At 12:03 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Blair wrote: >"But,... but,... why bother with this at all, then, if you're not going to >get into the details?" > >"Because I'm kinda tired of some people repeatedly implying or claiming >that *their* activity is concrete and practical, getting their hands dirty >with politics that has "beneficial, tangible effects," while others, >academic pedants, sit dreaming in their ivory towers, and wile away the >time in idle fantasy about impossible future utopias. Blair, I don't have any problem with academic pedants who sit dreaming in their ivory towers; it's _what_ they're dreaming about that irritates me. Our side could use some more dreamers. I can't tell you how many political actions I've been involved with where the lefties involved will Talk the Big Talk (Revolution, etc.) while fighting for a couple of lousy crumbs. Almost nobody is gutsy enough to say, "we want real power in 10 years"--not Ruling the World real power but running CA's state government or turning the temp industry inside-out--let alone to actually plan for it. That takes people who are willing to dream, let alone to do the kind of theorizing that makes dreams vivid. Unfortunately, most of the radicals I know who think that way are on the Right... My problem with academics is stuff like this: >"I will just say that the perspective I suggest above highlights the need >for cross-constinuency, cross-issue alliances, and a theoretical framework >that can make genuine alliances possible. In principle, then, any 'reform' >activity has revolutionary potential, but that potential can only be >realized if it is explicitly and consciously articulated with other >'reform' activities in a revolutionary strategy. No 'reform' activity is >intrinsically revolutionary, and the recuperative powers of capital are >such that even the reforms of such activity are likely to be evanescent in >the absence of such explicit theoretical articulation." Essentially, your answer to "so what do we do?" is, minus a lot of big words, "it depends." Come on, Blair! You don't have to go do nuts-and-bolts politics to be useful, but if you're "kinda tired" of feeling picked on and you want to do something that will be useful to folks doing grassroots politics--by which I mean not people like me but the folks I work with--you need to be a little more specific (and incidentally, "concrete" and "theory" aren't opposites; if you can't breath life into your theory by using concrete examples, then it isn't a very good theory). >>All this so far is simply by way of introduction, context. The point, to >>return to Max and Anders' comments to me, is that I think the kind of >>reforms Max suggests and works on (insofar as I know about these, which >>could be very little, but in any case is based on what I recall of his >>comments here on PEN-L) are precisely reforms that require enterprises to >>alter their patterns of surplus distribution (just what they do best!), but >>present little or no threat to the existing structure of surplus >>appropriation. >.... >"So this is why you think the environmental justice movement offers some >promise?" > >"As much as anything, yes. But now I've got to get back to my paper."] Just when it's getting interesting.... :( If you're hoping to write something that's useful, then why not do a little ivory tower dreaming? Why not say, this is the framework the environmental justice movement ought to use if it wants to win ___ in 8 (or 80) years. Maybe you could do what Gingrich did: come up with a list of contrasting words that could help frame the debate between environmental justice and the Evil Capitalists (or whoever you pick as your Bad Guys), and put 'em under two opposing headings (e.g., "Conservative Opportunity Society" vs. "Liberal Welfare State"). Or come up with something else that's theoretical but useful. It doesn't have to be "the answer"; a lousy, half-right idea is a hell of lot more useful than no idea. Otherwise, it's just killing trees for no good reason--not something the environmental justice movement would approve. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
