The Book is Life Out of Context by Walter Mosley- which I have finally found (it was under another book).
The qualm-provoker is this, from the back cover:
..."proposing that African-Americans have to break their historic ties with the Democratic Party and form a party of their own."
Allow me to set all my preconcieved notions and ideas about Mosley down in print here, or many of them, anyway. I've read a number of his books, fiction and non-, and have found that there is an overwhelming amount of thought displayed within. He's not only thinking, but able to beautifully (yes, beautifully) communicate. From his mysteries (most famously the Easy Rawlins series) and science-fiction (I highly highly recommend Futureland) to the wonderful non-fiction essay of Workin' on the Chain Gang, he knows what to do with a word. He is one of my favourite living writers, let's just put that out there right this minute.
I remember first reading an Easy Rawlins mystery- the mystery itself is almost inconsequential, really, when one considers the chartacter of Easy. A World War II vet, Rawlins is black in America in the suceeding decades. Living in LA, but born and raised in New Orleans, Rawlins is unable to escape the conflict between the ideals of America- the promises of equality- and the reality of racism and poverty. What struck me most was the integrity of the man, and of the writing behind him. It's like a calm before the storm conversation. Zer gut.
My concern is that Mosley might let the colour issues blind him to the more unifying issue of economic disparity. There can be no denying that race has been used (be it colour-based designations or simply "they are from there, we are from here" ones) throughout the ages as a dividing factor by the powers that be. I do not think he is blind to the suffering of people just because they fall out of his hue zone, as it were- that this is not the case is reflected in much of his fiction writing- but that the race issue might be blinding him to a broader solution.
I am hoping that my fears will be allayed. I'll be reading this one this week.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
Unchained melodies which sometimes incorporate chains melodically
Einsturzende Neubauten in one form or another has been producing music of one sort or another for over 25 years now. Industrial is as close a description as I can provide- though with the caveat that it is only called this because jackhamers, air compressors and metal bits (some big, some small) are included in the arsenal of instruments.
Headed by Blixa Bargeld, this mostly-German group has produced hundreds of songs ranging from the earsplitting to the lullabic. Over the past few years, they have abandoned the usual record-contract route (having been screwed multiple times by various labels) and taken to the net. Their last three albums have been produced with money raised by selling subscriptions to their listeners. They have also financed a small, and perhaps final, US tour.
It seems, in talking to Mr Bargeld backstage after their Washington, DC show in 2004, that they are encountering increasing financial barriers to touring in the States. Large cuts are taken by the venues, and often the band will lose money even on a sold-out house, if they do not sell enough merchandise during the show. On that tour, they also had to pay a fee to clear channel in order to use the technology which enabled them to sell cds of the shows to the audience members at the show.
Though they maintain a steadfastly close-mouthed on exactly where their political allegiances lie, Blixa was heard to remark, in reference to the possibility of this being their final tour, "This is the problem with capitalism." Most of their supporters seem to have leftish leanings of various sorts, and it is argued that one song, Sabrina, alludes to a wish for anarchy (the colours of the German flag are dismissed one by one until only black remains as the colour Blixa's voice wishes "would be your colour").
I made a number of attempts to get an interview with Herr Bargeld on his recent solo rede/speke tour. I was unsuccesful, and wonder if the prospect of being interviewed for a socialist publication was the reason. Oddly, I am not inclined to hold it against him if this is the case, given the band's dedication to their music and maintaining their artistic freedom.
The method they have chosen is an unusual one, in that they both retain the right to mix and produce as they see fit (and in their own time, at that; it can take years for the records to reach the supporters) and allow the supporters to see and hear works in progress and give opinions and suggestions. The band checks in on the forum from time to time, yet is not a slave to it- there are very few times when advance warning is given as to when they will be online.
Their latest production- released to supporters only- is Grundstuek, which uses everything from television noise, feedback and the ubiquitous springs to dropped objects and voices either solo or en masse. From the openings of Good Morning, in which a teacher's voice (in English) and that of her class are heard and then give way to the bass and bass spring and Blixa (in German), to the close of Tagelange Weisse, with its eerily comforting digitalness, the whole work is one of unity not often heard. Their earlier works were heavy on the clang, and this still shows through on a number of tracks, but they have, over these twenty-odd years, mellowed a bit as well. Unlike many acts of equal or longer duration, they have not lost the excitement at creation- rather, they have learned to use many voices, loud and soft, to greater effect than the sustained and desperately juvenile screeches and subject matters of a Rolling Stones or an Arrowsmith.
To say they have re-invented themselves would be inaccurate, as they are still, despite the changes in lineup, Einsturzende Neubauten. They differ only in that they have grown and learned, they have not gotten stuck- they have retained the freedom to use sound. They are unconstrained.
Headed by Blixa Bargeld, this mostly-German group has produced hundreds of songs ranging from the earsplitting to the lullabic. Over the past few years, they have abandoned the usual record-contract route (having been screwed multiple times by various labels) and taken to the net. Their last three albums have been produced with money raised by selling subscriptions to their listeners. They have also financed a small, and perhaps final, US tour.
It seems, in talking to Mr Bargeld backstage after their Washington, DC show in 2004, that they are encountering increasing financial barriers to touring in the States. Large cuts are taken by the venues, and often the band will lose money even on a sold-out house, if they do not sell enough merchandise during the show. On that tour, they also had to pay a fee to clear channel in order to use the technology which enabled them to sell cds of the shows to the audience members at the show.
Though they maintain a steadfastly close-mouthed on exactly where their political allegiances lie, Blixa was heard to remark, in reference to the possibility of this being their final tour, "This is the problem with capitalism." Most of their supporters seem to have leftish leanings of various sorts, and it is argued that one song, Sabrina, alludes to a wish for anarchy (the colours of the German flag are dismissed one by one until only black remains as the colour Blixa's voice wishes "would be your colour").
I made a number of attempts to get an interview with Herr Bargeld on his recent solo rede/speke tour. I was unsuccesful, and wonder if the prospect of being interviewed for a socialist publication was the reason. Oddly, I am not inclined to hold it against him if this is the case, given the band's dedication to their music and maintaining their artistic freedom.
The method they have chosen is an unusual one, in that they both retain the right to mix and produce as they see fit (and in their own time, at that; it can take years for the records to reach the supporters) and allow the supporters to see and hear works in progress and give opinions and suggestions. The band checks in on the forum from time to time, yet is not a slave to it- there are very few times when advance warning is given as to when they will be online.
Their latest production- released to supporters only- is Grundstuek, which uses everything from television noise, feedback and the ubiquitous springs to dropped objects and voices either solo or en masse. From the openings of Good Morning, in which a teacher's voice (in English) and that of her class are heard and then give way to the bass and bass spring and Blixa (in German), to the close of Tagelange Weisse, with its eerily comforting digitalness, the whole work is one of unity not often heard. Their earlier works were heavy on the clang, and this still shows through on a number of tracks, but they have, over these twenty-odd years, mellowed a bit as well. Unlike many acts of equal or longer duration, they have not lost the excitement at creation- rather, they have learned to use many voices, loud and soft, to greater effect than the sustained and desperately juvenile screeches and subject matters of a Rolling Stones or an Arrowsmith.
To say they have re-invented themselves would be inaccurate, as they are still, despite the changes in lineup, Einsturzende Neubauten. They differ only in that they have grown and learned, they have not gotten stuck- they have retained the freedom to use sound. They are unconstrained.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Family life, women and children and men
From the Old Family to the New is another essay in the Problems Of Everyday Life. This one was originaly published July 13, 1923 in Pravda. Eighty-three years on, we still wrestle with these issues.
Isolated excerpts- in order of appearance:
-Domestic life is more conservative than economic, and one of the reasons is that it is still less conscious than the latter. In politics and economics the working class acts as a whole and pushes on to the front rank its vanguard, the Communist Party, accomplishing through its medium the historic aims of the proletariat. In domestic life the working class is split into cells constituted by families. The change of political regime, the change even of the economic order of the state--the passing of the factories and mills into the hands of the workers--all this has certainly had some influence on family conditions, but only indirectly and externally, and without touching on the forms of domestic traditions inherited from the past.
A radical reform of the family and, more generally, of the whole order of domestic life requires a great conscious effort on the part of the whole mass of the working class, and presumes the existence in the class itself of a powerful molecular force of inner desire for culture and progress. A deep-going plough is needed to turn up heavy clods of soil. To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest. A much more difficult one was the next--that of instituting the industrial equality of men and women workers in the factories, the mills, and the trade unions, and of doing it in such a way that the men should not put the women to disadvantage. But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics. As long as woman is chained to her housework, the care of the family, the cooking and sewing, all her chances of participation in social and political life are cut down in the extreme.--
-In regard to family relations and forms of individual life in general, there must also be an inevitable period of disintegration of things as they were, of the traditions, inherited from the past, which had not passed under the control of thought. But in this domain of domestic life the period of criticism and destruction begins later, lasts very long, and assumes morbid and painful forms, which, however, are complex and not always perceptible to superficial observation. These progressive landmarks of critical change in state conditions, in economics and life in general, ought to be very clearly defined to prevent our getting alarmed by the phenomena we observed. We must learn to judge them in their right light, to understand their proper place in the development of the working class, and consciously to direct the new conditions towards socialist forms of life.
The warning is a necessary one, as we already hear voices expressing alarm. At the conference of the Moscow party propagandists some comrades spoke with great and natural anxiety of the ease with which old family ties are broken for the sake of new ones as fleeting as the old. The victims in all cases are the mother and children. On the other hand, who in our midst has not heard in private conversations complaints, not to say lamentations, about the "collapse" of morality among Soviet youth, in particular among Young Communists? Not everything in these complaints is exaggeration--there is also truth in them. We certainly must and will fight the dark sides of this truth--this being a fight for higher culture and the ascent of human personality. But in order to begin our work, to tackle the ABC of the problem without reactionary moralizing or sentimental downheartedness, we must first make sure of the facts and begin to see clearly what is actually happening.--
It is unfortunate that we are not living in a state of communism- ie, shared working in the domestic sphere. Too often, the majority- still- of the housework and child-rearing does fall to the woman. I am not saying that this is unimportant work- but it is work which must be shouldered by all parties involved. If a household breaks up, it is the "mother and children" which are most at risk of sinking into poverty.
Too often, due to cruel economic realities, Beth Shulman's statement in "The Betrayal of Work" that the worst thing which can happen to a woman is to get pregnant is proven. She notes that this is the quickest way into poverty. I know from personal experience that this is so.
Much is at stake when we speak of the relations between men and women. (Husband and Wife aside, down to brass tacks here.) Women still find themselves subject to the whims of biology- but this need not be so; beyond the obvious bearing of children, the abilities of men and women are equal in potential. It is in the social structure of home and worklife where we encounter the makings of inequality.
To reconstruct family life- in whatever configuration you choose- it is imperative that responsibility for houseworkk and the care of children be fully shared. The division of labour is one thing- yes, shared chores make for a lighter load on the women, they also make for a better view of what is involved in domestic life. So much work goes un-noticed, let alone misunderstood. It is a matter of personal responsibility and respect- how banal to have to say "Those shirts don't fold themselves". But it is just such mundane things which make up every day life. It is the preocupation with such things which leaves little time for revolutionary activity or education. It also leads to the consideration of the housewife as just that and nothing more. The mind of the woman is discounted, as "what would someone who only keeps house or cares for kids know"?
Quite a bit about inequality, as it turns out. Especially if both parties also work outside the home.
As for children and the care thereof, we see today vast numbers of single-parent homes. These homes are much more likely to experience poverty and hunger. The children are often left in situations where inadaquite care is taken of them or they are completely unattended. They are left, at too young an age, to fend for themselves. Add to this issues of abuse and the picture becomes grim indeed. The lack of willingness on the part of the (most often) fathers to properly care for their children is appalling.
It does not lead to revolutionary thought- it does lead to anger in many cases, and often enough to individual acts of reactionary violence or association with questionable groups (Republicans, Nation of Islam), which pretend to offer what is missing.
"The easiest problem was that of assuming power." Writes Trotsky in this same essay. These are surprising words, I think, to many people. It seems to be the view of many to whom I speak that there is a sort of magical formula- get power away from the bad guys and we live happily ever after. I have heard this in many forms- from Democrats, from Anarchists, even from some Socialists.
This is only the begining, though! Changing the manner of governance will only solve some of the problems- one must change the very basic structures of everyday life on the way to true equality.
So, what to do? It is not exciting to think about- but it must be accepted that after the initial revolution, there is the daily life. How should it be lived? Obviously, equality must be integrated into the most mundane of things even down to the level of the very basic- One person washes, another person dries the dishes. The dishes get done.
Isolated excerpts- in order of appearance:
-Domestic life is more conservative than economic, and one of the reasons is that it is still less conscious than the latter. In politics and economics the working class acts as a whole and pushes on to the front rank its vanguard, the Communist Party, accomplishing through its medium the historic aims of the proletariat. In domestic life the working class is split into cells constituted by families. The change of political regime, the change even of the economic order of the state--the passing of the factories and mills into the hands of the workers--all this has certainly had some influence on family conditions, but only indirectly and externally, and without touching on the forms of domestic traditions inherited from the past.
A radical reform of the family and, more generally, of the whole order of domestic life requires a great conscious effort on the part of the whole mass of the working class, and presumes the existence in the class itself of a powerful molecular force of inner desire for culture and progress. A deep-going plough is needed to turn up heavy clods of soil. To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest. A much more difficult one was the next--that of instituting the industrial equality of men and women workers in the factories, the mills, and the trade unions, and of doing it in such a way that the men should not put the women to disadvantage. But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics. As long as woman is chained to her housework, the care of the family, the cooking and sewing, all her chances of participation in social and political life are cut down in the extreme.--
-In regard to family relations and forms of individual life in general, there must also be an inevitable period of disintegration of things as they were, of the traditions, inherited from the past, which had not passed under the control of thought. But in this domain of domestic life the period of criticism and destruction begins later, lasts very long, and assumes morbid and painful forms, which, however, are complex and not always perceptible to superficial observation. These progressive landmarks of critical change in state conditions, in economics and life in general, ought to be very clearly defined to prevent our getting alarmed by the phenomena we observed. We must learn to judge them in their right light, to understand their proper place in the development of the working class, and consciously to direct the new conditions towards socialist forms of life.
The warning is a necessary one, as we already hear voices expressing alarm. At the conference of the Moscow party propagandists some comrades spoke with great and natural anxiety of the ease with which old family ties are broken for the sake of new ones as fleeting as the old. The victims in all cases are the mother and children. On the other hand, who in our midst has not heard in private conversations complaints, not to say lamentations, about the "collapse" of morality among Soviet youth, in particular among Young Communists? Not everything in these complaints is exaggeration--there is also truth in them. We certainly must and will fight the dark sides of this truth--this being a fight for higher culture and the ascent of human personality. But in order to begin our work, to tackle the ABC of the problem without reactionary moralizing or sentimental downheartedness, we must first make sure of the facts and begin to see clearly what is actually happening.--
It is unfortunate that we are not living in a state of communism- ie, shared working in the domestic sphere. Too often, the majority- still- of the housework and child-rearing does fall to the woman. I am not saying that this is unimportant work- but it is work which must be shouldered by all parties involved. If a household breaks up, it is the "mother and children" which are most at risk of sinking into poverty.
Too often, due to cruel economic realities, Beth Shulman's statement in "The Betrayal of Work" that the worst thing which can happen to a woman is to get pregnant is proven. She notes that this is the quickest way into poverty. I know from personal experience that this is so.
Much is at stake when we speak of the relations between men and women. (Husband and Wife aside, down to brass tacks here.) Women still find themselves subject to the whims of biology- but this need not be so; beyond the obvious bearing of children, the abilities of men and women are equal in potential. It is in the social structure of home and worklife where we encounter the makings of inequality.
To reconstruct family life- in whatever configuration you choose- it is imperative that responsibility for houseworkk and the care of children be fully shared. The division of labour is one thing- yes, shared chores make for a lighter load on the women, they also make for a better view of what is involved in domestic life. So much work goes un-noticed, let alone misunderstood. It is a matter of personal responsibility and respect- how banal to have to say "Those shirts don't fold themselves". But it is just such mundane things which make up every day life. It is the preocupation with such things which leaves little time for revolutionary activity or education. It also leads to the consideration of the housewife as just that and nothing more. The mind of the woman is discounted, as "what would someone who only keeps house or cares for kids know"?
Quite a bit about inequality, as it turns out. Especially if both parties also work outside the home.
As for children and the care thereof, we see today vast numbers of single-parent homes. These homes are much more likely to experience poverty and hunger. The children are often left in situations where inadaquite care is taken of them or they are completely unattended. They are left, at too young an age, to fend for themselves. Add to this issues of abuse and the picture becomes grim indeed. The lack of willingness on the part of the (most often) fathers to properly care for their children is appalling.
It does not lead to revolutionary thought- it does lead to anger in many cases, and often enough to individual acts of reactionary violence or association with questionable groups (Republicans, Nation of Islam), which pretend to offer what is missing.
"The easiest problem was that of assuming power." Writes Trotsky in this same essay. These are surprising words, I think, to many people. It seems to be the view of many to whom I speak that there is a sort of magical formula- get power away from the bad guys and we live happily ever after. I have heard this in many forms- from Democrats, from Anarchists, even from some Socialists.
This is only the begining, though! Changing the manner of governance will only solve some of the problems- one must change the very basic structures of everyday life on the way to true equality.
So, what to do? It is not exciting to think about- but it must be accepted that after the initial revolution, there is the daily life. How should it be lived? Obviously, equality must be integrated into the most mundane of things even down to the level of the very basic- One person washes, another person dries the dishes. The dishes get done.
Rudeness part 3- new aristocracy part one
----We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--
In the States we have a new sort of aristocracy, based, much as the old aristicracy, on the assets, but less so on the ancestry.
There is almost the celebration of the rudeness of the rich- an expectation on both their part and the part of the "rude-ee" that it is a right. After all, this millionaire (more often billionaire now) must have worked hard to gain this amount of money. In respect to that hard work, we grant a pass to the cruelty- perhaps we will gain by it somehow.
When we do not gain by it, the blame is placed on us- we didn't try hard enough to please. What is left unconsidered in this deference is that there is much more likely a sweatshop, a factory or an office full of people who worked very hard to get this person rich.
The addage that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation is interesting to consider in that 99% of the profits seem to rise to the top 1%. What is not so often considered is that a big idea is only so big if the manpower is not given to put it into effect. The skills of architects amount to pretty pictures if the skills of construction workers are not engaged. In the end, though, the architect is celebrated, while the construction worker is off working.
In light of this, it's also interesting to note that the rudeness of the aristocrat is expected and relished ("he *talked* to me!"), while any slip by the worker will bring warnings to "know your place", though not always in those terms. This is part of why it is so very difficult to uproot. Until we stop accepting rudeness from any quarter, we can expect it from every quarter.
Though, in the States, we are given the illusion that "all men are created equal", we have not yet internalised it, if I may use a psychological term, and demanded what that would imply- that an equal opportunity should follow to become the best that we can, and that we all possess equal dignity and to be accorded equal respect.
We are given the idea, through films and books and news stories, that anyone can rise to the ranks of the billionaire- if we do not, it is our own fault. Therefore, those who do must be deferred to. They are heroes. They are worthy of respect, when we, so poor, so lowly, what are we?
The story we are not given daily is that behind those billionaires stand those sweatshops, those factories and offices wherein people work for a pittance, are subjected to inhumane treatment and threatened with the loss of what little they have if they dare to complain. They go home to find, spread accross the pages of the newspapers, or blaring from the television, more stories about the rich and famous behaving very badly and reaping rewards for it.
Too tired to protest, they fall into bed and dream about one day winning the respect they deserve.
In the States we have a new sort of aristocracy, based, much as the old aristicracy, on the assets, but less so on the ancestry.
There is almost the celebration of the rudeness of the rich- an expectation on both their part and the part of the "rude-ee" that it is a right. After all, this millionaire (more often billionaire now) must have worked hard to gain this amount of money. In respect to that hard work, we grant a pass to the cruelty- perhaps we will gain by it somehow.
When we do not gain by it, the blame is placed on us- we didn't try hard enough to please. What is left unconsidered in this deference is that there is much more likely a sweatshop, a factory or an office full of people who worked very hard to get this person rich.
The addage that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation is interesting to consider in that 99% of the profits seem to rise to the top 1%. What is not so often considered is that a big idea is only so big if the manpower is not given to put it into effect. The skills of architects amount to pretty pictures if the skills of construction workers are not engaged. In the end, though, the architect is celebrated, while the construction worker is off working.
In light of this, it's also interesting to note that the rudeness of the aristocrat is expected and relished ("he *talked* to me!"), while any slip by the worker will bring warnings to "know your place", though not always in those terms. This is part of why it is so very difficult to uproot. Until we stop accepting rudeness from any quarter, we can expect it from every quarter.
Though, in the States, we are given the illusion that "all men are created equal", we have not yet internalised it, if I may use a psychological term, and demanded what that would imply- that an equal opportunity should follow to become the best that we can, and that we all possess equal dignity and to be accorded equal respect.
We are given the idea, through films and books and news stories, that anyone can rise to the ranks of the billionaire- if we do not, it is our own fault. Therefore, those who do must be deferred to. They are heroes. They are worthy of respect, when we, so poor, so lowly, what are we?
The story we are not given daily is that behind those billionaires stand those sweatshops, those factories and offices wherein people work for a pittance, are subjected to inhumane treatment and threatened with the loss of what little they have if they dare to complain. They go home to find, spread accross the pages of the newspapers, or blaring from the television, more stories about the rich and famous behaving very badly and reaping rewards for it.
Too tired to protest, they fall into bed and dream about one day winning the respect they deserve.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
New Orleans- because I also read newspapers
The best and the worst.
The best are the people - ones I know and many whom I do not- who go there to help dig people's houses (and sometimes people) out. They are the ones who keep me from just giving up entirely on the idea that humanity is absolutely doomed. And they are normal, and they are like you and me, except that they do these things which are amazing.
The worst are the ones who have the means but not the will- or who have the means and use their will to keep things from getting done. They make me wish there was a hell. That's not very charitable, I know, but neither are they. I am talking about people who have private helicopters and used them during Katrina not to pluck people off the roofs, but to import their own private armies to patroll their neighbourhoods. They are the people who were vacationing and claimed to have no warning and no news of the situation until three days into the hell that these people lived through- or died in.
No names, I think we all know of whom I speak.
from the article:
***"We never reached out to anyone to tell our story, because there's no ending to our story," said Wanda Jackson, 40, whose family is still waiting for word of her 6-year-old nephew, swept away by floodwaters as his mother clung to his 3-year-old brother. "Because we haven't found our deceased. Being honest with you, in my opinion, they forgot about us."
She continued, "They did not build nothing on 9/11 until they were sure that the damn dust was not human dust; so how you go on and build things in our city?"
In October and November, the special operations team of the New Orleans Fire Department searched the Lower Ninth Ward for remains until they ran out of overtime money.
Half a dozen officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rebuffed requests to pay the bill, said Chief Steve Glynn, the team commander. When reporters inquired, FEMA officials said the required paperwork had not been filed.****
(NYT april 11)
my hands just sit on the keyboard at this point- what can be said that has not already been said? yet it is so very important not to let the conversation die out. How can these people be forgotten? How is it that they are so callously brushed aside? I well remember 9/11- and who could forget, with the constant intonation of "everything changed on 9/11" and the flags flags flags? Two big buildings go down and we are Standing United or the Terrorists Win.
A region is deluged, a city destroyed and it is unknown how many are dead, and we are asked to turn away as the deadlines for hotel accomodations pass, as the leaders drag along and offer excuses about paperwork not being filed and funds being limited and all the while we are asked to look away.
Do not think about this- do not talk about this- do not note that those who suffered most and continue to suffer most are those who were suffering in dire poverty to begin with. They must have somehow brought it upon themselves- they should have just left- never mind that they had no means to go- no money for fares, no cars. Never mind that they've been in poverty for generations while others sit on the high ground, with their guards in place- imported at great cost.
More than conversation- it is imperative that we not let actions die out.
The best are the people - ones I know and many whom I do not- who go there to help dig people's houses (and sometimes people) out. They are the ones who keep me from just giving up entirely on the idea that humanity is absolutely doomed. And they are normal, and they are like you and me, except that they do these things which are amazing.
The worst are the ones who have the means but not the will- or who have the means and use their will to keep things from getting done. They make me wish there was a hell. That's not very charitable, I know, but neither are they. I am talking about people who have private helicopters and used them during Katrina not to pluck people off the roofs, but to import their own private armies to patroll their neighbourhoods. They are the people who were vacationing and claimed to have no warning and no news of the situation until three days into the hell that these people lived through- or died in.
No names, I think we all know of whom I speak.
from the article:
***"We never reached out to anyone to tell our story, because there's no ending to our story," said Wanda Jackson, 40, whose family is still waiting for word of her 6-year-old nephew, swept away by floodwaters as his mother clung to his 3-year-old brother. "Because we haven't found our deceased. Being honest with you, in my opinion, they forgot about us."
She continued, "They did not build nothing on 9/11 until they were sure that the damn dust was not human dust; so how you go on and build things in our city?"
In October and November, the special operations team of the New Orleans Fire Department searched the Lower Ninth Ward for remains until they ran out of overtime money.
Half a dozen officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rebuffed requests to pay the bill, said Chief Steve Glynn, the team commander. When reporters inquired, FEMA officials said the required paperwork had not been filed.****
(NYT april 11)
my hands just sit on the keyboard at this point- what can be said that has not already been said? yet it is so very important not to let the conversation die out. How can these people be forgotten? How is it that they are so callously brushed aside? I well remember 9/11- and who could forget, with the constant intonation of "everything changed on 9/11" and the flags flags flags? Two big buildings go down and we are Standing United or the Terrorists Win.
A region is deluged, a city destroyed and it is unknown how many are dead, and we are asked to turn away as the deadlines for hotel accomodations pass, as the leaders drag along and offer excuses about paperwork not being filed and funds being limited and all the while we are asked to look away.
Do not think about this- do not talk about this- do not note that those who suffered most and continue to suffer most are those who were suffering in dire poverty to begin with. They must have somehow brought it upon themselves- they should have just left- never mind that they had no means to go- no money for fares, no cars. Never mind that they've been in poverty for generations while others sit on the high ground, with their guards in place- imported at great cost.
More than conversation- it is imperative that we not let actions die out.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Probs Pt 2- More rudeness, I tell you!
The second sort of rudeness is that of the Revolutionary.
In my expereince in DC I came accross many politicians and political types (no, really!). One thing which I noticed accross the spectrum was that, after a certain level of hierarchy had been reached, a certain amount of politeness fell away. The result was that the person would become unapproachable. It also worked in the ostensibly less-heirerchical groups- once someone had published or organized a certain number of artcles or actions, they became likewise unapproachable and, dare I say, a bit vain and dismissive in their attitude.
The matter of unapproachability is important in that, to create a revolution, we cannot act as exhalted individuals- there is not a monoply, as they say, on good ideas. There is also a great deal which can be learned from unexpected- and previously untapped- sources. If you shut yourself off from people- to say nothing of The People- how can you fight for and with them?
As for actual rudeness or dismissiveness toward people- to act in such a manner is to disrespect the work and value of the people. This is not way for a participant- never mind a leader!- to behave.
We are workers. No matter what we have published, what we have done, how many signs we might have carried, above all, we are workers. To discount the experiences of fellow workers, their insights into the ills of society and their willingness to participate in the revolution, is counter-revolutionary at its core. To treat any fellow worker- no matter how seemingly unenlightened- with anything other than respect begs the question of our fitness as revolutionaries.
Yes, we'd prefer that all workers were advanced. That would make our jobs easier- but this is not the case. Those who can be reached will not be persuaded by condescension- this is what they can expect at the hands of the elites- this is never what should be received from a revolutionary.
I am not saying to pretend to be nice- no. If someone attacks, you are right to defend yourself. But if someone approaches with what seems, perhaps, to be a "stupid question", to treat them as if they should already know what they now wish to have explained will never win them to the side of revolution. It will, though, reinforce the elite's claim of leftists as being elitists. Again with the irony. Again, too, with the self-defeating behaviour. If, on the other hand, you treat the question with the same weight with which it is asked, you will open the way to learning- both for you and for the person with the question.
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
In my expereince in DC I came accross many politicians and political types (no, really!). One thing which I noticed accross the spectrum was that, after a certain level of hierarchy had been reached, a certain amount of politeness fell away. The result was that the person would become unapproachable. It also worked in the ostensibly less-heirerchical groups- once someone had published or organized a certain number of artcles or actions, they became likewise unapproachable and, dare I say, a bit vain and dismissive in their attitude.
The matter of unapproachability is important in that, to create a revolution, we cannot act as exhalted individuals- there is not a monoply, as they say, on good ideas. There is also a great deal which can be learned from unexpected- and previously untapped- sources. If you shut yourself off from people- to say nothing of The People- how can you fight for and with them?
As for actual rudeness or dismissiveness toward people- to act in such a manner is to disrespect the work and value of the people. This is not way for a participant- never mind a leader!- to behave.
We are workers. No matter what we have published, what we have done, how many signs we might have carried, above all, we are workers. To discount the experiences of fellow workers, their insights into the ills of society and their willingness to participate in the revolution, is counter-revolutionary at its core. To treat any fellow worker- no matter how seemingly unenlightened- with anything other than respect begs the question of our fitness as revolutionaries.
Yes, we'd prefer that all workers were advanced. That would make our jobs easier- but this is not the case. Those who can be reached will not be persuaded by condescension- this is what they can expect at the hands of the elites- this is never what should be received from a revolutionary.
I am not saying to pretend to be nice- no. If someone attacks, you are right to defend yourself. But if someone approaches with what seems, perhaps, to be a "stupid question", to treat them as if they should already know what they now wish to have explained will never win them to the side of revolution. It will, though, reinforce the elite's claim of leftists as being elitists. Again with the irony. Again, too, with the self-defeating behaviour. If, on the other hand, you treat the question with the same weight with which it is asked, you will open the way to learning- both for you and for the person with the question.
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Halfway through Problems of Everyday Life pt 1- ignorance
This is a series of editorials and speeches given by Trotsky in the years following the Revolution of October 1917. This volume (Monad press, 1973, third edition, 1979) incorporates the book *Problems of Life*. Covered within are areas ranging from habit (including spitting, family and gender roles) to hard science and the teaching thereof.
Many people ask what a post-revolutionary world or society would be like- the assumptions today are fairly dystopic, with anything from re-education camps to flat out enslavement and annialation prophesied as excuses to avert revolution. To be sure, there would be a period of comparative chaos, but this is where the true test of a revolution lies. Post revolution (as act of overthrow) there is the building of society anew. There are shards of the old society which must be thrown off still- habits die harder than governments.
In the essay which originally appeared in Pravda on April 4, 1923, Civility and Politeness as a Necessary Lubricant in Daily Relations, we find nothing to which even Miss Manners could raise an objection. Trotsky takes on the manner in which the state addresses the people, how the population is treated. He also tackles forms of rudeness-
--But our rudeness itself is not homogeneous. There is the simple rudeness of peasant origin, which is unattractive, certainly, but not degrading. It becomes unbearable and objectively reactionary only when our young novelists boast of it as of some extremely 'artistic' acquisition. The foremost elements of the workers regard such false simplicity with instinctive hostility, for they justly see in the coarseness of speech and conduct a mark of the old slavery, and aspire to acquire a cultured speech with its inner discipline. But this is beside the point...
Side by side with this simple kind, the habitual passive rudeness of the peasant, we have another, a special kind- the revolutionary- a rudeness of the leaders, due to impatience, to an over-ardent desire to better things, to the irritation caused by our indifference, to a creditable nervous tension. This rudeness, too, if taken by itself, is, of course, not attractive, and we dissociate ourselves from it; but at bottom, it is often nourished at the same revolutionary moral fount, which, on more than one occasion in these years, hs been able to move mountains. In this case what must be changed is not the substance, which is on the whole healthy, creative and progressive, but the distorted form...
We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--
I will stop there, though Trotsky did not, as he goes on to discuss red tape and the composition of and fight against it.
Let's talk about rudeness and its uses for a moment, though. As he points out, there are several kinds of rudeness, that of ignorance and the habit of being oppressed, which serves to keep the illiterate and uncultured in 'their place'; that of the revolutionist, who in their drive to accomplish things, lets civility slip- which is, as noted by T, someting which needs changing; and that of the aristocrat, which is born of a sense of entitlement and which is used as a weapon to keep others at a distance.
On the first kind- we do see this even today, of course. "Street cred" is something which is fought for (often literally), and to attempt to improve one's mind is often derided as "being all bougzhie", or "acting uppity". The getting of good grades in certain circles is seen as somehow selling out (it has been brought up most recently as a problem in African-American circles, but it is certainly not limited to this area. If I may lodge in your head a very bad song from the 1980's- Billy Joel asks "Should I try to be a straight-A student?", and answers by way of choral arrangement that, "If you are, then you think too much").
The stereotype of the "egghead" serves a role in society, whether the nerds get their revenge or not. Those who think are seen as hopelessly sexless, ill-socialized, and often badly dressed. Why? Whom does it serve to keep people from thinking- and thinking critically at that? The answer is pretty obvious- a stupid and illiterate population is easier to fool, and easier to oppress. Let us not forget that there were laws against teaching blacks to read in the United States. Their oppression was an economic imperative.
Today educationall funding is being cut accross great swaths of the country- the poor, who attend public schools, are often sent on ahead whether they have achieved literacy or not. The children of the elite are given tutoring in areas which are deemed important for future success. This, combined with a misguided and self-defeating denigrating of "thinking too much" serves only to perpetuate the cycle of oppression.
While it can certainly be argued that the public schools will teach what the government approves, it must also be noted that without the very basic tools of literacy (both verbal and numerical), there is no hope whatever of advancement either as a knowledgable participant in revolution or within the capitalist system. So it is as simple as this: The capitalist system benefits from the ignorance and subsequent "marking by uncouth manners" (if you will) that is entailed.
Other entities benefit, too, from such things. There are movements which will gladly prey on the ill-informed (religious ones spring to mind immediately, though they are by far not alone).
The pressure from within to not "act all boughzie" is particularly insidious. Wearing ignorance as a badge of valour plays directly into the hands of "the man" who is so oppressive. The defining of oneself as "not playing that game", no matter how it is put, precludes oneself from freedom. KNOWLEDGE is power, not ignorance.
The idea, closely connected with this, that having a modicum of civility and respect for your fellow human beings is also "acting boughzie" or otherwise playing into the hands of "the man" and therefore that to treat people with rudeness is necessary to maintain credibility within one's social circle is not only alienating, but also actually does play into the hands of the powers that be. If you cannot have a calm, straightforward and informed discussion with someone, you cannot foment revolution.
Do not mistake wanton violence and rioting with revolution- a conflation which is often made both by the (rightfully) extreemly angry and the quasi-leftish trust funded youth at university- revolution is a creative action. Though some windows might get broken along the way, this is not the goal- the goal is to build a better society which is designed for the good of the workers, not to leave everything in rubble. Knocking down is only half the way there. To stop amidst the shattered remains of the buildings of commerce and say "we have defeated them" is to allow the contracters to come in, rebuild with stronger materials and crack down on the freedoms of expression.
To knock down properly, one needs the plans for what is to be built either from the remains of the materials or from the new. In order to know what needs knocking down and what can be made- what should be made- in its stead, you need to have a solid revolutionary theory in place. In order to get that solidity, you need to be able to examine the options as they are- not just as you are told they are. You need not only literacy to examine the words, you need the critical thinking skills to place those words in the context of the actions taken by the speakers (do they match, the words and the actions?), and you need a knowledge of history and its driving forces.
Capitalism relies on a certain amount of ignorance- the less people know of their history, of the rights fought for and won, the less capitalism has to cover up. The less perspective people have, the more often we will hear phrases justifying current conditions with a skewed comparrisson to past ones- "You think you have it bad because your pension is being cut, well, at least you aren't a twelve year old factory worker, so you really have no complaint". That we had to fight so hard to get twelve-year olds out of the factories in the States and Europe is left out of the equation- had they their way, twelve year olds would be back in the factories in more places. Certainly they'd rather they had them there than possibly learning to read in the schools.
It would be a whole lot easier, say the elites, if people "Knew their place". Ironically, we hear much the same thing in the hurling of accusations of "acting boughzie" of the oppressed. In keeping hold of the traditions of crudeness and illiteracy, we keep tight hold of our chains and make it unnecessary for the elites to strangle us since we do such a good job of it ourselves.
Many people ask what a post-revolutionary world or society would be like- the assumptions today are fairly dystopic, with anything from re-education camps to flat out enslavement and annialation prophesied as excuses to avert revolution. To be sure, there would be a period of comparative chaos, but this is where the true test of a revolution lies. Post revolution (as act of overthrow) there is the building of society anew. There are shards of the old society which must be thrown off still- habits die harder than governments.
In the essay which originally appeared in Pravda on April 4, 1923, Civility and Politeness as a Necessary Lubricant in Daily Relations, we find nothing to which even Miss Manners could raise an objection. Trotsky takes on the manner in which the state addresses the people, how the population is treated. He also tackles forms of rudeness-
--But our rudeness itself is not homogeneous. There is the simple rudeness of peasant origin, which is unattractive, certainly, but not degrading. It becomes unbearable and objectively reactionary only when our young novelists boast of it as of some extremely 'artistic' acquisition. The foremost elements of the workers regard such false simplicity with instinctive hostility, for they justly see in the coarseness of speech and conduct a mark of the old slavery, and aspire to acquire a cultured speech with its inner discipline. But this is beside the point...
Side by side with this simple kind, the habitual passive rudeness of the peasant, we have another, a special kind- the revolutionary- a rudeness of the leaders, due to impatience, to an over-ardent desire to better things, to the irritation caused by our indifference, to a creditable nervous tension. This rudeness, too, if taken by itself, is, of course, not attractive, and we dissociate ourselves from it; but at bottom, it is often nourished at the same revolutionary moral fount, which, on more than one occasion in these years, hs been able to move mountains. In this case what must be changed is not the substance, which is on the whole healthy, creative and progressive, but the distorted form...
We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--
I will stop there, though Trotsky did not, as he goes on to discuss red tape and the composition of and fight against it.
Let's talk about rudeness and its uses for a moment, though. As he points out, there are several kinds of rudeness, that of ignorance and the habit of being oppressed, which serves to keep the illiterate and uncultured in 'their place'; that of the revolutionist, who in their drive to accomplish things, lets civility slip- which is, as noted by T, someting which needs changing; and that of the aristocrat, which is born of a sense of entitlement and which is used as a weapon to keep others at a distance.
On the first kind- we do see this even today, of course. "Street cred" is something which is fought for (often literally), and to attempt to improve one's mind is often derided as "being all bougzhie", or "acting uppity". The getting of good grades in certain circles is seen as somehow selling out (it has been brought up most recently as a problem in African-American circles, but it is certainly not limited to this area. If I may lodge in your head a very bad song from the 1980's- Billy Joel asks "Should I try to be a straight-A student?", and answers by way of choral arrangement that, "If you are, then you think too much").
The stereotype of the "egghead" serves a role in society, whether the nerds get their revenge or not. Those who think are seen as hopelessly sexless, ill-socialized, and often badly dressed. Why? Whom does it serve to keep people from thinking- and thinking critically at that? The answer is pretty obvious- a stupid and illiterate population is easier to fool, and easier to oppress. Let us not forget that there were laws against teaching blacks to read in the United States. Their oppression was an economic imperative.
Today educationall funding is being cut accross great swaths of the country- the poor, who attend public schools, are often sent on ahead whether they have achieved literacy or not. The children of the elite are given tutoring in areas which are deemed important for future success. This, combined with a misguided and self-defeating denigrating of "thinking too much" serves only to perpetuate the cycle of oppression.
While it can certainly be argued that the public schools will teach what the government approves, it must also be noted that without the very basic tools of literacy (both verbal and numerical), there is no hope whatever of advancement either as a knowledgable participant in revolution or within the capitalist system. So it is as simple as this: The capitalist system benefits from the ignorance and subsequent "marking by uncouth manners" (if you will) that is entailed.
Other entities benefit, too, from such things. There are movements which will gladly prey on the ill-informed (religious ones spring to mind immediately, though they are by far not alone).
The pressure from within to not "act all boughzie" is particularly insidious. Wearing ignorance as a badge of valour plays directly into the hands of "the man" who is so oppressive. The defining of oneself as "not playing that game", no matter how it is put, precludes oneself from freedom. KNOWLEDGE is power, not ignorance.
The idea, closely connected with this, that having a modicum of civility and respect for your fellow human beings is also "acting boughzie" or otherwise playing into the hands of "the man" and therefore that to treat people with rudeness is necessary to maintain credibility within one's social circle is not only alienating, but also actually does play into the hands of the powers that be. If you cannot have a calm, straightforward and informed discussion with someone, you cannot foment revolution.
Do not mistake wanton violence and rioting with revolution- a conflation which is often made both by the (rightfully) extreemly angry and the quasi-leftish trust funded youth at university- revolution is a creative action. Though some windows might get broken along the way, this is not the goal- the goal is to build a better society which is designed for the good of the workers, not to leave everything in rubble. Knocking down is only half the way there. To stop amidst the shattered remains of the buildings of commerce and say "we have defeated them" is to allow the contracters to come in, rebuild with stronger materials and crack down on the freedoms of expression.
To knock down properly, one needs the plans for what is to be built either from the remains of the materials or from the new. In order to know what needs knocking down and what can be made- what should be made- in its stead, you need to have a solid revolutionary theory in place. In order to get that solidity, you need to be able to examine the options as they are- not just as you are told they are. You need not only literacy to examine the words, you need the critical thinking skills to place those words in the context of the actions taken by the speakers (do they match, the words and the actions?), and you need a knowledge of history and its driving forces.
Capitalism relies on a certain amount of ignorance- the less people know of their history, of the rights fought for and won, the less capitalism has to cover up. The less perspective people have, the more often we will hear phrases justifying current conditions with a skewed comparrisson to past ones- "You think you have it bad because your pension is being cut, well, at least you aren't a twelve year old factory worker, so you really have no complaint". That we had to fight so hard to get twelve-year olds out of the factories in the States and Europe is left out of the equation- had they their way, twelve year olds would be back in the factories in more places. Certainly they'd rather they had them there than possibly learning to read in the schools.
It would be a whole lot easier, say the elites, if people "Knew their place". Ironically, we hear much the same thing in the hurling of accusations of "acting boughzie" of the oppressed. In keeping hold of the traditions of crudeness and illiteracy, we keep tight hold of our chains and make it unnecessary for the elites to strangle us since we do such a good job of it ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
