Why? i.e., Why does it mean that (of necessity)? A smoker might point out the ill-effects of smoking and also that it is not a valuable practice, but be unable to give it up. This doesn't make him wrong. There's a good chance that your Brecht Forum buddy is wrong but not at all because she does not perform this or that action.
> There's a lot to be said for
> bourgeois wealth and liberties, and not to concede that is dishonest.
I disagree. A lot is already being said for bourgeois wealth and liberties. One need neither concede that nor consider that.
> I have no problem admitting that there are progressive
> aspects to capitalist societies that go along with their repressive
> and alienating aspects. I have no problem admitting ...
Yes, you don't, but could it be that you have a problem with other people not admitting either of your yes-but? You admit it because you perceive it to be the case and you feel compelled to make your perception explicit. Others may not see it that way (and are under no compulsion to do so, until you can prove, beyond vehement expression, that it is generally true) or feel no obligation to shout it from the rooftops. A black person might agree that "affirmative action has a lot to be said for it" but the fact that it pales in comparison to what real justice would mean might in fact compel her to refuse to make that "concession".
> A lot of the time bourgeois society
> crushes those promises, at home and especially in its colonies. But
> that's no reason to throw freedom and self-development out the window
> in the name of some excruciating traditionalism.
Which assumes that this "excruciating traditionalism" (already thus cast) has no space for freedom and self-development. Not necessarily so (except in a form of liberalism that considers freedom as merely a break from tradition, or a libertarianism that seems freedom as a freedom from things), as Stravinsky points out in The Poetics of Music, and Krishna informs Narada in a famous parable.
--ravi