On 6/19/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is this "rational politics"? who believes in it and what are its tenets?
My employer describes part of 'rational politick' well when I discuss world affairs with him. Essentially, there's nothing he can do about 3/4 million dead Iraqis, so just go on with 'business (and social mores) as usual, and he LIKES IT like that.
Is this simply a straw-man argument?
Yes... and no...
Or are you asserting (without taking responsibility) that I believe in this "rational politics"?
No... I don't know... see the response to 'Be SPECIFIC...".
If so, how is it that anything I say or do "create[s] mass murderers out of a society's individuals"? If so, what kinds of "rationalization & denial" do I engage in?
See previous "No".
Be SPECIFIC rather than dishing out more vague generalizations.
In Hannah Arendts' AND Ward Churchill's terms "...mass murderers out of a society's individuals" are the Eichmanns of which they spoke philosophically or directly. Just parts of the machine, which is also illustrated in my response to Michael Perleman's posting of the cartoon on an IAMAW site <http://www.iamawlodge1426.org/toonville3.htm> ...as currently practiced, their 'union' is part of the 'mass murderous' problem, and has no solutions for American society... just 'bennies' for a microscopic number of it's population IF they don't care about their work's impact on the rest of the world.
Or is this simply an argument that "since everyone else is fucktup, it's okay for 'angry anarchists' to be that way"?
OK.
what crap!
You say... I consider theoretical marxism to be intellectual diarrhea, or constipation. So?
BTW, the "angry anarchist" is not the opposite of the authoritarian despot. They share a tremendous amount.
Yup! ...and it's up to others who believe the world can be a better more humane place to point that out to them... not dun them or vilify. That's why I was never in a 'vanguard' (sneer).
When the "angry anarchist" bombs a bank, it's not the bank-owners that suffer (after all, they have insurance). Instead, it's the depositors and the taxpayers who pay, along with some borrowers who won't be able to get loans. The bank's stock-owners are covered.
No, the "angry anarchist" is simply letting his or her feelings out, imposing any resulting costs on other people. Like the spoiled brat, the "angry anarchist" is dictating to others. It's like the dictator who believes in the value of symbolism but not that of people.
Leigh: There's ALWAYS some way to blow things up.
will there ALWAYS be idiots who believe that blowing things up is a way to solve problems?
Yes... But I'm not one of them. Blowing things up is just one tactic of many at appropriate times and places to solve some SPECIFIC problem. BTW, does burning down a bank contribute to global warming? If LOTS of them burn... Leigh
