[CIMC-work] (f.y.i.)

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

Chris, I appreciate your efforts here, but I have to ask -- what the fuck are 
you talking about? And how does your comment serve to help along the 
mediation, instead of further muddying the water? And by the way, did you submit this 
as a personal member of the listserve, or as a representative of the Chicago 
collective, in which case I am so going to have a hissy fit about this. I say 
all this, in part, to illustrate the very point you .. er ... 'obliquify' in 
your post: I am being personally pissy about a political issue of which I assert 
I am right, and on which many others in the collective may agree (or not). 
Personal: pissy and rude. Political: 'whahh...the dame raises some good points". 
Your post basically trivializes the point that Peter was making -- namely, 
that there is a strong platform for an ongoing shared political vision between 
the two SF collectives, and that the core problem was basically people's 
inability to get along -- even given the larger political values that UNITE them -- 
on a purely personal level. And, of course, that Peter/Indybay presumably is 
committed to resolving personal issues to get back to the larger support of a 
shared political vision.

Colors indeed. And grey. Really? Does the legitimacy of an individual's 
political platform fall to pieces because he happens to be a personal asshole? 
Does, for example, the political platform of Ralph Nader loose all credibility 
because Ralph is personally a bit of an egotist? Does the political platform of 
Bertrand Aristide -- which puts the best interests of the disposessed ahead of 
the grasping rapacity of the elites -- become delegitimized because, well, 
dammit, on a personal level he's not a perfect person? 

I think it's great that you want to rally in on this SF debate, but sometimes 
the best response to a solid observation is -- polite and respectful and 
affirming SILENCE. Also, I really want to know if these remarks were tendered on 
behalf of the CIMC collective. Dude. Speak.

christine

In a message dated 03/12/2004 3:17:34 AM Central Standard Time, 
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:


> Subj:[CIMC-work] (f.y.i.) personal-political Fwd: [imc-us-process] Stop the 
> spam, nessie?? 
> Date:03/12/2004 3:17:34 AM Central Standard Time
> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org, pmaiden at pacbell.net
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, CIMC, all,
> 
> My addition to the personal-political framework issue that Peter raises, 
> below, is that it is essentially dialectical, complex, or a gray area. In 
> general, the relationship between the personal and the political is a complex 
> dynamic, with clear definitions of "personal" and "political" existing only at the 
> extremes. 
> 
> One example of a distinctly personal issue, meaning that it has little or 
> negligible political meaning, would be what your favorite color is. To 
> generalize, the best class (or category) of subjects with distinctly personal 
> relevance would be pleasures. Of course these can encroach toward the opposite, 
> political, pole, depending on how the practice of whatever pleasure impacts other 
> people and society as a whole. 
> 
> An example of a clearly political -- that is, objective (potentially 
> verifiable by anyone/many) -- issue would be land, especially in the present day. If 
> any two people have interests in use of a particular parcel of land, 
> potentially for any given period of time in common, then a public-policy issue would 
> necessarily arise. (We're all limited to the surface of this planet....)
> 
> In between these two poles is an infinite variety of examples, each with 
> varying parameters, and thus spanning varying distances within the two poles.
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________ 
> The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site and the 
> Socialist Equality Party
> wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Begin forwarded message -----
> From: Peter Maiden <pmaiden at pacbell.net>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:02:21 -0800 (PST)
> To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs" <
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
> Subject: [imc-us-process] Stop the spam, nessie??
> Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs" <
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
> 
> --- nessie at sfbg.com wrote:
> 
> >  (4.) Racist trolls and spammers are one issue. The
> >  SFBay-IMC/SF-IMC 
> >  issue is another issue. Please don't confuse them.
> >  One effects two 
> >  locals. The other effects all of us.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I realize we're going to have to slow down our
> submissions to this list, as per the announcement
> earlier this evening. However I am one of the 
> representatives from SF Bay IMC to the possible
> arbitration, and I want to make a brief but I believe
> important statement.
> 
> Our split was not really about political differences
> or how the site was run.  It was over personal issues.
> In the 70s we said "the personal is political."  It
> is, but the personal is also a realm where things have
> to be understood on their own terms.  I have the
> feeling many IMCs have faced these same types of
> issues with dismay.  We hope we can be a case where
> something is learned in order to help start a journey
> down a new road.
> 
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040312/68ee0944/attachment-0001.htm