OK. Where I'll put my foot down is this: anarchists absolutely can not engage in military action. Ever. That can't happen. It's impossible. It's a contradiction. No.

Other than that... I'm willing to concede that militant action is varied and complex. Really, the core of the question that prompted the OP is: isn't it true that there comes a time when action is necessary and any further attempts to talk things through is merely covertly accepting the status quo?

OK. Where I'll put my foot down is this: anarchists absolutely can not engage in military action. Ever. That can't happen. It's impossible. It's a contradiction. No. — Mongrel

What do you make of the Spanish revolution, then?

Other than that... I'm willing to concede that militant action is varied and complex. Really, the core of the question that prompted the OP is: isn't it true that there comes a time when action is necessary and any further attempts to talk things through is merely covertly accepting the status quo? — Mongrel

OK. Yeah. I have no problem agreeing with that.

Though it's worth noting that "action" can cover a lot. Like, a lot. It's hard to over-emphasize this, IMO. There's a handy book called From Dictatorships to Democracy which I don't mean to endorse, but if you flip to pdf-page 87 there's a nice list of actions people can take just to begin stimulating the imagination on what "action" can entail.

Also, I think Arendt is pertinent here. Marcuse was a believer in deliberation, so I've been lead to believe by my betters. And so his emphasis on the difference between speech and action in that essay makes sense because he wanted an eternal discussion (at least, if I understand my betters with respect to Marcuse). But Arendt (who I am more familiar with) includes speech as action. And the debate over what action is, followed by what good action is, is a worthwhile, intricate, and interesting topic in its own right (another reason I was sort of mentally bogged down in the complexities).

What do you make of the Spanish revolution, then? — Moliere

Failed because they couldn't defend themselves. How do you assess it?

But Arendt (who I am more familiar with) includes speech as action. — Moliere

This is probably where we diverge. Sometimes speeches and other forms of communication are potent. The opposite can also be true. Talk is cheap. :)

Failed because they couldn't defend themselves. How do you assess it? — Mongrel

I see it more as a proof of concept, and something to learn from.

This is probably where we diverge. Sometimes speeches and other forms of communication are potent. The opposite can also be true. Talk is cheap — Mongrel

Well, it's important to imbed her notion of action in the wider philosophy as well. Speech as action only happens with others in the public. A military conflict she explicitly designates as work as opposed to action because of the thing-character which the enemy takes on (thereby eliminating the public world between people).

I'd note that I think that it's fair to say many (though I could not say with what relative frequency, only that it's many) political expressions within the framework of representationalism take a similar role.

Talk can be cheap. But it's also fair to say that the denigration of talk can destroy what is worth pursuing. Malcolm X, above, for instance -- that is a wonderful speech happening with people.

Talk can be cheap. But it's also fair to say that the denigration of talk can destroy what is worth pursuing. Malcolm X, above, for instance -- that is a wonderful speech happening with people. — Moliere

Nobody's advocating silence. Malcolm X's point was that those who imagine that the democratic government of the US, with its ample talk, would ever solve the problems of the black community were chumps. He advised black nationalism.

Compare how things would be now if people had followed Malcolm X's lead in this to how things are now. What do you think?

Hrrmm. I don't think I know enough to answer. It's better for me to say I am uncertain on what the results would be if more people had followed Malcolm X. I can say that, on the whole, I enjoy reading Malcolm X's speeches. They make a good deal of sense to me. But I read it from the position of being white, and also of not having lived through his times but more in the aftermath of that era of civil rights.

My kinship tends to be more towards the BPP, but they were socialists so that's only natural. Also, Black nationalism -- from my perspective, again, and more talking locally now too -- seems to have morphed into a mixture between black representation and the ownership of black businesses. Maybe it'll work, I'm uncertain, but I have my doubts because what I've noticed is that there's the black representatives who are then co-opted by white institutions and capitalism. But you still have all the results of hundreds of years of exploitation affecting black communities, and you still have black workers who don't benefit from these sorts of reforms.

But is that what would have happened if more people followed Malcolm X? I really don't know. I was more just using him as a reference since you posted one of his speeches that I admire to try and demonstrate what "speech" can mean, when it is not empty

Cool. Good discussion.

One of my playlists provides a poignant vote for Un's point of view:

Like most of the slurs cast against Homosexuals, yours is 100% true. The agenda continues, of course. I'm not involved in this particular area of destroying Western Civilization, but whenever I check in on fashion reports in the NYT, it is encouraging to see such good work being done. Women (and some men as well) are even more unattractively dressed, ridiculous, and unappealing this year than they were during the Nixon Administration. — Bitter Crank

This sounds like it should be in a novel, funny. Homosexuality meets Fight Club.

I think today's liberalism is tomorrow's conservatism. Here's an answer to MLK's dream speech: "It's time to stop singing and start swinging."

Perhaps, but I think you can only understand that as if 'left' & 'right' express historical moments and not fundamental positions. So yes, the liberal of the 1940's would probably be considered a conservative today. A fundamentalist is always a fundamentalist, Anthony Scalia will always be a conservative.

I am not sure sure where to place Malcolm X, or MLK for that matter. They were certainly radical for their time but were their ideas or goals radical left? The goal of the radical left, as I understand it, is the destruction of class in society. History thus far has shown this goal is much worse than that of classes in society. Think of Hitler's attempt at a classless society, or Stalin's attempt, in each they trying annihilate those who they felt stood in the way of their goal. Today the left has moved right, towards socialism, it's only possible path.

X and King both wanted to improve the conditions of the people they identified with, Blacks in America. People who at that time, were treated differently from the rest of the population. It was and still is systemic in society, the major difference is that most understand that it was and still is an unacceptable bias in a free society. Then society as a whole was not trying to come to grips with it as an issue because they did not see it as a major issue prior to men/women like X & King.

Malcolm X wanted people to stand up for themselves, to protect themselves, to free themselves by whatever means necessary. Blacks and Whites could understand where Malcolm X was coming from. King had the same goal but refused to consider violence as necessary or moral nor as an effective means to reach their goal of freedom. He believed that there is great strength in weakness, non-violence because he believed in the ultimate humanity of man. For him non-violence was not passive, it is active, and a powerful force. Perhaps why the FBI considered him the most dangerous man in America at that time.

I am not sure sure where to place Malcolm X, or MLK for that matter. They were certainly radical for their time but were their ideas or goals radical left? The goal of the radical left, as I understand it, is the destruction of class in society. — Cavacava

I'd classify MLK as a civil rights activist. That puts his views in line with those of a 19th Century Liberal. So it makes sense that his point was that the US needed to live up to its own creed (which is basically an expression of some of the more lofty aspects of 19th Century Liberalism.... bla bla bla.)

I think Malcolm X would be offended at attempts to classify him by categories created in Europe. I read Black Nationalism as a call for black people to rise up and take ownership of their circumstances. Malcolm X doesn't so much attempt to achieve his goal by creating guilt in white people (he says that they're right to look out for themselves) His view was that black people needed to shake off the "Uncle Tom" persona and learn to defend themselves, their families, and their communities (which implies separation.)

I think they did have different attitudes about violence, but I don't think they had the same end goal. MLK saw black people as inheritors of the vision of the free society which was present at the founding of the USA. Malcolm X actually sounds a lot like Ronald Reagan talking about the USSR: he said that people who embrace detente are leading us into slavery. IOW, MLK's dream is a lie.

I've thought that the difference between Left and Right is that leftists promote the health of society over the health of the individual. Rightists do the opposite. 19th Century liberals were rightist, btw. 19th Century conservatives condoned aristocracy and noblesse oblige (so in some ways, they were kin to leftists.)

One interesting difference between Malcolm X and MLK were how they lived their religions. MLK preached, and he utilized biblical foundations in his political rhetoric and as an intergral part of his life. Malcolm was a Muslim, but unlike MLK, he clearly severed religion from politics.

Where MLK envisioned an ideal, a utopia (hey didn't you do a thread about Utopia's) An ideal must be a fiction or a lie or it becomes real, and eo ipso no longer ideal.

Malcolm wanted a community of blacks who would work together, share the same culture, economy and life. He talked about sitting at the same table with a white man, both as free independent men.

I wonder about the 'left'/'right' political directions. There appears to be many varying types of Populism in our current world politics. I am in agreement with a populism that pits the population regardless of its political leanings against an establishment that rules by virtue of its plutarchy. Italy's M5S is a good example of a populist movement that incorporates left and right into its program. They have a decent shot of taking over Italy's political structure in the next round of elections, which is amazing given their short record.

Brexit was an immense sign that left/right is leaving something very big out of the picture. Look at results of the primaries in America. We end up with two candidates that nobody can stand. 9% of the population (% of those who can vote) made the initial choice for the balance of the voters (around 100 million in toto so 9 million).

It's late.

Where MLK envisioned an ideal, a utopia (hey didn't you do a thread about Utopia's) An ideal must be a fiction or a lie or it becomes real, and eo ipso no longer ideal. — Cavacava

The world's never going to be perfect. I learn that every now and then. Then I forget it again.

I think every time leftism has had a chance to demonstrate itself, it failed. It's lame without some rightism. I think the opposite is also true.