|
Unsung Forum » Psychedelic Revolution |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 13:18
|
||
|
Supporting the need for violence in the abstract doesnt mean supporting every actof pseudo-politcal violence. The prick with the fire extinguisher was a fucking prick, end of. Violence should, must, only be used when there is no alternative. But it is woefully naive, imho, to think that that situation will not, does not, crop up even in a 'democracy' like Britain. Just take a look at the history of Ireland and the 'brits' actions there. Or even there actions against (mainly) peaceful demonstrations such as the Poll Tax or last years anti-cuts demos. If it is acceptable to use violence in Homs, when and where else does it become acceptable? We shouldnt - indeed we would be idiotic to - jump imeediately into 'insurectionary acts to spark the revolution' (which was what the RAF & John Brown did), but we must never forget that they will never, ever ever ever, give up their power of their own free will. If we want to achieve a fundamental change in society, it will take education, patience, discipline, love, AND, sadly, probably, violence. IanB wrote: The goal is to engender thoughtfulness. The goal IS debate. Would you be any more impressed if they dressed up as a cross between the MC5 and something out of The Warriors? Sorry mate, but it isnt. Their official ostensible goal is to change the financial system, it is for a Robin Hood tax and several other small changes. They havent achieved that. Thre greatest achievement (and its not a bad one at all!) has been to greatly embarass the church. Which is great, but not their ambition. As for dress sense, well, half of them do look like they've come out of the Warriors already! And the modern International Brigade? Actually their have been quite a few, apparently. But they get thrown into Gitmo if anyone finds out.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 15, 2012, 13:19
Feb 15, 2012, 13:19
|
||
Yep, yep, and they're onto that in UK Occupy with the 'School of ideas' and the 'free university'.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 13:20
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: I heard it as "board hawk". No, I've no idea either. Thats how I'm heaing it now! Bored hawk? Bored whore? War hawk?
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 13:22
|
||
|
necropolist wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: I heard it as "board hawk". No, I've no idea either. Thats how I'm heaing it now! Bored hawk? Bored whore? War hawk? "Board hawk" as in war-monger on the board of a corporation?
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 13:23
|
||
hmm, maybe. Bit odd even for our Jules if so....
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 15, 2012, 13:29
Feb 15, 2012, 13:27
|
||
oh and no slight on Yoga, I see what it does for people, notably Anna. Its just it gives the media and those on the outside another way of going 'oh.. its just 'those'' people'. IYKWIM. Isolationism is the currency of control in our current system, empathy and identification are the only weapons against it.
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Feb 15, 2012, 17:44
Feb 15, 2012, 13:35
|
||
|
necropolist wrote: Supporting the need for violence in the abstract doesnt mean supporting every actof pseudo-politcal violence. The prick with the fire extinguisher was a fucking prick, end of. Violence should, must, only be used when there is no alternative. But it is woefully naive, imho, to think that that situation will not, does not, crop up even in a 'democracy' like Britain. Just take a look at the history of Ireland and the 'brits' actions there. Or even there actions against (mainly) peaceful demonstrations such as the Poll Tax or last years anti-cuts demos. The example of Northern Ireland is not a good example either, to that of the UK mainland. Being Irish, I have a good knowledge of Ireland's complicated history, but in short, as we know, since the 12th century onwards, Ireland has been routinely colonised by England, it's native citizens and their culture despised and repressed. One obvious example is that of how it was seized for its economic importance due to its agrarian infrastructure, and importance that resulted in continued food exportation druring the Great Famine, food that could have saved the lives of countless thousands. In short, genocide. Before partition, Ireland had to endure centuries of brutal repression and as well as developing an enduring sense of injustice, it also developed a distinct loss of esteem and self worth. After partition, as we know, a religious apartheid was put in place and upheld for decades by the British, hence the appaling violence on both sides during the Troubles, as a result of deep and complex socio-political roots going back hundreds of years. The 'English' part of the UK psyche has no understanding or concept of this, and as unjust as it may be, that is the prevailing collective psyche of the UK mainland, existant in the central power structure, and this is reflected in the media and is generally accepted in England. As for our own Civil War, the resulting split in communities and families and the violence that ensued had unshakeable roots in religious belief and a sense of that combined with duty and allegiance, whichever side you took. Obviuosly, that particular context could never apply again.
|
|||
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 13:37
|
||
|
stray wrote: It is extremely difficult to raise any kind of flag to rally people around in our western democracies, I completely appreciate that. People like cope who are co-opting revolutionary symbolism and effectively cashing in on (or proving their right on credentials) the current mood within the alternative sections of society really aren't helping anyoone except themselves. They are not raising a flag that anyone could rally around, they are not producing strategies or tactics, they're just wailing and protecting their own self image imo. But this is not a problem unique to today. Revolutionary movements in Western Europe since the mid-sixties seem always to suffer because the most vocal, or those with the most brilliant eye catching events (or attrocities) seem with foresight to be about protecting or projecting their own self image. Baader Meinhoff - self publicists/mythologisers or revolutionaries. Often their activities seemed to make change less likely. I often think that the problem is with the concept of "the masses". The biggest problem being that they do not exist, usually shorthand for people I do not know who do not share my insights or social group. Even when a group claims to be for the masses they are not of the masses. Self esteem and a desire to have an indulgence which makes one part of the solutuion and not the problem appears to be the prime concern of the most succesful or infamous.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 15, 2012, 14:21
Feb 15, 2012, 13:57
|
||
|
Robot Emperor wrote: I often think that the problem is with the concept of "the masses". The biggest problem being that they do not exist, usually shorthand for people I do not know who do not share my insights or social group. Even when a group claims to be for the masses they are not of the masses. Self esteem and a desire to have an indulgence which makes one part of the solutuion and not the problem appears to be the prime concern of the most succesful or infamous. Yes, I feel its also important to slap down that old Marxist slogan that 'Leaders naturally emerge during times of struggle'. The reality is opportunists usally do as you point out. However, as I said in my reply to Squid Isolationism is the currency of control in this current system and empathy and identification are the only weapons to fight it. I'm not pointing fingers here but your reply is taking the isolationist stance, playing the game. Problem is its hard to nigh on impossible to not be isolationist or to simply take a 'me and them' approach. This is not some amazing insight I know, its something we all know and is why anarchist ideas are finding more traction (as they seem to combat this with the strong 'no leaders' stance of some of its forms). But, they become cliques, etc, etc, identity politics groups that draw each other in closer just to defend themselves from the outside, from the 'them'. They end up manufacturing their own 'situation of abandonment' whereby the state and the current system can ignore them, they disempower themselves by being isolationist. Whereas at the same time they have to be Isolationist in order to get anything done at all. Its fucked, yeah, and I don't have any answers at all. We just end up marking time hoping that something, some issue or event, will create a masive upsurge among the wider population. Cos building to create a mass movement seems impossible. In relation to the 60's I'm with Chris Marker who argues quite well that the revolution (such as if there actually was one) died in 67 and all we witnessed in 68 was just the bowling ball finally hitting the pins. The arm was swung in 67 and the body attached to that arm died once it released the ball. I dunno.. we just need to focus energies on this problem of isolationism, spend some time trying to widen the general conciousness. Yep, I'm sounding like a hippy here, which is very unlike me. Maybe Spivaks ideas of Strategic Essentialism can grow from one single issue group into another, and then another. so as to create some large assemblage that generates widespread change rather than just another easily identifiable (and therefore self-isolating) 'movement'.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Feb 15, 2012, 14:07
|
||
|
Homeopathy works ! - has done for me, and some friends and loved ones. :-)
|
| Pages: 27 – [ Previous | 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
