Hmm, interesting point. But I wasn't clear: he was talking about revolutionary organizations. So we might get together and build an organization which is internally very progressive during the period of revolutionary ferment. But after we pull off a successful revolution, the new society would likely regress from our progressive internal structure. (As he speculates.)
But maybe the US revolution is still a legitimate counterexample, dunno.
On 2/26/07, Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: "Tayssir John Gabbour" <tayssir.john at googlemail.com>
> >I think figures like Richard Dawkins can have positive effects, since
> >they don't just tear down people's beliefs, but create alternative
> >institutions like "The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and
> >Science."
>
> [Dawkins is a lot more confrontational than that suggests -- e.g., as
> reported below:
Agreed, the guy plays bad-cop. (And he's fully aware of it.)
Like, some of us here seem to consider Chomsky "nasty" on the topic of postmodernism and systematically obscure writing. But he really used kid gloves. Dawkins puts Chomsky's gentleness in perspective: <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/philosophy/dawkins_impost.html>
Google cache: <http://tinyurl.com/yufnzh>
Tayssir