Re: The "Desirable and POSSIBLE" vs "BASTANTE!" (Was Iran...)

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> I agree with you on the main arguments of this post, but I'm wondering if
> it may not be important for committed socialists to talk with other
> committed socialists in a way that would "give hope and meaning to the
> *Present*, which capitalism empties of meaning," as you say. What are the
> places of art, fantasy, desire, 'strawberry & chocolate,' etc. in this
> context: conversations among committed socialists? I think that this is a
> question that has gendered implications.

Yes, I think it very important, which is one reason journals and books (and
maillists!) read only by socialists or sympathizers are so important.

I also believe that the question has gendered implications, and one reason
I spent so many days wrestling with the post before sending it is that I
kept hoping that bulbs would flash and I would see at least some of
those implications.

In the post as it stands I was primarily interested in carrying on an
argument
I began two years ago on the old SPOONS marxism list -- an argument
against the assumption that the socialist agitator or propagandist had a
neutral relationship to his/her "audience," which was therefore to be
shaped by the content or style of the agitator's words. I deny that such
a neutral context (which is the ideal classroom or learned journal
context) ever exists for the socialist. We cannot speak to other than
the already partly converted-- so that initial "conversion" must come
from other than our words. It seemed to me that at least to some extent
Doug and Beth's arguments embodied this assumption. (I hope any
reply they make will at the very least lead to a better and clearer term
than "neutral context," which is the best I can come up with now, but
may be opaque.)

Carrol