Activists
by Monolycus
lifted
from a comment
"How do activists enable the reich-wing to get away with immoral/illegal activites?"
We've tried to discuss this before. Short answer: by being idiots. By being as divisive as humanly possible while pursuing counter-productive courses of action. By turning people off of doing the sensible thing and appearing as insensible as possible. By thinking that chanting and holding a picket sign is going to make people think about your cause and not simply shake their head in disgust and walk away. In short, by repelling anyone who could support us. By being the kinds of people nobody would want to be associated with.
Ever seen a "Truth.com" ad on television where snotty teenagers make asses of themselves as they mouth vapidities about how smoking is bad for you? That's actually damned effective activism... for tobacco companies. Look at the recent "open weekend thread" where oh-so-enlightened Leftists discuss their contempt for the poor working classes (well, more specifically, the white, male working poor)... baldly declaring their refusal to associate themselves with the very people whose support is most needed to accomplish their goals!
When people think "Left-wing activists", they think about dirty, smelly hippies with too much time on their hands, or they think of effete, out-of-touch, upper middle class academics with too much time on their hands. And we have ourselves to blame for this perception because we have done everything we can to reinforce it. And it does not make the mass of humanity want to rally around our cause. It drives people away. It causes people to gravitate towards people like Bush... who are themselves more blue-blooded than any academic snob, but are marketed as beer-drinking, pickup-driving Everymen... none too bright, mind you, but someone not afraid to roll up their sleeves. In short, someone a hell of a lot more accessible to genuine Everymen than Cindy Sheehan, who comes across as one of those crispy-crunchy granola flower children who thinks a drum circle and a good chant of kum-ba-ya is going to make everyone's problems disappear.
Right now, plenty of people are disabused of the notion that the GOP has their best interests at heart. Why aren't they coming out in droves to support progressive causes? Because they would rather be raped and robbed blind than be associated with the out-of-touch "loony Left"... a Left that has done everything it can to exclude them, anyway. Some days, I look around and find it difficult to blame them. About the only thing the Right hasn't cornered the market on yet is hypocrisy (not for lack of trying, mind you). If we on the Left want to be genuinely effective, we need to think about these things. And it is not just a PR concern. We don't work and play well with others... hell, have you been reading this site? We don't even work and play well amongst ourselves.
I've said here before that action for the sake of action is stupid and counterproductive. We need to stop acting reflexively because it causes others to reflexively tune out what we're saying. When we can work in concert with one another and be inclusive instead of exclusive... when we can pursue specific and realistic goals and stop being distracted by every new shiny object in the news... when we can present a coherent and viable opposition (and no, Virginia. "Because we're not those guys" is not good enough!)... then we might be able to make a damned difference. Or at least stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
---
The above comment was based on this exchange: M, jj, M, jj, a Billmon piece and this quote:
Conyers thanked Odom and Pillar but said that he and his colleagues who agree with him cannot convince other Congress Members. "There's one thing that gets to members, and that's constituents...." In the end, Conyers said, the question is how do we get more of our people to tell their representatives that the Progressive Caucus members are right?
Posted by b on October 1, 2006 at 18:05 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageSloth: It's hard to surprise anyone here. All events are met with practiced outrage. But my point in quoting Orwell was not to agree with him, but to show how long this plausible argument has been made. So I disagree with Monolycus about the long haired hippies. I agree with him about the smug academics who have a totally unfounded confidence in the utility of their blather and a genuine contempt for the working class.
The problem with the left seems to me to be a conjunction of things. Bookchin was right in pointing out the devastating effect of the marxists, with their dull certainties, arrogance, fondness for pointless intrigue, and virulent obscurism.
Posted by: citizen k | Oct 4 2006 3:59 utc | 102
Ah, the Brits obsess about class like Americans obsess about race.
True true Citizen K, but theres fine-tune to this.
First, race is class, just a different form of class from landed, wealth or gentry.
Also, its more the uppper-class Brits and wannabes thats obsessed with class.
As for the rest of the Brits, they're pretty much bound by their cultural values. They are actually moreso the custodians of the culture than the folks in the manor or upscale parts. And they (many if not most) would rather share their class vibes with others than aspire to some other class.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 4 2006 4:08 utc | 103
I have no idea who the poster called groucho was, but I'm discovering a new respect for him or her. There was a time when I thought that slothrop's cryptic and snide little "contributions" were just white noise, irritating but harmless, and could not fathom the degree of animosity that he or she was able to inject into the most casual conversations or why people would continue to allow one noisy idiot to derail any analytic progress. I very much get it now, and a personal failing of mine is that I do hold grudges.
I am glad that you are satisfied that you have "...demonstrated in a decisive way the disabling contradictions in monolycus' moa oeuvre"; I am satisfied that the only thing you have decisively demonstrated is the depths to which a person in a prolonged psychosocial moratorium may plunge. If you have made such a profound and "decisive" case against me as you credit yourself, you can sit back and stop making noise now. When one gets to the punch line, one stops telling the joke. Now would be the time for you to treat me as persona non grata instead of running from thread to thread behind me like some kind of endlessly pontificating terrier.
slothrop, you have come to epitomise in my mind one very specific aspect of the problem I addressed in the rant that Bernhard lifted here. You embody everything divisive about effete, ivory-tower, academia while bringing nothing to the table save your own self-congratulations. Bernhard wanted us to remain civil while we discussed things, and I am ashamed to say that I not capable of doing that.
In the end, your persistent petulance has reinforced my basic argument. I will work... I will "do" things... with people who are much less theoretically consistent than others, but who are capable of getting along with their fellow human beings and keeping themselves focused on a greater goal than the simple padding of their own ego. You and I, on the other hand, could not work together without unproductive violence ensuing.
Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 4 2006 5:07 utc | 105
*cue irrelevant and snide retort from slothrop here*
Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 4 2006 5:20 utc | 106
Sorry to be contributing so little to such a worthwhile discussion.
Thanks to Monolycus and b for kicking it off, and to DeAnander for giving such a vivd picture of the "warm" approach of acting like a human being rather than a recruiter. You can hardly ever change someone's mind for the better while they are unhappy.
So it matters that we make beautiful music, or motions, or something else fascinating. These are the kinds of gifts I count on from rememberinggiap when he is light, and beq and b real from time to time. And ultimately the most convincing thing about the left is that it is alive, vivid, beautiful despite all the smells and hair and effette weirdness, or whatever. Jane Fonda had to be attacked because she was so desirable. Likewise ourselves. When we make ourselves a source of happiness, then we are dangerous.
That Buddhist monk who immolated himself in Vietnam around 4 decades ago, it was shocking because he was first a beautiful soul. Not easy to face life so vividly. But I think it is our job.
P.S.This was interrupted by a terrific storm and I got involved in it. Hope it's still relevant 24 hours later.
Posted by: citizen | Oct 4 2006 6:01 utc | 107
from his literary lazyboy lounge i imagine citizen k will insult everything in marxism from theold german jew himself - to the vulgar but interesting objections of a raymond williams or an e p thompson - ck attack continental marxism with a brush so vast that i cannot see the thinkers who s/he is talking about
in my reading of an althusser, a jamieson, or a poulantzes - what i most learn about is doubt - not the certitudes - ck claims are inherent to the territory
& doubt & interrogation are the most useful tools in the hours we are living
tho i do not see the confusion that brother slothrop see in the post of monolycus - on the contrary i see a real research & i feel largely in this thread that is what is being done
but one point of slothrops need to be guarded carefully - theory is a tool - it is simple as that - it is as dialectical as that - they can either be used or not - the writing of the best of them was never an exercise in vanity & i think sometimes ck's interventions are exactly that - exercises in vanity that one often finds in the law (i've never mistaken you for a prof dear ck - but i imagined - a lawyer perhaps - a litigation specialist - because they need the kind of cynicism which has always been a part of the libertarian baggage) - but i am not so without ears that i cannot hear that you offer much of value tho we may be on opposite sides of the bridge
of course deananders & b real's position is closer to my own - tho i might dream of valiant cadre marching through the streets of the americas i know well that reality & i know in these hourse what is required is invention
& however we arrive at the invention & intervention is surely a result of the polyphonies available to us here
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 12:01 utc | 108
& ck speaks of practiced outrage
what the fuck does s/he think the reaction ought to be to the daily spread we are faced with
i have been political all my life - but i am confounded by the day to day massacre that passes from the practice of politics in our era
i would suggest as long as that outrage is connected to practice - that it serves as one of the motors of engagement - consciousness-practical conciousness-consciousnees
again i'd like to suggest the book by tran duc thao - one because it is useful & the other because theory has the capacity to bring beauty & wonder
deanander - have you moved out of the beast yet - have you moved northwards
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 12:58 utc | 109
@R'giap
If DeAnander does move north, he/she would only be moving from one stomach to another
Posted by: gmac | Oct 4 2006 13:22 utc | 110
monolycus
the least you could do is try to defend your position, if you can find it.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 4 2006 14:34 utc | 111
Wolfman:
Don't take these morons seriously. This is not life here in cyberspace, this is logorrhea. I disagree with your thesis but I certainly sympathize with your wish to do something more than just ride the plane all the way down to the gound. Me too. What do you care what I think, or they? Keep up the good work.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 4 2006 14:53 utc | 112
we are not here to win prizes nor indulge in self aggrandisement
i thought we were here to refine our modes of thinking, & locate & transfrom our methods of action
unless there is evidence to the contrary - i think we are all brothers & sisters here
heated debate & even firestorms between us are welcome if they open up the dialectic
i may be a little too affective but someteimes the waterfront you & ck cover is tainted with an edge of cruelty
we do not have to hit each other over the head with a baton to insist on our correctness
i understand what dea & stan goff might be interested in the maoist 'mass line' but as i've suggested on other occasssion - it would be well to read lin piao(biao) on that question - the city & the country
there is not a little of the questions of affinity in the work of piao that finds itself in the texts of toni negri
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 14:53 utc | 113
jfl
if this is logorrhea, then i'd suggest you have nolt been reading your new york times et al carefully enough
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 14:57 utc | 114
rgiap
look it, if monolycus makes claims without evidence contradicted by things he's said elsewhere proclaiming his confidence about his "politics" denouncing "the left," then he should be held accountable in our effort to learn from each other.
but his response as always is denouncement using another unverified claim he is smarter than everyone else here. it's fucking annoying.
but I and deanander (in her somewhat different way) seem to be the only ones challenging mono. and i'll admit i'm very surprised by the limited response which will only encourage monolycus to boldly repeat his mistakes.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 4 2006 15:21 utc | 115
@slothrop
and you think you can knock him off his [link deleted] throne?
[Link deleted by b.]
Posted by: | Oct 4 2006 15:44 utc | 116
brother slothrop
in these times, the workers of material & those of the immaterial are obliged by the (outrageous) practices of the empire & its jackals - to pass through a multitude of strategies, much like we use theory - that is to say - i will take anything from herb gintis, paole freire, the liberation theologists, the althusserian positivist of the american academy, i will use poulantzes, i will use anything that comes to hand
i will not, use the theoretical(practices) of a heidegger, or a strauss, or a schmitt or a cioran because their work is based almost entirely on forms of exclusion & a priveleging of the elites, a chosen few. when a few years back both here & at the whisky bar i thought the claims for the grandeur of these thinkers & would include hannah arendt in their number, is overstated. wittgenstein sd in 20 words what it took all of them to say in a library of books & he sd it with more precision. their importance resides in their influence & their control of that part of the appareil which is concerned either with policy or administration. & these thinkers serve them well because at base you can fuck up practically all the time because only you can understand - what the real meaning of events is - & in any case the mass, the herd, the mob are of little concern other than as victims
i claimed then & i claim now that behind their thinking is a hatred of the people so deep that it infers support for genocidal practice - that is to say, they imagine the african masses as expendable, they have shown in lebbanon & iraq - how unconcerned they are with the death of arabs
& where these men wrote & where their disciples function - they have shown clealry their contempt for the underclass who deserve nothing more than what rupert murdoch will give them
other than these exclusionary thinkers - whatever that is on offer - is possible to be used & transformed into a living practice
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 15:54 utc | 118
please people , this is degenerating
i'll admit i'm very surprised by the limited response
this has moved way over my head. are you recruiting now? must we all come down on one side or the other and face off? is this constructive anymore?
Posted by: annie | Oct 4 2006 16:00 utc | 119
the profile and size of the leftist element has been affected by more important factors than how they look or dress:
and some are:
- corporate manipulation of lifestyles/thinking to favor self-oriented-ism and idealized-consumerism
- lacking strategies by the left to drive economies-of-scale (as the right has done succcessfully)
- greater mobility and loss of community feeling
- corporations-are-us mentality - hence groupthink & deference
- negative framing of the left by corporate media
- negative right-wing tainting/distortion of the left and leftist positions/issues
- variety of fears/insecurities driving the circle-the wagons" syndrome
- no personal stake in war issues (i.e no draft)
and I could go on
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 4 2006 16:47 utc | 120
They can manipulate and taint and frame and frighten but I still think there are more of 'us' than 'them' and we're not wearing uniforms.....
well maybe a flowered toga or two.
;)
Posted by: beq | Oct 4 2006 16:57 utc | 121
No togas, but I have tie-dyed a t-shirt or two (that wouldn't fit anymore ;p)
Posted by: gmac | Oct 4 2006 17:20 utc | 122
We should be careful of ideology falling into the typical forms of caricature. The marxists among us wafting into a grey mono tone of on demand conformity, the libratarian, and liberal the naive and hapless enablers of fascism. Its uncomfortable at this crossroad, is freedom simply discrimination or is equality nothing more than conformity? Most interesting, but lets be careful.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 4 2006 17:26 utc | 123
annie & anna
I'd like when possible to beat back when I can the post this & that anti-theory theory found in litcrit, comp lit, anthropology, etc in which diversity and confusion of discourse is thought to produce freedom and effective confrontation against the organized power of capital. if i ask for an othodoxy, it is against this kind of bourgeois fantasy.
but i have nothing against ck's jaded world view because I9'm certain if we promise him a nice place to read willa cather while listening to the collected works of jean luc ponty, we'll have a nice world.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 4 2006 17:42 utc | 124
breal
i'm going to read castells at long last. we should talk about it.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 4 2006 17:44 utc | 125
Re: 116 & 115
b real, quite the detective, however, this action has rubbed my sense of 'fair play' the wrong way. I have purposely stayed neutral, ney, absent from this discussion, which as annie has sd, seems to be degenerating into alliances of pawns. Us or them choose your side. Perhaps Sir Karl Popper was right: beliefs are not 'package deals' where if you support A you will always support B.
I was a bit taken aback by this act of getting personal, e.g., bringing someones picture into play.
I will state it panely, I am not an afficionado of slothrop's ideals nor Citizen K's, at best, I take what I like and leave the rest. Some may wish to be the vox populi, but as the saying goes, "The only intelligent way to discuss politics is on all fours. And I am not a dog that comes when called.
It seems this has evolved past the Gentleman's Agreement.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 4 2006 18:37 utc | 126
I have no need to defend myself from your sick little projections, slothrop. You consistently twist and convolute everything anyone says to fit your pathological little worldview and see only what you wish to. Your "theory" isn't a tool; you are. I'm gratified to hear from you that you find me "fucking annoying"... it's more than reciprocated. I'm through with you and your self-absorbed, narcissistic, unproductive gibberish. Waste someone else's time.
*cue irrelevant and snide retort from slothrop*
And yes, b real. Congratulations. You found an old picture of me. Not that it's anyone's business, but that wasn't a toga, it was a blanket. That picture was taken as a model for a painting I was working on and a friend persuaded me to post it on an online community that I used to frequent.
Hope your proud of yourselves. I doubt I would have received blows quite this low on a right wing site. Way to show me how wrong I am about the Left not being hateful, divisive and scornful of their own allies.
Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 4 2006 22:19 utc | 127
The way you people are going at it here, I'll soon change my pseudonym to LordOfTheFlies.
Slothrop: any minute now it's "five minutes to Wopner".
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 4 2006 22:57 utc | 128
i dremt i saw joe hill last nigh alive as you & me
sd i to joe you did not die i did not die sd he
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 4 2006 23:01 utc | 129
WTF?
i'm not on anyone's side. but jeez, this just proves one of monolycus' points about the left being (un)able to work together.
reminds me of one of the planning meetings for a united for peace and justice march in new york where everyone has an agenda except the one that has been set for the evening.
i'm with uncle on this. monolycus, hey, at least you're a good looking guy - this could have been a lot worse. however, in the name of fairness, i think b real should treat us to a photo of himself. ;-)
Posted by: conchita | Oct 4 2006 23:33 utc | 130
You know, I could do a different Life of Brian quote here. But honestly - a thread about how the Left can't work together, turning into a thread demonstrating how the Left can't work together? Shocking.
People come together, work together, can make common cause when pushed by outside stressors. Here at the Moon, we have a light stressor which pushes us together via, originally, billmon's writings. It'll take something more directly threatening or desperate to get us working together. Like, say, r'giap's computer.
Posted by: Rowan | Oct 4 2006 23:55 utc | 131
Monolycus - What I said was not to offend. [make note: emoticons don't always work] I loved seeing the picture and I always read and think about your comments. Sorry slothrop, my feeble brain doesn't always get yours. But I respect everyone at the bar.
Guess I'll eat worms. Again.
Posted by: beq | Oct 5 2006 0:18 utc | 132
& if it need be uttered here - i think that those posters who offer their prolific & considered posts (whether i agree with them, or not) are already engaging in 'action' & an 'action' always worthy of our attention
& i see no enemies here, none at all - just a very wide circle of friends as phil ochs might have sung on his magnificent,' pleasures of the harbour'
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 5 2006 0:35 utc | 134
Folks,
I hate to pour a ton of ice water on this love fest or bite fest or whatever it is.
You here are 50-100 people max. Not enough mass to make any difference at all--spread across 3-4 continents. Or scare the hell out of a lilliputian-tcup chihuahua fascist, for that matter.
You are a very small group.
I don't personally believe that talking about things--the same things for three years--really accomplishes anything, except perhaps the development of a sad leftists' web ring or circular firing squad or whatever.
I haven't said anything much here for 2 months, but saw this thread and added my 2 cents.
I have valued the discussions here, in the past--best I've ever seen. But if you cannot engage in discourse civilliy, or figure out a way to control the very few irritants to civil discourse here, then it might be best to pack it in.
Take Care
Posted by: Ms. M. | Oct 5 2006 1:03 utc | 135
By God I bet she jumped off a cliff! Been precariously close to the precipice for a long time that most civil of ladies...
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 5 2006 1:22 utc | 136
I don't see incivility here. maybe a lack of humor. and some whining over a failed defense of opinion. and a lack of movement in thought? my my ms manners, you must learn to know a dialectician when you meet one.
and that picture? that was a stroke of pure fucking genius.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 5 2006 2:01 utc | 138
Sloth: I find your comments increasingly hard to take because they often seem to contain little except a bald assertion of the superiority of your "method", whatever it is.
RGiap: "& ck speaks of practiced outrage
what the fuck does s/he think the reaction ought to be to the daily spread we are faced with
Ain't that the question? I wish I knew. What should the reaction be? Practiced outrage seems to be nothing more than self-amusement.
Posted by: citizen k | Oct 5 2006 3:23 utc | 139
some of y'all could stand to lighten up. sorry about the little jab, monolycus, but a pinch of humility can be good medicine if you know how to take it.
and what's this talk of taking sides or that this discussion is somehow imploding, living up to "conventional wisdom" that "the left" cannot work together? nonsense. as if there's one theoretical practice that everyone must adhere to. c'mon. i thought that several of the posters in this thread already did a bang up job of pointing out the fallacies in that type of thinking. as if there's one left. social movements are unpredictable enough, it's a futile effort to think that we can do all of our planning first and only then shift to practice/action. action has to be ongoing. there is nothing wrong about acting for the sake of action. struggle & analysis happen concurrently. there's a quote from alfred north whitehead that comes to mind, we cannot think first and act afterwards. from the moment of birth we are immersed in action and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought. consciousness results from experiencing. political consciousness requires political acts. you'll paralyze yourself if you worry about what others think about how you act on something you deeply believe in. plus, it ruins all the fun. there is no ego in revolution.
Posted by: b real | Oct 5 2006 3:24 utc | 140
I lifted Monolycus comment because I thought it made some very good points (I still do). To recap ...
"How do activists enable the reich-wing to get away with immoral/illegal activites?"We've tried to discuss this before. Short answer: by being idiots. By being as divisive as humanly possible while pursuing counter-productive courses of action. By turning people off of doing the sensible thing and appearing as insensible as possible.
In my view, the behaviour of some folks in this thread has definitly proven the above to be correct.
Thread closed.
The comments to this entry are closed.
i'm not surprised, citizen k, you defend at some different level of certainty, the confusions monolycus offers.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 4 2006 3:31 utc | 101