Frères d’armes, camarades!

ROBLYN

Image | Cet article, publié dans agitation-propagande, Révolution, est tagué , . Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

12 commentaires pour Frères d’armes, camarades!

  1. Monier Alain dit :

    Bonjour,
    Pour ma part et peut etre pour d’autres,-non suffisament au fait des evenements en Irlande du Nord- ne serait il pas profitable et necessaire de mieux connaitre la vie de cet homme « referent » de la lutte pour la cause Irlandaise (en francais egoistement, si cela est possible. « Paix aux hommes de bonnes volontes ». Cordialement Alain Monier

  2. Ekintza dit :

    De quelle année est la photo ?
    Et est-ce que l’unité de Jim était en relation avec RSF en 1986-87 ?

    Punaise, les défilés de RNU ont de plus en plus de classe (avec la répression correspondante…) !
    http://www.republicanunity.org/anti-g8-city-centre-walkabout-belfast-rnu/

  3. feudeprairie dit :

    http://www.signalfire.org/?p=24646 Un article des philippins affirmant soutenir le RSF. Reste à voir si c’est un (petit) pas en avant vers une ligne internationaliste plus honnête en Europe; mais l’article est intéressant.

  4. Liam dit :

    LOL – les camarades de LI etaient presents a Belfast lorsqu’il a fait un discours assez interessant et stimulant, mais quand je lui ai demande quelle etait leur position sur la lutte entre les deux lignes dans le mouvement communiste international, il a repondu que leur position etait « multilaterale » – ie RSF le vendredi, le week end precedent c’etait le seminaire international du PTB, la semaine d’apres c’etait le MLPD…

  5. Liam dit :

    Le G8 a ete une victoire pour l’Etat et la normalisation

    Cameron: This even has probably been the most peaceful G8, and least disruptive of G8s in recent memory. It says a lot about the state of Northern Ireland and that’s the positive message people can take away. »

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/g8-summit/the-world-has-seen-the-new-northern-ireland-says-david-cameron-at-the-end-of-a-successful-g8-29354935.html

    Cameron dit encore:
    « I think all the fellow G8 leaders were really impressed by Northern Ireland. If you just read newspapers and had an interest over the last few years you couldn’t help but associate Northern Ireland with problems and divisions and all the rest of it.
    « It’s only when you come and see it for yourself that you just see what a magnificent part of the United Kingdom this is.
    « I think that the advertising, the infomercial, that County Fermanagh and Northern Ireland has had, you can’t probably put a value on that. I’m proud that we have been able to deliver that free advertising for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland. »

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/summit-location-a-fantastic-venue-29354879.html

    Le Secretaire d’Etat
    « We can all imagine dissident republicans would have loved to have staged an attack when the world’s media is in Northern Ireland.

    « The fact they have been unable to do that is a tribute to work done by the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) to ensure a safe and secure summit. »

    « If 99.9% of the world’s population think of Northern Ireland at all, they probably think of riots in east Belfast and burning cars. It seems to be the only time Northern Ireland is in the news.

    « Now we have Northern Ireland in the news for a good reason. That is the kind of publicity money can’t buy. »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22944751

    La presse souligne a quel point il n’y avait aucune contre mobilisation :

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/god-must-be-a-capitalist-says-a-disappointed-man-at-g8-protest-in-belfast-1.1430972

    Et si ca c’est la lutte des classes je rejoins la CNT!

    Nuala McCann BBC News
    ——————————————————————————–

    It was a peaceful march that began in brilliant sunshine.
    There was a carnival atmosphere and one man wore an enormous silver tap on his head and a Scot protesting against poverty bared all to the elements, stripping down to a small G-string.
    Children waved banners, dogs trotted alongside, girls flaunted bikinis with anti-fracking logos and there were chants of « G8 G8 get packin’, we don’t want your dirty frackin' ».
    The walk to the barrier was a long one and some sat down on the grass, exhausted, keen to take off their shoes and socks and relax at the barriers to Lough Erne.
    They heard nine speakers protest against greed and war mongering and cheered them on.
    Then, about 100 to 150 protesters broke off from the main march and headed to a nearby field, getting over some razor wire.
    The police lined the hill opposite them, riot shields at the ready.
    But the rally leaders called for this to be a peaceful demonstration.
    Someone shouted the buses for Derry and Belfast and Dublin were going – and the crowd started to melt away.
    « At least the revolution has a bed tonight, » somebody joked.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22943186

    BBC a frappe exactement la ou il faut pour decrire l’anti G8

    « It was labelled as a protest, but it had the distinctive look of a fancy dress party. »

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22947891

    bande de zouaves et de degeneres…

    Avec pareils adversaires, le G8 a de beaux jours devant lui.

    Voir aussi deux bons articles de la presse bourgeoise sur G8 – Irlande du Nord
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/g8-comes-new-northern-ireland-place-where-no-dissent-will-be-tolerated

    It is hard to imagine a more fitting venue for the G8 meeting this year than the Lough Erne Resort in Northern Ireland. After all, just like some G8 countries, the hotel is extravagant, expensive and bankrupt.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/extravagant-expensive-bankrupt-northern-ireland-resort-a-fitting-location-for-g8-summit/article12595333/

  6. Liam dit :

    PS
    En termes de repression, il y a eu un total de deux arrestations lors du G8:
    un loyaliste et un republicain

  7. Monier Alain dit :

    bonjour,
    classifie – Washington DC mai 1975
    provenance WFO
    directeur du FBI (William Webster)
    sujet texte de requete du gouvernement britannique au departemen d’Etat
    nous demandons que l’on continue de refuser les visas aux Republicains,ceux a qui ils sont refuses sont des terroristes ou des compagnons de route, bien que nous ne puissions offrir que les conclusions de nos officiers de renseignements
    (Rory) Brady anglicise : Ruairi O Bradaigh
    ancien chef d’Etat Major de l’IRA et hautement considere par les supporters de l’IRA au USA. Sa presence rendrait intenable notre politique. Sa version des evenements serait crue par les Irlando americains et ne ferait qu’accroitre leur militantisme (menace securite nationale). c’est un revolutionnaire invetere a qui ne font pas peur menaces ou risques personnels. Ce sont les Republicains qui representent une menace pour subvertir l’Etat et se proposent d’user de la violence pour atteindre leurs objectifs. En consequence, empecher le Republicanisme de se devellopper devient essentiel (que le terrorisme prospere chez un allie de l’OTAN, n’est pas bon pour l’alliance). Nous voulons maintenir le statu quo d’un Nord de l’Irlande qui demeure britannique de meme que votre pays a annexe les 6 etats de la Nouvelle Angleterre. NOus sommes prets a faire des concessions nationalistes non-violentes. Le rival de Brady et John Hume qui ne represente une menace pour personne, ce n’est pas lui l’ennemi. En aout 1996, au cours d’une commemoration a la memoire des grevistes de la faim de 1981, le president du RSF intervient entoure de leurs familles, qui signifient leur peur de voir des concessions trop importantes faites aux Britanniques. tandis que des forces centrifuges sont a l’oeuvre, cote protestant comme nationaliste, le processus de paix n’est pourtant pas aussi embourbe qu’il n’y parait.

    Quelques renseignements bien minces sur ROB. Ce que je retiens de ce constat fait par le FBI, c’est surtout l’independance de L’Irlande du Nord qui est problematique cela les inquietes pour les troubles afferents. Je ne lis pas entre les lignes la crainte d’un mouvement internationaliste, RORY est cite une seule fois comme » revolutionnaire Invetere ». avec peur de la contamination chez Les supporters Americains. pour l’Irlande Unis. En 1996 Rory s’inquieterait que les Unionistes prennent la main que pourrait leur offrir les Britanniques. Ma version est que les Americains, les Britanniques ne veulaient pas admettre une independance dont les objectifs contreccareraient leur vision du Monde. A ce titre ils avaient plus peurs d’une veritable independance a la de Gaulle sur le plan Internationnal. Les mouvements revolutionnaires Europeens ne les inquietaient pas et plus du tout aujourd’hui. Si les pouvoirs de la Finance n’avaient pas muselees le President de Gaulle, les Americains seraient intervenus en France. Il y aurait eu aussi le risque d’une intervention « sovietique », car eux aussi leurs desirs secrets etaient bien l’invasion de l’Europe.Il n’y avait donc pas de choix veritable pour les Peuples. Europeens. L’Aigle ou l’Ours- bien qu’aujourdhui especes protegees – nous auraient depece a qui le plus carnivore. Cordialement Alain Monier

  8. Liam dit :

    LI repere par la police!]

    Police reports said that the largest protest that day was organised by Republican Sinn Fein (RSF), with 30 people taking part in a picket on the Falls Road.

    The PSNI posting stated that the protest included “10/15 foreign nationals as well as local figures”.
    http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/229/revealed-the-preoccupations-of-police-during-g8/revealed-preoccupations-of-the-psni-during-policing-of-g8

  9. Monier Alain dit :

    Bonjour,
    Petit apercu sur le G8 :
    SF ou est ta victoire ? Voir Cameron sur le sol Irlandais recevant ses interlocuteurs en proprietaire des lieux. A quoi donc a servi cette association, ou plutot se ralliement a la cause egemonique anglaise, pour voir avec quel dedain ont ete tenu ceux qui se voyaient comme interlocuteur du devenir de l’Irlande. Le premier ministre anglais a bien compris le message passe en 1998 : Le vent emporte tout, les paroles s’envollent, les ecrits comme le papier brulent,. Seul le silence est d’or, et a ce titre contre toute attente le metal precieux ne vaut plus rien, Il n’a que la valeur que lui donnent les boursicoteurs, c’est a dire du vent, encore du vent. Cordialement Alain Monier

  10. Liam dit :

    Est ce que les addresses riseup peuvent etre videes, car j’essaie de vous envoyer un excellent pave de 800 pages sur la RAF en PDF mais ils me reviennent indiquant boite pleine – merci

  11. Liam dit :

    Un article de Radical Philosophy contre la « resilence »
    Resisting Resilience

    RP 178 (Mar/Apr 2013)
    Mark Neocleous

    I’m 24, in a horrible relationship, feeling stuck and alone. I met my boyfriend three years ago while I was struggling to find work after graduating. He was not only charismatic, ambitious and gorgeous, but supportive, too. I became infatuated. By the time I found out about his angry rages and subtle bullying, I had moved in with him and into a job in his town. I’m sad and anxious all the time, but I have no idea how to leave. I can’t afford the landlord’s fees for cancelling our flat lease. If I go back to my mum’s, I’ll lose my job. What would I do during my six-week notice period? All my friends live far away, in London. I’m so ashamed that I’ve got myself here … I catch myself wishing I was a teenager again, safe with my family, still with potential. If I could only learn resilience, I feel like maybe the practicalities wouldn’t be so daunting.

    Dominated by an overpowering and angry bully of a man and pushed this way and that by the competing demands of capital and community, this young woman has internalized a very contemporary solution to her problem: she must learn resilience. The problem was sent to Mariella Frostrup for her ‘Dear Mariella’ advice column in the Observer, and published on 29 July 2012. Frostrup offers little on the question of how to learn resilience, yet here are some of the ‘Resilience Tips’ published in a very different sort of publication the very next month:

    Physical – Add superfoods to your grocery list such as broccoli, eggs, beets, blueberries, tomatoes… Emotional – Grab the challenge, not the way out of the challenge… Family – Parents [should] model healthy family behavior such as having dinner together and engaging everyone in affirming, healthy conversation… Social – Know your personal strengths and which traits strengthen the character of those around you… Spiritual – Take a break from your busy schedule to meditate on what is really important to you.

    This set of advice is from the very first edition of CFS2 Quarterly. The main purpose of the publication is as an information-provider for those who operate CSF2, which stands for ‘Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness’, a programme designed to push the fitness of US army personnel, their families and friends, and, in a roundabout way, the citizenry. The fitness programme itself had been running a long time, but its original strap line, ‘Strong Minds, Strong Bodies’, was changed in 2012 to ‘Building Resilience, Enhancing Performance’, and in the same year the programme as a whole underwent substantial restructuring around the idea of resilience. As a consequence, CSF2 offers a Performance and Resilience Enhancement Program (CFS2-PREP), run by Master Resilience Trainers and consisting of various aspects such as Universal Resilience Training and Institutional Resilience Training. More advanced Comprehensive Resilience Models include Building Resilience for the Male Spouse, Building Your Teen’s Resilience, and Dynamics of Socially Resilient Teams. Its website even offers a Global Assessment Tool for individuals to assess their resilience.1

    When the only thing a sad, lonely and oppressed young woman thinks might help her turns out to be the very same thing being taught by the world’s largest military power, something interesting is going on, something that takes us from mundane tips about how to live well to the world of national security, emergency planning and capital accumulation.

    Imagining everything that could go wrong

    ‘Resilience’ has in the last decade become one of the key political categories of our time. It falls easily from the mouths of politicians, a variety of state departments are funding research into it, urban planners are now obliged to take it into consideration, and academics are falling over themselves to conduct research on it. Stemming from the idea of a system and originating in ecological thought, the term connotes the capacity of a system to return to a previous state, to recover from a shock, or to bounce back after a crisis or trauma. Thus, for example, a 2008 OECD document on state-building, styled ‘from fragility to resilience’, defines the latter as ‘the ability to cope with changes in capacity, effectiveness or legitimacy. These changes can be driven by shocks … or through long-term erosions (or increases) in capacity, effectiveness or legitimacy’2 As well as offering a succinct definition, this OECD document also reveals what is at stake and why the concept has become so appealing: rather than speak of fragility and its (negative) associations, we should be speaking of resilience and its (positive) connotations.

    The first thing to note is the impact this is having on the concept of security. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2002), published as a major statement of US strategy following 9/11, mentions ‘resilience’ just once. In contrast, five years later the National Strategy for Homeland Security (2007) is almost obsessed with the idea of resilience. The document outlines the need for ‘structural and operational resilience of … critical infrastructure and key resources’, but resilience is also planned for ‘the system as a whole’ and even for ‘the American spirit’, with the overall aim to ‘disrupt the enemy’s plans and diminish the impact of future disasters through measures that enhance the resilience of our economy and critical infrastructure before an incident occurs’.3

    The UK’s National Security Strategy, published a year later, notes that ‘since 2001, the Government has mounted a sustained effort to improve the resilience of the United Kingdom.’ The document goes on to talk about the resilience of the armed forces, of police and of the British people, of ‘human and social resilience’ and of ‘community resilience’. Yet, more than anything, the document is focused on preparing for future attacks: ‘We will work with owners or operators to protect critical sites and essential services; with business to improve resilience.’ It outlines a ‘programme of work to improve resilience’ at national, regional and local level, and across ‘government, the emergency services, the private sector, and the third sector’.4 Such claims have created the rationale for state institutions and personnel to be reorganized and retrained: from the resilience training offered to armed forces (the USA is not alone with CSF2, as other states have similar programmes), to the creation of units such as ‘UK Resilience’ based in the Cabinet Office, right down to the fact that sniffer dogs now receive resilience training.5

    What both the USA and the UK strategy documents reveal is the extent to which resilience is subsuming and surpassing the logic of security. The demand of security and for security is somehow no longer enough. Thus whenever one hears the call ‘security’, one now also finds the demand of ‘resilience’. For example, much was made of the security measures enacted for the London Olympics of 2012, but the relevant body of the London Organizing Committee had not a ‘Security’ section but a ‘Security and Resilience’ section, working with a ‘London Resilience Team’ whose task it was to ‘deliver Olympic Resilience in London’. It is as though the state is fast becoming exhausted by its own logic of security and wants a newer concept, something better and bolder: enter ‘resilience’.

    As well as being newer, better and bolder, resilience is also more imaginative. For resilience both engages and encourages a culture of preparedness. The state now assumes that one of its key tasks is to imagine the worst-case scenario, the coming catastrophe, the crisis-to-come, the looming attack, the emergency that could happen, might happen and probably will happen, all in order to be better prepared. In the US and UK security strategies just cited, a future attack of some (unstated) sort is assumed to be going to happen, and even if a terror attack is prevented a disaster of some other sort is assumed bound to happen at some time. In this way the logic of security in the form of preparation for a terrorist attack folds into a much broader logic of security in the form of preparation for an unknown disaster. Resilience is nothing if not an apprehension of the future, but a future imagined as disaster and then, more importantly, recovery from the disaster. In this task resilience plays heavily on its origins in systems thinking, explicitly linking security with urban planning, civil contingency measures, public health, financial institutions, corporate risk and the environment in a way that had previously been incredibly hard for the state to do. Thus a Department for International Development publication on Defining Disaster Resilience (2011) finds that disaster resilience stretches across the whole social and political fabric, while a UN document on disaster management suggests that to be fully achieved a policy of resilience requires ‘a consideration of almost every physical phenomenon on the planet’.6 The presupposition of permanent threat demands a constant re-imagining of the myriad ways in which the threat might be realized. Resilience thereby comes to be a fundamental mechanism for policing the imagination. ‘Imagination is not a gift usually associated with bureaucracies’, notes the official 9/77 Commission Report in 2004, which then goes on to suggest that what the state needs is a means of connecting state bureaucracy with the political imagination.7 ‘Resilience’ is the concept that facilitates that connection: nothing less than the attempted colonization of the political imagination by the state.

    Poor, but resilient

    Type ‘resilience’ into the website of the International Monetary Fund and the search reveals that almost 2,000 IMF documents contain some reference to the term; ‘resilient’ generates another 1,730 hits. ‘Resilience’ or ‘resilient’ appear in the title of fifty-three documents, all published in the last four years. Separating these into two broad types gives one group of texts in which resilience and disaster go hand in hand – Sendai: A Tale of Natural Disaster, Resilience and Recovery (2010), for example – and another far larger group, in which resilience is something that needs nurturing or building: Enhancing Resilience to Shocks and Fostering Inclusive Growth (2012), Latin America Needs to Build Resilience and Flexibility (2012), Building Up Resilience in Low-Income Countries (2012), and so on. Running throughout the texts is one core assumption: that the global financial system needs to become resilient, that national and regional economies need to build resilience, and that ‘sustained adjustment’ is a means of developing this resilience. Relatedly, the World Economic Forum now speaks about ‘systemic financial resilience’. The World Bank also has a ‘Social Resilience and Climate Change’ Group, which has published a series of pieces on ‘social resilience’ as a means of fighting poverty and overcoming the weaknesses of fragile states, and, in conjunction with the UN, the World Bank has come up with the novel idea that resilience is now the means for ‘growing the wealth of the poor’.8 The beauty of the idea that resilience is what the world’s poor need is that it turns out to be something that the world’s poor already possess; all they require is a little training in how to realize it. Hence the motif of building, nurturing and developing that runs through so much of the IMF literature.

    Resilience has been recognized by these organizations as a means of further pursuing an explicitly neoliberal agenda and has become one main way of managing the ‘disaster’ that is the global financial crisis. Not only is resilience increasingly coming to replace security in political discourse, then, but it is doing so by simultaneously becoming one of the key ideological tropes underpinning accumulation. And just as resilience is now the means for helping the poor become wealthy, so corporations are now in on the act, with ‘organizational resilience’ trumpeted and defended by the ‘International Consortium for Organizational Resilience’ (which runs a range of courses offering ‘certification’ in various aspects of resilience). Likewise, state officials very quickly resort to the theme as a mechanism for undermining anti-austerity actions.9

    This consolidation of ‘resilience’ during the current reunites state and capital by foregrounding a politics of anticipation. It also straddles the subjective as well as objective: systemic, organizational and political resilience is connected to personal resilience. Hence
a theme of resilience as a personal attribute now dominates self-help books: The Resilience Factor:
7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles (2003); The Power of Resilience: Achieving Balance, Confidence, and Personal Strength in Your Life (2004); Resilience: Bounce Back from Whatever Life Throws at You (2010); Find Your Power: A Toolkit for Resilienceand Positive Change (2010); Building Resilience in Children and Teens (2011); Resilience: Teach Yourself How to Survive and Thrive in Any Situation (2012); Resilience: The Science of Mastering Life’s Greatest Challenges (2012). This list could go on and on, and the longer it went on the more obvious would be the fact that all the books have been published in the last decade. It is here that one finds the relationship between the economic development of neoliberal subjectivity and the political development of resilient citizenship. Resilience comes to form the basis of subjectively dealing with the uncertainty and instability of contemporary capitalism as well as the insecurity of the national security state. This is one reason human resources departments of large organizations such as universities are so interested in it. Good subjects will ‘survive and thrive in any situation’, they will ‘achieve balance’ across the several insecure and part-time jobs they have, ‘overcome life’s hurdles’ such as facing retirement without a pension to speak of, and just ‘bounce back’ from whatever life throws, whether it be cuts to benefits, wage freezes or global economic meltdown. Neoliberal citizenship is nothing if not a training in resilience as the new technology of the self: a training to withstand whatever crisis capital undergoes and whatever political measures the state carries out to save it.

    This in turn explains two notable developments during the same period. The first is the growth of political ‘happiness agendas’ and official ‘happiness indices’. Resilience is central not only to the self-help industry, but also to the wider ‘happiness studies’ now being peddled by politicians and academic disciplines such as psychology and economics.10 The Journal of Happiness Studies was launched in 2000, and of the sixty-eight articles published since its launch that mention resilience, fifty have been published in the last five years. ‘Resilience is very, very important’ says Richard Layard, a leading figure of the new ‘Action for Happiness’ movement and now a British Lord for his work in the field. What might improve a nation’s happiness score? For Layard, it is ‘a programme in schools to build resilience among children’.11 Happiness is to become part of our resilience training; resilience is to be learnt as part of our happiness training.

    The second is that major groups such as the American Psychological Association (APA) have been central to the ‘happy resilient citizen’ agenda. The APA launched a major ‘Road to Resilience’ campaign in 2002 explicitly in order to link the attacks on 11 September 2001 with ‘the hardships that define all of our lives, anytime that people are struggling with an event in their communities’. After 9/11, ‘people were interested in learning more about themselves – and in particular, how to become more resilient’, said the APA Director of Public Relations. The APA launched a ‘multi-media approach’ to help people learn resilience, with a free toolkit including TO ways to build resilience’, a documentary video Aftermath: The Road to Resilience with three ‘overarching messages’ (‘resilience can be learned’; ‘resilience is a journey, not an event or single turning point’; ‘there is no prescribed timeline for the road to resilience’), special phases of the campaign including ‘Resilience for Kids and Teens’, and resilience workshops for journalists. The APA website now registers some 1,500 references for either ‘resilience’ or ‘resilient’, more or less all of which have appeared in the last decade.

    Resilience connects the emotional management of personal problems with the wider security agenda and the logic of accumulation during a period of crisis. It is so widespread, so dominant, so demanding, that it would be surprising if one of the larger publishing houses had not yet launched a journal devoted entirely to the subject.

    A new fetish

    The publisher Taylor & Francis, owner of the Routledge brand and a major player among the security-mongers of the world, recently announced a new journal to be launched in 2013: Resilience. As part of its launch, the journal is organizing a themed section of the European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on International Relations conference, later this year. There will be ten panels, each lasting 105 minutes and consisting of four or five papers. That will amount to between forty and fifty papers, with discussion lasting over seventeen hours. There must be a lot to talk about. But if the journal’s homepage is right, there really is a lot to talk about, because according to the homepage resilience encompasses ‘not merely … how we respond to a world of rapid change, complexity and unexpected events’, but also ‘a shifting relationship between our understanding of human agency, its potential and efficacy, and our aspirations for improving, securing and developing the world we inhabit’. Beyond that the scope is, frankly, enormous, expanding the journal’s remit to: ‘prevention, empowerment and capacity-building’; the ‘policies and processes of resilience’; the ‘discourses of adaptation and vulnerability, their genealogy and construction in relation to the natural and human sciences’; the arenas ‘where communities and policy practices are constituted at a wide range of levels from the local and regional to the national and global’; and ‘the subjectivities articulated’. Which is to say: the journal’s remit is just about everything. It is a corporate-cum-academic dream of realizing the UN’s policy that resilience involves a consideration of almost every physical phenomenon on the planet: nothing less than a journal of all and everything that capital and the state might want and need. As such, it might have been better coming out of Cranfield University, which has a long pedigree of providing advice to modern princes and which has recently added resilience training to its list of services, via degrees in the subject, taught in its Centre for International Security and Resilience (the first of many such enterprises, you can be sure).

    Sensing this, and no doubt trying to hold on to some notion of ‘critical’ academic work, the journal’s editors have issued a call for papers for a special issue on ‘Resistance or Resilience’. But aside from raising the obvious question – why not start a journal called Resistance and devote just one special issue to resilience? – the call seems to miss the central point: resilience is by definition against resistance. Resilience wants acquiescence, not resistance. Not a passive acquiescence, for sure, in fact quite the opposite. But it does demand that we use our actions to accommodate ourselves to capital and the state, and the secure future of both, rather than to resist them.

    Against such an option, then, this Commentary is intended as a pre-emptive strike, and thereby in a roundabout way a strike against the whole resilience agenda: against the demand that we work on how to improve the resilience of state and capital, and against the colonization of the political imagination. Against resilience.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s