On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
> On 10/30/09, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> But it's a cop out always to point to grand
>> forces without at all examining human agency or institutional
>> specificity. Rates of profit matter, but so do historical figures
>> like
>> Ronald Reagan. And surely there are things that a left can learn from
>> history, and can do better if we think things through. Obviously
>> there
>> are forces larger than us, but we're not passive lumps either.
>
> (As an aside, surely you don't think "Ronald Reagan" was reducible to
> the biological organism named Ronald Reagan?)
No, of course not, and I'm almost insulted that you asked the question. But people like Reagan do matter - he was able to bridge gaps on the right between the Christians and the marketeers, win over a corporate elite that was originally skeptical of his agenda, and seduce enough of the electorate to win. He was a very successful spinner of fantasies, and that mattered. In Carrol's world, individuals and even institutions don't seem to matter - it's just the Forces of History working. There's no agency in CoxLand at all.
> Okay, now I think I see the point of disagreement, though maybe it's
> better to say that you and Carrol are talking about two completely
> different things. Though I think Carrol could do better describing his
> take on this stuff, I think he's questioning the exact distinction you
> are insisting on here: that there are individuals who are opposed to,
> autonomous from, and largely against historical forces.
Opposed to or distinct from? Not at all. Really. What kind of idiot do you take me for?
Doug