> Doug _did_ make a sensible critique of your politics. He said you believe
> revolution is all that matters, but that you refuse to have anything to
say
> about why and when revolutions happen and how and why they succeed or
fail.
> He's saying you're a mystic and a blowhard with very little to say. He
asks
> why you bother with politics at all, if you are essentially arguing that
> it's all inexplicable anyway.
>
> Of course, the one other Cox tenet Doug is overlooking is the factor that
> explains why you bother with politics: You fancy yourself Lenin. The
gist
> of pretty much everything you write is that the masses should get in line
> behind you and start marching.
>
> So, you're a mystic and a blowhard and an aspiring megalomaniac.
>
> Correct us where we're wrong here. Or are we just silly and non-sensical?
-----------------------
People are being way too hard on Carrol, which he may sometimes invite by
his use of condescending or charged language, but he's not alone in that. I
think his politics tend towards ultraleftism, and he thinks mine go in the
direction of right opportunism, but so what? I doubt anyone on this list,
Carrol included, would disagree that a) big political changes occur only
when there are big changes in social conditions and b) it doesn't follow
that you should therefore abstain from political activity aimed at more
modest changes at other times. Differences usually turn on whether one has
greater respect for the power of "agency" or constraint in human affairs,
but that's a debate which long predates the socialist movement, one which
we're not going to resolve here.
MG