[lbo-talk] Ralph loves the nice plutocrats

[mart]

i wonder whether being a chaos is any worse ethically or logically, or possibly just a subjective decision. (eg using a coordinate transformation to 'linearize out' the chaos, say, by using a Poincare section (see Gleick's chaos for pictures).      also, some of these may be 'spandrels' or like 'junk DNA'---e.g. F Collins being an evangelical chistian/dna mapper, they go together actually.
     one can also ask why anyone would choose to label themselves a progressive, or alternatively say 'radical' and believe capitalism can be eliminated, or the state.   choose newport!
   its possible these things may be illusions, like the web (matrix mechanics).   

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:

From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Ralph loves the nice plutocrats
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 7:46 PM

"he closer democracy got to Ralph, the
less he liked it."

Of course, most people are like that. The one's who are different are
the ones who, when it gets closer, dislike it very much but force
themselves to swallow it and eventually to like it.

As to Nader. He is a certain kind of materialist; one who sees only
concrete results.

Then he is a progressive. A progressive is someone who has resigned
him/herself (though they may pretend otherwise, to Capitalism Forever,
but keeps hoping that capitalism will gradually improve and be nicer to
people.

But capitalism can only improve (and that only temporarily) if nice
plutocrats work at making it so.

Progressives who don't believe in nice plutocrats are a chaos.

Carrol

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk