Do Riots Work? Exploring New Frontiers of Recuperation

  • Posted on: 10 July 2015
  • By: worker

From IGD

In the past several months since the streets of the so-called United States of America were set alight by riots after the murder of black teenager Mike Brown by a white police officer, an increasing number of people seem to be asking the question: do riots work?

mtvIn answering, people tend to look at the historical connection between violent unrest and the government granting concessions afterwards. While this connection is certainly very real, it misses some key aspects and drastically reduces the scope of what we might consider a so-called “victory.” The federal investigation into the Ferguson Police Department would likely never had occurred if not for the sustained unrest throughout 2014. The rioting that took place after a BART police officer murdered Oscar Grant is often credited with the officer’s arrest and subsequent conviction (however lenient.) Fear of further rioting in Birmingham is said to have prompted the federal government to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if the federal investigation, the conviction of a police officer, or the passing of legislation is what is sought after, then surely, the riots work. But we want much more than that; we desire the downfall of the capitalist-white-supremacist-patriarchal social order.

This thought process has emerged in reaction to the obscuring of violent (for lack of a better word) conflict in favor of a white-washed, pacifist history of struggle. Oftentimes liberals and others wishing to preserve social peace suggest that all struggles that were successful primarily utilized non-violent tactics. It may be tempting to accept the above framework as a response, but we do so at our own peril.

A more important question might ask why rioting is suddenly caught in this recuperative scheme. Before, the state was satisfied with repression coupled with the spreading of “outside agitator” narratives to isolate potential rioters. But since the Ferguson uprisings, the tactic has become more generalized. As a decreasing amount of people are put off by riots, and thus the strategy of erasing its potential must be shifted.

When the success of rioting is framed in terms of concessions won, it replaces the revolutionary nature of the riot with the agenda of reform. It becomes simply one of many tools in the activist’s toolkit to achieve “social change.” Want to pressure your elected officials? Riot. Revolutionaries seem to be misled by this newfound appreciation for formerly-condemned tactics and are excited for a culture that accepts and even supports not-so-civil disobedience. But when we agree to this framework, we only sacrifice this growing potential.

3317587280_28d822a214_bAfter periods of unrest, self-styled radicals often claim that violent tactics were the only way to grab media attention, to bring an issue to light, or the only way to make those in power listen. And this is not untrue. Those in power certainly only listen when they are being threatened, and rioting offers people a way to threaten power. But when a political solution is offered—the federal investigation, the indictment, etc.—it is not a reward for rising up, it is an attempt at de-escalation, at counter-insurgency. This is key to understanding the connection between uprisings and concessions.

In exchange for restoring social peace, the state offers superficial solutions to the underlying problems that caused people to riot in the first place. Rioters return to their homes, feeling accomplished while nothing fundamentally changes. Heralding these concessions as sincere accomplishments not only obscures their recuperative effect, but also mistakes them for genuinely progressive solutions. No amount of “bad apple” cops locked up could possibly end the oppression found in the very existence of police and prisons. No amount of legislation can replace the need to completely dismantle the state structure.

For riots to truly “work,” we must abandon the framework of the activist, and recognize the concessions of the state as what they truly are: attempts at recuperation. Each riot offers us the opportunity to find each other and act collectively, appropriating everything around us that was built for the functioning of capitalism for our own needs, or else do away with it. It is only through sustaining moments of rebellion that we might catch a glimpse of sincere success.

Originally published by It’s Going Down

category: 

Comments

in answering; no, not unless they are sustainable/perpetual

Derp

They never did beyond crude satiation. Riots are born of bread and bineries and backed by imputational idiots. We've had a century and a half of political-economic ideology try to marry riots with insurrection. Time to call a failure a failure.

Riots were always recuperative.

In physics they call it resonance. Riots are perhaps not good for much other than as a justification of state violence..If violence is the desired course of action then an all out commitment to it would seem a little more logical, if it weren't for the fact that the Powers that be also are viciously defending the right of definition, and as good old Ted pointed out: Any opposition on the given terms shall be appropriated..

Exactly, my comrade! Let's stop wasting our time with such binary binaries and get started on some real individuation! Those who do things are total leftards--what we really need is 100% quietism! I appreciate the example you set to the pathetic masses of misled sheeple. Alone, in the vacuum created by my own anti-ideological refusal of ideology, in total remove from the world of cause and effect, free from society and its laws and impositions, I pursue my own personal private individuation, as if I were already on the moon! The only man on the moon! The sole owner of a private plot of land on the moon!!!! That's me! And everyone who is not on the moon with me is ergo an idiot! I like how you use strong language to make your point. It gets me hot under the collar! Take me up on that skype date soon, I tell ya. It's lonely at the top.

Heh..Fucking sophistry..Opposing big words with big phrases..Who is this 'pathetic mass' you refer to? Strawmen rhetorics doesn't impress, nor does imposing ideas like 'quietism' offer much other than exposing impoverished perception. Adopting the established definition for what constitutes the due course of action, however radical in intention, still makes you a little dilly-boy with hands on hips an' pouting lips...

the distinction between riots subverted to reformism (where the established authorities makes concessions to remain in power) and riots aimed at revolution (overthrowing the established authorities and replacing these 'bad guys' with 'good guys') is only in terms of scale; i.e. eliminating the established authorities rather than having the authorities crack-down on bad behaviours is just reformism on a larger scale.

both of these tactics are based on the defining of 'bad behaviour' and the suggestion that we can define and implement 'good behaviour' on the basis of what is not bad, in which case we can construct regulatory/enforcement agencies designed to remove or neutralize bad behaviours. the notion of 'individuals' and 'individual states' and 'individual corporations' as 'independent systems' that operate in absolute space and absolute time [that is how Western science models these things] leads to the notion of 'independent good people, governments, corporations' who are doing 'good stuff' (that we should all encourage) and that we should intervene only to eliminate/neutralize bad people, bad governments, bad corporations who are doing 'bad stuff'.

this is fatally flawed since the world is inherently relationally interdependent.

so, the behaviour of whites in disopportunizing blacks was identified as 'bad behaviour' and this practice incited riots that resulted in reforms (the established authorities made concessions). meanwhile, many more 'bad behaviours' have been identified that are being perpetrated with impunity and even protected by the regulatory/enforcement agencies under the direction of the established authorities; e.g. the 'haves' can monopolize property and disopportunize the 'have-nots' and since those in authority have crony bonds with the 'have' class, what is called for is to eliminate/neutralize the established authority and replace it with good people who will be more discriminating in their definition of bad people and bad behaviours.

what if this discrimination between good and bad is impossible? is a child soldier 'good' or 'bad'?

the problem is that 'behaviours' do not jumpstart out of 'individuals' because 'individuals' are not 'independent systems with internal process driven and directed behaviours' as science and Western civilization since Socrates et al have been modeling them. it takes the whole relational dynamics of society to raise bad people with bad behaviours and therefore the judge and jury cannot contend that they are without complicity and thus are qualified to identify and punish 'bad people' and 'bad behaviours' out there in a disconnected objective world in front of them.

this realization of inherent interdependence (the primacy of relations over things), which is affirmed by modern physics, is the traditional understanding of indigenous anarchists, and it leads to restorative justice which acknowledges the impossibility of identifying the source of 'bad behaviors'; i.e. the source NOT REALLY residing in the interiors of the people through whom 'bad behaviour' manifests, but instead, the source arising 'relationally' within the relational matrix the individuals are situationally included in. the long oppressed slave or 'have-not' is liable to hit his threshold of tolerance and lash out at members of the system that is responsible for disopportunizing, humiliating and tormenting him. the constantly abused dog will eventually become a biter and he will not discriminate as to who he bites, thus even the friendly hand extended may be bitten.

in a relational (interdependent) world dynamic, restorative justice makes sense and 'good and evil' based justice makes no sense [it generates confusion and incoherence].

riots aimed at revolution are recuperative also; i.e. they are recuperative of the good-and-evil based system which is troubled by (a) the need to define bad behaviours and bad people in order to eliminate/neutralize them, which is innately superficial.

what this approach does is to reinforce solidarity around the binary concept of 'good and evil' and the practice of 'purification'. meanwhile, such definition is purely causation-based (all-hitting, no-fielding) and blind to inductive influence, which is primary; i.e. monopolization of property and essential resources gives the monopolizers the power to extort labours and favours and other submissive, self-abnegating behaviours from those 'shut out' by the monopolizers, making virtual slaves out of them. the abusive treatment of people in this manner is off the radar screen of 'causal behaviour', while the 'good and evil' justice system orients its elimination/neutralization forces towards anyone who 'causes trouble'.

'extorting labours and favours and humiliating and abusing people' via monopolization is a highly esteemed productive service benefitting, in a material [though not emotional/spiritual] sense, the entire community, so it is said, thus such slavery is not only perpetuated but portrayed as good and desirable behaviour that justifies the unlimited acquisition of wealth and privilege by the 'superior performers', the pillars and icons of the community, ensuring the continuance of monopoly powers used to extort labours and favours in an environment of humiliation and induced submission and self-abnegation. it is perfectly 'legal' in Western civilization, to co-cultivate a spawning ground for slave rebellions and since the law prosecutes only those who disturb the system, the system is free to continue its monopolistic extortion with impunity.

the way out of this binary recuperation is to acknowledge that dynamics are not binary and that it is impossible to isolate the jumpstart source of any behaviour, 'good' or 'bad' (one only sees the people or states through whom behaviour manifests, not the real relational source of behaviour).

'riots' are fine [they are a natural release of pent up energies from tensions that need relieved] so long as they do not identify 'the bad guys' and/or 'the bad behaviours' that must be eliminated/neutralized as if it were possible to construct an 'all-good' Utopia by the process of 'elimination of bad behaviours and bad people'. indigenous aboriginals with their [beyond good and evil] tradition of restorative justice could riot to make a statement [to themselves] such as "we shall not tolerate any more of this good-and-evil social dynamics management bullshit!"

Nothing is beyond recuperation - whether political, or cultural. But for Sir Einzige that's an excuse to dismiss in his usual arrogant platitudinous manner anything other than some abstract intellectual critique that merely justifies an impotent "interpretation" which allows him to justify doing FUCK-ALL, to remain smugly complacent. Of course, his comments don't get recuperated because they threaten nothing - so they're not even worth recuperating.

For those who want to advance riots, what's important is to use those moments as opportunities to break down separations (between "races", between different strata of workers, between unemployed and employed, between genders, between the different separate identities encouraged by this society, etc). The point is, to recognise recuperation as a way of ensuring that the same contradictions continue (as the recuperators have always done to ensure) - and that, even if the discourse changes, the miserable conditions of cop killings, intensified finanacial stress, etc. stay either the same or get worse, whilst the recuperators make things appear to have "progressed".

I'm simply pouring cold water on a certain radical position that is steeped in 160+ years of failure.

Interpretation is all we are really left with as world change is always a change within a logic of a constituted language. It is change 'in itself' not 'for itself'. What exactly is being threatened hear as far as this order of reality is concerned. ISIS is threatening. The anarchists of the post ww1/2 epochs could be seen as threatening, yet the world of modernity was never in any trouble.

Recuperation is much more dynamic then you are letting on. It can play a role in unifying races, workers, genders ect and still play a role in a healthy modernity. What do you think the New Deal was. Bits and pieces of radical ideas were subsumed into greater capital to satiate the masses leading to the eventual decline of anarchist/libertarian ideology.

Perhaps it's time to recognize that orientation that feeds into intensified logic(riots are an obvious example) simply do not work. Perhaps Dupont is less wrong and the better approach is to opt for modes of orientation that relax constraints and have therapeutic effects.

The discourse can change and include the solutions to cop killings, financial distress ect and still be recuperative. Also the root of recuperation lies in language NOT operative recuperators. Riots have always been part of a language of recuperation. It will never be otherwise.

Riots, virtually by definition fall on a continuum of recuperative political activity. Beginning with the rather bland writing your congressional representative, to fighting City Hall, to civil disobedience, to out and out riot the fundamental motive seems the same. The redress of grievance. Even Jefferson early on recognized the therapeutic effect of a good riot when he praised the Whiskey Rebels and predicted (wrongly) that the American experience would be one of occasional riot to reset the compass of the rulers to a more responsive tack. That said, I'm as addicted to riot porn as the next malcontent. Look for the moment when riot changes to insurrection, that's the instant that the anarchist challenge becomes possible, moving the species yet one baby step closer to utopia.

In fact, as Sir Einzige has argued convincingly elsewhere, *everything* is recuperative, binary, and doomed! Except for two things--the writings of Saint Renzo Novatore, and the comments posted here by Sir Einzige himself. That's why it's better to stay indoors, doing as little as possible, until you die of old age, so you can be sure your hands are clean! And whenever you see those pesky Middle Eastern women picking up guns, tell them to get back in the kitchen! :)

Nothing like a little posing to alleviate the utter insignificance of your actions? Here I am, victorious in my animosity, blatantly ignoring the failures of my tradition! Huzzah! Fucking protestant virtue: Action triumphs! Back to church it is...

Sounds like what y'all have produced here is a useless dichotomy. Some things are worth trying; others are not. The point about Ziggy, I think, is that his alternative is even stupider than thoughtless riot cheerleading. If nuanced reflection is what you want, keep him out of the conversation. His clock stopped in the 1920s and in the time since, he's been damn lucky if it's even been right twice a day. Seeing as Ziggy has never endorsed a single actual concrete thing that has happened in the real world since Novatore died, I have to say I suspect anyone who supports his position of preferring abstraction over reality, and inaction over life itself.

(absolute) failure of contrary movements should be addressed though. It seems that a notion of universal revolt seems to linger in radical milieus (a continuation of the general strike-to be overtly simplistic), and that in the schism created by this a lot of rot is taking root. My initial thought is that an acceptance of failure should breed some new thoughts on the current whereabouts of our situation. What next sort of? Tactics (like riots) seems to be overtly lodged within the dialectics of the establishment, and that a complementary course of perpetual destruction/creation is called for. I realize that this sounds vague, but if the current order should hypothetically fall what should supplant it, taking into consideration the mass immersion in the dominating dynamic (or the dynamic of domination)?

I've made various concrete suggestions throughout my time here ranging from bioregional experiments and other parallel anarchic structures to ways that anarchs/anarchists can be resilient. You want concrete, look up some of seaweed's ideas which I have 'endorsed' numerous times. Also retard, I have ideas after 1920 though if I've stopped there then you leftards stopped in the 1840s.

Believe me I'm not the one with a concrete problem.

Hey man I've got nothing against you. The impersonal shit-slinging going on here is not of my liking. I agree with some of what I've read of Seaweed and I am taking a similar course of action myself. Coarse language is fine, but there seems to be to much of a hard ideological stance going on...Perhaps I am lost on the current discourse..What I am suggesting though, is that in a discourse of failure lies the path to correction . No prophetic intentions though, just that even rioters have a point, if none other than in desire and passion..

Previous comment by me. One beer to many whilst commenting..

That's my boy!

My comment was directed to my ankle biting anonymous tick.

Hi, I go away for a while and return to find someone is commenting as The biceps critic, saying moronic things which some newbies, unaware of the context regarding Bookchinist platformism in Rojava, binary politics, or the growing dominance of 2nd wave feminism and the erosion of individual freedoms. I appreciate your not replying to this imposter, I respect your discerning awareness of fakes, thanks. This comment will now be answered by someone claiming to be the real me, I'm lost for words and may move to Reddit!

Just by being grumpy and saying "binary politics," you think you can trick us into thinking you're the original biceps critic? What an obvious con. Feel free to move to Reddit, you flagrant fake! Maybe there you can take your last stand against second wave feminism like the closeted purveyor of binaries that you really are. Hint--if second wave feminists are kicking your ass in 2015, you are a nancy boy if ever there was one. You'll go the way of the Chinese beaver, I tell you!

the archetype for 'riots' is found in natural generally; i.e. when an established relational configuration becomes highly tensioned, it is natural for the tensional energy to be used in the kinetics of reconfiguration into a less tension-prone configuration. that is how the terrestrial landscape transforms.

in the case of humans, Western humans are 'dualist' which means that they interpret the sourcing of tensions that are putting the pinch on them as 'coming from someone else'. that is what newtonian physics and the absolute space assumption brings us; i.e. the intellectually idealized split apart of figure and ground.

in the case of non-dualist humans who acknowledge the relations-are-primary understanding as in modern physics, the tensions derive from a unum-in-opposition; i.e. the relational matrix is the source of tensions within itself, thus the relieving of tensions is by way of allowing oneself to transform. that is what restorative justice is all about. the community can back off its moralist, punitive attack on its child-soldiers or have-not soldiers and subsume their own behaviours that are contributory to the radicalizing of others.

nature is non-dualist and it is replete with riots, releasing of tensional energy as powers a reconfiguration into less tensioned configurations. riots are the way of transformation, in the case of non-dualist dynamics.

for dualists, tensions arise from a binary 'us' and 'them' splitting wherein 'they' are the causal source of the tensions, therefore the solution to breaking out of the tensions is to break down 'those others who are responsible for them'. this is the way of 'progress' or 'progressive refinements via a time-based succession of 're-forms'.

for non-dualists, rising tensions signal the need for everyone in the interdependent matrix to take up the slack by allowing themselves, as defined by their relations with one another and the common relational living space, to transform. this is the way of transforming relational activity.

're-configuring' can be by way of deliberate, intention-driven 're-formations' or by self-transforming the relational matrix. both manifest as 'strife/rioting' with associated stress-relieving 're-configuration'; the former is dualist and the latter non-dualist.

"the better approach is to opt for modes of orientation that relax constraints and have therapeutic effects"

aka recuperation

The obvious thing to say is that we still have rulers and thus ananarchy. Any claim about riots being a "failure" should extend to all lines of radical thought. Including yours.

Relaxing constraints is simply the other option juxtaposed to what we have been doing up to this point which is based more on intensified reactions to constraints. This is where most of recuperation has come from.

Perhaps what I(and Dupont) am suggesting will fail, but it's not exactly an orientation that has been attempted within anarchic activity. Riots and other forms of intensification tend to co-exist alongside acceleration based logic.

It's one thing to fail, but to fail doing the same tactics again and again is insanity.

It seems unfair to claim that proactive activities have not been tried. After all, what about syndicalism, communes, charities, etc.. At any point when these contradict, or even fail to support, capitalism....in come the cops.

Ananarchy. The new normal

or maybe utopia is present in the riot, the wild is alive on the night, burning in the eyes and pounding heart of the joyous savage. is there not a fine art in the dance of looting and sabotage, a kindling of fellowship a taste of the wild? Where does insurrection begin? the end is now, rebellion lives , everything matters!! fuck work . negate the institution, destroy the facade. wild on

i did experience a wonderful moment in a riot many years ago. Folks were overturning stuff in the streets, the police were in disarray, we were running from authority but it felt like we were running toward freedom! I turned around to check what was happening behind me and saw a comrade, a kerchief pulled up over half his face, literally jumping into the air and clicking his heels.

I also remember reading about a riot in which a carton of cigarettes was exchanged for a handful of expensive jewellery as commodification dissolved in favor of simple usefullness based on individual need and desire.

So ya, riots are wonderful classrooms and love-making sessions. Not sure if they have any inherent potential to lead to insurrection or not, but certainly have value in and of themselves.

They're absolutely vibrating with potential. Nobody is ever the same after their first one, it's absolutely mandatory as a direct, personal experience for anyone who claims to have much insight in to topics like authority, power and personal autonomy. Like you say, a "classroom" that could lead to many places but certainly the only alternative to a big piece of the state breaking off and going rogue. As in, a serious insurrection (assuming that's a desirable thing) is only going to come from street militants hardened by years of rioting or a sort of civil war going on between different factions of the armed forces of the state or private military contractors. There's no other way … large groups of fighters are made by circumstances, no amount of ideology will do it.

Rioting may have had some potential in times of precarity, however now it is part of the same recuperative sphere as voting.

Whatever event threatens the dissolution of the state it will be based on something never tried before. Occupy for instance was not based on rioting and there are legitimate qestions to be asked what it could have looked like if the ideas and the archetypes were better.

Insurrections are not serious. You completely miss the point of them. Insurrection(in the power based anarchic sense) simply entails uncontrolled/uncontrollable individuals who are beyond a sociopolitical linguistic/behavioral order(Stirner used the example of his reading of Jesus). They are not characterized by violent intensification. The end of capital would quite simply be the dissolution of the language order that creates and maintains it. The MORE violence there is, the more likely the old order is reconstituting itself.

Qualitative insurrection is LESS noisy not more, and it is hardly a serious affair.

Nobody cares what you think … least of all me. You don't even read posts very carefully as evidenced by you missing the part where I typed (assuming that's a desirable goal), which I don't. I personally think it's too complicated an issue to be reduced to good/bad without a lot of context but the only question with you is why you spend so much time here trying to convince people to never do anything … you certainly wouldn't be permitted to sit at my table in chime in all the time ;)

^and chime in

Seriously, I would beat the living daylights out of that person if he tried to sit at my table. He's basically a one-point-agenda bot. Why should any of us care about him ceaselessly repeating the same thing, when it's obvious he doesn't even have any real-world experiences to draw from, just his precious Novatore bible? Ugh, anyway, my point is I identify with your frustration. Fuck him.

Besides my point about insurrection tends to apply to most anarchists in how the misuse and bastardize the term. Also, I'm not here to convince people. I'm making my points and putting them on record.

"Putting them on record," like the fucking liberal that you are. And some "record"--the comments section of this website. If you had anything of value to contribute, you could at *least* start a blog. But then, no one would read it, would they? The great I stands alone.

Seriously, do you normally try to hang out with a bunch of people who hate you? What's wrong in your life that you are trying to do that here, in a place we can't actually chase you off? My suspicion is that you like to call people retarded because you are defensive about your own mental health issues.

Is there a connection, causal to any degree- between rioting and insurrection? I know there are opinions that connect them, but are there any historical examples of this unfolding dynamic?

Paris--March 18, 1871, 6am. A group of women and children move to block French troops from commandeering cannon from the Butte de Montmartre. The crowd grows and fills with radicals. The French soldiers, cajoled by the crowd, turn their rifle butts into the air indicating their refusal to follow orders and effectively joining the ranks of insurgents. The crowd captures and executes two commanding Generals. The Central Committee of the Paris National Guard secures the cannon which calms the crowd.

Paris, March 19, 1871, 9am. Posters placed by the Central Committee of the Paris National Guard invite all residents of the city to participate in elections for a municipal administrative body, The Paris Commune.

May '68 - the riotous night of the barricades (May 10th -11th) preceded the wildcat general strike (beginning with the occupation of the Sud-Aviation plant in Nantes on May 14th, directly influenced by the movement's growth sparked by a series of riots that built up to May 10th - 11th).

Of course, no historical precedent is a model - riots are opportunities for the breakdown of separations, but the armchair commentators (Sir Enizige, etc.) want to dismiss any practical subversion of their narrow ego and its own will to separation because they don't know how to lose themselves in order to find themselves, to practically realise their ostensible desires and critiques in order to be re-born in the flow of community where the struggle for individuality is not separate from the struggle for community.

The whole reason to be anarchists is to know better than to proceed from the victory of March 18 to the recuperation of March 19 in your example--not to stay at home like Ziggy, being petulant that nobody else will drop out and just sit on the couch typing homophobic slurs until capitalism falls.

Are becoming ever more tenuous as recuperative logic improves. This is not to say that there are not reasons to come out now and then.

As to indoor anarchists, here's some thought to consider.

http://insipidities.blogspot.ca/2014/03/who-were-indoor-anarchists-what-...

So this proposal--to stay indoors until our nerves become so weak that we literally squint in the sunlight--is your only concrete example of what an anarchistic practice might be.

You obviously don't get the greater point do you:)

No, I read that text all right. What a blatant, disgusting paean to [and I quote] "quietism." Withdraw to a "cork-lined room" if you must, you weak-nerved shut-in, but some of us desire to live fiercely. Who knows how it came to pass that you mistook yourself for an anarchist and started taking up space here.

Who ya' foolin' ya milieu moron. The irony about your charge of quiescence to me (which I don't entirely reject) is that your anarchism is rendered quiet in a world of positions and solutions. You have an affection problem and the more you dial into political noise, the more anarchy you have to give up. I don't have such a problem.

And I am an anarch not an anarchist. Get it right.

You are a lone mentally ill individual whose only companions are the spooks you have bought into, which are obviously just threadbare excuses for your personal failures and social difficulties. It's obvious you're not an anarchist, but "anarch" is a pretty grandiose title for someone who is so easily ruled that they fear to venture out of doors. Get your life together.

And staying indoors is an analogy to staying away from politics and accepting the limits of anarchic affection you dumb shit. It has nothing to do with being ruled or fearful.

Get a brain.

"accepting the limits of anarchic affection"

Especially important for those with poor social skills.

I'm against work.

Well said.

Riots are an amalgamation of hundreds and thousands of different agendas by definition, some of which are bound to be recuperative forces attempting to channel all that kinetic energy. You can't really avoid that dynamic so it's a contest of whichever tendencies are strongest. I personally think applying as much pressure as possible is always a worthy goal out of sheer spite alone.

There's no reason why that pressure can't manifest as "positive reform" along with it being a baptism for people trying to seize some control in their own lives. Both of these things will happen regardless of my opinions and I don't spend a lot of energy trying to convince people to sympathize with rioting. Why would I? If you're not angry enough to at least try to understand why, you're not worth talking to.

" If you're not angry enough to at least try to understand why, you're not worth talking to."
That should be the starting point for discussion - all the rest is the chatter of jaded cynics sniping at anyone who actually bothers to take real risks.

Couldn't agree more. I'm somebody who doesn't have much patience for making broad appeals through radical media anymore, I used to and now I just … can't. But that's my personal problem, still got huge respect for the folks who put in the effort!

work for waht, just work?

I tried to warn these morons, but nooo, they still clung to their binary rhetoric and angst, their heroic manarchist identity, sigh!
Apparently riot police have moved on from teargas and are considering using a military knockout gas which just makes you drop in your tracks. Pleeease heed this warning, it is futile to war against Leviathan, there are other ways to oppose it.

cop-troll counsels cowardice

Such as?

this website has literally become useless.

Due to sustained efforts by a handful of dedicated trolls but there's still some of us here who appreciate the effort. You need zen-master patience to spend any time here though. Que sera comrade ;)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
h
T
Y
y
c
B
U
Enter the code without spaces.