Moving left: Part 2

The comment that we won't know what we are missing for some time -- may be made more powerful when you consider the aboriginal experience. The didn't know what they were missing until the forces against them were unbeatable. Then they did know and have spent many years fighting for what is theirs and losing even against a state that peaked in terms of democracy. Now that it is sliding away for everyone how do you suppose they will continue to make progress over a longer term? And how can the rest of us expect to fare much better-- especially once we get to the point where the illusion of control by the people becomes impossible and no longer required?

Environmentally and socially we seem to be on the same track. Moving towards a tipping point after which there is no return (if we have not already passed it). For a time revolution was not that difficult-- states required huge numbers of cooperative people to function. New technology provides the state many more low labour options for controlling a population. In the name of terrorism and crime prevention we have massive new methods for the state and large corporations (who seem to be trending towards merging) to control, and monitor what we are doing. The fact that the Liberal party of Canada is proposing legislation presently that not only allows the acceptance of technology in private hands to spy on you, it allows those technologies to alter the configuration of your computer -- to remove and change software. Think about this: apart from the obvious inability to avoid hacking of such a system, this is a substantial control over the individual. And it is not foolproof- how powerful do you want that blue screen of death to get?

Sure, this technology could catch a child porn distributor-- maybe even a few hours faster than a convention police investigation might--something many might support, or even a wicked downloader fewer would support that, but what about other possibilities? A direct enforcement of a monopoly-- say Microsoft signs an agreement with the government-- they could back it up with removal of competing software. What about a decision that dissenters should not be able to access the internet? What about a decision -- for national security of course-- to remove certain information off of all computers-- information that might embarrass the government-- or a corporation friendly to the government. With the internet at the centre of most communications, the level of state/corporate control is staggering once it takes control of that area.

We are already seeing the lines between business and government and political parties being blurred and this is happening quickly-- the Conservative logos on cheques is not the big story it would have been only a decade earlier. What is the next stage? How about when the Conservative party becomes even more directly involved in business interests and there are no lines left between the government and a political party? Then the people who sell you what you need will have direct rather than armslength control over the government. What kind of revolution would be able to overturn this? In a world where they can drop a smart bomb down your chimney do we want government to be handed over to corporations completely?

Sure, I am laying out one path-- a scary one-- but what is there stopping us from going down this road once the democratic insitutions are so thoroughly co-opted and freedoms considered secondary to some secret person's secret decision about our secret security needs?

So I return to the idea of revolution -- for the sake of revolution, a prospect I find scary. We, who have little by way of power may imagine that a revolution would bring us more democracy or something better. Revolutions often do not end up that way. With all the power being handed over to private companies-- imagine this internet power grab again. We are supposed to trust the corporation (anyone paying any attention over the last couple years can see the risk in that) -- trust it to like all the power it has. What if it does not? What if it finds that the good folks in the Conservative Party are not shoveling the money and the power fast enough their way? So then with this massive tool/weapon against our computers-- our communications-- what if that revolution comes from the right? What if it, instead of bringing us a better balance removes what we have left? What if it overturns the ever more redundant structure of power that lies between us and the corporate power the Cons cozy up to? What happens when the boys in the backrooms decide they no longer need someone like Harper to run the country for them when they can do it more directly?

I hope you are not implying that you think I am suggesting we have no options but to remain here. I am not. But to imply that the journey is not loaded with risk-- of betrayal is reckless.

When I warn about revolution I am warning that this too can be coopted. This is why revolution as a concept is only useful in so far as the goals are clear and agreed and we understand the difference between process and purpose. Otherwise the next revolution will be brought to you by Shell Canada or Pepsico etc. And it will leave us worse than before.

It is not limiting to require revolutionaries to articulate the post revolutionary landscape. It is the only way of knowing, in a post Orwellian world that we are revolving in the right direction.

I am not defending the patriarchal thinking but I am warning against under-estimating its ability to look like the real thing when it isn't. I referred to Che Guevara shirts in the previous thread-- lets not forget that many, no doubt, have been made by child labour and sold to us by big nasty corporations.

Watch it.  That guy advocates unity on a very non-worker basis.  He puts the "industrial proletariat" and the mid-level managers against each other, which is correct, but whatever happened to an pan-class coalition of the "industrial proletariat," service workers, office workers, and the "working poor" - leaving out his fetish for the "middle class"?

Ah yes, the reality of condition.  

remind wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Canada is so large and so blessed with natural wealth that it will be a long time before Canadians miss what's been stolen from under their feet.

Frankly, I find this comment problematic.

First off, I will indicate that Canada's natural wealth is NOT in fact "Canadians".

Just because one is in possession of stolen goods, does not mean one owns it. Thus complaining over something that was stolen, being stolen, is pretty difficult mental gymnastics. And indicates a huge dvide in solidarity with First Nations gaining what is rightfully theirs.

Going with Puerto Rician meme, I will note, that the Spanish, in their colonialism endeavours, became the dominent culture there, squeezing out the indigenous population as identifable in their own right. Only to later find themselves, in their new homeland, being "colonialized" too.

So for me this, all goes back to the divide and conquer strategies of the "elite'. Those who do not belong to that select group, are pitted against one another, in order for the elite to consolidate their power and control over the masses. Divisions along whatever lines works and it is the only way the masses can be kept in check. There is no consolidated effort against those exploiting the masses and the earth itself, people are too taken up with their manufactured divisions to mount a movement against it.

Take for example patriarchy, a manufactured division along gender lines, in order to silence and marginalize 50% of said masses. But given that  there is only one division to overcome, if divergence is created  solely along gender lines, many more divisions are created  along the lines of race, religion, regional location, age, income, education, plus many others, in order to prevent solidarity building between the masses and thus stops mobilization against the destuctive forces of ruling elite.

Divide and conquer, is a proven successful strategy, throughout the ages. Therefore it becomes incumbent up the masses, to seek unity in a united goal, by rejecting those created divisions in order to work towards unified actions against those rushing to destroy the planet and the majority of it's peoples.

If anyone believes they will become part of the "elite", and thus are willing to exploit others themselves, in order to elevate themselves into what they believe is a higher position, they are dead wrong.

Do you believe that the mines, the forests, etc belong to aboriginals in perpetuity?

I do support the legal protection that exist now and should exist now, but that is due to the overall sociological situation.

In general I find the concept of a group "owning" land to be regressive, and I hope one day it disappears from the lexicon, and when it's taught to children in history books they'll be confused and have a hard time understanding.

You once wrote on babble - I'm pretty sure it was you - that Canada is one of the few countries on Earth that has the ecological capacity to take on more population, and this was in the context of immigration policy. Would you leave that capacity untapped?

500_Apples wrote:

I don't get the Tshirt - what's the reference to the yard mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ-FAV9fBII

500 apples,

From the Urban Dictionary
____________________

"brings all the boys to the yard"

a colloquialism that indicates the irresistibility of something and as such people will come to experience it.
(...)