wow...it has been forever (well, March) since i last updated this. for whatever reason I just haven't felt up to it, but I'm going to try to keep it more up to date. One thing that I'm pretty excited about locally is that there's a new fair trade coffee shop/leftist book store in town. and I live in a city of 50000 people. Cities of 50000 people generally don't have leftist bookstores, so I feel quite lucky indeed...
It's called the Organic Underground - all of the food/beverages fall into the fair trade and/or organic categories...and there's a good selection of left (mostly anarchist - but i plan on changing that - the store owners, one of whom i've done a fair bit of organizing with in the past, is letting me help out with the books...so i plan on getting some more socialist literature in there.)
one other great thing about this place is that it's open for use as a space for public meetings/forums/etc - something that has been severely lacking in this town for as long as i can remember (well at least as long as i can remember being politically conscious)
on top of all of this, and i can play go there as well. pinch me, i'm dreaming!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
should the anti-war movement rely on the Democrats?
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush
that being the case, i guess things are pretty easy right now for George. when a president promises to use veto power to clearly defy the will of voters, what else can you call it but dictatorship?
As MoveOn.org says:
"Congress has passed a deadline to end the war. The Supplemental bill is a real step forward, but it's not enough - we need to keep the pressure on to end the war quickly and safely. The media has focused on divisions among Democrats, but the biggest division is between the president, who'll veto any deadline, and the voters, who want one."
I agree with most of that sentiment - but Bush's defiance clearly shows that simply voting for Democrats (many of whom have very questionable anti-war credentials) hoping they're going to push him out of Iraq won't work. What's this about a timetable? The US needs to get out of Iraq yesterday, not a year from now. The growing anti-war mood in the US shows that the support (generated through relentless administration/corporate media propaganda) for the war is no longer there.
it's time to make his job a LOT harder - how can this be done without relying on a strategy of relying on the Democrats to do it in a system that prevents them from doing so?
well, how about a general strike from Americans opposed to the war?
it's time to say STOP THE WAR with the overwhelming economic power that the majority who oppose this war hold but don't realize. the strike as political tool is used successfully elsewhere, why not in America? if immigrant workers (a minority) can successfully join together and show their collective power by not showing up for work on May Day, why can't those opposed to war (an overwhelming majority) do the same thing? is that some impossible pipe dream?
i really don't think so. if there's one thing the Bush administration is really good at it's unintentionally waking up large groups of people out of their collective slumber. it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is on fire, the neighbours go missing, and the phone lines are being tapped - it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is a little emptier because you lost a loved one overseas and don't even have a good reason why - and it's pretty hard to sleep when the house gets severely flooded and despite your prayers nobody comes to help for days.
many, many, people are questioning THIS war, and a smaller number are questioning for the first time American involvement in war in general - but picking and choosing which interventions are good and which ones aren't like it's some sort of shopping list is very dangerous for Americans, and very dangerous for the rest of the world as well. Don't like war in Iraq? Maybe you'll like war in Iran. *ahem* i don't think so.
how can we turn those in group A (who support the war but think it's being waged poorly) into members of group B (who support some interventions but oppose Iraq) and then turn those people into active members of group C? (that is, people who see American interventionism and "global policing' for the imperialist sham that it really is)
if we can't collectively answer that question (and i believe we can but it's going to take lots and lots of hard work) Bush's job, and more importantly the ugly job of the system he represents, is going to be far too easy indeed...
that being the case, i guess things are pretty easy right now for George. when a president promises to use veto power to clearly defy the will of voters, what else can you call it but dictatorship?
As MoveOn.org says:
"Congress has passed a deadline to end the war. The Supplemental bill is a real step forward, but it's not enough - we need to keep the pressure on to end the war quickly and safely. The media has focused on divisions among Democrats, but the biggest division is between the president, who'll veto any deadline, and the voters, who want one."
I agree with most of that sentiment - but Bush's defiance clearly shows that simply voting for Democrats (many of whom have very questionable anti-war credentials) hoping they're going to push him out of Iraq won't work. What's this about a timetable? The US needs to get out of Iraq yesterday, not a year from now. The growing anti-war mood in the US shows that the support (generated through relentless administration/corporate media propaganda) for the war is no longer there.
it's time to make his job a LOT harder - how can this be done without relying on a strategy of relying on the Democrats to do it in a system that prevents them from doing so?
well, how about a general strike from Americans opposed to the war?
it's time to say STOP THE WAR with the overwhelming economic power that the majority who oppose this war hold but don't realize. the strike as political tool is used successfully elsewhere, why not in America? if immigrant workers (a minority) can successfully join together and show their collective power by not showing up for work on May Day, why can't those opposed to war (an overwhelming majority) do the same thing? is that some impossible pipe dream?
i really don't think so. if there's one thing the Bush administration is really good at it's unintentionally waking up large groups of people out of their collective slumber. it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is on fire, the neighbours go missing, and the phone lines are being tapped - it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is a little emptier because you lost a loved one overseas and don't even have a good reason why - and it's pretty hard to sleep when the house gets severely flooded and despite your prayers nobody comes to help for days.
many, many, people are questioning THIS war, and a smaller number are questioning for the first time American involvement in war in general - but picking and choosing which interventions are good and which ones aren't like it's some sort of shopping list is very dangerous for Americans, and very dangerous for the rest of the world as well. Don't like war in Iraq? Maybe you'll like war in Iran. *ahem* i don't think so.
how can we turn those in group A (who support the war but think it's being waged poorly) into members of group B (who support some interventions but oppose Iraq) and then turn those people into active members of group C? (that is, people who see American interventionism and "global policing' for the imperialist sham that it really is)
if we can't collectively answer that question (and i believe we can but it's going to take lots and lots of hard work) Bush's job, and more importantly the ugly job of the system he represents, is going to be far too easy indeed...
Friday, March 16, 2007
my jaw just dropped
living in Canada, where Fox News is a subscribers-only channel (at least it is in my household) i haven't had the misfortune of watching much of it. from what i've seen of/read about it, i figured it was a bit more biased towards Republicans and a little more pro-war than the other pro-Republican/pro-war channels like CNN.
never in my wildest dreams did i imagine anything quite like this. from the looks of it, it's not much less openly racist than Der Sturmer was.
you must see this.
never in my wildest dreams did i imagine anything quite like this. from the looks of it, it's not much less openly racist than Der Sturmer was.
you must see this.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
creating new ideas
when asked for a description of myself on here, i put 'just a person trying to break with old ideas' - that begs the question - what can we do to create 'new ideas' regarding the way society should be run?
one thing that has become very apparent to me is that there are a couple of ways that people can really learn about the way the society around them works - one is the inefficient path, the one that i took - the one that really takes a certain personality type for any kind of results.
that is, to look at the world and to just study as much as you can about what's going on, making sure to include viewpoints that contradict the status quo - after all if you're unsatisfied with the status quo in society it makes sense to look at alternative viewpoints, right?
but i really don't think this path is for most people. it's for the fanatics - or half-a-fanatics - like me, who don't just settle for turning on the evening news, absorbing what they see, spending a bit of time with the family, and going to bed. but i really don't think that describes most people. so, that being the case, how can we expose people to new, visionary ideas?
the answer is all around us. under class society, people adopt many contradictory viewpoints - someone who's quite progressive when it comes to understanding the need to push for a safer workplace might also hold some regressive views too - for example they could be racist.
so how can we resolve these contradictions, and win people over to a different outlook?
most people aren't carrying out their own personal research project. but they do absorb the ideas around them. on one hand there are the ideas perpetuated by class society - ideas such as:
i'm not smart enough to make these decisions, let's leave it to the boss
i'm having trouble making ends meet, but if i work hard enough everything will be ok
i'm broke, but if i had some money, everything will be ok
that person over there who looks different from me is trying to take my job and make my life worse
women's interests and men's interests are by their very nature, in conflict with one another
etc etc etc...
but there's also the teacher of experience - that often contradicts these 'old ideas' and this experience can teach us:
the boss is so far removed from my situation that he has no idea what needs to be done
i work and work, but i never get ahead, i just have less time to spend with family and a higher level of stress
i've got some money, but it hasn't made me any happier 'cause i know the neighbor's kids go to bed hungry
that person over there who looks different from me is someone i work with and we really need to stand together if our interests are threatened
men and women both benefit if we fight for safer communities free from violence and a greater say in what happens to all of us
etc etc etc...
so how do we resolve these contradictions? push people away from the former ideas and to a greater understanding of the latter? well, plenty of people come to understand the latter ideas all by themselves - but how do they come to these understandings? by working with one another, by simply interacting with one another. but that's how individuals come to understand them. how can we work so that wider groups within society do too - groups that have much more potential to create positive change than individuals? here's where the need for organization comes in. if we believe in creating a future based upon values of solidarity, social justice, equality, etc etc, then we must organize to actively engage people in struggle - the greatest teacher of all - in their communities, in their workplaces - so that they can be won over to the idea that change is actually possible with numbers, and so their individual contributions to this desired change can help us all further our goals. in short:
ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE!
one thing that has become very apparent to me is that there are a couple of ways that people can really learn about the way the society around them works - one is the inefficient path, the one that i took - the one that really takes a certain personality type for any kind of results.
that is, to look at the world and to just study as much as you can about what's going on, making sure to include viewpoints that contradict the status quo - after all if you're unsatisfied with the status quo in society it makes sense to look at alternative viewpoints, right?
but i really don't think this path is for most people. it's for the fanatics - or half-a-fanatics - like me, who don't just settle for turning on the evening news, absorbing what they see, spending a bit of time with the family, and going to bed. but i really don't think that describes most people. so, that being the case, how can we expose people to new, visionary ideas?
the answer is all around us. under class society, people adopt many contradictory viewpoints - someone who's quite progressive when it comes to understanding the need to push for a safer workplace might also hold some regressive views too - for example they could be racist.
so how can we resolve these contradictions, and win people over to a different outlook?
most people aren't carrying out their own personal research project. but they do absorb the ideas around them. on one hand there are the ideas perpetuated by class society - ideas such as:
i'm not smart enough to make these decisions, let's leave it to the boss
i'm having trouble making ends meet, but if i work hard enough everything will be ok
i'm broke, but if i had some money, everything will be ok
that person over there who looks different from me is trying to take my job and make my life worse
women's interests and men's interests are by their very nature, in conflict with one another
etc etc etc...
but there's also the teacher of experience - that often contradicts these 'old ideas' and this experience can teach us:
the boss is so far removed from my situation that he has no idea what needs to be done
i work and work, but i never get ahead, i just have less time to spend with family and a higher level of stress
i've got some money, but it hasn't made me any happier 'cause i know the neighbor's kids go to bed hungry
that person over there who looks different from me is someone i work with and we really need to stand together if our interests are threatened
men and women both benefit if we fight for safer communities free from violence and a greater say in what happens to all of us
etc etc etc...
so how do we resolve these contradictions? push people away from the former ideas and to a greater understanding of the latter? well, plenty of people come to understand the latter ideas all by themselves - but how do they come to these understandings? by working with one another, by simply interacting with one another. but that's how individuals come to understand them. how can we work so that wider groups within society do too - groups that have much more potential to create positive change than individuals? here's where the need for organization comes in. if we believe in creating a future based upon values of solidarity, social justice, equality, etc etc, then we must organize to actively engage people in struggle - the greatest teacher of all - in their communities, in their workplaces - so that they can be won over to the idea that change is actually possible with numbers, and so their individual contributions to this desired change can help us all further our goals. in short:
ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE!
Monday, March 12, 2007
am i a feminist?
i'm asking myself this question right now. i actually joined this site after searching around looking for opinions and commentary on a couple of topics that feminists generally consider highly important...reproductive rights and the societal effects of porn, specifically. i found a cool blog here that now has me asking myself, am i a feminist?
i certainly agree with many of the stated goals of feminists - the elimination of patriarchy, the emancipation of women...but the more i look into the subject the more i see something worrisome...
over and over from those who identify as feminists, i see the substitution of 'woman' for any kind of coherent class analysis rooted in a solid understanding of how our society works economically. 'woman' is not a class. woman is an oppressed group within class society, just as 'black' is, just as 'gay' is, just as 'disabled' is, just as 'elderly' is, etc.
so that being said - am i a feminist? as someone who believes that the elimination of patriarchy, and the emancipation of women can only come through the process of women building strong, united movements with men, in the political, social, and economic spheres - namely, class struggle - i sometimes hesitate to use the label even though i share a common goal with what's called feminism.
quite simply, a male worker and a female worker have potentially *much* more in common with each other than with a capitalist of the same sex. but it's in the interest of that capitalist to destroy those bonds of solidarity, and to foster a situation in which even if there's legal equality for women, there's no social or economic equality.
when the ruling class encourages conflict between men and women (you can substitute any demographic you like in this example; i've simply given the examples of the two conventionally recognized genders as an illustration of what i'm saying about feminism) they can rob the masses at will, basically.
in short, i believe that in order to eliminate this problem we must eliminate class society itself. now what i'm saying here is NOT that 'after the revolution, all will be made well for women, easy as that' - as if simply creating a revolution would lead to the instantaneous elimination of patriarchy and the oppressive situation that exists for women. hardly.
on the contrary - what i'm saying is that it's not simply the society after a revolution that fixes the situation - but that the process of learning by uniting in common struggle, and creating that revolution, is the situation that quickly teaches people who is on their side and who isn't. it has the great potential to radicalize them, and force them to see that oppressive social relationships previously thought of as inevitable - sexism, racism, and the like - are tools used by the ruling class over and over to divide and rule.
in other words, to arbitrarily separate the emancipation of women, or the emancipation of other oppressed groups, from the class struggle to emancipate workers who are exploited everywhere in the world, is not only a poor tactical decision, in terms of losing the greatest possible number that can become involved in the ongoing struggle against oppression and exploitation, it's ultimately pointless because it offers no inherent strategy for creating revolutionary change - what can a single oppressed group do to fight back? you can educate, you can spread your message, you can even come together and form various solidarity networks to provide support and resources in the daily, defensive struggles - for example in the struggles women face against rape, or against attacks on reproductive rights, and the like.
and this is all very positive stuff which i try to get involved in as much as i can. but it's worth recognizing that these are defensive struggles, defending against attacks made against us. there's another kind of struggle, offensive struggle, that has the power to do something far greater - it has the power to literally revolutionize the world. and only the united working class has that power. how do we use it? literally, by doing nothing. by ceasing to work for the capitalist. and by simultaneously reorganizing society along lines that recognize the inherent need for solidarity among all workers, women, men, black, white, gay, straight, you name it.
so i guess in the end, the answer is yes, i'm a feminist. i can't be a socialist without being a feminist. but to attempt to be a feminist without being a socialist is a sure-fire path to defeat and disappointment.
i certainly agree with many of the stated goals of feminists - the elimination of patriarchy, the emancipation of women...but the more i look into the subject the more i see something worrisome...
over and over from those who identify as feminists, i see the substitution of 'woman' for any kind of coherent class analysis rooted in a solid understanding of how our society works economically. 'woman' is not a class. woman is an oppressed group within class society, just as 'black' is, just as 'gay' is, just as 'disabled' is, just as 'elderly' is, etc.
so that being said - am i a feminist? as someone who believes that the elimination of patriarchy, and the emancipation of women can only come through the process of women building strong, united movements with men, in the political, social, and economic spheres - namely, class struggle - i sometimes hesitate to use the label even though i share a common goal with what's called feminism.
quite simply, a male worker and a female worker have potentially *much* more in common with each other than with a capitalist of the same sex. but it's in the interest of that capitalist to destroy those bonds of solidarity, and to foster a situation in which even if there's legal equality for women, there's no social or economic equality.
when the ruling class encourages conflict between men and women (you can substitute any demographic you like in this example; i've simply given the examples of the two conventionally recognized genders as an illustration of what i'm saying about feminism) they can rob the masses at will, basically.
in short, i believe that in order to eliminate this problem we must eliminate class society itself. now what i'm saying here is NOT that 'after the revolution, all will be made well for women, easy as that' - as if simply creating a revolution would lead to the instantaneous elimination of patriarchy and the oppressive situation that exists for women. hardly.
on the contrary - what i'm saying is that it's not simply the society after a revolution that fixes the situation - but that the process of learning by uniting in common struggle, and creating that revolution, is the situation that quickly teaches people who is on their side and who isn't. it has the great potential to radicalize them, and force them to see that oppressive social relationships previously thought of as inevitable - sexism, racism, and the like - are tools used by the ruling class over and over to divide and rule.
in other words, to arbitrarily separate the emancipation of women, or the emancipation of other oppressed groups, from the class struggle to emancipate workers who are exploited everywhere in the world, is not only a poor tactical decision, in terms of losing the greatest possible number that can become involved in the ongoing struggle against oppression and exploitation, it's ultimately pointless because it offers no inherent strategy for creating revolutionary change - what can a single oppressed group do to fight back? you can educate, you can spread your message, you can even come together and form various solidarity networks to provide support and resources in the daily, defensive struggles - for example in the struggles women face against rape, or against attacks on reproductive rights, and the like.
and this is all very positive stuff which i try to get involved in as much as i can. but it's worth recognizing that these are defensive struggles, defending against attacks made against us. there's another kind of struggle, offensive struggle, that has the power to do something far greater - it has the power to literally revolutionize the world. and only the united working class has that power. how do we use it? literally, by doing nothing. by ceasing to work for the capitalist. and by simultaneously reorganizing society along lines that recognize the inherent need for solidarity among all workers, women, men, black, white, gay, straight, you name it.
so i guess in the end, the answer is yes, i'm a feminist. i can't be a socialist without being a feminist. but to attempt to be a feminist without being a socialist is a sure-fire path to defeat and disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)