Friday, September 5, 2014

Infantile Anarchism

Getting the world that we want is going to be a struggle. This should go without saying. It's going to mean a struggle between those who have, those who think they're happy in the present circumstances, and those who are unhappy with the system - many of whom are also those who are have-nots. It's going to mean weak people going up against strong people. In this day and age it's going to be unarmed civilians going up against a militarized state.

We have two options (that I know of ) for this struggle.

1) My proposal is that we work with the system we have. We work with the system that evolved, slowly, painfully, over centuries. We work with the system whereby our rulers claim their legitimacy to rule over us and we force them to abide by the letter of their own laws or else openly renounce their legitimacy.

2) We  call for the total rejection of this system. We mock the centuries of struggle to win political, legal and social equality as human rights. We hold out for some vague, undefined mass refusal by "everyone" and the total revolution that will follow which will inevitably produce a much better society than the one we have now. (We incorporate the desperate protests in places like Ferguson Missouri or rural New Brunswick where First Nations are trying to stop "fracking" on their lands, as signs of this coming show-down. We completely ignore that these desperate people with their backs to the wall often get their asses kicked, and often don't win anything substantial. Sometimes they're not even capable of mitigating the latest atrocities being committed against them.)

This is what I found so infuriating about that pompous cretin "slumberjack" at "EnMasse." The dangerously deluded, childish nature of his/her radicalism, never dawned on him/her. We have gigantic problems on this planet that needed attending to a decade ago, and this idiot seriously believes that we have all the time in the world to wait for an undefined revolution that will never come. I've read a little bit about anarchism over the years. If there is some deeper, clearer, more coherent vision underneath it all, it eludes me. "Slumberjack" was asked repeatedly to clarify his/her yammerings and charmingly answered me with insults. I suspect the emptiness of his/her intellectual construct was revealing itself and "slumberjack" masked his/her terror with lies and denials.


greg said...

Okay, work within the system. But doesn't that mean we keep the Liberal party and try to get better local people to run. The local riding association can vet the person themselves. Have a local meeting.

Possible questions:

How many cats do you have? Do you love Israel? How much do you love Israel? If you had to choose between Israel and you cats?

thwap said...

Oh god, no I'm not talking about ACCEPTING things.

I'm talking about seeing the radical potential in one-person, one-vote. In genuine freedom of expression and other human rights.

If we insisted that our elites respect ALL of the human rights of ALL of us, and mobilized society behind true social justice, and then DARED the elites to spit on their own system, AFTER we had prepared the masses for such an eventuality ....

Well, it should go without saying that the potential of THAT surpasses whatever vague notions are orbiting the craniums of people like "slumberjack."

Boris said...

It's all rather 3nd year undergrad, the level of radicalism you're describing. Between this nonsense, and the identity politics Dawg has described recently (and I've encountered in one form or another), its a divided, self-referential, and ultimately isolated left. Bluntly the big revolution they're all hoping for is not going to going happen when a great mass of people discover Marx was right or suddenly massively collectively recognise and 'check' privilege, or so on. The kind of change they want is slow, incremental, isn't necessarily defined by reference to the narrow range of theory and jargon they are used to using.

Still, you might consider that you're dealing with persons deeply disturbed by the injustices they see in the world, who've looked for alternatives, found something and swore blinding loyalty to it because it was there and it wasn't the thing they loathe.

thwap said...


Good points.

With regards to your concluding caution, I actually recognized this person's abilities and convictions.

During my bitter backs=n=forths, I made mention of it from time to time. To receive nothing in return.

And, finally, when, after having been asked about ten times to put forward something concrete, and to only receive some crap about "listening to the people instead of imposing narratives on them", ... i can only conclude that this person is more of a narcissistic punk than a revolutionary.

greg said...

Okay, another stupid question which I've caught little bits and pieces of over time:

The people (especially in the states) who want the government off their backs. Why aren't they screaming about government surveillance? I read some of a magazine article where libertarians were against it. I'm unsure what those numbers are.

Are regular republicans split on what they consider good government. Maybe most are okay with a huge military and security budget as long as they think it's Muslims who are the target. I mean Reagan (I think) said that government should not be in the bedrooms of America. ..... Maybe things get twisted over time.
Update: It was raining earlier and now it's cloudy and humid. Back to you Bob.

thwap said...

T'was Trudeau, as Justice Minister, who said that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

Both the Repugs and the Democrats are disgusting hypocrites when it comes to the violations of their Constitutional rights.

But Jon Stewart has a great/terrifying expose of Repug hypocrisy right here:

(Apologies for the uploaders' crappy video quality.)

greg said...

Thanks very much.