I wrote:
>>Stan, you require we "win" some battle with "them"
>>*before* you turn your attention to the apocalypse.
STAN
>I have categorically NEVER stated this.
TOM
Read your words, Stan:
"Even if it's utterly hopeless, because I've known a
few capitalists, and by and large, they are disagreeable people, and it
gives me some personal satisfaction to afflict them in every way possible.
If by some miracle, we win in my lifetime, we will begin seriously to make
a plan for the bioregionalist, advanced organic, socialist reorganization
of society. If not, ..."
If you meant something different, at least acknowledge that one could read
your words to mean you DID categorically state it.
STAN
>My argument with Julien and others
has been that the solution can not be found in restructuring capitalism.
Not the same thing. I currently know and work with a fair number of
environmentalists of various stripes, and consider this part of the
base-building and alliance building that is necessary for efforts on "both
fronts."
TOM:
Apparently you haven't been listening to them if you think that their
efforts can be reduced to "recycling and not flushing everytime". Now THAT's
the same ... er ..."enviro-baiting" stuff you castigate others for doing to
Reds.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you assert that the solution can't be
found by restructuring capitalism, but I seemed to have missed the point
where you a) ever considered any form of restructuring, even if only to
reject it b) explained how restructuring is impossible. This goes back to
the old "put up or shut up" argument, so I will now shut up, myself.
STAN
"Forgive me, but this is nonsense. This reminds me of the diversion of the
struggle for black liberation in my own country during the Cold War, when
racism was redefined as some kind of personal pathology, and the struggle
was de-linked from the anti-colonial struggle. Changing individual
behavior? "
TOM:
Just because you don't LIKE the idea of an individual pathology is not
adequate reason to dismiss it as A component of the problem. It ain't
nonsense. But I have been down the pathway of trying to explain that to
made-up minds before, to no avail. You are comfortable with invoking
individual pathology as a symptom and component of capitalist behavior; it
is self evident that there are individual racists who can be taught
differently; it is equally self evident that we all grab the handles of
capitalism every day -- as *individuals* who could make other decisions.
Isn't there some historical quote about how hearts and minds must be won
from individuals, not "classes"?
You call it nonsense because you haven't investigated it, and I assume you
won't. You are just "labeling". Let's agree to disagree ... right after I
note that anyone who has the memory of the taste of Cheese Flavored Doritos
has SOME individual pathological linkage to capitalism. <smile>
STAN
"Okay, I recycle and I don't flush every time. I don't put pesticides on
the grass behind my house. The net effect in the face of the structural
problem?"
TOM
Insulting, belittling, deliberately disingenuous and unnecessarily
argumentative.
STAN
"I have done no such thing....
TOM:
You just did.
STAN:
You have confused the intent of my statement,
and this comment was in response to what was clearly redbaiting. Defending
oneself from redbaiting is NOT requiring a priori anything. It's demanding
that one's arguments be confronted on their own merits, and not dismissed
as being motivated by a desire for sectarian propaganda."
TOM
Yeah. Of course we agree upon that. I wish that all viewpoints valued that
insight.
STAN
"I'm amazed that someone still beleives I do not share the same goals. Have
I ever once stated that I did not beleive there is a tremendous crisis and
that it necessitates a tremendous response as quickly as humanly possible?
TOM:
Well you are correct there, Stan, as far as you are willing to allow it to
go. You simply don't define "tremendous response" broadly enough, nor
perceive how quick "quickly as possible" must be; and you require the
vanquishment of capitalism before you get started on the broader area.
(Unless you can explain your words I quoted above in some way that leads to
another conclusion. I'm not trying to irritate you unnecessarily.<g>)
It's okay, ... you are certainly not alone in your understanding. Until you
"get it" about the parameters of the response necessary (which -- as Julien
tried to invoke -- includes *some* capitalists doing *some* things *only
they* can do within the next 30 years) the CIA will probably not disappear
you.
STAN
We Reds do not get irritated with disagreements, contrary to popular
belief. What frustrates the hell out of us is being repeatedly
misrepresented.
TOM
Yes, I *do* sympathize. The only thing worse than being misrepresented is
being deliberately misunderstood.
I think this is my last word on this for awhile. (the crowd cheers!) I'll go
back to merely posting URLs. This thread goes nowhere.
Best to you,
tom
"If everywhere the survival of "just one more" species continues to be held
in balance with some local economic advantage, we'll have more and more of
what we already had. Conservation of biodiversity is in the interests of
everyone." -- Julien Pierrehumbert
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
