This perfect image post went up on Facebook the other day
It sparked the response: “I don’t think burning stuff down is generally all that helpful or necessary. It’s exciting though.”
Which is a friendly expression of worry, that perhaps destroying things is not most effective or desirable means for political transformation. I countered that there are a number of things which need to be destroyed which will require metaphysical matchbooks, rather than real ones.
There are social structure, imbalanced power relations and entire economic models which need to be destroyed if we are interested in fair and just society. Part of the reason that the Occupy movement, without any advertising budget, has become so popular is that there are so many types of relationships which need to be destroyed, with the onnection between bankers and politicans being high on the list.
But it begs the question, what physical things need to be destroyed to make a better world? Like the naive conculsion to Fight Club, burning stuff down generally does not change these vexing relationships. The Pentagon would make a fine community residence, but it is infested with the miltary industrial complex and the exterminator has said that nothing short of destroying it will get these pests out.