"Thanks for the reference to one of my favorite films by my favorite director. Note especially that he is impelled by his awareness of his impending death to engage in a project that actually benefits someone."
I assume everyone is talking about "Ikiru" here -- a great movie.
"The standard "leftist," by contrast, thinks that s/he will live forever (i.e., her/his personal mortality is of no significance) and that the highest purpose in life is to "do politics," i.e., attend boring meetings, give boring speeches, and write boring manifestos. The fact that only about 0.1% of the population enjoys that way of life guarantees the extreme marginality of these "political" groups."
Oh, boy is this true...and it gets back to some of what Doug was saying about the doom/gloom of the left. I once went to a Peace & Freedom convention in Calif. God, it was awful. The most depressing, whiny, self-righteous, seedy, gloomy, weird bunch of people I've ever run into. Endless posturing, endless self-righteousness, endless demonstration of the total inability to organize, build consensus, talk sense, be clear, ...I could go on and on. What was really weird about this group and other very left groups I've known is that their politics seemed more like a "life-style" than an effective mode of politicking. It's hard to find the words...but it was like there was a lot of "judgement" of who you were, a lot of categorization, ...like cliques in high-school...which, to my mind, is not grown up political behavior. I mean adult politics should be a means to an end not a way of life in and of itself. I remember a lot of talk about "sacrifice" -- but I was not especially impressed by the fact that these people had anything to sacrifice. Some were "sacrificing" their family relationships, but it didn't strike me that they would have made particularly good fathers, mothers, etc., in the first place. Others were "sacrificing" some supposed status or social success they might have otherwise had, but it didn't look like they had the competence or social skills to get that anyway...So a lot of this so called "sacrifice" seemed very fake. It was, of course, very bad to be happy or take any joy in anything. The whole thing seemed to me to be like an infinitely extended rebellious adolescence -- no manners, no responsiblity, no commitment to anything other than contrariness and a purity that could not be achieved by anyone except the total party member. In short, a joyless crew that I was not particularly inspired to "follow" anywhere.
Oh, and there's another thing about the unrelenting unhappiness -- it's like this subterranean claim that because you're suffering/angry no one could every accuse you of being complicit in the harm that's being done. It's a way of claiming moral purity. "I'm continually sacrificing myself; I am always unhappy/enraged; ergo, I could not possibly be one of the oppressors."
JJ:"Most leftists these days enthusiastically dis churches and religions, but consider what churches offer ordinary people: comfort and consolation in the darkest days of life, communities of support, and in not a few cases, actual food and clothing if you need it. By contrast, "politicos" offer mostly abstract bushwa. The old stereotypes have been reversed: it's the leftist radicals who offer "pie in the sky" -- Revolution with a capital "R" in the sweet by and by -- whereas many religious communities help people in need in the here and now."
That's hillarious/sad and very true. The desire to do good and the commitment of one's time/energy/resources to doing something for someone are nothing other than an object of contempt and derision. TO want to help is to be merely "sentimental" without "really" changing anything. Moreover, it can even be represented as a way of shoring up the system and prolonging the "evil." Little is said about the fact that when people actually help each other in a consistent, reliable way, it helps to create another image/feeling of what human beings are like and of what they could work together to achieve. If we did help each other, we would all feel little less terrorized; it would make us all feel that we do have the power to make a difference. It would give ordinary peope more courage to fight back. It might persuade people that no, everyone isn't really selfish and concerned exclusively with their own self-interest. But, no, this does not seem to compute.
JJ "Probably the Black Panthers were the last political group in this country that had practical help for people in need as a regular part of its program; of course, its fate would not encourage many of us to follow in its footsteps, but it's an idea to consider."
My GP, Tolbert Small, used to be one of the main Black Pather doctors. He still puts in ten, eleven hour days and runs an office/clinic in north Oakland. He's now in his late sixties. A great man, an extraordinary gentleman. By the by, it has been my experience so far that doctors who take medicare patients tend to be better doctors--I don't mean only "morally," but technically. Both my kid's pediatrician and, of course, Dr. Small accept medicare patients. They're some of the few doctors in this area who do. Their office is filled with poor folks and minorities. Sometimes this can mean a slightly longer wait. But my rich/white patient doctors have long waits too...and they're flakier. In a way, that's not surprising. If you think about it, a doctor who takes medicare is either a complete scam artist...or he is a person who cares about people over profits and who therefore cares about being a good doctor.
Joanna