Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>
> I'm not arguing with that. I was just suggesting a way this move to amend
> movment improve their argument and fix a division on the left in one
> stroke (so that critical leftists like us aren't attacking them too).
I'm not sure I've read this correctly (that is a take-offf point for a nother post or posts on the evils of a society and educational system based on literacy and the i ciocy of attempts to judge intelligence and/or competence under current conditions) -- but anyhw...
Michael wants to remove a division on theleft; or, rather, he wants some other people to fix their strategy and/or goals so they won't create a division or so they will mend a division that is already thee and prevent a division between them on the one had and on the other SA & Michael. And they can do this very easily in one stroke by reading Michael's posts on lbo-talk, immediately agreeing with those posts, and "improving" their "argument" so as not to offend either Michael or someone else not named in his post but just . . . no I see, checking back, that he doesn't say anaything about some third party, just this "movement" on one hand & SA and he on the other.
But do they know Michael exists; do they, for that matter, know that lbo-talk exists. And does Michael have any basis for assuming that they are interested in avoiding criticism from SA & him?
But even more importantly, on what basis does Michael assume that, under present conditons, (a) divisions on "the left" are in any way undesirable and (b) such divisions make any difference whatever in the actual practice of "the left" at the present time?
What's wrong eithr with Group X (movement-to-amend movement) simply doing their own thing on the one hand (in utter ignorance of Michael & SA and any other "critical leftists") and on the other hand Michael and SA arguing withe each other here what the correct criticism of that movement-to-amend movement is?
For later reference, if and when I'm prepared to developm my immanent critique of making writing a conditon of college graduation, should there be a "to" between "movement" and "improve" in "move to amend movment improve"?
Incidentally, answering my own questions above, I think that at the present time divisions on "the left" are highly desirable; that arguing with other tendencies without expecting them to listen is itself probably a good thing. We don't have a single fucking idea at present about what "the left" at some future date when it becomes correct to use the phrase "the left" will look like. Hence the officiousness at this time of talking about what some other left fragment should do to "improve their argument." That is, such t alk is officious if it fools itself into thinking that anything it says will make a difference to that other group, but useful if the writer is in fact meely trying to get his own ideas straight and find a common ground between him and someone (SA) that _is_ listening to him.
>From yet another perspective, from what SA & Michael ahs said about this
alleged movement, I think SA is probably correct that it is simply a
lunatic activity, one which I have no desire to pay any attention to. If
in fact they are not lunatics, that will show up a few years down the
road when they become an object of concern in public discourse, at which
time I would have to reconsider.
Carrol