Another one
Never trust a person with a bookshelf full of the same book (Petka, 19/7/05)
Rehearsed with dbs last night. We are getting tighter and tighter. The next step is to get our newly recruited drummer up to speed, and we should be ready to rock.
The O'C had to scarper around eight, and so Petka and I went to Café Kick on Exmouth Market. The place is a South American / Latin sort of joint, complete with nouveau funk, Mohitos and fussball tables. Petka wasn't wearing his glasses, so most encounters of the opposite sexual kind were experiences for him (only joking - Petka's desire to become an 'ageing lothario' seems to be bearing fruit). Had a couple of San Miguels, checked out te talent and played some fussball (when in Rome etc). The conversation soon turned to our favourite topic - the state of the world today and more importantly, capitalism.
Surprisingly (perhaps for both of us), we agreed on pretty much every point.
In essence, capitalism (and democracy) IS the utopian way of life for the human race. And the only way to solicit change is to work within the system. One cannot expect miracles overnight. Now the day that the so-called 'activists' (a fantastic umbrella term encompassing everything from anti-fox hunt protesters through to the black bloc) actually propose an alternative that is viable, inclusive and long-term, how can the public not follow suit? Problem is, of course, that when cornered, none of the 'activists' actually have ANY alternatives to put in place, or at least not any that doesn't simply involve vandalism or tunnel vision politics. What they fail to grasp in my opinion, is the fact that moaning and wanting to change things is pointless and immature unless a better system has been devised which can take the place of the exisiting status quo. It's akin to being a five-year old kid who refuses to clean his room, but is incapable of suggesting how else it should be done. It's an empty, childish statement. I don't like it, but if I mona enough someone else will or should fix it.
Moan moan. Some of my friends would strongly disagree, claiming that there is nothing wrong with wanting to change the system. I wholeheartedly concur. But in order to change something, you will need a system with which to replace the existing one. Unless you have an idea of what the alternative should be, shut up, go home and work one out. Otherwise you are not really facilitating change, you are hoping that others will do it for you (and if they do, will you be happy?)
Ever thought what would happen if say tomorrow, as a result of 'resistance', Tony Blair told the 'activists' to come to Downing Street and flesh out Britain for the future? What plans do you think they would propose? How would they deal with the NHS, with social security, education, public transport, childhood obesity, teenage pregnancy, drugs, violence, the law and so forth (ad infinitum)?
- Exactly, none of them really think beyond the completely inappropriate concept of 'resistance' as a be all and end all (give me a break, resisting what exactly? This is the West for fuck sake). It is so laughable that I am ashamed to be middle-class. The working class don't give a toss about anti-capitalists (another great label; it's like claiming to be anti-philosophy) so the very people whose cause these middleclass 'rebels' claim to champion have no interest in their 'help'.
Finally, how can obstructing a police cordon help solve third world debt or the injustices of the 'enslaved masses'? To date, no one has been able to give me a straight answer as to what this so-called resistance actually has or will achieve. All I get is the tired mantra of "at least we are trying" or "you have to put up resistance".
Not very well thought out, but then again spoilt middle-class people with a authority problem tend not to think things through. I am not blind to the faults of Western society and I pity those that are, but I also have the intelligence to spot that throwing bricks, smashing a car or chaining yourself to a JCB is about as useful a measure for facilitating change and winning supporters for your cause as trying to eat soup with chopsticks.
I want change too, but I want change which is viable, rational and of considerable longevity. Smashing capitalism (however futile and unproductive and physically impossible) is not really an option, unless a better system can be put in its place. Work with the system, not against it.
If you want confrontation, go to a country where it is needed.
Cops don't make policy. Attacking them or the property of the majority isn't exactly giving a positive message for change. It is simply saying "we are unhappy so we'll break stuff", or "we are promoting a new system whereby goals are attained through violence and non-negotiation". Sounds familiar?
Rehearsed with dbs last night. We are getting tighter and tighter. The next step is to get our newly recruited drummer up to speed, and we should be ready to rock.
The O'C had to scarper around eight, and so Petka and I went to Café Kick on Exmouth Market. The place is a South American / Latin sort of joint, complete with nouveau funk, Mohitos and fussball tables. Petka wasn't wearing his glasses, so most encounters of the opposite sexual kind were experiences for him (only joking - Petka's desire to become an 'ageing lothario' seems to be bearing fruit). Had a couple of San Miguels, checked out te talent and played some fussball (when in Rome etc). The conversation soon turned to our favourite topic - the state of the world today and more importantly, capitalism.
Surprisingly (perhaps for both of us), we agreed on pretty much every point.
In essence, capitalism (and democracy) IS the utopian way of life for the human race. And the only way to solicit change is to work within the system. One cannot expect miracles overnight. Now the day that the so-called 'activists' (a fantastic umbrella term encompassing everything from anti-fox hunt protesters through to the black bloc) actually propose an alternative that is viable, inclusive and long-term, how can the public not follow suit? Problem is, of course, that when cornered, none of the 'activists' actually have ANY alternatives to put in place, or at least not any that doesn't simply involve vandalism or tunnel vision politics. What they fail to grasp in my opinion, is the fact that moaning and wanting to change things is pointless and immature unless a better system has been devised which can take the place of the exisiting status quo. It's akin to being a five-year old kid who refuses to clean his room, but is incapable of suggesting how else it should be done. It's an empty, childish statement. I don't like it, but if I mona enough someone else will or should fix it.
Moan moan. Some of my friends would strongly disagree, claiming that there is nothing wrong with wanting to change the system. I wholeheartedly concur. But in order to change something, you will need a system with which to replace the existing one. Unless you have an idea of what the alternative should be, shut up, go home and work one out. Otherwise you are not really facilitating change, you are hoping that others will do it for you (and if they do, will you be happy?)
Ever thought what would happen if say tomorrow, as a result of 'resistance', Tony Blair told the 'activists' to come to Downing Street and flesh out Britain for the future? What plans do you think they would propose? How would they deal with the NHS, with social security, education, public transport, childhood obesity, teenage pregnancy, drugs, violence, the law and so forth (ad infinitum)?
- Exactly, none of them really think beyond the completely inappropriate concept of 'resistance' as a be all and end all (give me a break, resisting what exactly? This is the West for fuck sake). It is so laughable that I am ashamed to be middle-class. The working class don't give a toss about anti-capitalists (another great label; it's like claiming to be anti-philosophy) so the very people whose cause these middleclass 'rebels' claim to champion have no interest in their 'help'.
Finally, how can obstructing a police cordon help solve third world debt or the injustices of the 'enslaved masses'? To date, no one has been able to give me a straight answer as to what this so-called resistance actually has or will achieve. All I get is the tired mantra of "at least we are trying" or "you have to put up resistance".
Not very well thought out, but then again spoilt middle-class people with a authority problem tend not to think things through. I am not blind to the faults of Western society and I pity those that are, but I also have the intelligence to spot that throwing bricks, smashing a car or chaining yourself to a JCB is about as useful a measure for facilitating change and winning supporters for your cause as trying to eat soup with chopsticks.
I want change too, but I want change which is viable, rational and of considerable longevity. Smashing capitalism (however futile and unproductive and physically impossible) is not really an option, unless a better system can be put in its place. Work with the system, not against it.
If you want confrontation, go to a country where it is needed.
Cops don't make policy. Attacking them or the property of the majority isn't exactly giving a positive message for change. It is simply saying "we are unhappy so we'll break stuff", or "we are promoting a new system whereby goals are attained through violence and non-negotiation". Sounds familiar?
posted by tseuq at 7/20/2005 02:19:00 pm
6 Comments:
Your sweeping generalisation of the term 'activist' astounds me.
ofcourse they have never been involved in:
-highlighting injustices in Palestine & physically protecting children against the trigger-happy IDF.
-supporting idigenous struggles all over the world.
-highlighting Shells environmental distruction as well as human rights record in Nigeria.
-Anti-arms trade campaigns.
-Anti-apartheid campaigns
-physically protecting Columbian unionists against paramilitaries
-anti GM campaigns
-No sweat (anti-sweatshop campaign)
-Free Tibet
-Free Burma
-Amnesty
-Greenpeace
etc, etc.
and on a local level:
-anti-TETRA
-campaigning against closures of playing fields and local schools/post offices etc.
-save cycling capaigns
-anti airport campaigns
....need I go on?
all the people involved in this can be classed as 'activist' yet you seem to fail to understand this.
Out of interset, how many 'activists' have you actually spoken to in order to come to your conclusions?
You might also be amazed with the fact that the majority of 'anti-capitalists'(- a term coined by the media) actually live in countries directly affected by the IMF/G8/World Banks agressive neo-liberal policies, like Argentina, Bolivia and Peru to name a few.
You might also be amazed that the IMF, G8 and World Bank are not 'democratic', yet wield enormous power over 'developing' countries, forcing them to privatise national industries aswell as open up their markets to Western companies (which more often than not, is not in their interest at all) while the West keeps its doors shut to foreign produce.
but hey, why oppose the undemocratic IMF/World Bank and G8?
I'm sure they really do have the rest of the worlds best interest at heart.....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I've spoken to countless activists (50% or more of my acquaintances consider themselves activists, indeed most of them are active such ones.)I wasw briefly involved myself, but decided my efforts were better spent elsewhere.
You mention protecting unionists from paramilitary groups. The Black bloc is about as close to a paramilitary group we have in the west, bar the IRA.
There's a reason why I put the word activists in inverted comma's, but I don't expect you to take notice of that. I refer to the minority of people who are under the illusion that they can change the world by smashing cars, intimidating peaceful, genuine activists and throwing bricks at the police (whom, perhaps surprising to some, don't actually MAKE policy, they just enforce the policy we as citizens of a democratic country have decided are best - again if that is undesirable, change it, that is what democracy is all about).
IMF, G8 and the World Bank are democratic, I'm afraid. We voted in the people who make the decisions at that level. If you don't like that change your vote or run for office yourself.
Obviously I salute all the groups of people you've outlined, that is what living in a democracy is all about. But I don't have to agree with the methods of some of the more irrational and pseudo-paramilitary units out there, and I certainly don't have to like paying for it. I have a civic duty, however stupid it seems to me, to ensure that those in society unable to contribute by other means than causing trouble have the freedom to do so. I suppose you justify the London bombings too? I mean, the perpetrators were presumably highlighting the plight of their people and as such they are doing a good deed?
I am not making a qualitative judgement on the rights or wrongs of invading middle-eastern countries at a whim (I don't agree with any form of war btw) - that is a completely different topic which we shall take up another time, should you so wish.
The bottom line is, however, that more people than not, directly or indirectly, let our governments do these things with our blessing. Ultimately, and I am surprised how many times I have to make this point, it's not our leaders (or the police, or car owners for that matter) that poses the 'problem', it's John and Jane Doe, you neighbours, your boss, your local supermarket owner, your dustbin man etc. Democracy equals majority rules; change the majority's perception and you change the rule.
Now white van man or god-fearing parishioner are not going to be convinced, nor impressed, by a group of people who only seem to propose destruction, intimidation and a complete negation of the values of the majority.
Doesn't it make you angry how a minority can hijack the agenda of all decent and peaceful proponents of social change (i.e. the majority of people you mention in your comment) and turn the message of said people into one of aggression, violence and vandalism?
Please understand that I am as much in favour of changing the injustices of the world, although I assume you won't believe me (how can anyone who supports capitalism be good?). I just wish that all that energy would be spent a bit more wisely. Changing the status quo within the system is a far more viable, open and lasting means of facilitating change. Making taxpayers fork out for criminal damage as a result of a spree of destruction from a group of teenagers is unreasonable. You wouldn't accept that sort of behaviour from yobs, would you?
Ultimately, however, my post was about the argument of capitalism, and those who seek to overthrow it (a point I obviously failed to make clearly).
And my question still remains. What is their alternative?
You haven't answered that, neither has anyone else. At least Marx had a complete model for how he wanted the world to be before he set out to promote change.
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog and for leaving your point of view. You see I am now forced to read your argument and take you serious. Had you thrown a brick through someone's front door (or a letter bomb or what have you), that person would be highly unlikely to give you or your views another chance.
Please feel free to comment in the future!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback.
However, your agrument has obvious flaws, much of it born out of ignorance, surely one of the major problems in the world today.
for example:-
"IMF, G8 and the World Bank are democratic, I'm afraid. We voted in the people who make the decisions at that level. If you don't like that change your vote or run for office yourself."
IMF: an international organisation with 184 nation members yet has never had a non-European Managing Director.Democratic? no.
World Bank Group:Has never had a non-US national as President (currently Wolfowitz). Democratic? no.
G8:Group of eight, consisting out of:US, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, France, Italy and last but not least, Russia. See? all democracies one would be tempted to say. Yet the policies they agree/disagree on affect the rest of us, i.e. the rest of the world.We can not actually 'vote' them out, or take 'office, unless you are fortunate enough to live in one of the lucky 7(Russia does not really count) and in which case, you would not be to concerned about these All-powerful organisations in the first place. Democtratic? no.
these organisations have nothing to do with democracy. Majority does not rule them.
So, you see, the only times people feel they can show their opposition/disagreement to these undemocratic organisations is at their cosy annual gatherings. Some people might feel a certain amount of outrage/anger related to these organisations actions/non-actions. When anger turns into violence (a waste of energy, I agree) it is more often than not a sign of powerlessness. Understanding this does not justify someone elses violence, and your reference to the London bombings and any justification for it in relation to this topic is rather sickening.
Speaking of violence, would you not agree that the threat of being able to use over-whelming violence constitutes a form of violence by itself, akin to holding a gun to someones head? Somehow you seem not to bothered about the US defence budget of $428 billion, yet get all upset when some kids chuck some rocks at heavily armoured riot police...where are your priorities?
You speak of changing the injustices in the world, yet do not see that those that suffer the most injustice are the poor. Do you think 'capitalism' could exist if everyone was equally 'rich'?And if not, would that not mean that some would always be poorer than others, hence suffer less justice?
Speaking of 'alternatives' you seem to make a distinction between 'them' and 'us'. These people are no different to you or me. They're the people that fix the roads. The people that man the tills. The people that make your shoes.
what is the alternative?
-Perhaps a world based on compassion for others.
-A sustainable society, which uses its wealth and knowledge to solve world problems instead of another Viagra, fizzy drink or SUV.
-A world in which everyone is equal, and is treated likewise.
-A society based on its needs instead of personal greed.
-a society based on cooperation instead of competition.
to name a few.
I look forward to you response.
Thank you for the reply!
Let’s start with the topic of violence:
Of course I am bothered about Western so-called ‘interests’ in the less wealthy part of the world. Of course I oppose the so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq. People are dying, as I write this, no doubt.
It is done in my name and I despise it. I want to be absolutely clear about that!
The last thing the world needs is more aggression, whatever one’s motivation.
Violence leads to violence in my opinion, and I would personally not want to be a link in that chain. Since my fellow westerners have decided not to worry about what happens in the Middle East, I suppose indirectly I am a part in that chain. I don’t manifest it, however. Ideas change the world.
On the topic of democracy:
Good points not unknown to me, but it brings around my main problem with direct conflict as a means changing society; if the majority of people in the nations in the G8 felt strongly enough about it, things would change. If (and of course I acknowledge it is a big if-) the American people were to suddenly decide that ‘hey, our foreign policy sucks’ and as a consequence voted in a President with the same view, things would change. If a similar shift of social consciousness took place in Britain, Germany and France, it would be a completely different ball game. If %75 off all the voters in the G8 countries decided that international trade should be made fair, I think politicians would act accordingly. Ultimately, all they care about is the longevity of their career.
The majority is, and always will be, the issue in my opinion.
Without their consent or approval, the status quo remains unchanged.
You are obviously right that the G8 make decisions on behalf of other countries that have no say. We have a responsibility to them to change things. It is still a question of getting the majority (in the West) on our side so this process can be undone. Expressing your disgusts or views through a political process may not satisfy today’s need for instant satisfaction, but I still maintain it’s the best way. Problem is, it takes time and no one wants to be a politician… Nevertheless, we vote and forget, vote and forget. We need to hold our politicians accountable every day they’re in office, not just once every four years on election night. That is the battle I want to fight. To make people realise that we have safeguards in place allowing us to completely scrutinise our leaders and their decision, and that we should do so whenever possible. They work for us.
Regarding the World Bank / IMF:
Recently guilty of some rather extreme decisions, and yes only run by WASP’s. Then again those are the same countries who actually supply all the aid (most of which doesn’t reach its target audience due to internal corruption in many of the designated countries).
If I have made a distinction between them and us, again it has been with reference to people who resort to violence, not peaceful activists. I don’t like people (whoever they are) who feel it’s right to resort to violence in the name of freedom (be it the US ‘liberation’ of Iraq or the overthrow of capitalism).
Any person wilfully and purposely harming another person is sick in my mind. I don’t differentiate between different manifestations of violence. They are all wrong.
Come on, all that brainpower and energy could be better spent for the same cause.
On the topic of the alternative:
“-Perhaps a world based on compassion for others.
-A sustainable society, which uses its wealth and knowledge to solve world problems instead of another Viagra, fizzy drink or SUV.
-A world in which everyone is equal, and is treated likewise.
-A society based on its needs instead of personal greed.
-a society based on cooperation instead of competition.
to name a few.”
All good suggestions, but how will they be implemented?
Who is going to decide what is one person’s need and another person’s greed? How will you uphold equality and cooperation? I am fishing for directives with some substance in terms of implementation. Cooperation didn’t work prior to capitalism, in fact, when has it ever worked on a large scale? How will we make sure it will work for the future?
How are you going to force people to be compassionate? Surely compassion is a feeling, not dictated by outside forces (and as such not in any way dictated by capitalism for example)?
Someone has to uphold order, because without you have chaos and in chaos compassion means little. So how will that be done?
Without any more specifics, you are essentially describing the ideals behind Soviet communism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Democracy.
What I was hoping for (in my infinite ignorance) was a reason as to why or how your alternative would work or be any better?
Well, Anonymous??
I am still waiting.
Post a Comment
<< Home