[lbo-talk] Re: What's the Matter With Kansas (and other responses)

ravi ravi.bulk at gmail.com
Fri Nov 10 19:25:07 PST 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: joanna, BklynMagus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Messages in this group

* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: What's the Matter With Kansas

* Re: [lbo-talk] How come nobody talks about the New socialist senator

=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: What's the Matter With Kansas

At around 8/11/06 11:33 am, BklynMagus wrote:
>> see how the racism claim (used earlier in the criticism of
> "conspiracy theories") is dangerous (when used gratuitously)?
>
> I do not think that Chuck is racist nor did I make that claim.
> I do think he was being intolerant and ignorant of the role of
> religion in the history and lives of Blacks. His post evinced the
> tone of an aggrieved Massa who was displeased with his
> darkie's words. I was surprised since Chuck is never that way.
>

The stuff you write above (aggreived Massa etc) is not the description of a type of racism? I think you are seeing "Black" into this picture. All Chuck is doing is raging (in his trademark angry young man tones) against religiosity irrespective of where it comes from. In the views of many, religiosity is as evil as racism was, and fighting against it is the same as against racism.

I think you have a very valid point to make, in the form of a criticism of enlightenment liberalism's contempt for what it would call the "irrational" (I am carefully avoiding my pet peeve term here ;-)) -- they are wrong in their belief that their system is anywhere near complete enough to be universally and foundationally employed, and therefore does not back their contempt and righteousness (in fact the latter, and not the vaunted enlightenment methods, are often the very tools by which their viewpoints are enforced).

However, I think this valid point is poorly applied in this instance. For one thing, you need to substantiate your generalisation of black lives and attitudes. Further, Ford is not the "average" black person -- especially not so when we are evaluating him as a politician who has the power to alter the world.


> Leftists will never be able to build effective and comprehensive
> alliances with Blacks until they get over their infantile, knee-
> jerk reactions to religion.

Substitute "Blacks" with "the religious" and you would be right (without necessarily being redundant). *Some* leftists tend to look at anyone with the slightest bit of faith as if they are Jerry Falwell clones.

=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] How come nobody talks about the New

At around 9/11/06 1:16 am, joanna wrote:
> Had to drive to work today and wound up listening to Democracy Now; Amy
> Goodman had a brief interview with Sanders. No, he's not a Socialist; he
> didn't talk about expropriating the capitalists and nationalizing
> everything.
>

What's the difference between a socialist and a communist?

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list