Do you consider yourself to be an activist?

[Let's Get Free]

Why or why not?

[Decommissioner]

Nope. Mostly due to lack of activity in my area+work. Spend most of my time keeping up with bills these days it seems.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess so, since I've engaged in activism in the past.

[Q]

I don't anymore. Narrow activism often has a substitutionist result. I.e. the 'party of activists' knows how things are done and organises a demo, as opposed to educating, politicising and organising the community to let them organise a demo on what the community thinks is important.

Activism is therefore sectarian, as the logical conclusion is that you need to be a member (or sympathiser) of this or that group to have 'the skills' for organising and, vice versa, the 'party of activists' only invests in educating people in 'activism' who become a member or at least a sympathiser. And even then you're only educated in a very narrow set of 'activist' political behaviour, such as selling a paper or organising a demo.

So, I don't believe it is the primary task of communists to be 'activists' themselves, but instead educate, agitate and organise the masses to do it themselves, teach them how to emancipate themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, I'd consider myself politically active.

So, I don't believe it is the primary task of communists to be 'activists' themselves, but instead educate, agitate and organise the masses to do it themselves, teach them how to emancipate themselves.Well I'd argue that working shoulder to shoulder with people in organic movements is the most valuable way to do that - and not elitiet at all, unless done in the top-down "front" way you described.

You can not hope to help people organize themselves without also engaging in these struggles and posing militant tactics and radical politics against liberal strategies. In turn struggle also teaches revolutionaries as organic developments in struggle test our strategies and movements themselves creativly develop new strategies and so on.

[Q]

Yes, I'd consider myself politically active.
Well I'd argue that working shoulder to shoulder with people in organic movements is the most valuable way to do that - and not elitiet at all, unless done in the top-down "front" way you described.

You can not hope to help people organize themselves without also engaging in these struggles and posing militant tactics and radical politics against liberal strategies. In turn struggle also teaches revolutionaries as organic developments in struggle test our strategies and movements themselves creativly develop new strategies and so on.

Hence my emphasis on the word primary :)

There is nothing wrong with being politicising work through being active, "shoulder to shoulder" as you put it. That is the difference being 'being politically active' and 'being an activist' that I tried to make. Activism, being a political brand of 'professionals', is alienating normal people and for that reason substitutionist for any communist political agenda.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Do you consider yourself to be an activist?

Hell yeah!

[Comrade Jandar]

No, because I hate the sound of that. I'm a proletarian armchair shit-starter in my local community college classes.

[Raúl Duke]

Not anymore...for a variety of reasons.

For one, where I live activism is mostly dead, an up-hill Sisyphean struggle, or etc.

Also, a bit of what Q mentioned. Activism is an particular insular milleu and don't exactly have played the best of roles within mass movements, whether political or not.
In my experience, all the professional activist/ideologues when I was in Occupy wanted to kinda "take-over" and use it to turn people more like them and then engage in the "right actions" as they see it.

Outside of being in a mass movement, they're idea of "success" has to do with recruiting other pro-activists and doing actions in the role of activists.

[Ravachol]

No.



The political mind always tries to act first upon the others, to organise or force them to do something, while it stays outside of the social movement. Our task is political only in so far as it deals with the destruction of political power. The main task of communists is not to gather others. They organise themselves together with others while undertaking tasks which come from their own needs -- personal and social, immediate and theoretical.


Some reading on activism that might interest people: http://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism, http://libcom.org/library/anti-activism, http://libcom.org/library/giveupactivismps

That being said, I engage in/show up at things that are typically activist at times, for a multitude of reasons, cause whatever.

[l'Enfermé]

I can't emphasize on how much I agree with comrade Q's posts here.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I was active during the Occupy movement, but haven't found anything since.:(

[Jimmie Higgins]

No.

Some reading on activism that might interest people: http://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism, http://libcom.org/library/anti-activism, http://libcom.org/library/giveupactivismps

That being said, I engage in/show up at things that are typically activist at times, for a multitude of reasons, cause whatever.

I find these arguments to be highly ironic and hypocritical - or if not overtly hypocritical, abstract and idealist.

So let me get this straight... people argue and try and convince others that it is inherently elitist to try and convince others through argument :rolleyes:.

It's like the "leaderlessness" in Occupy. If you asked, who's heading up the housing group people would sometimes snap: "no one's in charge, this is a leaderless movement" before adding, "but if you want to know when the group meets, talk to so and so, he sends out all the emails and picks a place to meet and one of the people who helps set the meeting agenda."

In other words, it's always not "activism" or "leaders" but what kind of activism (NGO-style, focused on reform only, focused on legal strategies or lobbying, focused on just being a front for some group or people dedicated to trying to make smaller movements into mass movements, people with radical politics etc) and what kind of leaders (organic and democratically beholden and accountable, ananamous and behind the scenes, autocratic with no accountability?).

[Ravachol]

I find these arguments to be highly ironic and hypocritical - or if not overtly hypocritical, abstract and idealist.

So let me get this straight... people argue and try and convince others that it is inherently elitist to try and convince others through argument :rolleyes:.


What the fuck are you talking about. Read the articles, then come back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What the fuck are you talking about. Read the articles, then come back.I read the first, some of the observations/problems are more or less correct, the conclusions are worthless IMO. But maybe I missed something as I skimmed and, as this is a discussion page, maybe a more useful way to go would be for you to highlight what arguments you found useful.

According to the first article: "activist 'mentality' creates moralism and a disconnected relationship between 'activists' and everyone else" - OK, well that does happen, but it happens with or without "activism" too. In Occupy Oakland, the "anti-political" pro-camping side of the movement tended to be moralistic while the "activists" wanted to attract more people beyond those who could camp 24/7.

So what's the alternative? Since not all people become radical at the same time in the same way, how should the smaller groups of militants/radicals relate to things going on, as well as to the larger working class population? I'd say it's to actually put a focus on the "activists" aiming to broaden the movements, to help radicalize others, to fight against inclusiveness (caused more by people with non-class bases strategies IMO than by some non-designation of "activist" which means little out of context).

Another observation I agree with is that "Doing something" for the sake of doing somthing is worthless - but is this all activism?

[Raúl Duke]

the "anti-political" pro-camping side of the movement tended to be moralistic while the "activists" wanted to attract more people beyond those who could camp 24/7. HA, despite their "anti-political" pretension the "pro-campers" are basically the same as the activists... (!)
Not surprising though.

But that still doesn't discredit the problems and issues with the activist mentality (after all the pro-campers seem to have that same mentality, they weren't any different), which has a tendency towards "substitutionalism."

But than again, not all "activists" are the same/etc. Some might have been working in the right direction while still calling themselves as such, etc.

[ChiefTiburon]

Yes in the sense that i am active in organizing and in community outreach.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I dunno. I attend political demos when I have a chance but it is more of observation and maybe some outreach than anything else. I have done stuff with EqualityMaine during the election season and think activities such as canvassing and phone banking make more of an impact than a vague rally (though in this case it would hinge on what kind of campaign you are participating in and what your end-goal is). At the end of the day any kind of radical change is something accomplished over a lengthy period of time and done on a grassroots level.