[b]Bakunin: " Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally the creative source of all life."
“The passion for destruction is also a creative passion!”[/b]
Violence is a total non-answer ( which is no answer) thus being the key to freedom.
To embrace freedom and protect it is to smash society and turn against confounding theoretical constructions.
Mandella said, “The nature of the struggle is defined by the opressor.”. I think if you face violence, or if you face such overwhelming non-violent tactics that your only tool to counter them is violence, then it’s perfectly justifiable. Just remember, if you live by the sword…
Edit: Maybe that quote came from his book “Long Walk to Freedom”. You might find that book particularly interesting. He did in S. Africa what you want to do with the world. Well, up until the part where you split off toward total chaos, and he worked on building a more just govt. But either way, great book.
I guess then my actions must be validated. Have you ever considered pragmatism as a temporary tool for the progress of your movement? You could throw it out once you’re done. Sometimes you just can’t convince the world to see things your way with just words. You need a way to verify that your actions will be effective.
one thing is assuming the extent of your own freedom, which might allow (once it reaches a point) you to pummel all kinds of social pacts…and another is believing your free which would naturally conflict with those who assume the extent of your freedom causing them to react (a sign of their degradation and destruction)
I see a need for a violent revolution directed at culture and at the people. Not one directed at the establishment; existentially, the establishment is a result of the people and their culture; I don’t think any establishment can be blamed for how the people have turned out, they are themselves responsible, and no new society will form until the people themselves are destroyed. It is a mistake to level accusations against the banks or against the presidency.
This is old ground. It is mentioned in “Open Society and it’s Enemies” with quotes going back into the 1800s. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was something similar. And the very taboo Khmer Rouge thought exactly this too. This is also one of the premises of Radical Islam, that a war needs to be fought exactly against culture and against the people who carry it. It is I think also the final result of revolutionary thinking: perpetual revolution. These ideas were espoused also by Frantz Fanon and by late Sartre. Who else? Why did the Chinese sell out and give up their Cultural Revolution? Look at the dreadful results! Dreadful results, and the Chinese have been as antithetical to Islam in Central Asia as the Americans have been in the Middle-East. Bin Laden was mistaken here I think to declare war only on the Americans; the Indians, Russians and Chinese have been as distructive; as have the Buddhists in Thailand and also Burma.
Finding reading material on this subject has been difficult for me. For one it falls under the definition of terrorism of the UK; and so it should; but where can one read up on the philosophy of the Khmer Rouge? Besides exterminating culture, what were the goals of the KR? Where was this written down? Information on Radical Islam has also been hard for me to find. I understand that all of these thinkings are closely related on a deeper level and only the specific time and place give them different manifestations; South-East Asian and East Asian Marxism are largely derived from common roots with Radical Islam. That must be 19th and early 20th century century Russian and European anarchism, Marxism and Anti-colonialism? And this from earlier thinkers like Rousseau?
Western thinking ought to form a synthesis with Radical Islam as its antithesis? Or rather a Green Revolution may be due to follow on the West’s incorporation of recent Islamic philosophy?
Certainly Bin Ladin has been successful in his War Against the Americans as evidenced by the massive devaluation of the dollar in the last few years. What can I do at home to fight the Americans? And how do you talk about this openly or even reasonably? Who can defend the Khmer Rouge? Who can defend the Afghans and the Taliban? Surely these are gold mines for radical thinking, ideas factories…
Disassembling culture may be impossible? Mankind may be fated?
What would a Radical Islam purged of Islam look like? Because no Westerner can stomach a revolution coming out of or with religion. (Purged of Islam and replaced with computers?) Just simple people living simple mountain lives, tending their goats and smoking their pipes? This is what the Afghans amount to isn’t it?
False / Unproveable / Incomprehendable. Non-answer to what question? (Rhetoric:) Total Non-answers are keys to freedom?
False OR Unproveable. (Rhetoric:) Embrace and protect Freedom ↔ Smash society and turn against confounding theoretical constructions. Meaning (?) Destroying the common social structure is the equivalent of embracing and protecting freedom, or meaning (?) You can only embrace and protect freedom if the act is somehow destroying the common social structure.
It seems to me that The Human Experience operates according to cause and effect (action/reaction, consequences) - violence begets violence, war begets war, fear begets fear, peace begets peace. Free Will allows choice.
It wouldn’t win one a debate, but killing your interlocutor would silence his argument. Though I don’t recall any dialogue where Socrates gets up and snaps his opponent’s neck, maybe it was in one of the lost works?
Is the pen mightier than the sword? The Khmer Rouge covered this base by massacring everyone who could read and write.
Plausible.
However during the Algerian Civil War, the government used false-flag civilian bombings to bring the radical’s war against the people to a horrific pitch of violence --which resulted in loss of popular support for the Islamic revolutionaries. Also Che was not successful in Africa using violence to set off revolutions. This is however not to say that Ghandi is an example of success, as India would have been given independence vilonce or non, it gave the British a respectable exit, something Americans obviously do not know how to make. And certainly America is enemy number one (“The nature of the struggle is defined by the opressor.”).
On the need for violent revolution, and the liberating psychic effects of violence: Sartre’s Introduction and excerpts from Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth: tamilnation.org/ideology/fannon.htm
Once a man hands his freedom over to parliamentary institutions that houses representatives one’s individual sovereignty becomes lost as decisions are made in his name around himself.
How is chaos or anarchy freedom? Seems to me it holds you just as much as anything else.
You will become a prisoner of fear worry stress anger possesions more so than with what is now. Your actions will be dictated by what others do just as much. How is this freedom? Sounds like just an excuse to make yourself a warlord and rule or just to be plain violent against others. Sounds pretty weak.