Коментар што го потпишувам со две раце: го долови периодот во кој живееме во еден пост

Саундтрак: Да Џака Накот - 2104

by John Holloway
Perhaps the saddest legacy that the twentieth century leaves us is disillusionment, loss of hope.

If we look back at the debates of a hundred years ago, what is striking about them is their optimism. Look, for example, at the debate between Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein on the question of reform or revolution: both sides in the debate took it for granted that of course the world could be made a better place, that a society based on justice could be created. The only question was how this should be done.

And then came the slaughter of two world wars, then came Stalin and Auschwitz and Hiroshima, then came Pol Pot […]

For many, hope has evaporated from their lives, giving way to a bitter reconciliation with reality. It will not be possible to create the free and just society we hoped for, but at least we can vote for a centre or left-of-centre party, knowing quite well that it will not make any difference, but at least that way we will have some sort of outlet for our frustration.

We narrow our horizons, we reduce our expectations. Hope goes out of our lives, hope goes out our work, hope goes out of the way we think. Revolution, even emancipation, become ridiculous words. Well, of course: we are getting old. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the young too are old, many of them, sometimes even older than the old. The problem is that the world is getting old.

The bitterness of history: that is what we have to live with. Like a thin grey mist, it penetrates everywhere. As social scientists, or as academics in general, we are particularly affected. Disillusionment seeps into the core of the way we think, into the categories we use, the theories we espouse.[…]

The bitterness of history and the fear of ridicule are two sides of the same process. Expectations are scaled down. The bitterness of history teaches us that it is now ridiculous to maintain the grand narrative of human emancipation, the grand narrative of hope for a society based on human dignity. The best we can do is think in terms of particular narratives, the struggle of particular identities for better conditions; the struggle of women, of blacks, of gays, of the indigenous, but no longer the struggle of humanity for humanity. The fragmented world-view of post-modernism is a coming to terms with disillusionment. […]

Complexity becomes the great alibi, both scientifically and morally. The world is so complex that we can think of it only in terms of fragmented narratives or, much more common in spite of the post-modernist fashion, in terms of positive and positivist case studies. The world is so complex that I cannot accept any moral responsibility for its development. Morality retracts: morality is about being good to the people around me, beyond that immediate circle the world is too complex, the relation between actions and consequences too complicated. When I stop my car at the traffic lights (for most academics in Mexico are of the car-driving class), I give (or do not give) a peso to the people begging there, but I do not ask what it is about the organisation of the world that creates more and more misery and how that organisation can be changed. That sort of question has become both morally and scientifically ridiculous. What is the point of asking it when we know that there is no answer? […]

It is into this world of disillusionment that the zapatistas stepped on the 1st of January 1994. They came like prehistoric people emerging out of their caves, talking of dignity and humanity. Did they not see how ridiculous they were? Had they not learnt from the bitterness of history? Did they not know that the age of revolution was finished, that grand narratives were a thing of the past? Did they not know what had happened to all the Latin American revolutions? Had they not heard of the fall of the Soviet Union? Had they not heard of Pol Pot?

They had, of course, heard of all that. And even so, they decided to confront the fear of ridicule. They knew all about the bitterness of history, nobody better. And yet they reminded us that there are different ways of relating to that bitterness.[…] the zapatistas rose up in the most ridiculous circumstances, when all good revolutionaries were either dead or resting in their beds, and said ‘Now is the time to hope, now is the time to fight for humanity.’ History is bitter, but the bitterness of history does not necessarily lead to disillusionment. It can also lead to rage and to hope and to dignity:

‘Then that suffering that united us made us speak, and we recognised that in our words there was truth, we knew that not only pain and suffering lived in our tongue, we recognised that there is hope still in our hearts. We spoke with ourselves, we looked inside ourselves and we looked at our history: we saw our most ancient fathers suffering and struggling, we saw our grandfathers struggling, we saw our fathers with fury in their hands, we saw that not everything had been taken away from us, that we had the most valuable, that which made us live, that which made our step rise above plants and animals, that which made the stone be beneath our feet, and we saw, brothers, that all that we had was DIGNITY, and we saw that great was the shame of having forgotten it, and we saw that DIGNITY was good for men to be men again, and dignity returned to live in our hearts, and we were new again, and the dead, our dead, saw that we were new again and they called us again, to dignity, to struggle’. […]

Dignity, a central category in the zapatista uprising […] is the rejection of disillusionment: the rejection, therefore, of that which underlies the current development of the social sciences. It should be clear, then, that to speak of ‘zapatismo and the social sciences’ is not to constitute zapatismo as an object of the social sciences, but to see zapatismo rather as the subject of an attack on the mainstream development of the social sciences. To treat zapatismo as an object of social scientific inquiry would be to do violence to the zapatistas, to refuse to listen to them, to force them into categories that they are challenging, to impose upon them the disillusionment that they are rebelling against. […]

To reject disillusionment is not, however, to ignore the bitterness of history. It is not to pretend that Auschwitz never happened. It is not to ignore all the tragedy precipitated in the name of the struggle for communism. Zapatismo is the attempt to rescue revolution from the rubble of history, but the concept of revolution that comes out of the rubble can have meaning only as something new. […]

What is it that is new about zapatismo? This is where we really have to confront the fear of ridicule, ridicule not only by mainstream social scientists but also by orthodox Marxists. The core of the newness of zapatismo is the project of changing the world without taking power. ‘We want to change the world, but not by taking power, not to conquer the world, but to make it anew’. How absurd! Or rather, how absurd it would be if it were not for the fact that zapatismo articulates something that has been in the air for thirty years or more, a rejection of state-centred politics that has been characteristic of much of feminism and of many explorations on the left throughout the world, a rejection of power-focused politics that has received a new impulse in recent months, with the events of the UNAM, of Seattle, of Prague, of Quito.

Zapatismo moves us decisively beyond the state illusion. By the state illusion I mean the paradigm that has dominated left-wing thought for at least a century. The state illusion puts the state at the centre of the concept of radical change. The state illusion understands revolution as the winning of state power and the transformation of society through the state. The famous debate between Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein a hundred years ago established clearly the terms that were to dominate thinking about revolution for most of the twentieth century. On the one hand reform, on the other side revolution. Reform was a gradual transition to socialism, to be achieved by winning elections and introducing change by parliamentary means; revolution was a much more rapid transition to be achieved by the taking of state power and the quick introduction of radical change by the new state. The intensity of the disagreements concealed a basic point of agreement: both approaches focussed on the winning of state power and saw the transition to socialism exclusively in those terms. Revolution and reformism are both state-centred approaches. Marxist debate was framed within a narrow dichotomy. Approaches that fell outside this dichotomy were stigmatised as being anarchist. Until recently, Marxist theoretical and political debate has been dominated by these three classifications: Revolutionary, Reformist, Anarchist. […]

If the state illusion was the vehicle of hope for much of the century, it became more and more the assassin of hope as the century progressed. The failure of revolution was in reality the historical failure of a particular concept of revolution, the concept that identified revolution with control of the state. […]

The great contribution of the zapatistas has been to break the connection between revolution and control of the state. While so many people throughout the world have concluded that because revolution through the state is not possible, revolution is not possible (and so we must conform), the zapatistas in effect have said: “If revolution through the state is not possible, then we must think of revolution in a different way. We must break the identification of revolution with the taking of state power, but we must not abandon the hope of revolution because that hope is life itself.” […]

The state illusion is, however, just part of a greater illusion, what one might call the power illusion. This is the idea that changing society is a matter of conquering positions of power, or at least of becoming powerful in some way. It seems to me that the sense of the zapatista project is quite different, not to become powerful, but to dissolve relations of power. […]

The zapatistas take us beyond the state illusion and beyond the power illusion. But then what does this mean? What does a revolution look like that is not focussed on the taking of state power or on becoming powerful in some sense? Are we not in danger of falling into complete absurdity? Are they not leading us into insanity?

Here it becomes clear that it is a grave mistake to speak of the zapatistas as ‘armed reformists’, as some have done. What the zapatista uprising makes clear is that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the murder of Che and the tragedy of the Latin American revolutions, the notion of revolution can be maintained only if the stakes are raised. The revolutions of the twentieth century failed because they aimed too low, not because they aimed too high. The conception of revolution was too limited. It is completely inadequate to think of revolution in terms of winning the state or conquering power. Something far more radical is needed, a much more profound rejection of capitalism. ‘We walk’, they say, ‘we do not run, because we are going far’. But the path that they invite us to walk on is vertiginous indeed. They invite us to go on a dangerous, dizzying walk to who knows where. And we accept, because there is no alternative. We do not have to look far to see that humanity is destroying itself. We cannot give up hope and yet the only hope that is now imaginable is a hope that goes beyond the state illusion, beyond the illusion of power.

What, then, does revolution mean if it does not mean taking state power or even becoming powerful? The answer is simple: we do not know, we have to learn. […]

What does revolution mean now? What can it mean to dissolve power relations? How can we take part in the struggle to dissolve power relations, not just in our teaching practices, not just in our everyday lives, but in the categories we use? To think in the non-existing school of zapatismo is exciting but frightening. Gone are the certainties of the old revolutionaries. […]

It seems clear too that the concept of revolution can no longer be instrumental. Our traditional concept of revolution is as a means to achieve an end, and we know that in practice this has meant using people as a means to an end. If dignity is taken as a central principle, then people cannot be treated as means: the creation of a society based on dignity can only take place through the development of social practices based on the mutual recognition of that dignity. We walk, not in order to arrive at a promised land, but because the walking itself is the revolution. And if instrumentalism falls as a way of thinking, so too does the lineal time that is implicit in the traditional concept of revolution, the clear distinction between before and after. There is no question of first revolution, then dignity: dignity itself is the revolution.

We are into a very shaky world where there seems to be nothing very firm to hold on to. We are walking on a path in which we wish that we had at least the security of a tightrope under our feet. And gradually we realise that that firmness which we at first look for is the firmness of the power against which we are rebelling.[…]

This does not mean that the laws, definitions, classifications do not exist. Of course they exist because power exists, but our struggle is against them. Our struggle is not so much undefined as anti-definitional, the struggle to liberate doing and thinking from the boxes in which capitalist Power holds them prisoner. Our struggle, in other words, is critical, anti-fetishistic.

Hope is uncertain and therefore frightening. Hope means a present that is open, filled with the possibility of dignity but also full of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Acteal, not only as past monstrosities but as screaming auguries of a possible future. […] Disillusion, with its blinkered categories, its fragmentation of the world into secure units with walls, into neat topics that can be encapsulated in research projects: disillusion protects us against this insecurity. Disillusion shields us from the pain of the past and blots out the possibilities of the future. Disillusion locks us into the security of an absolute present, into the eternity of power. Disillusion sets our feet securely on the highway that leads towards the destruction of humanity.

To close your eyes to the bitterness of the past is to close your eyes to the possibility of the future. To close your eyes to the possibilities of the future is to dishonour the memory of the past, of our dead. […]

This talk, like any talk, is a question. Preguntando caminamos.

Може да се симне бесплатно и зипувано на следниот КЛИК

Албумот ги вклучува следните траки:

1. Zizek I
2. Kamerata
3. Vol u kupus
4. Buka za studentite
5. Makedonskiot student
6. Likovi
7. Hunza
8. Zhena ti
9. Realnost-NE
10. Nova vest
11. NATO masovno
12. Zizek II
13. [bonus] Kletva od golemite Makedonci

Пионерите на пост-ергенскиот панк ви ја честитаат Новата Година со желба догодина да ви свириме тезга на предвремени избори! [знаеме дека има редовни избори, ама предвремени звучи покул]
Silvy Bond - Albumov treba da se slusha vo prisustvo na Hunzi

ps. pishuvame latinica zatoa shto seushte nemame dizajnirano font spored demotskoto pismo na anthickite makedonci spored fontot na kamenot od rozeta

Првиот чекор кон подобар свет е исплакување, извикување и испуштање силен и јасен врисок.
Почнувајќи од крикот, соочени со понижување, очај, тага и немање поента на животот - слушаме само еден силен врисок кој татне, крик кој е јасен, гласен, гневен и одлучен: НЕ! кое значи неприфаќање на се’ она што причинува страдање.

Државата треба да се отпише, а со тоа и лажната дилема “реформа” или “револуција” (револуција во традиционална смисла). Државата не може да донесе радикални промени. Државата сама по себе значи постоење на зацртани односи, авторитет, подреденост, диктат, хиерархија, закони, дупки во законите и наметнување одозгора. Револуциите во минатото пропаѓаа затоа што се сведоа на револуции за заземање на државната власт. Кога нивната цел беше исполнета, спонтано пропаднаа или “ги изедоа своите деца”.
Одземањето, преземањето, заземањето на моќта не носи ништо ново. Општествена промена може да се случи само преку поделба и ситнење на моќта. Преку дисперзија, разединување, редистрибуција на моќта. Преку предизвикување на сфаќањето и употребата на моќта. Децентрализација.
Ситнењето на моќта може едноставно да се сфати како однос на “моќ за да направиш нешто” (потенцијал) а не како сите досегашни поредоци - “моќ над нешто” (контрола). Клучот на промената овде се состои во слободата, независноста и безусловноста на “правењето”. Ако моќта се користи за себереализирање а не за попречување на реализицајата, ако секој ги задоволува сам своите потреби, тогаш луѓето ќе бидат независни и контролата како начин на функционирање на општеството ќе исчезне. Read the rest of this entry »

Следниов период на блогов ќе биде одбележан пригодно со неколку постови, линкови и видеа како еден мал придонес во одбележувањето на 15 години и ширењето на идеите стекнати од Запатистичката револуција во Чиапас.

Као за завршување на годината 2008, као за желба за новата 2009! Автономија!

во 2008 научив дека:

• поредокот стварно ќе пропадне
• луѓето не се менуваат
• све е релативно
• не постои вистина
• гушкањето некогаш е подобро од секс

во 2008 се случија многу работи, за мене лично најважни:

• анти нато протестите во скопје
• активностите на антинационалистичката антимилитаристичка иницијатива во скопје, солун, битола, јанина и атина
• студентските активности за одбележување на 68
• походите и проводите со фајтинг виндмилс и особено со силви бонд
• заминувањето на постдипломски во странство
• шпанските серии кои кад тад завршуваат (среќно?!)

во 2008 се случија исто така миљон други работи, од кои може да издвоиме:

• јохан го осудија
• брат љубе се врати од хаг во македонија
• хашките случаи се вратија од хаг во македонија
• имаше големи протести за зачувување на името
• грција го попречи влезот на македонија во нато поради името
• се случија предвремени избори на кое огромно мнозинство освои преродбата
• се донесоа миљон закони по брза постапка
• опозицијата го напушти парламентот
• опозицијата се врати во парламентот
• се снимија клипови со александар, вергините и показалецот кој покажува дека “и ти си македонија”
• беше промовирано откритието за јазикот и писмото на античките македонци како резултат на тумачењето на каменот од розета
• хунзите дојдоа од пакистан
• црквата мешала прсти у матни бизниси
• заев беше тужен, осуден па помилуван
• бучковски беше тужен и осуден
• фрчко беше тужен и осуден
• грција е тужена
• грција преживува востание
• грција и македонија преживуваат криза на идентитетот
• цел свет влезе во економска криза
• обама го избраа за претседател на америка
• американците ја измислија сара пејлин
• многу земји вклучително и македонија се повлекуваат од ирак
• пакистан врие
• ете и палестина пак врие
• тибет врие
• косово е самостојно
• македонија го призна косово
• русија не беше среќна поради независноста на косово
• русија ја поддржа сецесијата на абхазија и јужна осетија
• русија ја уништи грузија со тенкови
• ахмадинеџад почна да комуницира со западот
• кастро не се враќа
• чавез не си оди
• папата е хомофоб
• имаше олимпијада
• американците освоија златен медал у баскет
• лејкерси изгубија у финале
• имаше европско во фудбал
• македонија организираше европско во ракомет жени
• караџич го фатија
• го бараат младич
• нафтата поскапе па нагло падна
• исланд банкротираше
• доларот падна ниско па сега пак расте
• фунтата падна колку 1 евро
• форинтот падна многу
• маџарска е пред колапс
• многу други земји се пред колапс
• во зимбабве имаше колера
• во зимбабве нема колера, ама има мугабе
• во јапан економска криза како и сегде
• во судан уште се тепаат
• во сомалија царуваат пирати
• во русија пируваат многу радикални групи
• путин стана премиер
• во украина е неизвесно
• белорусија е црна дупка
• молдавија може да се цепи
• на бугарија и наметнаа санкции од ЕУ ради корупција
• русите у пост-советските земји сеуште се малтретирани
• мигрантите у европа допрва ќе бараат права
• малцинствата у грција исто
• у атина имаше геј прајд
• у босна вахабијци и четници тепаа ЛГБТ активисти
• босна врие пак
• хрватска се врати во 20 век
• словенија и хрватска се тужат
• хрватска и србија се тужат
• велија и ѕинго се ребраат
• војводина граби кон независност
• индија е хаос
• шри ланка исто
• индонезија од увек била сумњива
• на антарктик бугарите имаат база “св. климент”
• на арктик се тепаат за нафта
• у австралија “левицата” дојде на власт
• на марс наводно открија траги на живот
• а открија и некои нови чудесии по универзумот
• се снимија нови рамбо, роки, џејмс бонд, бетмен и сл.
• металика, гнр, леб и сол и кој све не избација албуми
• кундера се избаци у јавност да демантира дека бил шпиун

а у 2009 очекувам ништо нарочито да не се смени..
нека ви е среќна и возбудлива на сите!
објавувам зимски распуст (кој што треба да го поминам работно)

ко за крај, да се посмееме малце:

Во сабота, на 27.12, во КЦ Точка со почеток во 19.30 часот свој настап ќе имаат пионерите на пост-ергенскиот панк, Silvy Bond! заедно со Свирачиња, колектив од неколку уметници кои негуваат нежен и експериментален звук..

Ветуваме незаборавен провод! Бар за нас.