This is a reply to Lloyd Rowsey and Kevan Giffen, from here.
“Although the left was not even radical in the 1990’s, it was grasping at the same straws as it had been hoping would “ignite” the masses at least since Watergate. This hope, combined with a not-totally unjustified fear that real radicalism — a la Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — would subject them to the same treatment (as well as set back if not end their imagined progress with middle Americans), largely explains their contribution to the nihilistic nineties.”
You’re getting self-righteous, Lloyd. I’m addressing your use of “not-totally unjustified”. You are supporting the notion of race revenge. It seems extremely unlikely that this is a misreading, but if it is go ahead and explain the meaning of your words.
“Not that I have any problem with violent resistance to capitalism… Morality is relative in my book… I just felt like calling you out on that…”
Whatever. Capitalists will recognize the structural decay and become more repressive, and there will be a moment(s) of great tension and great violence. This is a matter of self-defense as the State terrorizes innocents in the name of maintaining the status quo or in their terminology, “stopping terrorists”. Successful self-defense against the State is in fact, revolutionary, as the Black Panthers understood. Shifts away from capitalism always include corporeal deaths, as Venezuela and Bolivia are only the latest examples of. And despite the celebratory attitude of the left, those are fairly minor shifts away from capitalism, still fundamentally supporting the global capitalist system. A major shift would be far more violent. Another transition to examine is the one from communism to capitalism that the Soviet Union underwent in the ’90s.
You should worry less about the possibly upcoming short-lived “violent resistance to capitalism” and worry more about the second-by-second perpetual violence OF capitalism.
“Native American tribes were not perfectly peaceful, they got into conflicts just like any other civilization. This is because humanity thrives on conflict and struggle as do all living things, without it we would stagnate. Look at how many technological advancements came from WWII…”
You mean like nuclear weapons, “advances” in biology that can lead to a holocaust of man-made plagues, greater industrialization that has increased the rate of global warming, or various handheld or home-based devices that have desocialized and atomized whole societies? Please, tell me all about these “technological advancements from WWII”.
Humanity doesn’t thrive on conflict, but conflict is a necessary part of life in a world of varied desires and limited resources. That doesn’t mean that conflict should be glorified or put on a pedestal, as your corrupt “heroes”, including Mr. Nietzsche, too often do.
“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” – Friedrich Nietzsche 😉
The words of every sado-masochist, spoken with more articulation. Reality is far different, as pretty much anyone can tell you, including disabled victims of the wars you glorify as “tremendous examples of the conflict that we thrive on”.
How about you ask Iraqis about Nietzsche’s phrase, and get back to me on the answer. Or are you going to use the handmaiden of the masochist with the phrase “survival of the fittest”?
What’s the matter, scared to ask Iraqis that question? Oh, but you’re surely not worried, right, because “what does not kill you only makes you stronger” and if that doesn’t work, it’s “survival of the fittest”.
Nietzsche and Darwin – they justify pain, violence, and death at every turn. It’s no wonder they are two of the major heroes of Western Imperialism. Where would the 20th century have been without such luminaries?