Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Free Classes at City College
The Anarchist Library at City College of San Francisco is offering four
free courses in the fall. All courses are on the topic of, or relating to,
anarchism, both in practice and theory.
All courses are free and open to the public. No enrollment at CCSF is
necessary.
All classes will be held in the Upper Level Student Union room 208, main
campus 50 Phelan Ave. Classroom subject to change later in semester.
free courses in the fall. All courses are on the topic of, or relating to,
anarchism, both in practice and theory.
All courses are free and open to the public. No enrollment at CCSF is
necessary.
All classes will be held in the Upper Level Student Union room 208, main
campus 50 Phelan Ave. Classroom subject to change later in semester.
The Anarchist Library at City College of San Francisco is offering four
free courses in the fall. All courses are on the topic of, or relating to,
anarchism, both in practice and theory.
All courses are free and open to the public. No enrollment at CCSF is
necessary.
All classes will be held in the Upper Level Student Union room 208, main
campus 50 Phelan Ave. Classroom subject to change later in semester.
The courses are as follows:
PATTERNS IN ANARCHIST HISTORY
taught by Barry Pateman Ph.D. ( Emma Goldman Papers, Kate Sharpley Library)
Is there anything to learn from past experiences and actions of
anarchists that can inform today's activties. We'll have a look at
various examples of anarchist activity from history and see if there is
anything to learn from them.
Class starts Sep. 9th ( class meets 4x's Sep. 9th, Oct. 14th, 28th, Nov.18th)
7:00 - 9:00 PM
INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS
Facilitated discussion with members of AK Press and Emma Goldman Papers.
This class will take a look at the ways anarchists have organized in the
past and present. We will take a critical look at our successes and
failures and see what we can learn from both.
Class meets bi-weekly.
First class sep. 7th Last class Dec 14th
7:00 -9:00 PM
ANARCHISM PRACTICE AND THEORY
A student directed class that will explore anarchism both in its
historical and current day application within society as well as the
underlying theory behind its practice.
Class every Thu.
Starts Sep.2nd
4:00 - 5:30
ANARCHIST GUEST SPEAKER CLASS
Thu. 7:00 - 9:00
Speakers for September
Sep. 9th- BARRY PATEMAN - PATTERNS IN ANARCHIST HISTORY ( ongoing lecture )
Sep. 16th- RAMSEY KANAAN - WHEN FUCKING THE SYSTEM ISN'T ENOUGH
This talk will focus on Ramsey's experiences as an anarchist
organizer in Scotland with the Edinburg anarchist org., Comm-
unity Resistance. It will look at the various activities, both
propaganda and more importantly activism, that the Community
Resistance group was involved in- culminating in thier five
year anti-poll tax organization campaign- and the conclusions
that can be drawn in terms of anarchist organizations, anarch-
ist groups, and vanguards.
Sep. 23rd- LAWRENCE JARACH - POST-LEFT ANARCHISM
" Those of us who are interested in promoting radical social
change in general and anarchist in particular, need to emulate
and improve upon successful(however temporary) revolutionary
projects for liberation, rather than congratulating ourselves
for being the heirs of Bakunin (et al). We can do this best if
we free ourselves from the historical baggage and the
ideological and strategic constraints of all varieties of
leftism."
Sep. 30th- NOAM CHOMSKY - REFLECTIONS ON ANARCHISM
Premier screening of a video interview conducted by Barry
Pateman at Noam's house earlier this year.
TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE CLASSES VISIT http://www.anarchistlibrary.org
TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DIRECTIONS TO CCSF VISIT http://www.ccsf.edu
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ON OUR LISTSERVE? contact sea [at] anarchistlibrary.org
-Anarchist Class Update-
The Anarchist Library has scheduled a day for one of the Anarchist
Practice and Theory classes. It will be held every Thu., 4:00 - 5:30,
starting Aug. 26th. No classroom has been reserved yet so location is
still in the works. If this day and time works for you then please respond
to this e-mail so that we can put you on the sign-up list and keep you
informed about class location and other pertinent class info. As we are
trying to limit the class size to 10 people it is therefore important to
sign up early. If the time doesn't work and you would still like to take
the class, then please let us know what days and times are good for you so
that we can set up a second Practice/Theory Class, perhaps in the evening.
The text book for the Practice and Theory Class is on the way to the
printing press and should be available before class begins. It is our hope
to get the text books out early so that folks can start studying asap.
As for our Anarchist Guest Speaker Class which will be held on Thu.
evenings, we need some help. We still have openings for certain nights
that need to be filled. If you have any suggestions or know any anarchist
folks that live in the Bay area that would be able to put on a
presentation for at least 45 min.; panels included; on the topic of
anarchism in the context of our lives, movements, current social
conditions, history and any sort of challenges to existing conceptual
tools of anarchist thought that need to rethought; than please let us
know. It should be stated that we are trying to stay away from how-to
workshops and lifestyle anarchism. Please send any and all proposals to
sea [at] anarchistlibrary.org. Guest speakers will recieve an honorarium of
$100.
free courses in the fall. All courses are on the topic of, or relating to,
anarchism, both in practice and theory.
All courses are free and open to the public. No enrollment at CCSF is
necessary.
All classes will be held in the Upper Level Student Union room 208, main
campus 50 Phelan Ave. Classroom subject to change later in semester.
The courses are as follows:
PATTERNS IN ANARCHIST HISTORY
taught by Barry Pateman Ph.D. ( Emma Goldman Papers, Kate Sharpley Library)
Is there anything to learn from past experiences and actions of
anarchists that can inform today's activties. We'll have a look at
various examples of anarchist activity from history and see if there is
anything to learn from them.
Class starts Sep. 9th ( class meets 4x's Sep. 9th, Oct. 14th, 28th, Nov.18th)
7:00 - 9:00 PM
INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS
Facilitated discussion with members of AK Press and Emma Goldman Papers.
This class will take a look at the ways anarchists have organized in the
past and present. We will take a critical look at our successes and
failures and see what we can learn from both.
Class meets bi-weekly.
First class sep. 7th Last class Dec 14th
7:00 -9:00 PM
ANARCHISM PRACTICE AND THEORY
A student directed class that will explore anarchism both in its
historical and current day application within society as well as the
underlying theory behind its practice.
Class every Thu.
Starts Sep.2nd
4:00 - 5:30
ANARCHIST GUEST SPEAKER CLASS
Thu. 7:00 - 9:00
Speakers for September
Sep. 9th- BARRY PATEMAN - PATTERNS IN ANARCHIST HISTORY ( ongoing lecture )
Sep. 16th- RAMSEY KANAAN - WHEN FUCKING THE SYSTEM ISN'T ENOUGH
This talk will focus on Ramsey's experiences as an anarchist
organizer in Scotland with the Edinburg anarchist org., Comm-
unity Resistance. It will look at the various activities, both
propaganda and more importantly activism, that the Community
Resistance group was involved in- culminating in thier five
year anti-poll tax organization campaign- and the conclusions
that can be drawn in terms of anarchist organizations, anarch-
ist groups, and vanguards.
Sep. 23rd- LAWRENCE JARACH - POST-LEFT ANARCHISM
" Those of us who are interested in promoting radical social
change in general and anarchist in particular, need to emulate
and improve upon successful(however temporary) revolutionary
projects for liberation, rather than congratulating ourselves
for being the heirs of Bakunin (et al). We can do this best if
we free ourselves from the historical baggage and the
ideological and strategic constraints of all varieties of
leftism."
Sep. 30th- NOAM CHOMSKY - REFLECTIONS ON ANARCHISM
Premier screening of a video interview conducted by Barry
Pateman at Noam's house earlier this year.
TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE CLASSES VISIT http://www.anarchistlibrary.org
TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DIRECTIONS TO CCSF VISIT http://www.ccsf.edu
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ON OUR LISTSERVE? contact sea [at] anarchistlibrary.org
-Anarchist Class Update-
The Anarchist Library has scheduled a day for one of the Anarchist
Practice and Theory classes. It will be held every Thu., 4:00 - 5:30,
starting Aug. 26th. No classroom has been reserved yet so location is
still in the works. If this day and time works for you then please respond
to this e-mail so that we can put you on the sign-up list and keep you
informed about class location and other pertinent class info. As we are
trying to limit the class size to 10 people it is therefore important to
sign up early. If the time doesn't work and you would still like to take
the class, then please let us know what days and times are good for you so
that we can set up a second Practice/Theory Class, perhaps in the evening.
The text book for the Practice and Theory Class is on the way to the
printing press and should be available before class begins. It is our hope
to get the text books out early so that folks can start studying asap.
As for our Anarchist Guest Speaker Class which will be held on Thu.
evenings, we need some help. We still have openings for certain nights
that need to be filled. If you have any suggestions or know any anarchist
folks that live in the Bay area that would be able to put on a
presentation for at least 45 min.; panels included; on the topic of
anarchism in the context of our lives, movements, current social
conditions, history and any sort of challenges to existing conceptual
tools of anarchist thought that need to rethought; than please let us
know. It should be stated that we are trying to stay away from how-to
workshops and lifestyle anarchism. Please send any and all proposals to
sea [at] anarchistlibrary.org. Guest speakers will recieve an honorarium of
$100.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Will Barry Pateman's interview with Noam Chumpsky ask the predicatble pinko professor anything about his endorsement of Kerry for President?
See the UK Guardian article, on Sunday, March 20th of this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html
This should be a final nail in the coffin to Chumpsky's pretensions to being some kind of voice for radical social change...
See the UK Guardian article, on Sunday, March 20th of this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html
This should be a final nail in the coffin to Chumpsky's pretensions to being some kind of voice for radical social change...
a PhD and a book cartel.
somehow i'm not convinced either.
somehow i'm not convinced either.
first do a better job. Then criticize others.
Can you teach a better class? Then do it. I'll come. So would a lot of us.
Can you teach a better class? Then do it. I'll come. So would a lot of us.
Kerry, "Yes", I committed the same kinds of atrocities !
Kerry Committed War Crimes, 'Burned Villages' in Viet Nam
Submitted by United Press International
Original Publisher: United Press International
Another site, Wintersoldier.com, places records from Sen. Kerry's anti-war protests online, including the transcript of the full question and answer session before a U.S. Senate committee, where the young Vietnam veteran detailed, among other activities, his trip as a civilian to the Paris Peace talks involving the U.S., South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese governments.
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks -- that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government," Kerry said during testimony on April 22, 1971, before the Foreign Relations Committee, according to the transcript posted on the site.
Wintersoldier.com also features audio sound bites -- in the MP3 format -- of Kerry describing what he did in Vietnam, both in testimony before the Senate and in an interview.
"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed," Kerry said in the sound bite. "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040309-122413-8660r
Kerry Committed War Crimes, 'Burned Villages' in Viet Nam
Submitted by United Press International
Original Publisher: United Press International
Another site, Wintersoldier.com, places records from Sen. Kerry's anti-war protests online, including the transcript of the full question and answer session before a U.S. Senate committee, where the young Vietnam veteran detailed, among other activities, his trip as a civilian to the Paris Peace talks involving the U.S., South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese governments.
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks -- that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government," Kerry said during testimony on April 22, 1971, before the Foreign Relations Committee, according to the transcript posted on the site.
Wintersoldier.com also features audio sound bites -- in the MP3 format -- of Kerry describing what he did in Vietnam, both in testimony before the Senate and in an interview.
"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed," Kerry said in the sound bite. "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040309-122413-8660r
a true Anarchist rejects the idea of state sponsored educational programming in any form. to participate in such a class is to renounce your ideals for the approval of the state.
We as Anarchist must reject this type of social control
it is the core concept of anarchism
We as Anarchist must reject this type of social control
it is the core concept of anarchism
well, it would certainly appear to reject the safely-presumed anarchist "rejection of leadership" principle in general, by (can we say, at least) privileging the point of view of a teacher, and, perhaps more importantly, it would also seem to reject the radical relativism of much of what passes for "anarchism" these days, by holding forth the idea that there is objective truth to be learned, natch.
the fact that a bookseller is participating in a "free" class, where certain books and materials might be necessary beforehand or rendered more desirable afterwards, as an otherwise-neutral agent, is a triumph of product placement in a "radical" context. i am virtually alienated at such a spectacular lack of critique. shit howdy!
the fact that a bookseller is participating in a "free" class, where certain books and materials might be necessary beforehand or rendered more desirable afterwards, as an otherwise-neutral agent, is a triumph of product placement in a "radical" context. i am virtually alienated at such a spectacular lack of critique. shit howdy!
A part of the spectacle of state education is about to be detourned. This is a good thing. It's not the best thing possible, but it's still a good thing. You either don't think so, or else you hadn't even noticed. These are bad things. They aren’t the worst things, but they’re still pretty bad. Which is worse, is a matter of some debate. Either way, they are still bad things. You’d be better off to get over them.
Maybe you should read up more on theory. This time, don't use the Cliff Notes. The real books themselves are available (no thanks to you) and not very expensive, either. There is no excuse for ignorance.
Or, if reading is too difficult for you, perhaps you should consider attending the actual class itself. That way , not only will you probably be able to pick up some theory by social osmosis, but you will also be spared the onerous ignominy of being thought a complete fool for criticizing something you know nothing about because you weren’t even there. Not only that, but the damn thing hasn’t even happened yet, so no way in hell could you possibly know what you’re talking about. And you’re criticizing it anyway!?! Gimme break.
If you want to criticize something, and not be thought a fool, you need to do two things first. You need to know what your talking about. You need to be willing and able to provide a better alternative. Otherwise, you’re talking out your ass.
Are *you* teaching a better class in anarchism? Where? When? Tell us please. Some of us here may wish to attend.
Maybe you should read up more on theory. This time, don't use the Cliff Notes. The real books themselves are available (no thanks to you) and not very expensive, either. There is no excuse for ignorance.
Or, if reading is too difficult for you, perhaps you should consider attending the actual class itself. That way , not only will you probably be able to pick up some theory by social osmosis, but you will also be spared the onerous ignominy of being thought a complete fool for criticizing something you know nothing about because you weren’t even there. Not only that, but the damn thing hasn’t even happened yet, so no way in hell could you possibly know what you’re talking about. And you’re criticizing it anyway!?! Gimme break.
If you want to criticize something, and not be thought a fool, you need to do two things first. You need to know what your talking about. You need to be willing and able to provide a better alternative. Otherwise, you’re talking out your ass.
Are *you* teaching a better class in anarchism? Where? When? Tell us please. Some of us here may wish to attend.
another is that "anarchists" are setting up a heirarchy both of knowledge and its transmission, as well as creating a market for their merchandise, all under the auspices of the state.
is that so wrong, or is it the "critique" to begin with?
is that so wrong, or is it the "critique" to begin with?
(1.) Knowledge and its transmission constitute a hierarchy only when learning is compulsory. By definition, no consensual relationship is truly hierarchic, no matter what it’s appearance. Ask any kink. What’s more, knowledge itself, by it’s very nature, has a hierarchy of it’s own. So does the filing system on your hard drive. Real anarchists are not opposed to making use of those natural hierarchies with which our environment provides us. Our problem is not with hierarchy per se, but with its compulsive imposition upon us, and upon our economy, by the ruling class and its lackeys. That is quite different matter than voluntarily permitting oneself to receive information from someone who has it, when you don’t.
It’s like when I worked on the self managed construction crew, rehabing Victorians. When we were replacing plumbing, Wally was in charge, because he was the best plumber. By “best” I mean the he could plumb, and the rest of us couldn’t, at least not without Wally to tell us what to do next. When we were touching up fancy plaster, Esther was in charge, because she could sling plaster like Michelangelo, and the rest of us (left to our own devices) got more on our shirts than the ceiling. We didn’t let Wally and Esther tell us what to do because we were afraid of being fired. We weren’t. We just knew from experience that it was the most likely way to come in ahead of schedule and under budget, and thereby get that bonus. And we did want the bonus, so logic prevailed. Logic rules, so get with the program.
(2.) Anarchists didn’t “set” this thing “up.” The state set it up. Anarchists are merely expropriating what the state set up. This is no different than any other technique we make use of in our self reduction movement, such as shoplifting, squatting, or raiding Denikin’s supply dumps for ammo. We must always make optimum use of as much of our environment as possible. This is not limited to “living off the land,” or taking advantage of physical terrain in the form of “our friendly allies, the hills.” It includes making optimum use of the social environment, as well. Calling a demo against GMOs during a week when the GMO industry bigwigs happen to be in town is one way to make use of the social environment. So is permitting our enemy the state to provide a class about anarchism with shelter and electricity. It’s a smart move, with a long history. This is just one case, of many. More of them work out than don’t.
(3.) If you went to the damn class, and had this discussion F2F with the people there, you would not only have a chance to learn something, meet people, and to build you personal network, you might even be able to teach somebody something.
It’s like when I worked on the self managed construction crew, rehabing Victorians. When we were replacing plumbing, Wally was in charge, because he was the best plumber. By “best” I mean the he could plumb, and the rest of us couldn’t, at least not without Wally to tell us what to do next. When we were touching up fancy plaster, Esther was in charge, because she could sling plaster like Michelangelo, and the rest of us (left to our own devices) got more on our shirts than the ceiling. We didn’t let Wally and Esther tell us what to do because we were afraid of being fired. We weren’t. We just knew from experience that it was the most likely way to come in ahead of schedule and under budget, and thereby get that bonus. And we did want the bonus, so logic prevailed. Logic rules, so get with the program.
(2.) Anarchists didn’t “set” this thing “up.” The state set it up. Anarchists are merely expropriating what the state set up. This is no different than any other technique we make use of in our self reduction movement, such as shoplifting, squatting, or raiding Denikin’s supply dumps for ammo. We must always make optimum use of as much of our environment as possible. This is not limited to “living off the land,” or taking advantage of physical terrain in the form of “our friendly allies, the hills.” It includes making optimum use of the social environment, as well. Calling a demo against GMOs during a week when the GMO industry bigwigs happen to be in town is one way to make use of the social environment. So is permitting our enemy the state to provide a class about anarchism with shelter and electricity. It’s a smart move, with a long history. This is just one case, of many. More of them work out than don’t.
(3.) If you went to the damn class, and had this discussion F2F with the people there, you would not only have a chance to learn something, meet people, and to build you personal network, you might even be able to teach somebody something.
with smooth explanations
whatever they're selling
whatever they're selling
... especially when they tell you that the only true way to be an anarchist is to follow their example to the letter.
@%<
@%<
The tenor of some of the discussion generated by this is patently ridiculous. Any credible effort towards radical social change has to be oriented towards exploited/dispossesed people, and there's nothing more proletarian that a community college. There's nothing hypocritical about this series of anarcho-events at City College.
The response, "Don't criticize unless you can do better" is sub-moronic and beneath contempt; part of the purpose of stuff like this is to generate conflic, a confrontation over ideas and actions -- at least if what you are dealing with is any kind of living, breathing effort to engage with the real world.
The question is:
1. Noam Chumpsky get put forward as some kind of anarchist,
2. Chumpsky endorses Bush with a different hairdo, John Kerry, and implicitly endorses the US ruling class and their games (voting) and their crimes with this,
3. What does this say about Chumpsky's relevance to anarchism -- such as it is in the US today, at least -- and what does it say about his role in relation to radical social change?
The response, "Don't criticize unless you can do better" is sub-moronic and beneath contempt; part of the purpose of stuff like this is to generate conflic, a confrontation over ideas and actions -- at least if what you are dealing with is any kind of living, breathing effort to engage with the real world.
The question is:
1. Noam Chumpsky get put forward as some kind of anarchist,
2. Chumpsky endorses Bush with a different hairdo, John Kerry, and implicitly endorses the US ruling class and their games (voting) and their crimes with this,
3. What does this say about Chumpsky's relevance to anarchism -- such as it is in the US today, at least -- and what does it say about his role in relation to radical social change?
i think it's hilarious that everyone takes the critique so literally. "learning bad. teaching worse. city college room bad. ugh." i think it says a lot about the mentality around here.
rather, people make a lot of hoo-hah about anarchy means no state, no heirarchy, &c. and then, these folks go to the state to set up a classroom environment (hint: typical person's associations with classroom? think nun with ruler), and then tie it in with a book publishing company-- whatever its ideology or organizational um praxis. to teach anarchy, mind you. that's funny in several ways.
among them, it reeks of hypocrisy, *ahem* TO THE AVERAGE VIEWER (sorry about that), whether you can explain its parts or not, and it discredits all it touches, when the whole package of apparent contradictions is offered with a straight face and no one even bothers to laugh at the silly picture it presents, for fear of offending the local anarchist ruling class in public.
there are none so blind as those who will not see this general point.
chimpskie bad. kitten good. ugh.
rather, people make a lot of hoo-hah about anarchy means no state, no heirarchy, &c. and then, these folks go to the state to set up a classroom environment (hint: typical person's associations with classroom? think nun with ruler), and then tie it in with a book publishing company-- whatever its ideology or organizational um praxis. to teach anarchy, mind you. that's funny in several ways.
among them, it reeks of hypocrisy, *ahem* TO THE AVERAGE VIEWER (sorry about that), whether you can explain its parts or not, and it discredits all it touches, when the whole package of apparent contradictions is offered with a straight face and no one even bothers to laugh at the silly picture it presents, for fear of offending the local anarchist ruling class in public.
there are none so blind as those who will not see this general point.
chimpskie bad. kitten good. ugh.
a true Anarchist rejects the idea of state sponsored educational programming in any form.and we also reject this pandering from this book store.
(A good Anarchist will take up c collection from the group buy one book then have the group take turns reading it, if they can find an enviornment that would allow the freedom of expression. (not in an Orwellian programming center such as a state run school)
to participate in such a class is to renounce your ideals for the approval of the state.
(A good Anarchist will take up c collection from the group buy one book then have the group take turns reading it, if they can find an enviornment that would allow the freedom of expression. (not in an Orwellian programming center such as a state run school)
to participate in such a class is to renounce your ideals for the approval of the state.
Are you even trying? If not, how dare you criticize people who are at least trying? Are you, a fucking hypocrite or what?
"how dare you criticize" etc blah blah blah.
well at least i'm not presenting myself as an emulatable role model in public (others might say "as an authority," which is what PhD means, hello) for a bunch of other people's beliefs, people whom i didnt consult, and dont really respect, but wouldn't mind making some money off of-- either by selling them books or by selling books about their beliefs which i would ostensibly represent.
the hypocrisy is secondary to, a mere symptom of, the irresponsibility of socially damaging the ideals of revolution for personal gain. there's a fucking lot of that in "anarchism." and a lot of silence about it too.
such criticism is always "put down" in short order, by a variety of means, including this "critique" of the criticism on the part of the cult of "doing something." what *wonderful* portents for post-revolutionary social order imposition might these seedlings promise? or better yet, seem to promise in the view of the undecided, those very ones you would persuade?
how dare i, indeed? try answering for yourself, show us how it's done. and when you're done, can i at least vote for or against you? or is kerry more accountable than you are?
well at least i'm not presenting myself as an emulatable role model in public (others might say "as an authority," which is what PhD means, hello) for a bunch of other people's beliefs, people whom i didnt consult, and dont really respect, but wouldn't mind making some money off of-- either by selling them books or by selling books about their beliefs which i would ostensibly represent.
the hypocrisy is secondary to, a mere symptom of, the irresponsibility of socially damaging the ideals of revolution for personal gain. there's a fucking lot of that in "anarchism." and a lot of silence about it too.
such criticism is always "put down" in short order, by a variety of means, including this "critique" of the criticism on the part of the cult of "doing something." what *wonderful* portents for post-revolutionary social order imposition might these seedlings promise? or better yet, seem to promise in the view of the undecided, those very ones you would persuade?
how dare i, indeed? try answering for yourself, show us how it's done. and when you're done, can i at least vote for or against you? or is kerry more accountable than you are?
Personally, I’m not trying persuade anyone that revolution is a good idea. Either you believe that already, or you’re a fool. Some else can persuade the fools. I’m not the best guy for the job.
I am trying to persuade those who are not fools, to make revolution in ways that will work. That means using optimal strategies, superior tactics and air tight logistics. It also means using whatever means necessary. Whatever else revolution my be, and opinions do vary, it is war. We are at war. We cannot afford to lose. Our entire planet is at stake. Our home world has been occupied but the Forces of Evil. We are all behind enemy lines. We are out numbered, out gunned and surrounded. It’s going to be an uphill fight. But fight we must. This is too nice a planet to surrender without a fight. If we’re not going to fight to win, we may as well not fight at all. We may as well just bend our knees, bow our heads and consent to lives of endless pollution and toil, interrupted by periodic interludes of sheer terror and mass destruction.
Or we can fight to win. That means fighting by any means necessary, or “BAMN“ as we used to say in the old days. BAMN works only some of the time, but nothing else works at all. Ergo, BAMN is the only rational strategy. And yeah, BAMN always involves making some use of the enemy’s logistic infrastructure.
Do you think the Mahknovists whupped Denikin with only ammunition they had liberated by raiding his dumps? Gimme a break. They also bought some legitimately. They also bought on the black market. And some they made themselves.
Of *course* we must make use of he enemy’s logistic infrastructure! We must also make use of his weapons, his comm net, his brains and his money. We must make use of as much as we can. True revolution is psycho-social ju jitsu. Only by turning the enemy’s strengths back against him can we make them his weaknesses. We need to weaken our enemy. We cant do it with strength. We don’t have enough. Ergo, we must do it by wit. That means psycho-social ju jitsu. Nothing else will work.
I am trying to persuade those who are not fools, to make revolution in ways that will work. That means using optimal strategies, superior tactics and air tight logistics. It also means using whatever means necessary. Whatever else revolution my be, and opinions do vary, it is war. We are at war. We cannot afford to lose. Our entire planet is at stake. Our home world has been occupied but the Forces of Evil. We are all behind enemy lines. We are out numbered, out gunned and surrounded. It’s going to be an uphill fight. But fight we must. This is too nice a planet to surrender without a fight. If we’re not going to fight to win, we may as well not fight at all. We may as well just bend our knees, bow our heads and consent to lives of endless pollution and toil, interrupted by periodic interludes of sheer terror and mass destruction.
Or we can fight to win. That means fighting by any means necessary, or “BAMN“ as we used to say in the old days. BAMN works only some of the time, but nothing else works at all. Ergo, BAMN is the only rational strategy. And yeah, BAMN always involves making some use of the enemy’s logistic infrastructure.
Do you think the Mahknovists whupped Denikin with only ammunition they had liberated by raiding his dumps? Gimme a break. They also bought some legitimately. They also bought on the black market. And some they made themselves.
Of *course* we must make use of he enemy’s logistic infrastructure! We must also make use of his weapons, his comm net, his brains and his money. We must make use of as much as we can. True revolution is psycho-social ju jitsu. Only by turning the enemy’s strengths back against him can we make them his weaknesses. We need to weaken our enemy. We cant do it with strength. We don’t have enough. Ergo, we must do it by wit. That means psycho-social ju jitsu. Nothing else will work.
"Of *course* we must make use of he enemy’s logistic infrastructure! We must also make use of his weapons, his comm net, his brains and his money. We must make use of as much as we can. True revolution is psycho-social ju jitsu. Only by turning the enemy’s strengths back against him can we make them his weaknesses. We need to weaken our enemy. We cant do it with strength. We don’t have enough. Ergo, we must do it by wit. That means psycho-social ju jitsu. Nothing else will work.
"
------
Do you have a good way of implementing this with regards to the Michelle Malkin talk which is a setup by the young Republican club of UC Berkeley today. The Chronicle already reported on it and you know they'll be there ready to capture a simple minded response. But four years in a row they have been doing this - bringing in complete freakshow right-wingers, taking pictures of the very linear-minded response involving signs and yelling, and putting these in their fundraising letters, which brings them thousands of dollars of off-campus money for the glossy Cal Patriot and so forth. http://www.calpatriot.org/
I would lay off Chomsky.
Here is a great reason to distrust both Bush and Kerry, even if this is probably 50% fictional and homophobic http://www.rense.com/general57/newbook.htm
"
------
Do you have a good way of implementing this with regards to the Michelle Malkin talk which is a setup by the young Republican club of UC Berkeley today. The Chronicle already reported on it and you know they'll be there ready to capture a simple minded response. But four years in a row they have been doing this - bringing in complete freakshow right-wingers, taking pictures of the very linear-minded response involving signs and yelling, and putting these in their fundraising letters, which brings them thousands of dollars of off-campus money for the glossy Cal Patriot and so forth. http://www.calpatriot.org/
I would lay off Chomsky.
Here is a great reason to distrust both Bush and Kerry, even if this is probably 50% fictional and homophobic http://www.rense.com/general57/newbook.htm
Let's see how nessie rates on the "specifics versus empty bloviation" scale.
nessie: "I am trying to persuade those who are not fools, to make revolution in ways that will work."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "That means using optimal strategies,"
Empty platitude.
nessie: "superior tactics"
Empty platitude.
nessie: "and air tight logistics."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "It also means using whatever means necessary."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Whatever else revolution my be, and opinions do vary, it is war. We are at war."
Empty platitude x 2.
nessie: "We cannot afford to lose."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Our entire planet is at stake."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Our home world has been occupied but the Forces of Evil."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We are all behind enemy lines."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We are out numbered, out gunned and surrounded"
Empty platitude x 3.
nessie: "It’s going to be an uphill fight."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "But fight we must."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "This is too nice a planet to surrender without a fight."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "If we’re not going to fight to win, we may as well not fight at all."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We may as well just bend our knees, bow our heads and consent to lives of endless pollution and toil, interrupted by periodic interludes of sheer terror and mass destruction."
Empty platitude x, shit, what is that, five or six? He's going for the Pat Buchanan record.
Good to see that nessie is "ready to fight." But it ought to be clear by now what's weapon of choice: empty platitudes, fog, vapors, and nebulosities. As far as specifics go, he might as well be selling fucking toothpaste and toilet paper.
@%<
nessie: "I am trying to persuade those who are not fools, to make revolution in ways that will work."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "That means using optimal strategies,"
Empty platitude.
nessie: "superior tactics"
Empty platitude.
nessie: "and air tight logistics."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "It also means using whatever means necessary."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Whatever else revolution my be, and opinions do vary, it is war. We are at war."
Empty platitude x 2.
nessie: "We cannot afford to lose."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Our entire planet is at stake."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "Our home world has been occupied but the Forces of Evil."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We are all behind enemy lines."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We are out numbered, out gunned and surrounded"
Empty platitude x 3.
nessie: "It’s going to be an uphill fight."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "But fight we must."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "This is too nice a planet to surrender without a fight."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "If we’re not going to fight to win, we may as well not fight at all."
Empty platitude.
nessie: "We may as well just bend our knees, bow our heads and consent to lives of endless pollution and toil, interrupted by periodic interludes of sheer terror and mass destruction."
Empty platitude x, shit, what is that, five or six? He's going for the Pat Buchanan record.
Good to see that nessie is "ready to fight." But it ought to be clear by now what's weapon of choice: empty platitudes, fog, vapors, and nebulosities. As far as specifics go, he might as well be selling fucking toothpaste and toilet paper.
@%<
So according to nessie, it is one big war metaphor, but we don't have leadership.
it's exactly this kind of shit that reduces the meta-arguments to burlesque.
it's exactly this kind of shit that reduces the meta-arguments to burlesque.
Oh, I get it. It's not one big war metaphor, it's one big war-cooking-coding-rocketry-neurosurgery metaphor. Heck, two more of those and it's time to declare victory.
@%<
@%<
It's a real war.
cuz we're cool. go figure.
and as soon as we convince the masses we're cool, well.... better look out...
and as soon as we convince the masses we're cool, well.... better look out...
>Will Barry Pateman's interview with Noam Chumpsky ask the predicatble pinko professor anything about his endorsement of Kerry for President?
Or his decades long endorsement of the Warren Commission's whacko coincidence theory?
And how does he feel about some of his seminal work in linguistics having been proven wrong in subsequent experiments, specifically the cases of Washoe, Koko, et al.
Nevertheless, has analysis of international affairs, particularly in the Middle East, are extremely valuable. How does he feel about people ignoring it, just because he was wrong about Warren, Oswald, Washoe and Koko?
That Chomsky, what a guy, huh? Though on occasion he has proven himself an anarchist sympathizer, he's certainly not an anarchist. So what is he? And why is it important for anarchists to read his work and discuss it? Or is it important? If it isn’t, why not? More important, where can we find his books, so we can judge his work for ourselves?
Or his decades long endorsement of the Warren Commission's whacko coincidence theory?
And how does he feel about some of his seminal work in linguistics having been proven wrong in subsequent experiments, specifically the cases of Washoe, Koko, et al.
Nevertheless, has analysis of international affairs, particularly in the Middle East, are extremely valuable. How does he feel about people ignoring it, just because he was wrong about Warren, Oswald, Washoe and Koko?
That Chomsky, what a guy, huh? Though on occasion he has proven himself an anarchist sympathizer, he's certainly not an anarchist. So what is he? And why is it important for anarchists to read his work and discuss it? Or is it important? If it isn’t, why not? More important, where can we find his books, so we can judge his work for ourselves?
I am so happy I don't live in the bay area or go to college. You people treat each other like shit. Question: are any radical/progressive/anarchist goals realizable when those who share these ideals apparently despise one another and endlessly engage in dick measuring contests on the internet?
...we're not all like this. Since the dotcommers have left if's a little better than it was in the bay area, and it's still a great place to live. There is a good activist community here, but there is a tendency to devour others of even mildly differing opinions.
As a woman, I get a bit tired of all the dick measuring going on myself. Everyone here seems to assume if you post anything you're male. Like there are no anarchists of the female gender. Wake up lads!
As a woman, I get a bit tired of all the dick measuring going on myself. Everyone here seems to assume if you post anything you're male. Like there are no anarchists of the female gender. Wake up lads!
Will Barry Pateman's interview with Noam Chumpsky ask the predicatble pinko professor anything about his endorsement of Kerry for President?
Aeh..
they say that drugs impare your insight and judgement
especialy if you have been taking them since the sixties.
In your case I find this to be true.
Aeh..
they say that drugs impare your insight and judgement
especialy if you have been taking them since the sixties.
In your case I find this to be true.
we just cover it up with different rhetoric.
then we fight about the rhetoric, and it comes out.
for what it's worth, it's all your fault, just for asking.
then we fight about the rhetoric, and it comes out.
for what it's worth, it's all your fault, just for asking.
You completely forgot to blame the north and the south. It's all your fault!
Barry knows more about anarchist history than all the dim wits working at Bound Together Books and the conspiracy kooks posting to this site combined. He worked with the Kate Sharpley library (all volunteer) for years before moving to Cali. to work on the Emma Goldman Papers Project. He spoke at the anarchist book fair a few years ago and it was a fantastic talk. Certainly far superior to the Biotic Baking Brigade, Starhawk, or any of the other jokers you bring to speak on anarchism.
Am I all on his dick? No. But don't hate the player, hate the game you sorry ass suckas...
Am I all on his dick? No. But don't hate the player, hate the game you sorry ass suckas...
What are people's perspectives about Chumpsky's endorsement of Kerry for President?
What are your opinions about Chumpsky's general value as an anarchist and as a supposed advocate of radical social change?
What are your opinions about Chumpsky's general value as an anarchist and as a supposed advocate of radical social change?
This is from an interview with David Barsamian in an icepickhead rag called 'International Socialist (sic) Review." It highlights the brilliant anarchist professor's general cluelessness and congenital democretinism.
Q: Every four years Americans, those who vote, are faced with what is often called the lesser of two evils as their presidential options. Dave Dellinger, who passed away in May, used to call it "the evil of two lessers." You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position.
There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.
On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference — it’s not huge — but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. (Like, maybe, the social welfare system -- sorry Noam, you asshole, Clinton already beat them to it -- snide aside from K.K.) They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.
There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.
These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."
Q: Every four years Americans, those who vote, are faced with what is often called the lesser of two evils as their presidential options. Dave Dellinger, who passed away in May, used to call it "the evil of two lessers." You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position.
There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.
On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference — it’s not huge — but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. (Like, maybe, the social welfare system -- sorry Noam, you asshole, Clinton already beat them to it -- snide aside from K.K.) They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.
There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.
These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."
because it's all so bloody relative anymore.
selling his books is sure cool (and lucrative) though.
selling his books is sure cool (and lucrative) though.
Long list of liberal, progressive and leftist americans who supporter Nader last time but now support Kerry in swing states.
Nader 2000 Leaders United To Defeat Bush
We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of
his 113-person national "Nader 2000 Citizens Committee." This year,
we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we
strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues. For
people seeking progressive social change in the United States,
removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the
2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing
states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal. (For updated
list of signers, see
<http://vote2stopbush.com/>http://vote2stopbush.com/)
David Barsamian, Author, Radio Interviewer
Juliette Beck, California Citizens for Fair Trade
Herbert Bernstein, Professor of Physics at Hampshire College
Thomas Berry, Author, Dream of the Earth
Wendell Berry, Farmer and Writer
Norman Birnbaum, Author and Educator
Grace Lee Boggs, Detroit Activist and Writer
Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Eric Brakken, Former Staffer, United Students Against Sweatshops
Ira Byock, Palliative Care Physician, Author of Dying Well
Edgar Cahn, Founder of Time Banking
John Cavanagh, Director of Institute for Policy Studies
Noam Chomsky, Author and Professor at MIT
Steve Cobble, Strategist, Jackson '88, Nader '00, Kucinich '04
Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's
Peter Coyote, Actor and Writer
Ronnie Cummins, Director of Organic Consumers Association
Herman Daly, Professor at University of Maryland
Iris DeMent, Musician/Songwriter
Phil Donahue, Former Talk Show Host
Mark Dowie, Journalist, Former Editor/Publisher of Mother Jones
Barbara Dudley, Former President, Greenpeace and National Lawyers Guild
Ronnie Dugger, Co-founder of Alliance for Democracy
Troy Duster, Professor at New York University
Barbara Ehrenreich, Political Essayist and Social Critic
Richard Falk, Center of International Studies, Princeton University
Jim Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
Rebecca Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
Doris (Granny D) Haddock, Senate Candidate, Reform Activist
Paul Hawken, Author, Economist
Randy Hayes, Founder, Rainforest Action Network and Director of
Sustainability, City of Oakland
Jim Hightower, Author and Commentator
Wes Jackson, The Land Institute
David Kairys, Law Professor at Temple University and Author
Ynestra King, Ecofeminist Writer/Activist
John Kinsman, Family Farm Defenders
Philip M. Klasky, Co-director, Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition
David Korten, Author of When Corporations Rule the World
Frances Korten, Director of Positive Futures Network
Saul Landau, California State Polytechnic University
Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Tikkun Community
Theodore Lowi, Political Scientist, Author
Howard Lyman, Former Rancher, Vegetarian Activist
Joanna Macy, Author and Scholar
Jerry Mander, President of International Forum on Globalization
Manning Marable, Institute for Research in African American Studies, Columbia
Redwood Mary, Plight of the Redwoods Campaign
Robert McChesney, Professor, University of Illinois
Carolyn Merchant, Professor of Environmental History, University of
California-Berkeley
Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation
Gus Newport, Former Mayor of Berkeley, California
Ruth Ozeki, Novelist
Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
Bonnie Raitt, Guitarist/Singer/Songwriter
Sheldon Rampton, Co-author of Banana Republicans
Marcus Raskin, Author
Tim Robbins
Vicki Robin, New Road Map Foundation
Susan Sarandon, Actor and Activist
John Schaeffer, Founder of Real Goods Trading Company
Michelle Shocked, Musician
John Stauber, Co-author of Banana Republicans
Andrew Strauss, Professor at Widener University School of Law
Charlotte Talberth, Max and Anna Levinson Foundation
Meredith Tax, Writer and Human Rights Activist
Studs Terkel, Author, Oral Historian
Tom Tomorrow, Cartoonist
Sarah van Gelder, Editor of YES! Magazine
Eddie Vedder, Musician, Pearl Jam
Harvey Wasserman, Author of Harvey Wasserman's History of the US
Cornel West, Professor, Author of Democracy Matters
Sheldon Wolin, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
Howard Zinn, Historian and Author
Other prominent Nader 2000 supporters endorsing this statement:
Medea Benjamin, Code Pink
Jackson Browne
Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry's Co-founder
Bob Harris, Author
Norman Solomon, Columnist
Nader 2000 Leaders United To Defeat Bush
We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of
his 113-person national "Nader 2000 Citizens Committee." This year,
we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we
strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues. For
people seeking progressive social change in the United States,
removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the
2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing
states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal. (For updated
list of signers, see
<http://vote2stopbush.com/>http://vote2stopbush.com/)
David Barsamian, Author, Radio Interviewer
Juliette Beck, California Citizens for Fair Trade
Herbert Bernstein, Professor of Physics at Hampshire College
Thomas Berry, Author, Dream of the Earth
Wendell Berry, Farmer and Writer
Norman Birnbaum, Author and Educator
Grace Lee Boggs, Detroit Activist and Writer
Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Eric Brakken, Former Staffer, United Students Against Sweatshops
Ira Byock, Palliative Care Physician, Author of Dying Well
Edgar Cahn, Founder of Time Banking
John Cavanagh, Director of Institute for Policy Studies
Noam Chomsky, Author and Professor at MIT
Steve Cobble, Strategist, Jackson '88, Nader '00, Kucinich '04
Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's
Peter Coyote, Actor and Writer
Ronnie Cummins, Director of Organic Consumers Association
Herman Daly, Professor at University of Maryland
Iris DeMent, Musician/Songwriter
Phil Donahue, Former Talk Show Host
Mark Dowie, Journalist, Former Editor/Publisher of Mother Jones
Barbara Dudley, Former President, Greenpeace and National Lawyers Guild
Ronnie Dugger, Co-founder of Alliance for Democracy
Troy Duster, Professor at New York University
Barbara Ehrenreich, Political Essayist and Social Critic
Richard Falk, Center of International Studies, Princeton University
Jim Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
Rebecca Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
Doris (Granny D) Haddock, Senate Candidate, Reform Activist
Paul Hawken, Author, Economist
Randy Hayes, Founder, Rainforest Action Network and Director of
Sustainability, City of Oakland
Jim Hightower, Author and Commentator
Wes Jackson, The Land Institute
David Kairys, Law Professor at Temple University and Author
Ynestra King, Ecofeminist Writer/Activist
John Kinsman, Family Farm Defenders
Philip M. Klasky, Co-director, Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition
David Korten, Author of When Corporations Rule the World
Frances Korten, Director of Positive Futures Network
Saul Landau, California State Polytechnic University
Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Tikkun Community
Theodore Lowi, Political Scientist, Author
Howard Lyman, Former Rancher, Vegetarian Activist
Joanna Macy, Author and Scholar
Jerry Mander, President of International Forum on Globalization
Manning Marable, Institute for Research in African American Studies, Columbia
Redwood Mary, Plight of the Redwoods Campaign
Robert McChesney, Professor, University of Illinois
Carolyn Merchant, Professor of Environmental History, University of
California-Berkeley
Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation
Gus Newport, Former Mayor of Berkeley, California
Ruth Ozeki, Novelist
Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
Bonnie Raitt, Guitarist/Singer/Songwriter
Sheldon Rampton, Co-author of Banana Republicans
Marcus Raskin, Author
Tim Robbins
Vicki Robin, New Road Map Foundation
Susan Sarandon, Actor and Activist
John Schaeffer, Founder of Real Goods Trading Company
Michelle Shocked, Musician
John Stauber, Co-author of Banana Republicans
Andrew Strauss, Professor at Widener University School of Law
Charlotte Talberth, Max and Anna Levinson Foundation
Meredith Tax, Writer and Human Rights Activist
Studs Terkel, Author, Oral Historian
Tom Tomorrow, Cartoonist
Sarah van Gelder, Editor of YES! Magazine
Eddie Vedder, Musician, Pearl Jam
Harvey Wasserman, Author of Harvey Wasserman's History of the US
Cornel West, Professor, Author of Democracy Matters
Sheldon Wolin, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
Howard Zinn, Historian and Author
Other prominent Nader 2000 supporters endorsing this statement:
Medea Benjamin, Code Pink
Jackson Browne
Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry's Co-founder
Bob Harris, Author
Norman Solomon, Columnist
now all we need is the addresses of these idiots so we'll know where to find them the day after the revolution...
if the intent is to get that long-faced neo-liberal brahmin into the executive office, an endorsement by self-professed leftists ain't gonna help. aren't these the same folks who argue that america is "so right-wing" that we must face reality and, tail between our legs, vote for Kerry-Edwards? what makes them think that a bunch of leftist "movement leaders" calling for Kerry's election is gonna turn this shit around? how many people are going to vote for Kerry WHO WOULDN'T HAVE ANYWAY upon reading this appeal?
one of the biggest problems with leftists of this sort is that they can't conceive of an (at least latently radical) opposition emerging which doesn't have these self-professed leftists at its center--so they, in effect, give up on the very possibility. the logic goes something like this: since the left is in "disarray," ergo, there's no possible chance of building a counter-power to the power of capital and its two erstwhile parties--thus we must not only vote, but pimp, for the urbane, Wall-Street vetted, "pro-choice" Democraps.
If you want to help Kerry--without fostering illusions in this capitalist shit-democracy or rhetorically undermining prospects for future radical activities--the best thing to do is to ATTACK him relentlessly and mercilessly. amplify the fact that his economic advisers are a bunch of corporate investment bankers who're fixated on "fiscal responsibility" (a euphemism for: "we're gonna cut social spending"); that he supported the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq War; that he supported the latest $400-plus billion military budget, etc etc. All the while, real radicals should be arguing why it is that the capitalist system--to which Kerry is abjectly beholden--demands more and more severe measures to keep afloat. if a critique along these lines was widely disseminated, i think a good number of conservative republicans might feel more comfortable supporting their natural ally--John Kerry--and radicals, in the process, wouldn't negate their reason for existing.
one of the biggest problems with leftists of this sort is that they can't conceive of an (at least latently radical) opposition emerging which doesn't have these self-professed leftists at its center--so they, in effect, give up on the very possibility. the logic goes something like this: since the left is in "disarray," ergo, there's no possible chance of building a counter-power to the power of capital and its two erstwhile parties--thus we must not only vote, but pimp, for the urbane, Wall-Street vetted, "pro-choice" Democraps.
If you want to help Kerry--without fostering illusions in this capitalist shit-democracy or rhetorically undermining prospects for future radical activities--the best thing to do is to ATTACK him relentlessly and mercilessly. amplify the fact that his economic advisers are a bunch of corporate investment bankers who're fixated on "fiscal responsibility" (a euphemism for: "we're gonna cut social spending"); that he supported the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq War; that he supported the latest $400-plus billion military budget, etc etc. All the while, real radicals should be arguing why it is that the capitalist system--to which Kerry is abjectly beholden--demands more and more severe measures to keep afloat. if a critique along these lines was widely disseminated, i think a good number of conservative republicans might feel more comfortable supporting their natural ally--John Kerry--and radicals, in the process, wouldn't negate their reason for existing.
We’re in the wrong car. The tires are bald, it's covered with rust, it’s burning oil, the steering is loose, it’s pulling to the right, the brake pads are worn down to the rivets, it’s stolen and it’s being shot at. Changing the hood ornament wont help.
...get the hell out of that death machine. There are plenty of more sustainable forms of transport, both literally and figuratively. And politically. I get sick of people using the car/driving analogy for every damn thing that relates to human culture or the lack thereof.
INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS (oxymoronic title) real anarchists don't do organizations
organizations are for sheeple!
organizations are for sheeple!
well then, nessie, are you a real anarchist? or a hyphenated one, indicating some peaceful relation with some concept of leadership?
having a correct answer embedded in a question is no kind of question at all. it is a falsely (that is, to the one who asks) clever rhetorica tactic that merely proves the questioner is not interested in any other answer than the one s/he already knows. this is authoritarian. and foolish (to say the least).
the question of anarchist organization isn't "whether" you idiots. the anarchist organizational questions are when, how, why, and with whom.
the question of anarchist organization isn't "whether" you idiots. the anarchist organizational questions are when, how, why, and with whom.
Bush siphons off too much energy. The successful WTO protests were able to occur during the Clinton administration. The WTO and WB and ImF are examples of problems that occur under democrat and republican administrations. But now the biggest protests are all reactionary to the latest thing Bush is doing, and to the election itself. I actually heard a radio advertisement on the air america network where someone was saying something like "the most effective form of direct action is voting! Call this number to sign up to register new voters before election day".
With Bush out of the way, we can go back to more productive use of energy where we focus on the permanent institutions in our government that transcend the particular administration.
With Bush out of the way, we can go back to more productive use of energy where we focus on the permanent institutions in our government that transcend the particular administration.
And I'm sick of catering to the minuscule fraction of a percent of the working class who consider cars, not "death machines," but a symbol of freedom, as well as vital necessity for most of the year on much of this continent. So I choose analogies that most people can relate to.
Personally, I don't like cars either. They keep trying to kill me. You should see my x-rays. I look like the Eiffle tower in here. Cars did that to me. It hurts every single day. I haven't owned a car in thirty years. But I’m not so self centered as to believe that indulging my personal prejudices is going to further the revolution. Politics is numbers. Only mass action can change the world. When you bad mouth cars, almost every worker who hears it will hear it as you bad mouthing them. To the vast overwhelming majority of workers, cars are a beloved necessity, an extension of their very self, and in most cases, the only way to put food on their tables. To them, if you’re anti-car, you’re anti-worker. And in a very real sense, you are. Almost everybody is a worker. You will *never* change the world by alienating them. All you will do is marginalize yourselves further. Do you *want* to be irrelevant? This is how to do it.
Besides, cars aren’t the real problem. Fossil fuel is the real problem. Burn renewable fuel in cars, and their part of problem evaporates. That would still leaves the problem of electricity generation, for which there is no single solution. But science will solve this problem eventually. Science took us from Kitty Hawk to the moon in less than a century. It can solve this.
In the meantime, we must conserve, we must support research into alternative sources of energy, and we must studiously avoid alienating fellow workers, and not make ourselves look like obnoxious, self centered, elitist fools.
Personally, I don't like cars either. They keep trying to kill me. You should see my x-rays. I look like the Eiffle tower in here. Cars did that to me. It hurts every single day. I haven't owned a car in thirty years. But I’m not so self centered as to believe that indulging my personal prejudices is going to further the revolution. Politics is numbers. Only mass action can change the world. When you bad mouth cars, almost every worker who hears it will hear it as you bad mouthing them. To the vast overwhelming majority of workers, cars are a beloved necessity, an extension of their very self, and in most cases, the only way to put food on their tables. To them, if you’re anti-car, you’re anti-worker. And in a very real sense, you are. Almost everybody is a worker. You will *never* change the world by alienating them. All you will do is marginalize yourselves further. Do you *want* to be irrelevant? This is how to do it.
Besides, cars aren’t the real problem. Fossil fuel is the real problem. Burn renewable fuel in cars, and their part of problem evaporates. That would still leaves the problem of electricity generation, for which there is no single solution. But science will solve this problem eventually. Science took us from Kitty Hawk to the moon in less than a century. It can solve this.
In the meantime, we must conserve, we must support research into alternative sources of energy, and we must studiously avoid alienating fellow workers, and not make ourselves look like obnoxious, self centered, elitist fools.
if this is true, then were oh where is the revolution?
or have you just not "educated" enough of the workers (or whomever), yet?
or have you just not "educated" enough of the workers (or whomever), yet?
a revolution (whatever you mean by that--without any kind of definition this is just another example of empty rhetoric) is not brought about by an organization. that is a leninist lie.
and your authoritarian technique of asking a so-called question that contains your pre-known answer is getting really annoying.
there has not ever been a revolution (by which i mean a radical refusal and therefore transformation of dominant pre-revolutionary social relations and institutions) started by an organization. revolutions are started by diverse people refusing to assent to the continuation of intolerable social/political/economic conditions. anarchism is unnecessary. marxism is unnecessary. anarchists are unnecessary. marxists are unnecessary. furthering and extending such a revolution may be a question of organization (and i would prefer a system akin to, but not exactly like, workers' councils), but starting it is not.
and your authoritarian technique of asking a so-called question that contains your pre-known answer is getting really annoying.
there has not ever been a revolution (by which i mean a radical refusal and therefore transformation of dominant pre-revolutionary social relations and institutions) started by an organization. revolutions are started by diverse people refusing to assent to the continuation of intolerable social/political/economic conditions. anarchism is unnecessary. marxism is unnecessary. anarchists are unnecessary. marxists are unnecessary. furthering and extending such a revolution may be a question of organization (and i would prefer a system akin to, but not exactly like, workers' councils), but starting it is not.
It may also be that you're just fronting for your organizational impotence. An impression that's only augmented by your distractive name calling.
Nice try though. Got any better excuses?
Nice try though. Got any better excuses?
i don't owe you any excuse. i don't apologize for calling people by the names that fit. you are the one who has pointedly refused to deal with the question of revolution--which you brought up--and how an organization is irrelevant to the beginning of that process. that's the initial so-called question you asked, which i answered. now that you are unhappy that someone with brains has dealt head-on with what you thought would be a distraction, you attempt to disctract again with a focus on what you think must be more important than revolution--name-calling. that's not just annoying. it's transparently pathetic. what's your excuse?
It’s happening all over the planet. It has been happening for a long time. It will continue to happen for a long time. Revolution is an ongoing process. It takes time. The industrial revolution, for example, has been going on for centuries and hasn’t even hit it’s stride yet. The agricultural revolution took thousands of years, and still hasn’t caught on in some places.
Perhaps this leninist schmuck mistakes insurrection for revolution, and bemoans not having yet been swept into power on the shoulders of “useful idiots.” Any insurrection that sweeps a new boss into power is not revolution. It is counter revolution.
Another problem with insurrection is that any truly revolutionary insurrection that occurs in only one location, is doomed to be crushed. The grip of the ruling class is global. So, too, must be our insurrection. It must be also be simultaneous. And above all, when it happens, we must be ready to live without bosses. So today, all true revolutionaries are organizing to that end. If you’re not, you’re not a true revolutionary.
See:
http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/1694406_comment.php#1694501
Perhaps this leninist schmuck mistakes insurrection for revolution, and bemoans not having yet been swept into power on the shoulders of “useful idiots.” Any insurrection that sweeps a new boss into power is not revolution. It is counter revolution.
Another problem with insurrection is that any truly revolutionary insurrection that occurs in only one location, is doomed to be crushed. The grip of the ruling class is global. So, too, must be our insurrection. It must be also be simultaneous. And above all, when it happens, we must be ready to live without bosses. So today, all true revolutionaries are organizing to that end. If you’re not, you’re not a true revolutionary.
See:
http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/1694406_comment.php#1694501
as to your intent for same. but that's the privilege of anarchist leadership-- never having to answer questions you don't like.
just cut them out of the record.
just cut them out of the record.
but this thread isn't about that.... it's about someone else's intellectual leadership.
it occurs to me that you work for a collective of booksellers, such as ak press is. thus, your defense of state-sponsored pedagogy-based market expansion, if you will, is not a question you are disinterested in.
so why should we trust anything you have to say on the question? you opinions are suspect by the economic interest you hold in the outcome of the event.
it occurs to me that you work for a collective of booksellers, such as ak press is. thus, your defense of state-sponsored pedagogy-based market expansion, if you will, is not a question you are disinterested in.
so why should we trust anything you have to say on the question? you opinions are suspect by the economic interest you hold in the outcome of the event.
Heaven, or whomever, forbid. (maybe the indybay censor forbid...) here you thought that was your job...
Isn't that the place that sells pedophile magazines?
They also terrorist instruction manuals and books advocating treason and blasphemy.
except for criticism of the leadership. the only thought banned in anarchism, at least as it's practiced.
We have no leaders. We are all leaders.
which isn't me, Bound Together, "leadership," or any of the other crap you have littered this thread with. It's about some free classes, none of which are being taught by you. So unless you plan to attend, they're none of your business. If you do plan to attend, then raise your objections in person. Otherwise, we can only assume your sole purpose here is to disrupt the discussion by diverting our attention from the topic at hand.
Show some respect for the readers here. Don't insult their intelligence. They can see what you're up to. If you want to talk about Bound Together Books, start a thread on the subject. If you want to talk about me, there already is a thread going. Do it there:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1546540.php
If you want to remain ignorant, then eschew learning. But not every one here is stupid enough to cling to their ignorance. Stop disrupting this thread, get out of their way, and let them learn.
Show some respect for the readers here. Don't insult their intelligence. They can see what you're up to. If you want to talk about Bound Together Books, start a thread on the subject. If you want to talk about me, there already is a thread going. Do it there:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1546540.php
If you want to remain ignorant, then eschew learning. But not every one here is stupid enough to cling to their ignorance. Stop disrupting this thread, get out of their way, and let them learn.
duck
duck
duck
goose.
duck
duck
goose.
thesis: discussion of anarchist leadership is always off-topic, especially according to anarchist leaders. or disruptive, or whatever excuse shuts down the questioner most readily. to pretend that pedagogy has nothing to do with leadership is a prime example of the disconnect at hand.
of course, by inference of a most basic kind, these are the seeds of a virulent fascism at the heart of american anarchism. (let's be specific.) it is brilliant in its simplicity: one can't question that which does not exist. and if one continues to, then one may no longer be invited to sell one's books at the "community" market, or whatever venue the committee controls. for example. do a thought experiment: extrapolate.
corollary: the most ardent deniers of anarchist leadership are its leaders. this has positively chilly connotations. at least commies name their leaders and hold them accountable. but how does one stop the "community purification volunteer brigade coordination committee" once it's started, if there's no leadership to hold accountable? because we're all leaders, that's why we're leading by the example of ethnically cleansing our own neighborhood.
people will scoff because they live in the mission or whatever. seriously, how would this shit be implemented in alabama, let's say?
and, while we're at it, which of our illustrious pedagogues will stand up and take some responsibility for the forseeable consequences of what they advocate, despite the obvious flaws in their schemes and their refusal to even see same?
extra credit: if anarchism is so different than various other strains of marxism, then what's with the emma goldman cult?
of course, by inference of a most basic kind, these are the seeds of a virulent fascism at the heart of american anarchism. (let's be specific.) it is brilliant in its simplicity: one can't question that which does not exist. and if one continues to, then one may no longer be invited to sell one's books at the "community" market, or whatever venue the committee controls. for example. do a thought experiment: extrapolate.
corollary: the most ardent deniers of anarchist leadership are its leaders. this has positively chilly connotations. at least commies name their leaders and hold them accountable. but how does one stop the "community purification volunteer brigade coordination committee" once it's started, if there's no leadership to hold accountable? because we're all leaders, that's why we're leading by the example of ethnically cleansing our own neighborhood.
people will scoff because they live in the mission or whatever. seriously, how would this shit be implemented in alabama, let's say?
and, while we're at it, which of our illustrious pedagogues will stand up and take some responsibility for the forseeable consequences of what they advocate, despite the obvious flaws in their schemes and their refusal to even see same?
extra credit: if anarchism is so different than various other strains of marxism, then what's with the emma goldman cult?
Hey Kevin
Do you think that you could make it to the "Chumpsky" screening on Thu. Barry will be there and I know that he has issue with the Kerry thing, perhaps other issues to, hopefully. Anyhow if you could make it I think people would appreciate your perspective on Chomsky. It's cool that your hittin it up on this site but I dont think most people that are coming to the classes are checking out this site.
* Please forward to Kevin if somebody has his contact*
Do you think that you could make it to the "Chumpsky" screening on Thu. Barry will be there and I know that he has issue with the Kerry thing, perhaps other issues to, hopefully. Anyhow if you could make it I think people would appreciate your perspective on Chomsky. It's cool that your hittin it up on this site but I dont think most people that are coming to the classes are checking out this site.
* Please forward to Kevin if somebody has his contact*
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network