"activism"

[Alex LoCascio]

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:50:59 EST Apsken at aol.com writes:

>This, and his "workerist" slurs as justification for inaction reflect a
>seriously flawed political outlook. 

"Workerist?"  Huh?  Is workerism the notion that any successful
revolution must be largely working class in origin?  If so, then I
suppose I'm guilty of being a "workerist," although I could've sworn the
term was "Marxist."

>Yet this same fellow was slagging me a
>while ago for engaging in mass anti-fascist activity that conflicted
with
>Saint Noam's view of free speech. In that instance, remoteness from
struggle
>was presented as more virtuous than engagement.

Um, no.  That's just plain wrong.  I did take issue with your slandering
of Noam Chomsky, but I didn't say anything about your own "anti-fascist
activity."  You had that fight with another list denizen, and I'll thank
you not to drag me into it.

>what place is so isolated
>from struggle that it can justify Alex's abstention? Do you live at the
North
>Pole?

Good guess.  No, Charlotte, NC.  As I've said before, the only activity
going on (other than the current strike at Continental General Tire) is
largely Clintonite or Democratic Party based.  Like I said in an earlier
post, helping to get out the vote for Democratic congressional candidates
or protesting a speech by Ken Starr is not useful activity, not even in a
reformist sense.  In fact, it's counterproductive.   

>If the only legitimate struggles are those of sanctified, certified
(male?
>white?) class-conscious workers, excepting the odd Central America
solidarity
>movement, what does that leave for independent mass action by oppressed
people
>of color, women, youth, the elderly, and so forth? 

Oh please.  Don't put words in my mouth.  I never said anything about the
only struggles being those sanctified by white, male, class-conscious
workers.  

I was born to an "opressed woman of color," but you'd probably accuse her
of being a "workerist" too, seeing as how she was a steward for her union
and all.  

>If one is blind to the expoitation and oppression in his own
>community, how can he dare to scold anyone else for engaging in the 
>struggles he shuns?

Look, buddy.  I'm not blind to the exploitation and oppression in my own
community.  But movements happen for specific reasons.  Workers form
unions because they can no longer tolerate being treated like shit by
their bosses.  People of color demand social and economic justice because
they can no longer tolerate being second class citizens.  Unions go on
strike because they don't want to make concessions and/or get shafted
with a lousy contract.

You can't MAKE a movement happen out of sheer voluntarism.  Movements are
contingent upon  circumstances.  In my particular locale, things haven't
reached the point where the exploited and oppressed have decided to
organize into any sort of "movement."  I'm not about to go force them
too.  When the time comes, I'll be there giving my full support.  Don't
scold me for not engaging in struggles when there are no struggles to be
found.

I already mentioned the strike by the USWA.  If they have any need for
me, they'll reach me and I'll give them 100% of my energies.  But I'm not
going to walk into the union hall uninvited and start telling them how to
do things.  

>Rather than studying Karl Marx's writings, if this is its pathetic
>consequence, I would recommend reading biographies and memoirs of
radical
>activists to learn how to engage in political activity. 

I'm reading Trotsky's autobio right now.  Does he count as a "radical
activist?"  Or would you accuse him of being a "workerist?"

Oh, and I'm reading it IN TANDEM with Marx's writings.  No need to junk
the master to make room for other stuff.



___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]