CHOP

As we reflect on CHOP, look at the tent cities sprouting up all across the West coast, and consider that today in Atlanta mobs are forming with the potential intent of storming a prison to release an arsonist...

Are we in France circa 1785 yet?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/06/14/meet-raz-simone-the-alleged-warlord-of-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/#7261afa523f0

Dare I ask what you mean by "tent cities"?

WP64 wrote:Dare I ask what you mean by "tent cities"?

https://www.seattlemag.com/article/tent-cities-and-seattles-growing-homeless-population

That's one example.

I watch a lot of reality youtube and another big spot is downtown L.A. They are now popping up in northern states like Wisconsin.

When I look at and experience CHOP, taking in the movement around it and how steeped that movement is in violent culture: I finally understand Ghandi's talk about peaceful revolution. I realize there has been violent revolutions in the past, but if your violent everyone turns on you quickly. And, no person will stick behind you for very long. But, if you are peaceful, you can make real change. Albeit, it will be a long, hard journey with no guarantee for victory. This CHOP stuff will be largely ignored and soon forgotten with little real change.

I used to think Ghandi was full of shit. And, let's face it: the French Revolution was a disaster and resulted in the Napoleonic wars and what is now an oppressive, racist system.

That's a pretty bad read on history there, my man. But okay.

WP64 wrote:That's a pretty bad read on history there, my man. But okay.

How so? I consider myself to be well versed in history. I am open to being wrong if you can point out my error.

I don’t know what chop is and I probably never will.

John Boy Walton wrote:

WP64 wrote:That's a pretty bad read on history there, my man. But okay.

How so? I consider myself to be well versed in history. I am open to being wrong if you can point out my error.

The French Revolution is the single most consequential event in modern political history. I don't even know what it would mean to judge something like that a "disaster." It makes literally no sense to assess these events using normative standards as though we are reviewing an album or movie.

The event itself was a moment of contestation between competing forces within French society. It was a rebellion led by a bourgeois class of Parisian lawyers, merchants, and ex-Priests against the diminishing authority of the French Monarchy that was ultimately being pushed along by proto-industrial craftsmen (Jacobins). It created the template of modern political representation in democratically elected legislative bodies, the basis for mass suffrage (and working class resistance), the concept of citizenship within a national political community, and the juridical structure of private property relations that has served as the foundational template for capitalist economic development (and exploitation) ever since. It's imperial expansion throughout continental Europe under the leadership of Napoleon was equally consequential.

But sure, I guess it was all an abject failure. I'd give it a 4/10.

WP64 wrote:

John Boy Walton wrote:

WP64 wrote:That's a pretty bad read on history there, my man. But okay.

How so? I consider myself to be well versed in history. I am open to being wrong if you can point out my error.

The French Revolution is the single most consequential event in modern political history. I don't even know what it would mean to judge something like that a "disaster." It makes literally no sense to assess these events using normative standards as though we are reviewing an album or movie.

The event itself was a moment of contestation between competing forces within French society. It was a rebellion led by a bourgeois class of Parisian lawyers, merchants, and ex-Priests against the diminishing authority of the French Monarchy that was ultimately being pushed along by proto-industrial craftsmen (Jacobins). It created the template of modern political representation in democratically elected legislative bodies, the basis for mass suffrage (and working class resistance), the concept of citizenship within a national political community, and the juridical structure of private property relations that has served as the foundational template for capitalist economic development (and exploitation) ever since. It's imperial expansion throughout continental Europe under the leadership of Napoleon was equally consequential.

But sure, I guess it was all an abject failure. I'd give it a 4/10.

Yeah, I know man. But, you sound like a history book. I've read history books ad naseum.

It was a disaster. 1789 resulted in a bloody, horrific massacre of innocents, lead by a group of miscreants (1790s), ultimately ending with a Donald Trump like Emperer taking over huge swaths of the world. Jesus, dude, just trying to re-read your sentence above is giving me a migraine. LOL. It lead right up to the massacre of the royal family in Russia 100 years later, which resulted in Communism, which ultimately killed millions across Asia. So, yeah, hate to say it, but the Revolution is over-rated.

And, oh yeah, my ultimate point is France sucks now: so that's another path it's lead to that sucks.

If I can understand the thrust of your bad argument, you seem to be very bothered by the process of historical change over time, which is fine. There is a rich tradition of people being uncomfortable with these processes. It's called political conservatism. They often will conveniently misappropriate the teachings and actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr to justify the maintenance of systems of exploitation because they are made uncomfortable by the disruptive and violent forces of history and progress. It seems like that is probably you, which is fine. There are plenty of smart conservatives, I guess. Good luck!

Seems like you’re dunking on a dude by calling him a “conservative“ for being anti violent massacre.

WP64 wrote:If I can understand the thrust of your bad argument, you seem to be very bothered by the process of historical change over time, which is fine. There is a rich tradition of people being uncomfortable with these processes. It's called political conservatism. They often will conveniently misappropriate the teachings and actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr to justify the maintenance of systems of exploitation because they are made uncomfortable by the disruptive and violent forces of history and progress. It seems like that is probably you, which is fine. There are plenty of smart conservatives, I guess. Good luck!

If I were a conservative would I be well versed in Chomsky? I'm just sayin'.

Last time I checked: rob, loot, destroy and commit acts of violence weren't on the priority list for Ghandi or MLK Jr. And, Hitler liked emptying prisons too: how did that work out?

Why I'm stepping in this, I dunno, but you're actually both kinda right. Too many young radicals think we're gonna start a revolution and fix everything that's wrong when the road to victory is violent and miserable and the people you're seeking justice for are typically the one's who take the brunt of it, and in the endo what you get might not even be better. On the other hand, moments like this (and the French Revolution I guess) can't really be approved of or diapproved of in any meaningful way. It's like a storm: The conditions are in place and this is what's gonna happen whether you cheer it on or not.

First, we cannot both be right because I have not taken any position on the recent protests, Black Lives Matter, or the autonomous zone that was established in the city of Seattle. I have not made any normative judgements or assessments. I am just bothered by the clumsy and conservative historical interpretation being offered in this thread.

Second, you can be "well-versed in Chomsky" and still share a conservative interpretation of history. It is common for Marxists to be well-versed in classical political economy (Smith & Ricardo) and any liberal worth his salt would be familiar with the Nietzschean critique of the liberal constitutional order articulated by Carl Schmitt. These are not identities but schools of political and economic thought.

Third, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what conservatism actually means in the broader sense. It is a rich intellectual tradition that has its roots in Edmund Burke's reaction to the events of the French Revolution, which he interpreted as a moral crisis that sought to erode the natural legitimacy of religious institutions (the Catholic Church). This is a good review written by George Will on the history of conservative thought as a reaction to the destabilizing forces of capitalist modernity, which is quite interesting. Your analysis of history, which views the subaltern classes as disorganized "miscreants" who have a natural tendency towards spontaneous and apolitical acts of violence and destruction, is deeply conservative. So too is the desire to have political leaders who base their politics not on the foundations of multi-racial/ethnic/religious citizenship in a democratic national polity, which was established by the French Revolution, but rather on the moral foundations of religious figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi was a complex figure who expressed racist views towards local South Africans, developed a critique of British colonialism that was based upon his liberal principles of national self-determination, but ultimately articulated the anti-colonial struggle through the conservative medium of Hindu nationalism. His legacy within India is obviously contested but it has largely been appropriated by the Hindu nationalists represented by Modi's BJP, which has recently passed discriminatory anti-Muslim citizenship laws. I think other figures within the anti-colonial movement, such as Nehru, probably have views that were more compatible with a multi-racial democratic society like our own.

My own views about these events are complex and contradictory. I don't have any concise interpretation that I can really offer. Broadly though, I am in favor of any anti-systemic social movement that is attempting to question the legitimacy of the State's monopoly on violence and the way in which it has disproportionately oppressed and exploited black people in this country for four hundred fucking years. Mostly though, I am offended by anyone who, when talking about these events, feels a need to remind us that "Hitler emptied prisons too" and that Bolsheviks murdered the Romanovs because it is fucking dumb as hell and a propos of absolutely nothing.

Duff... wrote:Why I'm stepping in this, I dunno, but you're actually both kinda right. Too many young radicals think we're gonna start a revolution and fix everything that's wrong when the road to victory is violent and miserable and the people you're seeking justice for are typically the one's who take the brunt of it, and in the endo what you get might not even be better. On the other hand, moments like this (and the French Revolution I guess) can't really be approved of or diapproved of in any meaningful way. It's like a storm: The conditions are in place and this is what's gonna happen whether you cheer it on or not.

I agree we are both right in some ways. History isn't black and white, it's grey.

WP64 wrote:First, we cannot both be right because I have not taken any position on the recent protests, Black Lives Matter, or the autonomous zone that was established in the city of Seattle. I have not made any normative judgements or assessments. I am just bothered by the clumsy and conservative historical interpretation being offered in this thread.

Second, you can be "well-versed in Chomsky" and still share a conservative interpretation of history. It is common for Marxists to be well-versed in classical political economy (Smith & Ricardo) and any liberal worth his salt would be familiar with the Nietzschean critique of the liberal constitutional order articulated by Carl Schmitt. These are not identities but schools of political and economic thought.

Third, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what conservatism actually means in the broader sense. It is a rich intellectual tradition that has its roots in Edmund Burke's reaction to the events of the French Revolution, which he interpreted as a moral crisis that sought to erode the natural legitimacy of religious institutions (the Catholic Church). This is a good review written by George Will on the history of conservative thought as a reaction to the destabilizing forces of capitalist modernity, which is quite interesting. Your analysis of history, which views the subaltern classes as disorganized "miscreants" who have a natural tendency towards spontaneous and apolitical acts of violence and destruction, is deeply conservative. So too is the desire to have political leaders who base their politics not on the foundations of multi-racial/ethnic/religious citizenship in a democratic national polity, which was established by the French Revolution, but rather on the moral foundations of religious figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi was a complex figure who expressed racist views towards local South Africans, developed a critique of British colonialism that was based upon his liberal principles of national self-determination, but ultimately articulated the anti-colonial struggle through the conservative medium of Hindu nationalism. His legacy within India is obviously contested but it has largely been appropriated by the Hindu nationalists represented by Modi's BJP, which has recently passed discriminatory anti-Muslim citizenship laws. I think other figures within the anti-colonial movement, such as Nehru, probably have views that were more compatible with a multi-racial democratic society like our own.

My own views about these events are complex and contradictory. I don't have any concise interpretation that I can really offer. Broadly though, I am in favor of any anti-systemic social movement that is attempting to question the legitimacy of the State's monopoly on violence and the way in which it has disproportionately oppressed and exploited black people in this country for four hundred fucking years. Mostly though, I am offended by anyone who, when talking about these events, feels a need to remind us that "Hitler emptied prisons too" and that Bolsheviks murdered the Romanovs because it is fucking dumb as hell and a propos of absolutely nothing.

I'm just messing around. I think you know what your talking about. Just playing devil's advocate for some funnies.

I was thinking though, you know who else defaces historical monuments and illegally tears down statues? ISIS. Just sayin'.

WP64 wrote:I was thinking though, you know who else defaces historical monuments and illegally tears down statues? ISIS. Just sayin'.

[quote="John Boy Walton"]

WP64 wrote:Your analysis of history, which views the subaltern classes as disorganized "miscreants" who have a natural tendency towards spontaneous and apolitical acts of violence and destruction, is deeply conservative.

Was the death of Robespierre what FoxNews calls the "left eating itself"?