The Antisocial Socialist

 As always, you can read ioplokon 's post if you want what Trudeau actually meant and some more intelligent, considered thoughts in response. I am merely here to shitpost.

I'm surprised that, over the years, I have thought about sedition as much as I have. It may have been a fairly chance encounter, when I was in my late teens. Quite sure I was going to be moving to Toronto the following year, I decided that I might as well get to know some new friends, and attended a conference I knew very little about, all by myself after my friend at the last minute couldn't make it. I ended up at a Pickle Barrel talking to Robert Meeropol about things mostly unrelated to the judicial murder of his parents at the hands of the US government, and my conclusion—first forged when I was only in my single digits—solidified that the crime of treason is ridiculous because it is ridiculous to be loyal to any country in the first place. At the time, Canada still technically had the death penalty for treason, though it would only last a year or two after that.

Have I softened on this opinion since? I think I've become more nuanced around the idea of nation-states—not because I think they're a good thing, but because if they were abolished tomorrow, what would take their place would not be all of humanity united on our fragile, endangered planet, but unchecked corporate avarice the depths of which we cannot fathom. That said, "sedition" may be one of those terms, like "free speech," that has already been lost, largely because said corporate rule is currently solidifying in ways that may prove difficult to dismantle.

We saw treason on January 6, 2021, a live feed of it, in the most literal sense of fascist thugs attempting to use force to overturn election results that they didn't like, and to murder the sitting Vice-President—admittedly, a sadistic pus-filled tumour of a man men whose death would not make the world a worse place, except had it occurred on that one particular day. What were the results? Well, the traitors are free, except for the ones that got themselves dead, and are lauded as heroes, because you clearly didn't see the thing that you thought you did. The real traitors now are anyone who won't buy a Tesla. You'll be pledging your allegiance to one of four extremely odious corporations before the US midterms. So what does the term mean, if it doesn't mean the obvious case of the insurrectionists but instead means people who want to choose the type of car they drive under a capitalist system?

We saw it again with the even more half-assed coup attempt in Ottawa, which lasted longer, ousted one claimant to the throne, and installed Pierre Poilievre as the media's anointed Prime Minister in Waiting. Again, we were told not to believe our own eyes and ears, and to instead view these plague rats as part of some ridiculous ploy for "freedom." In fact, we took their grudges so seriously that within a few weeks they'd won every demand but Trudeau (the second one) hanging from a scaffold. So, not sedition after all, despite an armed attempt to overthrow an elected government.

We saw treason again in the last few weeks, surfacing in a Breitbart interview with Marlaina "Danielle" Smith, currently the premier of Alberta. Marlaina's loyalty is to first, the oil and gas industry destroying our planet, and secondly to the global fascist wave that seeks to turn women into broodmares, BIPOC folks into slaves, and trans people into skeletons. As the trade war between my satellite of empire and the Big One brews, threatening every so often to spill into invasion, Marlaina decided to cozy up to Trump and beg him to suspend the tariffs just until the election so that her preferred candidate, debate club dweeb and junior league Maple MAGA Pierre Poilievre, could be acclaimed into office as was his right, goddamn it. This has so far backfired hilariously and hopefully will continue to do so.

Is this treasonous to Canada? Well, yes, it very clearly goes against the national interests. But I am a good anarchist and anti-colonialist and I am not supposed to care about the national interest. However, it is an even higher form of treason—treason against all life on earth, which nearly every politician is guilty of. 

And yet. It's worse. Because I live here and I don't actually want our economy trashed or tanks rolling over our borders, nor do I want to live under corporate fascism, foreign or domestic. So, because the stakes are what they are, we ought to at least take the idea of sedition seriously and talk about how to prevent it.

There are two ways, as I see it. The first I've already talked about, and that is when the alternative to one's nation-state is so unbearable that you must find yourself with strange bedfellows. We saw this with anarchist Ukrainians who, like every segment of the Ukrainian political spectrum (including, yes, Nazis), took up arms to defend their homes against Russian aggression. If you find yourself between seditious fascists and a neoliberal nation-state, it's best to have your back to the nation-state and fists to the fascists. As I keep saying, I would much rather protest Carney than have my right to protest banned under Poilievre. But this is short-term strategy.

The second way is long term, and that's having a country worth being loyal to. That's not something that I expect to see in my lifetime. It would, for Canada, mean dismantling the better part of what Canada is. It would mean returning stolen land to Indigenous peoples, unchaining ourselves from the prison of the fossil economy, building a real social safety net, engaging in an honest reckoning with history, creating a democracy that was more durable than our present muddling-through. Could I accept loyalty to such a country? We would have to see. It's a pretty big ask for a rootless cosmopolitan like me.

 ioplokon has started possibly the most niche meme of all time, wherein he reads Pierre Trudeau's Approaches to Politics (one of those books with very good chapter titles) and posts responses. If you want to read his educated responses, you can do so, but life is short so I am going to hold forth based on the chapter titles alone, knowing very little about the contents.

The first chapter is called Government by Mediocrities. And it is at least worth reading the excerpt.

My initial response was to go, yeah, that's what we have, actually, here in Canada, in contrast to the kakistocracy to the south. Even our fascists are kind of dorky. My shrink likes to say, "think of someone of average intelligence and remember that half of the population is below that." As a child, you think that the people in charge must be quite smart, to have gotten that far in life. Not good (even as a child, I wasn't that naïve!) but at least competent at putting their ideology into practice.

But Trudeau II demonstrates that they don't need to be smart, actually. He's a small, mediocre man. Have I been impressed by him lately? A little, surprisingly. He can give a good speech and he occasionally excels at stepping up when the country requires it. But his entire reign shows the gap between rhetoric and action; the convoluted, overly technical attempts to bend a system towards justice that is ultimately meant to do the opposite. Which is to say that 28 First Nations reservations are still under boil water advisories. We have made zero progress towards mitigating the climate crisis. We don't independently produce our own vaccines, leaving us vulnerable to the vagaries of US conspiracy theorists.

The more I think about it, though, the less I think the question of mediocrity in government matters. We could do with a little more mediocrity. If everyone running the show was just meh, we'd probably muddle on and mostly survive it. The problem is that most of our lives can be better said to be directed not by the state, but by our bosses, who have over us the power to decide if we are housed or not, fed or starving, and so on.

Capitalism and democracy are, at best, in tension, and more often than not, opposed. In recent decades we have seen the total victory of the former over the latter; the chances of meaningful electoral change are no greater than those of winning big at the casino, and the reason is the same, which is that the game is rigged. The idea of democracy, which is quite quaint and noble, involves the power to recall, to critique, and to sway. Most of us labour under the autocracy of the workplace, however; our leaders are unelected and govern without checks and balances. Increasingly, governments seem to agree that this autocracy is better, hence the outsourcing of what had once been the domain of the state to private interests.

And of course, most of those leaders are mediocre too. A complex mechanism like a civilization can't really be run by the best and brightest; those people tend to be quite alienating and unable to cope with logistics and organization.

This is why people get burned out on politics. This is why people are tired of all the elections even though it literally takes no effort to do the thing that most people do during elections. It doesn't make life better in a tangible way, because it's not addressing the pain points of daily life.

I don't know what the answer is, besides more fiery orators on the left (and how would we get the word out about them even if we had them, given that the social media environment is also rigged?). You certainly can't fight for mediocrity, the radical notion of living a quiet and ordinary life. To the extent that we can ever have that, it's because of hard and consistent struggle by the perpetually dissatisfied.

firecat made me. Also I need some distraction from certain murderous thoughts about dicknosing/overall low mask compliance in my building.

Something to wear: like it's going to be anything other than "Black Tie" by Grace Petrie


Something to drink: "Alestorm" by Alestorm


Place: "Armenia" by Einsturzende Neubauten


Food: "Stranger Fruit" by Zeal & Ardor


Animal: "Rabbit" by Tanya Tagaq


Color: "My Church Is Black" by Me and That Man


Girl's Name: "Fancy" by Orville Peck


Boy's Name: "John Henry" by Gangstagrass


Profession: "Christmas Card From a Hooker In Minneapolis" by Tom Waits


Day of the Week: "Wellington's Wednesdays" by the Weakerthans


Vehicle: "Cadillac" by Murder Murder

From anarqueso and angiereedgarner:

So maybe LJ is having a resurgence? Dust off those tumbleweeds, pals. Polish up your syntax. Thar's strangers a-comin'.

In lieu of formally introducing myself to new people, I think I'll just try to resuscitate the old questions meme. Ask me three questions in the comments. I'll answer to the best of my ability. Then on your own LJ, invite people to ask you questions. Who's in?

*Was it three questions? Five? Does it matter? Were there rules? Did it work? I don't remember.

I could not resist doing this again.

1. Comment to this post with "I surrender!" and I'll assign you the basis of some tv show idea. (Science fiction show, medical drama, criminal procedure, etc...)
2. Create a cast of characters, including the actors who'd play them
3. Add in any actor photos, character bios and show synopsis that you want.
4. Post to your own journal.

smhwpf gave me period drama and initially specified pre-1815, but my burning period drama idea takes place in 1907, which is nearly 100 years ago so ought to qualify in terms of lavish costumes and set design.

Apologies in advance for the profusion of British white dudes playing Russian white dudes. This is a Beeb production. It's 90% dialogue and largely an excuse to get really talented actors to shout at each other. Russian and French dialogue is in English with the actors' actual accents; dialogue in German and Polish is subtitled.

The show is called Common Cause (Общее дело).

It's 1907. The first attempt at revolution in Russia two years ago was a miserable bloody failure; the movement's surviving leaders are scattered in exile throughout Europe or rotting in Tsarist prisons. Lenin's just declared that it'll be twenty years before they have another shot at overthrowing the Tsar. Some elements are trying to reunite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, as well as the Social Revolutionaries and anarchist groups in a common struggle; other forces work behind the scenes to undermine any cohesion or unity.

The one group that does take the revolutionaries seriously is the Okhrana. In an attempt to prevent a repeat of 1905, the Tsarist secret police has dispatched agents and infiltrators to destroy the various revolutionary movements from within; in fact, as in Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday, the Parisian emigré community has more informants than actual activists, and they've been entirely successful in hobbling the movement.

Until now.

( based on a true story )

I expect it would run for two or three seasons (with six episodes each) and then get abruptly cancelled. There is also a made-for-TV movie, set during the Berne Trial, that reunites the surviving characters and ends the series.

In the comments, leave me one of your fandoms that I'm NOT into, and I'll attempt to summarize it to the best of my ability.

Possibly with illustrations if you are very unlucky.

From nineteen68, who gave me R.

Something I hate: Rob Ford. Though as a friend put it: "Waking up and having one's coffee and reading the morning news is literally brightened by Ford's shenanigans...a real life meme lolling through life."

More conceptually, rugged individualism.

Something I love: Ranting. Can you tell?

Somewhere I have been: Russia.

Somewhere I would like to go: Rabat. Oh hey, I'm going there in six weeks. :D

Someone I know: Radicals, and lots of 'em.

Best film: Reds. One of my all-time favourites. I was saddened to hear that it was also one of Reagan's favourites. Also, Kieslowski's Red and the one with Bruce Willis, though for very different reasons.

Lemme know if you want a letter.

I've seen this a few times and I rather enjoy the increased traffic these sorts of things generate on teh LJ, so I'll just throw it out there, with addendums:

Pick a date below and give me a topic, and I'll ramble on. I'm good at talking. It can be anything from fandom-related (specific characters, actors, storylines, episodes, etc.) to life-related to pizza preferences to whatever you want. (Sabs says: I am, of course, more than happy to ramble on about things that aren't fandom, since that's most of what I tend to blog about.)

They will probably be brief, or not, depending on the subject.

Also, I reserve the right to decline prompts that I don't feel equipped to meet (or if I feel I will only speak negatively on something, I might ask you for something else). (Sabs says: Whatever. I encourage subjects that I'm likely to speak negatively about. That's kinda my schtick. I'll lock posts that are too personal, though.)

Topics: you can get an idea from my tags/from the stuff I usually ramble about/from things you maybe wish I talked about more but don't.

I can't commit to particular days, but I'm going to attempt to answer prompts over the course of December. Blogcember? There should be a name for it.

On a related note, aren't we all glad that Movember's over? So over moustaches. The only people who look good in them are early 20th century avant-garde poets and the actors on Deadwood.

"To play along, just answer the following three (3) questions:

What are you currently reading?
What did you recently finish reading?
What do you think you’ll read next?"

My responses:

Currently reading The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch and Sashenka by Simon Montefiore.

Most recently finished reading The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking by Oliver Burkeman.

Next up: The Dark Side of the Earth by Alfred Bester. (No, not that one.)

On hold: Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco.

Should you generally be interested in my reading material, I log everything because I'm a nerd that way.

In other news, I miss wouldprefernot2's "What are you reading?" posts. And. Well. I miss wouldprefernot2 in general.

The last two are from the Torontoist.

Context.