The implication is of course that to succeed you need to have a majority who feels your views are correct, that is, your solutions are correct.

It seems to me that this type of simplistic analysis is incorrect. The goal of radicalism is conciousness raising. It must be elitist in the sense that it must have ideas that have merit but which require greater distribution.

A lot of what I saw after this period, in the early seventies, was the struggle for some sort of method that would accomodate our socialization and result in positive change, that is, some form of liberalism that would accomodate the middle way. But what kept reasserting itself was the very real fact that the political classes were always one step ahead of the radicals on what spin would control the masses. Non conformism and tolerance were the watch word of my few years there but I must say I cannot agree with the old time radicals university students were self centred and for the most part apathetic, etc. There were a significant number of people indeed the majority of the ones I met who had developed a social conscience. The problem was and still is we had no idea what to do with it.

So in my experience the SRM was a great success. It is unfortunate that they did not maintain themselves as a voice for conciousness raising but that initial explosion heard there and across other campuses around the world still resonates.

We still haven't figured out how to solve the problem of applied radicalism but in those early heady days they did many things that symbolized how activism might work effectively if its goals were modest and its methods outrageous. A student strike gets book prices reduced. Motions are passed supporting draft dodgers (and then are overturned by referendum!)

This is an important history for me personally as it gives some context to my student radical days.

It would be nice to hear more on this problem. I mean if we were successful in pushing the masses from total conservative apathy to mealy mouthed liberalism (some might say it would have been better to leave teh masses where they were ) then surely we are entering the next wave whereby we are pushing the massess to a much more authentic conciousness?

Any thoughts? Any old UofW alumni radicals out there in cyberia?

A very interesting thread you have here. As a current student radical on the Student Union at a Cegep in Montreal that worry is one we all face (case study #1, Concordia University).

It's a tough life eh?

(sorry, I'm tired, I'll be back don't worry.)

When I was at University there was a huge debate about conciousness. Was conciousness the result socialization, heredity, determined by class and racial prejudices etc? The big debate in coffee shops was, "How do we get there from here?". In other words, how do we convince a goal oriented carreerists with a social conscience to join the revolution? Well, radicals who were successful would focus on issues that did not seem to be able to be resolved by polite consversation with the appropriate authorities. They galvanized attention on certain facts and circunmstances. Often they failed to affect change because of necessity the issues were broad.

But since I attended university 30 years ago things have changed somewhat. Tuition was $585.00 a year and, minimum wage was $1.65/hr. That is university tuition has increased by 8.1 and minimum wage by only 5 times. When I attended up to half of the cost of university was by way of grant depending on your family's financial situation. Today there are no grant portions etc.

When I attended Waterloo there was a wave of popular reaction against radical politics but people were still looking for something less vulgar and more "rational" as a method for "solving" social problems. But the point is that the corporate agenda (as Niomi Klein points out in her recent article) is informed by a vast array of professional "thinkers" who market ideologies and counter radical facts with sophistry and their own self serving rationalizations. They are not dumb and they have lots of money on their side.

But radicals always argued that incrementalism would never work. Here in Ontario over the last ten years we have seen why this is true. Almost all of the NDPs legislation was overturned by the reactionary Harris governments. The NDP has, a result, become more radical but also more issue oriented under Jack Layton.

I used to go back to the Chevron in the few years after I'd left university and I noticed that it was still quite a job to put out a student newspaper. But I see now more than ever its value. People could actually affect the issues, see consequences. In the end however, the Chevron , a kind of forum for social conscience on real issues of campus life, got lost to the idea that it was a career medium for budding journalists. Things got pretty cynical with most of the pep and high spirits of the radical days being lost to apathy. And it was used as an excuse for being less socially directed.

Eventually the Chevron folded and another student paper called "Imprint" was born. Of it I know little but it seemed to have a fresh approach to student life as it was then.

Imprint looks much better than the old Chevron did. Imprint

Here is the mission statement:

quote:

---

To publish a newspaper that provides the University of Waterloo community with information, entertainment and a forum for the discussion of issues that affect the community; and
To provide University of Waterloo students with the opportunity to learn and gain practical experience in an open and rewarding journalistic environment.

---

- very conservative I'd say. But on the other hand it is the logical consequence of the thesis put forward in the paper I read.

It seems to be reflecting the major escape clause of the current era - that everything is just too complicated to figure out so we might as well go on building Tim Hortons restaurants in the middle of university campuses...

No doubt technology has helped in the production. Everything had to be printed on typewriters and typset in the old days. It was a learning experience. The chief role of the graphics co-ordinators was to provide "fill" for the layout guys...

Some did great work and went on to success in the straight press. I dabbled a bit but couldn't hack the drudgery and inequality of the whole scheme. It took the fun out it. Additionally, I had no idea just exactly how people lived as cartoonists. It was years later I discovered that they actually got jobs and were in unions and had all the usual benefits perhaps making as much as a teacher but not as much as a lawyer or stock broker. I suppose sopme make more money moonlighting and selling their art. I still keep my hand on the vanity side of things but never made any money and have sold no work for at least 15 years. When I did sell it the amount you were paid was so pathetic and the hoops you had to jump through so ridiculous that I preferred to just self publish and hope that someone enjoyed it or that it got people thinking about some issue.

Thanks for visiting my webpage, Socrates. It is about due for another yearly update. (Although I was too busy renovating, working and campaigning for the NDP to bother with it during the election.)

It was fun but somewhat depressing as I recall.

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Boinker ]

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Boinker ]