Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>
>
> I take my work seriously. I do not invent facts or issues. I have a right to
> defend myself from people who imply such things because they are in a glib mood
> or too lazy to do their homework.
>
On some lists it is worthwhile defending oneself; on other lists, it seems to work best to simply go ahead, state your positions, and ignore attacks (implicit or explicit) on one's good faith, hidden agenda, ulterior motives, etc. etc. etc. LBO is really a pretty good list, one of the best, but it is one of the lists in which it is best to ignore posts which seem to call for a personal defense.
I have a minor quarrel with this post; I would assume that the value of good scholarship such as yours is that, in particular areas, it allows people to be lazy, and give their attention elsewhere. There are only so many hours in the day. The homework you are suggesting is in effect a redoing of what you have already done and summarized rather precisely for us. And those who disagree will no more be persuaded by your sources than they are by you.
Incidentally, the needs of "the people" can only be served by the direct active) interference of government. By "direct" and "active" I mean in contrast to such governmental _granting_ of that which workers have demanded (implicitly or explicitly) through various forms of direct action. Social Security is a classical example. In fact most demands of the working class do _not_ require the exercise of state (police) power but only the extension of governmental services in response to demand.
"The People" though have no way of organizing to achieve their demands other than by the appeal to the state to exercise its police power to suppress certain practices (e.g., high interest rates, high transportation costs, etc etc). In other words, some form of authoritarian state is implicit in populist goals.
This is crudely stated. Do you have any comment on it?
Carrol