[Marxism] The Oregon Militia Spokesman Has Been Killed and Its Leaders Detained After FBI Confrontation
aposperites at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 05:40:01 MST 2016
On 30/01/2016 06:49 πμ, Ken Hiebert wrote:
> Two excerpts from *ioannis aposperites followwd by my replies.*
> *ken h*
> IO That said, it is one thing to stop the occupation and another to
> enforce that specific law, even if its enforcement implies stopping the
> occupation. The difference lays into who makes the occupiers go. Is it a
> group of environmentally concerned citizens, a left wing collectivity
> perhaps, or is it the repressive apparatus of the state?
> KH When you use the expression "make the occupiers go," how do you
> envisage dong this? Armed force? A blockade of the occupation site?
> Some other way?
> IO For, the repressive apparatus of the state does NOT care about the
> KH You may well be right. How should that affect our course of action?
My reply would go like this:
The question of "how" is inseparably linked with the question of "who"
will "make the (armed fascists) occupiers" go.
If the state's repressive apparatus is to do the job then there is
nothing but violence or threat of violence. Yet violence is to cut their
water supply off, and violence is to nuke them. It's a choice to be made
here, and we know what the FBI did and what it is supposed to do (thanks
to Hollywood): The FBI will seek for the cheaper, shorter and easier way
to enforce the Law (and not that specific law) and in times when the
police is shooting down unarmed teenagers for nothing in USA, you can
not expect too much observation for human lives from the FBI either.
The other way around is people's anti-violence. Instead of cutting off
their water supply you must cut off their political support. I do not
know much about Oregon but an occupation can not stand without political
the support of at least a part of the locals. If a demonstration of
environmentally concerned citizens -with its necessary wide local
support- was to pay the occupiers a visit peacefully or not ( i do not
seek to spare a fascist's life at any price) then you not only achieve
your immediate goal, i.e stop the occupation, but in doing so by
people's action, you hit the beast in the heart. The fascists would be
removed not as heroes defeated by the superior power of the FBI, but
politically strangled by the movement, as what they really are: as
enemies of the oppressed. This is not to say that the people must not
demand the area to be protected by the state; but they must also impose
their way of action and make clear that a prohibition is not a
protection. And if we really want the area to be protected, a whole set
of preconditions must be fulfilled. I am referring here to issues like
the local ranchers' problem (if it is a real one) and other of social
and/or economic order that i suspect, but do not know.
Of course the second option may be out of the reach today, because the
locals support massively the occupiers, or because of any other reason.
But then what about socialism? Are we to pass over them all in silence?
After all what is "possible" is bounded not only to the pessimism of
intelligence which analyzes and measures the concrete situation, but
also to the optimism of will, as Gramsci would put it.
As a leftist in Oregon i would stand up to advocate the second option
and even after having failed to gather a critical mass of protesters, i
would denounce the unnecessary violence of the FBI and at the same time
reveal the political character of the occupation. There is no point for
a leftist to get drown in an anxious wannabe governmentalism.
Last, i think that our views have different gravity centers. If i get it
right, our disagreement would lay on this: For you regarding this Oregon
issue, the protection of that area is the final and ultimate (and in
that last respect the liberal lawfulness comes to my mind) goal, while
for me is just a necessary but intermediate one and consequently, i am
not prepared to come in terms with the devil in order to achieve it.
More information about the Marxism