02/12
This post will have to be put down un-expurgated: apologies for the pointless and repetitive (not to mention the mis-spelt and unattributed). Having watched and listened to contemporaneous and post-event dialogue on the events of the past 18 months. events almost unanimously declared as ‘revolutionary’, i have been struck by ubiquitous and at times deliberate mis-diagnosis’s given by both theorists and ‘impartial’ commentators. Primary among these diagnosis’ is the very ease with which so many apply the term ‘revolutionary’ to insurrections, which are embryonic and incredibly compex in their causes and the demands of the protagonists: revolutions or simply desparate actions? make no mistake taken these are actions valiantly and in full knowlege of the consequences. indeed to those involved-I MUST POINT OUT HERE THAT I IN NO WAY SEEK TO DIMINISH THE ACTION AND SACRIFICES MADE. IF ANYTHING IT IS THE BETREYAL OF THE ACTIONS… ‘AS THE SMOKE CLEARS’ THAT I WISH TO HIGHLIGHT. the very fact that in general usage ‘revolution’ has in many minds been redefined by events accross the middle east and north africa surly points to a undermining of actions taken? i am well aware that hindsight provides an unfair advantage to any counter-critique. but surely the germ of revolution concluding with the installation of a leglisteture (alledgedly interim) and any accompanying relaxing of totalitarian practices, is simply the first stage in a possible revolutionary moment, to paraphrase badly: “this is not the begining. it is not even the begining of the begining…(i would argue that the very fact of this somewhat ridiculous paraphrase breaks down here is exemplary of the true trajectory of these ‘revolutions’. revolution by my naieve reading is a period of radical role change not merely in the ruling elite nor is it simply the ushering in of a new guard, it is a shift in the fundamental relation of the individual to the state. part of me feels (un-read in both history and politics as i am) that it is the point at which every individual is equvelant to the state that is coherent with the revolutionary moment?
all other considerations or micro-struggles should be (from this point) expressed in the revolutionary moment. for it is truly an instant a momentary mutation and acceleration, one encompassing as it goes the strata constituting it. though while it is a point of flux it retains its defining aspects: these must be positive assertions rather than reductive demands.
at the time of writing syria expresses explicitly some of the issues of early stage revolutionary insurrection, but one predicated on the essentially negative demmand for freedom without positive assertion of transcendent political and economic restructure its hard to see it moving into a phase of radical social transformation. though the position of syria and its relative strategic value to the region suggest civil war and concurrent bonanza for first stage ‘disaster capitalism'(I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT I WROTE THIS AT THE VERY START OF THE TROUBLES-IF ANYONE WANTS TO EMPLOY ME). leading to as has been seen elsewhere miilitary/para-military rule in tandem with a simplified democratic leglislature will serve as an interim until sufficient “stability” can be achieved and the people given their freedom will follow. i do however have one proviso the model adopted by the rebels in the very early stage of the uprising does suggest an entirely separate stategy to those so far employed. what is more it is one the may give cocearn to all states wishing to impose/maintain unpopular rule in an increasingly unstable world (and one in which mass mobilization is such an available and sophisticated option) briefly the insurrection in syria very early on did not invert the dictatorial premise: by say suggesting that the rule of assad was extraordinary no it rather took the argument straight to its zero level. what is more in a simple and elegant manner by forcing the premier and his infrastructure to identify themselves with the nation; a position all dictators claim.they then simply stated youare not the syria we want. this is the reason no compromise can or will be accepted, by either belligerents; the demands simply serve to further articulate the inplacable position of both sides. in this single step the insurrectionists have created a binary choice but is in fact an implacable demand. in this sense syria goes much further than any of the insurrections thus in the region so far. every individual must make the descision: it is not a case of “oh ,i was in tarhir square” or “i saw gaddafis body”. the insurrectionis/insurgents/freedom fighters have: by forcing the regieme to identify itself not as state in a manner devoid of metaphysical transcendence forced every citizen to identify with two seperate readings of their own personal relation to the greater structure. die fighting or die fighting. this is the lesson of recent uprisings: the anti-state force accepts the rhetoric of power but then takes that very rhetoric to its end point: “if you (president whatever) are equvelant to the state then everyone must decide on their position, not to your position but ttheir own conception of the ideal state as embodied in each individual. for me thisis one reason syria comes closest to the embryonic revolutionary moment. that have not provided any structural change; but have rather simply led to a mutation of the existing regieme. Of particular concearn is the assisted ‘revolutions’ in which western (or western-backed) political and/or military force has been brought to bare in the toppling of the incubant government. the root of my un-ease in these scenario’s is that the neo-liberal model as defined by Naomi Klien has no interest in the installation of progressive regiemes, indeed the perpetuation of an optimised instability is seen as the most productive methodology without overtly repressive governments that are embarassing to the ‘civilized’ western democracies (if not to all security council members). the fact is: that short of imperial projects that prove far more costly than in the past, the only realistic response of ‘First-world’ nations to insurrections is the tacit support or faux outrage at the systems that begin to collapse due to fundamental issues such as food shortages.
POST SCRIPT:
i have taken a sabbatical from watching the news, but what i do catch confirms to a degree the embryonic thesis laid down here. the presence of violent resistance without coherent social agenda simply leads to the occupation of the ‘movement’ by the surrounding and competing matrix’ of majority interests. the insurrection simply becomes the empty ground onto which the dominant forces inscribe their own agendas.
cai nyahoe 
Leave a comment