^^^ May 31, 2004          Living on Less at the Pentagon

[Mike]
Hey, who's going to D.C. next Saturday to protest the war by marching from the Pentagon to Rumsfeld's home? It's unbelievable and unconscionable that this administration is still in power, indeed congratulating themselves for all the lies they've told the public, much to our chagrin. When exactly did the government get hijacked by an elite power structure, instead of being in the hands of the people?

The Department of Defense sure could stand to live on less. Tens of billions of dollars could buy a lot of health insurance for the 44 million Americans who don't have it. Any democratic government's obligation, its mandate, is to represent the will of the people, not of the corporate sector. The DoD is tightening their belt financially where it hurts their own the most: VA hospitals. To save money, more are being closed, which is unprecedented in a time of war. We must hold political leaders accountable for the crimes they've perpetrated in the name of protecting "the national security and interest."

"--"--"--"--"--"--"--"--"--"

^^^ May 26, 2004         Squatter Settlements

[asfo_del]
Nearly half of the world's population lives in urban centers, and it's growing. By 2007 half of all people will live in cities. One third of urban dwellers, or nearly one billion people, live in urban slums, or squatter settlements, which are generally defined by insecure tenure, [meaning residents could be forcibly evicted at any time], non-durable or precarious housing, overcrowding, and lack of access or inadequate access to basic improvements like sewers and running water.

I lived in Brazil for several years when I was growing up, so I witnessed firsthand vast neighborhoods made up of squatter settlements. Favelas, as they are called in Brazil, are present everywhere, including in wealthy districts, along major roadways, and in industrial areas. They are culturally too complex for me to be able to discuss them knowledgeably. On the one hand, squatter settlements represent an example of autonomy, DIY, ingenuity, and community-building. Many have their own stores, their own cultural institutions, and a true sense of personal interdependence. Rio's famous carnival is made up of Samba schools that grew up in the favelas. Yet it's an irony that one of the city's major tourist attractions has done nothing to lift those who are the creative force behind it out of extreme poverty. The favelas of Rio are such an inescapable presence, [ironicallly, there are huge, sprawling favelas covering the steep hillsides above Rio's world-famous beaches, overlooking the city's most expensive real estate], that they are even included in tourist tours, where they are presented as a kind of quaint cultural artifact. "Today, there are over 500 favela communities existing within the city of Rio and comprise about a third of the total population. Five-hundred thousand to 1 million are estimated to live on the hillsides directly surrounding the [wealthy district]." On the other hand, of course, urban slums epitomize the degree of human suffering that is caused by poverty, violence, and a system of exclusion from the wealth and opportunities that are held by the few. Violence and drug trafficking are said to be rampant. According to Brazil Indymedia, the police in Rio have conducted raids in favelas where dozens of residents have been summarily killed. This in spite of the fact that the police run a greater risk of dying when policing other areas of the city that have not been equally targeted. Needed improvements are not undertaken, it has been charged, except to build roads to provide better access and control to law enforcement vehicles. Race is a significant and complex issue with favelas as well. About 70% of Rio's favelados [favela-dwellers] are black or of mixed race, while only about one third of the overall population of the city is black or of mixed race. [This link is to a fascinating article which treats in depth the issue of favelas as representing the modern extension of the cultural autonomy of former slaves, which already existed, covertly, during slavery, while at the same time embodying an example of the worst that economic oppression, brutal repression and marginalization engender. Unfortunately, it's in Portuguese.]

Population of slum areas, 2001 [This link is to a pdf file.]
WORLD
Percent urban slum population 31.6
Urban slum population (millions) 924

Developed regions
Percent urban slum population 6.0
Urban slum population (millions) 54
Europe
Percent urban slum population 6.2
Urban slum population (millions) 33
Other
Percent urban slum population 5.7
Urban slum population (millions) 21

Developing regions
Percent urban slum population 43.0
Urban slum population (millions) 870
Northern Africa
Percent urban slum population 28.2
Urban slum population (millions) 21
Sub-Saharan Africa
Percent urban slum population 71.9
Urban slum population (millions) 166
Latin America and the Caribbean
Percent urban slum population 31.9
Urban slum population (millions) 128
Eastern Asia
Percent urban slum population 36.4
Urban slum population (millions) 194
South-central Asia
Percent urban slum population 58.0
Urban slum population (millions) 262
South-eastern Asia
Percent urban slum population 28.0
Urban slum population (millions) 57
Western Asia
Percent urban slum population 33.1
Urban slum population (millions) 41
Least Developed Countries
Percent urban slum population 78.2
Urban slum population (millions) 140

"Slum conditions are measured by levels of access to improved services, security of tenure and living conditions. To these have been added indicators on overcrowding and durability of housing. Together these indicators are used to estimate the total number of slum dwellers by country, region and globally."

Percentage of Urban vs. Rural Population, 2000
World: urban 38% rural 62%
Africa: urban 38% rural 62%
Europe: urban 75% rural 25%
Latin America and Caribbean: urban 75% rural 25%
North America: urban 77% rural 23%
Oceania: urban 70% rural 30%
-------------------------------------------

What is a "Slum"? An Etymological Tour around Asia.
This is an article on the many terms used to describe squatter settlements around the world, [primarily in Asia] which denote both the pejorative connotations of slum living and efforts to reclaim the status of squatters with more positive terminology. An example:
"SOUTH AFRICA
The English word shack (where black people lived) has colonial overtones which naturally call to mind the villas and bungalows set in their a big gardens (where white people lived). But English is the first language of only nine percent of South Africa’s 38 million people. Besides the other colonial language Afrikaans, there are at least ten main black South African languages. One is Zulu. UmKhuku is the Zulu word for chicken coop, and this vividly descriptive term is commonly used to describe both shacks and shack settlements. uMjondolo is the more proper Zulu word for shack, and the name for South African Homeless Peoples Federation in Zulu is uMfelandaWonye WaBantu Base Mjondolo (togetherness of the people who live in shacks)."

+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+

^^^ May 26, 2004    Time to Fight for Healthcare

[Richard]
The other day, I had a very depressing visit with the dentist. I found out that I'll need at least half a dozen fillings, three root canals, if I'm lucky, and another major extraction. I'd put off going to the dentist for well over a year (maybe two) for economic reasons, because my dentist who'd been treating me since I was a kid (for 20+ years) refused to treat me after I took some time paying bills (after losing full-time work a few years ago) unless I could continually pay him in advance. As I’ve mentioned before, I was poor enough for a while to qualify for Family Health Plus (theoretically), but was turned away after a bureaucratic runaround because the company processing my application claimed they couldn't figure out how to process someone who did irregular temp work for several different agencies. Finally, I found a sliding scale health center that I can use, but with all the work that I need now, the price is utterly daunting for me even with sliding scale provisions (never mind the physical distress).

Dental problems are the biggest reason why I'm $11,000 in credit card debt. I spent ten percent of that a year and a half ago just to get a root canal from the specialist to whom my dentist had sent me, when I still had some hopes and plans to land full-time work. I probably should have investigated finding a cheaper place to get this done (the present place is just slightly more than one-quarter the price), but I thought I'd be earning the money back in time, and I really didn't know what other options I had. Add pain into the equation, and you can sort of see why I just settled for this robbery at the time.

I first started experiencing a lot of dental trouble in 2000; it was probably the biggest factor in losing my last full-time job. The employers there complained about all the time I had to take off because of it, and though I can never prove it, I'm sure that's the main reason they terminated me. That was an awful job, working at some computer trade magazine; yet, the biggest reason it was awful was not the dreary content, but the abusive, harassing supervisors. Nonetheless, the one advantage to that job, which I held for eight months, was it did have pretty good dental insurance. Without that insurance, I would have gone several thousand dollars more into debt.

This year, I've actually been doing a little better financially than last year. The difference has meant that I've no longer had to be in a panic from month to month wondering how I'm going to pay my credit card minimum and my rent. I've also been able to afford myself extra little luxuries here and there, mainly in the cuilinary area. But now that I've got this dental treatment coming up, the extra income is going to be wiped out.

*******************

Healthcare is the kind of expense that can wipe out any extra savings or any modest increase in income, even when the smallest problems arise. So, lots of people who might manage to get ahead a little, to lift themselves out of poverty through hard work and savings (and a little luck), will find that their efforts are futile as soon as they get ill. This is especially true considering that more and more jobs fail to provide health insurance, or else offer it at extra rates (shared premiums) that many workers simply can't afford.

There's no way that people can fight this kind of problem individually. We can all take better care of ourselves (DIY preventive healthcare, etc.), but we do need skilled treatment when the shit hits the fan. Moreover, the healthcare industry is presided over in a deliberately specialized way, so that you cannot hope to get competent treatment without going through a system that overcharges for everything, starting with medical students' overpriced, high-debt-incurring educations leading up to those highly protected degrees. Costs notwithstanding, this really isn't an excuse for people not to get health coverage. If our government takes care of anything, if it does anything with the taxes that it collects and actually serves the people at all (though we all know that idea’s kind of a joke), this should be the top priority, rather than its last.

I sometimes wonder why there isn't more public outrage over the lack of health coverage in this country. There is concern, but there is no collective outcry, and I don't see people taking to the streets. It could be because the majority still have some form of health coverage, even though it is gradually costing them more and more. It could be that too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that national, "single-payer" healthcare would simply cost too much money -- though more and more evidence comes out that the strategy of government working through HMOs costs even more (and let’s not get into the vast amounts wasted on other corporate welfare and global mass murder).

The people of the United States have a remarkable ability to remain passive or apathetic about social problems that affect their own lives. You can get lots of people out into the streets to protest a foreign war or other overt forms of brutality that are perpetrated by the government, at least some of the time. And, that is great. But it's much harder to get that kind of collective reaction in response to subtler forms of brutality, especially here at home. And, make no mistake about it, when people get sick and even die because they can't afford adequate treatment in a supposedly affluent society, that is definitely a form of brutality.

Sometimes I think part of the problem is that most really active activists are simply too young. A few times, at least, I've seen agendas written up by mostly young activists that address every social problem from war to police brutality to racism, sexism, and homophobia to unfair drug laws and even, once in a good while, the lack of affordable housing, but which make no mention about the lack of universal healthcare. I think this is because most young activists haven't yet developed problems that force them to think about healthcare. If most of the activists who take to the streets and make a lot of noise about things were 20 years older (and maybe a little poorer, too), universal healthcare would probably be much higher on their agendas.

Although, to be fair, it's not as though activists never address the issue of affordable healthcare... There have been good actions in the face of dramatic cutbacks, like the closing of a public hospital. (Some of our friends over in Washington, DC have been impressively active on that front.) And some young people have been very vocal and active during the past couple of decades in the fight for better AIDS-related research, treatment, and access to drugs. I’ve heard mixed views about ACT UP in recent years (though I don’t quite remember the source of the squabbles), but during the past 15 years or so, they have been pretty hard-hitting, unified and militant, and they still seem damn active to me.

What if the vocal activism and militancy of ACT UP and similar groups were extended to other healthcare concerns? Never mind my dental worries; a lot of people are dying unnecessarily from cancer and heart disease because they can’t get access to competent treatment or delay getting checkups for many years on end because they simply can’t afford doctors. These are problems that we should all be fighting mad about.

Older people should be fighting more too. Yes, it’s true, when you get older you can become sick and tired, which would, ironically, prevent people from becoming too active about this issue. But when I think about people I’ve known who remained as active as anyone while they were sick, weak and dying from AIDS, I realize older people don’t have that big of an excuse. (Besides which, I have heard about more than a few people in their 60s through 80s doing civil disobedience and direct action for peace causes, getting themselves arrested for actions at missile sites, etc.)

It would be great if we could have some national days of action, with sit-ins, blockades, occupations of offices, and other acts of civil disobedience and direct action to pressure the people in government to do something real for the cause of universal healthcare. Things could get really interesting if a lot of older people were actually to get more involved. “Law enforcement” might get into some public relations problems if they start pepper spraying late-middle aged people and senior citizens waging a die-in to demand access to doctors and medicine. This is an issue that would certainly get me back out into the streets, no matter how crappy I happen to be feeling on any given day.

|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|

^^^ May 23, 2004    The American In Me

[Richard]
Hats off to Thanksgiving Is Ruined. Not only is this one of the most fascinating (and mysterious) semi-news-oriented blogs that I've ever seen; it's also the only one I've seen where the authors seem to remember all the same 1970s punk and protopunk music that I remember. And sometimes that makes for some strange coincidences...

A couple of weeks ago, I was going through my old vinyl (something I've been doing a lot the last couple of months, ever since my tape deck died), when I stumbled across a compilation album of old singles and EPs by a San Francisco band called The Avengers. This was a band whom I loved in the late '70s, whose music still can rile me up today. I never got to see them live (unlike my good friend and favorite ex, RT, who got to see them open for the Sex Pistols at the Winterland Ballroom), but I did have the nihilistic joy of hearing their singles and EPs in 1978 or '79, while I was being an unofficial disc jockey (never went through the boring training program) at Philly's first college punk radio show, on WXPN. (Come to think of it, I think I might have been introduced to their records by some manic guy who stopped at the station while passing through town, who called himself Jello Biafra.) Anyway, this band had a few really great songs like "Car Crash," "I Believe In Me," "We Are The One," and "The White Line," but the one I had to play as soon as I stumbled across this album the other week was "The American In Me." And I was thinking, "Damn, update a word here or there and this could be some kind of national theme song." So, imagine my delight when Jamie at Thanksgiving Is Ruined posted, on May 12, that "usa's nat anthem should be 'the amercian in me' (1978) by avengers." Now, I'm wondering if there's some way we could get a petition going to make this happen.

The American In Me

It's the American in me that makes me watch the blood
running out of the bullethole in his head.
It's the American in me that makes me watch TV,
see on the news, listen what the man said.
He said,

"Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to you?
Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to your mind?"

It's the American in me says it's an honor to die
in a war that's just a politician's lie.
It's the American in me that makes me watch TV,
see how they burn the SLA.
They say

"Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to you?
Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to you?"

In the USA!
In the USA!
In the USA!

It's the American in me that makes me watch the blood
running out of the bullethole in his head.
It's the American in me that never wonders why
Kennedy was murdered by the FBI (said)

"Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to you?
Ask not what you can do for your country,
what's your country been doing to you?...

|||****|||****|||****||||

^^^ May 21, 2004    Family? No, That's Not the Answer, Either, for Me

[Richard]
Unfortunately, it seems that Asfodel and I do pretty much agree in our not-so-kind impressions of the New York anarchist “community.” But I’m not so sure I agree with her regarding the institution of the family. Families can be a source of love but they can also be a source of hate. The familiarity that develops within families can be very good, as long as it continues to breed fondness and not contempt. And the level of commitment can be great, as long as it’s voluntary. But I’m always aware of the downside of this commitment, especially when it is not voluntary. There is no logical reason why blood ties should make you feel obligated to love someone -- or pretend to love someone -- whom you actually despise.

To me, “logical” is a key word here, as is the word “voluntary.” I guess that despite the failures of the past century, I’m still very committed to many of the principles of the Enlightenment. I’m very much a rationalist who believes in the utmost importance of exercising free will. And there is nothing logical about assuming that we will always love our relatives, while there’s something terribly oppressive about assuming that we must.

It is true that real bonding comes about through great familiarity. Thus, people should have a better sense of long-term commitment than they might have in many voluntary associations today. Certainly, people shouldn’t be kicking others out of groups or communities for no good reason, using the principle of voluntary association as an excuse to (collectively) mistreat people however they want. (As we’ve discussed in a number of places, this principle of voluntary association is supposedly a major tenet in anarchist philosophy. It’s also a big excuse that groups come up with for not having to answer to anyone who confronts them when they’ve unfairly expelled someone. The pat reply will always be that a collective has the right to choose not to work with someone -- as though that principle overrides all others that might be relevant.) Yet, even considering these problems, I still like to hope (or dream) that people can work toward a greater sense of commitment without being coerced by some tribal or familial custom that dictates in advance which people they should make the commitment to.

People might have all sorts of reasons for joining together in a good voluntary community. I personally believe that shared political beliefs can unite people, if they are actually involved in a concrete shared struggle to which those beliefs can somehow be applied. At the very least, people should be committed to these beliefs in a deep enough way that they are willing to live by them and conduct themselves according to them. In other words, those interested in building a radically democratic and egalitarian society should treat one another in a radically democratic and egalitarian way. (I believe we’ve talked about that a few times.)

Unfortunately, in terms of both concrete struggle and deep adherence to principles, the anarchist “community” that we’ve encountered hasn’t done too well. Over the past few years it’s become pretty clear to me that if we (radicals, ultra-lefties, anarchists, fellow travellers...) want create a fair, cohesive, and welcoming alternative community -- especially if it’s one based on revolutionary politics -- then we’ve got a long way to go. Personally, I don’t have any great answers about how to get there. I tried to discuss some helpful, related principles when I contributed to our Collective Book. I also may participate in some forums for discussions about these kinds of principles in the near future (I’ll talk about that when it actually happens) Outside of that, I'm going to try to be a little less utopian in my political involvements -- just aim to work with different kinds of people on the significant issues and not dwell too much on the old scene.

I have to say, though, that, as disillusioned as I may have become with the alternative communities I’ve encountered, they've probably seemed more plausible to me, at least at one time or other, than the idea of being part of an extended family. In fact, that whole family notion is sort of alien to me. Maybe it's because my own family connections are so mimimal: My mother’s the only one I talk to on a regular basis, and after the difficulties that we’ve had over the years, I’m amazed that I can still accomplish that. My father can’t talk to me much ever since his stroke seven years ago. I talk to my sister maybe once a year, briefly, these days. I‘ve had a common law wife in the past, but those days are long-gone, and my only dependent is my cat.

To some people who are used to larger family situations (and actually like them), this situation might seem kind of bleak. But to me, for some reason -- or maybe the above-mentioned reasons -- it's perfectly OK (notwithstanding my economic woes). I wish that my parents were in better condition, and it would be nice to find another common law wife sometime (maybe), but I simply never have any longing for a more traditionally family-oriented life. For the time being, I am appreciative enough of the good friends I have here and there. And if I am ever to be a real part of any community in the future, I imagine that it will still have to be an alternative community of some kind.

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

^^^ May 20, 2004         Our Family is Our Community

[asfo_del]
I have to agree with Richard on his latest entry. Although I haven't read the article he's referring to, and I have respect for Eric Laursen, whom I've only met once but who seemed a very intelligent, humble, and concerned person, the notion of relying on the anarchist/activist scene for one of life's necessities, especially a crucial one like surviving through retirement and old age, strikes me as being utter madness. I have scarcely encountered a less accepting, tolerant, generous, or reasonable crowd, at least as far as the scene in New York City is concerned, although there were certainly a few individuals who were helpful to others at times, though not consistently or reliably.

The problem I see is with the attempt to create community out of nothing, by bringing together random individuals who have no shared basis other than similar political beliefs. It's too easy for such a community to drift apart just as effortlessly as its members drifted together. Genuine communities are built over time, over centuries even, through familial ties. While this concept may be abhorrent to modern Americans, who tend to value their individual freedom above all else, and especially to those who gravitate toward subcultures such as the anarchist scene, who probably would not see their own values and lifestyles readily accepted by family, humans have always existed by relying on their extended family groups for survival and social togetherness.

It's too easy for groups of individuals who have no real bonds amongst one another to form exclusionary cliques, to declare someone undesirable on a whim and thereby shun or expel her, or for individuals to abandon the group when it becomes tiresome or a better opportunity presents itself. In a community that is made up of interconnected families, you don't kick grandma to the curb just because her constant complaining has gotten on everyone's nerves.

I read a book a while back by a middle aged man who grew up in Afghanistan. In his childhood, extended families lived together in enclosed compounds, where there was virtually no privacy and no sense that it was even needed or wanted. There was privacy within the family walls from the outside world, but not between members of the clan, who were completely comfortable with each other. Financially, the family was utterly interdependent, and there was no question that elderly members would be taken care of. Similar arrangements apply to traditional cultures throughout the world.

These arrangements are not necessarily idyllic. Women, in particular, tend to become utterly subservient to the needs of the family. Traditional roles are virtually impossible to flaunt, and individuality, particularly any desire for individuality that conflicts with the norm, is suppressed in favor of conformity and acting selflessly for the common good. On the other hand, loneliness, detachment, a sense of a lack of purpose or identity, and the fear and insecurity of having to make one's own way in the world are virtually eliminated.

Modernity, and particularly its associated relative wealth, has allowed us to move away from our families and choose to live our lives on our own terms, sometimes taking on lifestyles that our families would not approve of but that make us feel fulfilled and true to who we feel we really are. But what have we lost in the bargain? Togetherness, unshakeable bonds, shared lives with those who love and care about us the most. And, of course, financial security. Modern adults are, in theory, able to live apart from their extended families because they can afford to sustain their own households and save to provide for their own old age. In practice, that is increasingly less true. We've been sold on a lifestyle that was affordable to a generation that existed within a small window that opened up around the 1950s and has been gradually closing ever since.

_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_

^^^ May 19, 2004    Contemplating Our Black Bloc Retirement

[Richard]
The present issue of Practical Anarchy is finally out. I’m glad. It’s got some “reprints” from our Collective Book in it, and it’s got a lot of other interesting stuff. Technically, I’m also in the editorial collective (though I haven’t done much for it yet), so I’m also proud to be part of this project.

There are a number of interesting articles in this magazine, but the one that grabbed my attention most was Eric Laursen’s "Confessions of an Anarchist Tech-Stock Speculator." This wasn’t because of the tech-stock speculator part, but because of the part where Eric contemplates the subject of retirement, an issue that I don't think I've ever seen discussed in an anarchist publication before. Eric was a tech-stock speculator (without much success) because he was trying to find a way to make and save more money for when he gets old, for a more sufficient retirement. (This, at least, is what I gathered from what he was saying.) Yet, the heart of this article is not Eric's experience in stock speculation, but his thoughts about finding a better way.

Personally speaking, though I’m about the same age as Eric, I don’t dare to think ahead some 23 years to the time when I'll reach supposed universal retirement age. Considering the condition of the world and our economy, not to mention my own personal finances, I tend to dismiss the idea of retirement altogether. I tend to think that the closest I'll ever get to retirement is the position I've been in during the past few years, an economically challenged existence as part of an overeducated, underemployed neo lumpenproletariat. But it's always good to think about other possibilities now and then.

Eric makes some very good points as he wonders what will happen to us when we are, by most traditional (20th century) standards, too old to work. As an alternative to declining work-based retirement plans, the endangered government-run Social Security program (which was never adequate to begin with), and the gambles of the stock market "casino," he proposes a long-term plan that I definitely agree with, i.e., "establishing cooperative communities and collectives that aim to provide for their members from the time they join to the time they die." But for the shorter term, Eric proposes a solution that I think would be rather unlikely where most people are concerned. He says, "Would your affinity group or collective consider expanding to include elderly people in your neighborhood who can supply child care and perhaps other services, plus their wisdom, comradeship, and experience in return for a place to live and other essentials they can no longer afford on their own?" This seems like an awfully tall order to me.

It’s not that I can’t see younger radicals or anarchists occasionally helping out elderly comrades; I’ve seen that a few times. But being part of an affinity group means being fully accepted into the gang. And the majority of anarchist affinity groups that I’ve seen might be reluctant to accept anyone over 30, let alone people over 65.

Another problem with these groups is that they fall apart so easily, and in these radical activist circles, it’s increasingly common for somebody to be kicked out of something for the flimsiest reasons. It’s risky enough investing your hypothetical retirement funds into stocks, but try depending on the average affinity group or radical collective for your retirement, and you might see yourself losing your benefits the moment you get into a disagreement with someone.

If you’re looking for social security, I don’t see the activist/anarchist culture as offering any better prospects than the workplace or the government, at least not in the present or the near future. For the time being, the general idea of social security for older people, like the actual Social Security system, seems to be on the way out. Until the time when we achieve a completely different kind of society, it’s probably better simply to accept the idea that life will be a day-to-day struggle right to the very end.

#_#_#_#_#_#_#_#_#_#_#

^^^ May 17, 2004         Punk Rock as a Model for Art Appreciation

[asfo_del]
Art is a wonderful thing, of course. Experiencing other people's art is a way of seeing through someone else's eyes, of grasping intangible ideas that you may otherwise never have dreamed of. And making your own art is a way of engaging yourself in something that lets your mind drift into other worlds and thoughts; a distraction from petty ugliness, or an immersion into it, whatever you choose.

Then there's the world of art, of being an artist and dealing with other artists and art appreciators, which is hideous. If you want your work to be seen, published, and distributed; if you want to be a success as an artist, then you become a victim of your own vanities. How could it be otherwise, when you will only be appreciated if you are able to stand out somehow, if you are able to let others see, through your work, how special and clever you are? If you are humble and self-effacing you will most likely be completely overlooked.

I think this is only another sign of how our society only understands and accepts commerce as a measure of worth. We've come to accept hype and sensationalization as normal and correct means to bring out something as ephemeral as an individual's artistic merit. Not that there's a lot of money in being an artist. Except for a few superstars, even relatively successful artists are not usually able to make a living with their art. But the potential of being acclaimed and noticed is enough to create a dysfunctional scene of swelled egos, whose efforts become focused not on making something wonderful but on making objects that will be thought wonderful, that will bring notice and fawning upon the artist.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Many artists of course don't buy into any of this. And others accept the gallery scene half-heartedly as the only avenue available to them, with which they have a wary relationship. I myself was immersed in this scene for about 20 years. I gave up on being a participant early on, but I continued to be an active observer because my former boyfriend, who is still one of my best friends, was and is a serious artist.

It saddens me, somewhat, because art is and has the potential to be something wonderful. But even as students, in art school, what we were taught was all about creating big egos. There was never an idea that art could be a gift, something to be shared selflessly without having one's name and reputation intimately attached to one's creation. Yet all accomplishments are built on the shoulders of others. In our culture, this fact is almost never acknowledged. The individual is the supreme being, not the collectivity, which comprises not only our comrades and contemporaries but everyone who came before us.

I've seen this idea spoken of only in a few instances in the media, none of them having to do with visual art. When Noam Chomsky was interviewed on Charlie Rose a while back - and Charlie Rose is notorious for fawning on his guests - he was asked how he would like to be remembered. Chomsky said that he would hope that his work would continue after he was gone, but that he did not care whether or not his name was associated with it. And the co-author [whose name, perhaps appropriately, I do not remember] of the book Empire, a hefty, scholarly tome on the evils of corporate globalization, also responded to Rose's ass-kissing by saying that he could not take personal credit for his work because it was dependent on the work of so many others who came before him.

Another example of individuals eschewing ego for collectivity, one that is near and dear to my heart, is, of course, punk rock. Though I'm sure one could find scores of individual punk rockers who do not adhere to this credo, the belief in punk rock is that the band members are no different and no more worthy of attention than the people who listen to and enjoy their music. People who play punk rock refuse to sign autographs, because they don't accept or condone idolatry. [The idea is, in part, that punk rock is so simple that anyone can learn to play it, though I myself have not found that to be the case. I tried to learn to play guitar a few years back and the endeavor was utterly hopeless.]

At the same time, punk rock has no time for the fake, namby-pamby notion, which proponents of a more democratic art scene sometimes fall into, that all music or all art is equally good. Some bands are not very good, and people tend to readily acknowledge that, just like a lot of art is not very good. But unless you're a high-art snob, saying that somebody's art sucks is considered unseemly. Yet this kind of dishonesty and lack of integrity diminishes everyone. If everything is good, then the painstaking efforts of someone who is working hard to get something right are turned into a worthless waste of time. What makes a work of art - or a band - less than stellar is not lack of sufficient ego or cunning or cleverness on the part of the artist [nor is it even insufficient skill, since one is free to choose a medium that does not require a particular skill that one does not possess], but an absence of honesty, commitment, or focus. Any art that is truthful, honest, and is not hopelessly muddled and unclear, is great.

+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+

^^^ May 16, 2004    More Good RNC Protest Sites

[Richard]
In my last post, I mentioned two organizing sites for the protests against the RNC. This week, I've been checking out a couple of worthwhile sites connected to specific actions being planned:

I'm happy to declare that the Common Wheel Collective endorses Still We Rise. This coalition. consists of anti-poverty groups, homeless groups, AIDS activist groups, a group that fights for the rights of sex industry workers, and groups fighting on behalf of low income communities, against gentrification. These are definitely issues that need more attention in the upcoming protests and the actions leading up to them.

And there's another anti-poverty effort that I/we have been following for a while, the Bushville Tent City and March for Human Lives, organized by the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign. The PPEHRC inform us that: "We will march because both the Republicans and Democrats have ignored the plight of poor and we will march to highlight the war at here at home. A war caused by the massive job losses and people without housing and healthcare and the other basic necessities of life." Needless to say, this economic war has been rife with human rights abuses, according to many standards and definitions, including even the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights.

Hopefully, there will be many thousands of people out in the streets, expressing their outrage at these violations being committed against us in our own communities all the time.

&**&*&**&**&**&

^^^ May 11, 2004    Protest Organizing, Egotism, and Media Feeding Frenzies

[Richard]
For my first full post regarding the organizing for the protests against the Republican National Convention, I would have liked to write something entirely positive. But after lurking for a couple of months on the No RNC listserve, where I saw countless newspaper articles being posted, my first instinct is to write about my fear of a developing media feeding (and ego feeding) frenzy.

When I use the term “media feeding frenzy” I think of it both ways: as the media feeding off news about the protests, but also -- especially in this sort of situation -- as the protesters in a frenzy to feed the media. And, I've got to say, I have really mixed feelings about the way protesters often try to play up to -- or simply play to -- mass media and the mainstream press. I understand that generating a lot of press attention will help to make the protests register, and I'm kind of glad that preparations for the protests seem to be getting more attention (so far) than any preparations for the convention. And, I know that many people might feel that anyone who has an objection to an increased media involvement in this sort of event is simply being perverse. But my experience tells me that big-press feeding frenzies tend to put a damper on the more democratic aspects of the protest.

I've got a few unpleasant memories of people during the protest against the World Economic Forum back in February of 2002 competing for press attention and/or becoming obsessed about the impression that the WEF protests would leave with the media. I recall some people unnecessarily detracting from valuable time that they might have spent working with their fellow protesters in order to try to get the right/positive attention from the media (for the sake of the whole protest, one would hope), only to find out later that the media never had any intention of being accurate or fair in their descriptions, no matter who tried to talk to them. And, as far as I could tell, all this concern about getting more/better attention from the media only ended up making some people more competitive for unofficial power (including, and extending beyond, their competition for celebrity), with strictly negative results.

I’ve sometimes wondered if my perceptions in this area are a result of my own particular biases, but I never end up wondering that for too long before running into someone else who conveys a very similar impression. A friend familiar with the New York protest scene complains that he can’t stand it because of the “star system”; a woman I spoke to who used to do Central American solidarity work complains that she’s been turned off to political activism in the U.S. ever since the WTO protests in Seattle because it seems so “ego driven.” It seems to me that this tendency forms an odd contradiction with the most commonly professed ideology of the radical wing of this protest movement (which ideology I have held to some extent for a long time, myself), anti-authoritarianism or, in a broad sense, anarchism.

Recently, I got myself into a conversation in which somebody acted surprised by something I said that seemed to me like a perfectly natural conclusion: If we’re working toward a truly egalitarian society, i.e., one without hierarchies, we should have absolutely no heroes. Certainly, we should appreciate the contributions that people make and acknowledge when particular contributions seem exceptional, but we should never make the mistake of idolizing anyone. And we should not have leaders unless, to paraphrase the IWW’s Big Bill Haywood (if I recall correctly), all of us are the leaders. (Although he became enough of a hero and leader himself with an appropriately huge ego...)

On a smaller scale, in reference specifically to contemporary protests, I feel that we should definitely not have a bunch of organizers trying to be (small-time) celebrities, because that will undermine the anti-hierarchical aspirations of any radical democratic movement.

Those are the problems I see with people constantly competing for the spotlight, but there are also major problems I see in the source of that spotlight. Time and again, we’ve learned that it will do us no good to waste our time trying to kiss up to the mainstream press and mass media. They are not interested in depicting us honestly (us being the radicals, and/or anyone advocating substantial changes in our society) or in truly getting anything right. Often, they will find any way they can to vilify more radical elements as the “bad” protesters and understate the extent of oppression by police and other agents of the state. If we’re really lucky, the “sympathetic” elements of the press will write silly human-interest-type pieces, depicting radical protesters as youthful naives and/or quirky, lovable wing nuts. And, as evidenced by the “sympathetic” types of news articles that came out here in New York City before the WEF protests -- and are starting to come out again during the organizing around the RNC (four months in advance, with surprising frequency) -- most of these journalists are much more interested in penning cute lines about organizers’ attire, mannerisms, hairdos or sideburns than in making any effort to explore the ideas that inspire us and the ideals that drive us.

If the mass media and mainstream press serve any significant function in our protests, it should be as protest targets. Every once in a while people come out with comments about wanting to “attack” the mass media (or, as they refer to it these days, perhaps more accurately, the corporate media). Usually, it happens during times when the mass media and major papers seem to offer no hope of being anything but mouthpieces for the ruling powers -- such as what happened last year, during the invasion of Iraq, or what happened throughout the fall of 2001. But at times when the mainstream papers and mass media seem to soften up just a little in their support of the present ruling powers and stop censoring themselves so much (e.g., during the present phase), then much of the “left” “opposition” ceases overt criticism and starts begging them for any crumbs that they might offer.

As far as I can tell, those usual trends aren't likely to change in the near future. I must admit, though, that this time around, I’m basically making these criticisms as an outside observer, getting most of my information by lurking on the listserves. While I’ve certainly been involved in these organizing efforts deeply enough in the past, this time around, I haven’t even been able to drag myself to one of the major “clearinghouse” meetings. This is somewhat because of my weird and unpredictable nocturnal work schedule, but it also probably is connected to my own present sour mood with regard to lefty and “anarchist” organizing in general, my disillusionment, and years’ worth of accumulated (mostly bad) experiences trying to be an “organizer.” Nonetheless, exactly because I have had a lot of experience with this stuff in the past, I think that I might be quicker than the newcomers at spotting some of the unfortunate tendencies.

In general, though, I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage anyone else from getting involved. I simply would like to see new(er) organizers and activists avoid some of those aforementioned negative tendencies and quickly develop good bullshit detectors (as ChuckO would say). Aside from that, I would be happy to see lots of people participate in some capacity. In fact, the more people who get involved, the happier it makes me feel, because I feel easier about not getting so involved myself right now.

***************************

P.S. If anybody doesn't know this already, there are two good Web sites that you can go to to get information about anti-RNC organizing. They are: RNC Not Welcome and Counter Convention.

|++|++|++|++|++|++|++|++|

^^^ May 7, 2004    A(nother) Misanthrope's Guide to New York City

[Richard]
Once in a while while surfing through various blogs and Web sites, I stumble into someplace where somebody has done a project identical to one that I've been thinking about doing, myself. This might not be so unusual if we were talking about analysis of news headlines (or something like that), but it gets a little stranger when the subject is completely offbeat. For instance, who would ever have thought that somebody else had actually come up with the idea of writing a Misanthrope's Guide to New York City? I had been thinking of doing that for sometime, from my perspective in Staten Island, without any idea that the mysterious Snake Girl (aka "Beverly") had already started to write the same thing from Brooklyn, NY.

Snake Girl offers us some interesting advice. For instance, she tells us, "There are places and ways in which one can avoid people. First, get yourself a bike or a car, don't torture yourself on that death chamber of a subway, unless of course, it's in the middle of the night. Keeping a nocturnal schedule is yet another beneficial way of avoiding your fellow human beings."

Personally speaking, I don't see how you can avoid dealing with people when stuck in horrible traffic with a bunch of other drivers cursing and honking their horns, nor how it would help the situation much to get a bike. However, I would strongly recommend that anyone who wants to avoid dealing with people constantly while living in a place like New York City keep that nocturnal schedule, and it really does help when you can limit your commuting to way-off-peak hours.

Snake Girl goes on to advise that, "There are places to explore in New York City and Brooklyn where you can avoid human interaction. These include local graveyards, burned out areas of town, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, churches on the off days, funeral homes, meditation retreat centers, rooftops, etc."

Naturally, I have always greatly enjoyed all these kinds of places, myself. But since Snake Girl writes from Brooklyn, she also tends to (over)emphasize beaches (during off-hours, of course), apparently unaware that if you want to enjoy beautiful gloomy solitude in a public place surrounded by water, the best place to go might be the 4:30 am Staten Island Ferry, as long as you aren't tempted to jump overboard. Also, Snake Girl seems to have some affinity for bars in the Lower East Side, which seems kind of perverse for a crowd-fearing misanthrope. She does suggest going to places with deserted backrooms or clubs with a DJ grating enough to clear out any crowd. I used to do that sort of thing more often, but I lost the taste for bars and alcohol as I got older (I am considerably older than Snake Girl) and I finally realized that going into any area where there are lots of people consuming alcohol means risking exposure to mass human stupidity -- though I will still take that risk once in a long while, if it includes the promise of hearing a really good band or having some other unusually pleasurable experience...

Generally, if I'm out and around in lower Manhattan in the middle of the night, I much prefer simply to wander through the Wall Street area, where I can enjoy a lot of very interesting architecture and quaint winding streets without ever having to deal with the dreary, oppressive crowds of business people and their wage slaves who fill up these same streets completely in the middle of the day. (Unfortunately, ever since 9-11, I do have to walk past lots and lots of police and security types.)

Now, of course, I don't really despise people (well, not completely, not totally); I would like to think that we are using this term "misanthrope" somewhat humorously. However, I have found that I especially appreciate the streets, buildings, waterways, bridges, parks, train tunnels, (all-night) groceries, and (all-night) restaurants of the city during those times when there is almost nobody else around.

I do still hope to launch my own misanthrope's guide from Staten Island sometime. Maybe there should be a misanthrope's guide launched from each one of the separate boroughs, to be compiled into a misanthropic city tour book later on. It could be a best-seller at one of the all-night bookstores, on the midnight shift.

P.S. Snake Girl also has a lot of reportage and photos of "anti-globalization" protests, including the two protests that I wrote about here a couple of weeks ago.

***0***0***0***0***0***

^^^ May 5, 2004         Fat, Wrinkled, and Fine

[asfo_del]
I've been reading The New York Times quite a bit lately, because a family that moved out of a house just around the corner is still getting a daily delivery, which I regularly pick up. I don't spend money on newspapers, and when I do read them it's always second hand, mostly out of the garbage; I don't care if they're a few days old. The Times is not sold in my neighborhood anyway and is not widely available on Staten Island, which doesn't say a lot for the borough formerly known for its landfill.

I was struck by the number of articles about plastic surgery. About half of the most recent New York Times Magazine is devoted to that topic. And there's a long article in last Tuesday's Science Times. Of course there are also a number of sickening TV shows where subjects volunteer to have themselves mutilated and sliced with sharp knives for the sake of appearance. But I might have thought that a serious newspaper would take a more critical stance. Apparently, our culture, as it is represented by the wealthy few who can indulge in needless surgical procedures, considers cosmetic vivisection utterly normal and acceptable. Now, I wouldn't presume to tell someone else what they should do with their own body, but I still have an opinion about the matter. I find it completely appalling.

All surgery is gruesome. Fortunately, we are not usually awake to witness it, but the afteraffects make its severity apparent enough: sharp, excruciating pain, swollen welts, dark, bloody bruises, uncontrollable shivering, nausea, debility, unsteadiness. Why is this considered a normal thing to subject oneself to, unnecessarily? And doesn't nonessential surgery violate a doctor's Hippocratic oath, which is that first she must do no harm? How is cutting up a healthy patient and subjecting her to the risks of anesthesia not doing her harm? Certainly there would be less harm done to the patient is she were not sliced into.

The Times takes the nonjudgmental view that bags under the eyes or droopy jowls may be a very good reason, depending on one's vantage point, for taking the risk, which includes the possibility of death, of undergoing a cosmetic procedure. But this detached, impassive stance is not victimless. Whatever happened to self acceptance? Isn't that one of the hallmarks of psychological well being and serenity? I cannot believe that any desire for drastic and painful body modification, whether through surgery or diets, does not arise out of a deep-seated self hatred.

Wasn't there a feminist movement at one time that advocated women's right to be human beings first and decorative objects not at all? Just as the insatiable consumption of consumer products has become a new human right, which takes precedence over fair working conditions, job security, and a social safety net, so has being pretty, thin and young-looking become a new inalienable right, for anyone who can afford it. And the corollary, of course, is that being ugly, fat and old is shameful and unspeakable.

There's another article in the Times [Arts and Ideas, May 1], a slim voice among all the angry shouting about how being fat will kill you and is furthermore deplorable, which acknowledges that the contemporary cultural hatred of fatness in the U.S. manifests itself as a hatred of fat people, who are demonized as immoral, lazy, and at fault. Paul Campos, of the University of Colorado, argues that "the war on fat [is] the first concerted attempt to transform the vast majority of the nation's citizens into social pariahs, to be pitied and scorned," and likens it to eugenics. Most fat haters couch their moral objections as concerns for fat people's health, but there is actually no direct correlation between weight and health. And in any case, there are far less healthful behaviors that don't arouse such venomous outcries. "[This] hysteria ... is creating a stratification in the society of power and privilege based on a scientifically fallacious concept of health." A National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute study concludes disapprovingly that black women who are fat have positive attitudes toward their bodies and don't consider themselves unattractive, which could be a hindrance in encouraging them to lose weight! Right on, sisters.

All people are beautiful. Period. Fat, old, wrinkly, saggy, skinny, tall, short, pimply, hairy: all beautiful. If I believed in God, I would say that we are all God's creatures. Failing that, we are at least our own creatures, and we have a responsibility to ourselves to respect us and take good care of us.

"=="=="=="=="=="=="=="

^^^ May 3, 2004         The Privilege of College

[asfo_del]
I graduated from Brown - it's been almost twenty years now - and I feel that I was sold an elaborate con. Some con artists resort to very small-time tricks, like trying to confuse a store clerk into giving them back the wrong change, but high-stakes confidence games, the ones that yield the biggest returns, are ones in which the swindler is able to convince the victim that they have her best interests at heart, and that, while their help may be expensive, it's well worth it in the long run because it will be life-changing.

Universities are non-profit, so there isn't anyone in particular who benefits from the millions of dollars in tuition extracted every year from anxious parents who only want the best for their kids and hopeful kids who are willing to take on staggering debts at a tender age with the assurance that it will all be worthwhile in the end, but there are countless individuals who have some stake in maintaining the process intact. The university's main currency is its reputation. The reputation is what attracts prospective students, and it's what gives the diploma its value: nobody wants to see it tarnished, and everybody wants to see it supported and boosted. It's in every stakeholder's best interest to sing the praises of the institution and to attract as much money, prestige, talent and good press as possible. That leaves the naive, unsuspecting, desperate-to-be-accepted prospective students looking at a lifetime of indebtedness, and their parents' helpless, fat bank account stuffed with a lifetime of savings, with absolutely no access to any cautionary tales. They are only bombarded with incessant cheerleading about the wonderful promise that their six figure investment in a prestigious education is sure to bring them. The only question left open to them is which expensive institution they should turn over their cash to, not whether they should be doing it all, nor whether a less expensive institution might fit their needs just as well.

An education is one of the most valuable things a person can acquire, but knowledge and insight are gained in bits and pieces that may be imperceptible at the time, through moments of clarity, sudden breakthroughs, or realizations brought about by a long term accumulation of facts and ideas, so it's hard for anyone to pinpoint whether a given institution, a given teacher or professor, or any particular course makes any difference in bringing about the more or less educated person each of us becomes. Which is one of the reasons why the value of a high priced education at an acclaimed university is suspect.

And that's putting the best possible spin on the issue, assuming that the reason one would choose an exclusive and expensive college is because one is seeking the best possible education. The other reason for making such an costly choice, the belief that by so doing one is assured of a secure future and a fat paycheck, is built on even shakier assumptions.

The economist Alan B. Krueger, who is a Princeton professor, did a study in which he compared the earnings of Ivy League graduates with those of others who had been accepted at Ivy League colleges but chose to enroll elsewhere, and found their earnings to be about the same, thereby arriving at the conclusion that it's the person, not the institution, who determines her own future. I would probably posit that privilege is even more entrenched than this study implies: a person's socioeconomic class is almost entirely determined by the accident of her birth. It would be interesting to see a study that tracks underprivileged students who have been allowed access to an elite education to find out for how many that privilege proved only temporary, at least financially.

The fact remains that even when it doesn't pay off financially, there's a huge privilege in getting an education, and that privilege rises with the degree of formative influence provided by a given educational opportunity. And while there are ways to attain it that don't involve going to an outrageously expensive school, the opportunity to do so still hinges on circumstance. Insightful, knowledgeable, and creative parents can homeschool their kids, but having such parents is itself a privilege that is acquired by accident of birth. There are millions of kids stuck in inferior, underfunded, and neglected primary and secondary schools, whose parents and grandparents were themselves relegated to the same or worse substandard opportunities, who will never even think of applying to any college, and who, even if they did think of it, would be unable to attend college because they are academically unprepared and economically stuck.

I recently read a book written by woman who had been homeless throughout much of her childhood and attended Harvard [it's called Learning Joy From Dogs Without Collars]. Her story was picked up by many news outlets - Homeless to Harvard! - and touted as a example of America as the land of opportunity, as if one highly unusual occurrence is somehow proof that an opportunity that is reserved by a large margin only to the wealthiest could by some kind of magic be available to all. She found that for all the talk of diversity on Harvard's campus, poverty was an invisible, ignored difference that profoundly separated her from her classmates, the vast majority of whom were extremely wealthy by any relative standard.

An article that appeared in the New York Times on April 22, 2004 says that the median family income of Harvard students is about $150,000. According to the Census Bureau, only 5% of U.S. households have annual incomes of $150,000 or more. [As is the custom of the mainstream media, the article does not mention this statistic. It also states that 20% of households earn more than $100,000, while according to the Census Bureau, if my junior high school math has not failed me, only 15% of households have incomes of $100,000 or more. The article also gives the median household income as $53,000 while the Census puts it at $42,400.] The same article states that 55% of students attending the 250 most selective colleges have parents in the highest 25% income bracket, while less than 12% have a family income that is in the bottom 25%. And it's been getting worse, which is the thrust of the article. Apparently, in 1985, only 46% of students at these colleges came from the richest 25% of families. I find that focus a little off kilter. I mean, is 46% significantly better than 55%? That private universities, and even sought-after public ones, are shamefully unequal and elitist institutions is nothing new, in spite of their public relations campaigns and empty gestures of hand-wringing and mea culpas, like adding programs that celebrate or promote diversity while still not giving access to any significant numbers of the traditionally excluded.

The more elite the college, the worse the statistics become: According to a Village Voice article, at the 146 most prestigious colleges, 74% of the students come from the top 25% of the nation's socioeconomic scale and only 3% come from the bottom 25%.

The socioeconomic scale is an interesting measure because it looks not only at income but also at the educational attainment and occupations of the parents. Very little attention is paid to the other sentry that guards the entrance to elite colleges besides money, which is academic achievement. People generally assume that it's okay to discriminate on that basis, partly because there's an assumption that it is under the student's control, which in many cases, of course, it isn't. The New York Times says that "getting into the right college has become an obsession in many upper-income high schools," and wealthy parents will go to any length to make sure their kids have the preparation that will aid in their admission. Many other kids have no such opportunities.

But even if opportunities were somehow equal, why is it okay to discriminate against kids who are less academically gifted? Doesn't everybody deserve the same education? If we lived in a truly egalitarian society, which of course we are very far from, why would such distinctions matter? Why should they even be made? I don't ever want to be in a position where someone deems me better than someone else, any more than I want to be in a position where I am deemed inferior. As damaging as such distinctions are to those who are excluded, they are also damaging to those who are let in. The inflated egos of my fellow Ivy-anointed classmates were equaled only by our collective cluelessness. On the campus, which was sort of like a country club, only more expensive, there was no sign of poverty, no need to struggle, and no real responsibilities, just constant cheerleading by an institution that had most of us so thoroughly sold on its superinflated sense of its own importance that we believed it when it said that its approval made us important and special too.

<---><---><---><---><--->

^^^ May 1, 2004    A Quote from August Spies

[Richard]
Just to show that, despite my complaints about old-fashioned workerists being fixed on old, 19th century ideas, I certainly still do appreciate the history of proletarian struggle, here’s a great quote that I found from August Spies, one of the organizers who gave their lives for the original demo that many people don’t even realize is being commemorated around the world today. (They may not recognize the name August Spies, but they’ll certainly recognize what he’s talking about...)

The factory, the ignominious regulations, the surveillance, the spy system, the servility and lack of manhood among the workers and the arrogant arbitrary behavior of the boss and his associates-all this made an impression upon me that I have never been able to divest myself of. At first I could not understand why the workers, among them many old men with bent backs, silently and without a sign of protest bore every insult the caprice of the foreman or boss would heap upon them. I was not then aware of the fact that the opportunity to work was a privilege, a favor, and that it was in the power of those who were in the possession of the factories and instruments of labor to deny or grant this privilege. I did not then understand how difficult it was to find a purchaser for one's labor. I did not know then that there were thousands and thousands of idle human bodies in the market, ready to hire out upon most any conditions, actually begging for employment. I became conscious of this very soon, however, and I knew then why these people were so servile, why they suffered the humiliating dictates and capricious whims of their employers. Personally I had no great difficulty in -getting along." I had so many advantages over my co-workers. I would most likely have succeeded in becoming a respectable business man myself, if I had been possessed of that unscrupulous egotism which characterizes the successful business man, and if my aspirations had been that of the avaricious Hamster (the latter belongs to the family of rats, and his "pursuit in life" is to steal and accumulate; in some of their depositories the contents of whole granaries have often been found; their greatest delight seems to be possession, for they steal a great deal more than they can consume; in fact they steal, like most of our respectable citizens, regardless of their capacity of consumption). My philosophy has always been that the object of life can only consist in the enjoyment of life, and that the rational application of this principle is true morality.

-- From the Autobiography of August Spies . "Happy" Mayday.

(/(\(/(\(/(\(/(\(/(\(/(\(/(\

[Continue to April Archive]