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

[Chris Kaihatsu]

Chris,

I was going off on a tangent from what Peter was talking about. I only sent that message to this list and to Peter personally. I signed only my name, not anyone else's. I don't mean to interfere with the remediation process, and I have taken a generally supportive but neutral position on the conflict.

And, no, there is a distinction -- as I pointed out -- between the personal and the political. I am not insinuating any particular judgements, just talking theory.


Chris




On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:40:27 EST, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working






__________________________________________________________ 
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