On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Which brings me back to my point that people are changed (a) by
> conditions which cause them to look for something to change to and (b)
> personal conversation, not books or radio broadcasts or journals. That
> is why an organizer/agitator talks only to people who already _on some
> one point_, agree with him/her. That one point can be something like
> individual criminality.
I am talking about talking to people who are more or less sympatico. People of almost any ideological complexion fixate on anecdotes and personalities - all those aspects of individuals and agency you normally dismiss. And people who are engaged by circumstances are going to be engaged about particulars. So how do you reconcile this position with your dismissal of scandal and criminality, since that's almost always the starting point of engagement - a point which it is very difficult to get beyond - in favor of the Systemic? Who has direct experience of The Systemic?
Doug