It would be wrong to say that no matter the size of a totalitarian society, it will always be bad. The bigger, the worse. A small movement has much less potential of harming millions who digress with them and will also be much less influential in the political sphere.
I strongly believe in beliefs. I don't believe in a God, but I do believe that everyone is genuinely a good person, I believe in second chances and I believe strongly in free speech. All three together, for me, constitute the basis for socialism, lets call it global equality. I'm happy to say I live by the three too.
I was doing the stall for the ISO today, a right-wing friend came by and we had a small chat. In the meanwhile the other three members of the organization doing the stall walked away and sat at a table nearby. I heard my name several times, but I figured I was just being paranoid. To be honest I almost should be hearing things, me and the ISO have had a fall out of late. When the three came back they sat around me. We made random chit-chat and then they made the move: one of the members (namely the one who is still more open to my differing opinions) started poking me. "What will your non-violent ways do against this huh?!" he said. I was going to take it as a joke when one of the other members asked me if I was a pacifist. He pretended to act surprised, but I've been openly a pacifist since it first came up in an ISO meeting a couple of years ago; his surprise was false and his tone gave it away. I said I was and that is when the barrage of questions and shouting started. They were shouting, they were condescending and it was three against one. I felt intimadated and I told them, they were ganging up on me.
I'll just mention that I am one of the most active members of the organization. I have written many articles and speeches, I have sold many magazines and been at practically every protest there has been since I entered the group, or shall I say society. Yet one differing view, a view that in student politics means bullocks is non-violence, but they cannot respect my individuality. The ISO, I quote "isn't formed of individuals" you see. They are an organization that hide behind a facade of 'true socialism', but what is true? They say they are democratic, yet they cannot accept dissent. They say they are pro-equality, yet they don't practice it; I know a couple of female members who feel disrespected and down-talked. They say they are going for a better world, yet they haven't even envisaged what it could look like. And if it's theirs we will be back to the mines and the factories and jackets of steels will be worn by those who pretend to be the most equal of us all.
The three members asked me what force meant to me, what violence was and then posed examples to prove that violence is legitimate. They truly think that violence will help solve problems, not create more. I didn't feel like it was a debate. It was an intent of brainwash. They would pound there points on me, and harder if I couldn't reply. What am I meant to say when they ask whether it is violent if a woman pepper-sprays her attackers when it is three against one- as well! look at that!- and they've pushed her down a dark alleyway, with all the connotations present in mind? I understand of course why she would pepper spray them. It is still vioent though, just like the act that the three attackers are committing. Both actions are wrong, that doesn't mean one is more justified than the other...
Non-violence doesn't seem to be a possibility within the ISO, even though non-violence is much more forceful. They would find legitimacy in some assassinations and mass murders of a minority. I can't. I believe that we each live life once only, due to this we should all have a second chance. People improve but above all, people are subjects of the conditions they grew up in and the conditions they live in. A disrespect for differing opinions is something you mimic when you see it as a child. That doesn't mean people will always be disrespectful, just that they are copying the behaviours of their elders. Aren't societies meant to evolve though? Shouldn't we by now open up to other opinions and be taught by them?
I'd rather not be down in a mine. I'm quite happy as a "middle-class bourgeois" studying my books. Of course, it'd be much more fun if everyone else could, but we all have perverse dreams.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Marx Never Wrote a Bible.
Marx himself was jewish, but he considered himself an atheist. He saw religion as the "opiate of the people", it was the drug the higher powers could use to keep the masses in line. In this life people have to follow the rules, from God and their lords. If they do, in the next life they will be rewarded with absolute salvation. Simple enough, it keeps people hooked up to the status quo.
However I find it ironic that so many Marxists follow Marx as if he himself were a God. He isn't. His ideas may have been 'revolutionary', but by no means does it mean that we should follow him every step of the way...
There are so many more writers to be read, not only Marxists. If we want a system that is inclusive, we have to be ready to accept ideas from other cultures and other movements. This will create a true democracy, it will create a system that people will feel identified with, no matter if Chinese or San.
It's quite basic, people won't jump into a boat if it only seems to be heading to chaos. Many people see Marxism as an idealistic system. People ask why a doctor would want to earn the same wage as a rubbish-man. Let me say two things, if it weren't for cleaners, we'd probably be all dead; the plague would have passed on again and the toll couldn't be smaller this time round. My second point is that this isn't about money. Marxism calls for a society where money isn't needed. We'd all do things for good will. Albeit, to get there we'd have to take steps. Marixism is an ideal system, of course it is! But it is a real alternative only if we know what it is. As I said before, people wouldn't gamble for a system that seemed somewhat unclear. David Harvey did a talk in Marxism in the UK a couple of years ago. He says that we can start the movement at any point in time, however we must constantly evolve, improve in order to reach the goal we want to reach. This is the idea of a revolution. We have to debunk the current system, but we cannot wait to see something spring up from the flowerbeds, I guess we have to dig the prize first and keep on digging until we've found it. Capitalism as a system constantly evolves: technologically, socially, culturally; it sets into us a bit more. As it sets in though, we become trapped and jobless or without a sufficient education, or maybe too much of one.
In order to reach this system of peace in which we all have a place to learn and express ourselves, David Harvey says we need ideas. Thinking about ideas after a revolution would lead us to communist Russia, or a stalemate like we are seeing in Tunisia. Has there been any advancement there, or will there be a new form of repression? Any future stuctures for a new system have to be created and tested beforehand, this way we'll know what we are aiming for. If we don't have everything configured, we won't get the enthusiatic support to back it and we will probably end up in a system much the same as the one we've got now. He says "the bourgeoisie does things that [open] up possibilities", a crisis is one of these things. He defines a crisis as "the irrational rationalizer of an irrational state". The state is one of oppression and a crisis is a rationalizer because it opens up those possibilities: workers get laid off and frustrated, this is irrational as they were made by the system, one that is irrational because it is unfair yet we live by it. There is the possiblity, not slim, that workers will "lose [...] their chains".
For last, in this long rant of mine in which I seem somewhat mad obsessed and both, religion has a place in this society. Marx is wrong. I don't believe in God, but those who do have been building temples and shrines possibly since humanity's dawn. Religion gives people hope, stories and a shared culture. While this society will be much better, tragedies will always happen. We either need hope or rationality to get through these, no offence intended. I see religion as a seeking for a perfect self, a notion from Fauerbach, isn't it human to want to be perfect?
However I find it ironic that so many Marxists follow Marx as if he himself were a God. He isn't. His ideas may have been 'revolutionary', but by no means does it mean that we should follow him every step of the way...
There are so many more writers to be read, not only Marxists. If we want a system that is inclusive, we have to be ready to accept ideas from other cultures and other movements. This will create a true democracy, it will create a system that people will feel identified with, no matter if Chinese or San.
It's quite basic, people won't jump into a boat if it only seems to be heading to chaos. Many people see Marxism as an idealistic system. People ask why a doctor would want to earn the same wage as a rubbish-man. Let me say two things, if it weren't for cleaners, we'd probably be all dead; the plague would have passed on again and the toll couldn't be smaller this time round. My second point is that this isn't about money. Marxism calls for a society where money isn't needed. We'd all do things for good will. Albeit, to get there we'd have to take steps. Marixism is an ideal system, of course it is! But it is a real alternative only if we know what it is. As I said before, people wouldn't gamble for a system that seemed somewhat unclear. David Harvey did a talk in Marxism in the UK a couple of years ago. He says that we can start the movement at any point in time, however we must constantly evolve, improve in order to reach the goal we want to reach. This is the idea of a revolution. We have to debunk the current system, but we cannot wait to see something spring up from the flowerbeds, I guess we have to dig the prize first and keep on digging until we've found it. Capitalism as a system constantly evolves: technologically, socially, culturally; it sets into us a bit more. As it sets in though, we become trapped and jobless or without a sufficient education, or maybe too much of one.
In order to reach this system of peace in which we all have a place to learn and express ourselves, David Harvey says we need ideas. Thinking about ideas after a revolution would lead us to communist Russia, or a stalemate like we are seeing in Tunisia. Has there been any advancement there, or will there be a new form of repression? Any future stuctures for a new system have to be created and tested beforehand, this way we'll know what we are aiming for. If we don't have everything configured, we won't get the enthusiatic support to back it and we will probably end up in a system much the same as the one we've got now. He says "the bourgeoisie does things that [open] up possibilities", a crisis is one of these things. He defines a crisis as "the irrational rationalizer of an irrational state". The state is one of oppression and a crisis is a rationalizer because it opens up those possibilities: workers get laid off and frustrated, this is irrational as they were made by the system, one that is irrational because it is unfair yet we live by it. There is the possiblity, not slim, that workers will "lose [...] their chains".
For last, in this long rant of mine in which I seem somewhat mad obsessed and both, religion has a place in this society. Marx is wrong. I don't believe in God, but those who do have been building temples and shrines possibly since humanity's dawn. Religion gives people hope, stories and a shared culture. While this society will be much better, tragedies will always happen. We either need hope or rationality to get through these, no offence intended. I see religion as a seeking for a perfect self, a notion from Fauerbach, isn't it human to want to be perfect?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Military and the Revolution.
At the ISO's meeting today we talked about the military's power in social revolution, it was interesting, fairly weighty stuff. Of course we don't want the Egyptian revolution to die down, but it seems the army is acting in counter-revolutionary ways: hey are trying to get those still camped out in Tahrir square to budge, to go back to work.
It's important to note the army will never be able to create a state like the one it witnessed fall. By now the people are conscious of their power, they know they can achieve what they want and they know that they can shut down the most powerful state in the Middle East. There has been a shift in consciousness that has proved that revolutions are still possible in the 21st century, indeed revolutions aren't a bit of the past but maybe an undeniable piece of future. As a comrade said, we are more connected now than ever, it is easier for us to organize, an example of this is the UKuncut campaign that has blocked stores of companies that dodge tax, including vodafone.
However, capitalism is an always shifting system, it continuosly gives more powers to the rulers, but their technology will always trickle down. In order to keep the revolution working and to keep the new military government in check, people will always have to be one step quicker than the governments. They will have to keep their demands and not bend down.
The army doesn't have to go against its people, right now I'm not commenting about the situation in Egypt. In Portugal in '74 the army helped topple down the fascist dictatorship of Salazar. Within three weeks of the provisional government, the number of unions rose by a thousand percent.
In part this is because the army will always have a working class element. Even though it is one of the state's traditional powerhouses, they are mostly formed by the working class. Those who get their hands all bloodied are sons of workers. So they will always be reluctant to go against the people, because they too have worked as tanners or in market stalls or on the dumps of the city.
The army and the police are quite different. The army is nationalistic, it exists to protect its citizens from foreigners and it is a working class source of pride to be in it.The army is seen as the ultimate power symbol of the country and because it represents the country in all its classes, it will not always go against the people.
For example, in the more than famous Tianamen square protests, reform protesters had been demonstrating for weeks. The army was present, it was the local branch though so it felt unable to shoot against people they potentially knew. In order to 'disperse' the crowds, China was forced to send troops from elsewhere. Then the tanks rolled in, curtains fell and hidden behind sheets thousands were murdered. This shows that the military is reluctant to shoot its own people, the same isn't true of the police. The police were the ones reported to kill many in Egypt and Tunisia and very recently in Bahrain.
The police, on the other hand, exist to maintain the status quo ante, the class system. It is there to protect the richer. If there is a robbery in a store, the police will be there quick, if there is a robbery in a house, the police will take more time, it simply isn't as important.
The military could thus be seen as a potential weapon in favour of the revolution, but of course, who says armed revolutions work out?
It's important to note the army will never be able to create a state like the one it witnessed fall. By now the people are conscious of their power, they know they can achieve what they want and they know that they can shut down the most powerful state in the Middle East. There has been a shift in consciousness that has proved that revolutions are still possible in the 21st century, indeed revolutions aren't a bit of the past but maybe an undeniable piece of future. As a comrade said, we are more connected now than ever, it is easier for us to organize, an example of this is the UKuncut campaign that has blocked stores of companies that dodge tax, including vodafone.
However, capitalism is an always shifting system, it continuosly gives more powers to the rulers, but their technology will always trickle down. In order to keep the revolution working and to keep the new military government in check, people will always have to be one step quicker than the governments. They will have to keep their demands and not bend down.
The army doesn't have to go against its people, right now I'm not commenting about the situation in Egypt. In Portugal in '74 the army helped topple down the fascist dictatorship of Salazar. Within three weeks of the provisional government, the number of unions rose by a thousand percent.
In part this is because the army will always have a working class element. Even though it is one of the state's traditional powerhouses, they are mostly formed by the working class. Those who get their hands all bloodied are sons of workers. So they will always be reluctant to go against the people, because they too have worked as tanners or in market stalls or on the dumps of the city.
The army and the police are quite different. The army is nationalistic, it exists to protect its citizens from foreigners and it is a working class source of pride to be in it.The army is seen as the ultimate power symbol of the country and because it represents the country in all its classes, it will not always go against the people.
For example, in the more than famous Tianamen square protests, reform protesters had been demonstrating for weeks. The army was present, it was the local branch though so it felt unable to shoot against people they potentially knew. In order to 'disperse' the crowds, China was forced to send troops from elsewhere. Then the tanks rolled in, curtains fell and hidden behind sheets thousands were murdered. This shows that the military is reluctant to shoot its own people, the same isn't true of the police. The police were the ones reported to kill many in Egypt and Tunisia and very recently in Bahrain.
The police, on the other hand, exist to maintain the status quo ante, the class system. It is there to protect the richer. If there is a robbery in a store, the police will be there quick, if there is a robbery in a house, the police will take more time, it simply isn't as important.
The military could thus be seen as a potential weapon in favour of the revolution, but of course, who says armed revolutions work out?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Is Egypt Free at last??
I have taken my time to comment on Egypt, mostly because I haven't found it. I have been working quite a bit and I really just haven't been able to. It's also been very dificult to comment on something we don't completely understand. Al Jazeera is giving us a lot of info, but I don't know how many of you tune on, and I myself haven't really been able to. But even Al Jazeera has been hiding info (it too is a a product of foreign policy), they mostly talk to English talking people, so we aren't actually able to get information from your average Caireine slum dweller, rubbish scavenger or fruit vendor. Moreover, the last time I watched Al Jaz they were talking about protests, but at that point in time didn't tell us what the chants were, now this is important. It's very different to chant "Mubarak out now" than "We want change, we want democracy we want socialism", I don't think the latter would be apropriated though, Egypt isn't ready. It would be 1917 again, a repetition of already made errors which just paved the streets for a new tyrant under another banner, an even bigger lie.
Yesterday Mubarak stepped down, after thirty years in power, after almost three weeks of on-going protests that have swept the world's attention. Mubarak's forces tried to hold up as much as possible, it has been difficult to know who the military were backing. There have been times where army and people backed each other up or protected each other, others in which people were shot down for shouting. Now they are the ones controlling the country, they have vowed for a smooth transition, but it is the people who will have to keep them in check. Their barricades must stay strong and Tahrir square must continue to be the centre-point of the revolution, because it has not yet ended. I believe the people will get democracy in Egypt, a democracy still bad, resembling ours, but a democracy nontheless. I hope Egypt and Tunisia manage to create a liberal democracy in which all people will be represented. This would become an example for the rest of the middle East, where the masses have yet to rise even though the conditions in Algeria, Morocco, Yemen and so many other nations differ so little.
All I know is that the Egyptian and Tunisian people spoke out and it worked, who says it can't elsewhere, in places where the government is less powerful? This is the best vid on the Egyptian revolution and here you can find how Tunisia is starting to take on its rebirth. The words "We will not be silenced, whether you're a Christian, whether you're a muslim, an atheist. You will get back your goddamn rights and we will have our rights one way or another", from a protestor are probably to become one of the lines of the revolution. It is a people's revolution. I'd call it for bread and butter. they want food, but they also want to become western, they want to become secular.
Jefferson said that "when the people fear their government it's a tyranny. When the government fears its people it's called liberty." We could say that both Tunisians and Egyptians are more free, but they still need their food and they're still going to have to fight for rights we consider normal, whether they are women's, gay or workers'. The future for them is young and full of hope.
And if you want to know what the Kiwi army is doing in Egypt check it out.
Yesterday Mubarak stepped down, after thirty years in power, after almost three weeks of on-going protests that have swept the world's attention. Mubarak's forces tried to hold up as much as possible, it has been difficult to know who the military were backing. There have been times where army and people backed each other up or protected each other, others in which people were shot down for shouting. Now they are the ones controlling the country, they have vowed for a smooth transition, but it is the people who will have to keep them in check. Their barricades must stay strong and Tahrir square must continue to be the centre-point of the revolution, because it has not yet ended. I believe the people will get democracy in Egypt, a democracy still bad, resembling ours, but a democracy nontheless. I hope Egypt and Tunisia manage to create a liberal democracy in which all people will be represented. This would become an example for the rest of the middle East, where the masses have yet to rise even though the conditions in Algeria, Morocco, Yemen and so many other nations differ so little.
All I know is that the Egyptian and Tunisian people spoke out and it worked, who says it can't elsewhere, in places where the government is less powerful? This is the best vid on the Egyptian revolution and here you can find how Tunisia is starting to take on its rebirth. The words "We will not be silenced, whether you're a Christian, whether you're a muslim, an atheist. You will get back your goddamn rights and we will have our rights one way or another", from a protestor are probably to become one of the lines of the revolution. It is a people's revolution. I'd call it for bread and butter. they want food, but they also want to become western, they want to become secular.
Jefferson said that "when the people fear their government it's a tyranny. When the government fears its people it's called liberty." We could say that both Tunisians and Egyptians are more free, but they still need their food and they're still going to have to fight for rights we consider normal, whether they are women's, gay or workers'. The future for them is young and full of hope.
And if you want to know what the Kiwi army is doing in Egypt check it out.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Non-Violence quote by Chinese philosopher Mozi.
“To kill one man is to be guilty of a capital crime, to kill ten
men is to increase the guilt ten-fold, to kill a hundred men is
to increase it a hundred-fold. This the rulers of the earth all
recognize and yet when it comes to the greatest crime—waging
war on another state—they praise it!
It is clear they do not know it is wrong, for they record
such deeds to be handed down to posterity; if they knew they
were wrong, why should they wish to record them and have
them handed down to posterity?
If a man on seeing a little black were to say it is black, but
on seeing a lot of black were to say it were white, it would be
clear that such a man could not distinguish between black and white.
Or if he were to taste a few bitter things were to pronounce
them sweet, clearly he would be incapable of distinguishing
between sweetness and bitterness. So those who recognize a
small crime as such, but do not recognize the wickedness of the
greatest crime of all—the waging of war on another state–but
actually praise it—cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
So as to right or wrong, the rulers of the world are in confusion.”
–Mozi, China, circa 470-391 B.C.
men is to increase the guilt ten-fold, to kill a hundred men is
to increase it a hundred-fold. This the rulers of the earth all
recognize and yet when it comes to the greatest crime—waging
war on another state—they praise it!
It is clear they do not know it is wrong, for they record
such deeds to be handed down to posterity; if they knew they
were wrong, why should they wish to record them and have
them handed down to posterity?
If a man on seeing a little black were to say it is black, but
on seeing a lot of black were to say it were white, it would be
clear that such a man could not distinguish between black and white.
Or if he were to taste a few bitter things were to pronounce
them sweet, clearly he would be incapable of distinguishing
between sweetness and bitterness. So those who recognize a
small crime as such, but do not recognize the wickedness of the
greatest crime of all—the waging of war on another state–but
actually praise it—cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
So as to right or wrong, the rulers of the world are in confusion.”
–Mozi, China, circa 470-391 B.C.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Who are jobs for?
I've worked 23 hours in the last four days and I'll soon be off to work four more. I'm quite tired, retail is a tiring job, not as tiring as most but more tiring than many would think. You need a permanent smile and a lot of patience. But more than anything I'm tired because there are many nights when I finish in the early hours of the morning... and I'm an early-bird by nature.
I work because I need the money and I will no doubt continue working throughout the year. Yes working in a convenience store isn't the most gratifying of jobs, but I'd never say that I'm too good for it. I must have taken that from my dad, he needed money quickly so he worked in McDonalds over the summer; he's 45 and with an unfinished doctorate who on Tuesday started working at John McGlashan college. He has no qualms and I'm proud of him. He is the sort of person, with a higher than average education who doesn't think that he is better than anybody. He treats everyone with respect and isn't proud, in the christian sense.
I'm not totally like him but I felt very insulted when an old teacher of mine, buying smokes, told me that there were better jobs out there. She saw this job as a lower-status, uneducated, low-paid piece of trash. Instead of telling her that there were much better ways of spending her money than on smokes, I told her that this job is in fact alright. It pays higher than minimum wage and yes the hours can be quite bad, but the working atmosphere is good, the bosses respect and apreciate us and anyhow, there aren't any jobs out there frankly. I will continue looking but I'm not going to let go of the one I have.
She left with a shrug and a ta! I stayed at the counter thinking what a horrible person she actually is. All I can think of is that if someone is serving you, all you can show is apreciation. You cannot deem them as stupid at first glance, that is prejudiced. They may be working in one of the highest deciled schools in the country and have an unfinished PHD! You cannot be unapreciative because if you are, they can make your life hell. 'They' is everyone who serves you, if you think you are better you will get served badly. In retail we can do this. I've had people who study at uni come up to me assuming I cannot count so I called them an asshole and threw in some burnt chips.
I'd like to first point out that there is this thing called dyscalcula, which I do not have but I know people who do. Secondly, that an education doesn't make you any wiser, maybe just a bit more prepotent and insolent.
People work because they need money. Everyone would like to work as James May in his ToyWorld, many would like to be paid to read or write bad poems or scribble for millions. However, these jobs don't really exist for the majority of us.
Last, someone once told me that because I'm a student I cannot be a worker. I'm a socialist so that wouldn't comput with my system, but also all students are, are in fact the next generation of workers, our education is paid by the last.
I work because I need the money and I will no doubt continue working throughout the year. Yes working in a convenience store isn't the most gratifying of jobs, but I'd never say that I'm too good for it. I must have taken that from my dad, he needed money quickly so he worked in McDonalds over the summer; he's 45 and with an unfinished doctorate who on Tuesday started working at John McGlashan college. He has no qualms and I'm proud of him. He is the sort of person, with a higher than average education who doesn't think that he is better than anybody. He treats everyone with respect and isn't proud, in the christian sense.
I'm not totally like him but I felt very insulted when an old teacher of mine, buying smokes, told me that there were better jobs out there. She saw this job as a lower-status, uneducated, low-paid piece of trash. Instead of telling her that there were much better ways of spending her money than on smokes, I told her that this job is in fact alright. It pays higher than minimum wage and yes the hours can be quite bad, but the working atmosphere is good, the bosses respect and apreciate us and anyhow, there aren't any jobs out there frankly. I will continue looking but I'm not going to let go of the one I have.
She left with a shrug and a ta! I stayed at the counter thinking what a horrible person she actually is. All I can think of is that if someone is serving you, all you can show is apreciation. You cannot deem them as stupid at first glance, that is prejudiced. They may be working in one of the highest deciled schools in the country and have an unfinished PHD! You cannot be unapreciative because if you are, they can make your life hell. 'They' is everyone who serves you, if you think you are better you will get served badly. In retail we can do this. I've had people who study at uni come up to me assuming I cannot count so I called them an asshole and threw in some burnt chips.
I'd like to first point out that there is this thing called dyscalcula, which I do not have but I know people who do. Secondly, that an education doesn't make you any wiser, maybe just a bit more prepotent and insolent.
People work because they need money. Everyone would like to work as James May in his ToyWorld, many would like to be paid to read or write bad poems or scribble for millions. However, these jobs don't really exist for the majority of us.
Last, someone once told me that because I'm a student I cannot be a worker. I'm a socialist so that wouldn't comput with my system, but also all students are, are in fact the next generation of workers, our education is paid by the last.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Non-violence.
I have to say, I am one of the spines of the ISO in Dunedin. As we've often commented ourselves, we are a small organization in the backwaters of the backwaters of the world. Dunedin is much more cultured than the countryside surrounding it but still, the area tends to be conservative especially when it comes to issues such as socialism. It is almost a taboo word here too. We do our best to spread socialist ideas, through our quarterly mag, through public meetings and in general being quite loud or just there. This annoys many, no doubt.
I'm non-violent though. The group often gets into more or less agressive agressive arguments about what violence means and how a non-violent revolution is a laughable state of affairs. To me it seems logical though: if one imposes their ideas, people will rebel against them, maybe just in thought though. However if one slowly debates his/hers ideas, they will either be picked up or not. If they're not, well free speech says that we should be able to think what we want to. After all, a new society will come when a majority wants it. There will always be people against it, this is what makes each of us human: we can all decide to follow the ideas that we think are best.
I'm non-violent though. The group often gets into more or less agressive agressive arguments about what violence means and how a non-violent revolution is a laughable state of affairs. To me it seems logical though: if one imposes their ideas, people will rebel against them, maybe just in thought though. However if one slowly debates his/hers ideas, they will either be picked up or not. If they're not, well free speech says that we should be able to think what we want to. After all, a new society will come when a majority wants it. There will always be people against it, this is what makes each of us human: we can all decide to follow the ideas that we think are best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)