Pharmakon wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:01 pm
NAMBLA's successes, its failures, and the strategies it pursued need to be understood in the context of the activism of the 1970s and the broad social reaction against that activism that took hold in the decades that followed. All of this can be most simply termed the Reagan-Thatcher revolution.
A good analysis of the transition from this era to the one we remain mired in today is Michael Hardt's
The Subversive Seventies. Hardt (who avoids focusing on Reagan-Thatcher and electoral politics, in part because he sees this as a global phenomenon) develops the concept of the "end of mediation" to illustrate how the gains of the postwar decades were rolled back or redirected into avenues that did not threaten ruling elites.
Looks like something I should study...for the global side of things. Myself, I have long promoted Chomsky's "Media Control" speech as being especially illuminating, as he demystifies elite alienated belief systems and ideology, though focused on the US. He discusses it as 'roll-back' as well, and brings attention to Big Business groups like the Trilateral Commission for suddenly bringing Big Funding to empower interests not viewed as being much of a threat (i.e. funding what were called the "radical" feminists and their reactionary hatefulness towards "all" men).
As for NAMBLA, my experience with the leadership was that of an uncritical
patriarchal form, owing to how most of them were really just a bunch of middle-manager types, not known for much critical awareness on topics beyond the liberal/conservative pseudo dichotomy. Subversive? Hah! They worked overtime to suppress subversive elements, in my limited experience (albeit after they had already been sent reeling from f.b.i. raids and media hysteria promotion).
I think NAMBLA was seen as patriarchal by the Left and its many intuitive-oriented women, as well. Just in the "norms" they went with (i.e. making sure to wear ties and present themselves in ways that the intelligentsia could identify with; inspired by writers such as Charlotte Ryan's suggestions (and her book "
Prime Time Activism") for dealing with Big Media. But very very naive! (or very very elite?) Not having any serious-seeming understanding of the truth that the intelligentsia (at least in the elite realm) VERY WELL
already knew what they were doing by enforcing the scapegoating of yet another unprepared group (in the context of the continuing "Parade of Enemies" as Chomsky would say) so that they could have Their Way (while strategically betraying a relatively weak group!).
The old liberal idea of "Speaking Truth to Power" naivete comes to mind. "Useful" in some ways, but for whom?? Such things escaped the leadership entirely! But, of course, they found themselves "between a rock and a hard place", and naturally went with how they had been so-called "educated" (since when does "higher" education give meaningful keys to tear itself down??).
NAMBLA was only subversive in the most superficial of ways, in my view. Again, a limited experience with them, tho I continued working with some of them for many years on another project and relationship. But these leaders certainly fit snugly in the stereotype of the patriarchy!! And all of their media and organization very much reflects this! (And a big reason why I initially left!)
Look, you folks wanted a deep analysis, so i'm giving you what i recall.
NAMBLA was one of many groups that at the end of the 1970s sought to sustain the subversive momentum that had seemed for about three decades to herald real change. The marginalization of NAMBLA was in many ways a fate suffered by nearly all these groups.
All of whom were organized and controlled by patriarchally-challenged "well educated" elites! (Except for the Indianner Kommune which was MUCH more actually subversive!)
NAMBLA's agenda was perhaps more subversive than that of most such groups,
Okay, I suppose if you count their many public marches! But even then, the leadership exerted a lot of pressure to conform to their chosen passive tact (something they would not open-endedly discuss with the membership!). For instance, i recall clearly wondering why "we" didn't try to really challenge the masses we passed during our marches, THE ONE TIME we could reach the without secretive editing (i.e. on TV talk shows) and other hostile mediation!! Instead we were to keep silent. But we in the membership KNEW we were taking our lives into our own hands, and thus NEEDED to at LEAST TRY to speak our angry minds!!
One tact, for sure; but benefiting whom?
I suppose many were already "burned out" by that time? Already numbed to what was happening? Already overwhelmed? And yet, they all continued to stress this passive approach; so middle class or even upper class of them! Not trusting or even comprehending proletarian anger at being LIED ABOUT!
Their whole format, right down to the way they designed the Bulletin fit that pacifist construct to a "T". And when still-idealistic upstarts like me showed up, the leadership thought nothing of engaging in character assassination-type bullshit! Paternalistic, sure. And very disrespectful, even if merely a reflection of the cynicism they faced.
They simply could not comprehend, i think, the anger of the VICTIMS of the patriarchy, and thus the masses judged them to be no different from the Epsteins of today! --These INTERNALIZED VALUES that are likely STILL not adequately interrogated in our movements --is what blocked their chance to REACH SOMEBODY more meaningfully, and STOP THE BUILDING MOMENTUM! But of course, their elite educations (in the leadership) DID identify with the patriarchy, and thought such an approach WOULD "work". And certainly "lacked the Nerve" to even explore hotheaded responses, or even creative ones!
Like the idea i had that we should rent (or borrow) a bunch of horses and join the marches that way, dressed as the heroes we grew up with and looked up to as kids, all while articulating such!! Imagine THAT sort of demonstration of heart-strength!! It would have COMPLETELY CHANGED THE VIBE!
(NOTE: i was no mere critic; i actually began experimenting with and finding profound openings for CONFRONATION in ways that proletarians IDENTIFY WITH! Along the lines of the "mass jiujitsu" that Saul Alinsky discusses in his book
RULES FOR RADICALS
But their analysis was too superficial, like I said before. They didn't seem to see what was coming as far as the intelligentsia goose-stepping on Command (from the elites in "power"). They went thru THE MOTIONS of engaging with the Left (whom were still quite strong in the late 70s) but their hearts were not in it and THAT'S WHY i think people generally remained very very skeptical.
I'm figuring that the way they (and the Dutch groups i explored) thought was akin to world Indigenous groups: Not understanding the Big Picture of neocolonial imperatives, and certainly not calling such out! Just naively Trusting in their "Good Educations"! Well, is it not so???
Now, i DO look forward to being challenged on all of this by those of you whom spent more time around them. Me, i'm STILL "hot under the collar" just remembering that time!
The membership, during the conferences, was different, but they too largely represented the "normal" dumbed-down and deeply-challenged citizenry (so long removed from imaginations beyond the "normative" ideological corrals!). And sure, they passed SOME semi-subversive points in group elections, but like i said, it looked nice in form but in deeper CONTENT i can certainly see why they were dealt with skeptically!
I even had to wonder, later, if they were actually controlled by some kind of c.i.a.-type person, with access to cash or whatever, due to how rife their patriarchal bent was!! i have no proof, but knowing what i know now, i certainly have to wonder!
Bottom line, my idea/ideal of intergenerational solidarity was not theirs! Tho i may be missing some deeper stuff, sure! And i MAY have some unexamined prejudices that could use thoughtful challenge!!
but feminist and Black activism also moved from demanding deep social change to accepting "representation" in the form of language policing and membership in the lower echelons of ruling institutions.
Yes, this was/is, according to my institutional analysis, due to how the Trilateralists, et al, funded the reactionaries, simply because they knew that so-called "radical" femi-fascists would not be nearly as threatening to their designs as, say, the liberation feminists!! Do you understand why?
The most telling sign of this transition was the decline in membership and political influence of labor unions. Instead of trying to buy off the working class, increasingly mobile capital abruptly changed strategies and simply moved production to postcolonial nations where labor was more easily exploitable.
Well, i disagree that this was the "most telling sign". I'd say it's more like Chomsky's institutional analysis brings out: That the mass of angry anti-war sentiments was brought back to Heel, and much of what once was a plethora of many groups (including kids) feeling finally free to participate meaningfully in what they had been Told was their democracy,
was Brought Back to their "proper" place of subordination to The Hallowed 'Oligarchy of Experts' (in turn brandishing their leash-ties to whom-ever would give them the chance to "Just Do Their Jobs" or allow them to keep their privileges!).
In 1979, sex offender registries were still rare and the panics about age gap sex that made "stranger danger" a weapon against us had yet to occur.
Hmm....panics were being fomented already, after all, what did NAMBLA come out of? The Boston-Boise affairs. Are you all aware of much of that? And no, i think these "panics" (which were managed by obedient middle-managers at all levels of Society) started up in big ways as soon as groups like the Trilateralists WANTED them to start. And i think it's closer to 1973, while NAMBLA darling, David Thorstad (now deceased), thought 1975 was the pivotal moment when roll-back truly began.
NAMBLA could not foresee the strength and depth of the erotophobic reaction ahead. If it had voiced more moderate demands, these would not have resonated with boylovers as the positions it actually adopted did, and the group would have been less effective at the thing it did best, organizing our community. And moderate demands would have done nothing to stave off the broad retrenchment that has characterized the last four decades.
I think they COULD have forseen this, had they not actively suppressed all of the truly subversive voices amongst them!! But i suspect many of them were still stuck in the arrogance of their privilege! And how about what history could teach??
i do recall seeking to warn the Dutch activists of Bob Moore's insightful history of the German Jews in WW2. His book,
Victims and Survivors quite well demonstrated how easily the "well educated" German Jew intelligentsia were out-manuvered and duped by the Nazis (including into policing their own, at the police's bidding, only to then be Betrayed, JUST LIKE the Dutch MAP activist leadership, except, at least they weren't outright murdered!)
(On the Dutch foolishness, I clearly recall a Dutch vanguard type threatening my attempts at "radical" discussion with the words that they were actively involved in dialogue with the Dutch police, and that they had no place for the likes of me! And then there was the GL activist lawyer, Lawrence S. --editor of "Uncommon Desires"-- who tried to also warn them --in his book aimed at the Dutch parliament, something like "
Regarding Dutch Law 240b")
Bottom line, thusly, the rabble (a.k.a. "unwashed masses") DID have very good reason to be VERY skeptical towards ALL of these groups. But of course, the way that all of these so-called "well educated" persons were socialized Set Them Up for this state of affairs!!