Mygod! This is getting tedious.
> 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.
Please go back and look at the original context of this remark. This is in
response to the implication that NOTHING can be done. It was meant as
humor. And the reorganization of society on a massive scale does not
preclude taking action in the meantime. And I have categorically NEVER
stated that it does. Not even here.
>
> 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.
>
Was the argument that this remark responded to--and if too sharply, I gladly
apologize--or was it not, that this impending apocalypse should be addressed
through individual responsibility and motivated by guilt?
> 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
IN fact, as a Leninist, I have to say that without the existence of a
genuine revolutionary conjuncture, there is no possiblity of anything except
restructuring. That said, the questions then become, for me, can anything
short of revolution deal with the magnitude of what we are discussing here?
Will such a conjuncture happen, where and how? Are we consciously preparing
to take advantage of it if it does? I organize around restructuring all the
time, and have pointed that out several times, only to be castigagted by the
ultra-left for not being revolutionary enough.
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.
>
Who said restructuring is impossible? Capitalism has restructured again and
again. The question remains, can restructuring capitalism--which will go
down the toilet with everything else when all is said and done--provide us
with the focus, political will, and conscious exercise of power necessary to
salvage anything and secure some kind of decent future? I have neard no
evidence yet to suggest it can.
> 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.
A interacting and reproductive reflection of the problem is more accurate.
It ain't
> nonsense. But I have been down the pathway of trying to explain that to
> made-up minds before, to no avail.
Nonsense again! The fact that I am on this list is the result of a quantum
shift in my own thinking.
You are comfortable with invoking
> individual pathology as a symptom and component of capitalist behavior;
It's not that simple, and this arbitrary division of nature-nurture,
social-individual, et al, is precisely part of the problem here. You are
trying to reduce what I have said to fit in with the categories of your own
narrative, as the PMs would say.
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"?
I suppose there is. Don't know. But most attitudes are not fomred through
persuasion. They are formed by experience, including the experience of
being subjected to dominant class categories, definitions, and paradigms,
and including class experience. The class experience of the petty
bourgeoisie, for example, like many people I know in Chapel Hill, an
academic community, is to assume that because THEY can choose which handles
to grab and not grab that everyone else has that choice. A Haitian peasant
can KNOW that burning charcoal to cook is destroying her environment. But
at this point in time, her choice is to not eat or to burn charcoal.
>
> 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.
It's not linear. And this is again putting words in my mouth. I am saying
that the challenge before us is of revolutionary proportions. And I am
saying that simply coming up with policy fantasies without figuring out how
we get there from here, and without taking a real account of where the power
is, is peurile.
> (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.
>
What capitalists? What things? Be concrete. Name ten CEOs who we can
appeal to, and tell me what we will appeal to them for, and then explain to
me what leverage we have if they refuse. Get specific, and I'm there.
> 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
Ditto
Stan
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
