From: "Mike P" <wobbly8-AT-mail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:25:44 -0500
Subject: Re:  Ann Hansen Wrong About Revolution


First off, thanks for your comments. As a clarification the article i wrote was my interpretation of Ann's talk, which was stated in the article, and while trying to stick to the main ideas, my own interpretations were introduce clarifications or additions. A few examples, and most of the endnotes (which were not Ann's ideas but i thought they added to the understanding) were my additions, were added by myself but only served as clarifications or historical examples.

<snip>

Mike P wrote
<<Of course, there was no revolution>>

Dave Coull responded
<There was no _anarchist_ revolution. There was no libertarian socialist revolution. But we anarchists do not have a monopoly on the word "revolution".>

You misinterpret the point. The idea was that there has been a historic as well as contemporary double standard when referring to terrorism. I felt the anarchist vs. capitalist was a good example as capitalists have committed atrocities anarchists would never think of committing, but we are the bad guys. i don't claim any monopoly on revolution, but that does not mean i will allow professional liars to monopolize words for me.
 
<"fundamental change" ... there is no doubt 
that the industrial revolution did involve quite
fundamental changes in the way people lived.>

Yes, the Industrial Revolution (IR) involved mass fundamental change but does that make it a revolution? What if the fundamental changes ocur over a long period of time, say ten thousand years? Have we been living in a constant state of revolution?

<<and the period of hystery would be better 
termed as the Rise of Industrial Scale Slaughter.>>

<Why would this be a "better" term?>

If we can agree that the natural purpose of language is to describe events and ideas, and that there is a natural inclination towards truth, this is the better term.

<There are plenty of examples of huge-scale slaughter _before_  the Industrial Revolution. So why is this a "better" term?

Yes there were huge slaughters, such as the Incas etc.. Most of these events have to do with civilization though, and as civilization has become more entrenched and powerful these slaughters have become worse. How many people died in the slave trade, the colonization of the Americas and the Holocaust? No previous civilization can even compare to these horrors.
 
<<People know, more or less, what is meant by "the industrial revolution".>>

No they don't. The only people who truly know the industrial revolution and its destructive nature are those who experience it in their lives, those who are victims of it, not participants in it. While a few First World people may understand the effects, most do not as most of us have become a part of the Industrial Revolution, Fredy Perlman refers to these people as voluntary zeks. This understanding of the IR cannot be compared to Third World people who are living under the IR today. Many of the attributes of 'sweat shops' today are similar, and likely much worse, than the conditions Western IR victims experienced. The IR continue, that is what neo-colonialism is, the expansion of the IR into the Third World.

<The process known as the industrial revolution began in England and covered, so far as England was concerned, roughly, the period from 1780 to 1830.>

Only if you exclude the events necessary (perhaps not necessary but is how it happened) for the expansion of capitalism such as the Reformation, Enclosure, Parliamentarianism and world conquest. At the very least the Industrial Revolution was a period from 1300-today. Essentially, the rise of civilization itself was a pretext to IR.10,000 year revolution? I don't think so.

<It was a very big change which happened within 
a relatively short period, historically speaking.>

That is, if you are centred on Western History and it's triumphs, believe what the Professional Liars tell you and ignore that the rise into Industrialism was a ten thousand year war (class war if you will) which resulted in the extinction of many cultures and animal species. The genocide continues today as the Industrial menace expands.

<So why should using  FIVE  words, where  TWO  would do, be "better"?
Dave Coull>

For an in depth answer to this question consult the Appendix to George Orwell's 1984. Something we have to realize is that Western Civilization has an amazing ability to use language to trick people and hence, control them. As the Goosestep is to fascism, Duckspeak is too capitalist democracy. Revolution may require new language, if we are against their system why try and keep it?

For wildlife, liberty and anarchy

Mike 
 

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup