Now that former Weather Undergrounder
Bill Ayers is back in the news, this 2001 Slate profile of him is worth reading. He comes off as an extremely unsavory character.
Much of what Ayers self-interestedly leaves out of his book is more personally embarrassing than illegal. Ayers takes care not to dwell on his own Establishment credentials. (His father was chairman of the energy company Commonwealth Edison, a fact Ayers conveys only by writing, "My dad worked for Edison.") Ayers omits any discussion of his famous 1970 statement, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." He also omits any discussion of his wife Bernardine Dohrn's famous reaction to the Manson killings, as conveyed by journalist Peter Collier: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" (In a 1993 Chicago Magazine profile, Dohrn claimed, implausibly, that she'd been trying to convey that "Americans love to read about violence.")
Link (via Reason Hit & Run)
the latest
latest episodes
He comes off as an extremely unsavory character.
Most of the WUO and periphery were well-educated, upper middle class kids from Long Island. As in any group, the creepy ones get most of the media attention.
two stories relating to recent Obama non-stories that can be viewed as unfavorable to Obama? in one day? before a critical primary?
well i guess something has to counter DIGG
@Antinous
(how I wish this had a proper reply function!)
Violent youth revolutionaries are probably inherently noteworthy. Sociopathic ones? Even more!
May I be the first to say, with a change of clothes, this Ayers character could be real cutie.
And the media has a funny knack for making unsavoury characters out of normal people. Like re: the response to Manson, I've said much worse than that jokingly over a few drinks, amongst friends and etc., and I can assure you I don't approve of murder, at all.
Just saying, when it comes to men and dogs biting each other, the exception is the news; when it comes to defamation, they like to make things conform to stereotypes as far as is practicable, like here that people with radical politics are all middle class idealists completely out of touch with reality.
I'll mention as well, I wouldn't be too surprised if he was actually a nutjob, as nutjobs are also inexplicably attracted to radical politics, for some reason.
Ayers was creepy in 1970, but was well respected in Chicago because of his subsequent work on education reform as well as reform of juvenile courts. The Chicago Tribune, a Republican paper, published op-eds from him repeatedly. He'd become practically mainstream, despite the fact that he never repudiated his support for violence as a means to oppose the Vietnam war.
It appears that politicians of both parties in the Chicago area worked with the man at times over the last two decades.
Ayers was never convicted of any crime (though this was mostly because blatant prosecutorial misconduct made the filing of charges impossible). However, two of his colleagues who were convicted of crimes were pardoned by Bill Clinton, which makes Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama for once serving on a nonprofit board with Ayers look ludicrous.
Also, the WU were pretty inept; they managed to blow themselves up.
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. Whoever wrote that slate profile obviously has a conservative bias. The representation of The Days Of Rage as a vandalism spree with scant regard to the brutality of the police who outnumbered protesters is almost perverse. To suggest that Weather Underground bombs did indeed kill without backing it up also seems irresponsible.
From this side of the pond it seems incredible that you waste time and energy debating the minor crimes of a man who may or may not be "unsavory" rather than contextualise his actions by referring to the moral bancruptcy of the Nixon administration. You never got around to impeaching a man whose actions were criminal beyond doubt, who was responsible for millions of dead on both sides of the South East Asian Conflict. In fact one of his co-conspirators, Henry Kissenger, lives amongst you now in luxury and seems destined never to be charged for the war crimes he committed.
Davin,
Of the people that I've known from the WUO and SLA, there's only one who might have been a sociopath, and he probably just had NPD. They are almost universally compassionate people who believed that they were defending the oppressed. Most of them ended up as teachers, AIDS educators, etc.
Cn y mgn f McCn hd kckd ff hs cmpgn t th hm f frmr brtn clnc bmbr? vn rpntnt brtn clnc bmbr? D y thnk tht wld b vld tpc n prsdntl dbt?
#8: Oh, you bet, Kev, that would be news (assuming he actually "kicked off his campaign" there)! Also: No chance at all it would get coverage.
"Of the people that I've known from the WUO and SLA"
Other than Patty Hearst, I can't think of any SLA members that are alive and out of prison, although Emily Harris was out of prison for a few years until last month , and Sara Jane Olson was out for a few days a month ago
"Can you imagine if McCain had kicked off his campaign at the home of a former abortion clinic bomber? Even a repentant abortion clinic bomber? Do you think that would be a valid topic in a presidential debate?"
It would be ignored by the corporate media, just as his cozying up to fringe religious whack-jobs to appease the fundies was ignored (even as they reacted with baying enthusiasm to the comments of Wright).
Ayers omits any discussion of his famous 1970 statement, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." He also omits any discussion of his wife Bernardine Dohrn's famous reaction to the Manson killings, as conveyed by journalist Peter Collier: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" (In a 1993 Chicago Magazine profile, Dohrn claimed, implausibly, that she'd been trying to convey that "Americans love to read about violence.")
Ayers and Dohrn have said that both these comments were meant as jokes, see here:
Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
...
In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''
Kevitivity,
It would be more like if McCain campaigned with people militantly opposed to abortion despite never being convicted of abortion clinic bombing, and doesn't he already do that?
To be fair, I'm certainly not up on the news but I don't think this will exactly be a deciding issue for anyone, although I do like a candidate who vets all his acquaintances, me.
Can you imagine if McCain had kicked off his campaign at the home of a former abortion clinic bomber? Even a repentant abortion clinic bomber? Do you think that would be a valid topic in a presidential debate?
Obama didn't "kick off" his state senate campaign at Ayer's place, it was just one event. But to go along with this analogy, what if the abortion clinic bomber had only set off the bombs at night when the clinics were expected to be empty, sending warnings in advance to try to ensure that no one happened to be in the building? What if this had happened decades ago, and the person had already served their time in prison? Unlike murder, I don't think destruction of property is the sort of crime that should forever make one an outcast from polite society.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has also weighed in with his own statement on the Ayers controversy:
There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.
I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.
I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.
@13 SCTTFR N. t wld b lk f McCn cmpgnd wth n ctl frmr brtn clnc bmbr. nd ys, t wld b bg nws. Fx nws prbbly wldn't py t prpr ttntn, bt y cn bt MSNBC's lbrmnn, CNN, th ntwrks, nd th lbrl blgsphr (sp?) wld b ll vr t - rghtly s.
Kev,
If you have information not known to the state of Illinois regarding unsolved bombings, you should probably alert the relevant authorities.
Scottfree, are you saying there is any doubt that Ayers was involved in the bombings? The article says bombing charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct, but based on reading some reviews I'm pretty sure he openly admits to having been involved with bombings in his book.
In the turbulent early 1970s, Ayers helped set off bombs in two dozen places, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Supposedly nobody was hurt--the Weatherpeople always issued agitprop-laden bomb threats in advance--though Chatterbox has never seen a scrupulous accounting. (Ayers never did jail time for the bombings because of prosecutorial misbehavior.)
--i only skimmed the article, but the above seems like the relevant section. And I note the scare word 'supposedly'. Sum mishtake, shurely, as that sort of thing is easily verifiable for a journalist?
Prosecutorial misbehaviour sounds like code for trying to frame someone. That isn't to say he didn't do it, as I think John Barker said, the police can still frame you for a crime you actually committed. But it is comparable to war veterans: those who brag most tend to be those who did least. I do think the article is a defamation piece, rather then serious journalism, not that I condone any kind of violence. I had not heard of Ayers until the BB thread about the debate a few days back, and I certainly haven't read his book, but it seems anything to be said about Obamas relationship with him can correspondingly be said of McCains relationship to some nutterbutter or other on the right.
@14 wrote:
"Obama didn't "kick off" his state senate campaign at Ayer's place, it was just one event. But to go along with this analogy, what if the abortion clinic bomber had only set off the bombs at night when the clinics were expected to be empty, sending warnings in advance to try to ensure that no one happened to be in the building? What if this had happened decades ago, and the person had already served their time in prison? Unlike murder, I don't think destruction of property is the sort of crime that should forever make one an outcast from polite society."
Really? I think it would be the sort of crime to make one outcast permanently. Even if no one is in the clinic (which you can never be certain of) you are still putting lots of lives at risk. Emergency responders do get killed responding to incidents like this, and the point of the bombing is still to deprive individuals of their rights through terror and violence.
Presumably, if some wacko blew up your house you wouldn't think, "gee, I'm glad they were responsible terrorists who waited until no one was home."
Scottfree, as I said, other reviews make me pretty sure he openly admits to involvement in bombings. For example, this article on the book from the Washington Post quotes him as saying of the Pentagon bombing that "It turns out that we blew up a bathroom and, quite by accident, water plunged below and knocked out their computers for a time, disrupting the air war and sending me into deepening shades of delight."
Brian Carnell:
Really? I think it would be the sort of crime to make one outcast permanently. Even if no one is in the clinic (which you can never be certain of) you are still putting lots of lives at risk. Emergency responders do get killed responding to incidents like this, and the point of the bombing is still to deprive individuals of their rights through terror and violence.
Sure, but there is a continuum of reckless lawbreaking acts that put people at risk--everyone who tries to outrun the police in a police chase is putting people at risk, as is everyone who drives when drunk, yet I wouldn't put these people in the same permanent outcast category as murderers who fully intended for people to die.
Presumably, if some wacko blew up your house you wouldn't think, "gee, I'm glad they were responsible terrorists who waited until no one was home."
This is a strawman, I never said we should consider him to be a "responsible" person, or that we should be "glad" about what he did, I just said it was a lot less bad than terrorism which aims to cause death. And yes, if a wacko blew up my house, but he waited until he knew I was supposed to be out of the house and phoned a warning in beforehand just in case, I'd consider this much less bad than a wacko who tried to blow up my house with me in it.
I've been in a seminar taught by Bill Ayers. He's a very nice (and now much older man) who made mistakes as a young man. That a lot of you are trying to define him by what you've read in an article about one very small portion of his life is somewhat appalling.
► Disclaimer: I don't agree with (all) the tactics of the 1960/70s era Weather Underground, so trying to paint me as an apologist for them won't get you very far, schmucks.
Wow... Big SHAWKER....here come the hit pieces and LIES. Did anyone notice the last Clinton/Obama debate where Cliniton LIED about the Weathermen?
She basically said they had killed people multiple times with multiple incidents of bombings. Was this while she was ducking sniper fire, I wonder? LOL
That's a LIE. An idiotic faction of the Weatherman blew themselves up ONCE and after that the rest of the Weather Underground was always very careful to only harm structures... NOT people (very remarkably). There was only ONE incident of direct physical harm to humans and it was only to that faction of the Weatherman (3 Weathermen died in one explosion)
--------
Here's what scares the hell out of the powers that be. They could NOT catch most of these people until they turned themselves in. Whether you agree with the WU or not, you have to respect the fact that American citizens were able to outsmart the world's most powerful killing machine empire right in its own turf. EVEN with the FBI going way outside of the law in the process of trying to apprehend them!
Meanwhile, let's demonize the shit out of the WU while American harbingers of (ongoing) genocide still go unpunished to this day. Priorities, people... priorities...
--------------
WU bombs didn't kill innocent people....
BUT, America's war in Iraq has now killed well over twice as many Iraqi civilians in 5 years.... than what Saddam Hussein's regime killed in over 20 years time... TOTAL.
Instead of chasing the WU boogie-man around... Maybe it's time for some of us to look in the fucking mirror OURSELVES, America.
God damn fucking hypocrites.
Sure, but there is a continuum of reckless lawbreaking acts that put people at risk--everyone who tries to outrun the police in a police chase is putting people at risk, as is everyone who drives when drunk, yet I wouldn't put these people in the same permanent outcast category as murderers who fully intended for people to die.
Lk, f y thnk ppl wh blw p brtn clncs whn n n s n thm shld nt b prmnntly tcst frm scty, 'm crtnly nt gng t prvnt y frm ssctng wth thm r hvng t nd crmpts t thr hm.
I take the opposite view, that in a free society people who engage in acts of violence in an effort to deprive others of their rights should be permanently ostracized by polite company, *especially* when they are completely unrepentant. Not only does Ayers, for example, not thing he was wrong but as he told the New York Times "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
That Ayers has been largely rehabilitated is itself a sad commentary (OTOH, the attacks on Obama are ridiculous given the tangential-at-best relationship between the two).
"I've been in a seminar taught by Bill Ayers. He's a very nice (and now much older man) who made mistakes as a young man. That a lot of you are trying to define him by what you've read in an article about one very small portion of his life is somewhat appalling."
Except Bill Ayers doesn't think setting bombs was a mistake. So, defining him by that seems very appropriate.
" ... There was only ONE incident of direct physical harm to humans and it was only to that faction of the Weatherman (3 Weathermen died in one explosion) ... "
I should correct myself there, I'm referring to the bombing campaigns only, but that comes across differently.
There were other civilians killed in a hold up, etc.
war is "unsavory", too...
from my comment on bill ayer's blog:
"bill, it’s hard choices that you have made. i can see you thinking... even killing some (by accident or design) could be justified if it saved the lives of a thousand times more lives. one could say it is a violent act NOT to kill few to save many. so i’m sure you have regrets, but you also have courage.
now anyone reading this… it IS a slippery slope to ever justify killing anyone for any cause. but spew your hubris out somewhere else… it’s too hard to judge one way or another. bill tried his best given the incredible loss of life on both sides. pacifism isn’t so cut and dry when you’re trying to stop wars."
of course, like some have brought up, the WU only killed three people, by accident, all WU members. clinton really distorted the facts, as usual.
also, i think continue to think thatmy post about this controversy puts things in perspective when you read the first three links... many things we're distorted/fabricated during the debate besides bill ayer's history.
#25 posted by Brian Carnell , April 21, 2008 6:14 PM
Are you an American, Brian...? We have killed well over twice as many Iraqi civilians in 5 years than what Saddam Hussein's regime killed in over 20 years time total.
How does that define YOU, Brian?
Jessie,
I read your link, and the legal part of my mind still isn't convinced. Of course he had a lawyer read over his memoir, so there would be no confession in it, yet still enough juicy details to merit reading, but I definitely read the we part of the quotation as we, the WU, not we, as in Ayers and a few mates, specifically. Also you wont have failed to notice a strong bias in that article as well.
There aren't many people who make themselves enemies of the state, put themselves at the mercy of the state by turning themselves in, and walk away, without so much as a fine or probation. Not even Roman Polanski. It simply wont do to look for an unambiguous confession in print; if there were real evidence I sincerely doubt he would be walking free right now. In my opinion, the likelihood is any bombing carried out by the WU probably was not centrally organised, but rather the work of a few people operating in secrecy; given the activities of the FBI at the time, of which the WU was aware, they would have had to assume infiltration. I doubt even Ayers would know for sure who did what.
Also, I agree with you on the clinic/pentagon issue. First of all, they take bomb threats seriously in the US. Nobody will be allowed near something suspected to explode. and second, I think the WU/SDS were theoretical imbeciles, and had no excuse not to know better, but their activity cannot be thought of as existing in a vacuum. It was a response to the devastating US bombing of Vietnam, which was wrong by any standard. Of course the anti abortion people argue they are preventing a holocaust, and there's the rub. One can only reply that closing clinics will not end abortion, only make it more dangerous.
Except Bill Ayers didn't kill anyone with a bomb. Sure, he might've caused destruction to public property, but the only people killed by the WU were blown up by accident, and they were WU members themselves.
You can't blame him for an accident in a NYC townhouse when he wasn't there. Bill Ayers didn't kill anyone.
Who hasn't said a few things when they were younger that they regret today... or could easily be taken out of context fairly easily decades after the fact. Much like John Lennon saying "We're bigger than Jesus."
Brian,
from the article in that untrustworthy liberal trashrag, the Wall Street Journal that Jessie M linked above:
Ayers: "Certainly flirting with the idea of terrorism was off the tracks and a mistake. The fact that we never executed that flirtation is important and significant and I think conveniently forgotten, but we never did."
And also, from Ayer's blog:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/
Ayers explains his position, and [Spoiler Warning] he does not not think setting bombs was a mistake.
#30 posted by Mike8787 , April 21, 2008 6:24 PM
Actaully, others were killed in a hold up by a WU members. But, you are correct in saying that they were remarkably careful in not injuring people with the bombs. (IOW, Clinton is a full of shiot fear monger)
Emily Harris was out of prison for a few years until last month
Closer to a couple of decades for both Bill and Emily Harris.
It seems like most of the people commenting here know nothing at all about the Weathermen or the Weather Underground aside from what they read this week. It should go without saying that this is not a sound basis for condemning a man from society, even if only theoretically.
First I have a couple of recommendations for the ill-informed. There was an excellent documentary made about the Weathermen in 2002. (imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343168/) His memoir is also a good read. As far as broader '60s history if you're actually interested it shouldn't be hard to find something. Come on.
To #24 (Mr. Carnell):
Exactly which rights are you suggesting that Ayers kept people from exercising? The right of police to illegally surveil citizens? The right of our government to defoliate another country halfway across the world and kill untold numbers of its people in the interest of geopolitical maneuvering? The Weathermen bombed primarily government buildings, from draft offices and police stations to the Pentagon. The "prosecutorial misconduct" under discussion is something you may have heard of before, and if not, then something you should surely look into. It was called COINTELPRO.
Bill Ayers is a highly principled man. He fought for what he believed in, and whether you agree with his beliefs or not, you certainly have to respect that it takes much more chutzpah to do what he did than for the uninformed to criticize him in the comments section of a blog.
Ths ppl wr jst dcks. Thy hd nthng t d wth wht ws gng n t th tm, thy hd thr wn wrpd gnd nd thy shld b ssgnd t th dst bns f hstry.
► Required viewing:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/287540
It's a torrent. A lot of people on Windows like to use Azureus to download torrent files. And pretty much the best for Mac is Transmission
On Mac or Windows, use VLC to watch it. You can download that here: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
Synopsis: Weather Underground Documentary
In the 1960s and 1970s, the polarization of the political situation of the USA was becoming acute with the Vietnam War abroad and civil rights at home being but the most obvious issues. For the youth political movement, the seemingly ineffectual methods of peaceful protest and resistance led to the rise of an idealistic faction that want a more extreme approach that the Establishment could not ignore. This faction, called the Weather Underground, attempted to team up with the Black Panthers to violently confront the US government that started with street riots and escalating to bombing government targets. Thorough archival footage and interviews of the veterans of both sides of this conflict, this film covers the resistance movement's campaign of selective violence through this period until changing times and disillusionment brought it to an end while the FBI used unethical and illegal methods to hasten it.
They had nothing to do with what was going on at the time
To the contrary. The WUO had diplomatic relationships with national liberation movements across the globe, some of which ended up forming governments.
Brian Carnell wrote in #24:
I take the opposite view, that in a free society people who engage in acts of violence in an effort to deprive others of their rights should be permanently ostracized by polite company, *especially* when they are completely unrepentant. Not only does Ayers, for example, not thing he was wrong but as he told the New York Times "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
So your objection to the hypothetical abortion clinic bomber is not primarily that he put lives at risk, but that it was done "in an effort to deprive others of their rights"? If someone was just blowing up buildings because of a pyromaniac urge, taking the same sort of precautions against the possibility that anyone would be inside them, would you be less inclined to make them a permanent outcast than the abortion clinic bomber? If "depriving others of rights" does loom large in your thinking, then as Gadfly said in #35, I don't really see how the bombings of the Weather Underground were an attempt to deprive anyone of their rights.
Growing up in the U.S. of A. is not easy. A great book by James W. Loewen ," Lies my teacher told me" came out in 1995. He gave a breath of fresh air to history as a source to draw from to understand the reality of NOW. He also gave hundreds of examples showing politics massaging [spinning] history to suck in naive voters. The mind crap that passes for politics today is no different from the mind crap of our elitist , racist, sexists, slave loving, self serving manipulators we call our Founding Fathers. One major difference today is that a huge number of people have learned to get beyond the self serving lies and are putting real value into their lives. That includes getting pissed at a group of vicious Caucasians that have no business leading this country. Truth has never been served by our political system. Maybe the newly anointed millennium children have the sophistication needed to vote for people that don't insult us . Maybe the old dogs got enough left in them to avoid Death by Corporate America. Or, at least, Death by Florida or Arizona . Sms vry tm th Pp blws thrgh t blws smk t nbl nthr Wr. A sharp, quick , surgical strike on Iran in Aug. To protect us from an Islamic Neuc is in play. Recommending to the Commander in Denial that he go down in the basement and play with his predator console to hunt Osoma Bin Evil and just take your act off the World stage is asking to much of a limited package. Look at the videos of Hitler's body language and compare megalomaniacs. They all dance the same. The net is terrifying to the terrorists. Like north Korea , China,and Corporate/political U.S.of A.[ not to mention the spiritual fraud of all fundamentalist beliefs in the name of Allah.} Rest assured that interesting times are ahead of us. A new warrior elite is here to balance the human / planet interface. Believe it or not, Humans have no natural survival genes. It is all artificial. That is the beauty in the web. Virtual reality is real. Gggl
Yh, rght. bnch f thr lsrs nd ppl wh hv thr wrpd gnd s t wht ws rght fr mrc.
The Black Panthers had a better handle on reality and a possible reason for hating Amerika. And the the Black Panthers didn't want anything to do with them. Ths ppl wr jst dcks, plyng rnd nd fgrng thy cld gt wy wth t. Spld brts wth bd gnd.
Ww, nvr thght 'd fnd s mch spprt fr hypthtcl brtn bmbrs mng BB cmmntrs. ts lk wtchng th nrd vrsn f "Sldrs n Th rmy f Gd."
But Moon, your dearest dream is for us all to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.
Dear oh dear, Brian, when will you stop? It's easy to get swept up in an argument, but do have a good reread, eh? For me?
@41 moon...
"The Black Panthers had a better handle on reality and a possible reason for hating Amerika. And the the Black Panthers didn't want anything to do with them"
moon, i've saw a former weather underground member speak on a panel with elaine brown, former head of the black panther party.
they seemed to get a long fine and have a lot of respect for each other.
and there is no question that while some of them individually were off-track, they were dealing quite relevantly with the issues of the day. 3,000,000 people dead in vietnam... what to do? maybe bombing some recruitment centers, etc... might get the attention and produce some pressure on our war machine to work things out. they have remained immensely influential and constantly re-examined.
also, if you want anyone to take you as anything other than a troll (which gets harder and harder for me to avoid) you might want to formulate more accurate and compelling arguments instead of just calling people "dicks" or "losers".
i believe in you.
Moon is wearing a wire.
really!!? Twisted around his naughty bits?
@40 ... Jms Lwn hs sm ntrstng pnts, bt ltmtly h's jst rgng fr rplcng n pltclly slntd vrsn f hstry wth nthr pltclly slntd vrsn f hstry (nmly, n tht s clsr t hs prsnl pltcs).
THAT was the way to stop the war in Viet Nam?? The only people that thought that were the Weather Underground.
A number of groups gave them "face time" because they were "doing something". They didn't know anything about them, but they thought they were "sticking it to the man". Bt mstly ppl thght thy wr dcks. 'm srry f y dn't lk th trmnlgy, bt tht's th wy w flt bt thm.
They set back the movement by about 10 years. It's almost 40 years later and I'm still pissed off.
ntns, yr drst drm s fr th whl wrld t b rld by th C.
Moonspeak:
While I agree that "some" of the Black Panthers didn't want to be associated with the WU at certain points in time... you are WAY off (as udders have pointed out above) Do you honestly think it was fun "playing around" being held upside-down out a window by a Fed? Or being in hiding away from family for years on end? Moon, you are acting a little delusional here...
Moon, what's it like to be so incredibly wrong on so many fronts all at once? It's gotta hurt the brain a bit.
Have you read anything on these people based on fact? Have you "bothered" to watch the fairly unbiased documentary on them? If you don't have enough money, just download it from the link I put above in this thread. If possible, keep an open mind while watching it.
It may ease your pain.
Twisted around his naughty bits?
That would explain the rage and the high-pitched shrieking.
#52 posted by Antinous , April 21, 2008 7:23 PM
LOL
Forgive me if I stick with Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Abbie Hoffman and the Chicago Seven, Yippies, political organizing, the ballot box and peaceful protest rather than bombing buildings.
f y fl tht bmbng bldngs s th wy t g, y r n bttr thn Tmthy McVgh, whch s bt whr pt th Wthrmn.
@ #48 brian carnell
there is a lot of that on the left. however, i think the bigger issue is that we get so much of the rightish slant that there comes a bit of the pendulum effect.
in this particular case, i think that ayers has gotten such hard right treatment that more than a little rebalancing is needed. even some of the super-glowing praise he's getting is deserved, considering what they were up against, and how little everything else was working.
of course, any examination of the weather underground has to include SOME criticism... even their own members critique themselves (bill included).
but i am surprised that even boingboing bit some of the bait that's out there in the corporate media. it's a very one-sided view to imply that property destruction or theft or even violence is reprehensible when one considers that it was in the course of trying to stop millions of deaths. that's a hard argument to swallow. even buddhism considers killing to protect others to be a good idea (for boddhisatvas, but still...)
Nc rvsnst hstry, Cwcd. Bt 'v sn tht dcmntry whn t frst cm t, nd vn thgh t trtd thm lghtly, thy stll cm ff s dcks.
Sr, thy'v 'fnd Jss' nw nd thy r tryng t rvs thr hstry (th lghbl "t ws ll jst jk" - yh, ntl smbdy gts klld), bt dn't knw n prsn wh thght t th tm tht ths ws th wy t mk ny knd f lstng chng.
Tmthy McVgh cld prbbly rtnlz wht h ws dng nd th nbmbr hd whl scrd n why h ws dng wht h ws dng, bt t ll cms dwn t trrrsm.
Brian Carnell wrote:
Wow, I never thought I'd find so much support for hypothetical abortion bombers among BB commenters.
Ugh. After I clearly explained that any notion that I'd "support" a property-destroying bomber was a strawman, this is your response? What part of "less bad than someone who is intentionally out to kill people" don't you understand? And why did you completely ignore my point that unlike the hypothetical abortion-clinic bomber, it doesn't really seem like the Weather Underground was trying to deprive any individuals of their "rights", which was your big criticism of abortion-clinic bombing in comment #24?
many samurai that were very lucky enough to live to an "old" age shaved their heads and put up their swords.
Knew me a Panther oncet. He was raised and schooled that all thet Constitution and Bill of Rights stuff were real. He were. Figgered out by 15 t'wasn't the case. Went Radical and joined up. Feds chased him away, he settled elsewhere and made a life. Lived,and worked and played and trained. Kick like a mule with them uncut toenails thet cut yer forearms up somthin fierce. Last I hear he wuz livin his life, like an elephant in the forest.
Just to be clear (like anybody cares), I think that violence is a failure strategy in the long run. But I would never criticize the oppressed for rising up against their oppressors or for defending the defenseless. I credit the Vietnamese for winning the war and throwing us out, but the actions of the WUO helped.
#54 posted by Moon , April 21, 2008 7:28 PM
McVeigh's bomb killed: 168 people including children
Weathermen's bombs killed: 0
ZERO.
McVeigh intentionally killed people, the Weathermen went out of their way NOT to hurt anyone and were remarkably successful ... there was not even one recorded injury to the public!
BTW, if your comment, "If you feel that bombing buildings is the way to go" was directed at me... uh, go back and READ what I've said. While I actually DO understand WHY they did it, I don't think violence was a good tactic. As a matter of fact, the documentary goes into this in great detail if you can bother to educate yourself on this issue by watching it.
I simply don't have a black and white, write and wrong, dealing in absolutes, narrow-minded opinion on the matter... sorry.
N, y'r jst dfndng vlnc. nd n, th Wthrmn st bck th fght gnst th Vt Nm wr. nlss y cn shw thrws, 'll stck wth tht.
Oh you Americans are so...what's the word...provincial. Here in Canada, we've elected former members of the FLQ to parliament. I mean really, one person's homicidal terrorist is another person's Quebecois politician. I mean, really!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec
Smn mntnd drnk drvrs bv. thnk thy shld b crcfd. Pblcly. nd thn brnd.
Bt tht's jst m.
In the late eighteenth century, we had quite a run of armed revolutionaries in politics as well. It's gone out of fashion in more recent times.
takuan.. A gem in posting. I eagerly absorb your input. Mind mirrors were introduced as process by the EST training. Having awesome facets to peer through might make you something. Then again they just might be short term opportunities to learn to grow. Growing up is a lie among humans. Look at the energy of our interface. Every one of our ancestors is invoked to justify the recent death and dismemberment of our children. Don't you think it is time to call bullshit on a massive scale?
@59 antinous
"I think that violence is a failure strategy in the long run. But I would never criticize the oppressed for rising up against their oppressors"
i think i agree, but i also think that hardline pacifism can be problematic. i think that jains or aikido students or whoever has the right to complete non-violence, i see the potential short-term benefits of violence. the problem with violence, as i've said before is that once you start justifying it , it gets easier and easier. it takes a very samurai to pull it off (tipped hat to takuan...)
@61 moon
"No, you're just defending violence. And no, the Weathermen set back the fight against the Viet Nam war. Unless you can show otherwise, I'll stick with that."
i could argue you defend a greater violence by attacking the WU, who again killed ZERO with their bombs. and while i love mlk jr, bobby k, and the yippies too, they weren't necessarily enough, were they.
and i think it was you that started this goofiness up there on #36, so the burden of proof is in your court... show me how they set back the fight against the vietnam war.
How many people showed up for the "Days of Rage"? That should show you the support that the Weather Underground had. Tens of thousands showed up for the Dem Convention protests. What, 100 people showed up for the "Days of Rage"?
VRYN.THGHT.THY.WR.DCKS-VLNT.DCKS.
Let's be real. If you plant a bomb, someone could be hurt. You're taking a chance that someone could be in the building or find the bomb. And more than likely it'll be one of the "poor" people (janitor, custodian, night watchman, maintenance person) you're trying to stick up for who gets themselves all blowed up. Planting bombs = BAD! Planting flowers = GOOD! Unless they're the kind that blow up, then they're bad.
I have to wonder if there is anyone left who would fight for freedom.
We have an administration that is far worse than Nixon's ever was. They have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The war in Iraq and the soon to be nuclear war with Iran make Vietnam look like child's play.
Habeas is gone, privacy is gone, we torture, we spy on our own people and we have a "unitary" president who is just short of a dictator.
But people seem to think that if you just ask nicely despots and tyrants will just give your your freedom. I don't know, maybe we deserve what is about to happen to us. I do know that I have never loved my country more and appreciated the freedoms and rights I had than in the past few years under this petty tyrant. It is a gift you know, the gift of George Bush. I'm thankful for the privilege.
@fltndboat
i don't know what kind of groovy stuff you be talking about, but i am all down with takuan. he's like a ninja-monk-philosopher-superduper-mindbender. he's like the amazing kreskin. i
@ntns,
My comment was regarding the people being quoted in the article. Not knowing any WUO folk, I can't really speak to their character.
Bt whn smn s chrng n mtltn r th mrdr f nncnt ppl bcs thy'r prt f th stts q, wll, hrm. Kds wll b kds? ;)
JAMESGYRE, what did they accomplish, though? Absolutely NOTHING.
More people were turned off by their use of bombs for no good purpose than some publicity for themselves.
i could argue you defend a greater violence by attacking the WU, who again killed ZERO with their bombs. and while i love mlk jr, bobby k, and the yippies too, they weren't necessarily enough, were they.
I'm defending violence by saying that violence wasn't the answer? That's some tortured logic right there.
Martin, Bobby and the Yippies WERE enough. And THEY were the ones who changed the world, not the Weathermen.
oops something cut off...he he...too many brownies...i was going to say i was serious...blow up a bomb serious.
not so funny now.
Were the Weathermen actually *violent*? Their "violence" was directed at architecture, not bodies. They're more like demolition experts with rather efficient tactics.
Moon,
You're shrieking like a howler monkey. At least videotape yourself and post it on YouTube if you're going to get so worked up. Exploding head videos usually get a lot of hits.
doesn't ayers look like a gay porn star?
Moon,
Who changed what now?
#69 posted by noen , April 21, 2008 8:05 PM
Amen, brother... I wonder that myself. I think people like Moon would crawl under a bed and cry if it came down to it.
America is in a very, very sad state.
________________________________________________
#71 posted by Davin , April 21, 2008 8:07 PM
That's funny, you're stating that out of context comment as FACT when it's only been alleged and subsequently DENIED. I guess there's only one side to this story and that's what the media fed you?
________________________________________________
Sigh... America is so FUCKED....
Also, I'm done with this for tonight, but if anyone fancies a game of chess, I'm on the same username at the FICS.
doesn't ayers look like a gay porn star?
I'd have to see the salient bits to make that judgment. He looks like pretty much every single guy in that time and place.
But when someone is cheering on mutilation or the murder of innocent people because they're part of the status quo, well, hrm. Kids will be kids?
We napalmed Vietnamese children and killed a million Vietnamese. Why should the US be exempt from terror? We have no problem killing everyone else's children.
I...I just wanted to be a giant multi-dimensional cephalopod.....
"I think that violence is a failure strategy in the long run."
Seemed to work out pretty well in 1776.
After the string winds down nobody listens. Everyone justifies their magnificent erudition. The weird part of all the sucking up from the imaginary 60,s is the notion that the 20,s were a better 60,s. The powers that be weren't prepared for the flappers . Anarchy came close to winning. The real U.S. of A is a Loving conglomerate. The rest of it is B.S.
Cwcd,
Tht's... rdng prtty fr nt wht sd. Bt jdgng by yr rctn, tht's prbbly th nly wy y'll rd nythng.
MOON,
101 - repeating your argument doesn't convince people.
and AGAIN, they didn't kill people with bombs.
and yes, they did turn some folks off, but they also scared a lot of higher-ups into worrying about greater civil unrest at continuation for the war.
by ruling out that property destruction may be useful to hastening the end of massive scale violence, you help to perpetuate a (violently) complacent mindset.
IDLE UESDAY,
i agree with you that there is a risk of killing people when you set bombs. but again, there is a risk of "killing" more people if you don't at times. property is less precious than human lives, and arguably a handful of lives is less precious than millions. it's a hrad choice either way, but what if the marches and the voting and everything else hasn't worked? as noen hinted at, we are kind of at that point now.
i've marched, voted, done community organizing, street theatre, "culture-jamming", created media, done graffiti, gotten arrested, blocked roads, volunteered, done food drives, clothes drives, all that shit. we (the u.s.) still kill millions. not that all of that is useless, because it's not. it helps to educate people if nothing else. but it is still largely symbolic. direct action is still the most effective technique and the most noticed by the military-industrial complex. nearly every revolution has had destruction and violence and also had pervasive pacifism. they work in concert like yin and yang. the world is cyclic... a gyre!
#83 posted by Davin , April 21, 2008 8:37 PM
I read everything you said, thank you very much. But, obviously, you still need some work with comprehension skills yourself there, partner.
I'll put it another way for you. You are judging someone's "character" in your post based on an out of context quote that she has basically denied. Just because because a journalist has the OPINION that her explanation for the comment is "implausible", doesn't make it so, my friend.
That's basing my opinion on fact, instead of on yet another opinion. Not sure why you have a problem with that... except maybe that it doesn't custom fit into your view on things?
I have a complex understanding of the WU and I agree AND disagree with them on various tactics and issues. Do you?
Cowicide,
Y shld prbbly rlx. Y knw wht thy sy bt rgng n th ntrnt. I think you are reading far too much into my offhand comments. nd whn y sht lk tht, t's nt rlly gng t g ny wy twrds shwng m whthr th qt n th lnkd rtcl s n fct nt hrs!
f y tk th tm t tlk t ppl nrmlly nstd f mmdtly swtchng nt dvrsry-ttck-rr-rr md, y'd prbbly crt mch mr mnngfl xchng f ds. nstd f jst ddng t th pnntd bckgrnd rr f th ntrnt.
I thought that Cowicide was being calm. There's no harm in asserting some authority if you can back it up. The standard for tone in a thread on domestic terrorism is different than that for a thread on embroidery.
Moon 61:
This is on the troll bingo card. It's an argument of the form "X is true unless you can prove that it isn't." Actually if you want to establish the truth of anything, you must present evidence for it, and you have not done so.
I would be making an argument of the same form if I said "Moon, while the WU were making bombs, you were sexually molesting chipmunks in your back yard. Unless you can show otherwise, I'll stick with that." Now you may deny sexually molesting chipmunks, but can you PROVE you never did? You were just never caught at it, and if you deny doing it, I can simply proclaim your denial "implausible," that is if I'm willing to be as much of a jackhole as the person who wrote that stupid article.
# 70 Taunkin is scary . Macho big brain. My feeble input is looking at the possibility that day labor is out lawed. My personal question to the world is how can you co -exist with so many losers . Eating dirt is next for the U.S. of A. It is already packaged as processed food. 100 year shelf life for twinkies. Be a good pathetic reactionary.. get maimed for Bush. He is protecting us. Invoking icons from the past dose not work. Paying attention to what is happening to the surviving maimed from the Bush family War puts the lie into any notion of humanity. Usury is the root of the Bush legacy. Puke ugly off spring of of wannabe royal family. Can't imagine how our country got sucked in to serving these losers.
times of great disruption also offer great opportunity - for those who see clearly and move quickly. It's human nature to go with the herd and enjoy the panic, but it isn't compulsory. You can' be ready to react for tomorrow if you're still worrying about yesterday. Fear stops mind.
So, this was all 40 years ago and in the interim this man has done many commendable things in the service of the Chicago schools etc, and is known widely and very connected in politics there?
Yet anyone who is cordial or even friendly with him is a possible supporter of terrorism? Is that in any way similar to how the way the Bush and Bin Laden family get on? How much publicity did that get before the 2004 election, because I find that a lot more damaging.
But I digress, amen on #2:
two stories relating to recent Obama non-stories that can be viewed as unfavorable to Obama? in one day? before a critical primary?
It's Mark's blog so he can post whatever he wants, but I find it a little Hillaryious.
"... Taunkin is scary . Macho big brain. My feeble input is looking at the possibility that day labor is out lawed. ... "
" ... Fear stops mind. ... "
I think I agree with fltndboat's and Takuan's last statements and I also approve of and want the drugs they are on. LOL
#88 posted by Xopher , April 21, 2008 9:28 PM
Yes, but the chipmunks were asking for it. Trespassing is a serious crime.
Geez...
This place sounds like AM radio today. One could argue easily that Ayers over-reacted to the politcal climate of his youth. Hwvr, gvn th fct tht 99.999% f r nfrmd gnrtn cnfs wrtng n thr blg wth ctlly dng ny dmn thng t crb th njstcs f r prcs lttl mpr, 'll kp my mth sht. I'll save my scorn for the apathetic, lazy, and/or ignorant.
In light all the evil we approve daily, through our complacency, how the hell can you waste one iota of energy scorning a man who fought passionately for his ideals, bloodlessly?
I just don't get it.
Nelson Mandela (non-lethally) bombed buildings and laid the foundations for a guerilla struggle, too.
Not to criticise him for that - the man is a saint, and his later actions produced a borderline miraculous outcome for South Africa, but just to point out that, contrary to popular rhetoric in the US, "terrorism" is not automatically evil.
I didn't read this entire exchange, but let me throw my ring into the "not unsavory" and "please don't remove their comments and actions from proper context" camp. The government was in the midst of an incredibly violent attack on Vietnam, raping women and children, torturing, literally just flying planes over huge swaths of land dropping defloiant to poison every single thing on the ground. Multiple "peace candidates," including Johnson and Nixon, had continued to ramp up the war. People of conscience wanted the war to stop and tried a lot of different things and some of them in hindsight are cringe worthy, but Ayers isn't an unsavory guy, and Dohrn and him shouldn't have forty year old quotes thrust back in his face like an accusation. All of America should've done more to stop the war on Indochina, just as we should all do more fighting the brutal slaying of Iraq today.
XPHR, tht's nt tr, bcs 'm nt skng y t prv tht 'm wrng. 'm syng 'll stck wth my sttmnt ntl smn prvs thrws.
Bt, snc ths ws yr nly pst n th thrd, myb y r trll?
JAMESGYRE, they didn't scare anybody off. They hardened people's minds, and not just against them, but against the whole anti-war movement.
Three people were killed, you seem to forget, giving the pro-war advocates the chance to say "Look at these idiots" and paint the whole anti-war movement with the "idiot" brush because of it.
Th nbmbr ls klld 3 ppl, crsly ngh. nd t's qstnbl s t whthr ths 3 wr th ppl h ws mng t. r, t lst, thr wr n sfgrds t prvnt th bmbs h snt frm kllng scrtry r pstmn.
H ls hd wcky mnfst, whch sm f y prbbly gr wth.
s thr nybdy hr wllng t dfnd th nbmbr?
Moon, you're using an online name that is the same as Sun Myung Moon's name. Are you willing to defend the Moonies?
Superficial similarities will not persuade any sensible person to regard the WU and the Unabomber as relevantly similar.
And all I'm saying is that I'll stick with my statement that you used to rape chipmunks.
Moon wrote:
Is there anybody here willing to defend the Unabomber?
I doubt anyone will defend him, because the Unabomber was trying to kill people with his bombs, while the Weather Underground were taking precautions to make sure only property would be damaged...that's the moral distinction that most people have been making throughout this whole thread.
I think that Moon is Moonbat (a former troll here) but I'm not sure. Regardless, s/he is clearly trolling.
Jesse, Moon isn't listening. Never would have posted that in the first place if s/he had been.
The WU was following a very tired formula that originated in Czarist Russia and migrated to the U.S. with the Anarchist/Comintern movement in the 20's, all stemming from the most regrettable and contradictory component of Marxist ideology: namely, that an historical inevitability should be "sped up" by revolutionary action via a violent overthrow of the bourgeois. Wow that was quite a run-on sentence!
In any case you merely need to substitute the Cheka for the FBI, Lenin's older brother for this idiot (probably not an entirely fair comparison for the elder Lenin), Alexander III for the President, and Monarchy for Representative Democracy. Wait a minute! Representative Democracy and the divine right of kings don't mix! We killed off nepotism long ago! We... Oh dear. All right I admit there are subtle, arguably critical differences.
Anyhow these radicals of the 70's were in truth rather dull in their methodology. Emma Goldman was much more interesting. If you have no idea what I'm talking about and are remotely interested, try the sci-fi book (i'm serious, it is sci-fi) The Iron Heel by none other than Jack London.
know any of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five
Polomache, let's set things straight eh?
The Bolsheviks were against the Duma; Alexander III's abdication was the reason for Lenin's return from Switzerland in 1917. The Mensheviks were behind the first Russian revolution. Also Bolshevik revolution was arguably the work of the German secret service, who were working to undermine the Russians during the war. At any rate, the tactics employed were hardly original, and can be seen throughout the 19th century, a time when it seemed the revolutionary fire only needed a spark. But the story of the American west is littered with small scale uprisings against slave driving bosses.
And I don't think nepotism, of which there remains a fair share, is the problem, so much as privatised ownership of the means of production is the problem. People forget that.
And you misunderstand Marxism, in my opinion. Since all of history has been a conflict between those who work and those who own, it is inevitable that from time to time the conflict manifests in violence, usually resulting in some quantitative change, eg: the reason people in the US don't have to work sixteen hours a day is because good people fought, bled and died for that right...and because some poor kid in Malaysia will do it cheaper. In Marxism, the rising up is an expression of common cause, throuh which class consciousness is achieved, and theoretically, there is no force on Earth to stand against that.
Of all the uprisings of the 60s and 70s, the one in the US was probably the most tame. All of France was on strike in 68, and it carried on to Italy where it lasted a decade. I apologise if I come off as a European snob [and I will say all you like against the Red Brigade if it assuages that accusation], but you did it wrong. The SDS and WU worried a bit much about what the middle class would think, and too little about the man on the street.
Also, to cement my position as thread pedant, in order for a sentence to be a run on, independent clauses must not be joined by a conjunction or punctuation. Yours uses both.
Scottfree, regarding getting things straight:
"The Bolsheviks were against the Duma; Alexander III's abdication was the reason for Lenin's return from Switzerland in 1917."
Nicholas II abdicated. Alexander III was his father. I was speaking of Lenin's older brother's foiled bombing attempt on Alexander III, for which he was hung, which happened years before 1917!
"The Mensheviks were behind the first Russian revolution."
Um, the first Russian revolution was a largely spontaneous march on the Tauride Palace stemming from police violence/revolt in the Petrograd bread lines and the mutiny of certain regiments in the army. Kerensky endorsed a Constituent Assembly and Provisional Government. The Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, and a hell of a lot of other parties all had a voice in the Soviet. Nicholas II abdicated on a train in Pskov because of a vote of no confidence from his generals on the front. Anyhow the Mensheviks were most certainly behind the first revolution, that's ridiculous.
"Also Bolshevik revolution was arguably the work of the German secret service, who were working to undermine the Russians during the war."
All the German's did was send Lenin back to Russia on a sealed train. Certainly they were interested in undermining the regime, but their influence on the matter is wildly overstated (particularly considering that Alexandra was a German Princess and despite the protestations of the German ambassador, was shot. Wait he was shot too. Too say nothing of Nicky and Willy, cousins) I'd say the whole thing came back and bit the Germans in the ass, to put it mildly. Lenin used them for his own devices; the Germans did the same.
"At any rate, the tactics employed were hardly original, and can be seen throughout the 19th century, a time when it seemed the revolutionary fire only needed a spark."
Precisely my point. Alexander Ulyanov was typical of the assassination/bombing attempts of the 19th century. Alexander II was killed similarly.
"And I don't think nepotism, of which there remains a fair share, is the problem, so much as privatised ownership of the means of production is the problem. People forget that."
I'm not a Marxist. I actually don't have a huge problem with privatized ownership. I do find nepotism dangerous. I like a meritocracy, and I worry that America is leaning more and more towards nepotism worship. Instead of royalty, the families are prominent capitalists. Hilton comes to mind.
"And you misunderstand Marxism, in my opinion. Since all of history has been a conflict between those who work and those who own, it is inevitable that from time to time the conflict manifests in violence, usually resulting in some quantitative change, eg: the reason people in the US don't have to work sixteen hours a day is because good people fought, bled and died for that right...and because some poor kid in Malaysia will do it cheaper. In Marxism, the rising up is an expression of common cause, throuh which class consciousness is achieved, and theoretically, there is no force on Earth to stand against that."
Marx, borrowing from Hegel, believed that socialism was an historical inevitability - a necessary outcome to the progression and collapse of capitalist priciples. I was addressing a belief among certain Marxists at the time that asserted a "revolutionary blueprint" was necessary to help along the process. This is a well-argued contradiction: why help along an inevitable process? And there are many today who would argue speeding up the process unnaturally was precisely what undermined the Bolsheviks, who had made an absolute mess of Russia long before Stalin.
I stand corrected on my run-on sentence.
But really, don't get into Russian History with me... Not a good idea.
Signed:
TURGENEV
Noen,
I have often considered that. If so, he's using a proxy IP address because he was blocked for sock puppetry.
The tone of that article makes it very clear that it's author is biased. I assume that his closing line was in jest but maybe I'm giving Noah too much credit.
Ok, I'll concede you Russian history, as i don't know enough to form an argument. Maybe another time :p. Never knew lenin had an older brother, tho. It must have been a bit like in godfather II.
The point I am trying to make vis Marxism is that action taken against the state of things out of a conscious sense of historical position /is itself/ the outcome of the process of history. It is not particularly applicable to the WU, granted, as their struggle reflects a bizarre Maoist tendency peculiar amongst Western nations to the US, and was not what one would call a working class movement [unless i misread you, as well, we share a disdain for the group]. But the struggles of the early part of the century in the US did achieve an awful lot, and were a reflection of working people's keenly felt common interest. The idea is that the quantitative changes effected [higher wages, fewer hours, better conditions] would compound into a qualitative change at the level of ownership of production.
And speaking of: how can a meritocracy exist in a system of private ownership? You can have the most democratic government in the world, if all that democracy does is privilege those who own over those who work, it still sucks. I would [and in fact, do] argue that meritocracy can only exist in a system in which a worker is entitled to the product of his or her labour, which is not the case in capitalism. When someone is in a position to sell the product of their labour, rather than forced to sell their labour for the benefit of their boss, then it can be said that the system rewards merit, rather then social status. Yes? No?
"The point I am trying to make vis Marxism is that action taken against the state of things out of a conscious sense of historical position /is itself/ the outcome of the process of history."
Yes, I suppose you're right. It does get a little tricky there. Except that the revolutionary change is driven not by the causal factors endemic to the problem of capital itself (playing out of surplus value, etc.) but rather by the "historically conscious" revolutionaries. But then again, these revolutionaries didn't arise out of the ether and the problems aren't imaginary...
I don't know the answers. But intuitively I look at these sort of intellectual revolutionaries a bit like the overzealous scientist or the overconfident top-down theorist: don't meddle! Sometimes the best of intentions can have the worst results.
"[unless i misread you, as well, we share a disdain for the group]"
Oh yes, we do indeed.
"But the struggles of the early part of the century in the US did achieve an awful lot, and were a reflection of working people's keenly felt common interest. The idea is that the quantitative changes effected [higher wages, fewer hours, better conditions] would compound into a qualitative change at the level of ownership of production."
Absolutely agree with you. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle comes to mind.
"And speaking of: how can a meritocracy exist in a system of private ownership? You can have the most democratic government in the world, if all that democracy does is privilege those who own over those who work, it still sucks. I would [and in fact, do] argue that meritocracy can only exist in a system in which a worker is entitled to the product of his or her labour, which is not the case in capitalism. When someone is in a position to sell the product of their labour, rather than forced to sell their labour for the benefit of their boss, then it can be said that the system rewards merit, rather then social status. Yes? No?"
You're right, it does still suck. Still I believe in the core principles of democracy.
But the big issue I have with Marx is not the analysis of the problem - spot on, more or less - but rather the Utopian solution. Beware the promise of a Golden Age, a dream, with populations so large and resources dwindling.
What happened in France, America, Russia (speaking here of Kerensky), and elsewhere - the notion of republic, of inalienable human rights, a severing from the Old World, from social stratification, from suffering and oppression - what remarkable hope, life, promise, wonder! One certainly worth fighting and dying for.
And here we are, a few hundred years removed from one of the most radical and promising social experiments of human history, and we see some very troubling signs: social stratification, corruption, a total disregard for the greater good, in short, a return to the very values we fought so hard to eradicate. It is troubling...
Anyhow, interesting discussion... Of all places, at the end of a WU thread!!!
Started typing up a lengthy response, but I'm happy to leave it on your charming note.
I think if history has taught us anything it is that change is not very predictable. Well, /some/ changes are; it doesn't take Nostradamus [or indeed Marx!] to predict a continued decline in civil rights for the near future. But from experience, people tend not to be as daft as the t.v. would have us believe, and whatever the decline in democratic values, any government still needs to consolidate popular consent to survive. I will continue to believe there is more to life then a job and a romantic partner, nice as those things are, and write my cranky letters to newspapers. All the best.
I really wonder what the world would be like today the October/Bolshevik revolution had not occurred and the initial aims of the revolution had been able to play out with the Constituent Assembly.
On another note Anarchism an the Comintern were major world forces prior to the '20's. That was about the time that the government started deporting and jailing the Socialists, Anarchists, & Communists for promoting the no conscription league as a protest to our entrance to WWI.
I have to agree with the earlier post promoting Emma Goldman, talk about a person who wouldn't compromise their beliefs. We need more people like her in our day and age.
Everyone, I'm on a new crusade: please tighten up the vertical space your message consumes. The more back-and-forth conversation the reader can see at one time, the better his or her understanding of it. It doesn't take a lot of extra line returns to push the next comment onto the next screen. Especially be careful of stacking up pointless extra line returns at the ends of comments.
Brian Carnell @19, first, the case was never properly heard. That doesn't mean you're free to decide who would have been held to be at fault, and to assign the penalties. It certainly doesn't mean that our society works the way you propose. And since it doesn't, I don't see how you can fault Obama for not following your invented rules of your invented society that he's never heard of.
Unless that's the point of the exercise? I did start wondering about that over the course of reading this thread. I've read a lot of your comments on Boing Boing, and this is the first time I recall hearing about this very important principle. I also fail to remember you scrupulously keeping track of who you do and don't consider banned from society on account of some participation in or praise of violent action in the past. That would make you the bull goose nonviolence advocate on Boing Boing, and I just don't have you pegged that way.
So: are you sure about that?
Bill Ayers has has a long and complicated life, and almost all of it has been virtuous. People who know him and have worked with him don't hesitate to say that about him. How is that you know so much more about him than they do?
Brian (again) @48:
No. That is a fill-in-the-blank argument. You could say exactly the same thing about anyone you wanted to denigrate. The only information in it is the assertion that the person thus named is presenting a slanted view; and you didn't follow it up with any examples or other substantiating arguments.Moon, you have behaved very badly, especially in comment #96. When you implicitly demand that other people provide proof of their views, you can't just refuse to provide it for your own views.
IdleTuesday @63, I have been lowering the tolerance hereabouts on threats of violence. I expect you've suffered at the hands of a drunk driver, and I sympathize. But if you're going to threaten violence, please make it something that's physically implausible.
Historyisaweapon @95, you're allowed one instance per six months of announcing in a comment that you haven't read the preceding thread. Please keep track so you don't overdraw your account. Thank you.
Noen @101, I think it's possible that this represents the very best that Moon can do.
Polomoche @103:
But Polomoche, that isn't peculiar to Czarist Russia or the Anarchist/Comintern movement. Why, when I was a child I was explicitly taught in school and elsewhere (Arizona, Goldwater years) that Communism in the U.S.S.R. must eventually collapse due to its own internal contradictions; and yet the same ideological tendency that preached that was also in favor of speeding up this inevitable overturn.Takuan @104, I swear that when I saw that, all I could think was that they had to be a special team used when playing 43-man Squamish.
It's been interesting listening in on all you people. I was in a strange place throughout it, a time-trick of some sort, and felt like I was reading alternate history, of which I am quite fond. I was remembering what the period was like, but at the same time I accepted all the revisions, misunderstandings, and mistakes made here; MY history was being revised and analyzed. QUITE A TRIP. Thanks. Wait until you try it in 30-40 years (and I sincerely hope you live to do it).
A couple of things... The much abused MOON is mostly right, I think. We did think the Weathermen were fucking crazy. We were also afraid of them. They DID hurt the anti-war movement.
It took a European on this thread to mention SDS, the WU's mother organization, a legitimate and trailblazing civil rights organization from which they split to wage urban guerrilla war; nobody else did.
What really ended the war was 200 NVA battalions.
taps....
Dear Teresa
I spent some time with one of them years after her release- an interesting story.
I wondered what the connection was. Good to be reminded of the full breadth of the history of the time.
I always got the feeling the movie Fight Club was paying some props to the WU.
For your viewing pleasure:
http://flickr.com/photos/49403380@N00/2437031551/
Teresa,
Sorry for the violent outburst. I was being silly. But why are the vowels removed? I thought people were doing that on purpose just to be L33T. Someone mentioned the American Revolution as an example of when violence works. I don't know. America's violent birth seems to plague it to this day.
Idle Tuesday: it's just a way for the moderator to deprecate text without removing it. The term for it is "disemvowelling". There's more about it in the moderation guidelines, which are linked from the front page.
I've sometimes wondered whether the way we enshrine the violence of the American Revolution has had some negative effects on us. We came to independence with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Canada's equivalent is "Peace, land, and good government."
bastard Canucks:
Info Box
Pursuit of an Ideal: Peace, Order and Good Government
The meaning of the phrase “peace, order and good government” goes well beyond the first line of section 91 of The Constitution Act, 1867, which along with section 92 prescribes federal and provincial responsibilities. It was included by the Fathers of Confederation to define the scope of legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, yet the phrase has evolved, sometimes controversially, to mean much more.
Indeed, the phrase “peace, order and good government” has become meaningful to Canadians and defines Canadian values in a way that is comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” in France or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States. It is a phrase that truly articulates the journey toward peaceful accommodation throughout Canada's evolution as a nation. This process, in itself, is reason enough to feel proud of Canada's accomplishments since before Confederation."
I wrote on 22-4-08, 1:17a AM: "However, given the fact that 99.999% of our informed generation confuses writing on their blog with actually doing any [d_mn] thing to curb the injustices of our precious little empire, I'll keep my mouth shut."
I hope there is just a Boing Boing robot garbling comments with Pg-13 language. I would hate to think real person was actually found my comment censor-worthy.
Teresa wrote:
"Idle Tuesday: it's just a way for the moderator to deprecate text without removing it. The term for it is "disemvowelling". There's more about it in the moderation guidelines, which are linked from the front page."
ts wy fr Trs t mps hr prtclr pltcl bnt n th cnvrstn s th dsmvwlngs n ths nd thr thrds mr thn dmnstrt.
If this is not the case, please explain how this comment merited disemvoweling.
Earthmann, I disemvowelled that sentence of yours to save you from the embarrassment of making a wildly overgeneralized and demonstrably inaccurate derogatory remark about people who write in weblogs when you were writing in a weblog.
Brian: Your disemvowelled earlier comment said that another commenter
That is an assertion that can be made about anyone's arguments on any point of history. Since you didn't see fit to follow the assertion with any substantive arguments of your own, it functioned only to label the other person's arguments as "slanted", and to suggest that those arguments reflected only his personal political preferences (implying that they had no basis in fact).In short, it was an ad hominem attack. Let us not demean ourselves by pretending that those artful effects were produced accidentally.
My reasons for disemvowelling that earlier comment were not dissimilar to my reasons for partially disemvowelling your most recent one. In this latest instance, you made what you know to be a false statement about my reasons for disemvowelling comments, then claimed my disemvowellings demonstrate your point -- without explaining how they supposedly do so.
Tsk.
You then said that if your assertions are untrue (which of course they are), would I please explain how your earlier comment merited disemvowelling.
To unpack that one: if I can't come up with an explanation you find satisfactory (which approval, I'm aware, will be withheld no matter what I say), it must be taken as proof of your assertions.
I must decline your invitation to fall into that trap. Your assertions would continue to be both false and unproven, whether I explained the earlier disemvowelling or not. I have, however, explained. If you now declare that the explanation is unsatisfactory, all it will establish is that you have pronounced yourself unsatisfied by the explanation.
I feel I'm being more than fair with you. After all, I'm sure you'd find it objectionable if I were to label you a consciously dishonest rhetorician, and assert that your own comments demonstrate the truth of that remark, if I did not then go on to explain what it is about your comments that has led me to hold that opinion.
Dear Teresa:
Have we got a deal?
"And set a watcher upon her, great and strong Argos, who with four eyes looks every way. And the goddess stirred in him unwearying strength: sleep never fell upon his eyes; but he kept sure watch always."
We have a deal. Promise you'll never change. Much.
*bow*
it is customary among my people at times like this to spit on ones tail and entwine it with the others in troth of good faith and spiritual bond. I will forgo this as a mark of good fellowship with the caudally disadvantaged.
(bows)