On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:23:35 +0000 "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
writes:
> >
> >Nathan Newman wrote:
> >
> >>So how does the Left defend the virtue of the working class while
> >>demonizing
> >>its elected leaders?
> >
> >Well you start by saying that the state is a class state, that
> >despite the mechanics of formal democracy, generally represents the
> >interests of a ruling class. You add to that that the media that
> help
> >form the consciousness of that working class are in the pocket of
> >that ruling class.
> >
> >That's not a very obscure position, is it?
>
> What are you, some kind of a commie?
>
> I myself do not defend the virtue of the working class. Generically
> speaking, the working class is ignorant, reactionary, prejudiced,
> sexist,
> and crude. What do you expext, given the circumstnaces of their
> lives?
> They're just the world's only hope.
Which of course was the position of Marx & Engels. They had no illusions concerning the innate virtues of the working class. They were well aware of the extent to which workers can be prejudiced, racist, reactionary and the like. I am reminded of Engels' remarks in a letter in which he pointed out that on matters of foreign policy, British workers held the same views as the British bourgeoisie. And elsewhere, Engels noted the role of the British popular press in fostering anti-Irish prejudices among English workers.
>
> I agree with Nathan, actually, that we have a sort of democracy, and
> that
> this is a good thing. I do not agree, and neither would Nathan if he
> shifted
> into his analytical mode, that this means that there is a tight link
> between
> the "will of the people," whatever that is, and the policies adopted
> by our
> leaders in foreign policy or elsewhere. Democracy means that there
> is a
> remote possibility that one might be able in some indirect way to
> influence
> or change the policy, usually when it is too late, not that the
> actions of
> out leaders are invested in the aura of direct popular rule.
>
> I do not think that it is Nathan's commitment to the DP that makes
> hism say
> such odd things as he has been saying.
In that case then I am perhaps being too generous to Nathan. The fact is that lately we have been getting all sorts of arguments in terms of metaphysical and even theological abstractions in defense of his political position, and for the most part pretty bad arguments at that. Presumably, Nathan is capable of better but he seems to lack the will. How are we too account for that, or is such questioning off limits given Nathan's own strictures against seeking causal explanations for bad behavior?
>There are lots of Democrats
> who agree
> with us and not with him. My mom, for example. Maybe it is the shock
> of
> looking out your window in Jersey City at the hole in the skyline.
> It could
> make you or me a bid loopy too.
Well, I don't know. Nathan has in the past shown some of this same type of loopiness. While I am by no means as close to the WTC tragedy as people like Nathan or Doug, I do have a friend who lost one of his old girl friends on Flight 11. And an engineer, where I work, took one of those very same flights to LA on September 10 (which means that if for some reason he had to delay his flight by one day, he would have been splattered over Lower Manhatten). And in 1999 I interviewed for a job at Edgewater Technologies which was to later experience the massacre of seven people, the day after Christmas of last year. (Fortunately for me they weren't interested in my particular skill set). I don't think any of this has made me any loopier than I have always been.
Jim F.
>
> jks
> >
> >Doug
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.