"Liberal." Imagine everyday political discourse without recourse to this all-convenient label. You can’t!
I used to detest labels. Still do. They’re shortcut to thinking, given to stereotyping, and generally speaking, demeaning when referencing this individual or that. Some of them, however, I recently found out, are useful, alas, indispensable. One of them is the term “liberal.” Imagine everyday political discourse without recourse to this all-convenient label. You can’t!…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Cannonshop
No, Zing, I haven't forgotten that. I would like you to possibly consider, just for a moment, mind...what it would be like, if EVERYONE had the same opportunity to send their kid to a school of THEIR CHOICE rather than being stuck with the choice of some bureaucrat.
What if, just what if, a parent living in, say, some shitty inner-city hell-pit could send their kid to a better school, one that isn't infested with gangs, where there maybe aren't metal-detectors and strip searches at the doors.
What if?
Now, get this: you can't. They can't, and it's pretty much entirely the fault of the "authorities that know better" that they don't have that choice.
77 - Cannonshop
It's the authoritarian urges of central planners, of GOVERNMENT and its hangers-on, that prevents people from being able to vote with their feet-from choosing where to go, from choosing the schools that work over the schools that are fixtures of the rotting, decaying, crime ridden cesspit inner cities.
78 - zingzing
"What if?"
yes, what if a fantasy world existed where everyone could afford to send their kids to the schools they wanted to? what you're describing is not reality, never has been and probably never will be. every parent would want to send their kids to the best schools. every single one. do you think that would work? no, but you apparently haven't thought that far ahead.
"Now, get this: you can't. They can't, and it's pretty much entirely the fault of the "authorities that know better" that they don't have that choice."
yes, you can and no, it isn't. if people want to send their kids to private school, they can. they are perfectly free to do so. they are also perfectly free to move to a place with better schools. whether they can afford to do so or not is another matter.
school funding is attached to property taxes. therefore, the poor will stay poor and the rich will stay rich. that's fucking reality. should it be? of course not. is it going to change? i doubt it.
but living in a fantasy world isn't going to change anything, so wake up.
79 - Cannonshop
Oh, and something else, Your ideology, it doesn't teach a man to fish, it teaches him to be a victim, your philosophy elevates victimhood to some kind of admirable, noble status, that people are 'entitled' to material things, that they can't depend on themselves, that there are no consequences to their own actions, that it's all some giant conspiracy to hold them down, you teach envy, avarice, and laziness, and above all, your philosophy teaches helplessness.
It CREATES a thousand hungry mouths, but does not teach those mouths to feed themselves.
THAT is the true legacy of the Left Wing. Hungry, lazy, helpess victims identified by neat demograhic charting into constituencies that only serve their masters.
80 - zingzing
"It's the authoritarian urges of central planners, of GOVERNMENT and its hangers-on, that prevents people from being able to vote with their feet-from choosing where to go, from choosing the schools that work over the schools that are fixtures of the rotting, decaying, crime ridden cesspit inner cities."
that's a vast simplification. but that's rhetoric!
81 - handyguy
Cannonshop = all rhetoric, all the time.
82 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
In your argument with zing, did you miss the part about school funding being tied to property taxes, and so the poor schools stay poor and the rich schools stay rich?
And did you miss the part that NO, poor people do NOT have the money to just up-and-move to a place where the schools are better?
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe poor people aren't poor because they're lazy, that there's a LOT more to the issue? Here - EDUCATE YOURSELF. See what has happened since Reaganomics took effect!
Or do you really think the fact that since the advent of Reaganomics, the income of the rich has skyrocketed and the incomes of the middle- and lower-classes has stagnated or fallen is STILL somehow the fault of the liberals and the poor?
Cannonshop, how could such a vast redistribution of wealth - from the poor to the rich - over the past thirty years under Reaganomics somehow be the fault of the liberals and the poor???? Last I recall, we liberals NEVER supported Reaganomics!
83 - roger nowosielski
Cindy, Anarcissie, troll
Some interesting ideas appear to emerge as a result of having opened this topic, ideas no one seems to want to touch with a ten-foot pole. (It's a good sign thus far, and no pun intended, pleaaaaaase.)
Key idea: no representation of the "underclass" -- let's call them "the invisibles" from now on, to cut to the chase -- given our present political system. I'm thinking out loud here, so stay with me.
The conservatives/GOP/etc. often use "anti-poor" rhetoric, and it still resonates with a good proportion of the American public. The Democrats aren't much better, the only difference being, what the Republicans have the guts to say, the Democrats pass over in silence. And this neglect of the "underclass" by either party translates in my mind to a vacuum. Further, since nature abhors vacuum, as the saying goes, it's a blind spot in American politics, a window of opportunity, etc., take your pick, depending on one's POV and what one wants to accomplish.
Now, what I mean by the "invisibles"? It's all those who are chronically unemployed or on unemployment rolls, the students, the seniors, those who have lost their homes because of foreclosure, the homeless, the under-the-table workers and farm workers whether black or Mexican, legal or illegal, men or women, people on general assistance and food stamps, and feel free to add to this list of categories -- all people, in short, who are no longer a vital part of the economic system either as consumers or producers and only marginally a part of the political system (now and then, that is, every four years or so). Which is precisely why they are "invisibles." They're of little or no usefulness insofar as the American business is concerned and only of limited usefulness in so far as the political system it concerned (e.g., during general elections). (See remarks by a commenter named "Handyguy" up the thread.)
Now, here is the interesting part. Whatever the history of the "welfare state" idea and the original conception behind it -- we might have to go to Sweden in the early 1900, if memory serves -- the welfare state has evolved beyond the original purposes for which it may have been designed. To wit, the welfare state has become a machine for cranking out "the invisibles" (a fact not lost of course on the politicians) at an ever-increasing rate (the rate depending of course on how the capitalist system is doing as any point in time, the business cycle(s), etc). Of course given our present economic crisis of global dimensions .-- very few would dispute this characterization any longer), it's a pretty sure bet that the army of the invisibles is bound to grow in close to exponential rates (perhaps I'm exaggerating somewhat, but not by much). These remarks are restricted thus far to the US and all post-industrial economies; except for China and India and other emerging economic powers, most of the Third World has always been and still remains "invisible."
All of the above provides us with a fresh perspective on any number of contemporary events, the Arab spring, for one, and the London riots in particular. With respect to the latter, I have this observation to make. The unprecedented level of outrage against the rioters -- and from all quarters now, mind you: not only the government, conservative at the moment, but ordinary people of all political persuasions, be they Republicans or Democrats, Whigs or Tories, conservative or liberal -- is fueled by the fact that the invisibles have become highly visible, that they dared to rear their ugly head. How dare they, given that the welfare state provides for all their needs? Of course one way of accounting for this volume of outrage is in terms of subconscious, repressed fear -- yes, even from all the "decent folk" who have all along been playing it by the rules, trying "to make it."
There is of course a historical precedent and a parallel at the same time. Think of today's "invisibles" on analogy with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables of late 18th century France. And here is the delicious part and a genius of an idea: the storming of the Bastille by the masses. Why Bastille? Well, whenever an invisible becomes "highly visible," he's become a criminal in the eyes of the authorities and even everyday, decent folk -- for crossing the line! Well, there is no act of greater symbolic significance than that which demolishes the very concept of "criminal," which concept aims at negating the very reality of a revolution. And the storming of Bastille accomplished precisely that. I say there is an object lesson for us here, yes, even today.
Now, I understand that exploiting the spoken-of blind spot/weakness of the American political system by instituting a bona fide representation system on behalf of the invisibles is only a temporary and intermediate type of solution -- for in a sense, it plays into the system which is already in effect and thereby perpetuates it. One might want to look here at the history of the labor movement in England, the formation of the Labor party, and the circumstances which eventually caused the Labor party become co-opted. There may be some important lessons for us here. Even so, I suggest the idea of (political?) representation of the ever-growing army of the Invisibles is worth considering, if only because of an outside chance it may help somehow transform or transcend the existing system. And then, who knows? novel modes of production relations may emerge or be forged anew as a result of a radical shift in power relations.
That's it for now, folks. The comment space is now open (chuckle, chuckle).
84 - roger nowosielski
... not a lost cause for the politicians ...
paragraph 6
85 - Cannonshop
#82 Glenn, my family moved a lot...and I mean a LOT. when I was going to school, I experienced schools with money-to-burn and schools where the textbooks were fifty years old and the buildings were built in the forties.
Guess which ones actually provided education, rather than indoctrination?
It's telling when you move from one state, and a school district supported by a tax-base where there isn't any money, to a district in another state which has computers, the newest books, can afford snappy athletic teams and big, expensive athletic fields...and you end up testing into a higher grade because you're that far in advance of what the locals have been learning.
I went from an area in the 1980s that was predominantly first and second generation Americans and most of my peers spoke spanish at home, to a predominantly white area that classed as 'middle class' and are, accordingly, good liberal types...and tested HIGHER than my peers, with the education I got in a district that had trouble keeping the heat on, had asbestos in the ceilings, and only had two school BUILDINGS to its name.
So I don't buy your money argument.
The difference is Commitment.
It's not the goodies, it's the teaching, or lack thereof.
And I'll stand by my earlier comment on another scale: Your way teaches people to be helpless and dependent, to believe they can't do anything for themselves and that they need Big Brother to do it for them.
AS for the spread of Wealth between Reagan and the present:
Do those numbers account for birth rates, job loss, the destruction of manufacturing, mining, and other 'dirty' job industries in this country? 'cause there were a hell of a lot more oil fields, factories, Mills, and manufacturers in the U.S. in 1980, than there are today, and the number is trending downward-those lost industries represent the best economic opportunities for blue-collar people, people who do not have rich daddies to pay for their college degrees, and most of that job-loss traces right back to the rich, fat asses of the Democratic Party.
Add in that the single highest birth-rates in this country are among people with High School or less educations, and the highest percentage growth is in the lowest tier of economic activity, while the good working-class jobs have been exported or destroyed, and you're GOING to get an increasing wealth-gap.
Period.
It's GOING to happen. When you're running a system that pays single women to have kids instead of abortions, keeps junkies on a subsistence wage from SSI instead of letting them hit bottom, criminalizes huge numbers of people every year for what amounts to victimless crimes, you're going to have an expanding, and incapable of anything but pulling a vote lever underclass.
86 - Cannonshop
Tammit, used the wrong term-today's "Liberals" or "Progressives" aren't in any stretch of the imagination "Liberal", they're Statist/Leftist, or Authoritarian in character, Paternalist in their best form, Stalinist in their worst, but illiberal indeed in their urges, efforts, programmes and policies.
87 - roger nowosielski
Sounds like a schizoid personality, wouldn't you say?
88 - Anarcissie
I think liberalism, from Locke right down to the present, has been if not consistent at least genealogically connected, much as the Christian Church started as primitive Christianity (analogous to classical liberalism) and developed into Catholicism (Democratic Party, social democrats, Welfare statists), Protestantism ('conservatives', 'libertarians') and other sects.
Liberalism is the political philosophy of capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system of liberalism. The central sacrament of both is property. The problem is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least doesn't work smoothly. The rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer, until there is some kind of breakdown and a reshuffling of powers and resources. Everyone wants the good part without the bad part, that is, they want to keep their stuff (and live happily forever after) but as Marx ponted out, 'the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the means of production,' which ironically destabilizes their political and social dominance. Moreover, liberal-capitalist ruling classes seem irresistibly attracted to imperialism, war, plutocracy and kleptocracy, to the point of financial and moral bankruptcy, as we are now observing of the United States. So like everything else, a capitalist polity contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Until then, the poor ye have always with you. The point of the Welfare state is to keep them quiet; otherwise they will be tempted to get up to crimes and other disorderly behaviors, spread disease and unsightly conditions, and so on. I don't know why Welfare is such an issue, unless it runs athwart some deep sado-masochistic need to punish the poor for offending the not-so-poor by being poor. Conceded, the self-righteousness of the Welfarists is almost as repellent as the sadism of the anti-Welfarists.
All of this is of course unnecessary. Human technology and industry have long since provided the means of subsistence without much labor for everyone.
89 - Anarcissie
Oh, in regard to schools, I was just talking with a fellow who has been doing quite well at IBM, six figures and all that, who was schooled almost entirely by New York public schools. It was partly his own choice; he grew up with an antipathy for upper-middle-class pretensions which rendered the elite schools very unpleasant for him. The tendency of elites to send their children to private schools probably has mostly to do not with the efficacy of the schools but with class and race consciousness.
90 - roger nowosielski
Last paragraph -- precisely, we're all overexerting ourselves over nothing because we're still laboring under the old model whereby profit, wealth and riches have to be squeezed out of labor. But saying so and knowing so won't make it go away, Anarcissie. There has got to be constructive solutions, a plan of action, a way of pushing thing over the top.
You do understand that's what defines my concern - understanding must lead to a plan of action.
91 - roger nowosielski
... things ...
92 - roger nowosielski
Well, a city (Brooklyn) college was more than fine as far as my undergraduate education was concerned. NYU and the University of Oregon, more than fine for graduate work. In the process, I've been exposed to the greatest minds in philosophy and social sciences. And none of those were elite schools.
93 - Anarcissie
Thus far, most people don't seem interested in a solution. Hence my perhaps wishful concept of 'the shadow of slavery', which you found too vague as I recall.
94 - handyguy
If capitalism and liberalism are so inextricably intertwined, where do conservatives fit in? Social conservatives especially. Libertarians are classical liberals, with a purity test added on, no compromises allowed; and yet many of them append social conservatism, based on religious beliefs [and sometimes bigotry], and are not really so pure.
Many liberals, including me, question and oppose capitalism's excesses all the time. The main talking points of the Democratic party, for years now, have been about opposing corporate interests to help the middle class [with continued welfare for the poor a given, and with emphasis on education to try to lift people out of the underclass]. Not that actions always live up to the rhetoric, but that's still the stated stance.
95 - Baronius
Handy - You're falling into a trap. The purpose of this article, I think, was to un-define the word "liberal" so that the commenters can say anything they want to about liberals. You're trying to pin a meaning on something the participants don't want to define.
96 - handyguy
Actually, I think they are over-defining it. And inaccurately to boot.
97 - Baronius
Roger, comment #83 is wrong. First of all, it's insulting to compare the "invisibles" of western democracies to those of the Third World. Your very definition of western invisibles is a list of the programs which provide them with spending power. I don't know what you think Rwandan invisibles are like, but their story doesn't include food stamps.
And seniors - they're invisible? Tell it to the AARP. Seniors in the US have the highest level of wealth and more likely than average to vote. They're the dominant political class in America.
And I know that you want to romanticize the rioters of England as the vanguard of your revolution, but they're just people who are stealing and destroying things. They're no more politically motivated than the people who destroy their hometowns after their basketball or hockey team wins the championship. The outrage against the rioters - hardly as universal as you depict it, by the way - is primarily because they're jerks.
98 - handyguy
Roger's 83 is an example of theory triumphing over common sense.
99 - roger nowosielski
I don't think, Baronius, you could ask for a more concise definition than that offered in #88. I'd say incisive and insightful as well, but I don't want to aggravate you. If anything, Handy is more correct than you.
What's inaccurate about it, BTW, just asking?
And Baronius, in case you have forgotten, thinking is a process. What is wrong with a methodology that's being on display here, methodology you so strongly disapprove, if I may ask?
Oh, I see. Now I'm being accused of ulterior motives, the purpose being to encourage the visitors to dump on liberals. That must be it.
100 - roger nowosielski
Handy, your last comment is a cop-out pure and simply. It purports to be saying something whereas in actuality is says nothing at all -- except for the obvious fact that you disagree.
But you didn't have to resort to such a roundabout way to tell me that. I knew that already.
101 - roger nowosielski
Anarcissie, what was one of Uncle Karl's favorite sayings - the purpose is . . . -- fill in the blanks since I've forgotten -- to change the world.
I'm not knocking down your concept, but how does it help us here?
102 - roger nowosielski
#97
Wait till seniors start rioting if and when their benefits get cut off. Come again then.
103 - roger nowosielski
Though I grant you, they still have some pull and I suppose are better represented than the other groups. The "invisible" metaphor was for dramatization purposes. Soon enough, though, it won't be so much of a metaphor. Slowly and surely, we're edging there.
104 - roger nowosielski
Just seen your #94, Handy. Will respond shortly.
105 - handyguy
#88 is an almost purely economic definition of liberalism. But liberalism is also about individual and civil rights. Some very vocal upholders of individual rights -- meaning libertarians -- decry liberalism as loudly as anyone. And supposedly they are laissez-faire capitalists as well. [Although there is a streak of distrust of corporations in there somewhere too. Libertarians are rarely pure and often paradoxical.]
106 - roger nowosielski
@94
But conservatives and liberals (and libertarians of course) believe in, and subscribe to the values (and benefits) of, the capitalist system. Liberals, in addition, believe in all the things you mentioned/enumerated, i.e., that progress, in the very terms you delineated, is possible given that system. So far so good?
As to libertarians (especially those who are leaning toward social conservatism), I don't see any puzzle there. Since no compromises are allowed, your own words, they needn't concern themselves with other folk.
Are we on the same page so far?
107 - Baronius
#88 is a Marxist definition of liberalism. Handy's right that it's purely economic, because that's what Marx believed. There's nothing about the #88 definition that impresses me. You can't even call it a definition, because without the Marxist baggage it says almost nothing. I mean, liberalism is founded in property? What? Not classical liberalism; definitely not modern liberalism. And the poor get poorer? Nonsense. Look at the history of western democracy. And the stuff about revolutionizing the means of production, and resultant destabilization? You'd need to stretch the meaning of those words past the breaking point to use them to describe anything post-1848.
If you've got a definition of liberalism that excludes post-Enlightenment experience, what's the point of using the word "liberalism"?
108 - handyguy
My point was that many [most] self-described libertarians are very compromised, either about social conservatism or about big companies [some are anti-establishment enough to distrust corporations].
A strict libertarian like Dave Nalle is seen by someone like Baronius as a liberal on social issues. Tea Partiers have some strong libertarian leanings, but they may not all feel the same way about Medicare or gay marriage or the power of big corporations.
And some liberals "believe in" the capitalist system more than others. They are not all the same.
109 - roger nowosielski
Of course they are very compromised, Handy -- on your view. But they're not "compromised" in their own eyes if they're "pure" libertarians. I don't believe my remark contradicted what you're saying.
Furthermore, when I speak of liberals, I certainly don't mean libertarians. They're a breed all their own. Nor did I mean to suggest there aren't significant or differences, or differences of degree, among liberals themselves, along the lines you enumerated. Of course there are. Nonetheless, my argument is that there are sufficient similarities to be able to come up with a telling sketch of liberalism (or liberal stance) as it is practiced today.
110 - roger nowosielski
@107
I don't believe #88 excludes "post-Enlightenment experience." In any case, there are definitely diverging views about post-Enlightenment experience. In fact, the very school of post-modernism -- Foucault, Lyotard, Nancy, Agamben, Lacan -- is founded upon suspicion that Enlightenment didn't prove to be a kind of turning point many of us have been made to believe. You may disagree, but to dismiss this entire school of thought without giving it even a cursory consideration is foolhardy at best.
The definition isn't just economic; just as importantly, it gets at liberal political philosophy when it comes to its proper function and true nature as well -- as ideology. Ideologies, to the best of my understanding, are not conspiratorial. They arise naturally as bodies of beliefs (even though they're all couched in rational and logical terms). And no question that the founders of liberalism and liberal political philosophy sincerely believed in its promises. Most of their followers still do. But none of this detracts from the fact that all ideologies are, in a manner of speaking, myths. So even if liberal political philosophy originated with the best possible intentions, it eventually became a myth which functions to justify and propagate the very economic system which gave rise to it.
111 - roger nowosielski
I should add to the above that most of the postmodernists weren't Marxists.
112 - Baronius
Roger - The concrete truth is that more people are living longer, attaining food shelter and clothing, attaining more education, and making more choices in their lives than ever before. You can talk about myths all you want, but you can't claim that during the arc of liberalism, the poor have gotten poorer. It's just false.
Is Anarcissie's definition of liberalism economic? It expresses economic determinism. It also implies a Hegelian reading of history. When I went to school, economic determinism + historical materialism = Marxism. We're not talking about mostmodern thinkers here - maybe Anarcissie is, maybe he's not - but I'm just looking at a definition that incorporates Marxist thinking and terminology and pointing out the obvious.
113 - roger nowosielski
I'm certain Anarcissie (she's a she) will speak for herself, so let's shelve this one for now.
Of course I'm not denying that industrialization, spurted by capitalism, produced real and tangible results. How could I? What I am arguing, however, we've reached the peak, and that in the West at least, the post-industrial societies, that is, we are beginning to experience steady decline. Further, I don't believe the West will recover (at least in terms of recapturing the living standard that were so commonplace only fifty years ago). The myth, however -- and there's always some truth to any myth, Baronius, you do know that -- would have us believe that progress will go on forever.
Well, I don't and one reason is -- it's a myth.
114 - Anarcissie
Marx said, 'The point is not just to understand the world, but to change the world,' or so I'm told. Understanding is supposed to have some sort of operational valence. But does it? Maybe, maybe not. Nietzsche thought otherwise: 'It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance man and beast live; you must also have and acquire the will to ignorance. You need to grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be impossible, that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can preserve itself and prosper: a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass you.' The world often seems to confirm Nietzsche's, rather than Marx's view. In any case the dream of reason produces monsters.
However, I find myself inexorably drawn to concocting theories, if only for my own amusement. To me, liberalism-capitalism is coherent only when it is understood genealogically. And it seems worth understanding, in that it is the most revolutionary system of ideas and social relations ever unleashed on the earth.
Libertarians are the fundamentalists of liberalism-capitalism. In this, the end of days, they want to return to the primitive church as it was in the beginning of days. It is a form of decadence, like 1950's folk music, which can be quite elegant and enjoyable, like many other forms of decadence. Up to a point, I enjoy hearing the young Joan Baez sing 'Silver Dagger' just as I enjoy reading Nozick. Just as 1950's folk music related completely to the Western canon and its pop variants, although often through rather variegated pretenses, so libertarianism relates to great church of liberalism.
Liberals of all stripes, including libertarians, have many values and ideas in common: individualism has been mentioned, for instance. Self-actualization. Equality before the law. Due process. Privacy. Freedom of expression, assembly, association, and contract, as long as class privileges and property rights are not violated or threatened. But the overwhelming concern of liberalism is to keep capitalism going.
Hence no one should have been surprised when the liberal Obama continued imperial war, the surveillance state, or the funding of the plutocracy. Mainstream liberalism holds these policies, along with regulation and Welfare, to be necessary to keep the world safe for capitalism in the face of its material, social and moral problems.
I must admit I don't know how any of this would help anyone change the world. To quote yet another German, Rilke: 'You must change your life.' If the world chooses to accompany you, very well; but it may choose otherwise.
115 - Anarcissie
In capitalism, the poor get poorer during 'good times' relative to the rich. That is what is happening now and has been happening since around 1980, when it became obvious to the American ruling class that their Soviet competitors were failing.
However, the progress of the rich toward greater riches and the poor towards greater poverty can be disrupted by things like war, revolution, plague, environmental collapse, and some technological change.
For example the hitherto triumphant system of existing capitalist power fell apart in 1914, leading to a compound war of 30 or 75 years, depending on how you count. During war, the value of labor rises sharply -- almost anyone can be usefully employed, if only to stop bullets -- and it becomes crucial to keep the home front orderly and productive lest the working class turn rebellious. So, in Britain and the United States, we observe a corresponding radical growth in the wages and entitlements of working-class people. Once the wars were won, naturally, those wages and entitlements began to be rescinded.
116 - roger nowosielski
It seems to be you've resigned yourself to the unfolding, blind forces of history to write the next chapter of human events. Don't you believe in the efficacy of human agency, if only as a catalyst towards making a difference? Or perhaps you view human agency as a resultant, rather than as driver, of historical events.
Granted, your contrast between Nietzsche's and Marx's view is well-taken. Still, what are we to make of liberation movements, whether from colonialism or any other kind of domination? Were all these efforts and bitter struggles mere resultants of history or perhaps, just perhaps, they've altered the world, if only however so slightly.
You seem to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I'd like to believe that we can and should be proactive when it comes to determining our own future.
117 - handyguy
the overwhelming concern of liberalism is to keep capitalism going
That is such a ridiculous sentence that I don't think I will read any more of what this "deep thinker"/regurgitator of nonsense has to say.
118 - handyguy
113: You write with such certainty. Everything you say could be complete science fiction [and much of it is, as far as I am concerned]. Do you allow any room for error?
119 - roger nowosielski
But so do you, Handy, and that's exactly how it should be if you believe in what you're saying. Don't you agree?
However, certainty is only the tone of my utterances, not the basis of any of them. Understanding, partial understanding is.
And you misjudge me, by the way, when you assume I don't allow any room for error. It's precisely because my understanding is only partial, how well I know it? that I always welcome challenging views and opinions. How else could I possibly improve on my understanding and grow?
As an aside, do you really find the remark you cite at the start of your #117 so offensive that you're prepared to dismiss the whole person as an idiot?
120 - Anarcissie
roger nowosielski: '... You seem to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I'd like to believe that we can and should be proactive when it comes to determining our own future.'
I was merely considering Marx's idea that understanding the world should enable one to change it. Nietzsche-wise, I would say that it does not; an ounce of charisma or energy or determination is worth a ton of understanding. Understanding must be valued for its own sake. As for human agency, some people do seem to be able to affect history quite a bit, in many cases rather unfortunately.
As for this human agent, I am a part-time activist. Tomorrow, I will be out with Food Not Bombs, showing people the goodness of anarchy and communism, or whatever you want to call it, but I think the Revolution is quite a way off in spite of that. Still, one must do something. Écrasez l'infâme! Or at least tie its shoelaces together! Or say your're going to, someday!
Did my analysis of liberalism get me out of the house? I don't know.
121 - roger nowosielski
I wasn't being critical, just a clumsy way, I suppose, of posing a question I myself am having trouble with. Trust your formal mode of address is no indication of anything in particular.
122 - roger nowosielski
I don't know, Anarcissie. Perhaps I'm suffering from a Messianic complex. Perhaps I'm not patient enough. Perhaps I'm running out of time. Perhaps I'm a revolutionary at heart. Perhaps I haven't the time left to see my action(s) take fruition. So yes, I do want to mobilize the masses. Ultimately, the intellectuals don't count (unless they're agents provocateur). Not certain if a chuckle is appropriate at this point.
To cite another botched-up clip from the end of The Seven Samurai I'm too lazy at the moment to look up -- "It's the peasants that won."
123 - Baronius
Roger, since you're the one who mentioned your Messianic complex, let me take it as an opportunity to warn Anarcissie - who of course is female, because you only take on female apprentices. She should know that Roger Is Right, even when he's wrong, or misstated something. He'll say he's tryig to correct you, or reach a deeper understanding, but he'll do it via emotional abuse. You'll be everything to him; you'll be nothing to him; he'll get petulant and nasty if you don't let him string you along. He may be polite in private correspondence, but he needs to be dominant occasionally in public. It's like a Maoist self-criticism session.
FWIW, this comment is intended as a piece of advice, not a personal attack. So let's say I could be completely wrong. This is just what it looks like to a BC regular.
124 - troll
Anarcissie - has your food not bombs group been getting any push-back from de atorities that looks to be developing here and there (Orlando, San Fran)?
125 - troll
for all of your nay saying perhaps Karl Marx was right