On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Gar wrote: > In terms of your proposal, I tend to be suspicious of the politics of > personal virtue. I don't think voluntary changes by individuals without > social change can reduce emissions as much as you seem to believe. And I > note that putting too much effort into individual virtue can reduce the > ability to win such change.
Yes, this makes sense. Yet, one can reduce this argument to absurdum and conclude that there's no room for personal initiative, which would make any social struggle impossible. People don't all jump at once. Somebody has to jump first and expose himself to ridicule or worse. These dilemmas are oh so common in the history of the left. By the way (count this a plug), the Left Labor Project is organizing a conversation on left unity in New York City on 6/5/2013. Here's the flyer: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1285/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=351748 For those who are interested in Ellinor Ostrom's work on running the commons, I have come to the conclusion that -- insofar as she proves anything with her highly idiosyncratic but interest models -- is the need for a communist party (or however you may wish to call it). In other words, the need for some individual (or small group of individuals, which sure starts with one individual articulating what is in the minds of others) to take the initiative and go against the grain of her own self-regarding interest. Otherwise, how in hell do we ever create the most elementary social structures of support for our activity (as left)? Gil could say much more than me about this, but without some sort of structure to enforce agreements, no collective action will jell. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
