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

[xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>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.

is this sentence neutral then? socialist "agitator" or "propagandist"?
the last time i read weber and karl popper, they were making smilar
assumptions about the "socialist agitators".

i know that the author wants to press the idea that a socialist does
not have a neutral relationship with the world. that is because socialists
concern for the others, and i beleive in their sincerity (at least the
ones i know of). but i suspect the author has a different point.
what is the word "agitator" here? and is this neutrality problem only
unique to socialists? why are the socialists (or at least some socialists)
the main target of discussion of here?for example, why not instead
discuss the racists whose relationship to neurality is much more wicked
than the socialists? my point is that people are spending  a lot of
dangerous gas here for suspecting the sincerity of socialists. of course,
as a socialist, i am NOT value free and i "reject" to be so because i
concern for "substantive equality" for women, races and working classes,
which is by definition a value laden concept. human are, by nature and by
convention social beings, and create their relationships in a non-neutral
way. expecting otherwise is a positivist/empricist way of looking at
reality.


Xxxx Xxxxxx
phd candidate
suny/albany
albany/ny.