tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.comments2019-11-24T05:41:50.283-08:00We are the CrisisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-30634207092174801342010-02-14T06:42:28.893-08:002010-02-14T06:42:28.893-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-24838251483752339332010-01-21T12:04:10.950-08:002010-01-21T12:04:10.950-08:00Empowerment happens on two levels at least.
First...Empowerment happens on two levels at least.<br /><br />First, we each control our own time and money. We can decide not to work for, buy from, or pay into corporations and governments that exploit. We can choose to consume responsibly only our fair share as world citizens.<br /><br />Secondly, we can form community that supports our positive world vision. We can refuse to play the role of good US citizens in the Chamber of Commerce. We can form local organic food networks and bike co-ops. We can take control of our local governments to build a multi-party democracy from the grassroots.<br /><br />When our City Council is elected through Proportional Representation and our County Executive chosen through Ranked Preference Voting, we set an example for neighboring communities. When local broadcasters, including cable TV, are required to give free and equal air time to every candidate who qualifies by gathering signatures, and our paper ballots are counted before our eyes on election day, we'll be able to trust the results of elections.<br /><br />We've got a lot of work to do, but we have the power to make the world in which we want to live.Vernon Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404360740701984703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-39911534664041262172010-01-10T22:14:21.670-08:002010-01-10T22:14:21.670-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04724521331976124393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-1211446759557664212010-01-10T21:37:38.464-08:002010-01-10T21:37:38.464-08:00Nice post. You extrapolate a lot, and you hyperbol...Nice post. You extrapolate a lot, and you hyperbole everything else. It reads more like a sermon than an intellectual collection of thoughts.<br /><br />You almost had me until you started talking about "taking" things without permission. Seriously? You want to take things that YOU BELIEVE should belong to all? That's your solution? Not, say, using the power of your youth to create a better world for the coming age? Wouldn't it be better if you spent less time lamenting the mistakes of the past and more time preparing for the uncertainties of the future?<br /><br />When I was your age I used to think the same damn thing: the world would be better if we just all got along and took care of each other. It seemed simple to me. Then I grew up and started understanding humans. Not the vague humans that you read about in your history lessons, but the 6 billion plus humans who live in the wordld with me. I would suggets you get out there (you know, outside of the walls of your university, the local club scene, and your parents house) and really SEE humans for what they are. I think that you will be surprised. Not pleasantly, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-13760199041702819652009-12-03T15:03:01.884-08:002009-12-03T15:03:01.884-08:00this is a great piece with some great lines: "...this is a great piece with some great lines: "This is the opposite of the commodity fetish that hid social relations beneath the veneer of objects. Now commodities must advertise the social relations we wish to be part of.... Facebook is the model commodity of this fading decade, since it exposes both our desire for community and the reification of that desire at the same time." the analysis flashes, and mostly works, there are some problems though.<br /><br />for one, i'm not so convinced that the integrative and consolidational functions of the university are so formidably antagonistic. capitalism understands at least some contradictions, and uses them like dynamos. this is not a contradiction of the first order.<br /><br />also, "We need to support unions" wtf????!!! the institutionalization and self-policing of labor struggle is not something to support but to subvert. the only real actions are wildcat actions. otherwise it is just another contained dynamo within the motor of capitalist accumulation. "We should stop expecting everyone to participate only through direct action or on the other hand only through traditionally-organized channels. Our vision must be as broad as possible." broad, or just vague and dualistic?<br /><br />also, the 5 points seem to have missed on the most determined struggles of students, workers and the unemployed in france, greece and china and focus instead on voluntarist activism.<br /><br />i guess it depends on whether you consider revolution as the action of a wilful minority organizing until it eventually encopasses the majority, or as the reflex of a caged animal which is usually blind and subsumed, but will succeed in validating its self-interest when the objective conditions allow. the role of the active minority in this case is not to "organize the masses", but to attack obstacles (in whatever form) to the becoming powerful of the collectivity as a subject counterposed to value accumulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-59780236546624022342009-12-02T10:21:54.784-08:002009-12-02T10:21:54.784-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Benladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06972015735063159831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-60673440298788012572009-12-02T09:20:36.952-08:002009-12-02T09:20:36.952-08:00A Few comments:
First, what made the UC strikes s...A Few comments:<br /><br />First, what made the UC strikes signifcant was not its following of previous occupaiton movements, but in connecting and relating to the grassroots in a serious way.<br /><br />Second, students do not make a distinct status. I find it isolationary to declare this. Students are more of a distinct status (meaning a state of being) rather than a class (as defined by economic and power measurements). There is s significant difference in the chracter of working class universities and bourgeiose universities. Bourgeiose and working class students are not members of the same class. Thier interests are often very different.<br /><br />Third, direct action worked because it was in a larger scope. It reltated to instead of isolated itself from the mass struggle. While those who built the occupations certainly were critical of aspects of the rest of the movement, they did not disown and isolate themselves from it. Demands that were issued under the knowledge that they would not be answered were tragetted at exposing the university for what it was in a clear, concise, and non-confusing manner. This conencted with people. People did not see these demands as something from outerspace. These demands fell in line with what the general sentiment was. These occupations (which really are just sit-ins similar to the 1960s sitins that took over buildings for periods of time) were successful because of the masses, in lieu of ultra-left radicalism. There seems to be a more rational approach here than in past occupations which jumped 5 steps ahead of where the people were at (speaking about ones here in the US). This does not mean that there weren't people who supported them, but they largely failed to coalesce a broader movement or struggle. The cali strikes were really brought on by the conditions and the committed work of longer-term organizations who initiated the statewide work and helped build a movement that could support these occupations and give them a voice outside of the buildings.<br /><br />As far as the last point, yes reaching a revolutionary point is neccessarry, but sometimes you have to get there through a liberal window. This does not mean that you sacrifice your radical politics for it, but being realistic about whre the movement is at is neccessary. Just as a movement is defined by the people in it, a movement also defines the people in it. This is a cyclical process and the Cali folks found an excellent first step in building the movement that had the spaces for liberal types where big picture discussions were held, and also the more radical actions like the sit-ins and the blockade of the cars at UCLA. With both of these working togehter, you can radicalize folks - make it easy for them to get involved, radiocalize them through education and action.wcstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510659594397634502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-65872644584060915282009-12-02T08:17:59.720-08:002009-12-02T08:17:59.720-08:00We also should not just make a soft commitment to ...We also should not just make a soft commitment to these three goals, but talk about conrete ways of achieving them, beyond simple praise and rhetoric. Student-Worker schools are great, but I dont see them as being sustainable given the conservative nature of the labor leadership who would crack down and take away financing. Students should be interested in engaging in these protracted labor struggles to make changes and reform the labor movement. I dont think it is in step with reality at this point to see this idea as sustainable without a serious reform of the labor movement. Of course all of these things can eb done at the same time, but it is better to have these frank discussions and highlight areas that need work in order to create sustainable change.<br /><br /><br /><br />I am not sure what you are getting at with your criticque of culture. All culture is formed in whole or part by economics. This has always been the case, even in tribal sistuations that have not /weren't touched by modern capitalism. It is importnat to have alternaative culture, but just having it isn't enough. It needs to means something to the people, it needs a mass movement to create space and motivate artists in that direction. Culture can help inspire and shape a movement, but it cannot repalce the on-the-ground work that goes into building it. I am not sure what your point is here. A liberating culture will come part-in-parcel with a liberating movement, both coming together at the same time (reject chicken or egg). And I think Marvin gaye was a great singer. If he had been in more radical times, his music would have been more radical (for instance there is a massive amount of pre 1950s labor singers, a number which far surpasses that number today).<br /><br /><br /><br />I am also not sure what you mean in saying that we have more to learn from what seems to be more recent actions than previous ones. Time/historical location has no bearing on success. Recent actions only reveal more recent conditions and previous struggles in the modern context. I think there is a lot to learn from the failures of everything - if we are to found our politics on critical thinking no matter the cost - but different things offer different lessons. Just because one thing has happened more recently than something else doesnt mean it was a step forward or more significant. Not talking about a specific example here, but in general.<br /><br /><br /><br />I would briefly state that though I agree with a lot of points, that there are some points where a romantic tone is taken. I have seen this be used to dillute reality. Yes, the student movement that could start from the cali occupations , but right now any movement along this line is very weak at best. It could coalsece, but that has not happened yet, sdo we shouldn't romanticize what has happened as it does not contribute to critical discussions on how to move forward.<br /><br /><br /><br />I think the closing comments on what a new movement would be are totally correct. Sectrianism has destroyed movements and a broad, non-sectarian vision is neccessarry. The traditional sense of leadership (ie vanguardism and party-central politics) have failed. They can be replaced by leadership from below - rank and file struggles to challenge the system.<br /><br /><br /><br />I am unclear as to what the meaning of we are the crisis means. Certainly we could create a crisis against the leadership of the movement and capital, but this is not currently the case. I think this romantic language dillutes reality more than it clarifies it. However, the sentiment is right on. What do you mean by this in explicit terms?wcstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510659594397634502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500814590346295613.post-62419511962110160142009-12-02T08:17:42.300-08:002009-12-02T08:17:42.300-08:00Some good points here, some confusing arguements, ...Some good points here, some confusing arguements, I want to offer some non-sectarian political criticism of some points and agreements with others.<br /><br /><br /><br />First, There was no concrete evidence that we would have similar or better futures than our parents. In fact, economic indicators clearly show a downward trend since 1973 in Real wages (+Benefits) as well as several other impiortant indicators. Our parents have had decreasing success over this time, and the idea that we would have a better future than them is more of an illusion to convince us to pay for higher ed than it is a reality.<br /><br /><br /><br />You refer to cuts in the past tense. THe California cuts represent what is to come for other states. As the world's tenth largest economy, California struck first on the level that can be expected coming out of the crisis. This is an ongoing crisis for the working class despite the recent financial recovery in the markets, much thanks to the 20 trillion directly invested into capital by governments accross the globe - a sort fo keynesian method for the ruling class. Now that there is a financial recovery, governments will be seeking a reduction in state expenditures to cover the deficits, using the crisis as an excuse to make cuts they have wanted all along. This all falls in line with the neoliberal agenda - by cutting state financing to education (and other places), institutions are forced to look for more private finance. It is doubtful that any of the adminstrations of these institutions will fight back. In turn, these cuts facilitate a privitization of the univserity in line with neoliberal economic policies - the dominate ideology since Regean.<br /><br /><br /><br />The areas that are not cut are decided by these private investors. That is why UC Berkeley's nuke program is not being cut. As long as there is private financing of education, these decisionswill continue to be made by these private enterprises with thier investment dollars.<br /><br /><br /><br />I generally agree with your sentiment on "old tactics", but there is significance to mass marches and rallies. They offer a safe space for at-risk workers (undocumented, perole, etc.) and can ID new people when they are done through high-traffic or populated areas. This has not been the case for recent anti-war demos that have been more focused on making political statements (marching to the pentagon, around the DC mall) then reachin out to communities and marching to say - a recruitment station, etc. Sure these wouldn't be a big draw for national demos, but it could be included in such an action, though not made the dominante part of it. Petitions and calls to congress are, however, useless in the long run and I agree with you on that point. They are defeatist in the sense that when you conduct them you are often left defeated without realizing the power of united action.<br /><br /><br /><br />You mentioned how our activism is sold to us - Capital will sell you the revolution if they can. That is nothing new, its just thier ability to do it has expanded.<br /><br /><br /><br />Why did traditional activism fail? I would argue that it has less to do with the tactics (the 60s was very militant) and more to do with the leadership - that is top-down. I would argue that a movement does need leadership, but not in the traditional sense. It needs leadership from the bottom - rank anf file action.<br /><br /><br /><br />I would question whether the "three radical goals" of the university were ever taken seriously by any of them. It is more a way to setup a progressive guise to hide the inequality and injustice that exists in a system that is designed at its core to train the next generation of worker, making them more competitive on the global market. Yes these are ghood goals to have, but we should be clear that they were not goals of the university, even at its inception. If founder said they were, they were either unrealistic pipe-dreams or simple rhetoric. All systems are guided by economics, if not outright controlled by them - universities, too.wcstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510659594397634502noreply@blogger.com