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!
If there's a silver lining in the ongoing accelerated Farewell Tour of Bourgeois Democracy, American Style, it's the opening it could give to a revolutionary radical Left if folks would organize and expand one in militant and fashion matched to the existential requirements of our time,
Why do you think a Marxist would not tell people to vote "for" Biden to prevent a second pandemofascist Trump term in November of 2020? Do you seriously think that a revolutionary communist who didn't want a second term for the fascist Trump and therefore took two minutes to vote "for" the dismal and bourgeois and imperialist but at least not pandemicist and fascist Dem Biden --- so as to remove the ecocidal monster Trump ---- in a contested state (like PA or WI or AZ or NC) thereby ceased to a revolutionary communist interested primarily in a mass movement in the streets and public squares for the overthrow of capitalism-imperialism? Seriously? If so, why? Why would a communist have wanted a second Trump term? Accelerationist belief that that would bring us closer and quicker to revolution? Sounds like a big electoral hang up to me. Do you think socialism/communism/Marxism is about marking ballots once every four years for...what.?... the PSL candidate, for the Green Parrty candidate, for some other left or leftish potus candidate? Really? If so, why?
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
Thanks Sure. I know what the distinction means. I think I explained my differences with Antonio, Noam, and you on this. Notice that Chomsky's pretty tame and understated comments on possibilities for change reflect cognitions and therefore some optimism of the mind. I think the dialectical standpoint of historical materialism suggests more room for intellectual optimism of the kind I quote on the part of Avakian. I know revolutionary intellectual semi-optimism is a stretch for many these days and I get why but it's worth giving it a shot.
Hi, Paul. Thanks for the reply. I've been seeing some of your writing on CounterPunch (email), and find your views refreshing and comprehensive ... when I understand them. I'm not 'here' to argue, but to learn and think (about 'world matters'), I'm relatively 'new' to these matters, and do not have a belief-system as such. As you said, NC is normally eloquent, but I thought he really missed the gist of Gromsky's quote on pessimism, and I couldn't altogether follow yours -- that's why I put in my 2cents. Thanks for the good effort. Salud!
No big difference here. Really my point is quite basic. Are you energized and moved to action by pessimistic thoughts? I'm not. I don't think many people are. Pessimism of the mind and optimism of the will tend to cancel each otther out. This is just mind-heart-body 101, backed up by the latest research. Not a big deal.
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
If there's a silver lining in the ongoing accelerated Farewell Tour of Bourgeois Democracy, American Style, it's the opening it could give to a revolutionary radical Left if folks would organize and expand one in militant and fashion matched to the existential requirements of our time,
I started to distrust Chomsky when he advocated voting for the "lesser of two evils", something a Marxist would never do.
Why do you think a Marxist would not tell people to vote "for" Biden to prevent a second pandemofascist Trump term in November of 2020? Do you seriously think that a revolutionary communist who didn't want a second term for the fascist Trump and therefore took two minutes to vote "for" the dismal and bourgeois and imperialist but at least not pandemicist and fascist Dem Biden --- so as to remove the ecocidal monster Trump ---- in a contested state (like PA or WI or AZ or NC) thereby ceased to a revolutionary communist interested primarily in a mass movement in the streets and public squares for the overthrow of capitalism-imperialism? Seriously? If so, why? Why would a communist have wanted a second Trump term? Accelerationist belief that that would bring us closer and quicker to revolution? Sounds like a big electoral hang up to me. Do you think socialism/communism/Marxism is about marking ballots once every four years for...what.?... the PSL candidate, for the Green Parrty candidate, for some other left or leftish potus candidate? Really? If so, why?
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
Thanks Sure. I know what the distinction means. I think I explained my differences with Antonio, Noam, and you on this. Notice that Chomsky's pretty tame and understated comments on possibilities for change reflect cognitions and therefore some optimism of the mind. I think the dialectical standpoint of historical materialism suggests more room for intellectual optimism of the kind I quote on the part of Avakian. I know revolutionary intellectual semi-optimism is a stretch for many these days and I get why but it's worth giving it a shot.
Hi, Paul. Thanks for the reply. I've been seeing some of your writing on CounterPunch (email), and find your views refreshing and comprehensive ... when I understand them. I'm not 'here' to argue, but to learn and think (about 'world matters'), I'm relatively 'new' to these matters, and do not have a belief-system as such. As you said, NC is normally eloquent, but I thought he really missed the gist of Gromsky's quote on pessimism, and I couldn't altogether follow yours -- that's why I put in my 2cents. Thanks for the good effort. Salud!
No big difference here. Really my point is quite basic. Are you energized and moved to action by pessimistic thoughts? I'm not. I don't think many people are. Pessimism of the mind and optimism of the will tend to cancel each otther out. This is just mind-heart-body 101, backed up by the latest research. Not a big deal.