BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Get As Good As You Give: Revolution & Sacrifice

  
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
01:05 / 25.08.02
[To the moderators: this thread may be better suited to the Headshop area; should you see fit, feel free to move it.]

At Panarchy's suggestion, I've taken a post I made on the Barbelith Agenda thread, which I thought was relevant to the topic of an organized statement of Barbelith politics, and moved it here. For a refresher, here's what I wrote:

The problem with this proposition as forwarded is that it solicits far too specific issues. Just today I've been writing about the fallacy in Western thought being that we are far too much of a reactive people, with woefully little brain activity devoted to addressing the cause of effects. There IS a unified field theory to society. There are larger issues that need to be taken care of for a cascade effect to be apparent.

At the same time, some of the best change you can make is to yourself. None of us want to think that there's anything wrong with the way in which we live and view the world, but there is, period. And in order for our actions to reflect the selfless aims of people who want the best for all, we have to BE those people. Not all of us will make it that far, including myself. We will have to become someone else entirely. You may have to sever all ties to those you know, discard what you have, utterly divorce yourself from what it is that defines who you are now to become who you must be if you're really going to pursue this. I don't know that I can. I don't know that I can't. Each comes with its heartbreaks. Each will make you happy in different ways, and neither is necessarily better than the other. You may be jailed. You may be killed. It will be a war so utterly inconceivable to the traditional definition of war, in that it will truly be a war to end war: international, class, racial, cultural. Like the Jews freed from Egypt, we might not be allowed to pass into the Promised Land, because we will have the memory of being slaves to the old way. Are you all right with the possibility that you will never get to see what you fight for, that the rest of your life might be nothing but struggle so that those who come after will know only peace and contentment? In the end, are you simply fucking about with this romantic image of rebellion and change, or are you willing to play the Death card? I don't have an answer to these questions yet. Do you?

So to encapsulate, knowing the truly enormous paradigm shifts (I know, I'm sorry) that our society not only should but must go through if it hopes to survive (and feel free to identify those shifts, though to increase the odds of agreement it might be better not to dwell on minutiae), what might be asked of any individual or member of a group of individuals working towards those aims? What might need be given up, sacrificed, left behind in order to be able to operate unhindered? As another thread quotes, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." What should be the timetable, given whatever objectives there are? Is it to be actualized within said revolutionary's lifetime, or only reasonable to expect for future generations? Should one be willing to be imprisoned or killed? What is this movement we all seem to be looking for but hesitant to actually join? In short, if you were asked to be an Invisible tomorrow, could you say yes?
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
15:05 / 25.08.02
As an addendum to my question(s), what issue or issues would force your hand into taking this momentous step in your life? What would be your breaking point that would cause you to feel you had no better recourse than to go underground?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
15:47 / 25.08.02
Bad, bad time for me to read and respond to this. I would hope it has some relevance, though - cynicism and disillusion being serious things to take into consideration. I do wonder at what point I would 'take up arms' (in any respect). How bad do things have to get? But right now, I don't have any hope whatsoever. I'm utterly sick of the dreadful things people are doing to each other. Right now, I really don't think there's anything to fight for. Of course there is, there's plenty, but but it seems academic at the moment. Getting to where I can live in some peace - in effect saving myself - is as much as I am prepared to do right now. I do hope I don't feel like this for long.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
18:32 / 25.08.02
SFD, wouldn't that be the point, tho? If you survey the horizon and all you can see is shit, and after some deep, deep soul-searching you're absolutely positive that you've made yourself the best version of yourself you can at that moment, wouldn't your responsibility then be to turn those tools you've used on yourself outwards? That a better world is conceivable means that it is possible; the logistics of having that world come into existence is "simply" to have as many people as possible conceive of that same better world. The war we come into now is no longer for territory but for minds, and the side of progressive humanism was that hardest hit by 9/11 because it flipped so many over to the rah-rah jingoistic camp. (I think the mindset prevalent in Judeo-Christian-Muslim cultures wherein there has got to be a "final" moment is reflected in policy that, consciously or not, seeks to "finalize" what is considered to be the way things have got to be, even at the "acceptable" cost of lives and freedoms.)

Obviously there is no way to FORCE people to live in harmony and to make sure that everyone enjoys a certain level of contentment and comfort (and we can discuss exactly what that entails, b/c for some that simply means a roof over one's head, enough food and the same opportunities anyone else enjoys, whereas for others life is inconceivable without a DSL and Poland Spring), but if you had to choose, where would you start? Avoiding all the outrightly underhandedly manipulative ways in which people's wills have been coerced in the past, how can you "wake them up"? And what are the risks involved?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
21:58 / 25.08.02
You know what? I really, really wish my health was better, because I'd be seriously tempted to jack it all in here and go and work for someone like Halo, the people in Angola that are helping get rid of the landmines. Been watching tv tonight, and saw some very, very brave people in various parts of the world who are risking their necks and survived torture to try and make their environments better places to live. Gave me a kick up my self-pitying arse, I can tell you. There are heroic people out there. If there were death squads in this country, if people disappeared because they disagreed with the Government, would I stand up to them? Or would I be too afraid? I hope I'm never in the position to find out, but I have absolute respect and awe for those who stand up and be counted.

To be honest, I've found as I've got older that I've got less and less enthusiasm for marches, and more and more enthusiasm for doing individual things. Or, perhaps I've been more appreciative of how much good 'just' helping one person, or one animal, is.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
00:50 / 26.08.02
Then what's the feasability of a megacharity, an all-purpose clearinghouse of both generalist and specialist, volunteer or minimally-compensated personnel, dispatched throughout the world to wherever they can make the most difference? Such an organization would have to be privately funded, but for any secular organization to solicit support from the public expenditures would have to be utterly open and double-checked to minimize the risk of embezzlement and to demonstrate its purity of purpose. Donations would be accepted, but only from individuals, and in doing so they understand that after support is given how it is applied solely at the discretion of the governing board; their opportunity to voice concerns about policy comes before donation, not after. Additionally, the organization would have to be decentralized, housed in any nation that would have them but able to shed a limb with a moment's notice, and while risk can be planned for any member would have to accept the possibility of peril to their freedom or life, even within "democracies" like the U.S. Assets would need to be kept liquid, and wherever possible work should be done in cooperation with preexisting groups working towards similar ends.

NOW, of course any ideological group IS going to need to operate and endorse certain ideologies, some which may border on heretical in certain areas of the world, which is going to make them intensely unpopular. It would be perhaps a little too pat to claim that such ideologies are completely secular, since the conviction that every person is entitled to a certain standard of living goes against religious conceits like the caste system AND economic models like capitalism. Even ecological concerns, while in part meant to protect against ambient harm, also is a sort of spiritual belief in the value of what some view as simply objects to be acquired. Also to consider is cultural conservation; for example, is it more important to respect the ancient culture of indigineous people, or to respect the rights of women against clitoral circumcism? And if we eventually eradicate all occurrences of behavior we feel is morally objectionable, have we doomed the planet to cultural homogeny, or is that simply the first step to a new global culture that may be richer than we can currently conceive? All important issues that need to have different voices representing the different viewpoints on the record before any action can be taken.

Whatever sort of organization this is, the first step should always be for individuals to pursue their optimum potential before they can be considered ready to go into potentially hostile territory. Being grounded in one's place in life and at peace with oneself is prerequisite if one is intending to do good works and not be perceived as having ulterior motives or being hypocritical. By winning the respect and friendship of those you hope to help, rather than lording your "enlightened" nature and relative material wealth over their "primitive" lifestyles, you win allies and swell in numbers that cannot be ignored.

Or is it wise to be quite so overt? How might it be possible to form a multinational organization dedicated to doing good works and spreading a certain perspective without falling into traps of hierarchy and the telephone game of reinterpreting intuitive reasoning into thoughtless dogma? How would one gain funding for such activities if it was essentially invisible to the public eye, and could you then avoid being spun as having sssseeecreeeetssss... which is always a codeword for untrustworthy and having something to hide, especially in the post-9/11 world. Especially if your operational thesis is that the capitalist system does more harm than it does good, and that the world might need to be plunged into a period of chaotic struggle in order to reorganize into some system more concerned with all humanity. But then, how do you recruit those best fit to serve if you have a negative or no reputation and they don't know to contact you?

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how a group such as The Invisibles could logistically exist, or if they even should. If not, what then? Do we really have to wait for everyone to grow up left to their own devices? Or has our species been granted the tools we have to help expedite something better than has been previously possible?
 
  
Add Your Reply