Kevin Robert Dean wrote:
>
>
> Wow! I never knew that dietary choice was holding back
> the workers movement. Damn you Kendall!
It's not dietary choice that interferes. As they say, some of my best
friends are vegetarians (though I wouldn't want my daughter to marry
one), but what they all share in common is that they don't either
implicitly or explicitly indicate that that is a choice which other
progressives should emulate.
>
> According to Carrol's logic, moralizing about workers
> rights and union organizing are 'reactionary' and
As a matter of fact, _moralizing_ about Workers' rights IS reactionary, and I've gotten nasty with fellow marxists who in speaking of false consciousnes etc tried to lay a moral trip on workers. I cannot think of a single instance where moralizing is not demoralizing. (And in so far as my tone in spontaneous writing on the internet carries or seems to carry a moral charge, that tone is reactionary.)
> "reformist" because folk's find that these activities
> are time consuming.
I said progressives had better ways to spend their time than in checking up on who produced their meat, etc. One of those things is activity in organizing. When people don't turn out enthusiastically for a rally, I don't rant about how lazy or stupid they are, I get to work organizing the next rally. Stupidity and laziness are important human rights. But I see no reason not to attack, on a mostly political maillist, anyone who engages in moralism -- it's not immoral but it is politically vicious. I speak in political terms, not in terms of moral praise or blame.
Carrol