In the book, Hoffman describes in pretty solid detail multiple scams you can run to both stick it to the man and live for free. Some ideas are harmless and still in use today, like dumpster diving for food. There is a tremendous amount of food waste in this country and that hasn't changed since the writing of this book. While most would be really grossed out by the ideas that Hoffman suggests regarding food, I know that there are tons of "freegans" who live and subsist on the ideas Hoffman presents here. I would also add that they do this in a completely legal way. More about that later. While some ideas are harmless, others are outright theft and indeed, are calls for violence. Neither of which I agree with.
From food, to housing, to medical care, to travel, to use of dope (growing, buying and selling) to even entertainment and self defense, Hoffman covers quite a bit. Overall, this is a handbook of sorts for how to live in "the nation" of individuals who have rejected the principles of the United States of America and he constantly uses the spelling of Amerika for dramatic effect and of course, uses the term pig to describe the police. In passing, Hoffman touches on what it means to be part of "the nation", but perhaps by design, stays away from making the book an overt protest statement. You can feel a theme of course, but I also imagine that there was a prevailing attitude that if you don't get it, you don't belong in the scene.
While reading the book, I couldn't help but appreciate the stick it to the man attitude of some of the scams. Considering that probably 80% of the scams would not work today, they seemed almost quaint to me and as such, entertaining to read about. Today, there are "freegans" who live completely on what society throws away and while they probably reject our wasteful and oppressive society as much as Hoffman did then, they are not all seeking to bring an anarchist agenda to the rest of us. Some surely are, many are not. Later in the book, Hoffman discusses how to make bombs and use violence and that is when the book stopped being entertaining for me. I reject the violence.
Overall, I found a theme in Hoffman's words that echos what I hear from some groups today. He felt there was a relentless, oppressive tyranny that needed to be fucked with and ultimately laid to waste. He saw no separation between big business and government and as such, both were targets as were the pigs on the street who protected the establishment. Today, we have the Tea Party and the rhetoric I hear is the same. While the Tea Party types have yet to pull off the bombings of the weathermen, the constant rhetoric of watering the tree of liberty sounds a lot like what I absorbed reading this book. As time goes by, I keep feeling like the spirit, tactics and even language of the 60's radicals is being absorbed wholesale by many on the right.
Personally, reading this book made me realize I would not have made the grade as a true radical in the 60's. A central theme that has arisen in my life is that I reject concentration of power and oppression and believe that there should always be a counterbalance that keeps those in positions of power from establishing a comfortable and insulated base. This is why I can find plenty of areas of agreement with just about anyone regardless of their political views. On that score, I agreed with the spirit of what Hoffman was trying to do in writing this book. Still, at the point where you embrace violence, you become an oppressor. I believe we can do much better as a society.
Comparing the Weathermen to the Tea Party is a leftists wet dream.
ReplyDeleteWell, I appreciate that you read the whole thing. I don't suspect the Tea Party will ever pull off bombings, but the rhetoric is beginning to sound the same to me. Hoffman calling the police fascist pigs versus you calling me a communist is rooted in a similar belief, namely that the insult throwing believes they have the "real" truth and the rest of us are little minds who just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteIn a Saul Alinski way, the radical right has learned from the mistakes of the radical left in the 60's. Rather then attacking from the outside, they are instead electing candidates who are essentially blowing up the system from within while staging theatrical revolts like voting endlessly to repeal the ACA. The left radicals of the 60's were not without some degree of sympathy for what they were saying, and so it is for the tea party as well.
A point you will disagree with me on forever is that I ultimately believe that most people eventually tire of rigidity. The tea party admirably is attacking entrenched power in Washington, but as we see with your posts on GMO's, they just want to move the power base from Washington to corporate board rooms.
Your reference to the Tea Party being radical has some merit. That is if you consider the Founders to be radicals. If that's your point, I'm in agreement. To compare the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground or the OWS crowd is a sad joke.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your continuous attack on corporations I must remind you that we have the right of free association. Jefferson's thought was based on scientific method and he would have wholeheartedly supported the improvement of life, and the pursuit of happiness resulting from modern methods derived from peer reviewed efforts.
Who are the reactionaries here?
"As far as your continuous attack on corporations I must remind you that we have the right of free association."
DeleteA free association, but apparently not a right to an informed association. I don't have a fundamental problem with what you are saying about Jefferson, but the reality of the real world William is that all markets are irrational and frequently driven by emotion. Remember the tech bubble? Your belief, as I interpret it, is that you don't believe science has proven GMO's to be unsafe, therefore, we don't have a "right" to make a conscious choice not to consume them. This completely flies in the face of much of what you preach.
The early Teas and the OWS crowd had more in common than you will ever accept. Through graft and crookery, the banking cartel has done far more damage to this country then any fifty social programs combined. And for a short while, the Teas rebelled against such a concentration of power. And then they were bought. There are the foot soldiers spreading the truth, and then there is the money.
Radicals of all stripes are needed, IMO. Someone needs to constantly be a chafing force against consolidation of power. The founding fathers were radicals as far as the monarchy was concerned. They were not radicals when it came to slavery or seeing women as equals. Instead of a single white dude king, they spread the power out a little further to a bigger collection of white dudes. In some ways, they were no less oppressive.
Like most radicals, purity seems important to the tea party. What you see as purity, I tend to see as insufferibility and more then a little inconsistency. Radicals are kind of like Moses, they are catalysts and lightening bolts who possibly help break up power, but are not invited to the table to create something new. Nonetheless, the world needs them like a forest needs an occasional fire to create a scorched earth and start anew.
IMO, violent radicals (and money) have destroyed the Kennedy left that Gotta spoke of on another thread. Now, the Democratic party is as owned by money as the right. On this score, you know that you and I are in lockstep agreement and likewise on the damage the Fed has caused. The Tea Party, is now shredding the Republican party the way 60's radicals destroyed the credibility of the left. This is not an entirely bad thing. I don't fault you William for your respect and admiration of the founding fathers or for being magnetized by free market thinking. Where I fault you is in believing that you or the tea party are the guy with one eye in the land of the blind.