> Anyone for picketing the Qatar meeting?
>
> Mark
Funny, it's not the first time I have been asked that question this week.
<g>
> From: bon moun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "The Left", however you want to define this amorphous group, is not afraid
> to address the issue.
I'm sorry, Stan, that using the term "the left" sent up the redbaiting
flare. A careful reading of the preceeding messages to my post will confirm
that Mark used the term in this way. I plead "Not Guilty". I still think
"they" are "afraid", though. I'm asking why.
> The VAST majority of "the left" is not in possession
> of the relevant facts and the relevant analysis.
I agree with your statement, although I also agree with Mark's rebuttal to
it as well. (cognitive dissonance reigns supreme.)
>This rhetorical assumption of the
> left being "afraid" is precisely part of the problem. It substitutes
> name-calling or a softer version of it for analysis and education.
Again, Mark points the "j'accuse"-ing finger at "the Left", so I'm in good
company in this rhetorical gambit, such as it is. I was sincerely NOT doing
name calling, (by now you should know that I can -- and am often overly
quick to -- slide down into that gutter when it suits my purposes. If I
wanted to call names I'd of done it up front. I merely wanted to ask why.
... and I did.
> Again, Tom, this gratuitously confrontational and oversimplified
> characterization of "the left" may be a fine outlet for frustration, but
it
> does nothing to either bring more people to understanding or build
> alliances. I consider myself a leftist, and I have never taken any of
> these positions as stated. This is a caricature. What are YOUR
arguments,
> Tom? What do YOU propose? It's easy to throw rocks.
Yes, and apparently easier to overlook earlier proposals. I have laid my
cards upon the table before and trotted out a variety of proposals regarding
this issue. They remain unrecognized and largely uncommented upon by
Crashlist. It's as if we wake up every day with a new blank slate and there
is no memory of who has proposed what. My latest proposal: .... everyone
go look up the latest works on "bioregionalism" for some sign posts to a way
out. Simple. Doesn't even require impossible political mobilization.
I do, however stand by my "caricature" of the prevailing excuses by the
majority of "the Left" of Crashlist and sister sites. You, yourself, in this
post have resorted to my identified excuse #1. A casual reading of the
archives can confirm this about others. If the shoe fits
... if it doesn't .... don't worry.
> Let's break it down.
>
> 1. We can either accept the problem, or we can do the best we can with the
> conditions and resources available to combat, ameliorate, and survive the
> problem.
>
> 2. The conditions and resources available to accomplish this are material
> and social.
Nah. Not in the way I read the standard delimitation of material and social
I am projecting on to your thoughts. If you add a component called
"natural", I'll be in your corner. If I'm wrong, tell me how I'm wrong.
> 3. If there is a solution or partial solution, it can not be effected
> without social action.
>
> 4. The developing crisis is developing endogenously with the system, which
> is capitalism.
Nah. That's like saying all these glaciers melting are melting just from the
heat on Wall Street. It's bigger than capitalism. If capitalism were gone
tomorrow, and the heat it generates was removed, 6 billion politically
neutral innocents would still be killing the planet. Capitalism is just a
single shark swimming in a cruel sea.
> 5. Since the problem is developing endogenously, restructuring solutions
> within that system can not address the roots of the problem.
>
> 6. The people who run this system and benefit from it are not hearing your
> appeal to their long-term self interest, and they have no intention of
> voluntarily letting the system go. They will kill or jail or declare war
> on everyone of us before they do.
Unless they can figure a way to make a profit from doing otherwise. <g>
(sorry, couldn't resist.)
[snip of 7, 8 & 9 which are very good points, btw]
> 10. That question is not moral or academic. It's strategic. It means we
> have to identify specifically WHO will do it, HOW will they do it, WHEN,
> WHERE, and WHY to aim our strategic blows--NOT to effect the changes we
> both want to see... because we already know that siezure of political
power
> is a precondition of any solution... but to take that material power.
>
yep. so .... why are so many of " the Left" focused on those largely
irrelevent issues I identified instead of beginning to specify who, how,
when, where, and why? That's my question, and I think Mark's.
Is the Left afraid to tackle the bigger issue of [who, how, when, where, and
why]? It seems so. Far easier to lose oneself in the debate over who is the
bigger butthead, Chomsky or Marcuse; now THATs really some relevent
discussion toward averting the disaster!
> Will that be enough? I don't know.
Try to know
>
> Will it happen in time? I don't know.
Try to find out.
> Can it be avoided? Absolutely not.
yes. absolutely true. Nestor says he's going to fight on anyway. So am I.
> Do we need to engage and educate those who are serious about this
> taking-power thing? You bet!
Yayyyyyyyyy! That's a discussion I am hoping for!
Julien writes:
> Tom, I'd be glad if you could explain how localism and bioregionalism
could work
> on a large scale without going through this annoying taking power business
(or at
> least this destroying power business).
>
> Julien
Let's see. Suppose you woke up and there was no oil.
Now, that means there is no global economy, no global communication, no
world-wide or even nationwide anything. You'd be living solely in your
"locality". You'd have to make do with what is there, since you can't expect
Indonesia to send you any more commodities. The largest entity you would be
able to take advantage of organizing would be your "bioregion", (with any
luck ... let's be optimistic.) Those who understand localism and
bioregionalism will have a head start, non? If they just happen to be
Marxists, well ......
The point is: the annoying "taking power business" is actually a "losing
power business " (no petroleum pun intended .. well, maybe a little bit <g>)
Remember that old arab adage: "To prevail, go sit at home on your porch,
eventually your enemy's casket will pass your door." The madman with the
machete has terminal cancer.
There will have to be localist/bioregionalists in every watershed for it to
be "large scale", Julien. "Large scale" is actually going away for about
1500 years, starting with the current dieoff in Russia according to Mark,
and the current dieoff in Afghanistan according to me. (and let's not forget
the current dieoff in Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Mississippi ....) Billions will
die, read Mark's post, and the other gloom and doom recognitions on this
thread. "Large Scale" may be a pipe dream.
Carrol:
>Tom and those who agree with him are equally irrelevant to
> any actual politics.
Boy, Carrol, true-er words were never spoken! Any dispassionate observation
of the situation will reveal this. My personal political influence extends
about to a few tree spikes and maybe a whale or two having a few more weeks
of life. Not much relevance at all. (although they still haven't buried
much nuke waste in Nevada, hee hee.) The influence of "those who agree with"
me is even less, since that number is a very very small one indeed.
Oh well, I never thought it was a rose garden.
Tom
"The Earth is not dying - she is being killed.
And those who are killing her have names
and addresses." -Utah Phillips
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
