This is the second issue that has been hidden enough: Te Whanau a Apanui in the East Coast are protesting against the inspection of oil on their shore by the Brazilian oil-company Petrobras. Down in Dunedin on Wednesday, there was a protest 'celebrating' the first Birthday of the BP oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We can probably all still remember the images of the platform on fire, the pipe gushing out this brown gulch and the beaches slowly getting covered in black. We can probably still remember the animals filthy with oil too. We do not want this to happen here too do we? This is what the iwi is protesting. At least someone is!
Just off Otago another oil company is inspecting oil too, with the permission to build two wells. The one off Dunedin closer than the deepwater horizon platform was from the US coast.
The Government claims that opening up the oil market in New Zealand- allegedly on one of the biggest oil fields in the world- will be beneficial for the economy. They are not taking into account the millions we will be losing in tourism, or the livelihoods of so many who depend on fishing. These fishers will instead have to work long shifts far from home around carcinogenics on minimum wage. This isn't improving the economy for the many, but for the few. The government has shares invested but we will be the ones doing the voluntary cleanups when the rig explodes. Petrobras, just for your information, is amongst the most unsafe companies in the business and even though New Zealand is earthquake prone and the waters rougher and deeper, they will not be using any new and advanced technology. A disaster seems likely and we are the ones paying for it. I personally don't want to see my taxes go to the death of a dozen yound men and women who have no chance of a better job and I certainly do not want to go out onto the beaches that I can see from my window to clean up a mess I did not want and did not create.
Te Whanau a Apanui isn't too big an iwi, but Greenpeace is backing them and the protesters are facing fines that hit the five digit mark, or jail. For peacefully opposing something they disagree with. 600 people protested up north, around 20 here but we need more. Petrobras is already fearing a public backlash, what are we waiting for? This isn't only protecting the environment, it is for Maori rights and to the benefit of us all.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Take note of what goes on or you'll forget.
We are all forgetful, many of us can hardly remember what we ate for breakfast let alone what was on the news yesterday. That was just yesterday's news, today is today isn't it? Well we can't just move on. What happens today is a direct consequence of what took place yesterday. It affects us greatly, yet we don't really know the world we live in. It is said that with so much information at such small snippets, we only get a superficial scratching of what goes on. It doesn't help that each website is a labyrinth in which to get entertained on the wrong path. How often do you turn on the computer to look something up and realizing 20 minutes later as you're shutting it down that you've forgotten to check what you wanted? I know I'm not the only one out there.
The internet is no less entertainment than Coronation street, in a sense it is our personal street; it is no more information than the BBC wants to give us- unless we actually go out and look for it. And then, will it be there or deleted from our collective memories altogether?
Did you know that the Government has granted itself wartime-like powers in Canterbury? The parliament has given support to the governments actions in Canterbury, controlling what goes on for the next five years! The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been given the power "to get information from any source, to requisition and build on land and to carry out demolitions. It can also take over local authorities if they are not working effectively on recovery work". Yep, it can decide that local councils are powerless and insignificant, take them over and this way take over democratically elected institutions. Excellent! So, no food, no roads and no-one to complain to! It has hardly made a scene in the media. And any it did has been forgotten all too quickly.
It seems Labour and National are just two shades of gray. The fact that we aren't told tells us a lot about New Zealand media. They aren't watchdogs of the public interest but the lapdogs of a private interest.
This is a part 1 of three, next Oil-protests by iwi and then ACTA.
The internet is no less entertainment than Coronation street, in a sense it is our personal street; it is no more information than the BBC wants to give us- unless we actually go out and look for it. And then, will it be there or deleted from our collective memories altogether?
Did you know that the Government has granted itself wartime-like powers in Canterbury? The parliament has given support to the governments actions in Canterbury, controlling what goes on for the next five years! The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been given the power "to get information from any source, to requisition and build on land and to carry out demolitions. It can also take over local authorities if they are not working effectively on recovery work". Yep, it can decide that local councils are powerless and insignificant, take them over and this way take over democratically elected institutions. Excellent! So, no food, no roads and no-one to complain to! It has hardly made a scene in the media. And any it did has been forgotten all too quickly.
It seems Labour and National are just two shades of gray. The fact that we aren't told tells us a lot about New Zealand media. They aren't watchdogs of the public interest but the lapdogs of a private interest.
This is a part 1 of three, next Oil-protests by iwi and then ACTA.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Industry.
I was walking down to uni yesterday when I heard some hits and knocks that disturbed me. I looked over the bushes and I could see one of those cattle-lorries, heavily pushing on the brakes for the lights. The knocks no doubt came from within. No cries though. I looked up at the top of the lorry, I didn't know what it was at first, they were the ears of a cow poking out, its eyes staring at me too.
Cows are meant to move, yes, but by themselves. Instead we transport them crammed, in an uncomfortable truck with a hard cold surface slowly filling with excrements. They cannot move unless they are thrown about by the pull of the brakes, which topple them onto the floor, likely breaking a limb. Before we eat our mince pies tonight, think about it. We are eating a beast exploited, when we cannot allow that to man. A beast malnourished, eating fillers it gains no nutrition from. It is a beast broken, sad, cold and dying even before its dead. The bangs I heard walking down the street are not something we'd wish onto man, yet we are all beasts. A man exploited; malnourished; broken, sad, cold and dying is one worthy of a better life. Not a slash in the throat. We would not want to have our lungs filled up with our own blood and choke while thinking of the pain we have in our legs, broken on a journey we were forced to do, spreading with hypothermia.
Pause before you bite into that pie, I will.
Cows are meant to move, yes, but by themselves. Instead we transport them crammed, in an uncomfortable truck with a hard cold surface slowly filling with excrements. They cannot move unless they are thrown about by the pull of the brakes, which topple them onto the floor, likely breaking a limb. Before we eat our mince pies tonight, think about it. We are eating a beast exploited, when we cannot allow that to man. A beast malnourished, eating fillers it gains no nutrition from. It is a beast broken, sad, cold and dying even before its dead. The bangs I heard walking down the street are not something we'd wish onto man, yet we are all beasts. A man exploited; malnourished; broken, sad, cold and dying is one worthy of a better life. Not a slash in the throat. We would not want to have our lungs filled up with our own blood and choke while thinking of the pain we have in our legs, broken on a journey we were forced to do, spreading with hypothermia.
Pause before you bite into that pie, I will.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Non-violence, the world and Lybia.
It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.
On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.
Imagine.
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.
On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.
Imagine.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
On Education and Realism.
I was listening to a post the other day in which there was Johann Hari, my favourite journalist. There was a brief mention on education which I found interesting. Our system isn't fair and equitable. It is clear that many people don't have the chance to finish high school because their upbringing hasn't put enough importance into it, the same with university. Of course university isn't for everyone, many shouldn't be here and many who don't go lead much happier lives than us under and post-grads will.
My point though is, our system isn't egalitarian because we don't expect everyone to have education. We look at homeless and assume they dropped out at 12 when they started doing drugs; but worse, when we see a middle-aged woman working in a convenience store, we don't expect her kids to go to university, or that she did. So we are almost automatically subjecting the children of this poor hypothetical woman, who is probably working her arse off to provide as good an education as she can to them, to a lack of future in our current society. This is a reality. We tend to make differences in our heads of what constitutes a good job and which one is bad. Even though in the future we won't have as many psychologists as those studying to be one, nor will we have as many english teachers, people still see university as the front door to a well-paid job instead of a personal desire to learn more. I feel this is misguided, many will feel unfulfilled because they won't be able to compete. We should wait to the future though to watch the outcome.
On a point aside and unrelated, I believe political realists are those people who don't believe change is possible, they don't see into the achievements of our past and they cannot accept that we can break out of a so called human nature. On the other hand, idealists are already in the process of changing this world which has so many wrongs. Needless to say I'm an idealist.
My point though is, our system isn't egalitarian because we don't expect everyone to have education. We look at homeless and assume they dropped out at 12 when they started doing drugs; but worse, when we see a middle-aged woman working in a convenience store, we don't expect her kids to go to university, or that she did. So we are almost automatically subjecting the children of this poor hypothetical woman, who is probably working her arse off to provide as good an education as she can to them, to a lack of future in our current society. This is a reality. We tend to make differences in our heads of what constitutes a good job and which one is bad. Even though in the future we won't have as many psychologists as those studying to be one, nor will we have as many english teachers, people still see university as the front door to a well-paid job instead of a personal desire to learn more. I feel this is misguided, many will feel unfulfilled because they won't be able to compete. We should wait to the future though to watch the outcome.
On a point aside and unrelated, I believe political realists are those people who don't believe change is possible, they don't see into the achievements of our past and they cannot accept that we can break out of a so called human nature. On the other hand, idealists are already in the process of changing this world which has so many wrongs. Needless to say I'm an idealist.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Libya and Europe.
The revolutions in Northern Africa have recently escaped our news, first because of Christchurch and now Japan. However we all know that libya is still struggling in a situation of de facto civil war.
Gaddafi is being told to leave by the EU and the US. He now seems to have the upper hands against the rebels, who at one point in time occupied more than half the country. However Gaddafi won't budge because of some western threats, the US and the EU may have to get involved. For democracy of course, or that's what they'll tell us... Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and it has significant amounts of natural gas as well. Any US and/or European involvement will be for two reasons: to protect the sacred tenet of democracy which would stabilize the country and in the short run protect Europe and for the large oil companies to win a new share in a new land with the possibility of finding new reserves. Again it is back to oil. That black crud we all rely on.
The authorities may even be open about it and say that they're going in to stabilize oil prices as well as democracy; the barrel of brent has gone up by more than 25% in the last couple of weeks. Any involvement will also be for the oil, for the markets and for the people. Those who own everything we have and need of course.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that it is sad that Libyans face shooting if they walk out of their houses and that bombs will be dropped on protesters but with direct foreign involvement, Libyans will become Iraqis with another name. The rebels are still strong and every day that passes more join the forces. I believe they can win, if we want to help, we should give them arms and medical supplies but no doctors unless asked and especially no soldiers. Libya doesn't want to be a colony again.
Elsewhere in the Middle East the US is more influential. In Bahrain human rights groups are under threat, in Yemen the protesters are being attacked by police. The US is losing its grip on the region just as it wants to take troops out of Iraq, and while American democracy does seem to be winning, the new governments won't kowtow as easily.
Gaddafi is being told to leave by the EU and the US. He now seems to have the upper hands against the rebels, who at one point in time occupied more than half the country. However Gaddafi won't budge because of some western threats, the US and the EU may have to get involved. For democracy of course, or that's what they'll tell us... Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and it has significant amounts of natural gas as well. Any US and/or European involvement will be for two reasons: to protect the sacred tenet of democracy which would stabilize the country and in the short run protect Europe and for the large oil companies to win a new share in a new land with the possibility of finding new reserves. Again it is back to oil. That black crud we all rely on.
The authorities may even be open about it and say that they're going in to stabilize oil prices as well as democracy; the barrel of brent has gone up by more than 25% in the last couple of weeks. Any involvement will also be for the oil, for the markets and for the people. Those who own everything we have and need of course.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that it is sad that Libyans face shooting if they walk out of their houses and that bombs will be dropped on protesters but with direct foreign involvement, Libyans will become Iraqis with another name. The rebels are still strong and every day that passes more join the forces. I believe they can win, if we want to help, we should give them arms and medical supplies but no doctors unless asked and especially no soldiers. Libya doesn't want to be a colony again.
Elsewhere in the Middle East the US is more influential. In Bahrain human rights groups are under threat, in Yemen the protesters are being attacked by police. The US is losing its grip on the region just as it wants to take troops out of Iraq, and while American democracy does seem to be winning, the new governments won't kowtow as easily.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Media as structurally racist.
We are all affected by the media, as we watch the news on TV or some chat-show, or we turn on our computer screens we are given information that, to us unknowingly, can be one-sided. We are also wary of walking down streets on a Saturday night by ourselves, or scared of sirens which remind us of a war we've never been in. In Port Chalmers the fire siren whales as if it were alerting of a bomb-strike in World War Two, it sends a chill down my spine every time I hear it, most of the time of which is just to test it, to see whether this relic still works. The RSA building is close by it, I wonder what they think...
Everytime I hear a siren now though, it reminds me of Christchurch and the chaos after the earthquake. We have been fed so much info that I find it disrespectful. On the day and for days afterwards they had a 24 hour program about the developments, or lack thereof. While it does inform those who have family they haven't heard of, they probably just wonder if it was one of theirs who was pulled out of the rubble of a bookshop. During the two or three days of repeated footage, we only really heard of the bad stories, or just the CBD. And that was on because of the B. Suburbs remained uncommunicated and I remember reading an article about a group of 20 living in a garage who, after a week, still hadn't been visited by any emergency personnel. They were of course looking out for the B. People in the Pyne Gould are dead, those in an eastern suburb only lost and hungry, possibly infected. Who should we try save? The dead or the living? I found it disrespectful. But I guess the New Zealand media hardly ever has any big stories to comment on.
I went to an open lecture the other day on Media and racism. I didn't think it was all that great as it only focused on the anti-Indian riots that took place in some Australian universities last year and the year before. However the talk did raise some interesting points.
The media, in my eyes, is a structurally nationalistic system in many senses. Each country puts more focus onto the particular country it is based in than any other. This makes perfect sense, the citizens watching or reading that piece of media are more likely to be interested in a catastrophe up the road than one elsewhere. It is racist too though, economically if that makes sense. The west payed a lot of attention to Australia when the floods were devastating the Queensland cities and coasts, but no attention was payed to Brazil and even less to Sri Lanka. I think this is because there isn't as much money put into these economies and Australians are culturally much more similar to Europe or the US. The same happened with the Chinese earhquake. It stopped existing once the bigger one rattled Japan. Yes it was larger, but China left the maps pretty quickly. Those damn reds!
The media is sensationalist because that is what people want. We would rather hear about a wedding than about an election, even though the outcomes in South Sudan and Niger are uplifting for democracy. But that raises the issue of Africa. Don't they just fight all the time? Aren't they just too corrupt, maybe too tribal still?
Should public tv spend more time on world issues? Should its programming be more welcoming to cultural minorites? Should it be that unbiased precedent the public would want to see?
Sagacitas, Veritas et Libertas.
Everytime I hear a siren now though, it reminds me of Christchurch and the chaos after the earthquake. We have been fed so much info that I find it disrespectful. On the day and for days afterwards they had a 24 hour program about the developments, or lack thereof. While it does inform those who have family they haven't heard of, they probably just wonder if it was one of theirs who was pulled out of the rubble of a bookshop. During the two or three days of repeated footage, we only really heard of the bad stories, or just the CBD. And that was on because of the B. Suburbs remained uncommunicated and I remember reading an article about a group of 20 living in a garage who, after a week, still hadn't been visited by any emergency personnel. They were of course looking out for the B. People in the Pyne Gould are dead, those in an eastern suburb only lost and hungry, possibly infected. Who should we try save? The dead or the living? I found it disrespectful. But I guess the New Zealand media hardly ever has any big stories to comment on.
I went to an open lecture the other day on Media and racism. I didn't think it was all that great as it only focused on the anti-Indian riots that took place in some Australian universities last year and the year before. However the talk did raise some interesting points.
The media, in my eyes, is a structurally nationalistic system in many senses. Each country puts more focus onto the particular country it is based in than any other. This makes perfect sense, the citizens watching or reading that piece of media are more likely to be interested in a catastrophe up the road than one elsewhere. It is racist too though, economically if that makes sense. The west payed a lot of attention to Australia when the floods were devastating the Queensland cities and coasts, but no attention was payed to Brazil and even less to Sri Lanka. I think this is because there isn't as much money put into these economies and Australians are culturally much more similar to Europe or the US. The same happened with the Chinese earhquake. It stopped existing once the bigger one rattled Japan. Yes it was larger, but China left the maps pretty quickly. Those damn reds!
The media is sensationalist because that is what people want. We would rather hear about a wedding than about an election, even though the outcomes in South Sudan and Niger are uplifting for democracy. But that raises the issue of Africa. Don't they just fight all the time? Aren't they just too corrupt, maybe too tribal still?
Should public tv spend more time on world issues? Should its programming be more welcoming to cultural minorites? Should it be that unbiased precedent the public would want to see?
Sagacitas, Veritas et Libertas.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Expressing dissent is akin to sin in totalitarian societies.
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.
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.
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)