Damn! Well said!!!
DDeBar
[log in to unmask]

----------
> From: Ken Freeland <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CHOMSKY] A tonic for radicals
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:42 PM
>
> Here then is today's ZNet Commentary...
>
> "Resolutions for Radicals"
>
> BY Tim Wise
>
> I don't normally make New Year's resolutions, or use the new year as an
> excuse for significant reflection on the one just ended. But this year,
I'm
> making an exception. After all, we have (arguably, I know) entered a new
> millennium: and the end of a thousand-year period-particularly one as
> historically significant as this-should be seen as a moment of some
> importance. If nothing else, it's a good reason to examine where we've
been,
> where we find ourselves, and where we might be going.
>
> The millennium just completed has brought forth the best and worst in
human
> behavior. Nation-state empires, colonialism, and "democracy" all
developed
> more fully in this period. Agrarian societies evolved from feudal
> arrangements, to capitalist ones, rooted in industrial production, to,
> occasionally, systems based (in theory) on collective ownership. In the
case
> of the latter, most of these have collapsed, while "the market" has held
on
> and proliferated like kudzu. Capitalism has developed from local to
> national, to international, to global proportions, generating much wealth
> for some, and great hardship for others. And this is no mere Marxist
cliche:
> it is the inherent nature of such an order, one which capitalists
themselves
> have acknowledged at least implicitly for years, while nonetheless
seeking
> to justify the "collateral damage."
>
> And in this new century the world will continue to shrink, in the sense
that
> interaction between folks around the globe will proceed at breathtaking
> speed; and that shrinkage will-as with shrinkages past-generate much
wealth
> for some, and great misery for more. And this too will be no accident,
but
> rather, the logic of the system working as planned.
>
> And there will be those who raise our voices in opposition to much of
what
> goes on in the name of this thing the winners call "progress," and who
note
> that such a world creates a surplus of "losers," and that the "winners"
are
> more than a little implicated in their suffering. And there will be those
> who reproach us for pointing this out, accuse us of fomenting something
> called "class struggle," and attempt to convince all humanity they have
> everyone's interests at heart, and so we should trust them, while
> distrusting those who stand in their way.
>
> And it is at that point where our commitment will be (is being) tested:
the
> point at which those who labor for justice will be attacked, vilified,
and
> even co-opted. There we'll have to define what it is we're not willing to
> compromise; what it is we're willing to fight for, no matter the cost. It
is
> at that point-preferably before-that we'll have to decide perhaps the
most
> important thing anyone ever has to decide: whether or not we will
> collaborate with the injustices all around us, or whether we'll actively
> resist them.
>
> This choice, between collaboration and resistance is the essence, I
think,
> of what it means to be human: or as Baldwin put it, to "become human." To
> become fully human-because to think being a member of homo sapiens makes
one
> automatically human is to make a category mistake-requires that we decide
> whether we'll go along with the established order, or rebel against it.
>
> None of us, of course, is capable of resisting perfectly. Human frailty
> being what it is, and the economic order being what it is-which is to
say, a
> perfect system for preying upon those frailties-guarantee that often
we'll
> fall short, and end up collaborating with an injustice here and again.
That
> such moments of failure are inevitable does not, however, make it any
less
> important to choose resistance, and to offer alternative visions of how
> society might operate.
>
> And it's important to recognize what constitutes true resistance and what
> doesn't: for despite the fact that we'll all fall short sometimes, it's
> critical that we fall short-when we do-of a goal that is actually worth
> fighting for, and not some pale imitation of the genuine article. That's
why
> we must stake out ground that is not some mere reflection of liberalism,
> which accepts so many of the tenets of ruling class hegemony-indeed is
part
> of that hegemony.
>
> This was never so obvious as in the last few weeks, when I have heard
> "progressives" praise Bill Clinton for "coming around" on the WTO (that's
> right, Michael Moore really said this); and claim that America "has
respect
> for human life" presumably absent from those foreign "terrorists" trying
to
> smuggle dynamite into the Space Needle, or wherever (this from Paul
> Wellstone-the "leftist" who endorsed Wall Street Bill Bradley); or saying
> that they "love capitalism" (this in a USA Today letter from "Ben," of
Ben
> and Jerry's ice cream, who's supposed to be a lefty because they named a
> flavor after Jerry Garcia, or something). In any event, these are
examples
> of what resistance isn't. It isn't about flacking for the President, or
> voting for the lesser of two evils again, or praising the profit system.
>
> To be "radical" means to seek the roots of a problem, and then, having
found
> them, to focus attention there, and dig until they're exposed and
destroyed.
> Then, to be radical means to replace that which has been uprooted with
> something better, more equitable and just, where folks aren't
subordinated
> to illegitimate authority-be they politicians, or bosses. Sure, many
deride
> such talk as utopianism. But remember, nothing ever came about that
wasn't
> first dreamt by someone; and none of the contemporary progress we've seen
in
> terms of justice was due to the efforts of moderates, or even liberals
> really. Even when less militant types have accomplished something
positive,
> it has often required radicals to keep the liberals honest (or at least
on
> their toes).
>
> It took radical abolitionists, like John Brown to make the more
"mainstream"
> opponents of slavery take a stronger stand. It took the more militant
unions
> and champions of labor naming the system which disempowers working
people,
> to push more "mainstream" unionists-even for a short while-to a position
of
> strength earlier in this century, and to accomplish (however inadequate)
the
> reforms of the New Deal. It took SNCC-with its more systemic analysis of
the
> problem of white supremacy-to push SCLC and "mainstream" civil rights
> groups, and the same could be said of the effect of even more militant
> groups like the Panthers, the Nation of Islam, Brown Berets or AIM.
>
> Likewise, it will take more than mere lovers of sea turtles and AFL-CIO
> types to stop the WTO and the global immiseration that comes with the
agenda
> of corporate elites.
>
> Those who call ourselves radicals must be clear: the enemy is not the
"far
> right," but the system that limits our choices and the spectrum of
thought
> on so many issues. Were it not for the weak-kneed advocacy of liberals,
and
> the watered-down calls for justice which are their hallmark, the right
> wouldn't be the threat it is today. Liberals and the Democrats have
enabled
> the right by their tepid resistance to all but the most fascistic of
> reactionary plans. And "progressives" have enabled the Democrats to
enable
> the right, by continuing to vote for lessers of two evils, no matter how
> evil the lesser may be.
>
> We radicals must disabuse ourselves of the notion that one more really
> well-written position paper will make policy makers come around. Elites
> don't do what they do out of ignorance, or because they haven't read the
> latest from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They do what they
do
> because it's in their interests and the interests of those they serve to
do
> what they do. We are not, liberal protestations aside, "all in this
> together." Elites respond to power; threats-if they can be backed up-and
> mass pressure. Liberals seek to educate elites away from their class
> interests: Radicals seek to educate masses about theirs, figuring the
rest
> will take care of itself.
>
> So for the new millenium let's make this resolution: let's resolve to
> clarify the difference between us and liberals with whom we're often
lumped.
> Here's one way to think of it: Imagine a man standing over another with a
> boot pressed against the second man's throat. Along comes a conservative
who
> blames the man on the ground for his position, since surely he must have
> done something to deserve being there. When the man under foot asks for
> help, the conservative says the man must help himself, as such a thing
> builds character. And then the conservative walks away.
>
> A liberal, seeing this, rushes up, appalled at the condition of the man
on
> the ground, and the mean-spiritedness of the conservative. So he offers
the
> man on the ground a pillow for under his head, so as to alleviate the
pain a
> bit, and offers him a cool glass of water. He even puts a bumper sticker
on
> his car that reads: "Stomping People Under Foot Is Not a Family Value."
And
> then the liberal moves on.
>
> As our resolution, as radicals, let us resolve that whenever we come
across
> this kind of scene, we'll focus attention on the guy whose foot is in the
> damned boot, and that we won't rest until the boot is removed. That's the
> difference. And it matters.
>
> Tim Wise is a Nashville-based activist, writer, and antiracism educator.
He
> can be reached at [log in to unmask]
>
>
> According to the May-June 99 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, excluding
> the Nazi Holocaust, "Sanctions [on Iraq] have contributed to more deaths
> than all weapons of mass destruction throughout history."