there; he started his term full of pointless platitudes about Bipartisanship and Our Republican Friends, whereas his more recent public rhetoric is basically "fuck those guys, we'll do it ourselves if we have to."

I don't agree with his recalcitrance on aggressively pushing for SCOTUS reform, and I think he should take a firmer stand on it. But at the moment, it's pretty much moot. The Republicans are going to take over the House in January, so there goes any chance of starting new legislative efforts in favor of utterly pointless Hunter Biden cosplay investigations. And even with Warnock's seat in the Senate making a 51-49 Democratic majority, there would have to be filibuster reform to ram SCOTUS expansion through (since as I said, not one single Republican would vote for it). With Joe God-King Manchin and Kyrsten The Traitor Sinema still steadfastly refusing to support any filibuster changes, SCOTUS expansion would die the same death as the rest of Biden's thwarted legislative priorities. (Once again, considering the circumstances he is working with, it is ASTONISHING that he has done as much as he has.)

So basically: SCOTUS reform can be achieved with an act of Congress, but in less than a month, Republicans will hold the House and will inflict all their enraging clown nonsense on us. The Democratic Senate majority is still very thin and saddled with the two worst "Democrats" in existence, though we are in fact no longer obliged to pretend that Sinema is a Democrat. For the next two years, what Biden can do is executive orders and confirm judges. He can maybe cut a deal with the House GOP for minor bills here and there, but there's absolutely zero, zip, nada, zilch chance that SCOTUS expansion could go anywhere before 2024 at least.

So should Biden talk about it more obviously and openly? Maybe, especially if SCOTUS inflicts us with more terrible decisions in 2023, as they are almost bound to do. But at the moment, what Biden can actually, practically do about it is very limited, and about to be even more so. So while I wish he would draw attention to it, I also reluctantly understand that there is, at this point, not much use in harping on a problem that cannot be fixed for another two years at the very least. The Democrats in Congress are very, VERY aware of the problem, and they're the ones who, even in a theoretical blue-wave election in 2024, would have to take the initiative in starting it. So that, overall, is probably more important.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #history #american history

54 notes · View notes

arisawati · 10 months

Text

Amazed by the success of Denny Ja: Inspirational Story that is full of meaning

In the world of art and intellectual, there are figures who are able to inspire us with their work. One of the figures who managed to steal the public's attention was Denny JA. Denny JA is an intellectual, cultural, and politician who has achieved extraordinary success in various fields. The story of his meaningful life journey has inspired many people. Denny JA was born on May 9, 1950 in Kendal, Central Java. In a young age, he has shown his talent in the fields of literature and art. He studied at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia, where he explored the field of sociology. Over time, Denny Ja increasingly hone his abilities in the field of writing and become a respected writer. Denny Ja's success is not only seen in the world of writing, but also in the world of politics. He began his career as a member of the Indonesian Parliament in 1999 and continued to increase his influence as a respected politician. Denny Ja is one of the founders of the PAN Political Party (National Mandate Party) and is also one of the active figures in the reform movement in Indonesia. However, Denny Ja's success is not only limited to the world of politics and authorship. He is also known as the founder and leader of the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), which is one of the leading survey institutions in Indonesia. LSI has made a major contribution in producing accurate data and information about the political and social conditions in Indonesia. The inspirational story of Denny Ja not only lies in his success, but also in his struggle in advancing the world of education in Indonesia. He is actively involved in various activities aimed at improving the quality of education, especially through the institution he founded, namely the Center for Indonesian Young Generation Studies (Pusgiwa). Through Pusgiwa, Denny Ja tries to provide better access to education to the young generation of Indonesia so that they can compete at the global level. Not only in the world of education, Denny Ja is also involved in the environmental protection movement. He is active in environmental organizations such as the Indonesian Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) and fighting for efforts to mitigate climate change. Denny Ja realizes the importance of preserving the environment for human life in the future, and he plays an active role in educating the community about the importance of environmental protection. Seeing Denny Ja's meaningful life journey, many lessons we can take. His success in various fields inspired us to keep trying and never stop learning. He also teaches the importance of involving himself in positive social and political changes, as well as preserving the environment for future generations. The inspirational story of Denny Ja also teaches us that there is no limit for someone to achieve success. Denny Ja is a real example that with determination and hard work, we can achieve dreams and achieve extraordinary success. His high enthusiasm and dedication proves that nothing is impossible if we really try. In facing life challenges, the story of Denny Ja's life journey teaches us not to give up easily. He has faced various obstacles and trials in his life journey, but he never gave up and continued to struggle to achieve his goals.

Check more: Amazed by the success of Denny Ja: Inspirational Story of meaningful

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 10 months

Text

There will be no change of Cabinet ministers before the “rotation” happens in March 2024, Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov told reporters on November 12.

The Denkov government took office in June 2023 on the basis of a deal between We Continue the Change-Democratic Bulgaria and Boiko Borissov’s GERB-UDF that after nine months, the post of Prime Minister will rotate to GERB-UDF’s Maria Gabriel, currently Deputy PM and Foreign Minister.

Recently, Borissov has been publicly criticising some ministers, in particular WCC-DB’s Assen Vassilev, holder of the finance portfolio.

On November 11, Borissov outlined demands for changes to Vassilev’s draft Budget, which has not yet been approved by the Cabinet, with the GERB leader hinting that if WCC-DB does not agree to his party’s demands, it would withdraw its support for the government.

Denkov said that the draft Budget would be tabled in Parliament in its current form and subsequently the MPs would decide what to vote for.

Regarding GERB’s attitude to the “assemblage” – a term being used to describe the de facto majority coalition between GERB-UDF and WCC-DB, Denkov said that he was observing “a transition from pre-election mobilising speeches to post-election psychotherapy”.

“For GERB, the loss of key cities is painful and at the moment there is a process of awareness, acceptance of the results and an attempt to skip to the next stage – Budget, constitutional changes,” he said.

Responding to claims made on November 11 by Borissov, Denkov said in a November 12 interview with Bulgarian National Radio that there was no danger of the Budget exceeding the limits of a three per cent deficit.

Denkov said that statements that there are no funds for the municipalities are false.

“Twelve billion leva is an unprecedented amount for capital expenditure,” he said.

“Mr. Borisov says many things that are not true.”

Denkov said that there were three circumstances under which the Cabinet would fall.

First was a failure to enact judicial reform, second if it became impossible to amend the constitution and if Parliament did not adopt a Budget for the government to implement and third, “if GERB says they don’t want this government”.

Commenting on Movement for Rights and Freedoms parliamentary leader Delyan Peevski, who near-daily makes statements about what he wants the government and other institutions to do, Denkov said: “For me, Delyan Peevski is playing a theatre in which our legislative program is actually implemented, and he is trying to act like a boss. I neither accept that, nor do I care. Nobody from Parliament is my boss”.

Denkov said that a mechanism for decision-making was lacking. Obviously, it is easier for GERB to “hold this position of internal opposition,” Denkov said, adding that this was harmful for GERB itself.

There was a “dose of schizophrenia” in GERB’s attitude towards the government, Denkov said: “There are several names (in the Cabinet) that have been suggested by them. We have accepted them as joint ministers. Pretending that you have nothing to do with this cabinet is firstly untrue and secondly harmful.”

After five months, it is incorrect to ask for an 18-month programme to be completed, he said.

On the upcoming vote of no confidence related to national security and defence, Denkov said that delays of many years in defence policy are being made up at a rapid pace and “in the main this vote of no confidence is baseless”.

Denkov said that he had no problem with the intelligence and security services in general.

“I work well with some of them.”

He said that there was a “very clear reason” why he wanted to change the head of the State Agency for National Security (SANS), whose deputy had allowed himself to cause the whole crisis around the first round of the municipal elections.

A report by the SANS deputy head was key in the chain of events that led to the Central Election Commission (CEC) making the controversial decision to bar machine voting from the October 29 first round of Bulgaria’s municipal elections.

Denkov has requested President Roumen Radev to decree the dismissal of the head of SANS, Plamen Tonchev, but Radev – who appointed Tonchev in 2021 – has signalled that he will refuse to do so.

“Why is Mr. Tonchev so valuable to the president? The whole thesis that I can control the services with this change is absolutely false. The new head of SANS must be agreed with the president. I cannot be in charge of this service and the leader is not trusted. I expect the president to sign this request.”

Denkov said that the CEC had violated the Electoral Code and the Supreme Administrative Court then had to remedy the situation. He was referring to the court’s decision on October 30 opening the way for the use of machine voting in the second round of the local elections.

“It is not my job, given that the CEC is elected by the National Assembly, to want the CEC to be replaced. The CEC broke the law, resulted in us having over 500 000 invalid ballots. They are responsible for that,” he said.

#nunyas news

1 note · View note

dailyanarchistposts · 5 months

Text

A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?

While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind of state, the differences between individualists and social anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.

The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now (and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists’ use of direct action to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they seek to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by means of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual banks and co-operatives). In this way a general “social liquidation” would be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by expropriation.

Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism. Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist). Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists and revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However, as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.

The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the abolition of rent, interest and profits — “usury,” to use the individualist anarchists’ preferred term for this unholy trinity). In effect, both schools follow Proudhon’s classic work What is Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property). Thus property “will lose a certain attribute which sanctifies it now. The absolute ownership of it — ‘the right to use or abuse’ — will be abolished, and possession, use, will be the only title. It will be seen how impossible it would be for one person to ‘own’ a million acres of land, without a title deed, backed by a government ready to protect the title at all hazards.” [Lucy Parsons, Freedom, Equality & Solidarity, p. 33

However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to create them. Thus “your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people.” “Actual use,” continues Berkman, “will be considered the only title — not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency … Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

This system would be based on workers’ self-management of their work and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because “in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent, when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of industry is untenable.” Given this, it is impossible to “estimate the share of each in the riches which all contribute to amass” and, moreover, the “common possession of the instruments of labour must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the fruits of common labour.” [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 45 and p. 46] By this social anarchists simply mean that the social product which is produced by all would be available to all and each individual who has contributed productively to society can take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is a moot point, as we discuss in section I.2.2). Some social anarchists, like mutualists for example, are against such a system of libertarian (or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will see “Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere” and “the wage system abolished” whether by “equal and just exchange” (like Proudhon) or by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 281]

In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies that this system of use-rights should include the product of the workers labour. Instead of social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a more market based system in which workers would possess their own means of production and exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers. They argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. Rather, by means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the market to create and protect their economic and social power (market discipline for the working class, state aid for the ruling class in other words). These state created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs and patents) and state enforcement of capitalist property rights are the source of economic inequality and exploitation. With the abolition of government, real free competition would result and ensure the end of capitalism and capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker’s essay State Socialism and Anarchism for an excellent summary of this argument).

The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land) are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire. However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an “occupancy and use” system. If the means of production, say land, is not in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others for use. They think this system, called mutualism, will result in workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a regime of “occupancy and use” cannot be squared with wage labour. If a workplace needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the group who use it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in fact, used by more than that person then, obviously, “occupancy and use” is violated. Equally, if an owner employs others to use the workplace then the boss can appropriate the product of the workers’ labour, so violating the maxim that labour should receive its full product. Thus the principles of individualist anarchism point to anti-capitalist conclusions (see section G.3).

This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom (including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner puts this position well when he argues that “Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity … [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are based on property and so authority (see the section “Characteristics of communism and of property” in What is Property?). Thus the Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the individual’s freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively eliminate workers’ control as “society” would tell workers what to produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced with that of “society.”

Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that Stirner’s and Proudhon’s comments are totally correct — but only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, “before and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such a shape as to fully account for Proudhon’s distrust as to its effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever had to go through such a communism.” [Act for Yourselves, p. 98] Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon’s and Stirner’s remarks cannot be considered as being directed against it as they could not be familiar with it.

Rather than subject the individual to the community, social anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish all individual “property,” communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin arguing against forms of communism that “desire to manage the community after the model of a family … [to live] all in the same house and … thus forced to continuously meet the same ‘brethren and sisters’ … [it is] a fundamental error to impose on all the ‘great family’ instead of trying, on the contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual.” [Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8–9] The aim of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place “the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home.” [The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought, p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and so individuality — both in consumption and in production, as social anarchists are firm supporters of workers’ self-management.

Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather use community to defend individuality. Rather than have “society” control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual expression:

“Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests — individual liberty — and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis — economic liberty — without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding — god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her] independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, ‘No society is free so long as the individual is not so! …’” [Op. Cit., pp. 14–15]

In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves, this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread, p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104–5 as well as Malatesta’s Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles or the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions are rooted in the “use rights” system both are based in (see section I.6.2 for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all anarchists agree with Bakunin:

“Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200]

If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social anarchists support the right of individuals not to join a commune while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others, social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism in the name of “liberty.” Anarchists do not respect the “freedom” to be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:

“No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination … But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of others.” [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]

Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When one’s bargaining power is weaker than another then any “free exchange” will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious as those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be affected.

Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into capitalism. If, as seems likely, the “unsuccessful” competitors are forced into unemployment they may have to sell their labour to the “successful” in order to survive. This would create authoritarian social relationships and the domination of the few over the many via “free contracts.” The enforcement of such contracts (and others like them), in all likelihood, “opens … the way for reconstituting under the heading of ‘defence’ all the functions of the State.” [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 297]

Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all schools of abstract individualism — in particular, the acceptance of authoritarian social relations as an expression of “liberty.” This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and “the assumption of authority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries.” [Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also has authority over a given area (the property in question) and all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the same social relationships as that created by the state, as it comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given area and those who use it).

Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in nature. “The individualists,” argued Malatesta, “give the greatest importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation.” [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection. Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.

Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but statist implications, because “the school of Benjamin Tucker — by virtue of their individualism — accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer’s ‘freedom.’ All this school of so-called Individualists accept … the necessity of the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition of anarchism is no government.” [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 8] It is partly for this reason social anarchists support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual liberty.

Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be “got round” by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of many of Tucker’s economic ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require more than one worker. This naturally complements their support for “occupancy and use” for land, which would effectively abolish landlords. Without co-operatives, workers will be exploited for “it is well enough to talk of [the worker] buying hand tools, or small machinery which can be moved about; but what about the gigantic machinery necessary to the operation of a mine, or a mill? It requires many to work it. If one owns it, will he not make the others pay tribute for using it?” This is because “no man would employ another to work for him unless he could get more for his product than he had to pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course of exchange and re-exchange would be that the man having received less than the full amount.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Why I am an Anarchist”, Exquisite Rebel, p. 61 and p. 60] Only when the people who use a resource own it can individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority or exploitation (i.e. statism/capitalism). Only when an industry is co-operatively owned, can the workers ensure that they govern themselves during work and can get the full value of the goods they make once they are sold.

This solution is the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to accept and the only one consistent with all their declared principles (as well as anarchism). This can be seen when French individualist E. Armand argued that the key difference between his school of anarchism and communist-anarchism is that as well as seeing “ownership of the consumer goods representing an extension of [the worker’s] personality” it also “regards ownership of the means of production and free disposal of his produce as the quintessential guarantee of the autonomy of the individual. The understanding is that such ownership boils down to the chance to deploy (as individuals, couples, family groups, etc.) the requisite plot of soil or machinery of production to meet the requirements of the social unit, provided that the proprietor does not transfer it to someone else or reply upon the services of someone else in operating it.” Thus the individualist anarchist could “defend himself against … the exploitation of anyone by one of his neighbours who will set him to work in his employ and for his benefit” and “greed, which is to say the opportunity for an individual, couple or family group to own more than strictly required for their normal upkeep.” [“Mini-Manual of the Anarchist Individualist”, pp. 145–9, Anarchism, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 147 and pp. 147–8]

The ideas of the American individualist anarchists logically flow to the same conclusions. “Occupancy and Use” automatically excludes wage labour and so exploitation and oppression. As Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, the US Individualist anarchists “expected a society of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between any of them.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] It is this vision of a self-employed society that logically flows from their principles which ensures that their ideas are truly anarchist. As it is, their belief that their system would ensure the elimination of profit, rent and interest place them squarely in the anti-capitalist camp alongside social anarchists.

Needless to say, social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism, arguing that there are undesirable features of even non-capitalist markets which would undermine freedom and equality. Moreover, the development of industry has resulted in natural barriers of entry into markets and this not only makes it almost impossible to abolish capitalism by competing against it, it also makes the possibility of recreating usury in new forms likely. Combine this with the difficulty in determining the exact contribution of each worker to a product in a modern economy and you see why social anarchists argue that the only real solution to capitalism is to ensure community ownership and management of the economy. It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist economy which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism in favour of communalising, and so decentralising, production by freely associated and co-operative labour on a large-scale rather than just in the workplace.

For more discussion on the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, and why social anarchists reject them, see section G — “Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?”

13 notes · View notes