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.
>>
>>
> 

Reply via email to