albert productions

6

Albert Clock by Axel Schindlbeck

The Albert alarm clock is a design, that is supposed to keep you thinking and get kids involved in mathematics. The clock can be set to four different levels of complexity for the calculation of time. Albert and its designer Axel Schindlbeck have been nominated for the Designpreis Halle 2017 (in Germany) this year.

87/100

Mi buen humor brilla por su ausencia.

He estado tooooodo el día con mates. En serio.

Me he hecho esto porque como mi bujo está todavía recuperándose del duchazo que se dio el otro día, necesito un lugar para ir apuntando las cosas. (los poemas del lunes son de Chris Pueyo, de “Aquí dentro siempre llueve”)

Me han quedado bien, a lo mejor los subo como segundo imprimible.

¿Qué tal vuestro lunes? ¿Cómo lleváis los exámenes?

My Fist, Your Mouth, Her Scars — Bullet For My Valentine

there’s no more ways to kill you

A new FlashPoint idea

This popped into my head while reading @misscrazyfangirl321‘s post on Julian Albert.

Julian is a product of Flashpoint. Alchemy and Savitar wouldn’t exist without Flashpoint. If Barry undid Flashpoint as he’d intended way back at the beginning of the season, neither Julian nor Savitar would exist.

And then it takes me back to another theory about when Jay stopped Barry from going back to undo Flashpoint. Back then, I was thinking it was NOT Jay who did it. My headcanon was that Eobard had somehow gotten hold of HR’s facial transmogrifier and masqueraded as Jay. I even ficced it.

Now, though, I’m thinking the same scenario with different players. What if Savitar!Barry was the one doing the masquerade, so good!Barry wouldn’t wipe Savitar!Barry out of existence?

Economically speaking, capitalism becomes oppressive through the phenomenon of accumulation. It is oppressive through being what it is, it accumulates in order to increase what it is, to exploit it all the more, and accordingly to accumulate still more. At that moment accumulation would be necessary only to a very small extent in order to guarantee social benefits. But the revolution, in its turn, becomes industrialized and realizes that, when accumulation is an attribute of technology itself, and not of capitalism, the machine finally conjures up the machine. Every form of collectivity, fighting for survival, is forced to accumulate instead of distributing its revenues. It accumulates in order to increase in size and increase in power. Whether bourgeois or socialist, it postpones justice for a later date, in the interests of power alone…It arms and rearms because others are arming and rearming. It does not stop accumulating and will never cease to do so until the day when perhaps it will reign alone on earth…Such is the economic law governing a world that lives by the cult of production.
—  Albert Camus, The Rebel

isaacsilvaofficial-blog  asked:

Can you describe an anarcho-communist world for me and an anarcho-individualist world. How would say an anarchist island defend themselves from an island with a government that has weapons and an army.

The main difference between communist anarchism and anarcho-individualism is the sharper systematic nature of the first one.

Anarcho-communism (aka Libertarian socialism) combines the individualistic striving for freedom to that towards social equality that characterize socialism.

Libertarian socialism seeks political freedom (self-management of workers, federalism, direct democracy) and communism, according to the aphorism of Louis Blanc “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, by positing economic freedom starting from needs of individuals (for areas, municipalities, for districts, business and various other federative means), to organize production to meet the (identified or estimated) needs without other limitation than the capabilities and demands of the interested parties (who have their own desires and ability to share and participate).
Despite the interdependence of all human beings within the social collective group, individual freedom is safeguarded by the fact that everyone is acting voluntarily (unlike Marxist socialism where political or economic centralization, the state, continues to invade the sphere of the individuals).

Anarchist communists believe that everyone deserves a home, the ability to move freely and that there must be no differences of possession or social hierarchy but all mankind should possess and enjoy any existing wealth on earth. The distribution of wealth could be made by direct and democratic popular planning (as in parecon), by the gift economy, or through barter.

Although there isn’t only one type of anarchist individualism, individualists are generally opposed to any form of social revolution, as we know it, and to all forms of aggregation that goes beyond the individual.

Despite the individualist tendency to claim acts of individual violence, individual take back, propaganda by the deed and criticism of organization (these anarchist-individualist trends included French insurrectional illegalism and Italian anti-organizing), gives more weight to the single entity rather the community, libertarian individualism should not be confused with ultra liberalism (also known as anarcho-capitalism).

“Individualist anarchism is clearly a unsophisticated form of socialism (a rural form of anarchism linked, especially in the U.S. to the self-employment of farmers)… while communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are industrial (or proletarian) forms of socialism.”

As regards economic issues, there are different positions. There are those joining mutualism (Proudhon, Emile Armand, the first Benjamin Tucker), egoists who despise the “ghosts”, such as private property and markets (Stirner, John Henry Mackay, Lev Chernyi, the last Tucker, Oscar Wilde), and those favorable to a collectivization of the means of production (Albert Libertad, the illegalists, Renzo Novatore). The anarchist historian George Woodcock sees in individualist anarchism the trend of a “lack of confidence of all co-operation, more than the bare minimum for an ascetic life.”

Godwin was utilitarian: he did not believe that all individuals were of equal value, as some of us “have more value and importance than others depending on our utility in bringing the social good.” Therefore he did not believe in equal rights, but the life of the most important person was the leading one, since it is favorable to the general good. Godwin was opposed to the government, because it violated the right of the “private judgment” of the individual in determining which actions maximize most gain.

The only apparent exception to this objection to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. The reason why he was opposed to cooperation, it is because he believed that it would interfere with the ability of an individual to obtain the greater good. Godwin opposed the idea of government, but wrote that a minimum state was a “necessary evil” and that it would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. He always expressly opposed democracy, fearing the oppression of the individual by the majority (although he believed that it was preferable to dictatorship).

Godwin supported individual ownership of property, defining it, in the book Enquiry, as “the empire to which every person has the right to produce by its activity.” However, he also argued that people would give to each other, from their own property, a surplus that could on occasion be useful to others, without involving the trade (ie the gift economy). So, while people had the right to private property, they are also enlightened altruists. However, benevolence was not to be applied socially, as it was a matter of individual freedom or “private judgment.” He did not support a market of goods or to assert collective ownership as is embraced in communism; his conviction was that individuals had to share with who was influential in the later development of anarchist society (but only on a voluntary, individual basis, and under judgment of the individual).

Proudhon endorsed the right of individuals to maintain the product of their work as their property, but believed that any property owned by others who had not produced it (as the capitalists), was illegitimate. Thus, he saw private property as essential to individual freedom but also a road to tyranny: the first called “possession” is the result of personal work, the second called “property” it’s reached when it comes to exploitation (profits, interest, rent, fees).

He supported workers associations to replace wage labor and (although he was against communism) opposed the ownership of land. Therefore he proposed an economic system that included individual possession (instead of private property) and an exchange economy (market) without profit called mutualism.

Mutualism is based on a theory of value in which when you sell your work or the product of your work, you should receive, in return, goods or services that incorporate “the amount of work needed to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility”. Proudhon envisioned a society in which each person could own a means of production, individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. An integral part of this scheme was the creation of a mutual bank credit, which gave producers a minimum rate of interest, in order to cover only the costs of administration.

The Mutualists generally oppose the idea that individuals could receive an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe that these individuals are not working.
For Proudhon it is necessary to establish an association between the workers because without this, we would be divided into subordinates and superiors, or two castes of masters and wage earners, and thus it makes it necessary for the workers, to organize into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, in order to not falling back into the feudalism.

Stirner’s philosophy, sometimes called “Egoism”, is the most extreme form of individualist anarchism. Stirner wanted to “abolish not only the state but also the society as an entity for its members. Stirner backed up self affirmation and the Unions of egoists, or associations that were not systematic and would replace the State. A Union is understood as a relationship between egoists, that is constantly renewed with the agreement of all the parties through an act of will. Even murder is admissible “if it’s right for me,” since egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.

Stirner was opposed to communism, seen as a form of authority over the individual. In contrast to socialism Stirner believed that property is derived simply from the force: “Who knows how to take to defend the thing, to him belongs property.” And again: “What I have in my power, it’s mine. As long as I assert myself as holder, I am the owner of the thing.” His concept of “selfish property”, not only lacked of moral restraint on how to get and use things, but also included other people. According to the German philosopher, “greed, in its fullest sense, is the only possible basis of a communist society.”

In finding a compromise between absolute freedom (impractical) and determined freedom (which is not true freedom), Stirner choose individual freedom because freedom can only be absolute; if it’s not absolute but limited by institutions, it wouldn’t be freedom anymore, therefore one must not try to limit it.

Josiah Warren proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange notes in the time shops for local goods that had the same amount of time in the production.

Thoreau defended simple life, such as the refusal against a materialistic way of life; self-sufficiency, was one of the main objectives, and the whole project was inspired by transcendentalist philosophy. Many have seen in Thoreau one of the precursors of ecology and anarcho-primitivism and according to George Woodcock this attitude may also be motivated by a certain idea of resistance to progress and rejection of materialist growth, which was in the nature of American society in the mid 19th century.

Joseph Labadie, American unionist and individualist anarchist, developed a non-violent version of individualism. Without the oppression of the state, Labadie believed that man would choose to harmonize with the great natural laws without stealing his fellow for interest, profit, rent and in order to pay taxes. However approving individualism, he supported community cooperation, as the community control of water services, roads and railways.

Federico Urales was critical of influential individualist thinkers as Nietzsche and Stirner that promoted an asocial and selfish individualism. Urales promoted, instead, individualism solidarity, seen as a way to ensure social equality and harmony. It was also very critical towards anarcho-syndicalism, which he saw as plagued by excessive bureaucracy and tending towards reformism. Instead, he favored small groups on the basis of an ideological alignment; he supported and participated in the creation of the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI).

Oscar Wilde defended socialism as a way to ensure individualism: “With the abolition of private property we have, therefore, a real, beautiful and healthy individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things and symbols of things. He will just live. “To live is the rarest thing in the world. most people exist, that’s all.”

Other basic concepts of individualist anarchists are free thought (not depending on anyone but your own authority); sexual freedom (Émile Armand proposed the concept of camaraderie amoureuse to express free love: the possibility of voluntary sexual encounters between consenting adults); anticlericalism (make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on spiritual matters); naturism (that promotes a ecological world view, with small eco-villages and nudism as a way to avoid the artificiality of mass industrial society and modernity, considering the individual in its biological, physical and psychological nature, and trying to eliminate social constructions).

To illustrate the difference between individualism and anarchist communism we can tell a funny episode, a incident occurred to the anarchist communist Malatesta.

As reported by the anarchist historian George Woodcock, Errico Malatesta was involved “in a dispute with the individualist anarchists of Paterson, who had insisted that anarchism implied no organization at all, and that every man had to act exclusively on its impulses. Suddenly, as the debate was heated, the individual impulse of Giuseppe Ciancabilla ordered them to shoot Malatesta. Malatesta was seriously wounded, but stubbornly refused to name his assailant.

Renzo Novatore, the individualistic counterpart of Malatesta stated that: “The masses that seem to worship Errico Malatesta are cowardly and impotent. The government and the bourgeoisie know this and sneer. We know that a hundred men - worthy of the name - could do what five hundred thousand organized men are not and will never be able to do.”

He declared: «Individualism as I feel it, understand it and mean it, it does not have as end neither socialism nor communism, nor humanity. Individualism has an end in itself.»

References:

http://ienaridensnexus.blogspot.it/2012/05/lanarchismo-individualista-prima-parte.html

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Individualist_anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renzo_Novatore

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Max_Stirner

http://individualistanarchism.blogspot.it/

“But sometimes it takes more courage to live than to shoot yourself.”

— from A Happy Death by Albert Camus

/

also available in the series:

The Plague
Exile and the Kingdom
The Fall
The Stranger

3

I thought I might start off with what happened in my life yesterday! I intern at an art gallery, and it’s been so so fun getting to visit all these different galleries and museums; yesterday was the Albert Oehlen exhibit! It was this interesting blend between pixellation and expressionist strokes creating a controlled chaos that were his pieces. 

I apologize for my awfully drawn spiraldex. I’m planning on creating a sticker template so no sad circles would occur.