Tabarzin

:-)

I do not disagree with you. We are on the same page here, even regarding Chomsky. I have an Anarchist friend in the UK who has highlighted Chomsky's ties to the establishment and his spouting of the establishment's narratives. But this is the Chomsky of the present and the past 15 years. The Chomsky of the 1960s to early 1980s - especially the Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent - is another Chomsky altogether.

Haqiqat

God Knows I hate -ism: that dangling hook of differentiated thought that presumes the incapacity of the Human heart to ascertain the way of Love, attaching itself to this or that moniker so that it may hide the undifferentiated lust for Power of its varied hued proponents and adherents.

Here is a bit of Haq for you: 

//www.roytov.com/articles/kibbutz.htm  

btw, Ayatollah Chomsky reminds me of a frog I once saw.  Needless to say I kissed neither one, but did wonder as to the where and why of the subtle support for such frogs by the establishment.

...

We really should do something on Fanon, it's long overdue. You're the man. Good night.

Ok

But if they launch any unprovoked, below the belt attacks my way anywhere during that time, then all bets are off...

And how are you so confident that the regime is only a few months away from final extinction (insha'Llah)?

...

I have pissed on every single organized religion I 've seen in my life. It's just that attacking a minority (albeit a mainstream, crunchy capitalist one) while it has been the target of the state, juss doesn't look good. What's the big deal about cooling it off for a few months? Just wait till we get rid of these a..holes, I'll even help you with your website. It might not be a bad idea to focus all or most of our attention and energy on the main enemy: IR, that's all.

P.S. I never thought I would confess to this, but I agree with almost 90% of your criticism of that community (you call'em much, much worse, I know). It's just the way you talk to them, reminds me of some of my cousins. It's so sad, stupid, yet so familiar, you don't know to laugh or cry!

P.S.S. On the American side of things Russel Jacoby and his Social Amnesia, after all these years is still relevant

Russell Jacoby

//www.springerlink.com/content/n44164542011l5...

Straight up...

No poetry or inferences, please. Honestly explain your reasons, and I will. Are you a Baha'i?

پیش من جز سخن شمع و شکر هیچ مگو

//www.shamlou.org/index.php?q=quotes/1&page=1

Why

Is this so important to you? I will if you truthfully and in detail explain the reasons.

...

Now that we're on nicey, nicey terms I'm going to ask you for a little favour. And that's to refrain from attacking Bahais for at lesat a few months, two months? four months? six months? Consider it a sort of a cease-fire, if you will. I doesn't mean you forgive them, or forget all your baggage. It just means a temporary halt, as a favour to a new friend. Many thanks in advance. Ya Hagh.

American social theory

Is third rate, 100% agreed! Richard Rorty was the only exceptionable critical theorist/philosopher America has produced in the past several decades. Chomsky is not really a philosopher, more a social critic repeating other people's perspectives. Everyone else is also operating out of a discipline and basically repeating what folks have developed over in Europe. Lefebvre is great too!

See, we have more in common than you realize, just differ on certain fundamental details and perspectives about things. I am not a fundamentalist. I detest these people and their straitjacketed thinking about the world. My religiosity is completely informed by this kind of postmodern thinking and few other things. Fundamentalists want me dead for what I actually believe! 

Compared to Continental philosophers, American social-theory

looks pretty weak. I leave you with Henri Lefebvre, another great one: especially his works on construction of the space, and autonomous actions within those spaces, as it relates to modern urban settings.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Lefebvre

Guy Debord rocks!

His Report on the Construction of Situations (which was his situationist pamphlet/manifesto) is an outstanding piece of cultural criticism. That said, of all the French critical theorists, Paul Ricoeur (although not a lefty) stands on a league of his own as does his major influence, the German Hans Georg-Gadamer, whose Truth and Method is one of the monumental texts of 20th century Continental Philosophy.

The Society of the Spectacle & the Sitautionists

The Society of the Spectacle (La Société du spectacle) is a work of philosophy and critical theory by Guy Debord. It was first published in 1967 in France.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Sp...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationism_%28art%2...

P.S. Bourdieu is probably the most outstanding sociologist of the world in late 20th, early 21st century, hands down. His essay on Delgation and Political Fetishism deals directly with 'anarchist' theories as well.

Bourdieu

Is interesting. I have only looked at his books on Algeria and the Political Ontology of Heidegger so I can't comment too much about him. His discussion of collective narcissism definitely applies to the Anglo-European mileu of our times, especially the US/European media.

Delegation and Political Fetishism

//www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/delegation-and-pol...

Thesis Eleven February 1985 10-11: 56-70,

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu

//www.anthropology.ir/node/636

I don't underestimate him

I just believe he has his analytical limitations. His typology of praxis is spot-on, but even here this typology of praxis has been developed way beyond Marcuse by more recent contributions. Also don't underestimate Reich.

Origins of Totalitaiansim is the most significant of all these

books. In the sense that not only it deals with questions of imperialsim and its origins (see David Harvey's use and take on that), it also locates the origins , the birth moment of Totalitarianism in the modern European Anti-Semitism (anti jewish more specifically). 

You're seriously underestiamtign Marcuse and the extent and scope of his theoratical contributions, not to mention the Praxis.

It is not a bad book...

All of these Frankfurt school characters have their blindness and  idiosyncrasies, especially Herbert Marcuse. But the Authoritarian Personality is not a bad book. It has its limitations, yet is it ok. The Authoritarian Personality needs to be read, in my opinion, together with Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism and Wilhelm Reich's Mass Psychology of Fascism.

"Authoritarian Personality" the book is a failed

attempt and superimposition of German's fear of Hitler onto the world. Adorno and Horkheimer wrote two books on fascist and authoritarian psychology, and almost everyone agreed that they had just elevated German conditions to the entire western landscape.

On the other hand, Marcuse is distinguished at least in two very important aspects:

Not only in his Praxis and avoidance of academic ivory towers (Adorno, Horkheimaer, Habermas,...) and involvement with protest movements.

But also the scope of his studies, and how he incorporates his early Hideggrian influences into his later works. Me  leaves you with a short quote from Marcuse's introduction to Franz Neuman's The Democratic and the Authoritarian State.

" In his last years, he tried to find the answer to the terrible question: why human freedom and happiness declined at the stage of mature civilization, when the objective conditions for their realization were greater than ever before."

Marcus' response to Freud: Eros and Civilization, needs a blog by itself.

Good book...

This is better: Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (Studies in Prejudice).

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality

One-Dimensional Man

One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society is a book written by philosopher Herbert Marcuse, first published in 1964.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

Thanks for the reference

While we're throwing around recommendations here, allow me to cite you Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia.

انار چیست؟

انار میوه ای است بسار مفید که ترگُل است و مملو از انرژی و ویتامین و مواد حیاتی! این را که دگر هر بچه دبستانی میداند و اینقدر مجادله لازم ندارد!!!

I actually tranlate it to Persian

Civilization and Its Discontent, Mirza's Narrative, that's all you need to know.

Deep down in me anarchic self, me meant to say: fallacy this. But, I restrained meself.

Fallacy

When there is substance in any argument you present, attention will be paid, because so far you have not demonstrated anything to me. And where psychoanalysis is concerned, given the malice oozing out of every last one of your posts, you can probably use a healthy dose yourself.

...

No shit Sherlock! Bakunin has serious problems. So do you, if you know what I mean.

I was trying to find a couple of paragraphs from Mirza on Freud's take on Civilization and Its Discontent, can't find it, right now, trying to finish a typing. But, put in a nutshell all these anarchist, spontaneous movements are what Zigmund discusses. So, instead of all this pretentious academic mamo-jombo, for once in you life pay attention to the substance, GOHAR, of the discussion and see what you could learn from psycho-analysis. Have a feeling in you case it  might come in handy.

Bakunin's

Notion of order is somewhat contradictory, I agree. He argues from a not well-thought out position of natural law/natural order (that order can be discovered in nature) but then in many places seems to offer a quasi-collectivism (predicated on a social contract of sorts) on how a communitarian society will function when constituting itself.

Bakunin, other than his critique and arguments with Marx, is not the best example of an Anarchist political theorist. There are huge problems with him, I agree.

Anarchian.com

We all know that Bakunin declared himself a strong supporter of order. How's that possible? According to Camus, "He who says 'No' says 'Yes' by affirming values beyond the boundary. I, personally, have mixed feelings about some of those post-enlightment atheists who tried to stretch natural laws into the realm of social science...................

Good and long-overdue blog

Best documented example of Anarchism is...

The Paris commune of 1871.

The present system in Iran has throughout every one of its developmental stages been nothing but a system of pure demagoguery or a demagoguery of unmitigated violence. There is no feature in it that can compare with what political Anarchism is proposing because the IRI has throughout held to a form of collectivism that Anarchism from Proudhon and Bakunin to Robert Nozick, Noam Chomsky, Sheehan and co., etc, have eschewed.

Btw as Chomsky shows, we don't have one overarching theory of Anarchism. At least not yet.

Anarchism: as the spontaneous flow of life, and life's enrgy

as defined by poets and writers: YES.

Anarchism: as an inefficient system with no coherent prospect in sight: NO.

Successful examples of Anarchism: Spanish Civil War and the cities, factories and farms run by the anarchists.

Worst exapmles of Anarchism: Islamic Republic of Hell, with Anarchism disguised as Shoyokh Ol Masajedi.(1)

------------------------------------

1- In Iran,  historically what we have had was a system of Molok Ol Tavaeifi, meaning each Tayiefeh had thier own melk, terrirtory. In IR  this Molok Ol Tavaeifi change to Shoyokh Ol Masajedi. Each mollah (Shaykh!) rules from a Masjid, and hence the power structure of IR!!!