[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[shag carpet bomb]

At 08:59 AM 7/25/2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Matthias Wasser wrote:
> >
> > I think part of the confusion might be that Carrol is using "moral" in a
> > more specific sense than the rest of us.
>
>No. The confusion  comes from the assumption that these views are
>Carrol's _own_; that he is engaging in original thought as it were. On
>the contrary, my perspective is entirely unoriginal, and is shared by a
>large number of thinkers. I suggest you read Chapter 4 of Ollman's
>_Alienation_ and the article by  Tomas that I have several times quoted
>from and given the URL for. You are wasting your time and energy trying
>to decipher Cox's non-existent idiosycratid  thought.
>
>Repeat: There is _nothing_ original to my thinking on this question, and
>to understand it you have to go to my sources, not focus on me.
>
>Carrol

I'd still like to know why it matters!

I've asked this question three times now, and everyone who thinks morality 
matters, that there is something wrong with carrol, have refused to answer me.

What improves politics? What advantage do you get? Why does a politics 
based on morality -- Julio's "The rejection of any social order by masses 
of people is fundamentally a moral act" -- take us to a place that's 
preferable to a politics not based on morality?

If it really matters to you, then flesh out the substance of that 
mattering, flesh out why your approach is better than, superior to, 
carrol's. I have yet to have anyone who thinks politics should be based on 
morality explain that one to me. In other words, as Henwood writes at the 
end of Wall St., to paraphrase:

What virtue is there in critique alone? Critique alone is "too cowardly."

Why be cowards and simply criticize Carrol. Butch up, man.

shag