I did read to the end though about 70% of the way down I got the tingkling(c) where you were headed :-). But regarding the main bits of your post, I think you nailed it on three counts (as I see them):
1. Methodological anarchism: as anyone who reads my posts on this list knows I am a big fanboy of the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. As he showed/articulated convincingly, methodological purism should have no place in any field and has had no part to play in successful ones... Especially in science (see also #3 below). To stay on the CS theme, less RFC style "we MUST", "we SHOULD", etc. Rough consensus and running code! And a Heideggerian like young Doss would I hope nod in agreement that one learns via 'use'. It is a sort of Cartesian error to believe that we have to first figure it all out in the [collective] mind, else how can we even start / proceed / be sure?
2. Institutions are a means to the end, often necessary/useful ones when they are vigilantly guarded from fossilization (per #1).
3. Seriousness/Rigour: we are barely at the "Context of Discovery" but those on the left are prone to a sort of seriousness fetish that is not only intimidating to any group larger than their core, but also destructive to the very "project".
-- ravi
On Jul 9, 2011, at 6:53 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> At 12:08 AM 7/6/2011, Marv Gandall wrote:
>> I'm not an anarchist, and can't conceive of an organized left other than one which organizes itself as a political party or, in unfavourable conditions, as a political tendency within a larger party supported by trade unions and working people, in each case with a clearly defined program and engaging in political activity at all levels of the political process. The historic split between Marxism and anarchism has turned on this issue, which is why I consider Carrol and not a few other embittered former Democrats on the US left to be anarchists in spirit if not in theory, whatever their protestations to the contrary.
>
> I would agree with that - about me - though I could not give two shits about the DP and am not an embittered former Democrat. (presumptuously speaking for Carrol, though, I don't see his tendencies as anarchist. Far from it).
>
> Still, I'm happy to take on that mantle, myself, in so far as I happen to think that 1. we don't build an organized left to change society, towing it along. and, instead, 2. we build alternative institutions within which a new society will be born from the womb of the old. (Is that the phrase? too lazy ass to look it up.), and 3., while those new institutions are emerging, alongside these will spring an organized left, likely with very different and unpredictable ideas (at least compared to today) about what organizations look like, how leader emerge, etc.
>
> Unlike anarchists, though, I am not afraid of institutions and understand them as social institutions whereas most anarchists understand institution to mean something like a mental institution. In other words, while I disagree with the anarchist opposition to things like organization, government, leadership, the state, I do tend toward this view of social and historical change.
>
> the problem with all this was how would this social change, this transition, present itself as different from previous revolutionary moments - at least as M&E articulated it in the Manifesto. They complained that, in the past, societies changed this way - the new born from the womb of the old - creating a class that fomented revolution to gain and secure power. But because they were a minority, such revolutions would always be replacing a new form of class society with the old.
>
> In the Manifesto, of course, Marx and Engels relied on the claim that a socialist revolution would involve the masses - the majority - and, by definition such a struggle would be incapable of imposing a society molded in its narrow self interest on the rest of society.
>
> blah blah blah.
>
> Ultimately, I don't understand your complaint Marvin. You just seem to be articulating a position I used to ascribe to Carrol: you people are doomed because you aren't Ogrenizing(tm). You must be Orgrenizing(tm) in order to be serious leftists.
>
> But as I wrote in that essay for South Atlantic Quarterly, this sets the bar far too damn high to the point that most people throw up their hands in despair. They don't feel they have the chops to be a leader. They conceive of "serious" commitment to struggle as one in which, somehow, they must be possessed of some grand vision, a goddamned project mission statement, and some damn set of milestones and a project time line replete with deadlines. Self-appointed visionary types sit around and articulate the vision. They hand it off to the planners to describe the goals, the milestones, and set up time lines. Someone gathers all the specifications and requirements. They hand it all off to the worker bees to implement.... ta da!
>
> 80% FAIL rate in most commercial organizations that take this approach. Why use THAT method?
>
> O deeeeeer. I may have to get on a rant about self-organizing teams, agile, and who's a chicken and who's a pig. not that I'd be serious or anything...
>
> Hey - anyone want to start a diner called Ham 'n' Eggs? Nice idea said the pig to the chicken, but I'd be committed babe. You'd only be involved.
>
> <http://www.implementingscrum.com/images/060911-scrumtoon.jpg>http://www.implementingscrum.com/images/060911-scrumtoon.jpg
>
> ha ha. Just in case Ravi reads to the end.
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
