>and all this happens simply by verbalizing it, right? you just tell people
>the truth of their condition and --voila!--revolution.this is what I never
>get about Carrol's position.
We've already talked about how Chomsky's been doing this sort of thing for some time now and not much (well, not much of what I think listmembers, in general, want) has happened directly because of it. But what else do you do? I don't think anyone's come up with a means to identify the people who will listen and (can) do some work on their own to see how things work; you just have to keep talking, persuading, arguing, and hoping. There are, I think, other factors that can affect someone's "readiness" to hear what a left critique has to say, (eventually) agree with it, and help out practically (which is another matter entirely). But I don't think Turbulo or Carrol were leaving them out simply because they thought those factors were pointless, and all that was necessary was to shout The Truth from a mountaintop to the grateful masses below.
<snip>
>there's people's _subjective_ perception, but as Marx showed, there is also
>a way to look at the issue of _classes_ that really does have to do with
>relation to the means of production.
Subjective perception does matter and does act like a material force, sure, but does that put it on the same level of truth or falsity of the "actual situation" as, for example, a class analysis? Or a psychological analysis, or any other kind of scientific (broadly defined vs. simple subjective perception) observation? How does one go about trying to show what's really happening in the world (or at least the most likely reason(s) if you accept people's subjective perceptions as having about an equal "weight" as an analysis?
>Even Marx didn't say it was simply as either you either own them or you
>don't.
But he did get into false consciousness (of the actual state of affairs) at some point, and that does have something to do with this discussion.
>Marx only said that, as crises advanced the world would eventually be
>composed of two classes at a standoff, with the myriad classes eventually
>taking one side or the other.
And he also said that part of the task of communists (no reason other lefties can't do this too; it broadly serves their interests, I think) is to form the working class into a self-conscious proletariat. To do this you have to keep working to undermine what people have accepted as reality.
Trick is to do this without getting snobby, lecturing, hectoring, etc. And plenty of people (never mind lefties) need more work on this skill.
Todd