> Does everything have to "relate to the everyday lives of average
> people"? Since when did that become the measure of all discourse? How
> much does a biography of Michael O'Donoghue relate to the everyday
> lives of average people? A lot of ordinary folks might find him
> disturbing, weird, or repulsive.
"Mr. Mike" wasn't written for the masses; nor is it a treatise on capitalism or an examination of working class conditions. It is a pop culture bio and aimed at those who read such things. I assumed LBO Talk was about discussing ideas about politics and activism, and coming to terms about how we on the left will deal with the wider world. So, in that sense, yes, I think speaking to the lives of average people would be part of this mission. Perhaps I'm wrong.
> There's a lot of nonsense in "common sense"; what seems simple and
> obvious often depends on a lot of inherited and unexamined ideology.
> Challenging that takes time and makes people uncomfortable, but you
> could never have any kind of seriously radical agenda without
> challenging it. So there's something deeply conservative about calls
> to simplicity.
Challenge unexamined ideology all you like. Of course that's important. But what's the end result? Trading obscure references on a discussion list? Surely we can cut through the bullshit without spouting our share as well.
DP