“The Coming Insurrection,” : To be or not to be?

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

Jacob Richter wrote:
In response to your last sentence (and briefly): isn't that the point of political and social revolutions?

Re. your first paragraph: Spontaneism is actually a form of utopianism (literally: "going nowhere").  Despite Snert's politics, spontaneism on the left is indeed the apocalyptic notion that the masses will rise up in the end times, so there's no need to organize today.  Sorry, but I don't agree with the authors' quasi-Luxemburgist ****.  There's no real link between the structured organization of the pre-war SPD (Lenin's party model, in fact) and its vote for war credits.

Yes, it literally does go nowhere while operating within the existing structures, because the glass ceiling can never be adjusted more than inches above the floor in relation to the wholesale problems that beg solutions.  That is the point exactly, in that there is no point in becoming an operative of change when one derives satisfaction and complacency in achieving that which is handed down after a protracted campaign of whining at the leg of the table.  Gratefully, we consume the generosity bestowed from above, satisfied with our achievement until the aroma of necessity stirs us once again from the accustomed place in the corner, where we usually find satisfaction in reminiscence, and with our own tongues.

ennir

I think each generation produces a few who find the society they inhabit dehumanizing and they resist it.  In recent times it has been the beatniks, hippies, punks, and hip hop but even going back to Waldon Pond and the transcendentalists we can find voices that say there is another possiblity for human life.  And there are many, many other voices historically that challenged the stats quo.

What struck me was their , The Invisibles, recognition that any movement that develops into a system is open to corruption and the appropriate response to that is to create small groups which never become systems.

I don't think this is something my generation recognized, I came at the tail end of the hippies with all the back to the land dreams of self-suffiency that went with it.  We bought into the idea of changing things by participating and now the back to the land movement has become a huge organic industry controlled by those in the process of changing the standards to meet their production needs.  Of course there are those on the land now who still exemplify that and bravo to them but they are not the majority.  That is just one example of how every effort for positive change becomes a marketable commodity and thereby disempowers it.

I think they go amiss when they advocate violence, I think it is more important to devote one's energy to building not destroying.

Slumberjack

Violence is the means through which we remain imprisoned within the manufactured fallacies.  We've been brought into the dominant notion that containment of self-defence against the extreme obscenities of patriarchal violence is necessary for the survival of all.  What would we do without them and their powers to make everything right on our behalf, those genocidal conquerors of everything.  The same patriarchy and it's artificial society, begrudgingly updated with the times, has been a constant enticement with every passage of modern human existence, controlling and permitting development only so long as it serves to create further opportunity for itself at the expense of the planet and its people.  It is a system inexorably geared towards oblivion as opposed to a grand design of mutual extinction, similar to the analogy of a snake which instinctively knows no other way but to constrict its means of survival in order to remain alive, with no remorse or pity regardless of the death throes underway within it's coil, which only draws the pressure even tighter to ensure total control.  Devoting energy toward building social structures for the sake of human survival involves a struggle against daunting challenges and barriers, where permissible success only addresses the immediate requirements, in hand to mouth fashion.  Truly meaningful endeavours that do not require the stamp of approval are met with a broad range of creative responses, up to and including annihilation.  Any movement which seeks to merely co-exist until such a time as other hopeful developments take hold in the broader context, such as the flowers, beads and communal agrarian pursuits of yesteryear, are appropriated and devoured so that the original ideals become unrecognizable within its gullet.  The authors of this screed are not seeking to rejuvenate the failures and complacency of the past and present.  They seek the absolute destruction of capitalism and it's chameleon variants as the last remaining solution.

remind remind's picture

ennir wrote:
I think they go amiss when they advocate violence, I think it is more important to devote one's energy to building not destroying.

I do not think violence = destroying is always the case. Destroying can occur, without violence, and indeed the destruction of old foundations in some cases has to occur before new ones can be built.

ennir

Good point.

NDPP

Canada's Military Units to Undertake "Domestic Security"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12694

"The Canadian military is reorganizing its priorities to suit a "post-911 world", by creating reservist units for each area of the country that would be tasked with providing "domestic security" and involve roles such as the mass internment of citizens"

 

Slumberjack

Restructuring of the reserves has been contemplated and tinkered with for years, well before 9/11.  The reality of the costs involved in creating a reserve force that is capable of responding in near real time to domestic national emergencies has up to this point prohibited the implementation of the various organizational models.  At present, much of the domestic reserve capacity and planning is focused on Op Podium, which is the military term for support to the 2010 Olympics.  With the end of that domestic mission, and the supposed winding down of the Afghanistan debacle in 2011, perhaps then the plans for reserve restructure will be dusted off and re-considered.  You know what they say about idle hands.

WillC

You failed to put in the completion which totally changes the meaning. It reads: "as the mass internment of citizens in the event of a terrorist attack."

That puts a quite different slant on it. Even those paranoid rightists have no so lost a grip on reality that they expect a popular uprising. 50 Anarchists stealing books from a bookstore don't threaten anyone.

 

 

Gabriel Sinduda

Slumberjack wrote:

Violence is the means through which we remain imprisoned within the manufactured fallacies.  We've been brought into the dominant notion that containment of self-defence against the extreme obscenities of patriarchal violence is necessary for the survival of all.  What would we do without them and their powers to make everything right on our behalf, those genocidal conquerors of everything.  The same patriarchy and it's artificial society, begrudgingly updated with the times, has been a constant enticement with every passage of modern human existence, controlling and permitting development only so long as it serves to create further opportunity for itself at the expense of the planet and its people.  It is a system inexorably geared towards oblivion as opposed to a grand design of mutual extinction, similar to the analogy of a snake which instinctively knows no other way but to constrict its means of survival in order to remain alive, with no remorse or pity regardless of the death throes underway within it's coil, which only draws the pressure even tighter to ensure total control.  Devoting energy toward building social structures for the sake of human survival involves a struggle against daunting challenges and barriers, where permissible success only addresses the immediate requirements, in hand to mouth fashion.  Truly meaningful endeavours that do not require the stamp of approval are met with a broad range of creative responses, up to and including annihilation.  Any movement which seeks to merely co-exist until such a time as other hopeful developments take hold in the broader context, such as the flowers, beads and communal agrarian pursuits of yesteryear, are appropriated and devoured so that the original ideals become unrecognizable within its gullet.  The authors of this screed are not seeking to rejuvenate the failures and complacency of the past and present.  They seek the absolute destruction of capitalism and it's chameleon variants as the last remaining solution.

 

well put.

B9sus4 B9sus4's picture

Hmm. We had an insurrection in Manitoba.. and they slaughtered us. Then we had an insurrection in Saskatchewan.. and they slaughtered us. Then we had an insurrection in Alberta.. and they slaughtered us.

Metis folks got a different take on the whole business than many other folks do, I guess. Gettin' slaughtered only goes so far before there ain't enough of you left to slaughter. Then the whole thing takes on a somewhat less than optimistic flavour. The "glory" of being dead is based on having others left to celebrate you. No good if there's nobody left but some bones.

Oh, and I should have put quotes around "insurrection". It was invasions every time. But I'm sure they called it insurrections.

Today they would call us "insurgents". Instead of slaughtering us with cannons and gatling guns they'd send drones. And the usual pimpled rednecks with swastikas tattooed on their chest.

(Notice I didn't say "pimpled rednecks from Ontario". I'm gettin' to be a polite old man, inspite of myself.)

B9sus4 B9sus4's picture

Oh yeah. And opium is the opium of the masses.

I heard that somewhere.

Pages