some final thoughts on del gandio

for the majority of this course i have personally struggled with ideas and notions surrounding the intelligentsia–the elite class of subsequent rulers based primarily on the fact that they are educated beyond the capacity of your average citizen.  in much of the readings we have encountered we are to believe that this class strata of individual is the last and only defense the bewildered herd has against both themselves and the greater power structure at large–hello marx–and this is where i draw exception.  the books, propaganda, and general message we receive is both tailored and manufactured by this said class.  now this poses an interesting problem when the lower classes are attempting to organize.  they must ask themselves: “who and or what is really behind this uprising?”, “am i just a pawn in a struggle for control?”, and “who the hell are these people?”.  i have come to the realization that we are to believe they are a distinguished group driven by their altruistic intent without a corruptible bone in their body.  these fevered drum banging elitists try to convince the masses of their invaluable contributions to the organizational spirit at large and their unique abilities to navigate the power structure–sounds suspect.

del gandio and alinsky are perfect examples of this notion:  ivory towered purveyors of the “true” and ” righteous course”.  to qualify my particular argument i am willing to make certain concessions,  that yes indeed there is an invaluable resource present within these individuals, and that yes they do seem to master the language of the ruling class, yet they appear to play a game so similar to those they supposedly are against it is disturbing.  that game is the struggle to define–perhaps the exact course of rhetoric itself.  this power i have viewed as invaluable for ideally if you can change the course of the argument you can indeed manipulate or control this argument at will.  the classes that are then to be protected by these individuals are forced to seek out their services–it’s like a protection racket.  perhaps it’s just job security at work, but by keeping the basis of power far from the reach of the protectorate their is no concern of your power ever being taken.  nice and comfortable as the middle-man or buffer all their intelligent diving seems to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  i say this because when i think of the proletariat in general i think of individuals who have little or no time to discuss the intellectual course of the power structure or the educational background to understand the dialectic–all in all it is quite worrisome.  obviously this forum is limited in both time and scope and so for the sake of brevity i’ll simply make one final statement: ” beware the snake- oil salesman in sheep’s clothing.”

losing faith

i’m at a loss quite honestly, i feel this book has taken a sharp left hand turn from its beginning chapter.  at the end of the initial thirty-six pages i didn’t feel the next logical course was to discuss the process of writing a good paper and/or fiction.  we have completely dropped the of the rhetoric present within the alinsky book and have taken what appears to be an elementary course in formatting a good flier.  its unfortunate when in one chapter we can talk of the nature of monopolized media and the need to “effectively” breach the power structure and then turn around and take a somewhat condescending tone with your audience.  i believe the author makes note of the nature of the text several times stating it has a level of density which handicaps its message and perhaps it would have been better served as its own entity which sadly points out the shortcomings of this material.

both books have had the tendency to preach on the correct behaviors and/or nature of the “radical” but seem limited in their application with concerns to world around–perhaps the authors deal too much in hypotheticals for their own good.  sure alinsky has his anecdotes but where is the substance?  his snapshots do less good to the incipient rabble-rouser than mace and water hoses.  how is one expected to apply any of the lessons learned when we get little or no perspective in relation to the real world.  i believe the second book is reflective of the tendency of academia to speak in theory which lacks that real world application many so desperately need for guidance.  effective radicalism cannot be focused on the proper formatting of text or busting ass to be a nuisance.  for instance maybe somewhere in either book the authors could have taken any one of these lessons and applied it to show actual results not just reflections on your greatness.  perhaps they could have discussed the struggle independent news sources must endure to compete with the huge privately owned behemoth which controls a worlds thoughts and motives.  i may just be me but i need more, i need to see a clearer picture, i need to see this information at work and not through the bejeweled eyes of the theoreticians.

enough is never enough

after reading the final chapters of alinsky followed up by michael moore’s new documentary i am left with a sense of total repugnance–not that this is unusual when dealing with these topics.  here we see in both forms the general idea of the rich constantly manipulating and abusing both themselves and any other individual in within their grasp.  i’m just disgusted, especially when talk of banks and industry ruling the world around and exercising  their full energies with the intention of eliminating democracy.  it would seem that no matter what book you read, what rally you go to, what firebomb you toss the eventuality is plutocracy, it is oppression, it is madness.  the juxtaposition between the book and movie is humorous in that in the book alinsky describes the middle class as desperately clinging  to what little they have, while the movie showcases this same class losing it all while pigs on wall street pilfer the pockets of those same people to pay for bonuses and whatever the hell else these assholes feel like.  anarchy is too good for these sons-of-bitches, and the promise of some imaginary land where little spiked tailed freaks poke and prod them is just a sad.   sometimes revolution seems like the only reasonable course to take–either that or rolling over belly up–its just going to take a strong stomach to do so, a strong appetite for change which a nation has already called for–only time will tell if this call was enough to rally the angst of the oppressed.

Chapters 2&3

looking back on what was read for each of these chapters i am left with a sense that cultural responsibility is the focal point for both.  it strikes me as no surprise that each activist would emphasize the importance of educating your community and using your win-fall to the benefit of those less fortunate than yourself.  when i reflect on my personal plans after graduation it has little or nothing to do with giving back to the community or aiding anyone except myself and so i must say that those individuals whom are willing to partake in such an exercise deserve that much more recognition.  with the question of responsibility raised i wonder how much further it should extend beyond merely a cultural or familial responsibility.

this questioning brings to mind the notion of generational responsibility and what, as children who will inevitably inherit the bulk of the world’s problems, are to do to ensure the prospects of a brighter future.  in essence i am only posting hypothetical questions because honestly i don’t care, but as i was driving home the other day i caught a snippet of audio concerned with what is considered the next grand social movement now in development.  this audio refers to “generation we” or “the millennials” and the apparent steps that are manifesting to ensure a brighter course for the future.  it seems the focus of this group revolves around the book written by eric greenburg which this generation derives its name from.  i’ll save you my summation and just post a link to the video and website so you can check it out for yourself.  if anything it will get you thinking about your own responsibility to the world–whatever the hell that is.

<http://www.gen-we.com/>

elite or not elite–it doesn’t really matter.

to reflect upon the readings for this week i would like to comment on the actions of an  individual who could be considered the king of all agitators: michael moore.  as i digested the content of chapter seven what struck me most was the neo-liberal agenda and its striking similarities to what is considered a neoconservative diatribe.  i thought at first maybe this is just a small typo, a minor oversight by some sycophantic grad student, but no when the name michael moore was attached i knew it was no oversight.  there on my page in bold black letters  were the recitations of a sinister world dominating scheme but this serpents tongue was not the familiar beast i had come to loathe.  perhaps this choice is only surprising to that small part of me  which still has faith in a system where the nonsense which dribbles from the gaping maw of those  individuals we choose to protect our interests  is as honest and true as the mutterings of a brand new babe, but no a snake is a snake no matter what flag they nest under.  this chapter is a stark reminder of the separation which has disenfranchised so many, and the abuses which are perpetrated by an elite segment of  the world population.  it reeks of aristocracy all the way to its rotten core.  thank you very much mister moore, thank you kindly mister murdoch, oh sure you can trample the dollar mister soros the world bank can have whatever it likes.  at times like this i am reminded why we should just grab  our torches and burn our heroes before its too late.