![](/img/extlink.gif)
ed&tid=16
excerpts:
"Some actvisits are anarchists -- but mainly out of temperamental reflex, not rigorous thought. Others are liberals -- though most are too confrontational and too skeptical about the system to embrace that label. And many others profess no ideology at all. So over all is the activist left just an inchoate, "post-ideological" mass of do-gooders, pragmatists and puppeteers?
"No. The young troublemakers of today do have an ideology and it is as deeply felt and intellectually totalizing as any of the great belief systems of yore. The cadres who populate those endless meetings, who bang the drum, who lead the "trainings" and paint the puppets, do indeed have a creed. They are Activismists.
"That's right, Activismists. This brave new ideology combines the political illiteracy of hyper-mediated American culture with all the moral zeal of a nineteenth century temperance crusade."
(...)
"Activists unconsciously echoing factory bosses? The parallel isn't as far-fetched as it might seem, as another German, Theodor Adorno, suggests."
(...)
"Though embraced by people who imagine themselves to be radical agitators, that thoughtless compulsion mirrors the pragmatic empiricism of the dominant culture -- "not the least way in which actionism fits so smoothly into society's prevailing trend." Actionism, he concluded, "is regressive...it refuses to reflect on its own impotence."
"It may seem odd to cite this just when activistism seems to be working fine. Protest is on an upswing; even the post 9/11 frenzy of terror baiting didn't shut down the movement. Demonstrators were out in force to protest the World Economic Forum, with a grace and discipline that buoyed sprits worldwide. The youth getting busted, gassed and trailed by the cops are putting their bodies on the line to oppose global capital; they are brave and committed, even heroic.
"But is action enough? We pose this question precisely because activism seems so strong. The flipside of all this agitation is a corrosive and aggressive anti-intellectualism. We object to this hostility toward thinking -- not only because we've all got a cranky intellectual bent, but also because it limits the movement's transformative power."
(...)
"the unwillingness to think about what it means to be against the war and how war fits into the global project of American empire, has also led to a poverty of thinking about what kind of actions make sense..."
(...)
"This movement's willingness to embrace radicals and non-radicals alike has been a strength, attracting both policy wonks and people who like to chain their throats to the dean's desk. Such flexibility is usually commendable. What bothers us about activistism as an ideology is that is renders taboo any discussion of ideas or beliefs, and thus stymies both thought and action."
(...)
See also the comment section, which includes response to this text:
"...protests in major European cities routinely dwarf our own, and activists there have far more influence on mainstream discourse and even government policy."
--------
The biggest reason that Europeans have huge rallies is because their mainstream media allows for people like Noam Chomsky to actually be heard and given credibility. Their media "exposes" US aggression, but at the same time (in my experience of living in other nations at separate times, and knowing a diversity of Europeans) their conception is as topical as our conception of the "backwardness of the Brits" (a notion we're allowed to have, surely to help vent mass frustrations).
As far as activists having more influence there, could that be because they are much smaller countries? So they are able to "wake up" to the evil aggression by the u.s.a., but not the most important point--the hand their "leaders" have in other facets of elite control; i.e. the globalist motions.
(dissent welcome!)
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
sorry i don't quite get your point
12.02.2004 11:06
in the struggle, we all share and protect each other. if hippies hand you to the police then they are traitors to the revolution.
i admit to giving vent to my rage on a few occasions, but keeping myself and my friends safe at the same time.
yes, there is sometimes an ideological vacuum where any black-wearing sociopath can feel they can mash up a cake shop because it symbolises global capital.
i was tempted to call it "adolesecent anarchism" but i know many really sorted young people. and i've met too many people (older, who should know better) playing at being bad boys/grrls on manifestations/demonstrations for their friend's camera: forget their age or maturity; too many people spend too much time wanking off in front of a mirror, look at me, i'm so naughty black block, i trashed a cake shop shop.
its not an age issue, its not a US issue, its not a euro issue. Its ALL of our problems when soft heads and metal bars come together: a truly politically aware black bloc - the true black bloc - destroys symbols of oppression. and gets away.
yes, ok, we know the small businessman is the worst capitalist of all. but mashing small shops is just pathetic.
bash up banks, shops that sell fur, chain restaurants AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU DID IT afterwards. a true coherent political statement that identifies the "bad guys" and explains your actions may not make the newspapers (who gives a shit) but it will send a political message.
fight on, fight strong
spud
You talk a load of intellectual elitist crap.
12.02.2004 11:15
"...we challenge left activist culture to live up to its anti-hierarchical claims: activists should themselves become intellectuals. Why reproduce the larger society's division between mental and physical labor?"
Well if activists became intellectuals we'd all be talking about Kropotkin, Marx, proletariat and bourgoise, and no one would actually understand what the fuck we were talking about!!
Wheras if we go put our ideas (based on observations of our daily existence) into action not only on protests and actions, but in our daily lives through building social movements, supporting labour struggles, setting up autonomous spaces, skill sharing, etc. then we wouldn't need to spend so long writing long critiques cos we could see results themselves when we win a labour dispute or teach a skill to a friend so they are more self reliant.
And as for the comment "the unwillingness to think about what it means to be against the war and how war fits into the global project of American empire, has also led to a poverty of thinking about what kind of actions make sense...". Have you ever read Indymedia, or SchNEWS or A-Infos? Then you'll see people are thinking about why the American empire and capitalism etc, is wrong and there is a good healthy debate about what actions are useful.
If you spent more time going out and DOING things rather than most of your time THINKING then we'd get somewhere!!
Miss Point