>><...> Why bother to worry overmuch what these people think, if
>>they more or less go along with the status quo?
>this begs the question: why aren't you among most people? what makes you
>different than most people? what got you here to this point, this point of
>caring more than the average jack scotchenwater?
I'm not sure where you see my fallacy; my question to Max involved asking why he thought activists, especially the more violent ones, should take into account the reactions of "average" people who, from my experience, "go with the flow" of capitalism i.e. they're not mad boosters for it, but they don't do or even say anything negative about it (they might complain about bad bosses or situations, but just chalk such things up to "life"). Is the purpose of your questions to make me realize that my consciousness came out of previous experiences of injustice and protest, no matter how far removed they are/were from me?
>i am of mixed opinions as to how to handle this issue. i was so interested
>in it because of my own involvement in various kinds of activism, and begin
>acutely aware of how schism over the issue had torn apart to social
>movements that i'd been involved in, that i made it the subject of my first
>research project in grad school.
>i am also of mixed opinion because i see a connection here between this
>issue and the nature of oppression, which i see as the double-edged sword,
>damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>i made rather clear, however, how i felt about violence specifically. i
>don't think it's an expedient tactic at the moment. i do, however, disagree
>with those who outright reject violence at all time. i am cynical as to
>whether we'll see any sort of massive social change in our lifetimes, let
>alone this century. but i do think that change will, eventually, involve
>and require the use of violence.
Oh, if you're just talking about the tactical use of violence, I personally agree with all you said above: violence and it's uses doesn't impress me much. Max just seemed to say, in essence, "How's that gonna look to the folks back home?" using a "hearts and minds" logic. And I argue that if the folks back home at least passively accept capitalism and oppression (for various reasons, although the one that concerns me is: because one can do pretty well by it), then why should activists worry what the Mass thinks (hmm, this is starting to look like vanguardism, even to me, but one must have a bellwether/judas goat in any mass movement for change).
>>3) Max and Kelley: see 1) but in the context of the sheer ignorance most
>>people have of the sort of stuff we discuss routinely on this list.
>i'm not sure what this sentence means?
I was changing my focus (I think. . . ) slightly, from describing the Mass as passive acceptor of capitalism to describing it as ignorant (unknowing) passive acceptor of capital's requirements. This was a quick and garbled reply to what I think you mentioned about "people not being as stupid as many on the Left make them out to be". I agree, but I do believe that the Mass is very ignorant, and ignorance is often mistaken, especially by those "in the know", for stupidity; most people I know don't discuss even the basics of what goes gets bandied about on this list.
>i neither glorify "ordinary" people, but neither do i tend to think they
>only want to get by. i have just witnessed far to many extraordinary acts
>of "ordinary' people getting involved, doing things, protesting, etc. when
>they can be moved to see why it all matters. their reasons for getting
>their in the first place may not be as radical as "we" would like them to
>be, but then i don't think the honest among the radical among us could say
>that they were especially radical when they first started becoming
>cognizant of the issues in the first place.
>i simply know that i wouldn't be here if some important people in my life
>had treated me as if i just wanted to get by or if they'd treated me as
>ignorant or desiring to be ignorant. if they hadn't argued with me or if
>they hadn't made examples of their lives by engaging in various kinds of
>activism i simply wouldn't be here.
Yes, people do get involved with projects for many reasons, including "because someone else showed me, and I thought I would like doing it." And people can, and depending upon the project do, get involved at different levels e.g. I personally don't like to take part in protests or political campaigns; I just talk to people on a personal level about what happens that they might not be aware of and why it happens. I'm nowhere near as involved as I'm sure any of the participants on this list, but that's where I feel comfortable right now. However, my post really had to do with Max's "hearts and minds" strategy critique: Max seemed to argue that violence should be played down because of the negative image; however, if that begins to radicalize at least a fraction of the viewers/critics, the cost of alienating others MIGHT be worth it.
Todd
P.S. How's the lizard doing?