Path: news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!agate!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!haneef
From: [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Dystopia, at last...
Date: 11 Sep 1995 13:37:36 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College Engineering, Swarthmore PA
Lines: 72
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.engin.swarthmore.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Sourcerer ([email protected]) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96) wrote:
> >Sourcerer
> >(1) Stupid is the how the rich elite describe the masses
> >(2) Activism is pretty much useless talking
> >Is this a correct assessment?
> Activisim is a conspiracy of the elite to oppress the masses. The activists
> consider the social power inefficient in that oppression, because it leaves
> the masses discontented and under-utilized. which inevitably leads to social
> disorder which disturbs the security of the elite in their compounds and is
> bad for biz (recollect David Rockafeller's assessment of the Sandanista
> regime -- "a bad credit risk"), plus the condition of the masses offends the
> aesthetics of the sensitized.
> The activist dialogue is with the social power (thus the conspiracy of the
> elite). The masses (the lumpen) are not permitted a voice because they
> aren't bright enough to appreciate the activists' sense of irony, and would
> only embarass themselves. In their stead, "representing" them, are the
> ideals of the activists.
> Activists should not be confused with workers in the field, although I make
> a distinction between politicals in the field (who sacrifice their resources
> for a time) and the religious (who sacrifice their futures) who assist the
> masses.
Funny, I thought the relogious and political workers WERE activists.
Is there another definition of activism you speak of? I had a
friend/acqaintance who was what you would call 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?
> The masses are not stupid. They are very adept at surviving the
> depredations of the social power and have a bare-faced realistic appraisal
> of the elites. The elites do not understand the masses "sense of irony" or
> it terrifies them, if they do.
> The difference in a nutshell: Back when Solidarity was barely hanging on
> agaisnt the Polish state's infiltration and sabatoge, someone wrote an
> analysis of the Solidarity posters and those of unions in the US (this was
> in an art, not a political, magazine). He noted two distinguishing
> characteristics between them: In the Solidarity posters' depictions of
> people en masse, the people had individual well defined faces, and the
> banners and signs they carried had legible text of the movements' slogans.
> In the American unions' posters, the faces were all "generic" and
> cartoonish, and the banners and signs were just squiggles and marks
> indicating "text" -- 'bus advertismenet art' (or 'PBS art') I call it.
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 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).
> (__) Sourcerer
> /(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I'll string my whips with scorpions"
> \../ |OO|||O|||O|O -- Webster
> || OO|||OO||O||O The Duchess of Malfi
[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]