Prompt 1:How does Simone Weil define freedom? How does her notion of freedom contrast with
what most people take freedom to be? Do you think that the freedom she describes is something
worth having/practicing? Is it something worth struggling for? Why or why not?
Simone Weil defines freedom as “true liberty”, she states that quote, “True liberty is not
defined by a relationship between desire and its satisfaction, but by a relationship between
thought and action”. Weil is saying that freedom is not something that is not grounded in our
satisfactions and desires, rather it is defined by having our own thoughts and actions and being
able to act upon them. Her notion of freedom is different than what most people take freedom to
be because most of us believe freedom is the ability to chase our desires and satisfactions as we
please but Weil is telling us that freedom is the act of thinking and then acting. The ability to be
able to think about doing an action and then executing it. People take freedom as a way of doing
whatever they want without any restraint. I think the freedom that Weil describes is something
worth practicing because many of us do not view freedom as a thought and an action. It would
give many a different perspective on what freedom is and how Weil intended it to be. I think it is
also something worth struggling for because without the ability to think and act on is something
that should be put above the desires and satisfactions that we associate with freedom. She states
that quote, “Men would then have his fate constantly in his own hands; at each moment he would
forge the conditions of his own existence by an act of mind.” If men were to do what they
thought instead of chasing their desires and satisfactions than they would achieve freedom she
goes on to speak about how desire will lead to nothing and that the chase would be endless.
Prompt 2: In his “Message to the Grassroots,” who does Malcolm X say is truly “revolutionary,”
and who is not? How do the interests and identifications of either party differ? What cautionary
comments does he give about leadership? How might his comments and analysis be related to
our present situation?
Malcolm X speaks at length in his texts about revolutionaries and mentions throughout
that he believes that people who are truly revolutionary are willing to argue for their
communities. Malcolm criticizes those who claim they are revolutionary but seek compromise
with the oppressors. He states that quote, “ How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as
violent as you were in Korea.” Those who are truly revolutionary will be as violent during both
events. Malcolm is calling on those who are not truly revolutionary how they can be accepting
and unaffected by the violence against their own, but against other communities, they are willing
to show their voice. The interest and identifications differ because those who are truly
revolutionary will argue and debate for their communities and for those who are not truly
revolutionary, their interests and self-pursuit will show. Malcolm X speaks cautiously about
leaders who may be loud and may end up causing more harm than good. He states an account of
Martin Luther King and how as he failed to desegregate Georgia he went to California to raise
money through that raising of money there was turmoil. Roy Wilkins then attacked King with
claims about him raising money and not paying it back. He states in an account that quote, “Roy
started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of
them.” This violence that causes would lead to the loss of control of their viewers and spectators.
Maloclms's comments can be related to the situation we have with policymakers where they
claim all the change and fruits if they are elected into office. In situations like these, we should
hold out leaders accountable and makes sure change is enacted.
Prompt 3: Define “dual power” as it is described by Christopher Day. Where historically, and
where today, do “dual power” situations exist? Could “dual power” be a strategy for organizing
in Los Angeles, or at CSULB? Explain
Dual power as described by Christopher Day is met by three criteria quoted from his novel. the
first is that “parallel structures of governance have been created to exist alongside the old state
structures”. Second is that “alternative structures compete against the current state structures for
power”. The third is that the “old state is unable to destroy is unable to crush these alternative
structures for at least for a period of time”. The strength in dual power is given to the people
when they assemble in the masses in assembly. However, Day states that people must understand
and build experience in order to correctly use their true powers for change. He states that quote,
“Without the experience of their own power in more limited contests, it is impossible for large
numbers of people to acquire the confidence necessary to set about building institutions parallel
to the existing power structure.” Fay is explaining how assembling and having a conversation
about change will allow people to learn more about their true potential and capabilities Dual
power could be a strategy for Los Angeles to use, an example would be workers uniting to
protest higher pay. Organizing with the large population of Los Angeles will allow for the
possibility of fully using the ability to assemble to its fullest. Dual power could be a strategy for
organizing in CSULB to allow students to rally and hold strikes against those in authority.
Around campus, within this past year, we have already seen kids assemble to protest for higher
funding for the art department and for women's right to birth control.