Link to the text http://p-crac.blogspot.com/2007/06/rich-zine-and-individual-wealth.html
Jun 18 2007 21:27
Jun 18 2007 22:34
Ha, I'm just gonna say right off the bat that one of the authors in his bibliography fired a friend of mine (and of many Boston anarchists)...
Jun 18 2007 22:35
...although I guess that's OK, it's not like it's 1930 or anything.
Jun 18 2007 22:43
MJ wrote:
Ha, I'm just gonna say right off the bat that one of the authors in his bibliography fired a friend of mine (and of many Boston anarchists)...
I'd fire you losers too.
Jun 19 2007 00:05
Is that piece by the rich person in question? If so, he is objectively counter-revolutionary, as is anyone else who takes part in P-CRAC.
Jun 19 2007 00:08
Nate wrote:
Is that piece by the rich person in question? If so, he is objectively counter-revolutionary, as is anyone else who takes part in P-CRAC.
Yes and yes.
Jun 19 2007 00:09
$100,000 to WSA
$100,000 to NEFAC
$200,000 to the ME fund
Jun 19 2007 01:33
Which author did the firing?
Also, don't try to play like that discredits the piece. Read it first.
Jun 19 2007 01:42
I did read it first! I just don't have to comment until he makes his donations.
Jun 19 2007 01:47
Do they have an emoticon for "eyes rolled so far back in the head they got stuck"?
Jun 19 2007 04:12
I'd gladly take $3k for the "Nate not having to job hunt this summer and still being able to pay his credit card bills" fund. I'd even be willing to take that with string attached, including sycophantic comments.
Jun 19 2007 14:19
That is incredibly helpful, thank you. I will immediately forward all requests from individuals looking to pay off their credit cards (or student loans, or phone sex bills) because surely that is the path to the revolution.
Jun 19 2007 15:50
I don't get how anyone could think it would be possible to circumvent the sort of dynamics the guy talks about in his article. It's his decision, it's unavoidably his decision. Even if he collectivises the process of coming to a decision, in the end he's got to decide whether to follow that decision - and take the responsibility for it.
I respect the guy's integrity, and willingness to have a crack at working through the situation he's in, but nothing in the world is going to take away the fact that, given capitalism, the money is 'his'. I can see how you'd be wary of sycophancy, etc. - but the answer to that can never be anything more than keeping your head screwed on. Again, if you can't do that, no process is going to do it for you.
(Though tbf, I see the article as being more written as a challenge to other very wealthy philanthopists than for the benefit of assisting with his particular decision.)
So all the guy can do is figure out his objectives as dispassionately and rigorously as possible, and assess candidate projects. I'm gonna say it again. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty seem pretty cool - give some to them. At least then the money will be in the hands of an internally democratic organisation which includes a relatively diverse range of working class people (for an explicitly anti-capitalist project), not solely defined by the political views they hold.
Jun 19 2007 16:02
j.rogue wrote:
That is incredibly helpful, thank you. I will immediately forward all requests from individuals looking to pay off their credit cards (or student loans, or phone sex bills) because surely that is the path to the revolution.
It's kind of incredible, the way you just insinuated that people's economic neediness can be traced to their sexual indiscipline.
Jun 19 2007 16:04
MJ wrote:
j.rogue wrote:
That is incredibly helpful, thank you. I will immediately forward all requests from individuals looking to pay off their credit cards (or student loans, or phone sex bills) because surely that is the path to the revolution.It's kind of incredible, the way you just insinuated that people's economic neediness can be traced to their sexual indiscipline.
Apparently you've never been married.
Jun 19 2007 16:23
MJ wrote:
j.rogue wrote:
That is incredibly helpful, thank you. I will immediately forward all requests from individuals looking to pay off their credit cards (or student loans, or phone sex bills) because surely that is the path to the revolution.It's kind of incredible, the way you just insinuated that people's economic neediness can be traced to their sexual indiscipline.
Hey, you don't know what kind of pm's I've been getting...
Also, I don't see a damn thing wrong with phone sex and would not consider it "indiscipline."
Jun 19 2007 16:53
I'm confused, I thought PM's were free?
Jun 19 2007 18:02
Do you not get it, or are you making a bad joke?
Jun 19 2007 18:48
posi wrote:
I don't get how anyone could think it would be possible to circumvent the sort of dynamics the guy talks about in his article.
Countering their theories merely encourages them. It’s part of the package they’re buying.
posi wrote:
I respect the guy's integrity
Pass me a bucket. "Anti-capitalism", the product that does the opposite of what it says on the tin.
Jun 19 2007 19:52
Rogue, dumb joke on my part, sorry to be annoying. I read your friend's piece. I'm not sure what he's looking for by way of advice. It seems to me that he can't get around the fact that he's gonna have some say in who gets the money. So he should just give the money to people who he thinks will use the money most effectively, with no string attached. I think the money should go to groups with a track record of using their own money and time in a smart way with positive results.
Jun 19 2007 20:03
The piece is addressing other wealthy "radical" people and is a means to talk about the problems he has with "social justice philanthropy." He is giving a huge chunk of it to a foundation for now, but is trying to find a better, more equitable model than foundations for the rest of it. There are a myriad of problems with even the most "radical" foundations (RESIST, The haymarket Peoples' Fund), one of which that I see is that you have to be a 501c3 in order to get grants from them.
Jun 19 2007 22:46
Quote:
The piece is addressing other wealthy "radical" people.
Par for the course and, interestingly enough, the precise opposite of the problem facing advocates of “radical” politics. Although, it’s the meaning and content of those politics which render it irrelevant to all but wealthy “radical” people.
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/lazy-george-and-radical-agenda
Jun 19 2007 23:11
Well, folks seemed not to understand where he was coming from and that piece explains it.
Jun 19 2007 23:29
We've no duty to "understand where he was coming from". If anything, under these circumstances, the onus is entirely reversed.
Jun 20 2007 00:40
No where is anyone expected to do anything. People were misunderstanding his position, so that piece was posted for anyone interested in reading it.
Jun 20 2007 00:50
why doesn't he circumvent the power relation by just buying himself a house, it's not exactly a sum of money that would mean he doesn;t have to work ever again ffs.
Jun 20 2007 01:02
Rogue, out of curiosity, what type of groups did your friend have in mind? For instance, was he thinking political organizations, radical mass organizations, anarchist bookstores, or something else?
Jun 20 2007 01:06
see the fact he can afford to give away 400,000 makes me think he's a middle class prick, the very mentality of being able to give away 400,000 implies a certain degree of previlege.
Jun 20 2007 02:17
He is wary of giving money to specific projects because he doesn't believe he has the right to decide what "deserves" the money. He can afford to give away $400,000 because that is the trust fund his parents gave him. He isn't even spending it right now, he is living off the money he makes at his service industry job. He is looking more and more at activist-led foundations as the least problematic way of redistributing wealth, but I encourage him to find a better model that isn't all "non-profit indstrial complex"-y and whatnot. And he is not a prick.
Can comment on articles and discussions
Oh neat, they roll eyes in time!