In response to a post by Carroll, I said:
>We>need to be able to answer the question: "what would you do if you were >in charge?". >> > Devine, James wrote in reply: > I sometimes say "this is what I would do if I were in charge" (such as not > terror-bombing Afghanistan) but I immediately qualify this by stating that > it's impossible that such policies would be implemented given the current > balance of political power. The implication is that we need to change the > balance of power (organize!). This is simplistic, but it's good enough for > bumper-stickers. > Right, you are making explicit something that is implicit in any radical political criticism -- that we should seek change in the political balance of power. When you do this people always wonder if it is going to be a "meet the old boss, same as the new boss" situation. Or even more frightening, will radical change or revolution make things worse rather than better? That is why there is an obligation to not merely to oppose what is wrong, but to suggest how things will change if we win our demands. There are cases , like Vietnam, when a purely negative program is enough. The demand to "get out of Vietnam" was an improvement for both the U.S. and Vietnam. But in a case like 911, I don't think a purely negative program is possible. Thousands of people in the U.S. were killed in the course of a few hours. Carroll has the response that if he were in charge he would be a different person. But he is making demands that also require a drastic power shift. Why can he handle the negative hypothetical, but not the positive one? The ability to win negative demands in a case like this would both imply and require the ability to win positive demands as well. To refuse to imagine some positive alternative is not a revolutionary defeatist, nor a pacifist position. It is not pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. It is despair, an endless black hole, a failure of the imagination.
