Has Le Guin ever actually described herself as an anarchist? She has certainly written about anarchism sympathetically, but that's not necessarily the same thing...
The problem for me is that I think Joe Hill had something specific in mind when he said 'Organise'. The IWW were out forming unions and taking industrial action, and that's what he'd spent his life doing too. So I think when he said 'Organise' he meant 'Organise union branches'. He didn't mean 'organise political parties', or 'organise political fundraisers' any more than he meant 'organise an armed militia*'. These are certainly things he _could_ have meant, if we just had that sentence to go on, but in context its clear what he was talking about. (Incidentally, what would you think if Bush lost the election, and his concession speech was "Don't waste time mourning - Organise!")
The difference between the La Rouchefoucauld's quote and Hill's is, I think, that one is powerful because of its context, and the other is more self-contained. "Don't waste time mourning - Organise!" is not a particularly clever or insightful thing to say. We remember it because of who said it, and why. "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue" could be said by anyone, at any time, and still be quotable.
(Compare, for example, the opening lines of Moby Dick and Anna Karenina. "Call me Ishmael" is famous only for what follows)
*which is not such a wild possibility. Connolly was organising the Irish Citizen Army in Ireland at the time, and there were probably plenty of IWW members familiar with the idea of 'propaganda by the deed'.
Okay, here are some better examples.
Suppose some school board in the Midwest decides to ban teaching of evolution (or give equal time to 'Intelligent Design'). The guy signing it in says "For the last century, evolutionists have been belittling mankind, making us nothing more than animals. Signing this order is a small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind."
Or in California, some rabid anti-immigrationist calls for fences, border guards, mass deportations, and says "This situation must be stopped. If not now, when? If not by us..."
These are, of course, over the top examples. I'm not suggesting that Nina is proposing anything as bad as the people in these examples. But they're not trivial either. And I'm sure if they actually happened, you would be offended, because quotations that you felt were important, for what they said or because of the context in which they were originally said, were being used in a way that the original speaker (and you) would object to. Strenuously object to.
The IWW _could_ have devoted itself to electoralism if it had wanted to. There were presidential elections in 1912 and 1916, and Democratic candidates in each one (not to mention all of the other federal and state elections). But it didn't. (Its still around today, of course, and still works on industrial, not electoral issues, but the 1910's were the high point) So I have a hard time seeing the Kerry campaign as a continuation of the same struggle.
(FWIW, the smiley at the end of the first post, and the reference to over-reacting in the second post, were meant to indicate that I'm not sitting here in a boiling fury plotting my revenge on the evil electoralists taking the name of Joe in vain. But it did irritate me enough to want to post a correction. It would be nice if people quoting famous Wobblies knew a little more about what they stood for.)
"The idea that only far-left union organizers can derive wisdom from that piece of our history is unbecoming."
Well, to me the idea that a quotation can be stripped of its original context, and used in a way that the person who said it would probably violently disagree with, is equally unbecoming. Its like saying "Drink Dr Pepper! You've nothing to lose but your chains!", or "Fed up with those hills saying 'No pasaran!'? You need our new 4WD SUV!"
Kerry et al being multi-millionaires might not bother you, because you accept that most of the people who are going to run for high political office will be multi-millionaires. Fine. But the fact that most people running for high political office are multi-millionaires is one of the things the IWW would point to when they argue for industrial, rather than electoral action.
Which is where the 'splitter' bit comes in. Unlike Nader, who might take votes from Democrats by getting people to vote for him, many in the IWW would take votes from Democrats by telling people not to waste their time with elections. And the IWW were one group of workers who would not agree that what they needed to do at a particular time was hold big fundraisers for political candidates. It may be what _you_ think is right, but its almost certainly not what _Joe Hill_ meant when he urged people to organise.
(Yeah, I may be over-reacting, but quoting Joe Hill is the straw that breaks this anarchist's back)
"Don't mourn, organise"
Don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the IWW's positions on elections and political parties, that quote is not really appropriate here. I mean, if you think _Nader_ is an irresponsible splitter, what would you think of Joe Hill if he were alive today?
From San Diego up to Maine,
In every mine and mill,
Where workers strike and organise,
Says he "You'll find Joe Hill."
not 'where workers hold six-digit fundraisers to get one multi-millionaire elected rather than another', you'll note. :)
reasons for war:
WMD: 50 points<<
Remember, these were such an urgent threat to the rest of the world that UN inspections were just too slow. We couldn't afford to wait another month or two for the inspections to continue, or else the anthrax would be raining down on Cyprus, the nukes would be falling on Jerusalem, and we'd all be dead, dead, dead.
If Saddam didn't have WMD's ready to use, then there was no 'clear and present danger'. There was no need to go in without the support of the security council, or to call off the inspections. But if he did have WMD's ready to go, they would have been found by now. Buried paperwork is not an immediate threat to anybody.
Terrorism: 36 points<<
The reason none of the anti-war people bring this up any more, is that even before the war had started this was a non-issue. Despite Bush's constant attempts to link Saddam to 9-11, there was never any evidence of a connection.
Enforcing UN resolutions: 19 points<<
Yeah, this is a major priority for the Bush administration. What's next, going to war to enforce World Court judgements?
Promoting regional security: 8 points<<
This is a real reason, providing you read it as 'demonstrating who's boss'.
Enforcing past Congressional resolutions: 6 points<<
"We said we'd get him, so by golly we will!"
Iraq92s repression of civilians: 6 points<<
Sorry, I just can't stop laughing enough to deal with this one...
Promoting democracy: 3 points<<
Yeah, the US has such a great record on this one...
Iraq92s attempt to assassinate former President Bush: 3 points<<
This was actually in the resolution passed by Congress? You're taking the piss, right?
Iraq92s firing on Coalition forces enforcing no-fly zones: 3 points<<
Number of planes shot down by this fire? 0
Does Canada get to invade the US for troops killed in friendly-fire incidents?
Iraq92s wrongful detention of non-Iraqis (including Americans*): 2<<
Coming up, the rest of the world's invasion of Guantanamo Bay...
Iraq92s failure to return seized Kuwaiti property: 2<<
Still unaccounted for: 20 baby incubators
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 6 |
| 2003 | 1 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Ray:
Show all comments by Ray.