babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » underdogs and anarchy.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: underdogs and anarchy.
batz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3824

posted 16 October 2003 06:04 AM      Profile for batz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There seems to be a pattern emerging over the last decade and change (probably forever), on both the left and the right, in which they claim to be the underdog as a means to gaining moral high ground.

From far-right fringe groups to the mainstream left, the underdog identity seems to be a way people can make themselves feel good. The thing about underdogs is that, even when they fail, they still get to be right.

Conservative pundits have taken alot of cheap shots at what could accurately described as the moral certainty of the oppressed, but they might have a point, just one that they missed, as they tend to...

The entire discourse of the underdog does cause people to lose their focus on affecting change, and become stultified by their alleged oppression. From self-proclaimed anarchists who never seem to do _anything_ except smoke pot and rage against metaphors, to creepy nationalist/alliance racists who think their personal quality of life would improve if there were changes made to federal immigration policies, the underdog mentality seems to rationalize forgoing decisions they _can_ make because of precieved ones they can't.

I consider myself to be a small-"@" anarchist in that I think that there is a difference between having choices and making decisions. Eg, our various political and economic systems appropriate our ability to make decisions and give us a cheap list of alleged "choices" as (rather inadequate) compensation.

My point is, I realized that I am not an underdog and have no interest in being one. What's more, is that I don't think that ceasing to intrinsically sympathize with anyone who positions themselves as an underdog is inconsistent with socialist or anarchic principles.

Libertarians are all wrapped up in the notion of individualism, as it justifies their sense of entitlement. Their ideology is as repugnant as any, so this doesn't serve to validate any of their claims either.

If a Republican is just a Democrat who has been mugged, then maybe an elitist is an anarchist who just wants to be left alone?

This is what happens when urban liberals get tired of being hassled panhandlers I guess.

[ 16 October 2003: Message edited by: batz ]


From: elsewhere | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca