Below shag writes:
"this is a good illustration of using theory to decide whether to support political activity or not.
"you have a theory about how society works - that such an amendment can or cannot pass -- and why. in turn, you have a theory about political consciousness and what political activity will bring it to see truth or continue to be mired in falsity. etc. etc.
"you speak here, and this is not a negative judgement, as a person who is wedded to a vanguardist notion that your role is to get involved in political activity in order to raise people's consciousness, to get them to see things in a more marxist fashion - the way you ask that we see the current issue in what you think of as a more marixst or correct fashion."
Carrol: At least provisionally I would accept this as exactly right. I've copied the whole exchange below for possible future use. Here I want to raise just one problem, the devilish lack of vocabulary to express varius related but distinct sense of "Theory." Jerry Monaco, when he was on the list, once suggested that "Theory" should apply only to the 'theories' of physical science. (Theory of relativity," etc.) It would follow, for example, that the phrases, "Social Theory" or "Political Theory" are empty of content, or at best somewhat sloppy metaphors.. I have some sympathy with this suggestion, and for that reason am uncomfortable with my arguments being identified as "Theory." But this obviously is impossible; we cannot avoid the use of "theory" and "theorization" in political discussion. I have no suggestion for resolving the matter, other than perhaps simply being conscious of it _as_ a difficulty. Albritton's terminology (Theory, Mid-level Theory, History) work fine if "Theory" refers only to KM's Critique of Political Economy, but do not seem transferable to discussions such as the present one.
So we are left with shag's analysis here as probably the best available. But a beter one remains a desirability if the vocabulary for it can be 'discovered' or coined.
Carrol
................ shag carpet bomb
this is a good illustration of using theory to decide whether to support political activity or not.
you have a theory about how society works - that such an amendment can or cannot pass -- and why. in turn, you have a theory about political consciousness and what political activity will bring it to see truth or continue to be mired in falsity. etc. etc.
you speak here, and this is not a negative judgement, as a person who is wedded to a vanguardist notion that your role is to get involved in political activity in order to raise people's consciousness, to get them to see things in a more marxist fashion - the way you ask that we see the current issue in what you think of as a more marixst or correct fashion.
and, BTW, you also make a mistake in re Doug's argument about theory. while it may be true that doug's personality is inclined toward non participation, a preference for not actually getting involved much, he's not asking that people carefully consult theory _before_ getting involved in this or that political activity.
rather, he is asking that, as people *are* involved *in* political activity that they be more engaged in consulting what he calls "theories" (but which may be better understood as accounts) in order to decide what to do.
thus, questions like "should we hold a march/parade or should we have a direct action sit in to block the traffic on the bridge?" would be concrete political discussions for which Doug is asking for theoretical consultation. You don't leave political activity, go do some theory, and return to the scene of action. Rather, on this view, it's happening all at once. (In reality, this IS how it happens in direct action networks. Nevertheless, Doug is convinced it doesn't happen like this.)
Thus, Doug would say something like this:
1. is your goal to build the movement, get more and more people in volved? 2. if so, is an action that disturbs your target audience ("ordinary americans") going to get people on your side?
yadda
implicit in his reasoning is a theory about how social change happens, how political communication and rhetoric work, who the audience *should* be (based on assumptions about how a social movement can "win"), what moves and motivates people to political action, how and why minds are changed, etc.
for instance, Doug things that the audience a movement wants to reach is "ordinary Americans".
Carrol wrote:
I find this thread a bit peculiar, in so far as the conversation implicitly assumes that the Sanders Amendment might actually become part of the Constitution. The result is that the whole discussion becomes purely 'academic,' detached from actual political activity. What is the actual political impact of Sanders' proposal? NOT the political effect it would have if incorporated into the Constitution but the political impact of the proposal existing as atopic of conversation early in an election year one of the features of which is that for the first time in over 40 years serious (or at least potentially serious) alternatives to electoral politics exist. My assumption would be that the proposal will disappear after Election Eve, 2012, for it will no longer have any impact on current activity. The key feature of the proposal does not lie in its content but in its call for people to engage in active support of it. That is, it packages a passive return to the coziness of electoral politics while appearing to be part of the incipient mass movement. It is just one more disguise of the argument that Politics consists of elections, elections, and nothing else. That makes the arguments for or against the proposal (considered as a possible part of the constitution) exist only in an apolitical realm of seminar discussion. Carrol