gun control

William S. Lear rael at zopyra.com
Mon May 31 20:33:28 PDT 1999


On Sunday, May 30, 1999 at 17:04:29 (-0400) kelley writes:
>William S. Lear wrote:
>
>> This is a crucial
>>point: Parochialism invites co-optation. The reason is simple: you
>>have a particular problem and a rich benefactor offers to help you
>
>how is this a direct causal link? it's true that community organizers can
>be pretty narrow in their views. but, there are plenty who aren't. how is
>it that accepting money from a benefactor necessarily co-opts them? why
>the either/or? ...

Parochialism means narrowness of thought. Stick with what I said. I said, again, "Parochialism invites co-optation", I didn't say "partial parochialism", I didn't say "causes". It is easy to focus on single issues, on the problem of the moment if you don't think broadly enough. If you do this, you will often miss the trail of blood leading up to the corporate helping hand, and this goes for idiots who bray against the "paralysis of analysis" as well as the less insulting and perhaps better-intentioned.


>>And, despite opinions to the
>>contrary on this list, the Constitution and myriad state and local
>>laws are also extremely effective barriers to generating a greater
>>breadth of political thought and action.
>
>dunno. free speech was pretty helpful. as was the right to association.
>lessee there's the 14th.... but once again you folks miss the points,
>which were two, for me.

Free speech was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech was squelched viciously from the get go and was only won by working people after a long struggle.

We seem to forget that the words on the paper (merely a "parchment barrier" according to Madison) are appropriated ex-post facto to locate the sources of our freedom misleadingly in the Constitution and not within grimy struggles of the "great beast". We are told we can speak freely on the corner due to the Constitution. Rubbish! We can speak freely because of the hundreds and thousands of people who lost or risked their lives in an anonymous struggle against tyranny which bolstered its brutality with appeals to the Constitution, not to mention the flag and other symbols of hate.


>1. appeal to the constitution is pretty powerful stuff, symbolically. you
>can use it to your advantage. ...

I abhor appeals to patriotism and other forms of fake solidarity. Our rights were not given to us by anyone, land-dweller or deity. Locating our rights in the Constitution is to abdicate the most valuable claim we have: we are humans with intrinsic rights to associate with whom we please, speak freely, etc.


>yeah yeah doug i hear ya: "oh but it's republican. oh but it was designed
>by those wig wearing pigs." again, though, what the hell isn't
>contaminated??? absolutely nothing. see y'all are looking for some
>archimedean point upon which you can stand and proclaim foundational truths
>yourselves. we might as well figure it out now: there isn't any such place.

"Contaminated" ... really. A document prepared in secret by the richest of the rich and their scribblers, ratified by only a tiny fraction of the population, and it's merely "contaminated".

I'm comfortable saying we have a variety of rights because of our intrinsic nature. I'm not interested in squabbling with you over this, just as I'm not interested in squabbling with Jessie Helms over my rights he'd like to take from me --- this is not a negotiable topic.


>parochialism may well be inescapable and it may not be a bad thing. there
>is something wrong with the opposite, too --doncha think? people learn to
>be moral people in situated contexts. they then learn to be more universal
>as they acquire abstract thought. ...

People are well-equipped by 8th grade for the abstract thought needed to understand most things of importance in public life. There's no excuse for adults to eschew it and to pass on to others this mode of thought.


>simple, not easy. damn good thing too, i think. the question is, William,
>how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something
>abstract, distant, big? ...

When I read Noam Chomsky, I feel he brings in the broad picture quite effectively. Ditto with Doug, Michael Perelman, and many others. I think it's a matter of getting these sorts of things in front of people's faces early enough in their lives so they can shield themselves from the vast torrent of deceit.

Again, I think symbolism is poison to critical thought. We've got enough symbols intruding upon our minds. Let's leave them out.

I find Thomas Ferguson's theories on democratic action careful, lucid, properly narrow in scope, and extremely illuminating. Several other folks have done some good work in domains near his that I find useful as well.

Bill

--



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list