Comments on: Activistism

By: wbb

wbb — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:50:34 +0000

Activism was shown to be emotionally over-wrought and ineffectual one hudred years ago when the unions regularly manned the barricades over the single issue of their wages. They did not have a business plan for how their employers could come up with increased revenue to fund the wage increases. No, they just pig-headedly demanded it. The unions did not appoint Oxford economics stars to lead them on the picket lines, they ignorantly went with local lads with big fists. Activism – yes – it needs to be denounced for the boorish and simple-minded affair it is. If somebody can’t make a case for the landless laborers of the third world with gold-plated intellectual cogency then they merely affront those of us whose porcelain delicate minds must feast only on higher matters. I mean third world laborers? Which 18th Century Great could I turn to for my introductory quote on that issue? There’s just no rigor to be had on these declasse topics.

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:03:21 +0000

I think the reputation of activism as being unprincipled is tied heavily to its dependence on emotion. Most activists I have seen are very passionate about their cause (not a bad thing per se), but they have based this passion on an emotional reaction to something. This something may be a fact, a statistic, a peice of propganda, etc. There is little rational thought by many of the activists. The leadership may have thought action through, and as part of their strategy, roused a lot of support through emotional appeal. This tends towards large numbers, but not towards a group with any foundation or alternative thought. Emotions are great, but they are a lousy way to make important decisions. Let your passion drive you to think deeper, not to think less.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:02:33 +0000

“A related question I would put to the good CT people: is it really necessary to provide a full “alternative” system when you criticize some aspects of one? i.e. do you absolutely need to have an alternative to ‘capitalism’ in your side pocket to be qualified to protest against some of its excesses?” Nope you don’t need a full alternative system. But what you need and do not have is a remotely plausible system. And you can protest against some of its excesses without even that, but not the excesses which are typically attacked. The outsourcing pseudo-debate seen recently all over the web is a classic example. The typical ‘remedy’ (not openly voiced) would be hugely damaging protectionist measures. If you want such measures you have to deal with their implications. If you don’t you need to tell us what the hell kind of measures you would take. This appears constantly in the debate about Islamist terrorism. The US, of course, should be ‘building alliances’. To do what? Oh, ‘fight terrorism’. How? The alliances will do that of course. Really? Well that is what alliances will do. Of course….. Fair trade. Trade should be fairer. How? Protectionism which raises prices for the protected market and starves out third world countries in the only areas where they can compete—unskilled labor (or everyones favorite subsidy FARMING)? The fairness is washing over me. Oh you have something else in mind? No, just critiquing capitalism. That is the kind of activistism that is being decried. And it is perfectly appropriate to make fun of it. And don’t bother accusing me of straw-man argumentation. If you don’t know vocal leftists who are very close to the above you aren’t looking very hard.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:37 +0000

To link to the article as part of a general exercise in condemnation of “The Left” would b unsporting, by the way. it is always unsporting to say the emperor has no clothes, isn’t it? i think “laughlingly call the left” is well said bc any group that counts henwood as a member deserves no better.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:25:12 +0000

My comment was a related side issue that has been bugging me, but I could agree with the conclusion you quote, Scott. It’s funny because I have the opposite perception: that single-issue campaigns (effective) are ruined when they are overcome by some marxist sect that has a plan like: 1) protest against issue X! 2) ???? 3) Revolution.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:04:11 +0000

Ah – now that I post I see that Matthew covered some of the same stuff.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:03:05 +0000

I think they have a point, especially this: Our point is not that there should be less activism. The left is nothing without visible, disruptive displays of power. We applaud activism and engage in it ourselves. What we are calling for is an assault on the stupidity that pervades American culture. [..] We’re not calling for leadership by intellectuals. On the contrary, we challenge left activist culture to live up to its anti-hierarchical claims: activists should themselves become intellectuals. I think the broad single-issue and limited scope movements are useful and necessary, and I think that it is probably appropriate that they be “big tent” movements uniting people with very different theoretical motivations. And, it seems reasonable to me that disucssions of theory might take place within such movements, even though the whole movement need not come to any theoretical conclusions. People in the US have a great deal of difficulty relating to activism in part because activists often don’t offer up larger reasons for their actions. There is an episode of The West Wing where a member of the White House staff is dispatched to talk to an anti-globalisation group, and they are protrayed as lacking any meaningful reasoning behind their position – they are just a bunch of college kids marching against something because that is what they do. Or a movie from the early 90’s that Comedy Central used to play all the time – PCU – portrayed campus activists as a clique who protested something different every week, without any underlying principles. These portrayals are not necessarily very accurate, but there was a grain of truth to it on my campus. That really is the image most Americans have of activism and it is damaging very serious and heartfelt causes. The recent anti-war marches may have changed that, but I’m not in the US, I don’t know. But, I think you’re right that analysis isn’t quite as dead as all that. I think Henwood feels – probably rightly – that since the decline of Marxism there hasn’t been a respectable, well-accepted intellectual framework for political activism. The (anti-)(alter-)(whatever-)globalisation movement is seriously hindered by this lack of a coherent response to their opponent’s ideology and the apparent belief that no compelling alternative ideology needs to put forward.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:57:25 +0000

I think there’s more to the Henwood et al piece than that; his real bugbear appears to be that the young ‘un protestors are just caught up in the act, and refuse to think about the sort of systemic issues you’re talking about. I’m gonna update the piece accordingly. But your central point is quite right; there is no obligation on me to explain how London’s streets might best be cleared of snow, for example.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:44:55 +0000

A related question I would put to the good CT people: is it really necessary to provide a full “alternative” system when you criticize some aspects of one? i.e. do you absolutely need to have an alternative to ‘capitalism’ in your side pocket to be qualified to protest against some of its excesses? Because that is the stick used to beat the “Activismists”, by the article you quote and most mainstream media reports: they are protesting against XXX, but what are they for? Isn’t it ironically quite a Marxist point of view? I think you can be against sweatshops or plundering ‘free-traders’ without having to come up with global socialism (which would be dismissed anyway). What do you think?

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:20:08 +0000

a lot of people with such a vehement obsession over particular branded sports goods companies that I ended up suspecting it was largely populated by foot fetishists

A phenomenon which I have often noticed.