In engineering (probably elsewhere too) there's a problem called "analysis paralysis": people continue to beaver away at discussing some problem and elaborating their understanding, but they never feel that they understand it well enough to stop talking and get to doing. Sometimes that's actually legitimate (we would have benefitted, I think, from a.p. in the development of frankenfoods, since they're far from being well-understood). Other times it's an excuse not to take risks or not to have to do any work or something equally ignoble. I think I encountered something similar 2 years ago when I tried to get people off their duffs to build a machine for DK. At least one person (eridani?) actually said "if it's meant to happen, it will happen", as though human intention were irrelevant. It was hard to be civil.

Anyway, when is talking work, and when is it pastime/work avoidance, and how do we test for those two states?

Campaigners calling or coming to the door are like Jehovas. Mike mentioned that what doesn't work is true believers prosyletizing for their chosen one. What does work mean? Manning phone banks?

Campaigners calling or coming to the door are like Jehovas. Mike mentioned that what doesn't work is true believers prosyletizing for their chosen one. What does work mean? Manning phone banks?
Okay, what DOES "work" mean? I'll suggest that it means making progress toward a desired goal. By "making progress" I don't mean what's often meant in psychotherapy, but rather the engineering-program idea of reaching some milestone in a finite list where, when the last milestone is passed, the goal has been reached.

The Right understands this. Talking is the most important part of doing and the need for it never stop.

We need to talk about what we do instead of just mindlessly and impulsively doing without realizing what we are doing is failing.

let me give it back to you--If by talking you can't communicate to even me why Kucinich is worth dividing the Left over, then, what can you do that could convice me otherwise? What would you do exactly other than suggest that I am not welcome if I don't join in the cheering?

The Right understands this. Talking is the most important part of doing and the need for it never stop.
Are you saying that talking is sufficient, that there never comes a point to do something besides talk? I'm fairly sure you're not, but I don't think I understand what you are saying exactly.


We need to talk about what we do instead of just mindlessly and impulsively doing without realizing what we are doing is failing.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think talking isn't important. I really don't think that (I'm here, after all)


let me give it back to you--If by talking you can't communicate to even me why Kucinich is worth dividing the Left over, then, what can you do that could convice me otherwise? What would you do exactly other than suggest that I am not welcome if I don't join in the cheering?
Okay, to begin with I can imagine very few circumstances in which it would be legitimate to tell someone that their continued opposition makes them unwelcome. Those circs all involve the prospective expellee trying to achieve by force what they can't achieve by reason (a position I can't at all imagine you being in). So could we get that off the table?

"Worth dividing the left over". Does that mean the left wouldn't be divided if I (for example) would just shut up about how Kucinich is the best of a bad lot, or what does that mean exactly? Am I trying to convince you that it's worth dividing the left over DK (whatever that means)? What could I hope to gain? What's the alternative?

Would it be worth it to no longer identify with being on the Left? Does being on the Left impose certain stipulations? Sometimes I see posters whose spelling is worse than mine--or maybe their politics are less sophisticated, and sometimes on Lefty sites, no one interacts with them. (Leftys talk a good game--is that what you are saying? Is the Left too elitist locked in ivory tower debates of moral superiority?) Maybe those are the ones who might have most to add to the conversation about what needs to be done. My guess you are speaking within the framework of an activist--and I do think Cindy Sheehan, for example is effective in those ways, but what are some other ways of reaching out to others short of being a social worker or a community organizer? My father, an imperfect man in the sense that he abandoned his own children, but actually lived in the inner city to help the poorest of the poor's children get a better chance in life. I used to actually feel jealousy towards some of those poor kids because they had more of my father's time and attention, when his own children lived in a rat-infested house so cold the water froze in the glass.
There are no clear cut answers and I guess a good start would be to stop looking down on others who may not be hip enough or have the right address or heritage . Easier said than done when I think about my own "white trash" neighbors.

Okay, what DOES "work" mean? I'll suggest that it means making progress toward a desired goal. By "making progress" I don't mean what's often meant in psychotherapy, but rather the engineering-program idea of reaching some milestone in a finite list where, when the last milestone is passed, the goal has been reached.
Work means setting up meetings. To talk.

Politics is talk. That is all it is. The work is involved in setting up the conditions for the discussion.

You mentioning the engineering thing and "analysis paralysis" gave me a lot of insight. I couldn't figure out where the "do something" mantra came from. The work versus talking notion must come from academia - especially since college has moved so radically away from the traditional liberal arts model - and the corporate white collar world. It falls flat on its face in politics and with blue collar people. It sounds patronizing and condescending as well as like hucksterism and hype. People are resistant to sales pitches and lectures.

I think we need to explore the "do something" idea a little more. We ran into that at PI from Tlcandie and others, and here is what I discovered: it really wasn't about doing anything, it was about doing certain things because all of my action suggestions fell on deaf ears.

My sense is this - the thinking process behind the "do something" idea: we know what we want, we know how to do it, so all we need to do is get off our lazy asses and get moving. That means do the same old things with the same old goals in the same old way - all of which has a 30-40 year track record of abject failure, and all of which is seriously at odds with the effective political methodologies of the previous 300 plus years.

The models that the activists habitually reach for come from two sources - academia (hierarchical based on credentials and other credibility criteria, pedantic, overly structured); and corporate (developing a product and a sales and marketing plan to advertise, promote and sell the product.)

Rather than the noisy Union meeting, we have the sedate lecture hall. Rather than the Grange Hall we have the corporate management conference room. World of difference there.

on edit: There is a built in upper class bias to the "something" that the activists pressure us to "do."

Politics is talk. That is all it is. The work is involved in setting up the conditions for the discussion.



Yes... And talking to more people and achieving ever greater agreement with those that you are already talking to (including "agreeing to disagree").

Building consensus internally and strength externally through "talk"... what else is there? Once in a while, we test or show our strength (demonstration, strike, ...even phoning Congress people, etc.), but only to return to talk.

And the purpose is NOT to talk people into stuff. It is to give political form to ideas, opinions, and perspectives (and ultimately to interests) which already exist. This was one important point of confusion at PI. Gotta treat people at the other end with respect. If they have something to say, they will say it. If they have questions, they will ask them. If you aren't getting over, you probably have nothing to say that is worth saying... or maybe, you aren't saying it right.

The real irony is that the Internet gives an unprecedented ability to "talk politics" (even if it is entirely unstructured). What a moment for "self-doubt".

Yes... And talking to more people and achieving ever greater agreement with those that you are already talking to (including "agreeing to disagree").

Building consensus internally and strength externally through "talk"... what else is there? Once in a while, we test or show our strength (demonstration, strike, ...even phoning Congress people, etc.), but only to return to talk.

And the purpose is NOT to talk people into stuff. It is to give political form to ideas, opinions, and perspectives (and ultimately to interests) which already exist. This was one important point of confusion at PI. Gotta treat people at the other end with respect. If they have something to say, they will say it. If they have questions, they will ask them. If you aren't getting over, you probably have nothing to say that is worth saying... or maybe, you aren't saying it right.

The real irony is that the Internet gives an unprecedented ability to "talk politics" (even if it is entirely unstructured). What a moment for "self-doubt".
My vision for the Internet boards was to develop people as useful and effective wordsmiths out in the community, and in service to the community, since it seems so clear to me that we are AWOL and that our skills are badly needed. All of the other working class people are onboard, but there is a dearth of thinkers and writers and theorists and strategists in all of the working class movements and organizations. Instead, the activists herd together like a bunch of geese, looking for “like minded” people to all visualize world peace together and levitate the Pentagon or something.

Ten writers and thinkers get together on the boards (much more powerful than trying to meet up in person, which is the usefulness of the Internet for us) compare notes, and then each goes out and talks to 100 everyday people, then back to the think tank to compare notes again. That is what we do here in real life.

This should be a call to service, not a demand to be served. “I want aspartame banned!” Well who are you and who cares what you want? The working people are fed up. They are ready to march, ready to strike, ready to resist. They are ready to do everything that could ever be asked of them. One group of working class people is missing in action – the writers, the thinkers, the organizers. They are all too busy converting to or selling people on their personal lifestyle choices, and gathering together in little isolated groups disconnected from the general public, lamenting how stupid and useless the people are. People will never join a movement for the purpose of further pampering and coddling a class of people that already are privileged in the eyes of the blue collar people.

Forming special interest activist groups from the relatively small number of people in the country who are liberal activists is a squandering of talent and it distorts and corrupts the entire political discussion. Nobody gives a shit about our petty gentrified worries and our personal beliefs and the problems we are having with those and our desires of only the world would do our bidding – nor should they.

Trying to “be” a movement – trying to build a movement out of people like us – is supremely selfish and egotistical. We need to put our selves into service, and offer the talents we have just as people with other talents put their talents into the service of others. There will never be a mass movement of “like-minded” people We have one small, humble - yet critical - role to play. That's all.

The other thing we do here is integrate politics into “real life” - which the activists don't or won't do. The activists think in terms of “having a day job” - one needs to be realistic after all – and then things like art or politics or having a social conscience are all hobby activities for their spare time. Here we don't make that artificial distinction. Every conversation is political – I don't mean that we change the subject and “talk politics,” rather we recognize that every discussion is political and every discussion is an opportunity to have an impact on people that will translate to effective political action. I had three business conversations today, with representatives from big corporations, and business ethics, the role of the businessman in society, the public welfare, and best interests of the community will be discussed and taken into consideration, or we won't do business with you. I will not be silenced, play the game, bite my tongue, go along or any of the rest of that bullshit for the hopes of making a sale. 90% of the people we talk to, including corporate managers and buyers, are very inspired and receptive to this, and in 5 minutes they are converted from thinking of themselves as upper class (sorta) to a recognition that their humanity and community mindedness is being suppressed and that human values are more important to them than career success and self advancement or turning a dollar. I will directly speak to the person's heart, I don't care how big a wheel they are or how much money they are waving at us, and I will know with whom we are doing business and where they stand. That is just how it is going to be, because the social crisis is too severe and the suffering is too great for me to be willing to contribute to the conspiracy of silence. The 10% that are offended and object to a passionate expression of social ideals– good! We save ourselves a lot of grief by identifying unprincipled sharks right from the beginning.

Instead, the activists huddle together to nurse their cowardice and to reinforce their sense of being something special and superior to the unwashed peons that they are forced to put up with. “If only all those people out there were smart and enlightened and beautiful like us, what a wonderful world we would have.” If everyone were smart and enlightened, what would they need us for? We are just more useless mouths to feed of we aren't putting our talents and skills in service to the community.

I see a lot of gloom and doom posting here at PI, but very little discussion about strategy or calls to action. Perhaps that's due to the nature of a left-wing, but politically unaffiliated, forum such as this. But in any event, I'd like to see less of the former and more of the latter, and I'd hope that some of the people here would spend less time worrying about sinister, James Bond style plots and spend more time getting proven information out there and doing organizing work offline.

I see a lot of gloom and doom posting here at PI, but very little discussion about strategy or calls to action. Perhaps that's due to the nature of a left-wing, but politically unaffiliated, forum such as this. But in any event, I'd like to see less of the former and more of the latter, and I'd hope that some of the people here would spend less time worrying about sinister, James Bond style plots and spend more time getting proven information out there and doing organizing work offline.

DB_Cooper is right. We never lose the "ideological struggle". The problem is getting there. If we don't have mountains of cash to overcome, we have rivers of bullshit to cross.

If we ever get into action, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

(Especially if you angle the tip of the pen upward a little to get underneath the ribcage, and twist a bit on entry...)

http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/proverbs/images/the_pen.jpg

Are you saying that talking is sufficient, that there never comes a point to do something besides talk? I'm fairly sure you're not, but I don't think I understand what you are saying exactly.
Jumping in here and speaking for myself, the answer is "yes." The model - first talk, then do - is off. We all already "do" - what is missing is a coherent framework within which to do things. The idea that politics is one discrete separate part of people's lives is off as well. The idea that we know all that we need to know, so now it is time to get busy is also off.

The idea that there is too much thinking and too much talking and not enough action is also off, in my opinion. There is too little thinking, too little genuine conversation, and far too much running around like chickens with their heads cut off. “Stop doing things and start thinking and talking!” is what people need to be told. Or “get off your figurative ass, stop playing activist and get out there and talk to people!” When what you are doing isn't working, it is not time to whip people to do it more. The reason why the things that people are doing aren't working is because their thinking is muddled and their communication is so poor.

All of that “do something” nonsense is a trick for shutting certain voices out of the conversation and for steering people surreptitiously into a certain kind of thinking and a certain kind of action. The same people who yell “do something” are more than willing to spend hours and hours talking about conspiracy theories or New Age philosophy.

The idea that people need to be spurred to action is fine - that is what talk does, and action will inevitably follow. But you don't get people to act by treating them like a bunch of grade schoolers - "c'mon people let's all speak truth to power!" and asking people to see activism as yet one more little activity to fit into their busy lives, and scolding them condescendingly about "not doing anything."

The other thing to remember is that we are the talkers. That is our skill, that is our job. It takes more than that, but so does building a house. You don't tell the carpenters to stop swinging the hammer and start wiring the building. You don't tell the architect to stop drawing and start swinging a hammer before the drawing is completed. The answer is not to get more “like minded” people gathered together and then try to have them be everything – unless we are trying to start a religion rather than a political movement.

We are doing a terrible job of talking. That is an impediment to the movement. That isn't solved by “doing something.” The movement is not about us. We have one small but critical job to perform within it, and we are failing at that.

Would it be worth it to no longer identify with being on the Left?
Yes.

Being a label is worthless. The principles and ideals traditionally associated with the Left exist without the labels and without anyone creating a personal identity from "being" it.

One problem at PI is that we had people assigning the label of "Left" or "socialist" to themselves, and then spouting conservative and reactionary ideas. This whole idea of "being" something is absurd anyway, and is a very recent phenomenon. It started with the Renaissance Fairs, or perhaps the Sci-Fi conventions - people dressing up in roles and playing parts, and that activity then consuming their lives.

I "am" a socialist. What in Hell does that mean? When people say that, they don't mean that they are a candidate or an employee or a member of the socialist party, do they? Not usually. They mean "I have chosen to play the role of what I imagine a socialist to be."

Notice how the right wingers can discredit any ideas from the Left by merely saying "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that. That is what liberals say. Do you deny that you are a liberal? Well there you go. You would then say that. That is what people who are liberals say." This puts the cart - label, the identity, the play acting role - before the horse - the ideas, the principles.

Would it be worth it to no longer identify with being on the Left?
Yes.

Being a label is worthless. The principles and ideals traditionally associated with the Left exist without the labels and without anyone creating a personal identity from "being" it.

One problem at PI is that we had people assigning the label of "Left" or "socialist" to themselves, and then spouting conservative and reactionary ideas. This whole idea of "being" something is absurd anyway, and is a very recent phenomenon. It started with the Renaissance Fairs, or perhaps the Sci-Fi conventions - people dressing up in roles and playing parts, and that activity then consuming their lives.

I "am" a socialist. What in Hell does that mean? When people say that, they don't mean that they are a candidate or an employee or a member of the socialist party, do they? Not usually. They mean "I have chosen to play the role of what I imagine a socialist to be."

Notice how the right wingers can discredit any ideas from the Left by merely saying "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that. That is what liberals say. Do you deny that you are a liberal? Well there you go. You would then say that. That is what people who are liberals say." This puts the cart - label, the identity, the play acting role - before the horse - the ideas, the principles.

"Third way" talk (not on the "left" and not on the "right") typically devolves into an aimless meander... or much worse. It took decades to talk about a "left" in America again. This is MUCH more than a "label"... it is historically identified with a class perspective on American society. It is much, MUCH more than play acting.

There ain't no ducking out of the responsibilities of the label in order to avoid defending it...

Of course, unless you mean it....


(Listen, I'm not much in search of "community", and don't really believe in prototyping the new society in the carcass of the old, and I don't care who owns or controls this board, either. Y'all might want to consider disinviting me, without prejudice, from this venture. I'm not looking for a change of "orthodoxy"... I'm focused on spreading it. )

Would it be worth it to no longer identify with being on the Left?
Yes.

Being a label is worthless. The principles and ideals traditionally associated with the Left exist without the labels and without anyone creating a personal identity from "being" it.

One problem at PI is that we had people assigning the label of "Left" or "socialist" to themselves, and then spouting conservative and reactionary ideas. This whole idea of "being" something is absurd anyway, and is a very recent phenomenon. It started with the Renaissance Fairs, or perhaps the Sci-Fi conventions - people dressing up in roles and playing parts, and that activity then consuming their lives.

I "am" a socialist. What in Hell does that mean? When people say that, they don't mean that they are a candidate or an employee or a member of the socialist party, do they? Not usually. They mean "I have chosen to play the role of what I imagine a socialist to be."

Notice how the right wingers can discredit any ideas from the Left by merely saying "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that. That is what liberals say. Do you deny that you are a liberal? Well there you go. You would then say that. That is what people who are liberals say." This puts the cart - label, the identity, the play acting role - before the horse - the ideas, the principles.

"Third way" talk (not on the "left" and not on the "right") typically devolves into an aimless meander... or much worse. It took decades to talk about a "left" in America again. This is MUCH more than a "label"... it is historically identified with a class perspective on American society. It is much, MUCH more than play acting.

There ain't no ducking out of the responsibilities of the label in order to avoid defending it...

Of course, unless you mean it....


(Listen, I'm not much in search of "community", and don't really believe in prototyping the new society in the carcass of the old, and I don't care who owns or controls this board, either. Y'all might want to consider disinviting me, without prejudice, from this venture. I'm not looking for a change of "orthodoxy"... I'm focused on spreading it. )

I see your point, but I'm not sure thats whats happening here, its not as though anyone is looking for some squishy middle ground where we can harp on how we 'see both sides' or some shit. It seems to me like we are talking about terminology and identifying with the terminology more than the principles behind it.

I mean if the word liberal is hopelessly stigmatized or worse possessed by a bunch of loons and con-men then don't we HAVE to differentiate ourselves from that?

I think that would be a really lame way to lose your involvement in this although maybe you aren't sold on the efficacy of this type of 'community' in the first place. Hey I'm not either, but it has a better start and a better shot than anything else I've run into.

"Third way" talk (not on the "left" and not on the "right") typically devolves into an aimless meander... or much worse. It took decades to talk about a "left" in America again. This is MUCH more than a "label"... it is historically identified with a class perspective on American society. It is much, MUCH more than play acting.

There ain't no ducking out of the responsibilities of the label in order to avoid defending it...

Of course, unless you mean it....

(Listen, I'm not much in search of "community", and don't really believe in prototyping the new society in the carcass of the old, and I don't care who owns or controls this board, either. Y'all might want to consider disinviting me, without prejudice, from this venture. I'm not looking for a change of "orthodoxy"... I'm focused on spreading it. )
I misspoke or you misheard me, because I agree with everything you say here. I was trying to decribe people who claim to be on the Left and aren't, and for whom it is little more than a label or play acting.

I too am interested in spreading, not changing orthodoxy.

Would it be worth it to no longer identify with being on the Left?
Yes.

Being a label is worthless. The principles and ideals traditionally associated with the Left exist without the labels and without anyone creating a personal identity from "being" it.

One problem at PI is that we had people assigning the label of "Left" or "socialist" to themselves, and then spouting conservative and reactionary ideas. This whole idea of "being" something is absurd anyway, and is a very recent phenomenon. It started with the Renaissance Fairs, or perhaps the Sci-Fi conventions - people dressing up in roles and playing parts, and that activity then consuming their lives.

I "am" a socialist. What in Hell does that mean? When people say that, they don't mean that they are a candidate or an employee or a member of the socialist party, do they? Not usually. They mean "I have chosen to play the role of what I imagine a socialist to be."

Notice how the right wingers can discredit any ideas from the Left by merely saying "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that. That is what liberals say. Do you deny that you are a liberal? Well there you go. You would then say that. That is what people who are liberals say." This puts the cart - label, the identity, the play acting role - before the horse - the ideas, the principles.

"Third way" talk (not on the "left" and not on the "right") typically devolves into an aimless meander... or much worse. It took decades to talk about a "left" in America again. This is MUCH more than a "label"... it is historically identified with a class perspective on American society. It is much, MUCH more than play acting.

There ain't no ducking out of the responsibilities of the label in order to avoid defending it...

Of course, unless you mean it....


(Listen, I'm not much in search of "community", and don't really believe in prototyping the new society in the carcass of the old, and I don't care who owns or controls this board, either. Y'all might want to consider disinviting me, without prejudice, from this venture. I'm not looking for a change of "orthodoxy"... I'm focused on spreading it. )

I see your point, but I'm not sure thats whats happening here, its not as though anyone is looking for some squishy middle ground where we can harp on how we 'see both sides' or some shit. It seems to me like we are talking about terminology and identifying with the terminology more than the principles behind it.

I mean if the word liberal is hopelessly stigmatized or worse possessed by a bunch of loons and con-men then don't we HAVE to differentiate ourselves from that?

I think that would be a really lame way to lose your involvement in this although maybe you aren't sold on the efficacy of this type of 'community' in the first place. Hey I'm not either, but it has a better start and a better shot than anything else I've run into.

It would be ironic, wouldn't it, to leave a board that claimed to be left but wasn't, in order to join one that claimed not to be left but was?

Listen, KBH, I am just looking for a "left" board to post on... I am not a seeker or a searcher. I am looking for an outlet for what I am which is a Socialist and a Marxist and a writer. I have infinite faith in the debate and in the struggle... and in the people. I have no faith in spirituality or vision or lifestyle. I liked DU, except that the owners went out of their way to stop the natural drift leftwards. I wasn't crazy about PI. I couldn't invite people I know to post there. There was too much talk about spirits and conspiracies and self... but I tried. In the end, that shit turns out to be more important than the "left" part. My only hope is that this board is more serious.

But, we need to be clear about this up front. I ain't changing what I think or what I call myself or what I do because of any consensus. If there is a place for me, no problem. If not, it's better to show me the door now... no hard feelings.

Posting on the fly today between meetings and a company party, I didn't properly respond to you, anaxarchos.


"Third way" talk (not on the "left" and not on the "right") typically devolves into an aimless meander... or much worse. It took decades to talk about a "left" in America again. This is MUCH more than a "label"... it is historically identified with a class perspective on American society. It is much, MUCH more than play acting.

Of course. I am talking about how to advance the Left, not whether or not to advance the Left, depending on how people feel or what is easier. It is insufficient to merely identify oneself as being on the Left. It is incumbent upon us to communicate to people effectively. Also, the Left is not merely another "team" to join - nor is it merely another choice on the buffet table of political philosophies to choose. If the label means one of those to people, then I say they should put the lable down before someone gets hurt.


There ain't no ducking out of the responsibilities of the label in order to avoid defending it...

Of course. Talk by me about labels is not for the purpose of avoiding defending the Left. It is a matter of successful tactics for the purpose of advancing the Left, not for the purpose of advancing without the Left when it is inconvenient to do so.


(Listen, I'm not much in search of "community", and don't really believe in prototyping the new society in the carcass of the old, and I don't care who owns or controls this board, either. Y'all might want to consider disinviting me, without prejudice, from this venture. I'm not looking for a change of "orthodoxy"... I'm focused on spreading it. )

Nor am I in search of a community. Talk of community by me is about recognizing that we are in a community, and structuring that community to facilitate the advancement of the Left.


It would be ironic, wouldn't it, to leave a board that claimed to be left but wasn't, in order to join one that claimed not to be left but was?

Claims in and of themselves are not sufficient. Backing the claim up is what I am talking about, not dumping the claim.


Listen, KBH, I am just looking for a "left" board to post on... I am not a seeker or a searcher. I am looking for an outlet for what I am which is a Socialist and a Marxist and a writer. I have infinite faith in the debate and in the struggle... and in the people. I have no faith in spirituality or vision or lifestyle. I liked DU, except that the owners went out of their way to stop the natural drift leftwards. I wasn't crazy about PI. I couldn't invite people I know to post there. There was too much talk about spirits and conspiracies and self... but I tried. In the end, that shit turns out to be more important than the "left" part. My only hope is that this board is more serious.

I am out of here as well, if you are, and for the same reasons. I too had no problem with DU, and few with PI, except for the owners suppressing the natural leftward drift of the discussion at DU and the focus at PI with spirituality, vision, and lifestyle. Even so, I was willing to co-exist with the New Age and conspiracy crowds at PI, but they apparently are not willing to tolerate anything but the New Age and conspiracy theory crowd.

The discussion was being moved leftward at both places, and that is the natural way for the discussion to go, as you say, if it is not actively suppressed or censored.

I too have infinite faith in the debate and the struggle.

But, we need to be clear about this up front. I ain't changing what I think or what I call myself or what I do because of any consensus. If there is a place for me, no problem. If not, it's better to show me the door now... no hard feelings.

Of course you ain't, nor should you, nor would I. If there isn't a place for you, as you described it here, then there isn't a place for me either.

Or perhaps reading past one another?

If so, is that a fault within us, or are we still processing stuff from elsewhere the way PTSD forces its victims to do?

Or perhaps reading past one another?

If so, is that a fault within us, or are we still processing stuff from elsewhere the way PTSD forces its victims to do?
I took Raph and anaxarchos to mean two different things by the word "Left." I thought Raph was talking about people (at the lefty boards) who call themselves Left but are more like moderate Republicans - people who identify themselves as being on the Left and are not very far Left, if at all. Pundits and writers in the popular media call anyone who disagrees with the right wing social program as far Left. Should we abandon identification with that phony Left? Yes, would be my answer. Anaxarchos heard what I said, I think, as abandoning the Left or moving to the center to be more popular. Compound that with my poor explanation of what I was trying to say. (Still not doing a very good job I am afraid.)

OK... I stand corrected. Sorry to misunderstand.

My commune period is long over. Too many warm feelings, and I start to come apart at the seams.

The way I see it is no little special interests groups or individuals with an agenda who are constantly sqealing, complaining to the boss--or anyone who has landed an authority position in the hierarchial pecking order and uses it todetermine what the acceptible position on the issue is- should be permitted.

The promise should be don't do it to me and I won't do it to you.

Yes, not so much how we see the Left, but more as how others characterize it so that it makes it impossible to leave that defined cage--then it becomes all about the label, which is used against us--liberal bashing and red-baiting when it should be about the issues--the winning issues. That is the great threat--the winning issues, so all effort is put into destroying the label, making it taboo to prevent the issues from reaching a receptive audience. That and the label is co-opted by the Right--so that the Left is framed by Hillary Clinton.

So, the hell with the label under those circumstances was all I was saying.

I am on my Mom's computer and hanging on her wall says:

Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. Che Guevara.

What else is there to say?

Please, please post and don't give me the log-in screen again!

Yes, not so much how we see the Left, but more as how others characterize it so that it makes it impossible to leave that defined cage--then it becomes all about the label, which is used against us--liberal bashing and red-baiting when it should be about the issues--the winning issues. That is the great threat--the winning issues, so all effort is put into destroying the label, making it taboo to prevent the issues from reaching a receptive audience. That and the label is co-opted by the Right--so that the Left is framed by Hillary Clinton.

So, the hell with the label under those circumstances was all I was saying.
That's it, yes.

Please, please post and don't give me the log-in screen again!
Raph, do you have cookies enabled for this site on your mum's machine? If not, I bet that's why you're having the re-log-in-every-2-seconds problem.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml ... 2&s=moyers (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070122&s=moyers)


It is only rarely remembered that the definition of democracy immortalized by Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address had been inspired by Theodore Parker, the abolitionist prophet. Driven from his pulpit, Parker said, "I will go about and preach and lecture in the city and glen, by the roadside and field-side, and wherever men and women may be found." He became the Hound of Freedom and helped to change America through the power of the word. We have a story of equal power. It is that the promise of America leaves no one out. Go now, and tell it on the mountains. From the rooftops, tell it. From your laptops, tell it. From the street corners and from Starbucks, from delis and from diners, tell it. From the workplace and the bookstore, tell it. On campus and at the mall, tell it. Tell it at the synagogue, sanctuary and mosque. Tell it where you can, when you can and while you can--to every candidate for office, to every talk-show host and pundit, to corporate executives and schoolchildren. Tell it--for America's sake.



Thinking of you, mberst :D