From: "David B. Shemano" I know you all are not going to believe me, but I am really not trying to score cheap debating points. I have no stake in the game and it matters not one whit to me whether Samuel Gompers is on the Left or the Right, or Mussolini was on the Left one morning and woke up on the Right the next. I truly am trying to understand a phenomena for no other reason than my intellectual curiosity.
^^^^^ CB: I certainly give you credit for agitating ( in the good radical, left sense) the list into an interesting thread. ^^^^ I am intellectually curious, for example, why, for example, Chavez has a greater personal affinity for Ahmadinehad and Mugabe than he does for George Bush, ^^^^ CB: That's not that hard to answer, but you have to , only for the sake of discussion, accept for a moment the important left concept of imperialism ( and neo-colonialism), basically founded in Lenin book by that name. Bush was a leader of the main imperialist country in this period, and Chavez, Ahmadinehad and Mugabe are leaders of three of the main targets of imperial displeasure, shall we say, because of their "disobedience" to imperialist dictat. So, in this case, the "personal" is political. ^^^^ and why, for example, the usual Leftist would point to Cuba as a preferable social system than to say, Singapore, and why, for example, ^^^^ CB: Well, if you don't, again for the sake of discussion, just for a moment understan _some_ of what we leftists have been saying defines being left ( even if there end up being some inconsistencies), everything _will_ remain a curiosity to you. I can't believe that after all this discussion you don't get why most leftists see Cuba as more left than Singapore. Cuba is openly declared it is building socialism, and significantly succeeding at it. As far as I know, Singapore is capitalist with no intention of moving to socialism. Again, roughly speaking left is defined as pro-socialist, pro-working class and right is defined as pro-capitalism and capitalists. This is especially true in assessing international issues. That really is the root of the concepts, and all these other "axes" lead to more confusion than clarification, at least on Cuba and Singapore. ^^^^^ if you tell me your position on Israel I could predict your position on Honduras, and on and on. I am not interested AT ALL in discussing the merits of any of this. I am much more interested in thinking about and understanding the underlying root assumptions, ideologies, beliefs, etc. that give rise to the phenomena, not taking any simple explanation for granted, and asking why, why, why. ^^^^^ CB: Fair enough, professor. And what else are we going to do on an email list. You have generated a good thread with why, why , why . ^^^^^ Living in West LA, I have the intellectually fascinating experience of living in a community of individuals who would not for a Republican if their lives depended on it, but are very "conservative" and traditional in their personal lives. They are successful, entrepeneurial, etc. -- people who are the natural base of the Republican party in much of the country. Such people are usually incapable of rationally explaining why they would not vote for a Republican, usually mumbling something about abortion or the religious right if pressed. I find such things inherently interesting. David Shemano ^^^^^^^ CB: Yep, interesting. why don't you delve into it a little more, ask them more questions. Sounds like they might not be that "conservative" in their personal lives, maybe ? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
