I'm also disgusted with the comments on Moore's size. What the fuck is that about? If you're not fashionably slim, your work/opinion are suspect? Only the beautiful deserve to live? Christ!
Joanna
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Chris Doss quoted:
>
>
>>In fact, the main cause for the demise of the American
>>Left is much more sinister than that. The American
>>Left is responsible for destroying the American Left.
>>I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean quite
>>literally that anytime the Left starts to get
>>somewhere, you can be sure that a vigilante mob of
>>other Leftists will rise to the occasion to crush it,
>>to make sure they stay as marginalized and ineffective
>>as always. It's a kind of ghetto envy endemic to the
>>Left - the Right is always rooting for its heroes to
>>succeed. Not the Left. The key for them is to sound
>>Virtuous - and oftentimes that means eating their own
>>in order to promote themselves.
>>
>>
>
>Good observation, but I think the phenomenon is not limited to the Left
>- and has a simple explanation if Left (and other) political writing is
>conceptualized as peddling intellectual commodity.
>
>In most market situation, the competition takes place among individuals
>occupying the same market niche, not different niches. For example, the
>owner of a small coffee shop competes with owners of similar
>establishments in the area, not with grocery or hardware retail chains.
>Thus, that particular owner may be kvetching about a Wal-mart or a Home
>Despot behemoths being built in the neighborhood - but mainly because
>that is what her coffee sipping customers like to hear. But a Wal-mart
>or a Home Despot outlet does not really affect her business that much -
>and may even have a beneficial effect by attracting new potential
>customers to the area.
>
>However, the owner of that coffe shop would be all up in her arms if a
>similar coffee shop were to open in the neighborhood - because that new
>shop would likely take away some of her customers. In fact many
>shopping centers, fully aware of that fact, have policies of not letting
>their premises to competing businesses. Not long ago, my community
>association put up a fight against a store owner applying for a liquor
>license, and we were strongly supported by the owner of a neighborhood
>liquor store in the area. Obviously, the owner did not like the
>prospect of having competition.
>
>A similar logic applies to peddlers of intellectual commodity. Most US
>politics is in fact a platform for selling intellectual commodity -
>lectures, articles, books, pamphlets, signs or even popularity and name
>recognition (that can be turned into a better employment prospect),
>etc. Peddlers of different types intellectual commodities naturally
>compete with each other, and the smaller their market niche, the fiercer
>the competition. The market for mainstream intellectual commodity is
>quite large, so those who produce for that market can make a handsome
>profit even if their product reaches a relatively small share of that
>marker. But those who produce for small market niches cannot afford
>loosing their share to competition, because the numbers are so small.
>Hence they compete fiercely with each other rather than with the
>producers of commodities marked for mainstream audiences.
>
>Needless to add that mudslinging always sells - so that too adds to the
>marketability of the intellectual product.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>