> Ah, so they're "activists". In other words, they're
> cranks and monomaniacs who have the time to engage in
> inconsequentional, ritualized activity which purports
> to effect some sort of change, but which in reality
> serves as a sort of therapy and self-validation for
> the individuals involved, a reassurance that they are
> at least "doing something".
At least they aren't a self-hating asshole like yourself!
I use the word activist generally. I don't know which of the people involved in this protest are activists and which ones aren't.
What the fuck do you call people who are engaged in social change?
> "Do something". That's it? Just "something"?
> Without regard for whether that something is capable
> of effecting any change or is merely an expression of
> ritualized protest?
You certainly aren't do anything!
Ritualized protest my ass!
Please do the world a favor and keep sitting on your ass.
> In other words, what you propose is more ritualized
> protest, more inconsequentional symbolic violence, a
> few smashed windows here, a few chanted slogans there.
> But nothing to help people understand the abstract
> forms of social life which necessarily determine and
> circumscribe their activity.
>
> This is "activism" as a mere subculture, and a rather
> lame and unattractive subculture at that.
So then you dismiss all social change around the world as mere "activism" and a subculture. That's idiotic.
So far, the comments on this list are doing an excellent job of reinforcing the fact the the U.S. liberal-left is a comfortable irrelevancy which prefers its revolutions to happen in books and elsewhere.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "Bash Yoshie" thread.
Chuck