Christ, more of this presumptious, arrogant bullshit. Hey eric, could you please explain to me exactly what my fantasies are? And--excuse my frustration--but what the fuck do you know about my personal experiences or personal knowledge?
>I can see lots
>of overgeneralization ("most of them hailing from an American
>middle-class..." "American "leftists" and "activist" are not really
>interested in sacrificing anything..." "most reform struggles...")
Granted, there have been no scientific studies of this, but are there any experienced "activists" on this list who do not believe that a solid majority of "activist" were raised in the middling classes or live a fairly comfy middle-class lifestyle? Or, to put it another way, does anybody really think that most "activists" are poor people? If so, maybe we have very different ideas of what an constitutes an "activists." The only national movement that I can think of in recent times that has had a relatively high percentage of poor folk involvement (primarily in the South and Southwest) is the environmental justice movement (which is now, after being purchased by the foundations and the EPA, largely a dead movement).
Re: sacrifice: Many on this list were inspired, I am sure, by the courage of Black men and women of the Black Freedom Movement of the 60's who were willing to risk their lives in the struggle against American apartheid. Now, how many "activist" today feel that passionate about the struggle against capital, or anything for that matter? Ken: This summer, as a part of my work with Project HIP-HOP (Highways into the Past, History, Organizing, Power) I spent three weeks in the South meeting a number of "activists" who were involved in the Black Freedom Struggle. All of them spoke (I think unfairly at times) of how today's young folk have no political direction or vision, no passion for change, and, therefore, no willingness to sacrifice. Clearly, many people in the Black Freedom Struggle saw their objective as a sacred one and, hence, were willing put their lives on the line for it ("sacrifice" is, of course, from the Latin "sacrificium" meaning "sacred") What do today's"activists" hold sacred?
As for me, as a recovering "activists" and "leftists," (who, yes, grew up in the so-called "middle-class"), I'm realizing how my American optimism has interfered with my ability to truly appreciate what it really means to sacrifice. Which is to say that I've not--in my eyes at least--sacrificed very much and I am trying to learn what it really means to sacrifice--intelligently, strategiacally--given my idealogical committments. If the "activists" and the "leftists" were really any threat to the American Imperium--that is, if they were really willing to sacrifice the comforts of their daily lives in the struggle against capital and all it's derivitave phenomenah--"there would be a hell of a lot more of them in jail on trumped up (or not) charges today. As an "activists" I was not, nor were any of my comrades, a significant threat to established power. Currently, as an Abolitionists agitator, I'm still not a real threat to our rulers and neither are any other Abolitionists. But I am, we are, struggling to resolve that situation. A big part of that involves having, as Tennessee Williams used to say, to sacrifice a lot of my "little darlings" in the process (like my identities as a "leftist," "progressive," "Marixist," and "activists"). It's painful, lonely, and unsexy work but necessary if I am to honor the labor of those who have risked much and sacrificed in the name of freedom and justice.
> I also see lots of loopy logic
>("Both "activism" and the "left" need to die in order for a disciplined,
>creative, morally and ethically anchored, un-sentimental, revolutionary
>anti-captialist, pro-democracy opposition to be born")
Well, it might be a run-on sentence but what's loopy about this, eric? Pleas, I'd really like to know. Or do you just disagree?
>that barely masks a
>directionless critique of leftists.
What's directionless about my critique? And if you have read my other posts, you might realize that I am not at all intersted in masking my critique of the left. I think the "left" is way to fuzzy a concept to be of use to any movement that is not interested in repeating the mistakes of movements past.
>This may be irrelevent info, but I remember Christopher posting in the past
>that he wants to burn down the prisons in Washington, DC (percentage of
>black inmates, 90) that he wants to enable a rather poor neighborhood of DC
>to set up its own radio station (percentage of black population, 80), and
>that the signature on some of his posts has been "The New Abolitionists."
>Maybe all this was cheeky, but I dont think so; I took him seriously.
It is irrelevant so why did you bring it up? It this an attempt to make me sound like some kind of wacko? And your memory of what I wrote is falty in a very intereting--that is, self-serving--way.
>And
>of course none of this means he isn't a racist,
First of all, I don't follow this. Second, do you think I could be a racist, eric? Are you in the "Black people can be racist, too" camp?