[lbo-talk] 'The Reactionary Mind': An Exchange

[Carrol Cox]

Working-class movements are episodic and cannot last for more that 3 or 4
years at their furthest reach. Men and women go back to work and "leave it
to their leaders," entrenched bureaucrats. And in that passive context, all
the forces of white sujpremacy, sexism, respect for experts, etc lead to a
'permanent' state of opportunism. See articles by Charles Post  in HM
carefully wiping out theories of imperialism, super profits, & aristocracy
of labor as relevant. Then see the last three or four paragraphs where he
outlines a future article on the forces leading to opportunism, passivity,
and conservatism as simply the normal state of affairs. It is not the
conservatism of the masses that needs exlanation; it is the occasional
ruptures of that state and the emergence of strong radical movements that
need to be explained.   The question Robin asks is a pseudo-question, not
requiring an answer.

Carrol

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of shag carpet bomb
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:05 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] 'The Reactionary Mind': An Exchange

At 12:14 PM 2/3/2012, // ravi wrote:
>On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Shane Mage wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:44 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> >> what are you two talking about?
> >
> > The phenomenon of reactionary mass political engagement by the "lower 
> orders."
>
>
>So, Shane, do you think that's because there is a 
>"conservative/reactionary mind" in quest of a "taste of lordly power"?
>
>         -ravi
>
>
>Please don't tell me to read the book. That's a cop out. I am not asking 
>about Robin's ultimate opinions. I am asking about yours in response to 
>something that just happens to be something Robin wrote in the NYRB, but 
>has been brought up before as a question: how does one explain 
>"reactionary mass political engagement by the 'lower orders'"? I don't 
>have a good explanation. But I do have a suspicion that it cannot just be 
>all explained by pointing to white supremacy and such.

what's inadequate about white supremacy as an explanation. (i'm not even 
sure what it means, actually)


>  Better I think an EP style argument that human "minds" are adapted to 
> pressures dating millenia where loyalty, group cohesion, etc, matter more 
> significantly than it does today;

but if robin is right that people are constantly pushing up against 
relations of superordaintion/subordination - or at least have been doing it 
a lot with the emergence of modernity -  aren't the very people rebelling 
against that system also exhibiting loyalty, group cohesion. it is my 
experience that they do. even as we argue on the list, within the people 
taking sides on issues, we form cohesive units of loyalty, etc. alignments 
shift, etc.

i think cohesiveness has zero to do with loyalty and cohesiveness.


>or that human "minds" are naturally conservative, preferring a well-known 
>status quo/equilibrium, even if disadvantageous to new complexities.

you should get out and ride the ducati more.

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