The Logic of Not Demanding
Photo by Dave Rempel
Audio version read by George Atherton – Right-click to download
The Tea Party protests are shaking things up in conservative politics. But what have we dissenters from the left accomplished recently? Not much. We fill the streets, wave our signs and choke on some tear gas. Black bloc anarchists smash a few windows and pull off some daring stunts, but then the 24-hour news cycle moves on and we’re left feeling empty. Nothing has changed.
In a perverse way our protests may actually be reinforcing and validating the global consumerist regime. I sincerely believe that the G20 Summit leaders and organizers sigh with relief when they hear that we are once again mobilizing massive protests against them. After all, what would a successful economic summit be without thousands of angry protesters clashing with rows of automaton riot police and a few cop cars burning in the streets? Without sporadic spectacles like that, capitalism would lose its dynamic spark.
Maybe it’s time we deny them their regularly scheduled spectacles and try something new.
Next time they call an economic summit, why don’t we just ignore them? Instead of massive displays of anger, let’s give them eerily empty streets … silence … not a peep … nothing to validate their billion dollar security budgets. We refuse to react, refuse to engage, refuse to make demands. We don’t tell them what we want because they already know what we want: We want their system to die. Why make demands of the thing you want to destroy? Negotiating only grants legitimacy and continuity.
Instead we live like cats on the prowl, pulling off little acts of rebellion that frustrate their doomsday machine at every turn. Acts like cutting up our credit cards, moving our money, buying locally and spreading revolutionary memes. We meet in little groups in local indie coffee shops plotting audacious pranks and acts of civil disobedience: slowing traffic, liberating billboards, detonating stink bombs – crazy, random acts that hurt the bottom line.
Every day of the week we create weird, wild, wonderful happenings wherever we live around the globe. And we grow bolder with every 0.001 C˚ rise in the global temperature … more passionate with every 0.001 inch rise in the sea level … more defiant with every billion dollar Goldman Sachs bonus package. We attack capitalism – not at officially sanctioned protests – but like bees attacking a wounded beast with a billion incessant stings. We keep escalating our actions until the cost of doing business as usual becomes impossible to bear. And the bloodied beast finally falls to its knees.
This November’s Carnival is a good time to start: Let them have their conferences and summits … we will have our revolution of everyday life.
Will this be effective? What other new strategies can we employ to disrupt the status quo? Find activists near you and plan something for the Carnivalesque Rebellion Nov. 22–28.
Kalle Lasn, inspired by A.G. Schwarz and Tasos Sagris in We Are an Image from the Future.
60 comments on the article “The Logic of Not Demanding”
Displaying 21 - 30 of 60
Page 3 of 6
K-H:
why do we feel like protests now are a loss cause?
perhaps, protest, flipping some cars and breaking some windows, (causing a ruckus)
isn't really protesting at all. perhaps its what capitalists want us to do.
think of history, the greatest revolutions did not happen with picket signs and burning cars.
the greatest revolutions happened when the people opened their eyes
and united. for a greater cause. for a new world
with non violence or violence, the only way to succeed in revolution is by uniting the people
and organizing the mass. simply being on the streets with picket signs and balclava's is not enough. arnarchists are like existentialists of the political world.
they feel alone and secluded. but we are not. we have each other, and
we have the idea of a new world. lets make it happen
K-H
Ontario
K-H:
why do we feel like protests now are a loss cause?
perhaps, protest, flipping some cars and breaking some windows, (causing a ruckus)
isn't really protesting at all. perhaps its what capitalists want us to do.
think of history, the greatest revolutions did not happen with picket signs and burning cars.
the greatest revolutions happened when the people opened their eyes
and united. for a greater cause. for a new world
with non violence or violence, the only way to succeed in revolution is by uniting the people
and organizing the mass. simply being on the streets with picket signs and balclava's is not enough. arnarchists are like existentialists of the political world.
they feel alone and secluded. but we are not. we have each other, and
we have the idea of a new world. lets make it happen
K-H
Ontario
CK-Sullivan
People do not get that capitalism and socialism should not be at odds with one and another, but yet should be on the same team as one and another. Quite simply capitalism needs socialism, and socialism needs capitalism. Balance is needed to turn this lose-lose situation back to a win-win situation. How that could be done is with less greed and a restoration of confidence.
Capitalism is when individuals [i.e. capitalist] own the means of production and create jobs. Socialism is when the government creates jobs. Okay, so it is more complicated than that, but not really.
Let us look at social welfare, in a purely capitalistic state social welfare would have to be provided by capitalist mainly by through philanthropy. [i.e. giving back] In a socialistic model that is done through taxes.
For example the United States is very socialistic but it is just best that t is not apparently obvious to everyone. The United States has: social security, social welfare, creates a ton of governmental jobs including the military.
I mentioned the military because that is the biggest social welfare program that the U.S. currently has going for it. So I worry about a stronger move towards socialism. Look up the word NAZI, it stood for nationalized socialism--which wasn't really socialism but more like fascism.
However ironically enough Karl Marx was Jewish and the son of a factory owner. To take this idea one step forward, socialism as an ideology was invented or created or induced if you will by Jewish German philosophers.
THe problem with socialism is that in theory it works, but also in theory a peasant farmer works. One has to come up with and provide people with an incentive. Money, rather fortunately or unfortunately is a pretty good insentive and gets things done, and gets people to work.
Going back to that capitalism and socialism need each other, it is kind of like this; you can't give anyone any bread, if there is no bread.
Mind you I'm pretty much an ex-socialist, until I started to take a deeper approach. Don't get me wrong, I think we have a very long history of capitalist exploiting laybor. However, now I believe one has to work within the system to change the system, or one has to buy into the system to beat the system.
Capitalism in ways kind of gives people what they want. You have to change what people want, and demand from the system. People want junk on t.v. and celebrity gossip news, than that is what they are going to get.
Karl Marx said that the change would come actually from the top, and people with money. Guilt after awhile would get to them, and they would than try to induce change.
Co means to be with. Con means to be against. Think of co-worker, communication, community, collectivism, or even communism. What we need is a philosophy of "co" and not "con." When people embody that in their hearts and minds we will live in a better society.
As a parting shot I would like to throw out there and try to raise awareness that over 16,000 people starve to death, A DAY, around the world, mainly children.
As much as I would vote for a Democrat over a republican I do not agree with the Obama plan of let's just give people unemployment checks instead of a job when so much needs to be done, and so much help could be done. Going back to the idea of incentive, I believe that most people would go work on some farm, if they were told that today no people will starve to death. With so many people needing help, there is so much work to be done.
I would also like to say I know there is a lot I do not know, and am ignorant on, but the more I listen to all of this rhetoric from both sides, I'm convinced most people truly don't see the big picture and even get or understand what they are tryng to talk about.
Also how capitalism and socialism should and could work together; let capitalist do what they do, and let the government be on the side and protect the people. Government in this equation can not be on the powerful, exploiting, capitalist side. They need to be on the vaulnarable people's side. The government needs to be the shepard boy protecting the sheep from the wolves. And socialism can help capitalism by providing education and health care; educated, healthy people, make good workers.
"If morality is the way things should be, economics are the way they actually are." (From Freakonomics - By Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J Dubner)
CK-Sullivan
People do not get that capitalism and socialism should not be at odds with one and another, but yet should be on the same team as one and another. Quite simply capitalism needs socialism, and socialism needs capitalism. Balance is needed to turn this lose-lose situation back to a win-win situation. How that could be done is with less greed and a restoration of confidence.
Capitalism is when individuals [i.e. capitalist] own the means of production and create jobs. Socialism is when the government creates jobs. Okay, so it is more complicated than that, but not really.
Let us look at social welfare, in a purely capitalistic state social welfare would have to be provided by capitalist mainly by through philanthropy. [i.e. giving back] In a socialistic model that is done through taxes.
For example the United States is very socialistic but it is just best that t is not apparently obvious to everyone. The United States has: social security, social welfare, creates a ton of governmental jobs including the military.
I mentioned the military because that is the biggest social welfare program that the U.S. currently has going for it. So I worry about a stronger move towards socialism. Look up the word NAZI, it stood for nationalized socialism--which wasn't really socialism but more like fascism.
However ironically enough Karl Marx was Jewish and the son of a factory owner. To take this idea one step forward, socialism as an ideology was invented or created or induced if you will by Jewish German philosophers.
THe problem with socialism is that in theory it works, but also in theory a peasant farmer works. One has to come up with and provide people with an incentive. Money, rather fortunately or unfortunately is a pretty good insentive and gets things done, and gets people to work.
Going back to that capitalism and socialism need each other, it is kind of like this; you can't give anyone any bread, if there is no bread.
Mind you I'm pretty much an ex-socialist, until I started to take a deeper approach. Don't get me wrong, I think we have a very long history of capitalist exploiting laybor. However, now I believe one has to work within the system to change the system, or one has to buy into the system to beat the system.
Capitalism in ways kind of gives people what they want. You have to change what people want, and demand from the system. People want junk on t.v. and celebrity gossip news, than that is what they are going to get.
Karl Marx said that the change would come actually from the top, and people with money. Guilt after awhile would get to them, and they would than try to induce change.
Co means to be with. Con means to be against. Think of co-worker, communication, community, collectivism, or even communism. What we need is a philosophy of "co" and not "con." When people embody that in their hearts and minds we will live in a better society.
As a parting shot I would like to throw out there and try to raise awareness that over 16,000 people starve to death, A DAY, around the world, mainly children.
As much as I would vote for a Democrat over a republican I do not agree with the Obama plan of let's just give people unemployment checks instead of a job when so much needs to be done, and so much help could be done. Going back to the idea of incentive, I believe that most people would go work on some farm, if they were told that today no people will starve to death. With so many people needing help, there is so much work to be done.
I would also like to say I know there is a lot I do not know, and am ignorant on, but the more I listen to all of this rhetoric from both sides, I'm convinced most people truly don't see the big picture and even get or understand what they are tryng to talk about.
Also how capitalism and socialism should and could work together; let capitalist do what they do, and let the government be on the side and protect the people. Government in this equation can not be on the powerful, exploiting, capitalist side. They need to be on the vaulnarable people's side. The government needs to be the shepard boy protecting the sheep from the wolves. And socialism can help capitalism by providing education and health care; educated, healthy people, make good workers.
"If morality is the way things should be, economics are the way they actually are." (From Freakonomics - By Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J Dubner)
CK-Sullivan
I wrote this on the fly so sorry about the mis-spelled words, or poor grammar. However, I wanted to include that over 16,000 people starving to death a day, is due in part to supply and demand capitalism.
It almost could be considered eugenics, or a social darwinism type of approach. (i.e. letting people starve to death) But when the haves, have so much, and people in the US are grossly over-weight rather rich or poor, it is sickening.
If there is a God looking down, and he sees part of the world, you have gluttons, and the other part you have people literally starving to death, and apathy and no concern by the hogs for the people knocking on heavens door, I can't imagine he would be impressed...
Thou shall not covet.......
CK-Sullivan
I wrote this on the fly so sorry about the mis-spelled words, or poor grammar. However, I wanted to include that over 16,000 people starving to death a day, is due in part to supply and demand capitalism.
It almost could be considered eugenics, or a social darwinism type of approach. (i.e. letting people starve to death) But when the haves, have so much, and people in the US are grossly over-weight rather rich or poor, it is sickening.
If there is a God looking down, and he sees part of the world, you have gluttons, and the other part you have people literally starving to death, and apathy and no concern by the hogs for the people knocking on heavens door, I can't imagine he would be impressed...
Thou shall not covet.......
Mirza
"However, I wanted to include that over 16,000 people starving to death a day, is due in part to supply and demand capitalism. It almost could be considered eugenics, or a social darwinism type of approach....If there is a God looking down, and he sees part of the world, you have gluttons, and the other part you have people literally starving to death, and apathy and no concern by the hogs for the people knocking on heavens door, I can't imagine he would be impressed... "
The difference between eugenics and Capitalism is that Eugenics is deliberate and capitalism just is. There is nobody outhere that is deliberately making children starve. In fact, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - two richest people in USA - are leading the way and giving up most of their wealth trying to solve problems like this.
Americans in general are kind generous people. Everyone is walking for hunger or bicycling for cancer. Seems to me people I know give about $1000 a year per person, from United way, to fund raisers, to monthly sponsoring etc.
Mirza
"However, I wanted to include that over 16,000 people starving to death a day, is due in part to supply and demand capitalism. It almost could be considered eugenics, or a social darwinism type of approach....If there is a God looking down, and he sees part of the world, you have gluttons, and the other part you have people literally starving to death, and apathy and no concern by the hogs for the people knocking on heavens door, I can't imagine he would be impressed... "
The difference between eugenics and Capitalism is that Eugenics is deliberate and capitalism just is. There is nobody outhere that is deliberately making children starve. In fact, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - two richest people in USA - are leading the way and giving up most of their wealth trying to solve problems like this.
Americans in general are kind generous people. Everyone is walking for hunger or bicycling for cancer. Seems to me people I know give about $1000 a year per person, from United way, to fund raisers, to monthly sponsoring etc.
Anonymous
Rather or not it is eugenics or not one would have to get inside the minds of the elite ruling class culture of this world. I was just reading about the word "class" yesterday, and it has to do with cultures and relationships between groups, and identities formed from being part of say a "working class" or a "leisure class."
So on rather or not it is eugenics or not we would have to talk to some blue bloods.
I feel like this is a reaction to perhaps thinking I'm playing out a script as of working class hero. I'm not playing any script. I've worked in a factory before, and a lot of my family works in a factory. I worked in restaurants as well as has a lot of my family. I've also been around a lot of wealthy people.
The ones that I have been around, are very generous, very nice, very liberal, perhaps borderline socialists. They are more formal than I, but they invite me into their houses. Their children have unique classless states of minds--it's refreshing. Ironically enough they are un-materialistic.
My sister who has five kids @ 31 and now is sick with some rare disease. Two of her children are set, because their grandparents are very wealthy, they own restaurants, the kids have trust funds set up. Then she has three bi-racial kids who are not as fortunate. As she put it; "a very generous, wealthy couple, stopped by the house, dropped off a 20 lbs turkey and other thanksgiving food. They came in, talked, visited with the kids they were very nice." They wanted to do something nice, so they called the hospital, an the hospital gave them my name. That made her flipping day. I'm sure it made the wealthy couples day as well.
She said they didn't appear to be religious, nor did bring up religion--and perhaps that is a moot point. To me that just says though that they did it just because they could, and out of the goodness of their heart.
I've observed if one is born with the silver spoon, you say okay, and then ask and start searching for what is next, something more. So they have a head-start, because most people have to get that silver spoon in their mouth, before they reach that point of "self-actualization." (a play on Maslow's hierarchy of needs)
Back to your response about comparing eugenics to capitalism. Did you know that the US government pays farmers, NOT to grow food. This practice has been going on for a while. They use to dump out milk, to make the price go up, while people needed food. Complete waste and disregard for profit. It is kind of like this, you know how in the middle east they control the supply to drive up the price--that is what we do, but with food....
CKS aka Toucqavelly
Anonymous
Rather or not it is eugenics or not one would have to get inside the minds of the elite ruling class culture of this world. I was just reading about the word "class" yesterday, and it has to do with cultures and relationships between groups, and identities formed from being part of say a "working class" or a "leisure class."
So on rather or not it is eugenics or not we would have to talk to some blue bloods.
I feel like this is a reaction to perhaps thinking I'm playing out a script as of working class hero. I'm not playing any script. I've worked in a factory before, and a lot of my family works in a factory. I worked in restaurants as well as has a lot of my family. I've also been around a lot of wealthy people.
The ones that I have been around, are very generous, very nice, very liberal, perhaps borderline socialists. They are more formal than I, but they invite me into their houses. Their children have unique classless states of minds--it's refreshing. Ironically enough they are un-materialistic.
My sister who has five kids @ 31 and now is sick with some rare disease. Two of her children are set, because their grandparents are very wealthy, they own restaurants, the kids have trust funds set up. Then she has three bi-racial kids who are not as fortunate. As she put it; "a very generous, wealthy couple, stopped by the house, dropped off a 20 lbs turkey and other thanksgiving food. They came in, talked, visited with the kids they were very nice." They wanted to do something nice, so they called the hospital, an the hospital gave them my name. That made her flipping day. I'm sure it made the wealthy couples day as well.
She said they didn't appear to be religious, nor did bring up religion--and perhaps that is a moot point. To me that just says though that they did it just because they could, and out of the goodness of their heart.
I've observed if one is born with the silver spoon, you say okay, and then ask and start searching for what is next, something more. So they have a head-start, because most people have to get that silver spoon in their mouth, before they reach that point of "self-actualization." (a play on Maslow's hierarchy of needs)
Back to your response about comparing eugenics to capitalism. Did you know that the US government pays farmers, NOT to grow food. This practice has been going on for a while. They use to dump out milk, to make the price go up, while people needed food. Complete waste and disregard for profit. It is kind of like this, you know how in the middle east they control the supply to drive up the price--that is what we do, but with food....
CKS aka Toucqavelly
Pages
Add a new comment