Willamette Reds: Hypocrisy 2.0

November 21, 2011

Hypocrisy 2.0

3 comments:

ethnicguy said...: Obama appears as a hypocrit for saying something that seemed to be in support of the Egyptian revolution but he didn't support a revolution at home.

Would you expect him to support a revolution here or is the point his alleged hypocrisy?

More to the point, what have the Republicans said that either points out their hypocrisy or their unwavering suppot for all totalitarianism? Would it be better to have a president who voiced a concept of liberty he didn't live up to or one who never voiced a concept of liberty at all?

Another point: Occupy would probably not be happening were it not for the so-called "Arab Spring," but there the comparison begins to fray. Americans are not experiencing anything like what people in the Third World are because imperialism has divided the world and insured that we live better at the expense of Asia, Africa and Latin American. When we mix the two up we come perilously close to justifying the privileges imperialism (and often white skin) has given us.

Here's a question more worth debating: are the cops in this photo part of the 99% or not? What do most Occupy people think about that question?

Come November who will the guy on the ground vote for?; November 21, 2011 5:04 PM
Ann Montague said...: We are living in the belly of the beast. This is not a privilege for those whom are victims of Global Capitalism regardless of the country they live in. The dynamics in every country is different of course but our responsibilities are huge and one of those is to break through the facade that we are a democratic country. Tell the truth about the twin parties of capitalism. This picture and quote do that effectively.; November 21, 2011 6:57 PM
ethnicguy said...: One of the biggest problems we have as labor people and as revolutionaries is understanding and confronting the sense and culture of entitlement and relative privilege most Americans feel. This is where American individualism springs from. And not only that, but the revolutionary project we're working on is not aimed at winning more for Americans, but actually at taking away the power, privilege, prestige that comes from living in the belly of the beast.

We hit a wall oftentimes because we're trying to do something unique in human history: make a revolution so that most (or many) people have less but live better as a result.

What is this "living in the belly of the beast" exactly? It is benefiting from imperialism, either as part of a labor aristocracy (broadly defined) or as deriving relative comfort and well-being from imperialism. The question needs to be framed in that context exactly.

It's a good and worthy point that victims of global capitalism do not feel privileged, and on that basis some kind of international solidarity needs to be constructed. But this needs to be a solidarity which confronts white skin privilege at home and internationally and puts that privilege in its proper place.

Finally, I would argue that the "least privileged" in the US---the nationally oppressed peoples--- often have as much or more in common historically with those in the Third World than they do with others here in the US. Panafricanism, for instance, has an enduring revolutionary reality here. Commonality and solidarity here should be founded on a struggle against white privilege as well as on the basis that all oppressed peoples here have the right to self-determination, in society and in the revolutionary movement as well.

I would feel better about the original posting (the photograph) if it featured a quote from a Republican. It comes across to me as a cheap shot at Obama: it's always easy to highlight hypocrisy. We're missing a great opportunity here to attack the system and bash the right.; November 24, 2011 11:19 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)