shag wrote:
>
> no. i'm serious.
>
> what would you suggest we do.
No! This question should not be answered. (Let me begin cryptically, then elaborate)
That is a false and misleading demand/question/goal/whatever, for two reasons:
1. It shows a failure to understand current conditions
and
2. It violates Thesis 11.
Thus it recapitualates the reactionary (and unstated) premise of Book V. 471-c-474 (Cornford's Ch. XVIII) of the Republic. There Socrates asks -
Can theory ever be fully realized in practice? Is it not in the nature of things that action should come less close to truth than thought?
And from this Socrates/Plato moves directly to affirming that ==
Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom, unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet together, while the many natures who now go their several ways in the one or the other direction are forcibly debarred from doing so, there can be no rest from troubles . . . .
The unstated premise here, in contradiction to Thesis 11, is that theory can exist prior to and autonomously of practice. But knowledge/theory emerges from reflection compelled by the effort to change the world. (Sloganized, not quite accurately but well enough by Mao as "If you want to know what a pear tastes like you must change the world by biting into it.") Your question to Andie assumes, falsely, either that we are involved in a shared and collective practice which requires and thus allows new theorization which can generate a new level of practice OR that (as Plato claims) a new theory can be generated prior to and independently of practice. Both assumptions are false.
There is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, of current practice which points beyond the practice of the last 35 years or so -- in other words, something like "Keep on Truckingd" along paths enabled by local organizing practice (anti-wr, civil-rights, living-wage, etc) in your area. No one on lbo-talk can (or should) therefore attempt to answer your question. I accept your claim that the question was serious but reject your assumption that that question can, under present conditions, be objectively serious, no matter how intended.
Carrol
P.S. I have changed the subject line, without even a fraction of the previous subject line because this _is_ a case in which the Latin tag quoted by Andie definitely holds. Many/most of us were united with Carl on his description of the u.s. today but differed on strategy and tactics. Hence a discussion of the latter is not wholly appropriate under the original subject line.
X