NC and Robert Reich are of the same mind that the social/political chane needed can happen within the system. Paul Street and others believe only from without can the needed social/political change happen. NC argues that the dynamics of time make the later untenable.
What to do? I'm with you Paul. Abrupt change is needed and needed now. Tweeking the system from within is bogus: to many asholes at the top to get the changes we need now. However, wimpy, couch potato me wants to liberate the black pather within and fucking GO FOR IT!
I'm rather new to your thinking and writing, and I'm amazingly fond of almost all of it (since finding compatible thought is so rare).
There is a lot that I would like to comment on, but I don't have the time and energy.
However, I WILL comment on your (and NC's) 'take' on Gromski's quote. When I first came across the quote (not all that long ago), I felt very much 'in line' with it. I appreciate and relate to Gromski's division between "intellect" and "will". My sense is that, for anyone (at most any time, and at any place), who 'cares' (not only about their own life, but that of 'others'), and who is 'aware' (about the many threats and problems that are ever-present, and the large amount of 'pain' that is being suffered), the world will look grim, and even likely to get worse. (That's the "intellect" part.) But, since (as you correctly point out), since "pessimism" works to keep us from engaging, we need some countervailing aspect of our 'being', in order to, not only 'carry on', but to work for a better world -- that is the "optimism of the will" (if you will). I personally feel and live with this 'split personality' every day, in my own considerations about the 'world situation. Thanks, and please keep up the good work
So my take on things:
NC and Robert Reich are of the same mind that the social/political chane needed can happen within the system. Paul Street and others believe only from without can the needed social/political change happen. NC argues that the dynamics of time make the later untenable.
What to do? I'm with you Paul. Abrupt change is needed and needed now. Tweeking the system from within is bogus: to many asholes at the top to get the changes we need now. However, wimpy, couch potato me wants to liberate the black pather within and fucking GO FOR IT!
Cheers and lol to all
I started to distrust Chomsky when he advocated voting for the "lesser of two evils", something a Marxist would never do.
Hello! (May I address you as "Paul"?)
I'm rather new to your thinking and writing, and I'm amazingly fond of almost all of it (since finding compatible thought is so rare).
There is a lot that I would like to comment on, but I don't have the time and energy.
However, I WILL comment on your (and NC's) 'take' on Gromski's quote. When I first came across the quote (not all that long ago), I felt very much 'in line' with it. I appreciate and relate to Gromski's division between "intellect" and "will". My sense is that, for anyone (at most any time, and at any place), who 'cares' (not only about their own life, but that of 'others'), and who is 'aware' (about the many threats and problems that are ever-present, and the large amount of 'pain' that is being suffered), the world will look grim, and even likely to get worse. (That's the "intellect" part.) But, since (as you correctly point out), since "pessimism" works to keep us from engaging, we need some countervailing aspect of our 'being', in order to, not only 'carry on', but to work for a better world -- that is the "optimism of the will" (if you will). I personally feel and live with this 'split personality' every day, in my own considerations about the 'world situation. Thanks, and please keep up the good work