Justin Schwartz replies 6/8 to my suggestion that the distress of some
urban poor people has to do with, in his words, "this mysterious collapse
of character," that this amounts to
>dismiss[ing] the possibility that it has anything to do with
de-industrialization, the collapse of unionism, capital export,
engineered unemployment, or institutional racism.
He is astonished to hear suggested that
>Merely economic facts cannot explain moral blight.
And states as obviously true that
>If we were to take this proposition seriously, we would have to show
that the factors I mention don't cause moral and other havoc and that the
message of the '60s, as Etchison reads it, was influential in the way
that s/he [it's "Michael," male] suggests.
He writes, "This is one too many for me," to which I guess I can only
respond that his next sentence is at least one too _few_ for me.
"De-industrialization, the collapse of unionism, capital export,
engineered unemployment, or institutional racism" all have something to
do with it _also_. I suspect that he and I would draw the arrows of
causation in different directions, and he did notice that I did mention
institutional racism after all. I agree that at least some aspects of
the relative shrinkage of the industrial sector bore more heavily on some
urban poor than on some others, but I probably a) would place the
responsibility for that elsewhere than he, b) would find both causes and
effects more complex and complexly interrelated than he, and c) would
look elsewhere for an understanding of what could sensibly be done about
it. The immediate point is, however, that Schwartz's colorful -- and
fresh, 35 years ago -- list of villains is unacceptably reduced and
reductionist.
> I can't even imagine how to test such a proposition.
As a way to start, Schwartz might temporarily set aside any a priori
sense of obligation to test a putatively empirical hypothesis in only one
way -- that's very old scientism, out of favor among the real
intellectual elite for some time now -- and try something like this: Is
it easier to see a connection between his indicia of desolation -- drugs
and prostitution -- and, on his version, declining union membership, or
on mine, "Sex! Drugs! And Rock and Roll!"? Schwartz says he is "too
young for the 60s" [he was not alive? not sentient? not adult? It really
does make a difference], which I take to mean that his revolutionary
enthusiasm was learned from mentors. Bad news, Mr. Schwartz -- it was,
in my reading, at least partially the responsibility of your mentors (my
cohort) that we are in the plight we are in. We used to say that we
would never trust anyone over 30, until we discovered that we had become
the elders. That the post-60s generation is unable to imagine fault
among its mentors is, however perversely, satisfying to us as we age, but
it does not make for very prudent analysis.
>the message I seem to have got from [the 60s] was a bit different: that
the authorities lie, kill, and steal, that capitalism crushes the human
spirit, that organized resistance is possible, if very difficult, and a
source of regeneration and hope, as well as a school for democracy and,
indeed, character. How come that message, the message of the Port Huron
Statement and the early SNCC, the Vietnam War Resistance, and the women's
and gay and lesbian liberation movements, as well as the radical labor
insurgencies of the late 60's and early '70s, didn't take?
Indeed, "the authorities lie, kill, and steal." That is why it is so
important not only that participation in political decision-making be as
coextensive as possible with those able responsibly to participate, but
that the power of those "in authority" be narrowly circumscribed, as
those earlier revolutionaries, Publius and the Philadelphia Gang
observed.
Does "capitalism" crush the spirit? If you simply equate all that is
crushing with capitalism, the answer is easy. But the urge to exploit,
to crush the human spirit, has always been with us. Capitalism is, among
many other things, a way of thinking about and carrying out material and
other transactions, and a great many of those who formed it participated
because they believed that it made it harder for oppression, tyranny,
and, yes, poverty to occur. One may end up concluding that those
participants were mistaken or deluded or undone by false consciousness,
but that conclusion must be earned by a serious study, not by an
unacknowledgely nostalgic flailing of 35-year-old banners.
"Organized resistance" is possible, but difficult. The sort of
resistance romanticized by the SDS (did I hear anyone add the Michigan
Militia to the list?) is indeed difficult, because most sensible folks
believe the game not to be worth the candle. The ones who "win"
revolutions seem, from 1789 on, to be largely the revolutionaries (and
not all of them). Revolutions make it awfully hard to raise kids, to
bring in crops, to get Kleenex into the stores, to walk safely down the
street. "The message of the Port Huron Statement and the early SNCC,"
and the rest, did take, contrary to Schwartz's rhetorical question. The
message was that someone who wanted to make his life better, his family's
life better, his community better, must look to the government. Only
political power, the message was, was any use. Character had nothing to
do with it.
Or did it?
Michael Etchison
[opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
