I'm pissed off with "the left"...
Why? Because they're so factionalised, so fractured, and so happy to condone violence as a means to political ends.
At a time when more than ever it's important for those on the left to unite, all I see is splintered groups who, in their frustration and desperation, condone and even advocate violence as a valid political tool.
Instead of focussing on the things which might unite them, they see only the things which keep them apart. I've had it with these arseholes. They don't actually deserve to have any political power given the way they carry on.
So I don't know what that makes me. I still have left-leaning views. I just don't see any hope for the violence-condoning rabble they've created. The right must be laughing their heads off. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
At a time when more than ever it's important for those on the left to unite, all I see is splintered groups who, in their frustration and desperation, condone and even advocate violence as a valid political tool.
Instead of focussing on the things which might unite them, they see only the things which keep them apart. I've had it with these arseholes. They don't actually deserve to have any political power given the way they carry on.
So I don't know what that makes me. I still have left-leaning views. I just don't see any hope for the violence-condoning rabble they've created. The right must be laughing their heads off. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
posted by The Editor at
1:14 PM
17 Comments:
Care to expand on the statement the that the left are "so happy to condone violence". I haven't seen anybody on the left arguing this point of view. You accused me of this for being acerbic about the Socialist Alliance - I didn't bother to respond because I had said nothing about violence and I still don't know where you are coming from with these wild accusations.
Kyan, I come to that view from several angles. For instance I have yet to find a left group (and I admit I haven't looked and nor do I know of many) which does not categorically rule out violence. This to me is a form of condoning violence.
Then you just have to read the GLW and it's support for thuggish ("militant") union tactics, e.g. the bullshit written there about freeing Craig Johnston, a union leader advocating violence by example.
The lionisation by the left of Che Guevara, a bloody, mudering bastard. Ditto Mao, ditto Ho Chi Minh. Need I go on? "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow" No different from their capitalist counterparts. All of them war-mongering arseholes carrying peace banners when it suits them. You don't fight murder with murder. You don't fight war with war. You don't fight violence with violence, and you don't fight corruption with corruption.
Till the left lifts its game, I'm afraid I'll be a lone wolf on the sidelines. Come to think of it, even if it did, I'd probably still opt for being a lone wolf on the sidelines.
All this crap about kicking people's heads in for a noble cause is just that - crap.
Two wrongs don't make a right (or a left, in this case.)
OK I don't like GLW for exactly the same reason as you - it's run by dickhead Trotskyites. But as for the rest of the left, consider the following organisations that I've personally been involved with in Australia in the last 20 years.
The Quaker church, bastion of non-violence and refuge and inspiration for many draft resisters during Vietnam(peace, mate). The Catholic Church, in Australia, the Peace and Justice Commission and jesuits like Frank Brennan, as well as a large contingent of nuns who have pursued justice for indigenous australians along with many other issues, with as much honour as any church. For that matter, the christian church in general, for every pedophile priest I'll raise you ten nuns or brothers or families working in the desert or in the third world with the support of a suburban parish.
The peace movement in the late 60's grew from these religous roots in Australia but was invigorated by feminism and by the anti-nuclear movement in the 1980's. People like Joanna Macey with her Despair and Empowerment workshops were like a beacon in the excess of the early 80's in Fremantle. As well, at least in W.A., the early meetings of the Green party were organised by people enthused with the priniciple of consensus decision making and non-violent group dynamics. The personal is political.
This history has translated into very strong statements of pacifism and consnsus building in the policies of green parties around australia. There all available on the web.
But I don't think that the Green Party is the only bastion of pacifist principles in Australia. Both indigenous and suburban communities contain examples of local politics sharing this ethos. The rural support for refugees is an example.
From a left wing point of view, the most promising thing in Australia is the continuing development of local agreemements between indigenous people and local councils. Shepparton Regional Council acknowledges the traditional owners at the start of every meeting; Kempsey Council(I think), decided to fly the Aboriginal Flag everyday; Bunbury and Albany have co-operative agreements; Kalgoorlie is addressing it's racism problems.
In 20 years the Aboriginal flag will be the Australian flag or be a major part of it thanks to non-violent action by ordinary people.
These people are the Shambala warriors that Joanna Macey talked about, without a uniform and without a country, they step in to seek allies to save the world from the deluge.
Thanks for this huge amount of information, Kayan. We're really dealing with a continuation of an earlier post here. Both you and Dave are helping me a lot in getting clear about where I stand personally in all of this leftist stuff.
Perhaps by "left" we mean different things, Kyan. To me left is that which opposes capitalism or individual wealth and leans more towards socialism or shared wealth. So I don't see Quakers, Catholics or any other Christian group that I know of as being left per se. That's not to say that they don't do good works.
You keep calling Trotskyites "dickheads", Kyan. Why do you do that. What is a Trotskyite and why are they dickheads?
Don't worry about slagging off against the Vietnam war, I think these days I do it even more than you possibly can.
The Greens? Well, I guess I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on the subject of violence. I guess until they're tested "in action" we won't see how truly pacifist they really are. I there are a lot of policy documents and stuff to wade through on their website. I guess I should take the time to study that stuff.
The Socialist Alliance? Now this mob I have huge problems with. Ditto for much of the union movement. Not only are they advocates of violence but they don't seem to value the principles of democracy at all. Political thugs, in my book.
Labor? A complete joke. A total sell-out of leftist thinking as I see it.
I think "the left" are generally non-violent, in absolute terms. Relative to the "the right", they are pussycats. I'm not too knowledgeable about Che Guevara, Mao, etc., but I believe anyone who advocates revolution, that is violent revolution (not the rhetorical use of the word) should be condemned harshly. Revolution may have been appropriate in Karl Marx's time and in various independence movements against imperialism and colonisation in the past, but it sure as hell isn't warranted in Australia, nowadays.
We have things pretty good here, relative to the rest of the world. There's some semblance of democracy and respect for human rights. We should find ways to best make use of our democracy and freedoms to promote positive social change. There's absolutely no need for violence and it is counter-productive to what the Left hopes to achieve, anyway. We need to educate, advocate, agitate. A top fella has come up with some excellent suggestions:
---
But I think political debate and discourse at the grass-roots level is the most important thing if we're ever going to fashion some sort of democracy in this country or the larger world.
We need forums and we need lots of them. Blogging is a good medium, but things like "politics in the pub" is great too.
But best of all would be if "the left" could run low cost or free courses/seminars for ordinary, grass roots people who wish to learn more about "left" thought and ideas. Also, this would create an environment where people could be informed about all that stuff which mainstream "education" just happens to "forget" to present or discuss.
---
I don't think factionalism is necessarily a bag thing, so long as the various factions unite and act in unison against their common enemies (exploitation, social injustice, etc.). You can't always get what you want and thank God for that. Every large group has factions. You can never get rid of them and I think attempting to do so would be very unwise.
The factions of the Left, democratic socialists, social democrats, etc., need to better resolve their differences, preferably in private and though calm, but frank discussion. They also need to better co-ordinate themselves to fight (non-violently, of course) against their common enemies.
Hi Paul. I think there's a lot of tacit, and not so tacit, condoning of violence among those on the left.
You just need to flick through an average edition of the GLW. There you will see ads/articles which support some very violent people who just happen to be very violent about some cause "the left" is in sympathy with and you see no condemnation at all about the violence being used, in fact, active support is being elicited.
Take the union movement here in Oz. GLW have been running ads and articles for ages devoted to getting Craig Johnston freed. Why? He was justly convicted for thuggery. In those ads or articles you'll read stuff which is just pure propaganda crap about how he is a "victim". No mention is made of the very valid charges on which he has been found guilty and for which he is doing a reasonable amount of time. Do the crime, do the time - but not if you're a thug for the left.
I have no time at all for any form of violence in the union movement (it's the grassroots of the left and if it isn't "clean" then the rot grows upwards.) But that's not how much of the union movement operates. There is violence, there is threat and intimidation, and there is no interest at all in democracy within most unions. Where are the secret ballots? Where is the avenue for any member to stand for union positions? How is a closed-shop environment anything except a microcosm of totalitarianism? And totalitarianism is about all the left seems to have been able to manage so far.
And then there is the question of picket lines and "scabs". Why are the rights of non-union workers not respected? Why are these people attacked, and having their livelihoods threatened. The union does not own the jobs or the workplace.
My vision for unions is that instead of obtaining their members through undemocratic, totalitarian stand-over practices, unions need to "sell" themselves better. But that means they must have something to sell. In the current environment of rapid workplace change, unions must change rapidly. They must find out what will cause workers to want to join (no threats or heavy tactics.) This is a very big topic and needs its own forum, but this will suffice for an introduction.
I agree with most of the other things you said, Paul. The left must educate, educate, educate. It must also, internally, democracise, democracise, democracise.
If it can't manage these two essential things, it should just shut the fuck up and piss right off.
I have spoken. :-)
I'm not the best person to defend GLW, I rarely read it, but I know they don't give blanket support for violence for any cause that they promote. I think they can make a sound case for the use of violence by the Iraqi resistance on a case by case basis (one example). However, having read some of the stuff about the "Free Craig Johnston" campaign, I too could find very little detail about the crimes he is alleged (now found guilty of by court) to have performed. They certainly seem to greatly exaggerate Johnston's victimhood and I get the impression that those writing for GLW think Johnston should have done no time at all. They claim that Johnston's sentence is longer and harsher than it should be because of who he happens to be politically. I don't doubt that there is some truth in that, but it doesn't excuse his crimes.
As far as I'm aware, the union movement as a whole was ambivalent about the 'Johnston affair'. Indeed, parts - I believe most parts - haven't supported the Free Graig Johnston campaign at all and some were furious about the sentence he received because it was too light. Even the unions which have supported Johnston have stated they did not approve of the act for which he was found guilty and sentenced.
Closed shops and compulsory unionism are banned now. As far as I'm aware, any member of any union may stand for election for a union position. By secret ballots, I think you mean the Howard Government's attempts to dictate how unions should run themselves. Unions don't just call a strike out of blue, not caring whether it has broad support or not. I think unions and their members should decide when, where, how they should decide to strike, not the government. Australians get to elect their government, but we don't get a referendum on every Government policy. That doesn't make us a totalitarian state, now does it?
I guess pacifism is regarded as a quaint excentricity by most people. But I believe if people want it to work, it can work. Mass peaceful resistance is, I think, the most powerful and effective way to resist any aggressor/oppressor. It's also the only way to retain one's integrity.
I still say most left wing groups justify violence by the fact they fail to rule it out, and that is why, as a pacifist I cannot have anything to do with such groups. I know the right wing is just as bad, but since I'm left-leaning, my search is for a pacifist left wing group. I cannot find one.
This whole world is riddled with armed conflicts right now because in every case both sides believe they have the moral high ground. The only thing that can halt this shit is pacifism. I would even say that it is playing into the hands of the right to resort to violence.
I assert that the reason pacifism isn't entreched as a doctrine in the left is because of the dominance of the idea that armed resistance is a valid "the last resort". Whilst one believes this "last resort" is an option, one can actually never practice true pacifism.
About Craig Johnston - if he got a heavier sentence I think it was because he was the leader and it was a message to other leaders not provoke violence in which case I think that's fair enough.
Union democracy? I admit my own experience is a bit dated, but if this leopard has changed a lot of spots, I'll be very surprised. More likely just going through the motions to put up a fascade. Call me a cynic...
The whole idea of militant unionism is, like the idea of armed struggle, failing to understand how much more powerful and effective more enlightened methods can be.
The right to strike? I have no problem with that. And the employer has rights too. And non-union workers have rights too. And my issue is that all of this should be dealt with in non-violent ways. Anyone have a problem with this?
I think unions are more important now than ever before, but I also believe that they need to completely change how they operate. The old ways no longer work and they seem to have no idea about what new directions to take. Too often they fall back on the old ways - to everyone's detriment.
It will take enlightened leaders to find enlightened ways and then to sell these to the rank and file membership. Somehow I think that's not going to happen any time soon.
I'm starting to understand where you are coming from better now, Gerry. I must admit I have trouble with the theory that mass peaceful resistance is always the best way to fight/resist oppression, colonisation, etc. Certainly, it worked in India and with the civil rights movement in the USA, but what about examples where violence seemingly aided the struggle for liberty. Examples: Mandela and the ANC guerrillas in South Africa, the Kurds in Iraq, Xanana Gusmao and the East Timorese guerrillas, the Algerian Independence Movement. Older examples include the Eureka Stockade and the American Struggle for Independence.
Violence has also regularly failed to achieve better outcomes too. E.g. the Chechens in Russia, the PLO and other groups in Palestine, the Kurds in Turkey.
I honestly believe violence can be justified if it is for a just cause, there is no other alternative to violence (it really is the last resort) and the violence is aimed directly at the oppressors, not civilians.
Gerry, do you think the Vietnamese people were justified in using violence to expel the French and then in their resistance to the American/Australian/others occupation of their country? If you wouldn't mind, please start a new post in answer to this question, stating the reasons for your answer. I think many people would be interested in reading it. Take your time to do this, if you want to do it.
It's a shame that you can't find any left-wing pacifist groups. There must be some out there. I'll have a look later to see if I can find any.
You may be right that violence only leads to more violence. I think most people, including myself, can't imagine a world where violence will never be necessary.
I'd be hesitant to believe the entire union movement has stopped all it's undemocratic and violent practices too. I wouldn't doubt that closed shops still occur in some workplaces, but I think these would be a very few in number. By and large, the union movement is democratic and non-violent, but a few bad eggs give it a bad image. Always trust the media to beat up acts of union abuse and underplay or totally ignore acts of employer abuse. Although, I have to admit they did a good job with James Hardie, even if they did come a bit late to the party.
Violence is just about the stupidest thing union members could do while on strike. Generally, the bosses are far better at manipulating the media and gaining support from the public than are the workers. You gotta love this for Machiavellian genius, The Mohawk Valley Formula. Not only is union violence wrong and totally unjustifiable, it is also gives valuable ammo to the bosses to use against the workers.
There's a lot of good things happening with the union movement at the movement. A lot of positive changes. They are too numerous for me to mention here, but check out Workers Online and the back issues when you get the chance.
Paul, I'm glad you're starting to understand what I'm on about. Not only India, but also Poland (Solidarity), Romania, East Berlin (the Berlin wall), Russia, and more recently, Ukraine.
ANC, the Kurds, Fretelin/Falantil? Got lots nad lots of their own people killed. Given the examples of peaceful people power, one could argue that if they had used it, they would have won sooner and with less dead people.
I even reckon that Tianamen Square in China onlu failed because the campaign had no sustainability built into it. If it had been engineered better, we'd be looking at very different China today. As soon as the killing started, the demonstrators shat themselves and quit. This was suicidal. Had they kept it up and worked on a broader support structure before kicking it off, they would have caused a relatively bloodless revolution. Whole Army units were refusing to follow orders, and that's a sign you're nearly winning and you don't quit when you're close to victory, you crank it up! It was poorly led and poorly planned, otherwise it would have changed history.
Now, Paul, this "came accross my desk" today: CHECK IT OUT >>>I'm even thinking of attending, but it's taylor made for someone like you. I have a PDF file on it I can send you if you email me. It's got a bit more information than the link I've given you, and it includes an application form.
Kyan, I now understand a bit better what you were saying about the work of Christian groups in the peace process. Being an atheist/agnostic I often tend to be too harsh on these groups. But that's another blogpost...
Anyway, Kyan, thanks for your input. It helped.
Actually I know Craig Johnston and its a bit much to start denigrating him as you do Gerry. There is such a thing as union rights solidarity and such and Craig epitomises that. He has been victimized for being a unionist dedicated to struggling for the members that voted him in. Thats' the key aspect of the fit up job that has now landed him in jail. Craig stands up for your rights and does it absolutely and directly. I can't go into the ins and outs of the case here but I suggest you do some homework before maligning someone like Craig.
Of course if you want to believe everything the main stream media tell you then go ahead, be fooled...but I assure you Craig's jailing makes him a political prisoner and at issue is the ongong rights of trade unionists to fight (yes "fight" is not a dirty word-- on the picket line you don;t usually get much opportinity to discuss out ethical niceties over tete a tete) for better conditions. (Craig's major crime wasn't "thuggery" as you call it but the fact that while Vic AMWU secretary he advanced members pay and conditions way way beyond any other branch of the union through a consolidated campaign of militant trade union action and democratic organising. The AMWU national leadership intervened in the branch and bureaucratically sacked the local leadership and expelled him from the union. Then the union national leadership frustrated on the job attempts to raise support for Craig despite the fact that all those charged with the same crime were let off without a conviction, but Craig was singled out to be sent away. Coincidence? Handy outcome perhaps. And who do you think gained most from the result? Ummmm...)The details of the court case are archived in GLW and also can be accessed from the two Johnston related web sites.
So maybe you think that Habib should have been put away too instead of being bought back here for house arrest? Another thug perhaps? You'd trust a George Bush court would you to decide such mattersor agree with JH that he should be bought back and placed under house arrest for the crime of...what exactly is supposed to be this guy's crime? And come to think of it --what really was Johnstone's?
I've been in disputes where there has been a few punch ups with scabs --and maybe events similar to the incident that Craig was jailed for -- but lets' say, thats' the only violence that gets broadcasted. But to sack a whole workforce is supposedly not a violent act is it? No one gets a bloody nose -- they just get thrown on the scrap heap. How moral that is.Of course thats' not violence is it? Thats' industrial best practice. James Hardie can't find a few million more to sustain its abestosis victims-- they pay off their CEO handsomely, but the ex workers are asked to quietly die off a lot more cheaply than before. Thats' not really violence is it? Thats' standard business practice. And of course James Hardie isn't a bunch of thugs are they -- they wear suits and don;'t lay a hand on anyone. God forbid if they ever got violent and ran at some gasping ex employee in a wheelchair and broke his nose or cracked him over the head with the oxygen cylinder ...they'd be thugs!
And the thugs on the left condone this sort of thing!!! They have the arrogant nerve to continue to aupport campaigns, people, actions, whatever-- EVEN WHEN someone gets a dusting and some poor bastard gets hurt. They even chime in with such violence endorsing folk as John Pilger and support the resistance in Iraq where they do things like...sever heads and blow up innocent civilians. How can anyone go along with a left that says that. And as for John Pilger -- I'll never read him again. He's off my bed side table tonight. I'm going back to Mother Teresa....
A Vietnamese picks up a gun and shoots one of 500 Australian soldiers and thats' it -- they're dedicated to violence and don;lt warrant any aspect of our support or pity or solidarity. But we can be considerate -- its' not their fault: Its' Ho Chi Minhs of course and the smug pricks that sent those 500 Australian soldiers to die in Vietnam and the 58,000 yanks too who died-- had nothing to do with the equation. ; It was the vietnamese who did the killing and pulled all those triggers taht maimed and killed our boys. The blame must be on Vietnams' side and Malcolm Fraser or Harold Holt or whoever had nothing whatsoever to do with it as we know that these aren't 'violent' men...Fraser is a world vision good guy now --so he's no nasty either back then or now. He cares. Wouldn't hurt a fly.
Your'e right:Violence is all about knowing who to blaim. Craig Johnston, Ho Chi Minh, etc -- culprits all of them. Lets' lock them all away for as long as it takes to make the world a better place and cure it of violence and thuggery...
Dave, I deleted your duplicated comment. Now, where were we? Oh yes... Your twisted knickers...
Let's see... Craig Johnston. Your response is typical of what I see as a huge problem for the union movement and the left generally. You complain about violence and injustice when your brothers are on the receiving end, but you're not averse to dishing out violence and injustice. If you don't like receiving it, don't dish it out. If you think it's wrong when someone else does it, don't do it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You dissemble about why Johnston is in jail. You're in denial and you don't want to face the facts. You maintain a rhetoric of blame and victimhood. Both are the antithesis of responsibility.
But that's really not what this is about, is it, Dave?
This is about pissing on pacifism because you advocate for the glory and nobility of armed/violent struggle. I think you're a warmonger, Dave, but that you don't know that you're one. A warmonger in denial. Victimhood and warmongering seem to go hand in hand, have you noticed, Dave? My thesis is that they needn't - and that's when you get all revved up...
You seem to have an investment in the justification of the use of violence as a way of resolving conflicts. And were I to dig deeper I bet you that we'd find your support for totalitarian methods as well, but let's leave that for another time if you still have the stomach for debate (as opposed to a good old punch-up, or a war...)
I don't think you've read any of my more recent posts on this topic or you might have responded differently. I don't think you really understand pacificism as an applied philosophy. Nor do I think you have any intention of understanding it. I think it's because you are committed to an opposing philosophy - the philosophy of violence and war as a means of resloving conflicts.
No worries, Dave, he who lives by violence dies by violence. Gloriously, of course. Victim/war/hero. What a Neanderthal way of thinking. If humanity doesn't find more enlightened ways to deal with conflict then we're all fucked, Dave.
As I said elsewhere, when we on the left resort to violence, we're playing right into the hands of those on the right. If we use only peaceful means of protest/action, they are seen as the villains.
But that would take self-discipline and a commitment to ruling out violence as a way of dealing with conflict. I don't think you and a lot of your mates are up for peaceful conflict resolution yet, Dave.
Why is that, Dave?
Dave Riley says: You're right Gerry -- I'm no pacifist. Never have been.
Well, then I hope that you and those on the left like you are sidelined in future conflict resolution initiatives. You're no different than the bastards you complain about.
Come back to this blog when you're interested in talking about peaceful ways of resolving conflicts - on that basis you're welcome any time, Dave.
I think hate has consumed you, Dave, and that's quite sad.
You are missing a key point --says Dave Riley. I"m not advocating violence at all. I'm all for peaceful protest and have always been committed to that. I've no doubt organised many more peaceful protests than you've had kittens.
Essentially that has been the norm and it is a gross fabrication to suggest that it is otherwise the case. But I don't condemn those causes out of hand who resort to violence for what ever reason. You are trying to turn non violence into a universal panacea and I say that's unreasonable. Its crude moralism worthy of a religious sect.
You personally choose to malign Craig Johnston on these grounds while preaching an ever so warm good will. I say that's dishonest and an insult to a man who has dedicated so much of his life fighting -- yes "fighting" -- for others. I have religious aunts who are less moralising than that.
I've been in many campaigns over the last 35 years and its' a funny thing about many non violence types --they're fly by night companions. They run hot and cold and cannot be relied on. There are some, mainly active Christians --among the Quakers. some Catholics especially Mary Daly types and a few in the Uniting Church -- but even such theorists of secular ethical non violence like (rev) Noel Preston seldom turn up at the front line. It's so often employed as a scam Gerry -- moral self righteousness is employed to displace the business of actually doing stuff. It serves only to grant the user some moral high ground on which to indulge themselves while the wag their fingers --as you do -- at people who acrtually dop stuff. Above the everyday din they can tut tut and pick and choose which issue they'll dein to expend their precious energy upon.
Indeed, so often non violence as a overwhelming and absolute principle is used as a negation of activity and an excuse to deny the existence of conflict where it obviously exists.
Locally here we have an extremely dedicted non violence afficiondo -- Kieran O'Reilley --who's been in more jail cells than I can imagine. I think his strategic energy is misplaced as he doesn't subscribe to a mass perspective but I defer to him as a committed and serious exponent of principles he holds dear. But dedicated activists like Kieren are rare.
Indeed the core reality is that in the struggle day to day this rigid moral line you seem so enamoured with doesn't matter a fig. Lots of different people organise together on the principle of non exclusion. If they agree on clear aims or demands then they do what they democratically decide to do together. That's the modus operandi. To suggest that there is a faction that says: hang on! this protest is no good--what we need is a bit of violence -- is absurd.
Dave, it's clear to me that we disagree about pacifism and the ways to resolve conflict. Call me my absolute commitment to pacifisim "religious" if you will but it's what I firmly believe is the only way to go.
So we'd best agree to disagree.
This thread is now closed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========