> quotes from miles and carrol that support this
> characterization would be helpful. i wrote in
> support of carrol's and miles's views.
>From Miles:
> The social psychological research on this is clear: attitudes
> and consciousness are the effects of (not the causes of!)
> changes in social conditions."
[...]
> All this is predicated on the false assumption that changes in
> attitudes can somehow shape social conditions. Even if people
> have attitude X or have been persuaded to have attitude X,
> social change can only occur through social processes and
> institutions that are independent of any one individual's thoughts
> and behavior.
[...]
> Political activism in the South did not occur because anyone's mind was
> changed; it occurred because like-minded people got together and
> developed effective political strategies.
>From Carrol (the latest I've read):
> in the absence of full-scale clearly defined class-war challenging anyone's
> personal political preferences, including quietism, is mere moralism, itself
> a deflection from politics. "Which side are you on" is only a relevant
> question in times of crisis.
So, that's what I'm talking about.
> yes, i am now exhibiting some hostility
> b/c the mischaracterization of miles's
> position -- RFA.
I don't know what explains the hostility, but I don't think this is it. Your hostility predates this discussion.