Is rebellion possible?

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?