Doug Henwood wrote:
> your analysis (that the "movement"
> is one of "morally indignant elites") isn't grounded in reality.
Probably one could *find* such fractions within the movement -- *all* movements include such fractions. But an empirical description of a part (or even the whole) of any movement does not establish the 'essential' nature of that movement. And as anyone with a memory of the '50s and/or '60s knows, or should know, what begins as moral indignation (of elites or any other group) may well develop far more fundamental grounds.
This much may be said for Russell's arguments -- those individuals whose motives never go beyond moral indignation aren't good for the long haul. (And this can be said against even that point: Anyone who claims to know the individual motives of large groups suffers from the delusion that he/she is a god.)
Carrol