Why I do not believe idealism is possible without the presence of compassion and the ability to learn.
I do not want to know of a freedom-fighter that does not experience love on a multitude of levels nor has a greater understanding of their own intimate environment.
The ability to stand and fight should generally fuse with one’s atmosphere and the knowledge that sacrifice, whether great or small, is the initial step toward attaining and comprehending one’s ideals. If possible, a person should want to live outside the shapes of familial bonds and either become a part of their environment or live for it. Amazingly, it is a circular movement in that we attempt to return to a natural boundary, evolve or adapt to it, and ultimately try to force its multiplication. This progression requires a greater understanding of what it is precisely that we love and that which we consider greater than ourselves. Idealism appears as an honestly derived expression, but without a sense of caring and compassion for what we see daily, it is futile. Our ideals are our environment, everything surrounding us, and for the most part, those people for which we have deep-seated love and concern.
The idea of revolution, particularly that which entertains open contest, is useless if without loving something enough to address notions of a somewhat greater good than selfish intentions and requires a continuance more worthy than personal risk and gain.
Personal Testaments:
Throughout my life, I have experienced many forms of idealization, all based on environments and emotion. I have stood in the company of people deserving adoration, making it unimaginable that I would meet anyone again their equal. I have trod through catastrophe and over a thousand lost souls witnessing any person’s undeserved share of gore and devastation. I have found myself holding many close to me and adversely letting others slip away to pursue their own endeavors, my environment has been everchanging. I have seen righteousness and wickedness in myself and others, changing my notions of morality and conviction. To put it short: I have lived, nearly lost my life, and I have definitely loved. But this realization, combined with my brief stay on this earth, makes me question my abilities. All of it makes me query whether I deserve to question anything at all.
GANDHI
Resistance, of “wrong by a wrong-doer’ through the refusal to aide a culprit stemmed from a response by Gandhi upon the accusation that had ignored his morality.[1]
Taking Mahatma Gandhi’s personal history into account regarding his personal allegiances, resistances, and revolutionary tactics of passivism escapes the point here. The reason behind this omission is that passivism, or adopting the title of pacifist, is not a form of weakness in initiating a revolution. It is one of the ultimate methods of sacrifice for adhering to an ideal or basic moral credence. If one is willing to sacrifice, especially life and limb, in the name of a moral virtue then they embody the definitive idealist. This sidesteps adhering to the ways of a combatant, but each dissident force upon themselves the employment of those gifts they were given. For some, violence and unchecked aggression, for others expense with reckless abandon regarding personal safety, in Gandhi’s case, passivism adopted as a weapon of choice.
Tet
Reasons for delving into events like the Tet Offensive regarding revolutionary motivation and idealism derive from conflicts in culture and necessity. A series of reports by RAND show the initial ambiguity of the Tet Offense’s era allude to discrepancies in the romance of revolutionary means and ends. “It should be pointed out that there was substantive disagreement among the Rand researchers involved in Vietnam research at the time,” and “This internal debate mirrored the debate that was then current throughout the nation,” both quotes indicate dissention in both report and possibly the philosophy of those initiating the Tet Offensive. More simply put, it was unusual, unusual to take a normal peaceful holiday and use it to mount an attack using both subversion as a tactic while ignoring cultural beliefs under superseding need to hurt the enemy. Many debates exist as to the righteousness of the Tet Offensive but that is not the importance here, the significance lies in the ability to snub certain principles to defeat balances from one’s individual perspective. Does one’s belief lessen in importance in comparison to the overwhelming desire to adhere to an ideal? In this case, does winning beget dogma and ancestral devotion?
How many people who put pen to paper have walked a path less travelled? Did they pick that path or were they chased down it? Ernest Hemingway saw war, hunted game, and travelled extensively around the globe, but how much of that was his personal impulsion towards the ability to write? I was a quasi-talented graffiti artist in my early 20’s who had made a series of low-rent decisions, resulting in surviving a few lethal diseases, enduring terrorism and the waste of nature’s wrath while coincidentally having a jaded view of the world as a comedy of errors and a tragic adventure. Though I made many choices, the resulting amounts of fear and consequences involved felt like I was haphazardly pushed toward my experiences and not driving myself in their direction.
Revolutionaries fight for the greater good and against larger forces than themselves. The aforementioned Mahatma Gandhi supposedly hated his title as a person of reverence and holy man. Honestly, I was not always fond of enduring inadequacies while God kicked me round a little, but still, like others, I think it gave me the strength to recognize my ethics and eventually try to live them out.
Che
…. The following is an excerpt from a response concerning Che. Honestly it intends to show some initiative and objectivity, but the more I think about it, I disagree with some of what I wrote. I think answering questions about “The Motorcycle Diaries,” would have shown more promise.
Richard Weitz gives enough material describing the factors that lead to the success of guerrilla insurgencies which is beneficial in recognizing some aspects of their causation. Ernesto Che Guevara plainly stated that the victory of the Cuban people was a change in the older thinking concerning the conduct of Latin Americans.[1] Che also stated that this proved the ability of oppressed people to free themselves through the use of guerrilla warfare.[2] The revolution in Cuba prompted him to take into account three fundamentals of guerrilla warfare which were: popular forces can win a war against the army, it is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist, and the insurrection can create them.[3] He also stated that the countryside is the elementary area for armed fighting, particularly in underdeveloped regions.[4] These fundamentals proved extremely beneficial this week, in the beginning, to understand what motivates and proliferates guerilla warfare in Latin America.
In the reading of “Terror and Guerrilla Warfare in Latin America, 1956-1970” by Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley this week it is noticeable that guerilla insurgency is related to and depicted as acts of terror.[5] It is also perceptible what factors contribute to the guerrilla insurgency or what would give it the perception of success from the examples given in the writing. One such example was in regards to the reported survival rate of guerillas in Venezuela which were allegedly incorrect but possibly showed the effectiveness of the foundations of insurrection.[6] Similar examples of this type of encouragement find themselves in the guerilla actions of Castro and the reported expanse of deaths, whether accurate or not, which could allude to the perceptions of reverence for the effectiveness of insurgency.[7] One fascinating influence for the perpetuation of guerilla insurgency is the frequent use of propaganda. This propaganda can all fall under the categories of rumors, true or false reports, and apparent successes of guerillas and terrorists that give the impression that these tactics work.[8]
Another influence that fueled the fire of guerilla insurgency in Latin America was reports of tactics used against them for their opposition to the government. These reports potentially added sympathy for insurgent causes and were not only used against the combatants but peasants and locals as well.[9] Those who did not collaborate, such as in the case of Zacapa, were wrapped up in events that provided anti-government sentiment adding to the legitimacy of guerilla objectives.[10] These examples of events that stimulate support of guerrilla movements against the government were also evident in Colombia from 1948-1964 during La Violencia beginning an extensive history of insurgent activities in that country.[11] A continuing reason for the prevalence of guerrilla insurgency in Latin America is evident in the defining of guerillas, as opposed to terrorists, and possibly the variables said to contribute to their successes. The almost self-proclaimed definition of guerillas is in their moral declaration. [12] The belief that insurgents are justified due to the insecurity of their movement and selectivity of only attacking the government is the intended focus to make them appear superior to terrorists and contribute to support and legitimization leading to continued commonness in Latin America.[13] Success and the variables that contribute to it are also aspects that encourage reoccurrence. Examples of these variables are the performance of the economy, ethnic divisions, as well as the location and quality of guerilla leadership which if genuinely beneficial to succeeding, contributed to the prevalence of insurgency.[14] Understanding all these factors and having knowledge of the history and principles of guerrilla actions lends to having a greater understanding of what perpetuated it for so long in Latin America.
*************************************************************************************************************
[1] Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare. (New York: Classic House Books, 2009,) Chapter 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Wickham-Crowley, Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, “Terror and Guerrilla Warfare in Latin America, 1956-1970.” Comparative Studies in Society and History XXXII 2 (April 1990).
[6] Ibid, 203-204.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, 205-207.
[9] Ibid, 209.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid, 215-218.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Richard Weitz, “Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Latin America, 1960-1980,” Political Science Quarterly CI 3 (1986), 397-398.
Writing about Che is not a new idea when discussing belief systems, idealism, and principles, but in his writing, he seems dedicated almost to the point of fanaticism. What is Che fanatical about? At first it seems like socialism, free people, and overthrowing injustice using a tactic previously figured out by the Viet Cong, and much earlier than that, the Colonial Americans. Guerilla warfare, or unorthodox tactics, existed for quite some time, pronouncing itself as a very simple solution to overpowering governments and total war. It hurts a bit to admonish him, especially since he had the potential to not be a such a fan of himself, Che. Had he stayed the idealist who had motorcycled a treacherous route in the name of adventure, as he did in his younger years, I think the world might have seen him evolve into a dangerous opponent for the wicked and unjust.
At one point I looked up and witnessed the last Blackhawk helicopter take off from the Superdome and grasped that this event found exclusion as a pivotal day in history. At least it was not pivotal to most people, except me and thirty National Guardsmen who also just witnessed a collection of bodies floating in brackish floodwaters. The world is small and unforgiving. It took me many years to realize that some of my closest friends were seeing that much of what we know, or even care to realize, exists in a beautiful but broken place.
Westgate happened and a dear comrade who had spent years in East Africa was still there. Another would go on to find his way toward a PhD and write a book, yet another fight wars for both God and country, but eventually wealth. Some of the greatest people I have ever know have accepted everything this world threw at them, both good and bad, without celebration or complaint. Something is amiss though; we were a generation (a word I detest) accused of not meeting potential or accepting a sense of purpose.
Within a period five weeks in this country I had raised my rifle toward people I did not know, spent some days surrounded by both friendship and plenty of carnage and eventually would almost lose a man to himself after he found a lifeless infant on a roof. But this isn’t where I intended to go in the first place, I guess through thinking about the ideals of others it is just where this piece of writing ended up. Eventually the volunteer left Africa, the soldier swore off war as a participant and Cam successfully sold his book. Now we are back to sifting through different days still amazed that somewhere we all might have been half a hero, but according to the world we were not much else.
Kesey
Considering Louis Althusser’s inquiries into the function of ideology in sustaining power, the writers of this article discuss the operation of ideological and repressive apparatuses in the asylum Ken Kesey portrays in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962). The novel recounts the story of a group of people contained in an institution that is supposed to treat their allegedly mental problems, whereas under the facade of psychiatric treatment lies a ruthless controlling system whose major purpose is to turn the inmates into obedient, submissive “subjects”. The agents of the institution preserve the patients’ docility through strict rules besides the so-called mental therapy that actually results in more confusion in inmates who consequently lose their self-consciousness and self-confidence. But since every ideological system, besides inducing docile “subjects,” raises a sort of resistance among them, gradually resisting forces are formed in the asylum of the novel by the coming of a new inmate who defies the dominant ideology of the institution. By his jovial, life-affirming ideology, he breathes new life into others, makes them think and believe in themselves and trust each other, and thereby acts as a source of inspiration for several inmates, specially the Indian American narrator of the novel that subsequently challenges his schizophrenia, and finally, when his friend is shocked by electrical devices as the result of which he totally loses his consciousness, smashes the control panel of the ward to escape from that penitentiary.
Farshid, Sima, Operation of Ideology in Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (January 11, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2377621 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2377621.
Passivism is a valid and effective form of resistance when we look beyond its limitations, but that brings us to the discussion of force. The center between dismal suffering through sacrificing too much and the use of absolute force to achieve positive results has existed seldom throughout history. The idea that not having the ability to inflict harm is the ultimate form of passivism might exist as an idea that needs retirement. That is not to say that those who reject violence do so incorrectly, they deserve veneration. The issue arises when violence catapults toward them and their ideals simply cease to exist, because those who conceived the ideals cease to exist as well. Those less righteous, yet more readily violent in nature, increase in number, and consequently, compassion and progressive thought disappear. So, who, envisioned as separate cases, personified this idea of mental power over extreme violence?
The question is better answered by looking at those who survived in a diplomatic manner, held onto ideals, and ultimately lived to tell about it. The storyteller is generally the one to survive, like Kesey. Even though he alluded to the fact once that the storyteller’s existence was a “flash in the pan” or an idea growing archaic, I don’t think he meant the storyteller as becoming extinct. He meant that no matter what or how things change, he is ever-present. The storyteller survives everything, war, famine, struggle, birth, celebration, love, and hate. If they didn’t, the story would die, and no one would tell it. Does that make them passive? Not necessarily, they could possess a great capacity for the use of might, just an extremely educated and cautious knowledge of when to use it. Kesey went on in an interview to describe himself and the Pranksters as warriors, which is an unusual title for those tied to drug culture and form of expressionist thought. In the same interview he swears off looking at himself as a leader for these “warriors.”
What Kesey really embodied though. even if he didn’t want to be a leader, was a storyteller. The storyteller has the luxury of living without ideals because they simply relay what they see, at least that’s what many believe. The problem is that it isn’t true. The storyteller adapts the story to what they believe even if this finds accomplishment absent of conscious thought. Kesey did this better than most, as a matter of fact, he WAS the leader of it. Hunter S. Thomson, Kerouac, everyone in Haight-Ashbury, and even Timothy Leary all had a connection to Kesey or his writing. It is very hard to believe that all these brilliant minds, though dedicated to something other than the typical idealistic revolutionary, did not learn something from him or emulate him in some way. The storyteller might not be the perfect example of an idealist, but it gets us closer to understanding the balance between provoking philosophies and critical thought and those willing to take action for a cause. Irresponsibility ensues in asking everyone to behave as one of the Merry Pranksters, but if one wishes to stand for an ideal, they should take a page, many pages, out of their book.
Here is where I think it is vital to mention that simply because I find a great deal of solace in passivism and the ability to use analysis and practical thinking it does not mean that other methods cannot find use in the name of an ideal. That which we hold dear should never feel unprotected, principles included. I simply believe that if the time comes to be dangerous all other methods have come to a point of exhaustion, and employing brutality requires intellect and sound judgement. Call me what you will, I am fine with the stigma of a vehement beatnik. If my principles guide me down a path for the betterment of others and those that I love are free from harm then my actions are justified.
[1] GANDHI, MAHATMA. FREEDOMS BATTLE. Place of Publication Not Identified: ALPHA EDITIONS, 2017.
