>CB: OK, for the sake of argument, lets accept the convincing success of
>your argument, that is you have succeeded ( arguendo) in persuading me by
>argument that social forms are reproduced communicatively.
>
>How does that truth help us to overthrow capitalism and win socialism ?
adressed here, abstractly: Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 16:55:30 -0400 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
more concretely: you've argued for democratic centralism, right? this means you want to weld democratic principles with hierarchical organization of command and control, where some in the hierarchy have more power than rank and file.
how do you plan on instantiating this paradigm of movement organization?
what happens when you have a severe disagreement--pick any of the disagreements we have here. how are they to be resolved. how do you justify, for example, ending a conversation, as doug just did? doug justifies it, ultimately, because he's the list owner and administrator. he can make it stick because he has charismatic authority to do so.
or, do you have some long ago agreed on rule that is invoked in a way that is to suggest that the rule is settled and unquestionable. eg. Gordon's claim that once the stage of meta discussion about the discussion has been reached, the conversation is over, and nothing is resolved?
carrol once told me that arguments don't matter to the people who haven't bought into the leninist marxist framework. rather, what would matter and win people over was that leninists demonstrated a solid commitment to one another -- they were comrades, for good or ill. that solidarity would be the way that others would be convinced to sign up --because they want to belong and experience that comradery. i assume that once people start aligning themselves with the group, then they will be won over to the eminent reasonableness of leninist-marxist ideas. i presume that arguments might matter at this point.
what happens when there is disagrement within the model of comrades? how are objections handled? who decides what is going to be a topic put on the table for discussion and what will be ignored.
if people feel that the experiences and concerns of the disabled aren't being articulated, or that women's concerns aren't--and we have frequently heard here that people don't think feminist concerns are a worthwhile concern for leftists--then how do people who disagree do so without being dismissed as engaged in an attempt to undermine solidarity.
and so forth...
kelley