May 23
redemma commented on Why They Break Windows.
@52: I totally agree. Nonviolent protests that don't have a violent/more radical analog don't really work, at all. Martin Luther King was effective because there was the threat of first Malcolm X and later the Black Panthers, not to mention the many disorganized riots occurring at the same time, if his calls for nonviolent change didn't work. Similar dynamic between the AFL and first the IWW and then the CIO. But there are some problems with taking that very true observation and applying it to our current situation.
First is that Malcolm X was never really violent. Sure, he had a bunch of guns (but then so did MLK) and he advocated self-defense (unlike MLK), but in terms of his actions, he was fairly nonviolent. He was a public speaker, and his radicalism was in having a plan that scared the powers that be. Anarchists can analyze the system to death, but the last thing they can be accused of having is a plan, even a bad plan. Even the Black Panthers, who actually were violent in a way that the most badass black-blocker can only dream of, managed to use their violence in a smart, targeted manner in order to ensure that they wouldn't lose the public's support.
Second, this back-and-forth between violent and nonviolent protestors only works when both factions are well-identified as being separate, and even rivals. In the 60's, whenever the people felt threatened by Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam (or Huey P Newton and the Black Panthers) they went to talk to Martin Luther King and the SCLC to see if there was a way to resolve the problems of Black America without violence. But nowadays, how would they do that? Both the nonviolent and violent left are identified with Occupy by the general public. Neither faction has a spokesperson. So, by introducing property destruction and violence into a nonviolent movement, they're just making it more likely that said nonviolent movement will be criminalized by the state and rejected by the rest of America.
More...
First is that Malcolm X was never really violent. Sure, he had a bunch of guns (but then so did MLK) and he advocated self-defense (unlike MLK), but in terms of his actions, he was fairly nonviolent. He was a public speaker, and his radicalism was in having a plan that scared the powers that be. Anarchists can analyze the system to death, but the last thing they can be accused of having is a plan, even a bad plan. Even the Black Panthers, who actually were violent in a way that the most badass black-blocker can only dream of, managed to use their violence in a smart, targeted manner in order to ensure that they wouldn't lose the public's support.
Second, this back-and-forth between violent and nonviolent protestors only works when both factions are well-identified as being separate, and even rivals. In the 60's, whenever the people felt threatened by Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam (or Huey P Newton and the Black Panthers) they went to talk to Martin Luther King and the SCLC to see if there was a way to resolve the problems of Black America without violence. But nowadays, how would they do that? Both the nonviolent and violent left are identified with Occupy by the general public. Neither faction has a spokesperson. So, by introducing property destruction and violence into a nonviolent movement, they're just making it more likely that said nonviolent movement will be criminalized by the state and rejected by the rest of America.
May 16
redemma commented on Star Trek Into Darkness: Less Space, More Opera.
It would have been far more enjoyable if it had absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek, and especially if it had nothing to do with The Wrath of Khan. But instead it feels like a bad cover version of an awesome song - they hit all the same notes (Spock saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and most of the other famous parts of the original Star Trek II) but it lacks feeling. I enjoyed it whenever it was trying to be a straight-up scifi action movie, but each time they tried to remind the audience that this was Star Trek, and especially whenever they made references to The Wrath of Khan, it just made me wish I was watching the originals.
May 15
redemma commented on Out with the Old....
Venice is also kind of unviable as a modern city the way that most places aren't. You can't do any manufacturing there, because boats aren't a good way of moving around large amounts of mass-produced items, and putting a factory there would probably ruin the water. So there's no real way to build any sort of economic base while keeping Venice Venice. Which is fine, because Venice isn't the only city in Italy and the few people who live there probably make enough off of tourism anyways. Plenty of other cities (Paris, Rome, Mexico City, etc.) have managed to keep their ruins while still being modern.
May 15
redemma commented on Out with the Old....
@6: I am aware of that, I just didn't mention it because it's not something I've looked into super in depth, so as far as I know 8 is right and Tibet isn't really singled out. But if it's true, that would classify it as an act of cultural genocide and the outrage should be even greater.
Also, Belize is a dense jungle...that's sitting on top of a giant fucking limestone deposit (the same mineral used to build the pyramid that got destroyed). You could literally put a shovel down anywhere in the country and bam! A quarry.
@5: I'd actually disagree with you there...in my experience, people in developing countries put more pride in their past than people in the Western world do. If your present is awesome, you could give two shits about your past, but if your present is misery but your past was glorious, then you can hold on to that. The only exceptions I'm really familiar with are China and various Islamic countries which all have ideological reasons to erase parts of the past.
Also, Belize is a dense jungle...that's sitting on top of a giant fucking limestone deposit (the same mineral used to build the pyramid that got destroyed). You could literally put a shovel down anywhere in the country and bam! A quarry.
@5: I'd actually disagree with you there...in my experience, people in developing countries put more pride in their past than people in the Western world do. If your present is awesome, you could give two shits about your past, but if your present is misery but your past was glorious, then you can hold on to that. The only exceptions I'm really familiar with are China and various Islamic countries which all have ideological reasons to erase parts of the past.
May 14
redemma commented on Out with the Old....
None of this seems to be necessary development. The Mayan temple was razed so that way its stones could be used in road construction, but surely there are other stones lying somewhere around Belize with no history attatched to them. And if I wanted to visit Tibet, I'd much rather visit ancient temples than a tacky new "tourist city"
These are outrages, and they deserve the same press that the destruction of the stone Buddhas got, or the destruction of the Timbuktu manuscripts that didn't actually happen got.
These are outrages, and they deserve the same press that the destruction of the stone Buddhas got, or the destruction of the Timbuktu manuscripts that didn't actually happen got.
May 12
redemma commented on "Man of Great Personal Integrity" Sentenced to 80 Years in Prison for Genocide.
22: Fine, then Reagan isn't a terrible man. He just sure liked to surround himself with them.
May 6
redemma commented on Spoiled Rotten: Iron Man 3.
I don't know, I think the comment on the military-industrial complex was bad at all...much better than the first film, anyways. We're overly scared of Islamic extremism, but the people we find when we go over to Central Asia are mostly just ordinary people working in sweatshops, and our own military-industrial complex kills more of our own people than terrorism does, but that same military industrial complex keeps reminding us of the threat of Islamic extremism, so we don't do anything about it. Meanwhile, if you're a brilliant scientist, you end up getting sucked into that military industrial complex because pure science doesn't pay the bills, but weaponizing new technology does. Unless you're Iron Man, in which case you can do what you want.
Apr 16
redemma commented on The Investigation Into the Boston Bombings.
@34: Actually, in Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah, Olivier Roy states that the Taliban's economic policies were borderline libertarian. Armed Forces Journal agrees:
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/1…
"The Taliban’s positive political program has at least five aspects: Justice, micropolitics, reconciliation, laissez-faire and democracy...the Taliban’s political program is also furthered by their “do no harm” approach to the central drivers of local politics and economies."
This is hella off topic though.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/1…
"The Taliban’s positive political program has at least five aspects: Justice, micropolitics, reconciliation, laissez-faire and democracy...the Taliban’s political program is also furthered by their “do no harm” approach to the central drivers of local politics and economies."
This is hella off topic though.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
For example, one of the most productive times for labor unions in the US was after the Wagner Act and before the AFL and CIO merged. They weren't fighting for political equality at this point, and actually this is a situation where the more politically moderate group (the AFL) was the more violent one. But they were both competing with each other for dues payments, and so they both had to show that they could deliver the goods to their members. After they merged, the AFL-CIO became the only game in town, and the union bureaucrats could sell out the rank-and-file without hearing much in the way of complaints.