Julio has made these points over and over again for several years on this list. He has never changed anyone's mind. Others have made Doug's points over and over again to Julio. He has never changed his mind.
^^^^^ CB: Here's Doug is trying to change Julio's mind on:
But these political activists
>> have to relate to very specific groups of people, folks who support
>> Obama for raw ethnic and racial reasons and who start from a very high
>> level of alienation. I'd be curious to know how you address or bypass
>> these sentiments in an effort to help these people get organized.
I don't know, but what you're talking about is part of the structural
political problem of the U.S. "Raw ethnic and racial reasons" and "a
high level of alienation" means "not a clue about what's going on."
This is a POV to understand, I suppose, but "respect"? I know you
can't tell people who believe these things that they're fucked, but
they are, so how do you make the point?
>
> Doug
^^^^^ CB: So, people who support Obama for "raw ethnic and racial reasons" and have " a high level of alienation' don't have a clue . Is it that they don't have clue about white supremacy in the US ? Is it that they don't have a clue that they are alienated ? Or that their alienation deprives them of a clue ? Is Doug adopting a post-racial society view like Obama (smiles) ? How do we raise white leftists' understanding of white supremacy in US politics back up to the high level it attained in the 1960's and 1970's , to the level of respect that white leftists had for the Black Panthers and other Black and Latino militants of that period ? For one thing, clearly Black and Latino leftist repeating it over and over won't , as Carrol says, won't do it.
^^^^^^^
There is only one way that anyone by argument has ever changed my mind: When the argument revealed to me that this was what I was looking for but wasn't quite able to grasp. For example, 40 years ago when I considered myself a "Marxist-Leninist" and thought WITBD laid down the correct theory of revolution, I also noted, mostly while reading footnotes in the volumes of Lenin's CW, that often the Bolshevik's organization was a sort of loose baggy monster, not a "tight ship." I sort of filed that away at the time. But on the old Spoons Marxism list, when I encountered Lou's 'criticism' of "Leninism" (what he called Zinoivieism" [sp?]), I immediately accepted his argument. That is, he 'ignited' as it were thoughts which I had had in embryonic form for decades. That is the way persuasion works. That is the ONLY way that persuasive arguments ever work. They have to be directed at a reader who has already through his/her experience, previous thought reached the threshold of some new point of view.
^^^^^^^ CB: Lenin's version of the Bolsheviks as highly disciplined and organized just makes more inherent sense than you or Lou Proyect's loose baggy monster. A loose baggy monster would not likely have survived the Czarist secret police, for one thing. Then why would it be a "monster" ? Lou's version relies on a sort of invisible hand or deus ex machina organizing the Russian Revolution. Then there's the fact that Lenin actually organized the Bolsheviks, knew the organization directly, and Lou did not. I think Lou got you to change your mind to the wrong idea.
^^^^^
Social practice can change a person's mind radically, but he/she has to be attracted to that social practice by appealing to somethng he/she already believes in. That is why in building a left movement agitation always aims at people who are already in agreement with some key point in the agitation. If that works, then his/her participation in the activity will further develop/change his/her views.
^^^^^^^ CB: Speaking of "social practice" , "raw ethnic and racial reasons" and "alienation" , the 1967 Detroit riot/rebellion shaped majorly my whole life as I think back over it. I basically an agent of the Detroit "rebellion" of 1967.
^^^^^
Julio is talking to empty pews. It is a bit sad and a bit funny to see someone waste so much energy and thought.
^^^^^^^ CB: Julio and Doug..
^^^^
On this list I am mostly addressing empty pews. That is because _most_ list members deeply believe that "right opinion" is a good thing in itself. So they read and write in a world of pure opinion. But my posts are directed only at those who in some sense more or less know or have experienced the futility of "right opinion," who have on their own or through prior experience sensed the the fundamental point made in the Eleventh Thesis: First you have to engage in the effort to change the world, and only then will you be able to interpret it correctly.
^^^^^^^ CB: Well, that's kind of a reinterpretation of the Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, but it's worth considering. Maybe the 2nd Thesis is your point: The test of theory is practice.
^^^^
I have met a lot of good people that way who then became good friends. They had known it all along; they just hadn't known they knew it.I doubt that I have ever changed the mind of a single person who seriously believed that it was true argument that changed minds.
Carrol
^^^^^^ CB: There is an audience to these email list debates. List members are not all frequent writers. Members of the audience may either have their minds changed or form their initial opinion based on the debates.