I thought that we had put this to bed.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:43:51PM -0800, Gar Lipow wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to