I started this exchange cause I thought, OK, here's someone who thinks the Labor Party (or at least a labor party) is the right direction to go, in the U.S., at this moment; I wonder what road they came down to get there. Was there ever a time you didn't think that? What changed your mind? You say plenty of stuff like the above, I was asking about the direct experience part. Don't you ever ask people how they got into the movement? The answer is almost always fascinating and relevant.
>Jenny:
>Or do you really mean
>that the subjective has nothing to offer?
>
>David:
>Nope.
>
>You write:
>"Anyone can say, and a
>lot of people do, things like "we need a real labor party." But very few
>will give the concrete reasons, lessons, experiences that lead them to
>believe that. How will you communicate the idea to others?"
>
David:
>Definitely not through condescension. I have written my thoughts in detail
>on the Labor Party on several occasions on the list. This question, and the
>others you ask, have all been answered-- though apparently not in a way
>you care for.
It's not condescension to tell your learning process. That's all I'm asking about. If you've written about that and I missed it, I apologize. (The archives jam up my computer--they're OK early in the month but by the 20th or so it's hopeless.)
>What can I say? I'm certainly not going to dramatize the dry data and
>historical trends I've studied for years by making it into an episode of
>Oprah, about how I as an individual differ from my "closest neighbors".
You're not even trying to get what I'm saying. Oh well, I had hope. What I mean is, some set of experiences, conditions, analysis etc. make you hold many views that others don't hold. If you wanna organize people, you gotta think about how you came to think these things. You're like everyone else, see? Not smarter. (You do think that, I've seen you say as much.) When you tell your process you actually reveal that basic truth, that we ALL start with various illusions. Maybe someone else was taking care of the young ones while you were studying, and they didn't have time to read about it, right? Anyway, if you're invited, I think you should go on Oprah. : )
>We're obviously just at crosswires because apparently you have reached some
of
>the same conclusions I have, "personally".
Nah, that's just part of it--hey, god's not finished with me yet, as they say, but since I'm not religious, I interpret this as 'It's never too late to realize I've had my head up my ass.' Which realization is always socially-created. But it is a direct experience.
>What a shame it is that people on
>the Left who are in fundamental agreement can't work together because one
refuses
>to express their conclusions-- which are abstractions and generalizations
>by definition-- in the same style and tone, much less with the same usage
>of pronouns. Oh well.
Work together? We haven't had the opportunity but I work with a lot of people I have plenty of disagreement with, most of whom are sort of warm and comradely about it.
Jenny:
>By the way, you can 'win' this exchange, if that's what
>you really want, by arguing with a cartoon version of what I'm trying to get
>at rather than helping me get at it. But that's sort of a waste of pixelage,
init.
David:
>By the way, why are you so concerned with whether or not someone "wins
>an exchange"??
I'm not. I'm actually curious about the various subjects I've asked you about. I meant that you consistently use extreme and caricatured versions of what I said (Oprah? usage of pronouns?) to show that you're right and what I'm asking is irrelevant. Again, it's easy to distort a point and then skewer it, what's hard is to take the argument at its best and then skewer it.
Jenny Brown