Yeah I mean I don't actually consider myself
a reformist (in some circles that's even a fairly pejorative term), but I tend towards
being interested in the creation of revolutionary change in the present. The autonomous
spaces movement is one I think that embraces this kind of approach, even if some of its
incarnations have been insular or exclusive or even mirrored the oppressive behaviors of
society at large (some of the back to the land movements in particular).
The Black Panthers free breakfast program is a good example of a theory of change that
places revolutionary radical change within the framework of creating a better now. I think
that example might also illuminate which groups might be less likely to want catastrophic
change, considering their communities might be among the most hard hit.
Max
On December 12, 2015 8:49:59 AM PST, Benny Lichtner <bennlich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Max, I guess the counter argument would be
something like, if you don't
allow everything to crash and burn, then you're eternally stuck in a
struggle to move an immovable object (I.e. To reform the existing
socioeconomic system). I guess the fundamental disagreement is whether
or
not meaningful incremental change is possible? Does that sound like the
right characterization?
Interesting to think about what experiences cause people to wind up in
one
camp or another.
--Benny
On Friday, December 11, 2015, max b <maxb.personal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Q: So, we should just let it crash and burn down,
pick up the pieces
and
> start over?
> A: Yes, with the focus on the big war on this extreme capitalism. I
> couldn’t vote, but I was hoping Sarah Palin won last time in the US
> elections. I’m hoping Donald Trump wins this year’s election. For
the
> reason that it will fuck up that country so
much faster then if a
less bad
> President wins. Our whole world is just so
focused on money, money,
money.
> That’s the biggest problem. That’s why
everything fucks up. That’s
the
> target we have to fix. We need to make sure
that we are going to get
a
> different focus in life.
> Hopefully technology will give us robots that will take away all the
> jobs, which will cause like a massive worldwide unemployment;
somewhat like
> 60 percent. People will be so unhappy. That
would be great, because
then
> you can finally see capitalism crashing so
hard. There is going to
be a lot
> of fear, lost blood, and lost lives to get to
that point, but I
think
> that’s the only positive thing I see, that we
are going to have a
total
> system collapse in the future. Hopefully as
quick as possible. I
would
> rather be 50 then be like 85 when the system
is crashing.
I've encountered similar arguments to this throughout anarchist and
other
leftist cultural political groups and I always
find them so deaf to
the
realities of people throughout the world.
It's the leftist version of
"let
them eat cake". I doubt that many arab
american muslims would share
this
view. It's all fine and well to encourage an
apocalyptic economic and
political crash when you think that your chances of surviving it are
good,
but tell the person receiving SNAP or TANF or
living in section 8
housing
that you want politicians to be elected who want
to cut those
programs.
Tell women that you want politicians to be
elected who will appoint
supreme
court justices likely to reverse roe v wade. Tell
the person whose
family
is in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or Yemen or
Syria or Lebanon or
Palestine
or Pakistan that you want a politician to be
elected who will
escalate
bombing and military actions in those countries.
Tell the person
whose
parents are undocumented that you want a
politician to be elected who
has
publicly advocated for a separation wall between
the US and Mexico
and has
dog-whistled on countless occasions referring to
immigrants from
mexico,
central and south america as rapists.
I don't think that things are working out well for the globe (and for
the
internet) and I agree that rapacious capitalism
is one of the primary
forces of misery and hardship and pain across the world. Peter
Sunde's
analysis, while gloomy and lacking in any real
solutions, is pretty
spot
on. But to suggest that the only way forwards is
to embrace an
inevitable
catastrophe that will disproportionately affect
the already
disempowered,
disenfranchised, and oppressed is to give up on
humanity. If people
like
Peter Sunde welcome the apocalypse in this way,
they will certainly
not be
looked kindly upon by survivors who
disproportionately saw their
friends,
family, and loved ones perish in the
revolutionary fires. We all have
a
duty - even when we feel the most gloom, when we
want to watch the
world
burn - to suppress those more desperate feelings
and emotions,
imagine the
world as a better place, and build the future we
believe in.
Which is not even to mention that the logic of the argument is just
unsound. Trump's most recognizable historical predecessors are the
opportunists in the nazi party who seized upon themes of economic
populism
and xenophobia to build the most terrifying right
wing military
government
known to history. His election does not logically
lead to a
revolution in
which things get better. It may be one possible
outcome, but it's one
of
many, most of which lead to a future, the dismal
nature of which we
can
only begin to comprehend.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mitar@tnode.com');>> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> A great read:
>
>
>
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-i-have-give…
>>
>>
>> Mitar
>>
>> --
>>
http://mitar.tnode.com/
>>
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesh mailing list
>> mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mesh@lists.sudoroom.org');>
>>
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
>>
>
>