Political Activism?

Not exactly, just that by applying sticking plasters to a vast gangrenous wound we only make the situation worse in the long run, in the macro-view. What is the ethic of action in such a situation? How do you prevent amelioration of a chronic affliction only allowing the basic affliction to continue unabated?

in the u.s., the problem with "single issue" politics is that a lot of times you end up unwittingly toeing that "lobbyism" line

What's the lobbyism line?

well, lobbyists are the real impetus behind a lot of what become "issues" or party platforms in the U.S.

lobbyists are people who are paid by special interest groups to go sell their sob story to politicians (they often donate heavily to certain politicians within a certain party), who then make that special interest a huge "political issue" that becomes part of the party line.

some examples:

anti-tobacco
the NRA
Pro-Isreal lobby
anti-gay marriage
even the RIAA is a lobby here

Oh THAT. You mentioned a list of predoninently right wing lobby issues-- is the problem the same for the left wing ones?

gek-opel said:

Its interesting that the forms of political activism mentioned here are all very micro-political- issues based rather than party political. No one thinking of standing for parliament/congress etc then? Me either. The problem I have I think with single issue activism isn't whether if given enough time and support it can't achieve its aim (I think it can in many cases)... but rather whether it is self-defeating (ie- it serves to ameliorate the underlying structure which gives rise to it, thereby effectively perpetuating said structure). This is my issue with the majority of left wing politics- in its successes it achieves only a grander failure. Its the paradox I'm wrestling with: such politics can work at the micro level, but at the macro level is it possible to achieve change by pulling in the right direction? So for a given group of people their lives may be immeasurably improved, but at the cost of allowing the structural reasons for their issue arising to continue to exist...

Click to expand...

I personally don't think I can achieve my political objectives by standing for parliament at this time. This is for several reasons, not least that I doubt I would get in as an independent and that none of the existing parliamentary parties have similar politics to me.

Though I would certainly not rule out standing for local council positions.

Micro stuff can winnable and I think we need to win more - to increase people's confidence if nothing else. [see quote in subsequent post]

The thing with single issues is that they can provide an opportunity to link up with other struggles and to look at the underlying systemic causes. Plus - you need to go where people are already. If they are up in arms about climate change, or even a phone mast going up near a school, then they are thinking critically and may be open to a wider discussion. Of course various lefties manage to completely balls this up by being preachy and alienating people further.

I think otherwise you end up being really ultra-leftist and purist - refusing to get into reformism and constantly banging on about capitalism, and criticising people who are trying to do something because they don't have a total critique.

7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

Click to expand...

quote from as we see it by Solidarity, a UK libertarian socialist group

sounds good.

gek-opel said:

Its interesting that the forms of political activism mentioned here are all very micro-political- issues based rather than party political. No one thinking of standing for parliament/congress etc then? Me either. .... So for a given group of people their lives may be immeasurably improved, but at the cost of allowing the structural reasons for their issue arising to continue to exist...

Click to expand...

I understand this concern. My own soul is not restored by public "macro" political activism, so I don't do that. I thin it can be effective.

the problem is, people who focus on eth big picture are equally likely to be totally out of touch with the realities on the ground. Even worse, the methodologies for STUDYING the big picture so you can see it tend to biased towards seeing particular things and overlooking other things, and you can end up missing important structural issues that are hard to account for in mainstream economics, poli sci, sociology etc.

I'm dealing with this stuff right now by being in a PHD Law &Society program, surrounded by prestigious policy people who are thinking a lot of about the big picture and the best federal policy on this and that, and then spending time this summer fighting with the Jamaican Department of Correctional Services to get them to stop the guards messing with prisoners by forgetting to pick up the newspapers the prisoners are allowed to have. No policy recommendation is going to get the guards to behave less like dicks. the question is, can anything?

I'm inclined to think that micro-activism can connect to macro, but it requires personal commitment and a willingness to be vulnerable or at least take time. I think I'm influenced a great deal by the union I interned with years ago, whose organizing model is based on thousands of tiny micro-organizing moments. It's slow, but very effective, and builds a real living dynamic institution, not just a bureacracy.

Not exactly, just that by applying sticking plasters to a vast gangrenous wound we only make the situation worse in the long run, in the macro-view. What is the ethic of action in such a situation? How do you prevent amelioration of a chronic affliction only allowing the basic affliction to continue unabated?

Click to expand...

You constantly hum this tune Gek but people have repeated asked you for real alternatives and none have been forth-coming. I think John Eden has it pretty much spot on here

"I think otherwise you end up being really ultra-leftist and purist - refusing to get into reformism and constantly banging on about capitalism, and criticising people who are trying to do something because they don't have a total critique."

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you criticise people for not having a "total critique" but I do feel that you are paralysed by your own search for one.
Anyway, I don't mean to criticise because in some ways I am quite similar. I'm often not sure what I think on issues and equally paralyed by fear of doing the wrong thing. My politicism is limited to voting and going on marches or signing petitions on the rare occasions when I finally do make up my mind.
In general, to answer the original question

"what do you actually do with your heartfelt political convictions?"

I don't know what my heartfelt polictical convictions are. The reason I read all the politics threads on here is to try and understand things better. When you hear an argument that makes you reconsider what you think then that is very worthwhile.

I think a total critique is unnecessary, and anyway there is far too much critique and not enough action. A perfect critique alone is absolutely and entirely useless (indeed superfluous). There are many good critiques of capitalism and its externalities in existence, but what is necessary is not further critique, but practical methodologies. Too many within the academic left are happy to be "right" without ever changing anything- an intellectual game which amounts to nothing. This is to be rejected at all costs. But the paradoxes of activism, indeed of what the Western left has achieved over the last 60 years or so cannot be ignored: that the effect of amelioration has been to embed capitalism. The effect of humanist interventions is to confuse an empathic need to prevent immediate suffering with fundamental change. Envisaging a practical methodology that avoids this pitfall then is the question to be addressed.

gek-opel said:

I think a total critique is unnecessary, and anyway there is far too much critique and not enough action. A perfect critique alone is absolutely and entirely useless (indeed superfluous). There are many good critiques of capitalism and its externalities in existence, but what is necessary is not further critique, but practical methodologies. Too many within the academic left are happy to be "right" without ever changing anything- an intellectual game which amounts to nothing. This is to be rejected at all costs. But the paradoxes of activism, indeed of what the Western left has achieved over the last 60 years or so cannot be ignored: that the effect of amelioration has been to embed capitalism. The effect of humanist interventions is to confuse an empathic need to prevent immediate suffering with fundamental change. Envisaging a practical methodology that avoids this pitfall then is the question to be addressed.

Click to expand...

I like that a lot, but it's 1am and I have a kitten clawing me and I have to be up in six hours. More later...

I suppose, Gek, this boils down to where we are trying to get to and how we think that will be achieved.

Personally I think I still believe in the idea of a revolution heralding a completely new world along the lines of what class struggle anarchists and marx etc were describing.

However I don't see this getting any closer. In fact the prospect seems increasingly unlikely as time passes.

There are all sorts of reasons for that but one of the main ones is the tremendous effort which has been put into making people feel hopeless and of obscuring the class antagonisms which underpin the current social order.

The alternatives options for people looking for a way out are a barking mad and quite unsuccessful left, or religion, or hedonism. Frankly the latter two offer a much better return on your investment than the former in most instances.

Most people associate "alternative" politics with headcases, students and naive dreamers. Even if you look beyond that it seems pretty clear that the left (in the UK) is more interested in the concerns of working class people in Iraq than it is in those on their own doorstep. Or with "big" issues like climate change, ID cards, etc. The left is very happy telling people what they should be concerned about.

I believe that struggles should arise out the actual needs and concerns of working class people - whatever they are. If anything is going to change it will be through people self-organising along those lines, not being bossed about by middle class tourists. This will mean taking the trouble to listen to them without imposing an agenda. It will be important for us to do what we say and say what we do - people have had enough bullshit.

I feel the best place is to start small, and avoid all the alienating grand showbiz of stuff like anti-war campaigns. (Which whilst impressive and indeed important, were a failure).

There are two ways to do this - in workplaces or in communities.

You have to go where people are. And by that I mean geographically, and psychologically.

I'm not sure what you think of this, or the quote from Solidarity above. But it's where I am at.

I don't pretend to have any easy answers but that is the sort of thing which informs my thinking at the moment.

Personally I think I still believe in the idea of a revolution heralding a completely new world along the lines of what class struggle anarchists and marx etc were describing.

Click to expand...

I've never read any Marx first-hand but I understand that he didn't actually advocate revolution or armed struggle. Isn't this the case? As far as I know he thought Communism was just the most advanced or logical socio-economic system, and that capitalist societies would graduallly evolve towards it over time, just as capitalism had supplanted feudalism which had in turn supplanted barbarism. Or something like that, anyway.

gek-opel said:

The effect of humanist interventions is to confuse an empathic need to prevent immediate suffering with fundamental change. Envisaging a practical methodology that avoids this pitfall then is the question to be addressed.

Click to expand...

but there's something else, something that goes beyond the binary laid out here. Some interventions/ interactions are transformative of the people involved, and therefore, eventually or immediately, of social relations. Perhaps it is the difference between charity and solidarity?