Re: [microsound] completely OT yet so on-topic / art of noise

[Alexandra Hettergott <a.hettergott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

David Turgeon replied :
>undemocratic?  you mean the 4 windows that were smashed by drunk
>people around 3am following the peak of military repression?
Well, there is a 'point' where any so-called militant protest might be
getting so, I did write ... -- there are numerous examples (e.g.,
setting fire to or exploding cars, with/out contents ...) where the
disapproval of government / society, or the so-called 'establishment',
is being expressed in a violent (and uttermost undemocratic) manner ...
Yet (the right of the) liberty of expression (and all being justified
under this label) does end where it does affect (the liberty of) the
others ...
However, do you think that smashing in windows did *contribute*
something positive / constructive to this matter ...?
Considering violence 'legitimate' btw is always dangerous -- from either
side ...

>...in response to a summit which repeatedly refuses all input from
>anyone that is not a corporation or a fellow "democratic country"?
Okay, but this is yet another question ... As to Cuba this might really
only be a question of time (consider Mr. Bush (onlooker) participant in
a congress with Fidel Castro as panel speaker ...).

And continued in the other thread :
>one could argue that the main flaw of applied communism was
>that some people, i.e. the leaders, were granted the power
>to be "superior" than the rest, though not on genetic grounds.)
Yes, evidently, some were 'more equal' than the others ...
However, anarchism in general and fascism are not that far away from one
another, either, as it is often yet an 'anarchistic' situation that
leads to a totalitarian one (seizure of power by the most unscrupulous
ones) ...

>but one has to remember that we're talking about something which
>happened almost a hundred years ago, at a time when the most
>pressing thing was to get rid of... monarchy.
Okay, for not recalling the names of all auto-declared ('pocket')
dictators of the last century / decades here, but just as to one current
example, Afghanistan : what situation would you consider having been
more / most (sup)pressing in more recent time :
[1747 : foundation of the first national Afghan dynasty]
(a) British defeat (after two Anglo-Afghan wars in the 19th c.),
amicable pact with Russia, and recognition of Afghan independence
[1919/21].
During the kings' reign effort of social and political modernization.
(b) Putsch proclaiming the Afghan Republic with support of the communist
party [1973], followed by an overthrow on the part of the communist
party [1978].
(c) Military invasion of Soviet troupes [1979], and retirement [1989].
(d) Seizure of power in Kabul by the moudjahidines and proclamation of
an Islamic state [1992].
(e) Creation of the Taliban militia (with the aid of Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, the United-States ...) [1994].
(f) The Taliban are controlling 90% of the Afghan territory ... [2000].
??!
-- while ex-king Zahir Shah is still living in his exile in Rome ...
Or, on another example, do you think that the Iranian population did
enjoy more liberties during the Shah Reza Pahlevi's regime [<1979], or
since it's being 'revolutionized' and governed by the shariah
'generously' applied by the mullahs of the subsequent Islamic Republic
....?
And so on ...

:ah

And as to Frans de Waard quoting Churchill ("democrazy is bad system,
but it's the least worse we have") I'd reply that it is less bad than
some of its current (mis)interpretations ...