45 replies to this topic

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 16 July 2009 - 10:59 PM, said:

If you weren't a white male, would you still say that?

Yep.

[Punk Rock Geek]

If you're not going to be serious, then I'm done discussing this.

[Steve]

How am I not being serious? I'm sorry that I am sometimes unable to articulate my thoughts well enough to make a full post.

[Steve]

Activism is defined as trying to speak to power. I am not interested in doing that. I am interested in creating class power.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 16 July 2009 - 11:18 PM, said:

How am I not being serious? I'm sorry that I am sometimes unable to articulate my thoughts well enough to make a full post.

You have always taken the position that people shouldn't form their opinions of the world using their own privilege as a basis, but by saying that you don't care for activism is one of the most privileged things you can say, ever.  It's an insult to the people who passionately worked their butt off so that you could have a decent life today, and for those who continue to work for others not as privileged as you worldwide.

So no, I don't think you're being serious.

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 16 July 2009 - 11:28 PM, said:

You have always taken the position that people shouldn't form their opinions of the world using their own privilege as a basis, but by saying that you don't care for activism is one of the most privileged things you can say, ever.  It's an insult to the people who passionately worked their butt off so that you could have a decent life today, and for those who continue to work for others not as privileged as you worldwide.

So no, I don't think you're being serious.

No, I am being dead serious. I do not care one bit for activism. As I have said, activism is defined as attempting to speak truth to power. I am more interested in communizing my neighborhood than I am in protesting the Iraq War, or Global warming or whatever. I am more interested in people creating neighborhood councils to keep the cops out. I really don't see how the privilege I have as a White male plays into this. My friend (who is latino) lives in a ghetto in Antioch and holds the same view that I do, as do the rest of the people that I work with within Modesto Anarcho. And most of the people involved with Modesto Anarcho are either female or a person of colour (or bolth).

I believe this because I don't think trying to speak to a group of people that do not care one bit for my class is going to get me anywhere. Time and time again, activists flock out to demonstrations and protests and write letters to their congressmen, and time and time again the State does not listen to them.

[Steve]

When I'm out of the shower, I'll try and find some articles that I think articulate this position better than I do.

[James]

Steve showering = way better than anything anyone can say to refute his argument.

[Kaitlyn]

Steve, on 16 July 2009 - 11:37 PM, said:

As I have said, activism is defined as attempting to speak truth to power.

isn't defending a cause towards your neighbours and friends activism too? obviously, anybody could be more educated as far as environmental issues are concerned.

[Steve]

Kaitlyn, on 17 July 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

isn't defending a cause towards your neighbours and friends activism too? obviously, anybody could be more educated as far as environmental issues are concerned.

By speaking truth to power, I mean that activists are trying to bring an issue to the forefront so that the state will deal with it, preferably in the way that the activists ask them to. Creating a general council in your neighborhood to deal with problems without having to resort to calling the police is the opposite of this. It is creating class power, where as activism destroys class power.

The reason why I disagree so much with the mainstream environmental movement, is because their entire agenda is to create a safer, cleaner capitalism. This cannot happen by the very nature of capitalism. It's not the people that are in charge that are the problem, it's the system itself. If you want to save the environment, you're going to have to destroy capitalism. And I say destroy, because you can't reform capitalism out of existence.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 16 July 2009 - 11:37 PM, said:

No, I am being dead serious. I do not care one bit for activism. As I have said, activism is defined as attempting to speak truth to power. I am more interested in communizing my neighborhood than I am in protesting the Iraq War, or Global warming or whatever. I am more interested in people creating neighborhood councils to keep the cops out. I really don't see how the privilege I have as a White male plays into this. My friend (who is latino) lives in a ghetto in Antioch and holds the same view that I do, as do the rest of the people that I work with within Modesto Anarcho. And most of the people involved with Modesto Anarcho are either female or a person of colour (or bolth).

I believe this because I don't think trying to speak to a group of people that do not care one bit for my class is going to get me anywhere. Time and time again, activists flock out to demonstrations and protests and write letters to their congressmen, and time and time again the State does not listen to them.

The reason I said that your position is one of privilege is because it is very easy to take it when you have not witnessed the effect of activism on your own life, first hand.  You have not been used in the slave trade.  You have not been paid less based on your skin color or gender.  Activism is the most important thing that ever happened to these people, while to you, it's not worth the time because "it makes no difference"..?

Activism goes far beyond trying to speak truth to power, as well.  Even if I go by your definition of persuading the state, (I think this definition is more appropriate: http://dictionary.re...browse/activism), then it would still at least need to be acknowledged that activism would educate and motivate other civilians in that process.

Just look at the actions of Tim DeChristopher, who outbid oil companies without the intention to pay, subduing the auction of public land for long enough for Obama to come into power and reject the sale.

http://www.tigblog.o...ate/post/557873

Quote

By speaking truth to power, I mean that activists are trying to bring an issue to the forefront so that the state will deal with it, preferably in the way that the activists ask them to. Creating a general council in your neighborhood to deal with problems without having to resort to calling the police is the opposite of this. It is creating class power, where as activism destroys class power.

I'm having a problem with your definition of activism.  It shouldn't be limited to state issues -- it can encompass business and people as well.

I'm also not sure how you've concluded that when they give in to us, it destroys our own class power?  When they feel threatened, it makes us weaker?  Again, would you tell an emancipated slave that activism destroys class power?

Finally, I don't really see much difference between our underlying positions.  Threatening the government to let a commune exist is the same thing as threatening the government to stay out of foreign affairs.  I consider both activism.

Quote

The reason why I disagree so much with the mainstream environmental movement, is because their entire agenda is to create a safer, cleaner capitalism. This cannot happen by the very nature of capitalism. It's not the people that are in charge that are the problem, it's the system itself. If you want to save the environment, you're going to have to destroy capitalism. And I say destroy, because you can't reform capitalism out of existence.

Don't you think it would be wise to start confronting some of these problems today, rather than waiting for an end to the state?

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 17 July 2009 - 02:17 AM, said:

The reason I said that your position is one of privilege is because it is very easy to take it when you have not witnessed the effect of activism on your own life, first hand.  You have not been used in the slave trade.  You have not been paid less based on your skin color or gender.  Activism is the most important thing that ever happened to these people, while to you, it's not worth the time because "it makes no difference"..?

I don't get what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "the effect of activism?" You've made this assumption about some vague quasi-religious idea that I can't prove or disprove because I have no idea what you mean.

Also, I would like to know how you consider "activism" to be successful for fighting inequality in today's world, when the things you mentioned are still part of the status quo.

Quote

Activism goes far beyond trying to speak truth to power, as well.  Even if I go by your definition of persuading the state, (I think this definition is more appropriate: http://dictionary.re...browse/activism), then it would still at least need to be acknowledged that activism would educate and motivate other civilians in that process.

Just look at the actions of Tim DeChristopher, who outbid oil companies without the intention to pay, subduing the auction of public land for long enough for Obama to come into power and reject the sale.

http://www.tigblog.o...ate/post/557873

While this is hilarious, how exactly has this built class power? How has it weakened the state? These are the things I am concerned with.

Quote

I'm having a problem with your definition of activism.  It shouldn't be limited to state issues -- it can encompass business and people as well.

It's not limited to state issues. It's limited to power, be it the state or industry.

Quote

I'm also not sure how you've concluded that when they give in to us, it destroys our own class power?  When they feel threatened, it makes us weaker?  Again, would you tell an emancipated slave that activism destroys class power?

Going back to the neighborhood council example. If there is an incident (a fight or something), would calling the cops create a situation where the people of the neighorhood have power in their community, or would it create a situation where they have a false sense of accomplishment? If it was taken care of by the people that live
in the neighborhood, would that be real power?

I honestly don't believe that businesses and the state feel threatened by activists. It makes more sense to me that compromises made with the activist movement are made to keep everyone happy. You notice how it's always small "victories" that activists have?

Quote

Finally, I don't really see much difference between our underlying positions.  Threatening the government to let a commune exist is the same thing as threatening the government to stay out of foreign affairs.  I consider both activism.



Don't you think it would be wise to start confronting some of these problems today, rather than waiting for an end to the state?

I'm not waiting for the end to the state. I am actively working towards it. As I have said, my main concern is finding and employing tactics and strategies that will build genuine class power, and eventually lead to the emancipation of the working class. Some of these tactics may be reformist in nature (such as union strikes), but the reason I am fine with this is because the intent in which we engage in these is because we gain small, short term victories that make our lives a little easier(like slightly higher wages), not because I want to see or create a nicer capitalism.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 17 July 2009 - 02:04 PM, said:

I don't get what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "the effect of activism?" You've made this assumption about some vague quasi-religious idea that I can't prove or disprove because I have no idea what you mean.

I'm asking if you agree that activism can be used as a tool to provide power to groups such as minorities and women?

Quote

Also, I would like to know how you consider "activism" to be successful for fighting inequality in today's world, when the things you mentioned are still part of the status quo.

Activism has had a huge positive impact on our world in the past 100 years.  Something can be successful without it being perfect.

Quote

While this is hilarious, how exactly has this built class power? How has it weakened the state? These are the things I am concerned with.

It has weakened the power of various oil companies by denying them access to public land that they otherwise would have owned and exploited.

Quote

Going back to the neighborhood council example. If there is an incident (a fight or something), would calling the cops create a situation where the people of the neighorhood have power in their community, or would it create a situation where they have a false sense of accomplishment? If it was taken care of by the people that live
in the neighborhood, would that be real power?

In your example above, you said that we should avoid calling the police about a local issue, as it takes the power away from citizens and makes them dependent on their government to solve their problems.  This has some truth to it, and I find your ideology very empowering.  

However, calling the police to solve our problems is quite different from keeping pressure on the state to clean up after its own problems.  To see why, suppose that the people of your community talked to a noisy neighbor about keeping his music levels down.  In this scenario, you are still the ones "taking care of it."  You are still the ones with the real power.  He is merely the one who physically turned the stereo off.
  
The government is a lot like that noisy neighbor.

Quote

I honestly don't believe that businesses and the state feel threatened by activists. It makes more sense to me that compromises made with the activist movement are made to keep everyone happy. You notice how it's always small "victories" that activists have?

I really don't think they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

I'm curious.  Have you read my profile page about activism?

Quote

I'm not waiting for the end to the state. I am actively working towards it. As I have said, my main concern is finding and employing tactics and strategies that will build genuine class power, and eventually lead to the emancipation of the working class. Some of these tactics may be reformist in nature (such as union strikes), but the reason I am fine with this is because the intent in which we engage in these is because we gain small, short term victories that make our lives a little easier(like slightly higher wages), not because I want to see or create a nicer capitalism.

If you support union strikes, then I would definitely say that you care about activism.   I think you gave off a very different impression than you intended in this topic?

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 18 July 2009 - 02:48 AM, said:

I'm asking if you agree that activism can be used as a tool to provide power to groups such as minorities and women?


Activism has had a huge positive impact on our world in the past 100 years.  Something can be successful without it being perfect.

What about in the last 10 years? The world today, and the world 100 years ago are very different, Activism and conventional means of protest no longer have any real impact on today's world. Haha, even the Seattle Riots in '99 that Leftists are so keen to refer to as something special was really just a failure, despite how militant it was.

Hippies, Black Panthers, etc. made huuuuge victories through a lot of activist type actions, but what has happened since then? Not a whole lot. Again, look how many people came out to ask the US government not to invade Iraq.

Quote

It has weakened the power of various oil companies by denying them access to public land that they otherwise would have owned and exploited.

Maybe it did weaken some oil companies a little, but it created a situation where people can say "Look, the government has done something good." Not only do I find the politics of this kid insignificant when compared to social/class war, but I find it distracting from the true nature of the state (like how many people are being killed each day by our government).

I don't believe in weakening one enemy by empowering the other. The State and capital are equally my enemies, and I don't oppose the way they these systems are being run. I oppose the systems themselves.

Quote

In your example above, you said that we should avoid calling the police about a local issue, as it takes the power away from citizens and makes them dependent on their government to solve their problems.  This has some truth to it, and I find your ideology very empowering.  

However, calling the police to solve our problems is quite different from keeping pressure on the state to clean up after its own problems.  To see why, suppose that the people of your community talked to a noisy neighbor about keeping his music levels down.  In this scenario, you are still the ones "taking care of it."  You are still the ones with the real power.  He is merely the one who physically turned the stereo off.
  
The government is a lot like that noisy neighbor.

You are saying that we can have government, capitalism, etc., without many of the problems they have today. I think this is against the inherent nature of both government and capitalism, plus I think the notion of reform is chauvinist. No matter how hard liberal activists try, the system relies on the exploitation of class, people, and nature. You may as well ask a square to be a circle, because you can't ask the most powerful group of people in the world to give up their power. Well you, but you won't get very far.

Activism reaffirms the power of the state, just as people taking care of things in their community outside of conventional means reaffirms their communal power.

Quote

I really don't think they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

They're doing it to stay in power, because they know that they can make a few compromises with middle class, liberal activists and then get away with the rest of their shit. Obama has talked about closing Guantanamo within the next year, which is cool, but no one seems to be paying attention to the fact that he ordered the bombing of Pakistan on his fourth day in office, or the fact that he is increasing the sizes of a couple military prisons within Afghanistan.  

Quote

I'm curious.  Have you read my profile page about activism?

Yes, and I think it is stupid. Especially that part about "radicals" wanting to change the system. There is nothing radical about reform.

Haha Jon called himself radical once.

Quote

If you support union strikes, then I would definitely say that you care about activism.   I think you gave off a very different impression than you intended in this topic?

I don't support activism. I support tactics that get things done. Strikes can get things done(like putting more money in my wallet. Totally down with that).



"But what is most striking, for the time being, is not the arrogance of empire, but rather the weakness of the counter-attack. Like a colossal paralysis. A mass paralysis. Which will sometimes say - when it still speaks - that there is nothing to do, sometimes concede - when pushed to its limit - that "there is so much to do". Which is to say the same thing.

Then, on the fringe of this paralysis, there is the "something, anything, has to be done" of the activists. "

Activism is a dead end. It's time for people who want a new world to move past the conventional strategies that activists have been clinging to for so long.

Plus, I'm tired of rich White liberals assuming they know what's best for poor people.

[Punk Rock Geek]

I haven't quoted your entire post, because I think I'd be repeating myself too much if I did, but I think have I answered all of your questions and points.  Let me know if I missed something.

Quote

You are saying that we can have government, capitalism, etc., without many of the problems they have today. I think this is against the inherent nature of both government and capitalism, plus I think the notion of reform is chauvinist. No matter how hard liberal activists try, the system relies on the exploitation of class, people, and nature. You may as well ask a square to be a circle, because you can't ask the most powerful group of people in the world to give up their power. Well you, but you won't get very far.

Well, I have said that change comes from intimidation.  It's not as simple as "asking".  It needs to be a combination of a number of things.  Everything helps.

I don't think that capitalism will ever fix everything, by the way.

Quote

Activism reaffirms the power of the state, just as people taking care of things in their community outside of conventional means reaffirms their communal power.

If by their communal power, you mean power in comparison to the state, then yes, I would agree.  Just as activism reaffirms one's power in comparison to the state as well.  As with the noisy neighbor example, the ones who can intimidate are the ones with the power.

Quote

They're doing it to stay in power, because they know that they can make a few compromises with middle class, liberal activists and then get away with the rest of their shit. Obama has talked about closing Guantanamo within the next year, which is cool, but no one seems to be paying attention to the fact that he ordered the bombing of Pakistan on his fourth day in office, or the fact that he is increasing the sizes of a couple military prisons within Afghanistan.  

They will only get away with it if we stay silent.  More on that below:

Quote

Yes, and I think it is stupid. Especially that part about "radicals" wanting to change the system. There is nothing radical about reform.

I think you have interpreted "change the system" to mean "work within the system", which is not what is meant.  Continue reading.  What he's describing is clearly an anarchist viewpoint.  He further explains that in order to take credibility away from the radicals, that they should be isolated.  Perhaps what is so interesting about the 60s movement is that the radicals weren't isolated.  Masses were ready for an end to capitalism.  The government was scared to death of revolution.  The constant protests helped others to feel empowered and know that they weren't alone.  

If people remain vocal, we could be headed into that political climate once again soon. (Some places in the world sooner than others.) Furthermore, Obama appears to be a lot more self-conscious than Bush was.  He cares about what people think of him, and he especially wants (being the first black president) to be remembered in a good light.  Bush on other hand, just did whatever God and Cheney told him, and didn't give his approval ratings second notice.

Empowerment is quite possibly the most important part of activism, wouldn't you say so?  You can talk down on activism, but in doing so, you're contributing to its ineffectiveness.  

Quote

Maybe it did weaken some oil companies a little, but it created a situation where people can say "Look, the government has done something good." Not only do I find the politics of this kid insignificant when compared to social/class war, but I find it distracting from the true nature of the state (like how many people are being killed each day by our government).

I too get upset when people give credit to the man and not the movement.  That's why it's important for the movement to be visible and active; so that such mistakes are made less.

Quote

I don't support activism. I support tactics that get things done. Strikes can get things done(like putting more money in my wallet. Totally down with that).

Strikes are a type of activism.  You can't say that you never support activism when you blatantly do.

Quote

"But what is most striking, for the time being, is not the arrogance of empire, but rather the weakness of the counter-attack. Like a colossal paralysis. A mass paralysis. Which will sometimes say - when it still speaks - that there is nothing to do, sometimes concede - when pushed to its limit - that "there is so much to do". Which is to say the same thing.

Then, on the fringe of this paralysis, there is the "something, anything, has to be done" of the activists. "

Activism is a dead end. It's time for people who want a new world to move past the conventional strategies that activists have been clinging to for so long.

Plus, I'm tired of rich White liberals assuming they know what's best for poor people.

What does this have to do with poor people?

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 18 July 2009 - 11:37 PM, said:

I haven't quoted your entire post, because I think I'd be repeating myself too much if I did, but I think have I answered all of your questions and points.  Let me know if I missed something.



Well, I have said that change comes from intimidation.  It's not as simple as "asking".  It needs to be a combination of a number of things.  Everything helps.

I don't think that capitalism will ever fix everything, by the way.



If by their communal power, you mean power in comparison to the state, then yes, I would agree.  Just as activism reaffirms one's power in comparison to the state as well.  As with the noisy neighbor example, the ones who can intimidate are the ones with the power.



They will only get away with it if we stay silent.  More on that below:



I think you have interpreted "change the system" to mean "work within the system", which is not what is meant.  Continue reading.  What he's describing is clearly an anarchist viewpoint.  He further explains that in order to take credibility away from the radicals, that they should be isolated.  Perhaps what is so interesting about the 60s movement is that the radicals weren't isolated.  Masses were ready for an end to capitalism.  The government was scared to death of revolution.  The constant protests helped others to feel empowered and know that they weren't alone.  

I interpret changing the system as changing the system. I do not want to change the system, because I want to get rid of the system. More on this later.

Quote

If people remain vocal, we could be headed into that political climate once again soon. (Some places in the world sooner than others.) Furthermore, Obama appears to be a lot more self-conscious than Bush was.  He cares about what people think of him, and he especially wants (being the first black president) to be remembered in a good light.  Bush on other hand, just did whatever God and Cheney told him, and didn't give his approval ratings second notice.

Empowerment is quite possibly the most important part of activism, wouldn't you say so?  You can talk down on activism, but in doing so, you're contributing to its ineffectiveness.  



I too get upset when people give credit to the man and not the movement.  That's why it's important for the movement to be visible and active; so that such mistakes are made less.




Strikes are a type of activism.  You can't say that you never support activism when you blatantly do.

Intent behind supporting a tactic is the most important thing.

Quote

What does this have to do with poor people?

That last thing about poor people was just something I threw in there because almost every activist type person I've come across has had a "bringing fire to the savages" mentality.


My reply is short because my brother got jumped and we are going to go out and beat the shit out of some kids. I'll reply more later.

[Patrick]

  Anti-Flag and Greenpeace Team Up for the Climate!
Thats good idea  

[freeh]

How disappointing.  I thought this band was smart enough to realize that man-made climate change is a myth.  I just started listening to you guys.  Your new album is great, particularly the song Independence Day.  Hopefully you will figure out that the hysteria of climate change is just another way to suppress the people.  Yeah tyranny.

[James]

freeh, on 22 July 2009 - 08:13 PM, said:

How disappointing.  I thought this band was smart enough to realize that man-made climate change is a myth.  I just started listening to you guys.  Your new album is great, particularly the song Independence Day.  Hopefully you will figure out that the hysteria of climate change is just another way to suppress the people.  Yeah tyranny.

How come I get the feeling that you don't really know what you're talking about?

[Steve]

freeh, on 22 July 2009 - 08:13 PM, said:

How disappointing.  I thought this band was smart enough to realize that man-made climate change is a myth.  I just started listening to you guys.  Your new album is great, particularly the song Independence Day.  Hopefully you will figure out that the hysteria of climate change is just another way to suppress the people.  Yeah tyranny.

"THOSE DARN ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE TRYING TO GET THE CEOs DOWN "