How does this undermine the validity of whatever it is he said at the show that touched you? ">>>

He is a great performer and storyteller and I'd go see him again if it was doable. But a large part of what he presented at that show was scathing and direct rejection of consumer culture, conformity, salesmanship, consensus reality, etc.. He described a battleground, told stories from it, sweatily testified to the urgency of the matters at hand and then in real life showed himself complicit and participatory.

It isn't what he said that was undermined, it was his persona that was. We seek figureheads, want someone to speak for us in a culture where we are denied. It's a good lesson to learn that it is not that we have to find the right celebrity to enter us by proxy into the discussion, to give us life on the cultural landscape, but to fight that mediated, oppressive culture itself.....and thus enter the fray on our own two feet.


As an aside, what bothers you about a guy leveraging a small degree of notoriety into a medium (cash) by which he can take care of his family? >>>
1. You assume he had mouths to feed. He didn't.
2. I know about compromise, even complicity being part of the hard grist of survival especially for those supporting others: You got rent to pay, maybe two little ones to feed and clothe, winter coming, heat to keep on, fuck all nobody that really gives a shit about you and it's only Hormel fucking "Foods" that's hiring at the packing plant. Maybe if you are lucky, you can eventually get a day shift so you can see your children in the light of day.
THAT is a hard road. THAT is suffering. That is "taking care of your family." Fuckhead rockstar with options and no callouses on his hands can go fuck himself. What does he know about pain, about hard choices, about no choice at all?
3. To be a spokesman goes even further than "making a deal with the devil" - you assume the voice of the beast, let it speak through you, be you , whatever *you* there might be left at that point. It quite concretely is 'shooting yourself in the face.' At least our hypothetical figure at Hormel above isn't parading around in a Sir Spam-A-Lot costume yapping about how he lovers his shit situation.


Now on a slightly different tack, let me ask you a similar question: Would it bother you if a somebody leveraged whatever advantage they had with the state Correctional Officers Association to land a job as a prison guard so he/she couldtake care of his family?

"How does this undermine the validity of whatever it is he said at the show that touched you?"

it seems incredibly superficial to make a "career" posing as an angry rebel (with a very well-groomed, rugged image to boot!), making a fairly decent living as a rock star, writer, actor, and tv personality, that then turns around and does a fashion advertisement for a massive clothing chain that is well-known to operate sweat shops, etc, etc. That turns his message into a really shallow, scripted, rehearsed put-on. It takes his rebellious "question authority" message, turns it into a shtick, a gimmick, and ultimately changes its meaning to "the *image* of rebelling against authority is a way to make money". And that completely undermines the validity of his message.

Groucho - why on earth would you be put off by "noobs"? If someone new to the subject of anarchy (or someone whose idea of it was gleaned from the Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedys) pops in here, it demonstrates that their brain is switched on and they are in "learn mode". Why be pissed off just because they only have a superficial understanding of anarchism?

To my mind, this is especially important considering that anarchism is a broad philosophy that has various sub-groups within it - from the collectivist to the individualist strains - many of whom vehemently disagree with each other on critical points.

Definitely not saying anything that I'm not saying.

Leadership is vital and useful - hierarchy (in my opinion) is unnecessary at least and deadly toxic on average. Playing a status game in which I am responsible for what you do is - by me - thunderously disastrous from the logistical all the way to the philosophical.

Rather than mystify the point with excess commentary, I would rather sit back and wait for an explanation. Like groucho I find almost no positive relationship to anarchism in Evan's points - they seem, in fact, polemical. I want to get a clear explanation before I oil up the machete.

A lot more, yes - thanks!

When put in a leadership role my tendency is toward "My fault" and "these are the people you should be thanking, right here" so in that sense we're probably on the same page. In corporate hierarchy, in my experience, the tendency is precisely the reverse.