On 2012-11-26, at 5:48 PM, Julio Huato wrote: > Marv wrote: > >> Carrol's argument would have more weight if there were still a mass workers' >> movement as there once was. > > […] > > Actually, I agree with Carrol on this one. There are plenty of OWS > working groups and other activist organizations still very active... > a significant amount of work in them consists of staring at a screen > (e.g. writing emails, replying to them, doing research, skyping, > etc.), I would be willing to stretch the definition a little and > accept critical, *constructive*, informative, and relevant (by > community standards) participation on lists like PEN-L as a sort of > local activism.
You might be jumping to agreement too quickly, Julio. Carrol would not describe casual participation on the Pen-L list as a form of left-wing political activism. Nor does he consider radical intellectuals who speak out but aren't involved in local grouplets like the one he belongs to in Bloomington to be part of the left. Reread his post. Your approach is inclusive; Carrol's is sectarian. He has been banging on about this for a long time. I tried to indicate that the problem is an objective, historical one, and not attributable to the moral failings of left-wing intellectuals. Were there mass socialist parties based in the working class contending for political power, they would inspire, attract, and organize wider numbers of intellectuals as they once did. OWS points in this direction, and has drawn in students, young workers, and aging radicals who had been previously inactive. My reply to Carrol wasn't meant to discourage others from becoming involved in the movement like yourself who are helping it develop, only to propose why this wasn't happening in greater numbers. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
