[lbo-talk] Spanish promiscuity or German erectile dysfunction?

[// ravi]

On May 3, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Alan P. Rudy wrote:
> 
> Alan It was this claim that Marv's extensive experience in working across a wide range of communities - an experience I think we can agree is wider than Carrol's long history of local organizing -  indicates that the kind of political (or at least ideological) purity Carrol frequently advances is incommensurable with the work of organizing outside of small circles of people.  Furthermore, while I took this to be implied in the "art of defensive formulations" passage, Marv is also saying that a certain amount of pragmatic politics is necessary in order to defend existing terrain, much less construct the terrain for the next struggle, much less have the next struggle… and that this doesn't mean that those working locally with the DP don't have a clear sense of the contradictions of doing so nor that they fail to have a vision of where they're headed not unlike that embedded in Carrol's perspective (even though we're not allowed to have such visions according to Carrol).

I do not intend to speak for Carrol, but rather state my impression of his view based on his responses… and that has always been that “we” cannot insist on ideological or methodological purity but find common cause with other groups where it is possible independent of each group’s ultimate goals. For example, my own keyboard activism for animals may not be of much interest to Carrol and he even objects to any prescriptions I (and real activists) have on the consumption choices of others; yet, he has written that that does not preclude him from finding areas of intersection w.r.t action with me or such activists. These are to me very much pragmatic considerations, albeit not at the cost of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: it is perfectly legitimate for Carrol to think or argue that those working with the DP are deluded or self-defeating. That’s a substantive argument and one that we can engage in productively, or so it seems to me. OTOH, talk of small towns, or small circles, or whatever, is not just patronising but empty. In other words, rather than arguing the theoretical or pragmatic considerations, one side is claiming the ground for itself (we are the pragmatists) - a technique of argumentation, not reasoning.

I do see why Carrol at times infuriates Doug. But everyone has got their styles and the things that infuriate them. I found Marv’s response to me on Indian political parties incorrectly dismissive, and Wojtek’s characterisation of my off-list message to him as [the equivalent of] “gossip” unfair. But slowly and steadily, I hope, I am becoming a big boy and trying to learn (from Michael P, Joanna, others) the attitude so well captured in Michael Y’s message.


> Alan Additionally, it was Marv's claim that the "enjoyment, win or lose" position was insensitive at best, irresponsible at worst, but most importantly never something someone hurting as a result of austerity/restructuring and  involved with those struggles on the ground (see the point above) could ever make.

I think this is a misreading of Carrol’s post. Carrol can correct me, but I believe it was us he was exhorting to enjoy the fight and not sink to despair. His post itself I believe was a misreading of Doug’s response to Jordan (in which Doug predicted despair not for us but for the Greeks and Spaniards).

Apologies to Carrol for a long post dissecting his person and posts.

	—ravi