I will have to check on lbo83235's statement in context, but perhaps this is an opening for distinguishing _levels_ of theory: or, perhaps of defining more precisely the distinction between Thought and Theory. lbo83235's pint emerges from a discussion of the function of a proposal for change issued at a particular conjunction of events. That is, 'transfer' this exchange to (say) France 1990, and most of the differences expressed here would simply not appear, would not form any part of the discussion, since all participants would clearly conceive it as a purely hypothetical topic, 'free' of any entanglement with ongoing political practice. The debatre loses all its bite once it is seen as a strictly a matter of conflicting analyses of an abstract social system and conflicting theories grounded in that difference. That was the (unanalyzed) premise of Michael's first post. But as part of the discussion as it is now developing, lbo83235's proposition must be seen as a tentative _theorization" of ongoing political activity, having no existence as it were in abstraction from that context. We can then label it "Thought" rather than "Theory." And in any case, my initial post on this thread I rejected its importance as Theory, insisting rather that it be considerd only as Sanders' intervention in an ongoing political conjunction, and that as such its content (the question of corporate personhood) was a diversion from its actual import. We should see it not in respect to its theoretical merits as a potential part of the U.S. Constitution but only in respect to its potential or actual impact on modes of political participation in an election year coinciding with the emergence of a strong _non-electoral movement. Its theoretical content being irrelevant to its role in ongoing political practice. (Consult shag's argument of a month or so ago that Theory had to be in some sense 'universalizable.") Sanders' actual proposal refers not to any constitutional issue but to the choices activists 'should' make now. Please, he says, rally around this campaign rather than around disturbances on your campus from student protest or in your community from the OWS movement or in the struggle for the rights of non-citizens.
To repeat a point: This amendment will never become an actual proposal: considerd as such it is "utopian" in the bad sense, in deflecting consideration of the present rather than (in the good sense) providing a perspective illuminating the present.
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: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:14 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bernie Sander's "saving democracy" amendment
oh! another theory! :)
lbo83235:
<> Maybe all any of that gets you is a modestly improved terrain for <> waging ideological battle. But that would sure be nice.
-- 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