Is rebellion possible?

rah rah rah

"rah rah rah" = me sending up myself for switching into daft slogan mode towards the end

I've started thinking of this as a variant of Peaches Syndrome. Peaches Syndrome is what those people have who are obsessed with sex and assume everyone else is equally obsessed with sex but are just too repressed to say or do anything about it, so they try to shock or tittilate or grab attention with their brazen sexuality as if they're doing what you're too bound up in societal repression to do -- when in reality you're just not as obsessed with sex as they are.

http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badassbuddy_com-slowburner.gif

i've been worrying lately that by the time my daughter grows up there will be no mode of rebellion left that won't have been co-opted or made to seem ridiculous. which was already starting to be an issue when i was a teen but it seemed like art still had the capacity to shock or make some kind of small difference at least.

She could take down the surveillance state.

There's always Jihadism

i feel like even back in the '50s 'rebellious' stuff was often about how everything was so fake there was nothing left to rebel against (i.e. brando going 'whaddya got?')

there is, and probably will be, a lot of room for rebellion when it comes to shunning technology, ie 2013 cool marlon brando "doesn't even have a facebook account"

cell phone? you can only reach him by fax

The idea that adolescent rebellion has somehow become meaningless or impossible just strikes me as strange. Just repeat after me:

"I hate my parents and/or society. They're all so (insert scornful adjective)."

There. It's a wrap.

i've been worrying lately that by the time my daughter grows up there will be no mode of rebellion left that won't have been co-opted or made to seem ridiculous. which was already starting to be an issue when i was a teen but it seemed like art still had the capacity to shock or make some kind of small difference at least.

― congratulations (n/a), Monday, June 10, 2013 1:36 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the mere fact that you, as her parent, are "worried" she will have no mode for rebellion kind of hilariously illustrates how dead rebellion is.

i didn't really mean social rebellion (against parents/norms/etc), was thinking more about political rebellion - like what is she going to do when the government does something she thinks is wrong? what can she do that will make a difference or an impact? but i might be filtering this through my own feelings of inadequacy about not knowing what to do now about things the government does that i think are wrong

i think this is a genuine/legit worry for our future. or rather our present. i'm tempted to say that popular pressure can make for small victories. but that isn't always true (i live in wisconsin FWIW, and all the protests have made nary a dent in the GOP's plan to turn the state into a fully privatized plutocracy) and small victories can seem like no victories at all when you take the full sweep of political change into view.

i think people assumed that n/a was referring to rebellion-as-lifestyle i.e. Punk© but he's not.

"like what is she going to do when the government does something she thinks is wrong?"

bitch about it on facebook. just as her ancestors did.

work and act locally outside of official channels. teach your daughter to do the same.

most effective "rebellions" against government occur when something severely impacts the lives of those who wind up protesting -- segregation, the draft, etc. "You peeked at our phone records" is just not a significant enough harm to get most people into the streets.

grow vegetables together. read her mezz mezzro's autobiography. teach her how to defend herself. then let her out into the wild.

teach her how to fish too. always a good thing to know.

most effective "rebellions" against government occur when something severely impacts the lives of those who wind up protesting -- segregation, the draft, etc. "You peeked at our phone records" is just not a significant enough harm to get most people into the streets.

also even effective rebellions didn't have immediate results

struggle is its own reward

(i actually think people really need to believe that in order to keep on. unfortunately it's very hard to believe that.)

But it's much easier to believe that when you don't otherwise have a comfortable life at your fingertips.

yes

hash (mmm) tag drunk talk :taking in account that the internet of now helps to create more links of all sorts between people( experiences, goods and services , feels etc) and young people nowadays are getting sort of away from politics and invest their lives into socially conscious businesses , non profit organizations etc maybe in a couple of decades will pop up a need for a kind of news service that informs us of what "we" do, and the ameliorations in other workplaces will rejoice us not because we have a "big heart" but because it makes our life more liveable.

Rebelling is easy: Drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, and listen to rock 'n' roll music.

And/or get a tattoo.

p sure mlle. n/a will find plenty of ways to try to stick an oar in history and if she feels like she can't do that "anymore" by buying clothes and records well no shit right? maybe we're talking about different things here.

work and act locally outside of official channels. teach your daughter to do the same.

― scott seward, Monday, June 10, 2013 4:10 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nothing wrong with doing that if that`s your bag but i don`t think that counts as rebellion

I think cities half-submerged will do wonders for rebellion.

history of the Aegean says no

half-submerged cities opens up all kinds of waterworld steampunk rebellious ways of dress

but I guess if everyone dresses like they're in waterworld the only way to rebel is wearing a suit or something

in a signifier saturated world the only true rebellion is to wear some old signifiers

"nothing wrong with doing that if that`s your bag but i don`t think that counts as rebellion"

i left out the part about mentally renouncing citizenship and never travelling more than 100 miles from your home and being as self-sufficient has humanly possible.

einh

i guess technically if everyone did that u might consider it a revolution

snark = revolution

idk why u would worry about this in the era of anonymous.

Vote from the rooftops?

xps noodle vague ok but i wasn't claiming that that snarky post was revolutionary!

i just don't think living on a yurt is revolutionary... you're supposed to fight power not just try to live beyond its grasp, right?

that's ok, i was as fucked with myself as you - once revolution becomes a school subject what's left but kicking yourself? too many meetings of like-minded souls bitching each other out?

yeah, revolution is all of us or none of us, you're right

hm. am i shadowbanned or hwattttt?

jokes

n/a's child is john connor

t's s, s s s
(hope u got the beat right)

"Withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy."

^^ Sounds very Thomist.

"Withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy."

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, June 10, 2013 11:09 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, it's much more narcissistic.

rebellion can be more than one thing.

and everybody doesn't have to do the same thing.

how can you move a table if everyone doesn't lift at the same time

i think scott is working w/ a different definition of "rebellion" than most of us

what if the rebellion in star wars followed scott's suggestions and just found another planet to hang out on? there would be no movies!

sounds good to me

High school students should spend more time closely studying the Whiskey Rebellion. For inspiration.

what if the rebellion in star wars followed scott's suggestions and just found another planet to hang out on? there would be no movies!

tell me more about this wonderful paradise

never forget...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War

the star wars rebellion kept doing that but the empire kept following them! that's the whole problem.

like sure you're out in your cabin composing your breakup album and suddenly
http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/snomote-probe-droid.jpg

The only rebellion possible is against materialism, against capitalism, etc. No matter what you do (what you do these days essentially being one and the same with what you purchase) you are locked in the system. The only real rebellion is dropping out, if not completely dropping out then reducing your intake. There is a shroud of insanity that has gripped the globe but it is all illusory. It requires that everyone agree upon the most ridiculously ancient and arbitrary territorial premises.

How ridiculous is the phrase 'fiat money', when money is in itself an abstraction? A derivative representation of real labor, it historically becomes more and more derivative. Recently, quite literally so. On the plus side, the cold hard calculating logic of computers is now in control of most of it, and I think this is where the rebellion will come. Perhaps someday the machines in control of the stock exchange will analyze all data, declare it all meaningless ('fiat') and instantaneously destroy the global monetary system in an effort to make things more efficient. It's a fantasy I like to indulge in, but I don't necessarily think it is required. The internet is democratizing speech, destroying privacy (personal privacy and 'private property') barriers, breaking down political barriers, rendering country lines less and less real, and slowly eliminating the means of production and literally the very tactile nature of the goods and services we have built our society around obtaining and worshiping. What has happened to the music industry and the movie industry will soon happen to pretty much every facet of your commercial life.

Social networks online and the orgy of data-mining is sort of the last hurrah of capitalism. Already we are realizing that private property is an illusion, that privacy is an illusion, that we are all one on this planet together. As more and more points of view are encountered, as more and more people become aware of even the most fringe behaviors (Bronies, anyone?), acceptance and compassion will grow. The recent polls about the public not caring about the NSA support this trend. We are evolving past the old illusions.

This is a pretty terrific thing. It's essentially the start of a spiritual revolution, happening from the outside-in, the material world dissolving.

The internet and the concept of home computers were born in the revolutionary heyday of the 1960s. Engineers often developed these products while experimental with acid and mushrooms, going through ego death, foreseeing a radical new concept of the future, one that is so unique it has historically escaped description. The most radical concepts of the psychedelic revolution -- the death of private property, the breaking down of national barriers, instant global telepathic communication -- are all becoming literally true before our eyes.

communication's our whole point obviously but if the hippies thought technology would abolish power they've got another thing coming

and while the global communications network does all those things it also physically isolates you from yr brothers and vastly increases the insanely bounteous variety and nuance and omnipresence of ways to express yourself through consumption

(w all that system's attendant exploitation and personally tailored pacification)

I agree with Adam's end-goals and optimism but I skeptical of technology delivering

esp re: elimination of the means of production. tell that to the slave labor that built your iphone.

people have thought since the 1700s that tech was gonna fix us but all it does is make us stronger.

(some of us.)

Not sure the global communications network physically isolate you, I'm not sure that is true at all. There are many lifelong friends I would not have if not for meeting them online. Then you have recent real world physical political demonstrations that have been fostered by the internet. Also recent statistics seem to point towards internet dating sites leading towards more sustainable marriages.

The consumption thing is also indicative of the pre-internet generation's obsession with consumption. These are people born in the 80's and 90's, during eras of excess and economic boom.

xps

Adam, I understand the enthusiasm with which you offer your analysis, but it doesn't matter how often I realize that money is an illusion and private property is a social construction, this will not destroy money or private property.

However revolutionary the internet is for communicating information rapidly, our lives cannot happen without tangible goods you can rap your knuckles upon or ingest. Even the ethereal internet requires power plants, a million miles of cables, satellites launched into space, and a few billion computers of various shapes and sizes churned out by ugly factories in asia. Plus large mining operations and thousands of oil rigs when you dig down into what makes it all happen.

As for nations, they are possessed of armies and police forces, so they are not going down without a fight just because the internet does not require them. This still seems like a better description of reality to me than your post above.

Then you have recent real world physical political demonstrations that have been fostered by the internet

well these have been the internet's peak (porn aside)

and yes, the only place where the internet is really abolishing tactility is the consumption end, but since people never needed the shit to begin with they certainly don't need it to be real

anyway yeah, of course you can make friends on the internet and it brings you into communication with people you would never otherwise have thought about the existence of and it does in a way help build empathy which is our only salvation and the first/only time i dropped acid i went on and on about exactly this to my then-girlfriend, buuuuuuuuuuut it does other things too. cuz we made it in our image! and you can see isolation in it side-by-side with empathy every time someone looks at his smartphone. so it won't save us all by itself.

The only rebellion possible is against materialism, against capitalism, etc. No matter what you do (what you do these days essentially being one and the same with what you purchase) you are locked in the system. The only real rebellion is dropping out, if not completely dropping out then reducing your intake. There is a shroud of insanity that has gripped the globe but it is all illusory. It requires that everyone agree upon the most ridiculously ancient and arbitrary territorial premises.

How ridiculous is the phrase 'fiat money', when money is in itself an abstraction? A derivative representation of real labor, it historically becomes more and more derivative. Recently, quite literally so. On the plus side, the cold hard calculating logic of computers is now in control of most of it, and I think this is where the rebellion will come. Perhaps someday the machines in control of the stock exchange will analyze all data, declare it all meaningless ('fiat') and instantaneously destroy the global monetary system in an effort to make things more efficient. It's a fantasy I like to indulge in, but I don't necessarily think it is required. The internet is democratizing speech, destroying privacy (personal privacy and 'private property') barriers, breaking down political barriers, rendering country lines less and less real, and slowly eliminating the means of production and literally the very tactile nature of the goods and services we have built our society around obtaining and worshiping. What has happened to the music industry and the movie industry will soon happen to pretty much every facet of your commercial life.

Social networks online and the orgy of data-mining is sort of the last hurrah of capitalism. Already we are realizing that private property is an illusion, that privacy is an illusion, that we are all one on this planet together. As more and more points of view are encountered, as more and more people become aware of even the most fringe behaviors (Bronies, anyone?), acceptance and compassion will grow. The recent polls about the public not caring about the NSA support this trend. We are evolving past the old illusions.

This is a pretty terrific thing. It's essentially the start of a spiritual revolution, happening from the outside-in, the material world dissolving.

The internet and the concept of home computers were born in the revolutionary heyday of the 1960s. Engineers often developed these products while experimental with acid and mushrooms, going through ego death, foreseeing a radical new concept of the future, one that is so unique it has historically escaped description. The most radical concepts of the psychedelic revolution -- the death of private property, the breaking down of national barriers, instant global telepathic communication -- are all becoming literally true before our eyes.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:29 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this post is exemplary of the worst kind of techno-topian blather

dropping out of society has its appeal but a) the hippies (and a bunch of other people) tried it and it didn't really change anything and b) it's kind of selfish - it's all about improving your own life but not doing anything for anyone else

doesn't have to be like that all. it doesn't have to be dropping out either. it can be all about helping people too.

There are obvious limits to how far you can take anti-materialism, but the average first world resident has plenty of room before they hit those limits. I also think the internet is never going to bring about some non-materialistic utopia.

The best I can envision is a turning away from the idea that the earth's resources belong to anyone who can grab the biggest share for themselves. Such an idea would need to be built into social norms so widely accepted that anyone who breeches them is shunned as an outcast. There are no signs this is going to happen soon, if ever.

scott your suggestions veer closer to "being nice to people and doing the things you want to do" more than "rebellion"

not that the former is bad, just...

also we're 500x more likely to have depleted the earth's resources and brought on the end of civilization-as-we-know-it to have a successful worldwide (or even hemisphere-wide) revolution

well there's more to it than that. but i don't really have a philosophy of rebellion. my own brand of slow living yokelism is something i work at little by little. and its not for everyone. it involves never going anywhere ever. no place that you couldn't conceivably walk to. and no growth. which is a form of rebellion within a system based on growth. or maybe not no growth but just maintaining some sort of subsistance level of existence. you know, a thoreau kinda thing. i just think things have to get smaller. life has to get smaller. if we are to live into the future. and i think your only responsibility should be to your community or tribe. but i'm not gonna go live in a yurt. and i kinda hate gardening...

i'd say that the consequences of depleting the earth's resources increase the possibility of radical political change, but still not to a high probability

but i don't know how many millions of people would have to live like this in order for certain corporate and governmental apparatuses to be dismantled due to lack of interest. what if they gave a war and nobody came and all that. maybe it would take a hundred years and we haven't got a hundred years.

do you pay taxes?

environmental change on a national political level would have to be forced. like martial law. i dunno...

yeah, we pay taxes. i don't want to have anything to do with the system. criminal justice system, etc. so, yeah, i'm no snipesean.

i mean i could probably get away with not paying taxes for years. but i don't want to deal with govt people if i can help it.

i wonder if it wdn't be closer to rationing in the UK during World War 2, which wasn't quite the same as martial law. i dunno, depends how long developed countries can stave off the worst effects of resource depletion and what happens to the polities when it starts to bite - there's already a steady increase in disillusion with existing political systems

it might actually take mass evacuations from shoreline areas before any real change happens.

yeah, we pay taxes. i don't want to have anything to do with the system. criminal justice system, etc. so, yeah, i'm no snipesean.

― scott seward, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:51 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

???? by paying taxes you have everything to do with the system!

this thread is confusing to read through because rebellion can mean so many different things. it's a teenage smartass, it's Nat Turner, it's the Merry Pranksters, it's Lenin.

i guess the kind of hypothetical rebellion i think about the most would be the result of resource depletion (particularly potable water and soil fertility) and environmental degradation (particularly climate change and especially droughts), leading to the collapse of the global economy. that would create a few simultaneous conditions that would seem likely to foment rebellion/revolution. namely, A) the sudden decline in living standards for a significant amount of people, and B) a population divided against itself as the gap between winners and losers increases even more and the winners feel the need to wall themselves off from the rest of society, literally and figuratively, and the basic security of the losers becomes threatened.

joseph tainter (teehee) is well known for his writings on complexity and collapse, and he argues that civilizations collapse when increases in social complexity begin to experience diminishing marginal returns. and donella meadows (systems thinking theorist and overall cool lady) made complementary arguments that systems don't gradually decline, but rather collapse at the height of their complexity. civilizations have inevitably collapsed. the difference, now, is that "civilization" doesn't mean easter island or rome or the mayans, but the entire world, together, since the global economy is integrated to the point where a crisis in one region creates a crisis across the world.

look, i'm not a survivalist, i don't live off the grid, the people with the guns have some hold on me. i admit that. its too much of a hassle to make some moral stand and not pay them. they can close my store, they can put me in jail, court, all that nightmare stuff. i didn't pay them when i was single and living alone. i didn't have a bank account either. or a driver's license. i got paid in cash for years. but you know shit happens.

so stop suggesting you are engaging in "rebellion," scott, because you aren't in any meaningful sense

civilizations have inevitably collapsed

what does it mean to say that something that already happened was "inevitable"?

given the very complexity you (Z S) refer to, I doubt anyone's ability to reliably "predict" the circumstances that would lead to open rebellion against whatever world-system we find ourselves in tomorrow

I don't think scott is really suggesting people live in rebellion, he is just suggesting people move to western mass with him

i'm not suggesting i'm any better than scott or anybody. he's probably less of a consumer than me in some ways. but if you pay taxes, those drones flying into buildings in yemen have your name on them. PRISM has your name on it (in two senses, I guess). the Wall St bailout has your name on it. etc. obvs.

btw there is no way to escape the world-system, even if you are one of the uncontacted peoples in brazil or the islands in the indian sea.

any notions of revolution that start w/ such a premise are romantic garbage.

Not owning a car is a great form of modern rebellion.

maybe just maybe an oversimplification

xp otm

I don't really get why 'paying taxes' makes anyone more a part of the system than any other economic activity, like, say, buying records. it's not like the govt runs out of money for bombs when you don't pay your taxes.

when you buy records you are also paying taxes! (if the shopkeeper is law-abiding)

the only way to rebel is to cultivate practices that exist (to whatever extent that they can) outside of capitalism. transcendental or ecstatic experiences are particularly good at this.

fuck that

but i do have some hanging crystals and peyote i can sell you for a low price

it's just impossible to dismantle the economic system (god willing it'll dismantle itself) so you need to find lacunas in which it hasn't entirely intervened, or change the focus to elements that partially participate in capitalism and partially have elements that remain outside it (religious, music, sex, drugs, etc).

(i truly respect your intelligence, mordy, but that is some bullshit. transcendence, etc.--whatever that is, which is to say, it is nothing--can be nearly as easily commodified as anything else.)

communal/familial relationships can circumvent or subvert the absolute totality of hegemony too - obviously never entirely, only briefly + in limited amount

i don't disagree that capitalism does infringe upon these practices, but that they also contain an element of potency that predates capitalism and that we can still access to some limited degree. some auratic functionality that remains as a trace.

transcendence, etc.--whatever that is, which is to say, it is nothing--can be nearly as easily commodified as anything else

False transcendence! You may as well just say what is the point of being in a relationship if you can go to Vegas and get a hooker.

Mordy channeling Hakim Bey here

which is a-okay with me

i'm not escaping anything. i live in the world like everyone else. its true i don't want to have anything to do with the federal government or any other powerful institution, but i'm here. i'm not hiding. and i said i TRIED to make my life smaller and more human-sized. just the essentials. but i fail a lot. we have state health insurance. i'm not a poster boy for anarchy. but i don't support the govt in any meaningful way. my taxes aren't gonna buy a lot of drones. i don't fly flags. i would never fight for this country. i don't belong to a political party. i want something else. maybe it is romantic. if the county i lived in seceded i think i might finally have a cause to fight for. i dunno. i'm not better than anyone. not trying to be. but i don't have a long love affair with what this country as a country has done with its power and wealth. pretty standard stuff really. i come from a long line of abolitionists and unitarians.

i don't charge my customers sales tax. i pay that for them.

xpost

well, the thought that the collapse of civilization's institutions would lead to rebellion is just one possibility - such a scenario could lead just as easily to authoritarian outcomes. i wasn't trying to say causes X and Y result in outcome Z. but i do think that things like resource depletion and severe droughts would make "rebellion" or revolution on a wide scale more likely to occur. certainly more likely than today, for some of the reasons that n/a discussed in his revive.

as far as the decline of previous civilizations, you're right to call me out that "inevitable" is a meaningless word when used to describe events of the past. but my basic point is that nearly every civilization has eventually collapsed or severely declined, and that our current "civilization", unlike those of the past, is globally integrated and interdependent. either our current civilization is also unlike all civilizations in that it will endure for eternity, or one or more of the numerous looming systemic threats is eventually going to create a global crisis.

i agree w/ ZS that system collapse is inevitable, tho i think the next collapse will be final + ahistorical. (my millenarianism showing.)

The only way the next collapse will be final is if we nuke the entire planet as part of the collapse and even then that's not a guarantee that a human-driven society won't survive and rebuild itself.

I do hold several idle daydreams about the US breaking up into 10-12 smaller countries at some point

i have some other theories about how the next collapse will be final. nukes def on my list tho.

i can't really imagine any circumstances under which the u.s. would actually splinter off into a thousand little countries, tho if it did happen i'd rather stick with my county or even my city than my state.

A non-violent collapse is possible, but it would require sweeping changes across the entirety of mankind. Biological and/or philosophical changes that affect every one on the planet.

bestcase: in 1000 years there will be much talk about how our present level of specieswide harmonious enlightenment was "forged" in a "crucible" (or equivalent 3013 cliche)

in 1000 years all of the first and second world countries will have figured out how to download their citizens' consciousness into Minecraft

love is not "transcendence." family is not "transcendence." it is a product of evolutionary adaptation, and in its present sense is as much a unit of a socioeconomic system as anything else.

what is it you are transcending?

i never understood that word except as it applies to theology or art--the only places i can imagine one outlining something called "transcendence"

i'm a materialist.

xposts

positing "transcendence" as a way of opting out of the existing social order makes about as much real sense to me as positing "jesus love" or whatever. it's all the same.

jesus hates you btw

there are plenty of things possible within a family, or a romantic relationship with someone, that aren't reducible to the results of 'evolutionary adaptation.'

ya you don't have to look very hard on the Internet to realize that

i don't know how to express this exactly, but there are a thousand small things that can happen between people -- on a single date, within a marriage, even within a friendship -- that i can't imagine happen between, say, two otters or whatever. 'transcendence' is probably a stupid way to describe this, but it seems unique to humans and it's hard to imagine a precise evolutionary reason why this happens.

love is not "transcendence." family is not "transcendence." it is a product of evolutionary adaptation, and in its present sense is as much a unit of a socioeconomic system as anything else.

I don't see any reason why love or family being products of evolutionary adaptation preclude them from being possibly transcendent experiences.

what is it you are transcending?

The temporal. Love and family are good examples because they both hold the possibility of long-lasting experiences. As for love, an emotional state stretched out in the best possible case for a lifetime, as is outlined in the very material contract of marriage. In the case of family, a literal extension of your own DNA through space and time.

how is that transcendent? your "emotional state" is something taking place in your brain.

i'ma leave this thread b/c i'm just derailing it sorry

Mordy didn't say relationships or aesthetic or religious experience allowed one to opt out of the capitalist system. He said they allow us to glimpse something like the possibility of a society governed by alternative values to the ones that rule us now. Similarly, living in the woods Thoreau style or running a collectively owned vegan bakery or w/e are experiments in alternative living that ate necessary if the dream of a different world is to be kept alive. Just the gesture of rejecting capitalist values--even if it fails--can be valuable.

a hardcore materialist won't be able to resonate w/ this idea but if you're a hardcore materialist your answer to this thread premise is pretty short, no? but yes, 'jesus love' could be a momentary escape from the capitalist hegemony. i think there's power still left in ancient human ritual + spiritual practice.

quite honestly i really wish i could just sit on my front porch all day and look at the trees and listen to the birds. all i need really. but then people get involved and things get complicated. trees and birds have taught me the most about life probably. and how to live.

i consider myself a hardcore materialist and i'm comfortable with notions of transcendence. i don't think there's complete incompatibility there. materialism needn't be reductive, and transcendence needn't be immaterial.

i feel u scott, but when i think about this urge i feel guilty/selfish/narcissistic.

xp

quite honestly i really wish i could just sit on my front porch all day and look at the trees and listen to the birds. all i need really. but then people get involved and things get complicated. trees and birds have taught me the most about life probably. and how to live.

like you wouldn't wanna listen to a Madonna 12" now and then

well no doubt. art in general is what i live for. there are moments when humans approach trees and birds in the grace and beauty department.

also though now i can REALLY SEE trees. like when i was a kid. i couldn't for years because of my medical condition. changed my life. in lots of ways. but that was a big revelation when i fixed my physical ailment.

i can see faces in things again. in clouds and trees and grass. i almost cried when that came back to me. its the little things, you guys. for real.

it was said that Virginia Woolf could hear the birds in Lexington Gardens singing "Lucky Star."

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m89hnobHdW1r1awi5o1_500.gif

heheh

the reason i brought up anonymous is because it directly addresses the reviver's concerns about a "mode of rebellion left that won't have been co-opted or made to seem ridiculous, which was already starting to be an issue when i was a teen"

before anonymous that process--hippies a joke and counterculture "momma's charge account at sears"--had pretty much continued.

then at the very hellish bottom of the internet a bunch of jackoffs got an amazing rush from fucking with a mafia-like organization, & were joined by "moralfags" in their 100s of thousands launching all sorts of activist operations & striking all the while various poses of coolness, nihilisim, earnestness, cynicism etc.

the reason i brought up anonymous is because it directly addresses the reviver's concerns about a "mode of rebellion left that won't have been co-opted or made to seem ridiculous, which was already starting to be an issue when i was a teen"

Christian Slater said as much in Pump Up the Volume.

if the cruelest thing one can do to kerouac is reread him at 35, i wonder @ what age can u kindly rescreen Pump Up the Volume

how is that transcendent? your "emotional state" is something taking place in your brain.

It's not an either/or thing.

Anonymous's "accomplishments" are pretty laughable

debatable, but still a mode of political rebellion, which is the point

the political rebellion of ineffectual DNS attacks

there are different layers or rather nested spheres of anonymous and some of them are more serious than others and some of them are more useful than others. the outermost sphere is the kids who press the button on the ddos widget.

quite honestly i really wish i could just sit on my front porch all day and look at the trees and listen to the birds. all i need really. but then people get involved and things get complicated. trees and birds have taught me the most about life probably. and how to live.

― scott seward, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:36 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel u scott, but when i think about this urge i feel guilty/selfish/narcissistic.

― precious bonsai children of new york (Jordan)

one of the great tragedies is that there are people like Jordan who feel guilty and selfish for feeling the urge to chill out in nature and get transcendental, and then there are lots of people who get even richer and fuck people over with stuff like subprime loans and credit default swaps don't feel selfish or guilty at ALL.

and i'm not criticizing you, Jordan - i often feel the same way when i get some time to relax

and if the frisson of purchasing never mind the bollocks or whatever is what's being mourned here, even those outermost kids definitely qualify for keeping the dream alive. (xxp 2 myself)

the political rebellion of ineffectual DNS attacks

― Bathory Tub Blues (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 June 2013

i thought u were just being highly demanding but in fact u don't know shit about it & are just being a loudmouth for whatever reason

neway. again rebellion reoccurs despite scorn, simulation & spectacle

modern rebellion depends on buying and wearing a halloween mask from a hollywood movie, also posting a lot on 4chan

*pats u on head*

thinking anybody can achieve anything is really overrated

i think one needs to keep in mind the reactions interwoven into apparent acts of rebellion when measuring the real costs and benefits of an action. i've seen bystanders cheer as bank windows were broken, passerby join in pulling newspaper boxes into the street to block traffic, and it was kind of neat. but starry-eyed insurrectionists fetishize that kind of stuff as ~ruptures in the logic of order~ while deliberately ignore the chilling effect brought on by the attendant crackdowns on any temporary sense of solidarity these moments engender.

it really annoys me that insurrectionary claptrap is so fashionable. i grew up on hakim bey and crimethinc, i understand the appeal, but are we past 15 yet ideologically or

xp well yeah, the people who do those things are idiots.

i don't think they're idiots because they do those things, tho i agree with Hoos that tactics need to have long term goals. i don't attribute idiocy to people who act out any more than i attribute it to people who mirror the language of hegemony by bitching and calling them "idiots"

yes--if one isn't thinking strategically one isn't really thinking at all. friend says "i'll see your tactic and raise you a strategy," which is a little pat, but i like it.

well yeah, the people who do those things are idiots.

― Spectrum, Friday, June 14, 2013 1:49 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

;) not here for debate on the advisability of property destruction & direct action, just offering a thought on the larger question from my perspective.

yes, I fall in lockstep with the MAN with my briefcase, cropped haircut and collared shirt. i walk into the office like a robot and punch the clock and I'm just a COG MAAAAAN in this dehumanizing hegemenonic machine. i am the hegemony. LOOK AT ME.

breaking shit accomplishes what, nothing. zilch. nada. it's like jerking off in the street and calling it sex. so what's the left doing here? breaking shit and playing academic party games. if a revolution does happen in some alternate universe, it sure as hell isn't going to be a left wing revolution.

hope that helped with whatever you're feeling today.

misguided energy is still energy, and forming coalitions means bringing people in and negotiating your aims, not name-calling and ostracising

To be perhaps clearer--I'm not interested in jumping off a whole discussion on this subject ~right now in particular~ (lots to do today), but later this weekend I'd like to have some back and forth on these notions if there's interest.

Just so there's no confusion that I'm resolutely refusing to defend or discuss what I've suggested.

i think one needs to keep in mind the reactions interwoven into apparent acts of rebellion when measuring the real costs and benefits of an action. i've seen bystanders cheer as bank windows were broken, passerby join in pulling newspaper boxes into the street to block traffic, and it was kind of neat.

for every bystander that joins in there are 5 people at home watching on tv who are now 100% not going to support whatever the bank-window-breakers wanted them to support

read a great speech once by a native American activist on the subject of never ruling out specific tactics in and of themselves and the need for fellow travellers not to fall out over differences of tactical approach which propositions i broadly agree with

misguided energy is still energy

― possible badger on malware thread (Noodle Vague), Friday, June 14, 2013 2:08 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is a big part of what liberatory leadership is about imo--being prepared with strategic direction for spontaneous energy

also think it's a very real possibility that not every heart and mind can be won over to a cause

I want my life to resemble a poster for Les Miserable. Standing atop the chaos of revolution, THE HEART AND SPIRIT OF MAN UNLEASHED, bandana around my face, smoke in the air. I am a revolutionary.

OK, I should probably get back to work.

for every bystander that joins in there are 5 people at home watching on tv who are now 100% not going to support whatever the bank-window-breakers wanted them to support

― iatee, Friday, June 14, 2013 2:12 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes, those people will exist. that's part of the reaction to the action taken that i had in mind.

gotta drop out for a bit

yes, those people will exist.

though i'd like to see your nielsen surveys on the fivefold increase in opposition

breaking stuff is bad, mmmmmkay?

yeah I don't think there are many gallup polls on 'do you approve of property damage as a political act' because the results are kinda obvious. it's a fringe opinion among far left-wing people and far left-wing people already make up a small percentage of the country.

maybe the political opinions that people hold are diverse and subject to change depending on circumstance

maybe that is also true of the extent to which people are "law-abiding"

i'm certainly not arguing there's an insurrectionary silent majority, nor am i the break stuff = the revo guy. i think there's room for nuance here, will bbl w/thotz.

i think self-confirmation bias could be part of it. deep down a person might want to see windows smashed, it's like spitting on the face of the man. there's a primal satisfaction in it. but it's only a primal satisfaction to the people who feel that particular way, and it's easy to generalize how you feel to existing in a wider extent that isn't realistic.

you'd never know for sure, really, you can't go inside everyone's head... the only indication would be wide-spread support among different swaths of people, and even that's hard to gauge. so go to the default of knowing that people don't like seeing property smashed up unless there's some other indication that they do in this instance.

maybe the political opinions that people hold are diverse and subject to change depending on circumstance

yeah but they change slowly nobody turns into a molotov cocktail throwing anarchist overnight and if the goal is convincing people to change their political opinions, and the group of people to convince is exponentially larger than the group you belong to, the best way to do it isn't to play by your own rules and assume they'll 'get it'. violence is scary and repulsive for people who live largely non-violent lives.

on the whole i don't think random outbursts of property destruction achieve much but i also don't think they're especially counterproductive in terms of winning converts. the present problems in terms of the forms of repression Hoos mentioned and in terms of the State using them as object lessons in its own power and the need to keep the barbarians from the gate, maybe

i mean yes, violence is scary and repulsive, but i don't want to rule out any tactic per se in furtherance of political struggle

zp i feel like that conclusion could be confirmation bias, too. another person could see it as: these window smashers are causing unnecessary mayhem, they should be reigned in. and the validity of their "discourse" is not even considered.

terms of the State using them as object lessons in its own power and the need to keep the barbarians from the gate, maybe

yeah 'the state' isn't the only one afraid of barbarians

feel kinda bad for the windows

yeah 'the state' isn't the only one afraid of barbarians

no i agree, the best policeman is the one that lives in your head

it's not just the windows. think about the effects:

there are people who work at that bank.
there are people who use the bank.
this bank belongs to the daily fabric of some peoples' lives.
the sight of violence and mayhem may upset the sense of safety and order people like having in their lives.

so i wouldn't blame people for resenting these bad-ass anarchists for smashing it up. there's more going on here than just some lumbering, monotholic banker smoking a cigar and flicking ashes on the sweaty, filthy masses ungulating like maggots at his feet for the meagrest of handouts.

a cool, bad ass revolutionary might say: WELL THEY HAVE TO WAKE UP, MAAAN. IF THEY DONT LIKE IT THEY"RE THE HEGEMONY. which is like trying to control people. and no healthy person likes that.

it seems quite possible to think that people may not be good judges of their own best interests without wanting to be the mean Stalinist who tells them what to think

but i don't think there are really reluctant capitalists. there are people who don't care, and people who don't understand, and people who are really quite cool with gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities

yeah, this is actually pretty complex.

right you smash up some local jp morgan chase branch and it makes the lives of the tellers who make 30k marginally more difficult, jamie dimon does not gaf

xp

but i don't think there are really reluctant capitalists. there are people who don't care, and people who don't understand, and people who are really quite cool with gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities

what does being a 'capitalist' even mean in this context

it means being really quite cool with gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities

which is the more trite cliche:

a) capitalism is the worst system except for the rest
or b) communism is a great concept on paper

that seems a bit broad, I don't think warren buffet is necssarily cool w/ the gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities but he is quite clearly a capitalist

xp

xxp it's hard to say if people are "cool" with gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities. "so, you like being a slithering maggot at the feet of your ALMIGHTY MASTER CHASE BANK?" "yeah, seems alright."

there's so much going on with this that it's hard to parse out offhand on a messageboard.

that's kind of what i was getting at Mordy, people sometimes pretend that they regretfully support the existing economic order because sure, it's awful for all those people at the bottom of the heap but hey, it's the best we've got, but i don't buy the regret. because if the way we distribute resources and the way we allow people to live and die doesn't make you gut-sick deep down to the point of wanting it to change for some better way of living then i doubt you're ever going to be "persuaded" that things could be different

in fact i think it's a waste of energy and time trying to turn on the unconverted to the evils of capitalism, better to organize and empower the people that want things to change

it's my impression that capitalism has lifted standards of living better than anything else so i guess i somewhat sign onto that particularly cliche

there are lots of ways to change the way we distribute resources that nevertheless fall under the broad and fuzzy category 'capitalism'.

xp

yeah i don't think it's too big a deal that it brought us here and made a lot of people comparatively wealthier and healthier than their ancestors. it was never an either/or situation or a choice of paths for humanity to collectively decide to follow. its historical benefits don't have much impact for me on the question "is this the best way we can organize our species now?"

but i don't think there are really reluctant capitalists. there are people who don't care, and people who don't understand, and people who are really quite cool with gross inequalities of wealth and life opportunities

― possible badger on malware thread (Noodle Vague), Friday, June 14, 2013 10:53 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Couldn't there be people who are not cool with gross inequalities of wealth and life but still prefer that to a system in which standards of living are lower across the board?

I mean, I think there are people who recognize capitalism's power as a wealth engine while wanting to sort of tame the beast, if that can in fact be done.

For the past week or so I've been reading Josephus's history of the jewish insurrection against the Roman empire circa 66 CE. Apart from the obvious imbalance of power between the jews and the romans, what doomed the jews to failure was constant vicious infighting over leadership and goals and a lack of discipline at every level. The romans, by contrast, were disciplined, efficient and never in doubt about who was in charge or what their orders were.

Even today this insurrection is widely romanticized, because of the siege of Masada. In fact it was a epochal catastrophe for the jews, leading to the final destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the diaspora. There are lessons here.

Well, that might not be entirely fair, I mean insurrections against powerful empires pretty much always have the cards stacked against them.

Aimless is pretty otm. Jerusalem certainly could've withstood the siege much longer than it did if the zealots hadn't burnt down the grain storehouses.

insurrections against powerful empires pretty much always have the cards stacked against them

"powerful" doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. if the insurrection has a) steady supply of weapons and b) support of the general populace, odds are pretty fair. especially if empire is overextended/operating in unfamiliar/unfriendly terrain.

In order to force the wealthy and more peaceably inclined citizens to action, the Zealots in their fury set fire to the storehouses containing the corn needed for the support of the people during the siege ("B. J." v. 1, § 4). This tragic event is recorded in Ab. R. N. vi. (ed. Schechter, p. 32), the only Talmudical passage that mentions the Ḳanna'im as a political party.

If rebellion is possible you definitely need food.

If you read the history, the infighting and indiscipline are unmistakable and its effects are equally obvious. For contrast, see the discipline and unity of the Vietnamese against an equally powerful empire.

this link in the omnibus PRISM/NSA/free Edward Snowden/encryption tutorial thread thread has a bunch of military studies supporting the doomsday resource/enviro/econo catastrophic shitshow scenario that i and others were discussing above:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prism

great story. and it makes perfect sense. everyone is getting ready for zombie apocalypse in their own way.

Oh, great. By wargaming a group of doomsday scenarios one predictable side effect is that those who took part or were briefed on them will be much more willing to act as if a catastrophe is imminent, even when the signs of such a catastrophe are weak or mixed. So, we get to military/industrial tyranny even more rapidly than if they hadn't done the planning and wargaming. When the boogeyman lives in your heart, you act out of fear.

the u.s. military (and the insurance industry) has been preparing for this stuff for years, it's not a new development. they take it much more seriously than the politicians and the vast majority of the public.

already noted this on the other thread too but that article's argument "NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism" is constructed out of thin air

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

just in case you missed that one. pretty good. they have really great climate data! the insurance companies.

helpful info:

"Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. These changes are likely to increase losses to property and cause costly disruptions to society. Escalating losses have already affected the availability and affordability of insurance. More frequent losses, increased variability in the type and location of impacts, and increases in widespread losses that occur at the same time would increase the risks to insurers and their customers."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/society.html

Climate change will affect certain groups more than others, particularly groups located in vulnerable areas and the poor, young, old, or sick.
Cities are sensitive to many impacts, especially extreme weather impacts.
Climate change may threaten people's jobs and livelihoods.

Power struggles are always going to end in corruption pretty much. A real rebellion would have to be at a fundamental level. Like, rather than destroying banks or hanging Wall St. crooks we would just all decide that money is meaningless and we're going on a barter system from now all. Instantly all their power would be gone. The good thing is that while there are so many systems in place to control us, it is us who have created them, and we can pretty much sweep them away easily. The three branches of government, the Constitution, etc. it's all conceptual, it has no real world value unless we all give into it.

That the US is so casually just walking over it's own laws is really doing alot to underscore the arbitrariness of all that stuff.

revolutions always reconstitute in new form the pre-revolutionary dialectics

in walks the boy graeber with an overlong thinkpiece i have yet to read

What is a revolution? We used to think we knew. Revolutions were seizures of power by popular forces aiming to transform the very nature of the political, social, and economic system in the country in which the revolution took place, usually according to some visionary dream of a just society. Nowadays, we live in an age when, if rebel armies do come sweeping into a city, or mass uprisings overthrow a dictator, it’s unlikely to have any such implications; when profound social transformation does occur—as with, say, the rise of feminism—it’s likely to take an entirely different form. It’s not that revolutionary dreams aren’t out there. But contemporary revolutionaries rarely think they can bring them into being by some modern-day equivalent of storming the Bastille.

At moments like this, it generally pays to go back to the history one already knows and ask: Were revolutions ever really what we thought them to be?

https://www.thebaffler.com/past/practical_utopians_guide

what a load of bullshit

Similarly, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was a world revolution ultimately responsible for the New Deal

this guy knows nothing about anything

I think he means Huey Long

or at least the progressive stuff that came after

the new deal has much more to do with traditional american reform movements, like the populist party of the 1890s, than it ever did with any russian revolutionary movements, and most major american progressives were pretty staunchly anti-communist. in any event, the actual russian revolution didn't have much of an effect on american progressives; it coincided with america's entrance into the first world war, when the progressive movement was virtually destroyed by wilson's wartime police state.

Huey Long's revolutionary slogan: Every man a czar king!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1017389_468711429870404_1039609795_n.jpg

dooo yoooo seeeee

a facebook thing I don't hate!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Living-Off-the-Grid/228080417303590?fref=ts

Today we'll probably have the biggest protest in years in Brazil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AIBYEXLGdSg

the new deal has much more to do with traditional american reform movements, like the populist party of the 1890s, than it ever did with any russian revolutionary movements, and most major american progressives were pretty staunchly anti-communist. in any event, the actual russian revolution didn't have much of an effect on american progressives; it coincided with america's entrance into the first world war, when the progressive movement was virtually destroyed by wilson's wartime police state.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, June 14, 2013 6:31 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The Russian Revolution was "responsible" for the New Deal inasmuch as fear of communism made it possible to and encouraged the passage of more moderately socialistic reforms in order to stave off the threat of communist traction in the US.

It's no accident that the dismantling of welfare states across the west has coincided with the end of the Cold War.

the reason rebellion is impossible in the US/UK is bc (in general) ppl's lives are too comfortable to want to make radical shifts in our economy + political system

yeah... the reason rebellion is impossible is because no one wants to have a rebellion

Yeah I said that upthread. I don't think it's the only reason in the US, because here people's lives are becoming increasingly uncomfortable, and I think a lack of socially binding institutions, the spread-out way people live, etc., and myths like the protestant work ethic contribute (cf the famous Steinbeck line ""Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.")

But any population that is large enough and poor enough for long enough is kind of there for the organizing if someone can figure out how to do it.

theoretically ppl's lives here could be uncomfortable enough that rebellion becomes possible, but i don't see that happening any time soon. even the US's embarrassed millionaires have a higher quality of life than most of the world

also the US maintains a pretty robust gulag system. that probably helps.

psychologically you would have to change people's brains. it would take decades. or longer than decades. the u.s./capitalist way of life is so deeply ingrained in people. that idea of always growing, growing, growing...if you aren't making more or growing then you are a loser...its a part of everything from poor to rich. if everyone were suddenly poor, things might just get uglier not better. you have to replace the system with something that can work for these massive amounts of people. and the only way people would be okay with that is if people could live with the idea of having less. of living more humbly. which is where the decades and decades of reverse brainwashing comes in.

its a conundrum.

my own pipe dream is this: large amounts of the population go to work for the govt. (a fantasy govt.) doing the hard work of making the entire country environmentally...uh...safer. its a big country. there is a lot that can be done. probably. i'm no scientist. you could have millions of people just planting trees for a living. beats working at rite aid. rite aid sucks.

otmfm

I would rather work at rite aid than do outdoor physical labor for 8 hours a day

cool you can work at rite aid. also where'd you get 8 hours from? that's capitalist hours.

sorry boss I can work overtime

So, some thoughts--

I do think there's an argument to be made for targeted property destruction (or PD) as an autonomous tactic *in concert with* an ongoing campaign or set of direct actions. To get some things out of the way, though:

- Breaking a bank window does not hurt Jamie Dimon.
- Breaking a bank window at a protest with families, immigrants, and POC who might not be prepared for or in position to fight back against the attendant escalation in police action is stupid and wrong.
- There's a pretty unfortunate dichotomy--and I was even perpetuating it upthread some--between the day to day work of community organizing and ostensibly 'insurrectionary' actions that involve PD. The reality is that the individuals I've known to take to PD are

also--once they take off the masks--some of the hardest working pavement pounders and movement builders I've ever met. They're not idiots looking for a fight.
- Breaking a bank window will not jump start The Revo.

All that said. It's my thinking that PD is a tactic that ought to be understood as a rarely used tool in a robust toolbox. Every tactic ought to be scrutinized for effectiveness and evaluated from the same starting point: these are all tools, the only question is which

one is most useful to us right now.

Sometimes we need a rally. Sometimes another anodyne demonstration will echo nicely in the chamber of back patting liberal activism without making a sound outside of it. A lot of the criticisms leveled at PD for being ~merely symbolic~ attacks could be leveled

equally at many other approaches. The important thing when gauging usefulness is context. I think PD is rarely useful, but that it can be.

How can PD "help," as such?

It's been my experience, and historically the experience of lots of organizers, that people can find direct action profoundly empowering. Rather than yelling (again) at empty buildings holding tattered (or too-slick) signs, deliberately putting oneself at risk to

disrupt and impede business as usual. As I said upthread, I've seen ~normie bystanders~ who aren't deeply ensconed in some crustpunk culture inspired and galvanized by PD and other property-related disruptions. Some of these people have even gone on to

involve themselves in movement building work. Some people are repelled by PD. Some are charged by it. I don't pretend to know the proportions, but to exclude from activation people who aren't engaged or moved by the kabuki of the permitted march by

ruling out PD as always and everywhere unacceptable is to exclude people I've seen and worked with who've proven themselves valuable organizers. That's not something I'm willing to do.

Secondly it's worth noting that targeted PD is often the only time particular misbehaviors are even mentioned in the press. Large summits like the G8/20, or the NATO meetings, tend to be sponsored by major corporations & defense contractors. Attacks on their

buildings get coverage, and the March Organizer's Press Release of Grievances is finally put to use and quoted from to provide context.

Further it's worth thinking about PD as an attempt to create space for more mainstream activity and more radical activity as well--even as a diversionary tactic. It was put to spectacular use to divert the police from ongoing lockdowns at the WTO meetings in

Seattle & Cancun, where the lockdowns contributed to the delay & shutdown of those meetings, and in Miami where delegates from the global south cited the lockdowns as sources of courage in their opposition to the trade agreement. Organizers of Miami

actions cited the bloc's flashmob-style targetted attacks as key to delaying the inevitable crackdown and the meeting itself. I think also of the G8 in Alberta, where a bloc infamously descended on and destroyed a police truck bearing a water cannon waiting to be

aimed at the mass of protesters. When the backup arrived, it too was shortly incapacitated. This kept the mass demos going, as that particular mode of repression was prevented from being deployed.

It strikes me that ultimately the cases where PD can be inspiring, press-worthy, or tactically useful are ultimately rare, and that in cases where privilege and arrestability & wishes of fellow travelers are not taken into account the introduction of property

destruction into a demonstration is supremely boneheaded, shortsighted, and harmful to ostensible allies. Most of the time breaking shit is a bad idea--the reasons not to do it outnumber the reasons to do it. It's almost never a 'productive' action per se. That

should be acknowledged. But it's clear to me that while rare, these moments *do* exist.

Now, as I said above, there are propositions I certainly don't buy. There's a more abstract notion I've heard cited calling PD "moments of excess," where understood invisible lines are crossed in order to display their permeability. "Capitalist hegemony has colonized your mind, man, the bosses are no more invincible than this window." I think it's sort of silly and don't really buy this as a strong argument, but I understand what's being gestured at. I've encountered the argument that as a form of direct action that creates a cost, PD is a way of hurting objectionable business' bottom-line. This is sorta silly, obviously--most places have insurance that covers a broken window. (I've also seen this flipped, with "they have insurance!" used to justify PD).

Spectrum & iatee rightly note it's not just the windows. think about the effects on the people who work there, use the services, etc. This is certainly a worthwhile consideration, and as a guy who was once a banker when a small Austin black bloc threw a

brick threw my branch window, I've been on both sides of the glass. The bank is shut down during a stationary demo, which means a lot of thumb twiddling and hoping we'd get sent home early. When the glass breaks there are the moments of panic, the

subsiding of same as the bloc hauls ass and things calm down, and then everyone but the boss *does* go home early while the window gets replaced.

When I helped shut down a bank last fall I spent the day talking with the customers whose days we were busy affecting. There were certainly some that were upset their branch was closed (in fact, we'd spread out a dozen teams and closed every branch in the city), and annoyed that we were in their way. A surprisingly high number of the people I talked to, though--it certainly seemed like the large majority, though maybe there's some availability bias happening here--were ultimately supportive of our blockade once we laid out that we were fighting an eviction, and all the evictions. What I'm saying is that in my experience people are supportive of disrupting an institution that's carrying out injustice, even if it makes their day a pain in the ass.

This certainly isn't an argument for the institution of some flashmob insurrectionary terror squad--but as a tool of escalation, empowerment, press-grabbing, and activist self-defense, I think PD does have a limited and strategically-informed place.

wow weird formatting, sorry

is that legible to people, other than being nonsense

So, some thoughts--

I do think there's an argument to be made for targeted property destruction (or PD) as an autonomous tactic *in concert with* an ongoing campaign or set of direct actions. To get some things out of the way, though:

- Breaking a bank window does not hurt Jamie Dimon.
- Breaking a bank window at a protest with families, immigrants, and POC who might not be prepared for or in position to fight back against the attendant escalation in police action is stupid and wrong.
- There's a pretty unfortunate dichotomy--and I was even perpetuating it upthread some--between the day to day work of community organizing and ostensibly 'insurrectionary' actions that involve PD. The reality is that the individuals I've known to take to PD are also--once they take off the masks--some of the hardest working pavement pounders and movement builders I've ever met. They're not idiots looking for a fight.
- Breaking a bank window will not jump start The Revo.

All that said. It's my thinking that PD is a tactic that ought to be understood as a rarely used tool in a robust toolbox. Every tactic ought to be scrutinized for effectiveness and evaluated from the same starting point: these are all tools, the only question is which one is most useful to us right now.

Sometimes we need a rally. Sometimes another anodyne demonstration will echo nicely in the chamber of back patting liberal activism without making a sound outside of it. A lot of the criticisms leveled at PD for being ~merely symbolic~ attacks could be leveled equally at many other approaches. The important thing when gauging usefulness is context. I think PD is rarely useful, but that it can be.

How can PD "help," as such?

It's been my experience, and historically the experience of lots of organizers, that people can find direct action profoundly empowering. Rather than yelling (again) at empty buildings holding tattered (or too-slick) signs, deliberately putting oneself at risk to disrupt and impede business as usual. As I said upthread, I've seen ~normie bystanders~ who aren't deeply ensconed in some crustpunk culture inspired and galvanized by PD and other property-related disruptions. Some of these people have even gone on to involve themselves in movement building work. Some people are repelled by PD. Some are charged by it. I don't pretend to know the proportions, but to exclude from activation people who aren't engaged or moved by the kabuki of the permitted march by ruling out PD as always and everywhere unacceptable is to exclude people I've seen and worked with who've proven themselves valuable organizers. That's not something I'm willing to do.

Secondly it's worth noting that targeted PD is often the only time particular misbehaviors are even mentioned in the press. Large summits like the G8/20, or the NATO meetings, tend to be sponsored by major corporations & defense contractors. Attacks on their buildings get coverage, and the March Organizer's Press Release of Grievances is finally put to use and quoted from to provide context.

Further it's worth thinking about PD as an attempt to create space for more mainstream activity and more radical activity as well--even as a diversionary tactic. It was put to spectacular use to divert the police from ongoing lockdowns at the WTO meetings in Seattle & Cancun, where the lockdowns contributed to the delay & shutdown of those meetings, and in Miami where delegates from the global south cited the lockdowns as sources of courage in their opposition to the trade agreement. Organizers of Miami actions cited the bloc's flashmob-style targetted attacks as key to delaying the inevitable crackdown and the meeting itself. I think also of the G8 in Alberta, where a bloc infamously descended on and destroyed a police truck bearing a water cannon waiting to be aimed at the mass of protesters. When the backup arrived, it too was shortly incapacitated. This kept the mass demos going, as that particular mode of repression was prevented from being deployed.

It strikes me that ultimately the cases where PD can be inspiring, press-worthy, or tactically useful are ultimately rare, and that in cases where privilege and arrestability & wishes of fellow travelers are not taken into account the introduction of property destruction into a demonstration is supremely boneheaded, shortsighted, and harmful to ostensible allies. Most of the time breaking shit is a bad idea--the reasons not to do it outnumber the reasons to do it. It's almost never a 'productive' action per se. That should be acknowledged. But it's clear to me that while rare, these moments *do* exist.

Now, as I said above, there are propositions I certainly don't buy. There's a more abstract notion I've heard cited calling PD "moments of excess," where understood invisible lines are crossed in order to display their permeability. "Capitalist hegemony has colonized your mind, man, the bosses are no more invincible than this window." I think it's sort of silly and don't really buy this as a strong argument, but I understand what's being gestured at. I've encountered the argument that as a form of direct action that creates a cost, PD is a way of hurting objectionable business' bottom-line. This is sorta silly, obviously--most places have insurance that covers a broken window. (I've also seen this flipped, with "they have insurance!" used to justify PD).

Spectrum & iatee rightly note it's not just the windows. think about the effects on the people who work there, use the services, etc. This is certainly a worthwhile consideration, and as a guy who was once a banker when a small Austin black bloc threw a brick threw my branch window, I've been on both sides of the glass. The bank is shut down during a stationary demo, which means a lot of thumb twiddling and hoping we'd get sent home early. When the glass breaks there are the moments of panic, the subsiding of same as the bloc hauls ass and things calm down, and then everyone but the boss *does* go home early while the window gets replaced.

When I helped shut down a bank last fall I spent the day talking with the customers whose days we were busy affecting. There were certainly some that were upset their branch was closed (in fact, we'd spread out a dozen teams and closed every branch in the city), and annoyed that we were in their way. A surprsingly high number of the people I talked to, though--it certainly seemed like the large majority, though maybe there's some availability bias happening here--were ultimately supportive of our blockade once we laid out that we were fighting an eviction, and all the evictions. What I'm saying is that in my experience people are supportive of disrupting an institution that's carrying out injustice, even if it makes their day a pain in the ass.

This certainly isn't an argument for the institution of some flashmob insurrectionary terror squad--but as a tool of escalation, empowerment, press-grabbing, and activist self-defense, I think PD does have a limited and strategically-informed place.

(hopefully getting a mod to delete that other post)

Get a blog motherfucker

^^ easiest route for waterface to unendear himself to most of ilx

waterface you can eat my butt 24 hours a day at hoosteen.net

*guyfieri.jpg*

Wow you shut down a bank I guess you showed those banksters

after we shut down 12 banks that day, my friend got to keep his house. so yeah, we did.

That's cool! Very cool dude.

by making something about one person's house you allow the bank to win on the PR game

I think it's cool his friend got to keep his house.

I just disagree with the tactics. How many people's lives did you disrupt that day?

lol fuck you

being disruptive is not the waterface way

I am the Occupy of ILX.

#occupyilx

bootlicking is, xp

How many people's lives did you disrupt that day?

people=people who needed to use a bank. duuuuuuuuuuuuh

soccupy

by making something about one person's house you allow the bank to win on the PR game

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 8:46 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is why it's never solely about one person's house--it's about a movement to oppose evictions, and every piece of literature we produce, every interview we give, every time one of our homeowner's speaks at a rally or to the press, we work to emphasize that this is bigger than one person in one house. and i can tell you that no journalist in this city runs the story as 'bank does a nice thing.' it runs as 'activists win victory against bank.'

emphasize it sure but it's very clear that the tactics to get one bank branch to modify a mortgage aren't going to be effective on a macro scale because it's the difference between asking them to give up basically nothing and asking them to give up something substantial

Hoos your daddy now, Big Bank?

yes, you've cracked the nut of 'organizing a mass movement against foreclosures.' i don't know how to solve that problem either, but people better versed in the appropriate policy questions are doing a lot of thinking about it right now, and i'm listening.

xp

as in 'what is the pressure point to attack that will result in motion in the direction we're aiming'

well the only way to make radical political changes in society is the actual political process

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

ya I agree w/ this and I was the first ilxor at ows for the record. I don't think protesting is bad but it also can quickly become navel gazing when it refuses to engage w/ the political meatgrinder

activists should give the banks home makeovers instead and see what happens

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 9:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, one win isn't the fuckin revolution. it's a step that builds momentum, gains membership for a movement, builds community power and solidarity. every time we win one, the number of people at our next local meeting has doubled. and we're not even really killing it the way they're killing it in minnesota, for example, where they in fact *are* winning policy changes based on the successful creation of a statewide network that mobilizes as a unit.

Most successful political movements have radical and non-radical wings. It basically boils down to "You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

drunk guy told me once "i'm mostly an anarchist bcz i think it's important that there are anarchists in the world"

"i don't know what i want, but i know how to get it..."

are you sure he didn't say "alcoholic"?

"You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Monday, June 17, 2013 9:19 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol kudos didn't notice this

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

broadly speaking I think there's an inverse correlation between how fun any given political activism is and how efficiently you're using your time

Get a blog motherfucker

― copter (waterface), Monday, June 17, 2013 10:21 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1359061/mario-flag-pole-o.gif

broadly speaking i don't disagree. knocking on people's doors and asking for sign-ons to upcoming meetings is generally boring as fuck, but it's where the real work happens.

conversely, as the saying goes, if i can't dance...

xp

"if i can't orchestrate four simultaneous banner drops while a bassnectar song plays and we block four intersections, its not my revolution" = high impact activism

At last year's Occupy Our Homes convergence there was a proposition--that ultimately failed--to get us to adopt principal reduction as a unifying goal alongside our various local campaigns. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on that as I wasn't in attendance for those discussions and don't really know enough about the policy questions. Are we talking about it on the housing thread or somewhere?

Principal reduction for people facing foreclosure? In general or just in cases of inflated home prices (e.g. pre-financial crisis)?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/17/g_is_for_grab_bag_g8_protests_northern_ireland

My understanding is principal reduction for ppl in crisis xp

as much as I think the global summit party had its uses a decade ago I wonder about the efficacy of G8 actions today--it's not the same as WTO/FTAA stuff, and the TPP has successfully obscured itself enough that people aren't rowdying around it

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress

The only way it isn't progress is if you work for the bank and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If this boils down to "It's only one bank, you still can't change the system" then really why do anything at all? Why even have any laws?

hoos you see this? someone go throw something at a mcdonalds.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-06-17/news/40008232_1_debit-card-minimum-wage-fees

fuckers...

yes, just saw that. so mad.

unbelievable

presumably, the system saves the franchisee on payroll costs. JPM probably gives the "service" to the franchisee cheap or free knowing that they'll make money on the fees. The franchisee is basically selling its employees to a bank.

The customer-service end of banks is horrible (customers in this case being the people that use the bank mainly as a place to keep their money). It's basically like a pickpocket operation, they constant have their hands on your wallet, with one fee or another, all these extra little charges that they invoke because somehow it is legal, and the majority of people just say "Aw, fuck this!" and pay the fee and forget about it. Because what are you going to do? You can't change the banking system, and you can't change it politically, cos all those fuckers are best friends.

So you just pay the $30 fee that is invoked because your "Account must have a minimum of $1000" in it. You are being charged for being poor. Once this fee started popping up on my account and I brought it up with a teller. They offered to switch my account to a "Free Checking Account", which wouldn't charge me that fee. Was there any fee involved in switching from what I had to this account? No. Was there any difference between this type of account and the one I had, other than I was being charged $30 extra a month? No. These banks are nothing more than literal pickpockets.

So yeah, if you can get banks to stop a foreclosure, you are an effing hero.

jesus hellchrist

btw hurting et al this is keith ellison's thinking on principal reduction etc, and its the stuff that OOH-MN has helped bring to the fore:

Could you elaborate on your proposal for principal reduction?

Underwater mortgages are holding people in homes that they can’t leave. And if you can’t sell your house then you can’t go to the job across the nation that might pay more. This is cutting into families' discretionary income. And it's a drain on the economy. At the end of the day, we need people to be able to stay in their homes if they want to, and people must be able to sell their homes if they need to. Without writing down these mortgages, we’re going to be stuck. I encourage people who are in the housing movement to make a robust and directed demand at the administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) [to reduce mortgage principals].
How do you respond to those who say that principal reduction is unrealistic?

Banks have already been [writing down mortgages] in certain instances. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that plenty of writing down can be done. But here’s the other thing: Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about 60 percent of the residential mortgages in the country. If they own them, they can write them down. That’s it. In the 1930s there was a precedent for this kind of action. At the end of the day, it is possible and it's the right thing to do. It’s just a political question as to whether we can muster the will to do it.
What impact do you think social movement groups organizing against foreclosures are making with respect to the Washington debate?
Advertisement

I think that they’re having an enormous effect. In fact, I don’t think we’d be anywhere close to doing anything without them. Clearly, the people are leading the politicians in this situation. And I’m so grateful to them. Without raising the public ire, we would not be able to make the forceful demands that we’re making now.

To be perfectly fair to members of Congress, they’ve been arguing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and with FHFA for a long time. But the administrators listen to us and say, 'Yeah, yeah … right, Congressman.' Then they go on doing what they want to do.

Now, if these agencies have to start dealing with some street heat, they will see things differently. I think that heat is indispensable.

Sympathetic members of Congress have the power to draft, introduce, and vote on legislation. But leaders in the progressive community and in the housing movement have the ability to mobilize, educate, and organize all across America. We need each other to be successful.

it's not a bad idea but it is effectively a bailout

For whom, in what way?

for people w/ underwater mortgages, many of whom are not the poorest americans, by taxpayers

incidentally geithner pushed for this

Because what are you going to do?

um, not put your money in a bank

incidentally geithner pushed for this

― iatee, Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:47 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, i recall that

so I mean 'should activists push for something even after the white house fully supports it and doesn't have the ability to change it'

cbo seems to suggest that principal reduction by FHFA would avoid enough defaults to make it worth the money

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/05/06/report-principal-forgiveness-could-reduce-costs-for-taxpayers/

well it seems to me this is why demarco's head rolled and and mel watt saddled up

well the white house supports torture, trial-less executions, and endless war, should activists just support those things too

adam bruneau are you even literate

well it seems to me this is why demarco's head rolled and and mel watt saddled up

his head hasn't rolled...

while we're at it can we get some loan forgiveness for student debt plz?

lol

I mean dude he was loudly called out for a particular policy position and he is being replaced by a stalwart advocate for that same position who loudly criticized him. It's no nixonian massacre, but that's not real opaque to me

hey les do credit card debt too plz

only when the senate sez so absent a recess appointment

xp

this isn't even the first time obama attempted to replace him

Yeah, I remember the other dude from like late 10, right? But this is precisely the sort of opportunity where grassroots power building and pressure application can come into play. Building a movement that makes it politically untenable to continue to oppose the change. We haven't done it yet, and obviously the ballot box is part of the fight, but I think we're working in this direction in the national level and trying to make the appropriate connections from the local upward.

(I don't believe it's a contradiction that I'm defending black blocs and arguing for the confirmation of Boss FHFA 10 posts apart, but, lol.)

well the problem is that the pressure needs to be applied to senate republicans in safe seats

it's like i said, i don't think this is an easy problem to solve. but i don't think it's unsolvable--it just takes hard work that's worth doing.

or, you know, a goddamn recess appointment

ps smash all authority

heya hoos, have you read Graeber's The Democracy Project yet? I was reading the bookforum review of it last night (which also featured David Harvey's more neomarxist-influenced Rebel Cities) and it seemed well worth reading. i'll take my answer off the air.

The wealthy and powerful certainly spend plenty of time and money to identify every lever of power and every avenue of influence they can use to pursue their goals. There is no contradiction between occupying public parks and banks or marching in the streets, and filing briefs with the SEC or lobbying Congress for friendly appointments in federal bureaucracies, if any of these steps can get you closer to your goals.

yep. it's always frustrating to see people arguing for one avenue over the other when they're both necessary for change. it seems like a common structure of a breakthrough on an issue is 1) tangible and growing public protests, 2) people with access to the current framework of the institution working on realistic alternative policies, and 3) a highly visible event or series of events - financial breakdown, a scandal, a disaster - that draws media and wider public attention to the issue.

There's no doubt in my mind that the big Bonus March on Washington DC during the Hoover administration was useful for pushing FDR into more radical actions when he took over in 1933.

ZS I haven't read Graeber's new one yet, though I've read a few reviews & am considering it. Trying to finish working my way through Black Flame first.

great article on Left Unity http://viewpointmag.com/2013/06/13/dead-generations-and-unknown-continents-reflections-on-left-unity/

yeah thats really really good imo

has anyone read this?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1016828_380734515371512_871868813_n.jpg

i have it but have not read it! i'm told it's good.

Sounds interesting. Is there any evidence of a genuine uptick in people moving "off the grid"? There was a pretty big movement toward that kind of living in the 70s too.

in general, people need to stop thinking about how hippies did things. cuz it seems like a rebuke or something. not you, hurting! just in general. like, people shouldn't try new approaches cuz people did something like that once and now look where we are.

i don't really understand what that post is saying, scott.

i just meant if you mention "living off the grid" a lot of people immediately tie it to 60s/70s/hippies/etc. and it doesn't have to be like that. or worse they tie it to militias/survivalists/cults. it doesn't have to be any of those things.

Living off the grid does require a broad skill set that replaces being plugged into systems that are self-managing. Acquiring that skill set doesn't have to happen all at once, if you don't dive straight into the deep end, but instead select skills you are interested in, one at a time, and learn them as you go along. A lot of the failures among hippies and back-to-nature types in the 70s, when this was big, was a failure to recognize how much they didn't know before they committed to the project. It's more sensible to ramp your way up to it slowly and intentionally.

I think that the "oh that's a 70s thing" comes largely from the widespread failure of most of the people who tried to live off the grid to stick with it.

but yeah what aimless said

I think "true independence" is kind of a ridiculous fantasy, but that's probably something the marketing department came up with right?

has anyone read this?

wtf I am pretty sure I know that building

He edits the Web site Off-Grid.net in back of his RV, using a laptop plugged into a cigar lighter (and a wireless modem plugged into a laptop).

Ok, not gonna bother with this one.

Also has an epigraph by "E.E. Schumacher" (smh)

off the grid = a car battery?

and wireless internet!

there's no grid dude, it's wireless

lol

maybe he just means he pays his wireless bill in cash, or buys re-up cards for it at walmart

Jul 4 70 I have become so obsessed lately with the hopelessness of any rebellion against authority that I can only assume that I have come to a sort of climacteric. I read the political page every day and am continually astounded by what I read.

— Richard Burton (@BurtonDiaries) July 4, 2019

I was around in July 1970 and old enough to see and appreciate exactly what Mr. Burton was reading. Yes, the political state of the USA especially, but much of Europe, was plenty astounding and equally dispiriting.