Survivor!

[Rob Schaap]

On this I absolutely agree with you, Christopher.  The hostility with which
your attempts at discussion were met has been a source of depression for
me, too.  Most here profess a political theory based on solidarity, the
theory/practice dialectic, and the conviction it has something to say from
which others might benefit - and yet so many can't control, don't even
think it is important to try to control, their propensity to smug
ostracisation.  I reckon a lot of people think the things you think, and I
reckon you're importantly wrong.  If I help to drive you off, I am
effectively saying I'm not interested in all those other folks either.
Which would mean I don't mean my politics or I don't understand it.  It
would also mean I'm a gratuitously rude bastard.

Sorry you had to cop it, mate.  But, if it helps, you're not the first,
and, sadly, you won't be the last.

Politically, the left has become a sad joke - and we've no-one to blame but
ourselves.

Miserably yours,
Rob.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 12:16 PM
>> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>> Subject: Re: Survivor!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> kelley wrote:
>>
>> >   nevermind.  i give up.  i'm on the path to becoming just like
>> carrol about
>> > this issue and i actually don't mind.
>>
>> I've been following this thread only intermittently, but I was
>> more or less
>> serious when I referred to Susi as a lab specimen. What I mean is that his
>> sheer ignorance of biology, history, etc. makes his ideas, as such, of no
>> interest to discuss directly. But if you take him as a laboratory
>> specimen,
>> then you raise interesting questions. Is this particular brand of
>> no-nothingism
>> merely an aberration, or can it be linked to larger social forces
>> and aid in
>> the understanding of those forces? My suspicion is, though I
>> would not try to
>> defend it very vigorously, is that he and his friends should be
>> viewed as a
>> high-frequency aberration. As several have noted, they exemplify
>> individualism
>> goe bonkers. By individualism I mean not a particular set of habits or
>> attitudes but the assumption that individuals even exist and are a useful
>> explanatory category. And for studying the dynamic of this fundamental
>> assumption, John Milton is rather more interesting than
>> Christopher Susi or
>> Matt Cramer.
>
>You are truly a work of art Carol.  You feel as though you are enlightened
>enough that you'd come to the rescue of your fellow humans, but feel the
>need to refer to those who disagree with you as a "lab specimen",
>anti-septically studied in you're perfect little world.
>
>With the exception of a few individuals (Martin Shiller, & Gordon Fitch in
>particular) I am amazed how quick the posts turned to personal attacks
>(outright or thinly veiled) against me for merely even stating in the
>original post that I often consider both sides of the equation, and then I
>began to attempt a discussion why I might favor the one not-so-popular view
>when someone called me on it.  Honestly, up until Friday I held this list
>with some form of respect.  However with the likes of retorts like  "Captain
>Cyborg", pedantically reviewing any spelling or grammatical errors, and
>being labeled a "Lab Specimen" makes me question any of the
>pseudo-intellectual bantering posted by the self-styled intellectual
>elitists whom I've engaged.
>
>To those who offered a brief discourse allowing me to toy with those ideas,
>I thank you.  To those who weren't really up to the task, I bid my adieu.