Relax, calm down, breathe, think, shut the fuck up.
Dec 14 2004 13:31
I connect with plenty of the thoughts on londonclasswar.org, (not including it's name) and enrager.net (definately not it's name). Alot of it is good and comes from a good place.
But what makes me sad is the fact that nobody seems to realise that incessant shouting and calling people 'cunts' and threatening violence and breaking things does as much for balancing the class divide as Osama did for getting America out of the Middle East.
Like Gandhi said of cilvilisation, I think both objectives would be a good idea. But like Mr Laden we're actively campaining against our own goals (apparently).
As unpleasant as it is to compare Us to Osama, (Us being people who want justice, care about human rights etc...OBD not included) I do it because we do, it seems, have something in common. Misused rage.
Which means what? Well either Osama doesn't want America out, so that they will stay and he can have a good old scrap, (a holy scrap) or he does want America out and is sabotaging himself by being a stupid wanker. Now I think the first is true. I think he is a wanker (and deluded too) but I don't think he is stupid. Getting America out, and bringing Osama to justice (without killing hundreds of thousands of expendable civilians along the way) would make sense to all people with even the slightest respect for human rights or desire for true people power. Osama isn't one of them so I can only assume from all the above, that his objective is a big self righteous religious murder fest.
Now what about Us? What do we want?
Being simplistic, anyone who preferred a fairer spread of wealth will be angry at Thatcher. ( Hurry up and die stickers). Anyone who hates exploitation and corporate greed will hate Blair and his unerring faith in the 'Third Way' and private partnerships. (Fuck Blair graffiti etc). Anger, anger, anger.
How much effort goes into spraying this rage? And what do you produce? Stickers that say "Thatcher. Hurry up and die" Many people wish her death. Fair enough, but it's not going to help. She's a less than ineffectual rusty iron old bag now. Too busy wondering what she did wrong as she stares at her son through the bars of an African prison visiting room. Everything is the answer Maggie, but I digress.
The real question is whether any of the people who write these boring diatribes of rage on these websites have any interest in actually changing things. Do you want to be an Osama; just venting your anger in a way that might feel good or right, yet only playing into the hands of the government spin machine? Or do you wanna be a Gandhi; and stand up, with knowledge, patience, strength and a fought for calmness?
The most effective weapon that an unjust power has is the position and money to peddle justifiability, to sell to the people all the goodness of it's reasoning. Lucky for us then, that injustice isn't truly justifiable and can be exposed. We can raise the consciousness of simple facts, events and evidence and break through the double speak. We don't need to know the answer to everything. It's like catch phrase. Just say what you see. We don't need to get drawn into traps baited by rage or stuck in little ruts of fury.
Just like a good lawyer can destroy a defence case by angering the defendant to his own sabotage, so can our government anger us and make us seem like mindless violent idiots. Oxford Circus May Day an excellent example.
The anger is understandable and I always have the urge to throw something or bring down the system in a blaze of glory. "Anger is an energy", as the great John Lydon said once. But are you going to use it well, or are you going to shout a lot, like John Lydon did on 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here'. (Please John. Stop.)
Osama bin Laden certainly has no interest in the good of the people. He knows full well that his actions will increase peoples suffering. Bush knows full well his actions will create suffering and do nothing to increase true democracy. I just wish some more of Us would realize that spraying rage and negativity plays quite boringly and predictably along with the objectives of the powerful.
Unless of course what we really want is a full blown war and revolution so we can put people under the guillotine. If that's what you want fine, be honest about it. That wouldn't make you an anarchist though, that would make you a wanker.
If you are a so called 'anarchist' or someone who falls into the bracket of the above mentioned then I can pretty much guarantee two things.
1. You have read this far.
2. You are angry.
That's all good. But don't tell me about it. I already know you think I'm a dick. If you want to know how to beat the Empire, study someone who knew how and read a book or three about Gandhi and stop whining on like tetchy and teatless little nanny goats.
Dec 14 2004 14:06
#2
thehipghand wrote:
read a book or three about Gandhi and stop whining on like tetchy and teatless little nanny goats.
Yes...anger...now unleash your full hatred and join the violent side
And take on the black hoody like your father before him...
Dec 14 2004 14:13
#3
so yeah, um, what do you mean?
I'm generally digging what you are saying, but i would like to say:
1. Although you rightly see some of the violence as misused anger, much of it is symbolic, and portrays certain ideological trends through a completey new medium in the form of deliberate, focused acts of destruction.
(NB by the way, i don't really like 'rucking with the pigs' either but i can see some people's points)
2. I think a lot of people, including myself, are a little afraid of what might come after a revolution. it only takes one stupid twat, or a small group of them, to ruin it all, as we have seen time and time again. So this is a sort of love-fear relationship that is perfectly healthy- of course we don't want revolution messed up by some meglomaniac or whatever.
Finally, i'd like to say that it is hard to look at a movement as a whole without taking it in little subsections of background, like age, experience, ideology, etc.
I think a lot of people act aggressively because they either believe that it is a symbolic act, like squatting or graffitti, or that they're just bloody petrified: it's a natural survival instinct kicking in. So basically, i don't think your similie between the anarchist movement and Osama Bin Laden is entirely legitimate. You have to contextualise a bit more. However, some points were quite well made
Dec 14 2004 14:43
#4
the button wrote:
Gandhi was a wife-beating fuck.
I didn't know that and would take it on board if I saw evidence. Doesn't change the fact that he had a major victory over an oppresive power (the british empire) in a non violent way. Anger put to great use. Chomsky another example. That's what I'm talking about. Maybe you could suggest it to the Indians that as a result of Gandhi being a wife beating fuck, his victory is no longer legitimate and they have to give India back to the British Empire. I'm sure Blair would love you for it.
To ftony.
Some of the stuff you say maybe true. But I'm concerned with solving a problem, not explaining why some anarchists act violently. Violence certainly won't help. That's historically typical.
In addition, in response to your final paragraph, I'm not looking at a movement as a whole, I'm looking at whether people using violence achieves a goal, and whether the goal is apparent, especially to the person employing the violence.
I didn't make a simile between Osama and the anarchist movement. I made a comparison between certain actions common to both. Violence employed to achieve stated objectives. Neither of which, as typical in history, can be achieved through the use of violence.
Another big problem on this site is everyones desperation to hang to their badge of being a part of a movement. I hate it when things get religious, or fundamentalist. It gets everyone defensive and people start losing their sense of irony and humanity. Leave your label to the historians who will be writing about you in 50 years. That's when people will need to put you in a pidgeon hole, so they can write an essay.
Lazlo. i am Mumra, the ever living. I'll never join you. I have the Thunder cats.
Dec 14 2004 14:53
#5
Hey, I didn't write all that. Particularly not the shite in the middle 
. It starts & ends well, though.
Dec 14 2004 16:34
#6
thehipghand wrote:
Being simplistic, anyone who preferred a fairer spread of wealth will be angry at Thatcher. ( Hurry up and die stickers). Anyone who hates exploitation and corporate greed will hate Blair and his unerring faith in the 'Third Way' and private partnerships. (Fuck Blair graffiti etc). Anger, anger, anger.How much effort goes into spraying this rage? And what do you produce? Stickers that say "Thatcher. Hurry up and die" Many people wish her death. Fair enough, but it's not going to help.
Sounds like your describing some cross between a RATM fan and a member of Class War.
Quote:
If you are a so called 'anarchist' or someone who falls into the bracket of the above mentioned then I can pretty much guarantee two things.1. You have read this far.
2. You are angry.
Not really. I oppose capitalism because it's shit (well actually I have revolutionary Marxist analysis of it but I'm trying to dumb down here). I'm not angry as such.
Quote:
Unless of course what we really want is a full blown war and revolution so we can put people under the guillotine. If that's what you want fine, be honest about it. That wouldn't make you an anarchist though, that would make you a wanker.
It would make you a member of class war, if you had a guillotine fetish.
Quote:
That's all good. But don't tell me about it. I already know you think I'm a dick. If you want to know how to beat the Empire, study someone who knew how and read a book or three about Gandhi and stop whining on like tetchy and teatless little nanny goats.
Well, at least one thing in that post was right.
Look the basic problem with this is you're assuming:
1. Everyone on enrager is a dreadlocked, bath-shunning, RATM-listening black-blocking middle-class poser. In actual fact this only describes a small and isolated minority, such as WeTheYouth.
2. Gandhi had some good ideas.
Gandhi was a pro-bourgeois scumfuck. As well as the wife beating mentioned by thebutton, he supported imperialism in World War One (he actually called for Indians to enlist), constantly put down left-wing movements in the anti-colonialism struggle and of course, he was a pacifist (at least in his own struggle, not when it came to major imperialist wars).
Along with primitivism, pacificism is one of the most anti-working class theories in circulation in left and liberal circles. It's impossible to overthrow the rule of capital through gradual reform, spreading ideas or bloodless revolution, because the ruling class aren't that much of a pushover. To argue against violence as a tool in a workers revolution is basically spitting in the face of 200+ years of proletarian struggles. But since your argument revolves around anti-colonialism and various anti-globalisation nutters you are clearly coming from a fairly naive and liberal stance in the first place.
Anyway, I'm in a good mood as I just found out that the guitarist from Pantera died 
, so I won't get too hysterically offensive at you right now.
Dec 14 2004 16:58
#7
the button wrote:
Hey, I didn't write all that. Particularly not the shite in the middle
I edited his post so it makes sense 
Dec 14 2004 17:18
#8
redyred wrote:
I oppose capitalism because it's shit (well actually I have revolutionary Marxist analysis of it but I'm trying to dumb down here).
Ooh hark at him. 
Dec 14 2004 17:37
#9
"Sounds like your describing some cross between a RATM fan and a member of Class War. "
I'm reacting to alot of the incitement to violence I've read within these websites and anger which is sprayed and not carried through into anything useful. You obviously don't fall into this category. I'm not even saying anger is a bad thing either as you suggested. Neither am I referring to you.
" I oppose capitalism because it's shit."
Yeah me too. And it makes me angry.
Quote:
Unless of course what we really want is a full blown war and revolution so we can put people under the guillotine. If that's what you want fine, be honest about it. That wouldn't make you an anarchist though, that would make you a wanker.
It would make you a member of class war, if you had a guillotine fetish.
Yes. I agree. That is exactly what I'm saying. If you rant about violent revolution and killing people it doesn't make you an anarchist. It makes you violent. It also is ineffective and adds to cycles of violence and ignorance. There are quite alot of people who don't seem to know what anarchism means is a part of my point.
redyred wrote:
Look the basic problem with this is you're assuming:1. Everyone on enrager is a dreadlocked, bath-shunning, RATM-listening black-blocking middle-class poser. In actual fact this only describes a small and isolated minority, such as WeTheYouth."
I'm not assuming any of that, I didn't say it.
2. Gandhi had some good ideas.
Gandhi was a pro-bourgeois scumfuck. As well as the wife beating mentioned by thebutton, he supported imperialism in World War One (he actually called for Indians to enlist), constantly put down left-wing movements in the anti-colonialism struggle and of course, he was a pacifist (at least in his own struggle, not when it came to major imperialist wars).
All of that is interesting and I'd like to know more but again, I didn't say Gandhi wasn't any of these things. I was using his method of beating oppresion without violence as an example. Which he did. Apart from only being a good thing, my argument is that it is the most effective way of overcoming one of the oppresssors most powerful weapons.
Along with primitivism, pacificism is one of the most anti-working class theories in circulation in left and liberal circles. It's impossible to overthrow the rule of capital through gradual reform, spreading ideas or bloodless revolution, because the ruling class aren't that much of a pushover.
Again, I said nothing about gradual reform. I don't believe in that. Liberals will use pacifism as a tool to retain the comfortable status quo, yes. This doesn't mean it is in itself anti working class.
I disagree about bloodless revolution. Maybe that is our disagreement.
I also know that the ruling classes aren't much of a push over. That's why I think we need the strength to make a change in the way we do it. I think suggesting peaceful civil diobedience and refraining from violence and incitement of such are two ways forward.
"To argue against violence as a tool in a workers revolution is basically spitting in the face of 200+ years of proletarian struggles. But since your argument revolves around anti-colonialism and various anti-globalisation nutters you are clearly coming from a fairly naive and liberal stance in the first place."
To make a large sweeping statement that suggests my making specific comparisons between uses of violence and their effectiveness, with examples from recent events is spitting in the face of 200 years of proletariat struggle (however uselessly unspecific that is) and then in the following sentence call me naive is quite ironic. If you wanted me to spit in the face of that (whatever it is) and showed me I still wouldn't know how nor want to.
I didn't accuse you of anything, and you are defensive and now you are making me into someone you can easily dismiss in your head. If you hate the easy comfortable assumptions of the Liberal Left, stop making comfortable assumptions yourself.
Anyway, I'm in a good mood as I just found out that the guitarist from Pantera died
Did you not like Panterra?
Dec 14 2004 17:43
#10
redyred wrote:
1. Everyone on enrager is a dreadlocked, bath-shunning, RATM-listening black-blocking middle-class poser. In actual fact this only describes a small and isolated minority, such as WeTheYouth.
.
do fuck off
Dec 14 2004 18:54
#11
thehipghand wrote:
There are quite alot of people who don't seem to know what anarchism means is a part of my point.
As someone who knows can you explain what it means?
Dec 14 2004 19:38
#12
Here you go yozzee.
http://www.enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2480&start=0
redyred wrote:
...Gandhi was a pro-bourgeois scumfuck. As well as the wife beating mentioned by thebutton, he supported imperialism in World War One (he actually called for Indians to enlist), constantly put down left-wing movements in the anti-colonialism struggle and of course, he was a pacifist (at least in his own struggle, not when it came to major imperialist wars)
Gandhi was anti-communist. In the context, it was obvious. Would you hand India to Stalin? Do you think Churchill would allow that? Do you think the Raj would have packed up and went home if that was Gandhi's stated aim?
Think about it Redyred. He wanted independence from any of these systems of oppression. Why should he want to join in on either side? Since independence, India's military focus has been on defence. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir are all internal struggles in the territory given up by the UK. It has found them allied with Russia, against China. Expedient moves on the political chessboard, made in order to ensure their continued autonomy from these systems of oppression.
There's a lesson for us all. Gandhi wasn't a nationalist lackey of the establishment. He was a peaceful dissenting activist, who helped unite India in civil disobedience against oppression.
They succeeded. Gandhi was right, and India is one of the few places on earth where coca-cola and macdonalds are nowhere to be seen.
Dec 14 2004 19:52
#13
nuclearcivvy wrote:
They succeeded. Gandhi was right, and India is one of the few places on earth where coca-cola and macdonalds are nowhere to be seen.
Well, at least you've now proven you're a total fantasist.
Dec 14 2004 20:23
#14
Coca-cola wasn't allowed access to the indian market til the early 80's. Mcdonalds has more barriers to their plans there still, than anywhere else. It's almost not worth them being there.
This isn't a fantasy.
And haven't you read the first post of this thread Jack?
Dec 14 2004 20:34
#15
nuclearcivvy wrote:
Coca-cola wasn't allowed access to the indian market til the early 80's. Mcdonalds has more barriers to their plans there still, than anywhere else. It's almost not worth them being there.This isn't a fantasy.
No coca-cola? No McDonalds? Wow, it must be some kind of utopia. All they need now is to get rid of GAP, Starbucks and nestle and there would be no exploitation there at all!!!!
Dec 14 2004 20:40
#16
The Hindu religion holds cows in high regard, if I'm not mistaken. This could be why McCrappyfood is having trouble getting a foothold?
Dec 14 2004 20:41
#17
He also supported the caste system.
Dec 14 2004 22:01
#18
redyred wrote:
Sounds like your describing some cross between a RATM fan and a member of Class War.
Dude surely EVERYONE likes RATM??
They're awesome. Seriously. And not even cos of their politics. They just wrote good ol' rockin CHOONS.
Dec 15 2004 11:03
#19
Kidda wrote:
redyred wrote:
1. Everyone on enrager is a dreadlocked, bath-shunning, RATM-listening black-blocking middle-class poser. In actual fact this only describes a small and isolated minority, such as WeTheYouth.
.
do fuck off
Redyred didn't say that, he was saying that I assumed that was the case, which I didn't, but he wasn't saying that as his own personal belief. Why are you one prick?
Dec 15 2004 11:04
#20
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
redyred wrote:
Sounds like your describing some cross between a RATM fan and a member of Class War.Dude surely EVERYONE likes RATM??
They're awesome. Seriously. And not even cos of their politics. They just wrote good ol' rockin CHOONS.
Yes dude, they do rock. Let's all be angry. Good. Then let's focus it into something that works please.
Dec 15 2004 11:06
#21
Refused wrote:
The Hindu religion holds cows in high regard, if I'm not mistaken. This could be why McCrappyfood is having trouble getting a foothold?
Possibly a part of it. Hardly a thorough and mind blowing argument though.
Dec 15 2004 11:32
#22
thehipghand wrote
Quote:
Hardly a thorough and mind blowing argument though.
Wot, unlike your posts or nuclearcivvy's posts.
Come down off your high horse. The thoughts and actions of Gandhi and his followers, were hardly the only reason for the British leaving (an important part, no doubt) and his passive resistance wasn't what the British were afraid of.
Dec 15 2004 11:38
#23
yozzee wrote:
thehipghand wrote:
There are quite alot of people who don't seem to know what anarchism means is a part of my point.As someone who knows can you explain what it means?
I could write you an essay on what I think, or you could look it up. You're on the internet. But I suspect you already have a well polished version of your own.
It is impossible to define in short.
The media uses it as a negative word and because of this it invokes fear in most people. |This is a thin and bullshit definition. Many, if not all flyers forum posts, and images that I come across as a londoner perpetuate this bullshit definition. Most of the evidence from the history of anarchism I can find is about positive action and non violence.
Check out this quote.
"Of the more frivolous is the idea that the anarchist is a man who throws bombs and wishes to wreak society by violence and terror. That this charge should be brought against anarchists now, at a time when they are the few people who are not throwing bombs or assisting bomb throwers, shows a curious purblindness among its champions." The claim that anarchism is chaos was refuted long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote:
I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery or murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Exactly.many so called anarchists are helping the ruling classes stay in power because they want to satisfy their own nedd to be aggressive.
That is a brief version of what I think it means. But I'm not in the job of telling people what it means.
x
Dec 15 2004 11:52
#24
Jason Cortez wrote:
thehipghand wroteQuote:
Hardly a thorough and mind blowing argument though.Wot, unlike your posts or nuclearcivvy's posts.
Come down off your high horse. The thoughts and actions of Gandhi and his followers, were hardly the only reason for the British leaving (an important part, no doubt) and his passive resistance wasn't what the British were afraid of.
Chill out, I was half joking. He was talking about cows. Do you think that would stop Mcdonalds opening a restaurant in India? Someone at the company might have thought about a way round that don't you think.
And I'm not on any high horse. I never said it was him alone that did it. It so frustrating when you make a point and someone automatically rules out the possibility that you think anything other than an absolute version it andnothing else. If you read my posts, you'll see I didn't make any absolute defining statements about Gandhi saving India single handedley doing anything.
Dec 15 2004 12:47
#25
thehipghand wrote:
Refused wrote:
The Hindu religion holds cows in high regard, if I'm not mistaken. This could be why McCrappyfood is having trouble getting a foothold?Possibly a part of it. Hardly a thorough and mind blowing argument though.
The majority of India's population will be Hindus and there are small Muslim and Seikh areas. Hindu's, unless I'm mistaken, practice veganism. Muslims eat only halal and I don't know about Seikhs. Basically, what kind of market is there for McBurgers in India? They'll be catering for a tiny population, unless they decide not to serve any meat. Do they think it's worth it?
Dec 15 2004 15:16
#26
there are mcdonald's in india. a couple of years ago when it was discovered that in the us mcdonalds cook their chips in fat from cows, a load of enraged hindus went and trashed some mcdonald's in india. some hindus are vegetarian, although i think only in certain areas of india, most just don't eat beef, and i believe there's nothing in the religion forbidding the consumption of dairy products.
but as people have pointed but people who think ghandhi was god incarnate are to up their own arses see the sarcasm, it is fairly irrelevant that coca cola or mcdonald's aren't that popular there. for a start other multinationals who treat their workers as bad if not worse and with equal contempt for the environment have a fairly good foot hold there. and if we ignore nuclearcivvy's ridiculous national liberationist nonsense that makes jack and co's anti-imperialism seem almost sensible, then any balanced look at britain's retreat from india will see, it was not pacifism that was the single or even that significant cause. there was a history of violent resistance to british rule that went on before and during gandi's stuff, the due to various economic factors and changing political situation worldwide after the second world war, pulling out of india was a fairly sensible thing for the british ruling class to do, and gandi's lot being pacifists and therefore unthreatening, not likely to for instance bring about the abolition of classes, so were the logical lot for the british to hand overpower to.
and no one here or even those who produce propaganda believe that anarchism implies chaos. although nice choice of alexander berkamn, didn't he do an attempted assassination?
Quote:
Most of the evidence from the history of anarchism I can find is about positive action and non violence.
what history of anarchism was that? the disney version? the history of anarchism is full of examples of all sorts of tactics, but in almost every period when they have come into direct conflict with authority they did not sit down and chant "we shall not be moved", they fought back. sure, most anarchist propaganda is shit, but it can't be blamed purely on the slight over emphasis on violence. it's not as if hippy propaganda ever achieved anything except get people to smoke pot and listen to some admitedly good music.
Quote:
many so called anarchists are helping the ruling classes stay in power because they want to satisfy their own nedd to be aggressive.
yeah, because obviously if we were all nice and polite and wore cardigans the ruling class would just give up wouldn't they. there is are perfectly valid criticisms to be made of bad propaganda, bad communication skills, bad targetting, and random swearing at strangers by people wearing "anarchy" t-shirts, but the problem is not aggresivity and your criticisms miss the point entirely. no one joins the anarchist movement to vent aggression, at least not in britain, because it would be daft. if you need an outlet for aggression you go and start a fight when the pubs close or join a football firm or the police. you don't join groups of badly dressed anarchists who enjoy sitting around in pubs, talking about how crap the anarchist movement is, how inspiring some event miles away is, and then complaing that the group never does anything.
oh, and redyred
Quote:
1. Everyone on enrager is a dreadlocked, bath-shunning, RATM-listening black-blocking middle-class poser. In actual fact this only describes a small and isolated minority, such as WeTheYouth.
while wty almost certainly likes ratm as do many people with great politics, shit politics, no politics, and at least one of the enrager admins, and he probably has many black hoodies as most people who like certain types of music or like a warm sweatshirt with a handy pouch do, he is neither dreadlocked, bath-shunning, middle-class nor a poser. attacking him is possibly what has made revol68 lose his sense of humour recently, and entirely unjustified, especially as his politics are probably a lot nearer to yours than you seem to think. he also gets to write essays on battle royale.
Dec 16 2004 00:58
#27
A short critical piece on Gandhi
http://www.enrager.net/history/articles/gandhi-national-liberation/index.php
Dec 16 2004 11:43
#28
You are a boring twat. Go and break something or scare someone in Mcdonalds. Go on, change the world.
Dec 16 2004 11:52
#29
Generation Terrorist said...
..."shit politics"
Dec 16 2004 11:56
#30
thehipghand wrote:
You are a boring twat.
Didn't you start this thread by bemoaning people calling other people cunts? Hardly in the spirit of Gandhi. Who, of course, let his fists do the talking, at least as far as his wife was concerned.
Gandhi was a wife-beating fuck.