Idealism is good - They say criticism is a cheap way of self

[Rebelde para Siempre]

In recent years there has been significant growth in the new activist and anti-capitalist movements throughout the world. Thanks to such events as September 11, the proposed war on Iraq and the globalization issue, a new group of politically aware youth have arisen. The system has arisen suspicion. People suddenly are questioning the decisions made by those in power. Are they really working in the best interests of the people of the world?

Much of the older generation, being more conservative in their views, have spoken out about this new movement. Condemning them as "radicals" and idealists. Basically convincing themselves that the views of youth are worthless. These young people may be idealists or they may be speaking the truth, but is idealism really that bad? Millions of people have died for an ideal, whether it be freedom, equality or peace. In countless wars men have gone off to die on the battlefield because they believed they were fighting for something worth fighting for. Therefore isn't an ideal worth something?

The youth who protest and give an anti-war message are fighting for peace. The one's who speak about globalization are fighting for equality. These ideals are what the western world is supposed to represent.

Is being an idealist worse than having no opinion? Indifference and misinformation are rampant in today's society. Many people are no longer concerned with world events. The mass media, tabloid newspapers and corporate advertising steer people away from what really matters, makes them indifferent, they no longer care about anything exept themselves, their "lifestyle obsession" and the lives of politicians, sports stars and celebrities. The epidemic of consumerism has taken over. People say, "What are those stupid kids doing out there causing trouble?", and then pass them off as misguided teens, angry at the world and full of teenage rebellion.

But someone needs to be there, always questioning and always checking. If there is not, then who is to stop exploitation and the new neo-liberal agenda from adversely effecting the people? Is it wrong to voice your opinions? We have the right to speak our minds, whether we be young, old, disabled or oppressed. Our voice should mean something.

We supposedly live in a democracy, therefore the people must have some say on the way their country works and the decisions it makes. What other way can we express our views when the opportunity to choose the way our world is governed has not been given to us? I don't think war was the people's choice.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

I sent this to a local newspaper.

[Fires of History]

Idealism is good, activism is better.

Great thoughts, glad you put them to paper and got them out there. Was it published?

And you're right about the "stupid kids" part. Today's youth are so much more educated and aware than youth of yesteryear that's it's almost impossible for older people to really understand that. So they think it's just more youth will be youth.

And, I've said it a million times, things will get better when the baby boomers die off finally. All these older people do is sit around, hating youth and instilling politics with the politics they learned from the 50's or before. DIE ALREADY. It's time for a new world.

[Conghaileach]

Very good article.

You should in touch with D Day about having it included in the Che-Lives newstletter.

[redstar2000]

FoH, I really think it's a bit much to say that things will get better when the baby boomers finally die.

Why? Because there's nothing about age in and of itself that defines revolutionary politics or practice.

SOME young people are revolutionaries; MANY are not. SOME old people are revolutionaries (still!); MANY are not.

It has indeed always been a "standard" or "accepted" belief that the "young" are "progressive" or even "revolutionary" while the old are considered "reactionary". It ain't so.

The Nazi Party, for example, was a "young party" in the 1920s and 1930s. Its leaders were in their 30s and 40s, most of its members were in their 20s, and it captured power in the German University Students Association well before Hitler came to power.

It IS true that energetic political activity is LARGELY a province of the young...simply because it requires energy that the old no longer possess. But the POLITICS of that activism is determined by factors that have NOTHING to do with age.

"Idealism" in the ordinary use of the word--energetic activity on behalf of a cause--can be revolutionary or reactionary or anywhere in between.

Political movements must be judged POLITICALLY, not on the median age of the membership. :cool:

[Fires of History]

Redstar,

Yeah, I know, but I hate the baby boomers. Most are idiots.

Let me ask you this though. The shift in North America to a service-based economy has been to serve who?

[redstar2000]

The answer you want, FoH, is kind of obvious.

I think the real reason for the North American shift to a "service" economy is that American capitalists (a great many of them indeed being baby-boomers) discovered that they could hire industrial workers in other countries for $10 a DAY, rather than $20 an HOUR in the U.S.

But I think THAT would have happened anyway...no matter what the age of the particular capitalists involved. When ALL the baby-boomers are dead, it will STILL be happening...until we stop it.

:cool: