Is rebellion possible?

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