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

Garth Liebhaber garthliebhaber at care2.com
Fri Mar 12 20:11:35 PST 2004 

Some of us are trying to make media, Chris K. and see 
these process lists as a place of practicality, not to 
espouse un-rooted theory.  to be frank, 'just talking 
theory' is for the general Chicago list that we left behind 
with the armchair folk.

your statement below that you are "not insinuating any 
particular judgements" strikes me as disturbing.  why are 
you on these lists, then? is that why do you send random 
unexplained forwards to the working list that are hard to 
understand out of context from the discussion they were 
rooted in? is this why you call me ignorant?  

garth


Kaihatsu wrote:
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



_______________________________________________
Imc-chicago-working mailing list
Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-
working


---- End Original Message ----


Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008

More information about the Imc-chicago-working mailing list