We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are…
If it were my city burning I’d be pretty fucking sentimental too, writer or no. Jesus.
Wait a second. I think you misunderstand my use of sentimental. I’m not talking about being sad about the devastation. I’m criticizing some of her descriptions about HER that, I think, are unnecessary. I’m a fan of Penny Red, so I’m not knocking here. I’m annoyed at her tone in the opening and closing of the post. Let’s be clear that I’m sad about the devastation. I’m not shocked. I’m saddened and I’d like to be hopeful that people will not be hurt. I’m not upset that people are destroying things. I’m kind of convinced that people will destroy things.
All that said, the point of my post was to remind people that riots are about establishing an order. We often talk about the disorder and chaos in rioting. But what typically results (when revolution is not present) is a strong and re-enforced order. Penny Red writes that riots are about power. And that, my friend, is an attempt to romanticize the working class in a way that I don’t like. The rioting is not about accumulating power, it’s about expressing excess. Expressing, in other words, Using or Destroying or Expelling. …
Alright, I hear you.
About power though, when I read what she wrote about power I read it more about exercising power rather than accumulating power.
I hear you. I suppose that might be the case. I’d like to say, I’ll give you that they feel like they are exercising power. Of course they are. I’m always a little weary when we (the left) romanticize situations and individuals in those situations. I don’t think there’s anything sentimental about direct action. I kind of get dogmatic about it.
BTW, I cry. I am a sentimental fool. A romantic, even. There are some things that blogs don’t illustrate very well.