Reply to Doug

[/ dave /]

kelley wrote:
 
> *sigh*
> oh alright.  let's just go for the slogans like lenin wanted and engage in
> some slogan-warfare.  whathafuck.
> 
> all a buncha testosterone politics anyway.

Ach, Kelley - don't misunderstand my point. Perhaps it was poorly stated. I'm capable of
appreciating the Simpsons like any fool, and I have no truck with elitism or dogmatism either.

I think that _collectively_ foaming at the mouth in a public forum over and about *anything*
that already holds an entrenched position of prominence in society as a whole, given the
circs, is unseemly and counterproductive for individuals of a radical mindset who see
themselves as hopeful catalysts for change and understand the intrinsic importance of new
ideas, fluid discourse, triumph over stasis, etc. Not least as the aforementioned would all
seem to be precursers for revolutionary activity of any kind. In a public space, it's called
setting an example. One of the primary reasons why capitalism maintains its dogged hold is
its uncanny ability to quash dissent, almost despite itself and its rhetoric of "choices,"
etc. Part of the reason this works is that the rampant and unqualified acceptance of
cultural hegemons into our lives acts as a template that allows us to rationalize political
stasis as well.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the X-Files or whatever and even raving about it in
an appropriate context, but fascism makes its cozy home where dissent is unwelcome or worse
unheard of. While there's nothing wrong with talking up this or that television show or NYT
bestseller there's also nothing more painful than listening to a bunch of lefties
collectively waxing rhapsodic about Mulder and Scully these days or (hah) rapping about
where to buy Pokemon, while Deutsche Bank or Time/Warner contemplate another takeover/merger.

The seeming paradox here would be that identifying shared aspects of culture would also
provide opportunities for solidarity between disparate groups in society, also an essential
precursor for large-scale change - but I'd like to think it would be instinctive for
radicals of any stripe to resist, or at the very least not actively promote, hegemons and
entrenched discourses in situations where they're in a position to encourage the opening of
minds to change. That's all I was getting at. It can be a delicate dance, I know.

--

/  dave  /