[lbo-talk] life after newspapers

[Miles Jackson]

Chris Doss wrote:
> I don't think that's the problem with Miles' position. Miles' position actually has two problems.
>
> 1. It is unable to provide any reason for prefering one form of social organization to another.
>
> 2. It seems to have leapt from the observation that the ruling ideas of an era are those of the ruling class to the assumption that the ONLY ideas of an era are those of the ruling class. Society seems to be totally ideologically monolithic. So because for instance since the ruling strata using Christian ideas in one way, it is impossible for other parts of the society to interpret Christian ideas in a different that undermines the position of the ruling strata (cf. civil rights movement).
>   
I'll probably regret this, but I'll try to clarify my position.  I'm not 
trying to provide a moral philosophy that will help us choose one form 
of social organization over another.  I'm just saying that it is an 
empirical fact that moral beliefs are often a product of social 
conditions and social change.  Moreover, groups often justify and 
socially legitimate their moral beliefs by asserting that the beliefs 
preceded the social conditions ("we hold these truths to be 
self-evident--").  I will freely admit that this sociological 
observation does not help anyone chose one form of social organization 
over another.  Providing that kind of moral compass is not my goal, so 
it's a little strange that you're calling me to task for something 
irrelevant to my point.

I do not believe that the "ONLY ideas of an era are those of the ruling 
class"; that is a straw man argument that can easily be debunked by a 
brief search of the LBO archives.  The Civil Rights movement is actually 
a good example: as I pointed out, the movement led to social conditions 
that changed public opinion and behavior (once again, I will stress the 
causal direction here!).  This happened even though the movement relied 
on and reproduced dominant Christian ideology.   I agree wholeheartedly 
that it is often an effective political strategy to draw on some 
"traditional" political or religious discourse to motivate and mobilize 
movement activists.   The point I'm trying to make is that social 
movements foment change by transforming social structures, not just by 
persuading individuals.  Thus social change--such as occurred in the 
American South in the 1950s--does not require the consent or the active 
support of the majority; it requires nothing more (nor less!) than a 
well-organized, politically effective minority.

Miles