On 9/2/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/2/07, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Granted what you say about conspiracy theory vs. a structural theory, > Jim, I > > still don't see Monbiot's conspiratorial "lean". A newspaper column is > > inevitably more reductivist than a book or even an essay. > > absolutely. But we don't want to pretend that the neoliberals were a > snake that entered the Garden of Eden, causing a Fall. Rather, there > were problems with the political economy of the 1960s and 1970s that > created an opportunity for the neolibs.
I know one prominent local labour leader who talks as if the 1970s were a golden age -- all would be well if we could just return to the policies of the twilight years of the Keynesian-Fordist regime. > I think the more > > interesting question your criticism raises is just how does one account > > simultaneously for both human agency and impersonal historical forces? > > good question. The way I see it is that historical forces and > structures only create opportunities, not specific results. In October > 1917, the mess in Russia created a possibility for the Bolshies to > step in, but it was far from inevitable that they would win at that > point (or that they would hold state power for so long or that they > would deteriorate politically). In the 1970s, some major change in the > political economy of the US and other rich countries seemed > inevitable. But the specifics of what that the change would be were > not inevitable. The "malaise" could have continued. Or there could > have been a revival of the left... > > One problem with this kind of analysis (as Isaac Deutscher pointed > out) is that _whatever actually happened_ always tends to seem > "inevitable" after the fact. > This take me back to my favored mode of narrative analysis. The seeming inevitability after-the-fact arises from the fact that we can write the history of what did happen as a particular kind (genre) of story. However, what was a comedy from one person's perspective may be a tragedy from another's. And conformity with any givenr genre depends on what end points one uses to frame the narrative. A tale from the Huai-nan Tzu illustrates this, It was retold by Stephen Mitchell in a note to his translation of the Tao te Ching: "A poor farmer's horse ran off into the country of the barbarians. All of his neighbors offered their condolences, but his father said, "How do you know that this isn't good fortune?" After a few months the horse returned with a barbarian horse of excellent stock. All his neighbors offered their congratulations, but his father said, "How do you know that this isn't a disaster?" The two horses bred, and the family became rich in fine horses. The farmer's son spent much of his time riding them; one day he fell off and broke his hipbone. All his neighbors offered the farmer their condolences, but his father said, "How do you know that this isn't good fortune?" Another year passed, and the barbarians invaded the frontier. All the able-bodied young men were conscripted, and nine-tenths of them died in the war. Thus good fortune can be disaster and vice versa. Who can tell how events will be transformed?" -- Sandwichman
