[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Understanding/changing "something"

Henry, et al,

I wonder how revolution corresponds to violence if the violence is built into a tool, such as the case of gun design. After all, a bullet cannot do harm unless it is catapulted at a very fast velocity. 

Revolution need not be violent, right?

Another thought: how does violence and the future connect if an adherent of violence as a means of production can only see what is an imagined freedom, instead city streets full of blood, or the maiming of innocents and the emotional upheaval of their families and communities and the repercussions from all that (which is future history). How is this actually freedom, when it only creates future enemies? 

Why is the interconnectedness of us all completely forgotten in this (imagined) vision of freedom?

This argument might be offered against any adherent of violence (as a means of production), which (to me) seems to coincide with the notion of disrespect and how disrespect is proffered and perceived in extreme forms.

Is this captured in the tool design?

Henry, your post has made me consider what it means to be a radical vs a revolutionary: both seem preoccupied with change and with history, no? What is the difference?

These are questions I have... not sure what the answers are... 

Thanks for the prod, and also thanks for all the XMCA dots, everyone!