>But he didn't say to make "critique of everything" right in the face of
>everyone/anyone near by.
The impression I get from reading about him is that's what he did while engaging in critique (I'm not sure if he actually came out and said words to that effect), not really giving a rat's ass for the other person's feelings if what he thought the other said or did was wrong in some way.
>We still keep to the rules of social engagement, not division.
"We" do? Well, I guess so: I'm still talking to you.
>(Marxists
>are, currently, a small crowd of anti-social personalities, who get some
>personal reward outta being isolated; it also feeds feelings of
>depression, perpetuating the actual feeling. They _ain't_ social.)
Really? Marxists are like this? Interesting. I was first led to believe that described Stalinists, then Troskyist sects, then Maoists. Now Marxists in general are just "anti-social". Guess the ultra-leftists must be the font of social peace, as demonstrated by the article that started all this.
Lotta Marxists on this list, but it's strangely busy, talkative, and social.
Odd.
>My fave story about Karl was of his first attendance of the IWMA (or
>IWA). The reports are that he said nothing. He just sat and listened.
Yes, I imagine he would've, to hear what they were about and their positions on various matters.
>Imagine that?
Ok, visualizing. It's difficult, though. After all, I'm a (self-professed) Marxist: notoriously anti-social, isolated completely from society, a virtual hermit, etc.
>Sitting and listening to other people.
Uh-huh.
>Figuring out what they are on about.
M-hmm
>What worries them.
So true.
>Then becoming important in their lives because you can actually address
>their concerns.
Excellent advice. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm trying to become important in people's lives and addressing their concerns. I'm afraid I don't get much practice in this, though; most of the time, when it happens, which is rarely, I'm just giving opinions after sitting and listening to people, figuring out what they're on about and what worries them.
>As opposed to, oh, spouting "vanguard" theory at them like gospel.
>Exhorting them to
>adhere to your "vision."
Whew! For a minute there I was worried. I certainly don't do THAT. . . . I might critique and then give the reasons behind my critique, but since I don't hold a gun to people's heads and demand they obey my diktats and opinions, and I assume they're adults not under the iron heels of my booties, they can take them, leave them, critique back, ignore me, curse me, try to hit me, etc.
Is this clause in one of my earlier posts the root of your condescending lecture?
>I'd imagine one would find lots of petit bourgeois nonsense (like the kind
>of "small is beautiful" crowd you mentioned, Doug, in After the New
>Economy, the anti-modernism lot) mixed in with the good stuff.
I was referring to the localist and anti-developmentalist types Doug writes about in "After the New Economy". Orgs like the International Forum on Globalization and the Foundation for Deep Ecology. People like Doug Tompkins and David Korten.
Some very smart person on this list mentioned a while ago that Marx said that not all bourgeois sensibilties or ideas are bad, and that we should keep the good ones. I presume that applies to petit bourgeois ideas as well, which is where I was coming from.
If you misunderstood, well, sorry. I can only try my best to put my little thoughts out for all to see and critique, knowing I'm not someone who does that sort of thing on a regular basis. No hard feelings on this end (well, so far . . .).
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca