"Do not repay evil with evil" is a fine enough sentiment fueling the dictates of the nonviolent well-equipped with moral authority. But even if we are to retain a moral, ethical or conscientious conviction, we should be clear on what we intend when playing with words such as "evil", "violence" or "order". To abstain from self-defense is certainly a suicidal gesture, the ultimate end in fashionable self-sacrifice. Should one wish to submit to torture, tyranny or trauma, where is the justification for any occupation or insurrection? The promise of better beer?
The clearest hypocrisy is demonstrated by the moralist who spouts mutual aid with the slogan "fraternity, equality & liberty", or even merely "solidarity", yet lays down arm-splayed or retreats with hands on ass as soon as the gendarmes arrive with a memo from the mayor, leaving trauma to be experienced by his friends who may not have the fortune of fleet feet and quick thinking. Even x-tians would call this "selfish and cowardly abandonment", yet who would dispute the notion that "there is nothing offensive in self-defense" beyond the happenstance that one has been placed into that predicament in the first place?
Clearly, self-defense must be tolerated else one would refrain from running away, a violent act against one's comrades who are left behind rather than against the pigs who threaten them, as much as is surrender which only prolongs the power of one's opressors. We must, of course, grant that the mass mayhem of a "general" scattering is a preferable strategy when confronting superior odds. Performed correctly, it opens the playing field for each constituent, it evens the odds just as does the mass assembly or general gathering: no one is more prone to assault than any other. Unity is strength, it is true, but so is dispersal in every direction – that is an occupation of everything.
Today's linguistic usage of "general assembly" seems a bit contorted for my taste. It is politicised, which is an inside-out orientation. Outside-in is no suitable substitute. If the assembly is to be ammenable to one and all, there should be no sides in the first place. Think of an orgy, the preeminent assembly, where in and out are in no opposition whatsoever, but repeated as frequently as the passions permit.
Historically, the assembly was a provisional or ad hoc gathering called up for its diversity of talent and opinion, among other useable qualities such as more arms to swing hammers (or sickles). The "council of elders" variation does not represent a seated institution, but folks with more standing experience in matters at hand than a lone one in a quandary can handle. It is the quanderer who calls it forth. It is only a provisional or fleeting advisorial (not adversarial) association. It may even be the case that the lone one has advice for "them" – a crasher of podiums or toppler of pedestals. Either way, it is a "take it or leave it" afair – consensus only applies for those who concede (is that common sense or condescension?).
Today's general assembly, however managed, is a self-appointed body dictating outwardly to the totality of bystanders. The executive funktion among an indeterminate populace is a government no matter what you call it. A government is, of course, a man-made structure (usually very tall or very broad) which functions to oversee and administer others. It may produce greater good, whether that feels good for you or not. But like any party or gathering, the greatest good is only as much as one can take away from it. Otherwise, where's the fun?
No comments:
Post a Comment