Greetings Economists, On Sep 4, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Mark Lause wrote:
In both cases, you can get a reaction to the prospect of socialism that moves to the right.
Doyle; Agreed, the question you pose in my understanding is a form of making Socialism irreversible. Mark writes; What is the basis for assuming that the role of religiously motivated women in the US been more progressive than that of religiously motivated men? Doyle; In being able to distinguish emotional attachment processes that undergird the fundamental equality Marx aimed at in the 'whole' working class. It does not mean Marx knew then how to unite the 'whole' class, rather Marx thought based upon economic analysis at the time that in economic terms the working class composed a discrete whole based upon property rights, and ownership of the means of production. To which the communal whole meant sharing the wealth. Mark writes; And the entire question of the homophobic impulse among many (not all, but surely most) of the self-defined born-agains leaves me unable to get too optimistic about the likelihood that it will work to our advantage. Doyle; They are surely saying that face to face attachments are only sexually heterosexual so their view of emotional attachments is awry. As Yoshie points out Homosocial milieus dominate real world public activity. In any case I won't advocate verbal persuasion. It is the question of emotional attachment that is at stake. Mark writes; And once you get into an organizationally imposed idea of what religion will mean to people, you are, by definition, excluding those who don't accept that idea, right? Doyle; I think you are referring to the correct line? By that I mean a text based one to many solution about emotional attachment. The center agrees in the central committee to the correct line. Not dissimilar to what democratic institutions do by legislation. This obfuscates the question of how the whole is attached. Since this is not really a widely held view in the Marxist world it really requires a mass movement to get some realistic answers. One can preach a formula about information and emotions, but what's the point? Perhaps that it appeals to people better than what came before. Doyle
