Path: news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!dns.city-net.com!dns.city-net.com!vagans
From: Sourcerer
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Dystopia, at last...
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:39:17 -0400
Organization: CityNet, Inc.
Lines: 68
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dns.city-net.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 11 Sep 1995, Omar Haneef '96 wrote:

> Sourcerer ([email protected]) wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96) wrote:
>
>
> Funny, I thought the relogious and political workers WERE activists.

You asked me questions using that term, and I answered them using that
term. It is not native to my vocabulary. So, if my replies are
insufficient in your terms, you'll just have to suck it up and live with
it.

> Is there another definition of activism you speak of?

I used the term as it has been described in these articles. I made a
distinction based upon who or what one is in dialogue with. If it
satisfies you then consider one kind of activist to be in dialogue with
the social power and another kind of activist to be in dialogue with the
lumpen.

> I had a
> friend/acqaintance who was what you would call a "loud-mouthed" activist -

I have never called anyone a "loud-mouthed" activist.

> very bright and knew his Marxist theory like no one else I know (including
> the professors) - and he went on to join AFL.CIO. So what was he?

Don't know. Don't care.

> This is true and your methodology is now making itself evident to me.
> Instead of, say, criticizing the activists for being pretentious you want to
> do away with the whole thing altogather (not criticism, just reflection -
> interesting how you have the same response to capitalism. I suppose we both
> agree that charity merely abates the conscience and quells revolution for a
> little bit longer...)

I am suggesting that all of the above means squat to the
lumpen. I am suggesting that -- and you ought to be able to grasp this,
at least, since you referenced Foucault on the redundancy of labor in
another article -- the lumpen have their own agenda, or a growing
awareness of having one, as their numbers and diversity of attainments
increases.

> > I see no reason to dignify this scam of the elites by associating it
> > with actual social revolution...although liberal humanists are
> > occasionally useful in the short term.

> But then you don't have complaints with a subset of activists who complain
> about the lack of real social change and want to activate activism. Why
> don't you belong to this group? (Not criticism "of course" but mere
> curiousity).

Why on earth would I want to associate with a bunch of whiners? I do not
want dialogue with the social power. As I wrote in the follow-up to your
Foucault comment, the masses, redundant for production (i.e., "lumpen")
are to be saved by being made into consumers. That, AFAIK, is the goal of
"activism" (of the left-political sort. The goal of right-politicals such
as religious fundamentalists and environmentalists is different and
certainly less doable).


(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "RL is a story told in cyberspace"
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O -- Sweet Poly
|| OO|||OO||O||O


[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]