Sorry - did no realize this was a closed topic. I have replied to several comments on my comments - but now that I see your post will reply to no more on this list.
Michael Perelman wrote: > 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. >> >> >
