POLITICS AND OTHER THINGS PART 2

I am no good at coming up with headings. Even when it comes to email headings I am terrible. Thus reusing the heading from my last post. When it comes to rambling on however, that comes easy. Thus this is another ridiculously long post.

(Bad joke coming). I’m not a doctor. Thus I don’t have any patience (bickity bam!). Thus I called (90 minutes on the phone) the woman who has been on my mind constantly recently to ask her out to the premier of a series of interrelated short plays that I had tickets to. She said yes, and we went out again on Friday night. I took her to a very nice (and very expensive; $150 for dinner for two!) Indian restaurant overlooking the water at Woolloomooloo at 6pm. We went to the play, and after that finished at 10:30pm it was her that suggested we go have a drink or two. We bar hopped after the first bar we went to closed for the night, and subsequent ones we went to were too noisy to talk. This went on until 2am Saturday morning at which point we got shared a cab home.

Between 10:30pm and 2am there were a number of developments. We had a number of very personal conversations, and, being fortified with alcohol, I decided to lay my cards on the table. I told her that I really liked her, not just for the obvious reason that she was very beautiful and had especially beautiful eyes, but because she was such a nice, intelligent woman. I said how much I admired her for changing her career (from marketing/market research which she had studied at university), gone back to study sociology at Uni part time and gone to work at a charity, even though it meant working anoyher job part time. I then indicated that I’d really like to spend more time with her and continue to get to know her.

She didn’t seemed phased by this, but thanked me and said how much she admired what I do and that she enjoyed spending time with me and would also like to continue to get to know me more. We continued to talk and she really opened up to me; she told me how her father had questioned what she has done and became upset. I reassured her that I admired her for what she has done and indicated that the only person who has the right to question what she has chosen to do is herself. I reached over the table and tried to comfort her by rubbing her arm; I don’t know if it did any good, but it definitely didn’t do any harm.

At the end of the night when she got out of the cab I reiterated that I really liked her and that I would like to spend more time to get to know her. She said that she really enjoyed herself and that she would definitely make time for this over Christmas. We kissed each other on the cheek (given what had happened earlier I didn’t think it appropriate to try for anything more intimate, though I think she may have been, I’m not too sure) and hugged, and the evening was over.

So people, these were all good signs weren’t they?

Given my lack of patience, I really want to see her again soon. Thus I sent her roses this morning. She SMSed thanking me, saying how beautiful they were and what a pleasant surprise they were and that we would speak soon. The question is do I wait for her to call me, or is it fine for me to call her? People?

Now onto politics. Firstly to answer some things from my pervious post.

Clokeeeey, the role of an anarcho-syndicalist is to educate the workers, not to lead them. Having a leader/leaders means that you are imposing you view upon others, instead of educating them about the way to change things; these changes are then implemented for the common good of all as determined by everybody, not as determined by the few. As for each era building upon the other, my feeling is that each era is about the elite trying to maintain the socio-economic status quo in increasingly sophisticated ways.

AOF, Yes the Greens participate in the Parliamentary system. However they believe in power coming from below. Policy is determined by the entire membership, not imposed from above. That is why, as far as parliamentary parties go, they have much in common with Anacho-syndicalism.

Larry, for the most part I agree with you on the Liberals being a proxy for business. However even given this some Liberal MPs are still better than ALP MPs

Guru, Socialist Alliance still believes in the need for a "revolutionary vanguard", an elite who will concentrate power in their own hands. For this reason I still don’t like them.

Chixilub, I’m not too sure what you are trying to say.

Justine, I don’t have anything more against Al-Queda then any other fundamentalist religious group that uses obscure passages in scriptures to justify bigotry and hatred, like Family First.

Now last Tuesday, like some (hopefully many) of you I participated in the IR rally. It was great to see the number of people there and great to see Bob Brown receive a larger and longer round of applause from the crowd, even the real blue-collar types, then Kim "Fucking useless, spineless bastard" Beazley.

However as I indicated to some of you already I was so disappointed when the ACTU showed the statements from "religious leaders" but didn't have any Islamic leaders. The ACTU should be trying to bring together all people being attacked by the Government and encouraging people to defend those other people under attack. This was the perfect opportunity to do this, but they chose not to. It really disappointed me.

However speaking of Bob Brown, I actually got to meet him on Thursday. My Union has been heavily involved in trying to get the sedition provisions of the anti-freedom bill (officially called the anti-terrorism bill)removed. On our behalf and on behalf of other organisations, two people were appearing before the senate hearing on the bill. I went along and sat in the audience for moral support. Afterwards when we all came together, Bob came up and talked to one of the people who appeared before the hearing and I was introduced to him and briefly talked to him. I have now met the two greatest living Australians; Jack Mundey and Bob Brown.

In terms of the sedition provisions removed, we have the support of the Greens, Democrats and a growing number of Liberal Backbenchers. The ALP? That don’t seem to give a fuck about it. Useless bastards they are.

Currently I am reading a book called "The Emerging Police State" a series of speeches given by a Jewish American lawyer who ought for a free, open and just society.

In a speech given in 1971 he says things that are so relevant to Australia today given the bills the government is trying to pass:

"You have no claim – and when I say you I mean all of us – have no claim that we are better or more righteous people than any other people on earth. That we have better instincts, that we’re finer human being, we’re all the same. When the fright’s grown and you permit it to grow, you too will tolerate any indecency, if you are afraid enough….

I think that this issue of violence on your part or the part of the other groups or individuals I mentioned is being used politically and ethically to destroy; to bring about a situation in which all governmental policies, all of the system’s excesses, will pass without opposition, first subtly, and then not so subtly. And there is a chance that at some time, somewhere in the future, we will suddenly wake up one sad and tragic morning and hear those same boots at the door that the Germans began to hear after 1934, and say to ourselves "My God, did it happen? Where did we go wrong? Why can’t we fight back?" By then it’s much too late, and then it’s all gone and you and I may have to live out another nightmare until it comes right again. That should not happen to human being….

You have to ask yourselves without becoming overly frightened or overly hysterical – if it can happen there, it can happen here. If one nation can go mad, so can another. But it doesn’t come overnight. It is not a sudden climatic epidemic sickness. It is the accumulation of the loss of bits of freedom everywhere that suddenly bring that strange and tragic morning I referred to."

He also says something else that I truly believe:

" I guess what I am trying to say, with as much earnestness as I can muster, is that the only life worth living is one which is devoted to the welfare of others. Everything else – the earning of daily bread, the satisfaction of individual ego, the attainment of personal goals – must remain avocation rather than vocation. Only then can the lasting nature of human interdependence be understood and affirmed."

I really do believe this and have for over 10 years now. Who knows, as I get older, or if I develop family responsibilities this may change. However (and here is where I will tie in the two strains of this post) with the woman referred to earlier in the post I don’t think this will happen, because she seems to share the same belief. And this is why in such a short period of time she has got me hook, line and sinker.

POLITICS AND OTHER THINGS

After working three straight days of at least 12 hours (12 on Wednesday, 14 on Thursday, 13 on Friday) and having to get up early on Saturday to go to and speak at a protest outside Villawood Detention centre, I was, for want of a better expression, totally fucked by Saturday afternoon. So much so that I went to sleep at 5pm Saturday afternoon and didn’t get up until after 9am Sunday morning. However on Sunday morning I woke up feeling very refreshed and ready to face the world again.

Now in a previous post Mr : Watermelon said:

"How exactly did this blog go from harsh political commentary to soapie?"

and you know what? He has a point. Thus while I was going to do a post in response to a tag this lady I will put this off again and will take this opportunity to explain to this lady what Anarcho-Syndicalism is , while starting off with my analysis of the political parties in Australia I used to comment on this lady’s blog.


However before going onto this a few house-keeping matters:

* The woman (you should all know which one) sent me a text message on Friday apologising for not replying sooner and indicating she still wants to "catch up". Is she still interested? Who knows (or who cares some of you may be thinking). We will see. I think I’ll leave the ball in her court now.

*AOF and Guru, I have to be down in Melbourne definitely for Friday the 25th of November. I have a few other things to do in Melbourne, but I’m not too sure if they will be before or after Friday. Once I’ve decided I will let you and everybody else know; if you want to be regaled with my stories of run-ins with the police and right-wing arseholes for political activities people, let me know.

*Justine, yes I have seen the Dinner Game. In fact it was one of the first movies I brought on DVD. However the ultimate anti-wine movie for me is "Sideways". I’m sorry, I find it hard to feel sorry for the main character given he is a major wine drinker. If it wasn’t for his love of wine I would feel so sorry for him; as it is I feel like tipping the bottles of wine over his head.

* Susanne, to me "Donnie Darko" (DD) and "Edward Scissorhands" (ES) both deal with Teenage alienation; the idea that as a teenager you feel that you hurt the ones you love. In ES Edward literally hurts those people he "touches", people he cares about. In DD, Donnie feels responsible for the death of his girlfriend, because it is he who dragged her to where she was run over. As he says to his mother "how does it feel having a fuck-up for a son?". They also both deal with something that can result from this alienation; teenage suicide. In ES, Edward "disappears" forever to escape the world that he feels (in some ways rightly) hates him. In DD, Donnie "sacrifices" himself for the good of his loved ones. Another thing both movies have in common is their belief in the bigotry that lies beneath the surface of white middle America. In ES, the dull, mindless, white middle class neighbourhood harbours a reservation to Edward and quickly turn on him when a problem arises because he is not one of them. In DD, Donnie’s Parents openly support George Bush (Senior) even though his election campaign was out and out racist, playing on the fear that African-Americans in White middle class America.


Now, my lead in to what Anarch-syndicalism is about is an analysis of the political parties in Australia.

The Liberals; They are pure evil. Their main philosophies are to steal from the poor to give to the rich and that the rich not only have the right to exploit the poor, but that it is the duty of the government to help them do this. They also believe that unless you are a rich, white, Anglo with Fascist leanings, then you are an inferior being whose life is expendable.

The Nationals: They are pure evil too and essentially believe the same thing as the Liberals, except when it comes to farmers. They view farmers as the most noble people on earth, no matter in-bred or how many sheep they have molested. In fact they believe you are not a real farmer unless you are in-bred and molest sheep.

The Australian Labor Party; A strange creature. Most of the parliamentary party and secretariat believe the same things as the Liberals, but the rank and file (ordinary members) and some of the parliamentary party believe the exact opposite. Thus they are a conflicted party that spend more time fighting one another than attacking the government.

One Nation, Australian Against Further Immigration etc: Pure stupidity AND pure evil. They hate Asians and "Ethnics" even though they have never come across any of them. Similarly they hate books and cans of deodorant. They also hold similar views on farmers as the Nationals.

Family First/Christian Democrats: These are religious fundamentalist parties like Al-Queda, except they are Christian fundamentalists. Like Al-Queda they choose obscure lines from the scriptures to justify their bigotry and hate, while ignoring the other 99% of the scriptures that preach love and tolerance of all people. However they are worse than Al-Queda because they also worship at the altar of the almighty dollar and thus support the Liberals economic policy.

Democrats: They often make up their policies as they go. They like to consider themselves socially progressive while being "fiscally responsible"; that is tight arsed economic rationalists. What they fail to realise (or ignore) is that economic rationalism causes social problems, and as such can’t be separated. Thus at times they can appear good; opposing mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and the anti-freedom, I mean anti-terrorism bill. At other times they mimic the Liberals economic policy, eg the GST and the Workplace relations act.

The Greens: A party committed to the equality of all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, social origin etc. Their economic policies are based on the humane ideal that nobody should have more than they need when others are living in poverty.

Anarcho-sydnicalists: They are not actually a party, because they believe the state is the ultimate evil, and as such they cannot participate in it. They hold the same ideals as the Greens, but they believe that this can only be achieved by direct action from working people. All anarcho-syndicalysts are extremely noble and intelligent people.

As the good old Wikipedia says:

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement, hence the "syndicalism" qualification. Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and most forms of private property, which leads to class divisions. The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

1. Workers’ solidarity
2. Direct Action
3. Worker’s Self management.


However Wikipedia then says:

Some Anarcho-Syndicalists believe that only direct action — that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position — will allow workers to liberate themselves.

In reality, all true Anarcho-Syndicalists believe that only direct action will allow worker’s to liberate themselves. This is what separates them from Marxists/Communists with whom they share some similar views.

Marxists/Communists believe in the need for a "revolutionary vanguard", a political party that will lead the revolution and participate on some level in the political process. For Anarcho-syndicalists this is a heresy; by having an established political party you become part of the state you are trying to overthrow, and by having a party structure, you have a hierarchy which is supposed to be eliminated in a classless society. Thus this is contradictory to, and an impediment to eliminating the state.

The other main area of difference is the arrangement after a revolution. For Marxists/Communists there is the need for the state to be maintained initially via a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which will eventually cause the state to wither away. For Anarcho-Syndicalists, the state must be abolished immediately, otherwise the "dictatorship" will become entrenched and never relinquish power.

YGWIN you referred to me as a "Pinko", though in a nice way. The term "Pinko" was initially used to refer to somebody with Marxist/Communist "sympathies", a "watered down" version of red, the colour traditionally associated with Communists/Marxists. However I don’t have Marxist/Communist sympathies; I have Anarcho-Syndicalist sympathies, whose "political colours" are red and black. Thus you should refer to me as the Grey Pinko, YGWIN.

Well, I think that’s all for now. For those of you who made it to the end, Well done!

THE SHAPE OF THINGS

People, I owe you an apology. I know I should have posted earlier, but unfortunately I didn’t feel up to it, and I am snowed under with work and refugee work.

Well, late on Thursday afternoon, I received an SMS from her asking if I could come over another day. If someone had of punched me in the stomach or kicked me in the groin then I could not have felt worse. I SMS’d her back saying to let me know whenever is good for her. So far she hasn’t. On Monday I SMS’d her asking how the assignment was going; I’ve received no response.

I realise she is probably very busy with her assignment, but it doesn’t look good. Which leads me to ask; what is wrong with me? I mean, we seem to have so much in common, and she seems like such a thoroughly nice and decent person. Am I that hideous, because that is the only conclusion I can reach. Who knows maybe she will contact me soon, but I am not holding my breath. I like the woman, but I don’t feel up to contacting her again and being made to feel like shit.

On top of that, I am snowed under with work (8;30pm and still at work), much of which revolves around opposing the sedition provisions of the Anti-terrorism bill, and the draconian IR legislation, as well my usual things demanding humane treatment of refugees outside of work. What a great fucking world, country and society we live in.

In one of those strange coincidences, of those few people who read this blog, most of you are from Melbourne. After 6 months of putting it off, I will be down in Melbourne for work; people look out for the sad, hideous figure, who seems to have lost the last vestige of his sanity; that will be me.

LOVE LIFE UPDATE

Thank you all, ladies and gentleman for the advice and encouragement. I should say that I am more of a reader than a writer; thus please don’t feel snubbed if I don’t respond to your comments immediately; it may take a few days (I have responded to your comments on my last post).

Taking on the advice from some of you, I put into action a fourth plan. Talking last Friday, I found out that she has recently begun to like I band that I also like and have a number of CDs of. Thus I decided I would burn copies of them, call her up and ask her if she would like me to drop it off at her place.

After 3 hours of trying to pick up the phone and call her, I finally settled the butterflies in my stomach and called her. I told her I burned the CDs for her and asked her if she would like to drop them around her place in the next day or two. She said she would like that.

We then proceeded to talk for the next hour on her job, my job and the general state of society. This is a good sign isn’t it? I Should also mention that in our conversations, 60% of the time it is her talking, 40% of the time it is me talking; ask anybody who knows me, this is unheard of, me letting someone else dominate the conversation. She also apologised in advance for the state of her apartment and her own state given she is focusing on her assessment. Again, this is a good sign isn’t it?

Well, tonight I go around to her place to drop the CDs off. Here’s to hoping it goes well.