[lbo-talk] Taibbi (was Re: Fwd: Antioch College Closing!)

[Gar Lipow]

On 6/18/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> "Mr. WD" wrote:
> >
> > On 6/15/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm not interested in developing a Correct Line, but I am interested
> > in the question of which kinds of political compromises are acceptable
> > and which are not, and I think a dialogue about political priorities
> > can help address this.
>
> For priorities, compromises, and alliances there has to be some sort of
> agent who can 'sign off' on them. I reject the pseudo-Leninist parties
> of the 3d etc. internationals, but without at least a loosely organized
> coalition with a center that can more or less speak for the various
> elements of that coalition, there can be no priorities or compromises.
>
> Carrol
>

In addition "compromise" in any meaningful sense has to involve real
concessions from the other side. In many cases when people talk about
"compromise" they are talking about compromise with themselves --
diluting a position in hope that this will attract non-leftists.  This
is often accompanied by an insistence that any disagreement with the
particular "compromise" is purism. But of course this form of
"compromise" is neither a compromise nor a form of Machiavellian
cleverness. Most of the time, it is a way to feel like a hard nosed
realist, to fool yourself with the sensation of political
intrigue--while weakening your position or at best accomplishing
nothing.  I would say that at minimum the burden of proof is always on
the person supporting a particular compromise.