Keeping quiet about capitalism

[Invincible Summer]

http://iamsilent.com/


In 1989, the world was introduced to a forum to give a voice to children around the world, The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The Convention outlines the basic human rights that children everywhere have.

This November marks the twentieth anniversary of The Convention on the Rights of the Child, but after all this time we must ask ourselves, are the voices of children around the world being heard, are their rights being upheld?

Today, over one billion children live in poverty. Hunger is only one of their challenges; exploitation, abuse and discrimination haunt them on a daily basis. Many live in remote areas of the world and have little or no education.

They have no rights. They have no voice. On November 20, 2009, people around the world will remain silent for 24 hours in support of those who are unable to speak up themselves and in support of the CRC.

Join the quiet revolution.
Take the Vow of Silence.

I understand that groups like this are trying to raise awareness of issues that concern the left as well, but this is just like most liberal "awareness" campaigns. There's just something you're supposed to do/not do to build "solidarity" with those who experience _____ every day; in this case, not talking/texting/using Twitter for 24 hours, to "understand" how "children who are silenced everyday" feel.

Hm.

I might come off as a bit harsh, but what kind of ass thinks that this is an effective way of making the issues of exploitation, hunger, poverty, discrimination, etc come to the forefront? I mean, the only people who will notice you being quiet are the ones you talk to on a daily basis - most people won't realize that you're TRYING to not communicate. It's just another one of those self-satisfying activism events.

Instead of trying to raise awareness of these issues by being passive and silent, we need to shout SHOUT SHOUT about these very real problems and make aware that they are caused by capitalism, and not just a vague, mysterious, oppressive force like this Iamsilent campaign makes it out to be.

The only way to "end the silence" is to fight and smash the system that creates it.

[cyu]

The only way to "end the silence" is to fight and smash the system that creates it.

Some guy said this a year before his assassination:

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

[Mehring]

Exactly! Symbolism such as "silence vigils" are nothing more than shamless moralising designed to put a progressive face. Perhaps it helps the petty bourgeoisie feel better about their enjoyment of their rapidly vanishing class privileges and it helps the bourgeois government to pretend it is more democratic and liberal. Try to raise money and support for an actual struggle though and you may find yourself on a terrorist blacklist.

We must unite the oppressed masses and workers and force our issues to be paramount. Then the rights will be concrete not a just a symbolic publicity stunt.

[pierrotlefou]

I might come off as a bit harsh, but what kind of ass thinks that this is an effective way of making the issues of exploitation, hunger, poverty, discrimination, etc come to the forefront?
American democrats

[RadioRaheem84]

The American and to some extent British liberal class are enamored with pious but ultimately useless charitable causes. They stay silent about the underlying causes of poverty, famine and exploitation because they themselves have directly profited from the system which they supposedly want to "reform".

Conservatives and right wingers know this and openly chastise them for not being true to themselves. They know the system is the reason for the ills of the world and dislike the liberals for making them feel guilty about it. Yet, the liberal will rarely touch the matter because A.) He knows he is supportive of the policies that cause the problems and B.) It serves a moral purpose for which to give his base a righteous clout.

Ann Coulter is right, the only reason to be a liberal is to feel morally superior to everyone else.

[leninpuncher]

Liberals used to be pretty explicit in their aims. In Politics, Aristotle proposed the welfare state as a means to pacify the poorer classes. Obviously they couldn't have democracy, because if they did they would start taking land and wealth from privileged people and spreading it around. But if they were given some sort of rudimentary safety net to ensure that they weren't going to end up starving in the streets during hard times, and other sorts of charity, then they would be far too content to want to risk their lives fighting a revolution. This system has been pretty effective in pacifying people in the first world. Especially when it's mixed with propaganda that tell you that not only are these people not worth fighting against, they're oppressing you for your own well-being.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberals used to be pretty explicit in their aims. In Politics, Aristotle proposed the welfare state as a means to pacify the poorer classes. Obviously they couldn't have democracy, because if they did they would start taking land and wealth from privileged people and spreading it around. But if they were given some sort of rudimentary safety net to ensure that they weren't going to end up starving in the streets during hard times, and other sorts of charity, then they would be far too content to want to risk their lives fighting a revolution. This system has been pretty effective in pacifying people in the first world. Especially when it's mixed with propaganda that tell you that not only are these people not worth fighting against, they're oppressing you for your own well-being.

Agreed, but it should also be noted that conservatives are for the most part classical liberals and are pretty open with their aim even if they mask it under a veil of pseudo-populist rhetoric. Conservatives don't mind safety nets as long as they are extremely minimal at best and serve only those that cannot work, not those that cannot find work.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, it's symbolism, which is pretty much the foundation of the modern liberal movement. A lot of hope, and it doesn't really matter whether there's change or not as long as it's symbolic. Let's elect a black President, who promises to close down Guantanamo, shut up for a day to fight the oppression of children, and turn off the lights for an hour to end global warming. It's generally portrayed as a way to raise awareness, but generally the 'awareness' raised doesn't go anywhere beyond the symbolism, which is only symbolic of the uselessness of these kinds of efforts.

And, quite honestly, I'm fairly sure one can better raise issues when one isn't, y'know, not talking. In fact, given that the way liberals have been trying to solve these problems (pop concerts and the like) have not worked, and the problems have only gotten worse, one would think some discussion of methods would be much more fruitful than, "Alright, so children are oppressed. Donate a bit of money to some charity, will you?" (especially given that, well, people already do that quite frequently, and quite a few volunteer too). And, for that matter, "". And really, what difference is it going to make if a friend comes up to you asking you something, and you nod instead of speaking? And are most people even going to notice?

On the other hand, lots of liberals are shutting up for a day. :)

[leninpuncher]

Agreed, but it should also be noted that conservatives are for the most part classical liberals and are pretty open with their aim even if they mask it under a veil of pseudo-populist rhetoric. Conservatives don't mind safety nets as long as they are extremely minimal at best and serve only those that cannot work, not those that cannot find work.
Conservatives aren't classical liberals. Neither are Libertarians. The classical liberal movement was connected to the enlightenment, and was pre-capitalist. It was also pre-socialist to a large degree, since it was before any important theory took place. Take someone like Adam Smith, who the Republicans and Lbertarians claim to love, but it's doubtful they've ever seriously read anything he wrote. Adam Smith saw the beginnings of the industrial capitalism that conservatives are so happy about today, and he hated it. The same was true of Benjamin Franklin, and all the other liberals. In fact, Adam Smith only advocated markets on the condition that they would lead to perfect egalitarianism. He had very left-wing values, and probably would have been associated with the communists if he'd lived a century later.

The sort of political system that classical liberals like Adam Smith were trying to encourage, was basically a form of libertarian socialism. He favoured progressive taxation, opposed centralized ownership of production and so on.

A little off topic, but the enlightenment was important, and we shouldn't let the right-wing steal it.

[Kayser_Soso]

Everyone here has pegged the liberals so well I can't possibly add to this. Good OP too.


On second thought, I will add something: Guerrilla theatre, this is another thing liberals seem to love. Half the time you would need someone to explain it to you because it's connected to some art form or culture that they are specifically interested in. It doesn't send a coherent message, but it seems to me that many liberals and "leftists" just want to entertain themselves. Hence things like street raves. They want to change the world, so long as it will be fun and entertaining in the process.

[Invincible Summer]

Everyone here has pegged the liberals so well I can't possibly add to this. Good OP too.


On second thought, I will add something: Guerrilla theatre, this is another thing liberals seem to love. Half the time you would need someone to explain it to you because it's connected to some art form or culture that they are specifically interested in. It doesn't send a coherent message, but it seems to me that many liberals and "leftists" just want to entertain themselves. Hence things like street raves. They want to change the world, so long as it will be fun and entertaining in the process.

This concept of "guerilla theatre" and "entertaining activism" was brought up in a previous thread about some group who played musical chairs in Starbucks and stuff... I can't remember the name. But some Revlefters defended such actions as "disrupting the status quo" which still gets people to think and such.

But I generally agree with you - lots of these "unique" actions (not that trying to be different is a bad thing though) tend to get confused and become unclear to the public as to what the message is. IMO that means the action is not very effective, albeit self-gratifying for the participants.

Sometimes the tried and true method of standing on a street corner w/ a megaphone and signs, or setting up a booth with pamphlets is the best method - tried and true.

[Kayser_Soso]

I can't remember the name. But some Revlefters defended such actions as "disrupting the status quo" which still gets people to think and such.

Wouldn't surprise me. This kind of thing is typical of the left in some western countries. If you want to "disrupt the status quo" in Starbucks or any restaurant, go in there with an AK and a few spare mags. Anything else is just a minor annoyance in that respect. I think those folks need to read a book called A Nation of Rebels. It has it's failures, but it nails that kind of phony "subversive" attitude right to the wall.



But I generally agree with you - lots of these "unique" actions (not that trying to be different is a bad thing though) tend to get confused and become unclear to the public as to what the message is. IMO that means the action is not very effective, albeit self-gratifying for the participants.

Sometimes the tried and true method of standing on a street corner w/ a megaphone and signs, or setting up a booth with pamphlets is the best method - tried and true.

Being different is great, but leftists just need to remember that being different is just that; it's not subversion, it's not revolutionary.