> This list is reasonably representative of a wide range of leftists. Is
> it humorless? Why? Why not? Jan & I noticed at conventions and
> conferences in the '60s that action was frequently blocked by debates
> over how the conference should conduct its business, how people should
> and should not speak, etc. In other words, with precisely the condition
> which this thread represents: talk about talk replacing substance. Then
> there would be long discussions of what it was that was causing long
> discussions. This, then, would lead to a growing sea of complaints about
> how "alienating" the conference was, with little if any recognition that
> the talk about alienation, like the talk about how to talk, was itself
> the source of alienation.
>
> What is achieved, concretely, by this conversation about the lack of
> humor and the causes of that lack? How does it contribute to the
> increased scintiallation of journals x, y, & z.
>
> And if these complaints are valid, why is it that the only people on the
> left who are able and/or willing to expend energy on the production of
> left literature are people who are too dull to provide that literature?
> How does it happen that the leftists who do have a great sense of hunmor
> and a powerful ability to write the way they think left writing should
> be done do not write or publish journals themselves?
>
> Is Seinfeld really the supreme model for attempts to change the world?
> Why? Why not?
You win a free subscription to Z Magazine for spoiling this interesting thread.
Chuck0