[Peace-discuss] Guess the author (no googling)

[John W.]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:



> Gee, did I misinterpret you, John?
>

Of course.  You frequently do.  But please don't worry excessively about it,
Carl.  Even my shrink didn't understand me.



> There have I believe been a a number of polls showing that somewhere near
> half the population believe that the U.S. Constitution - as we know, a
> sacred document - is the source of Marx's phrase "from each according to his
> ability, to each according to his need" - so obviously right does the
> sentiment seem. See, e.g., "Poll on the Constitution," Boston Globe, 13
> September 1987, cited by Julius Lobel in "A Less than Perfect Union"
> (Monthly Review, 1988), p. 3.
>
If this poll is true, then the public is....ummm, "uninformed", as I am
constantly reminding you.  And willingly so.



> The interests of Americans - no more than a local variation of universal
> human desires - are a great source of anxiety for our rulers, because of
> course their desires are opposed to them. They have to work very hard to
> thwart them, without seeming to do so. We should be pointing that out.
>
So that's your plan???  "Pointing out" the disaparity between "our" desires
and those of our rulers?  "Pointing out" the great subtlety of our rulers in
thwarting our desires?  How's that been working so far, Carl?  You've been
doing that for years and years.



> As the greatest Liberal historian of the 19th century put it, "Power tends
> to corrupt..."


I thought that was Macchiavelli.  :-)  But yes.  A pretty universal
nostrum.  One of the MOST universal, in fact.  Your point?




> On 5/8/10 4:09 PM, John W. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> You're wrong to be so censorious, John: I think Stuart has already
>> occasionally said actually sensible things...
>>
>> Indeed, he always does.  That of course was the point.
>>
>> And your low opinion of your fellow citizens in this case betrays you:
>> almost half of Americans believe that "From each according to his ability,
>> to
>> each according to his need" is enshrined in that Sacred Document, the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> Your source of that information?
>>
>> We don't have to make them interested in the "communist creed" because
>> they
>> already are; they see it as an American (and hence universal) ideal - at
>> least until it can adequately besmirched as "Communist" by a Good
>> Education...
>>
>> And your point is....?  Did you answer my question?  Do you feel that you
>> did?
>>
>> On 5/8/10 4:46 AM, John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:22 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
>>
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>
>> ... the remarkable unwillingness of supporters of the administration even
>> to
>>
>> hear the complaints of people like Stack is the real problem.  The
>> willingness of the bien-pensant simply to dismiss them is outrageous and
>> even dangerous.
>>
>> Stack wrote, "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to
>> each according to his need. / The capitalist creed: From each according to
>> his gullibility, to each according to his greed."
>>
>> We don't make progress toward the former by acquiescing in the latter.
>>
>> So what do you propose, Carl?  The bien pensant, as you call them, are not
>> INTERESTED in the communist creed, either in theory or in practice.
>> They're
>> INTERESTED in the capitalist creed as articulated by Joe Stack. All of our
>> laws and our customs and our culture and our social policies support the
>> capitalist creed.  Short of flying an airplane into a building (which is
>> ineffective anyway), how do you propose that we MAKE them interested in
>> the
>> communist creed?  How do you propose that we move America in the direction
>> of
>> the communist creed? Wayne, why don't you weigh in, too? Quote some
>> Chinese,
>> make some esoteric puns. And then maybe Stuart will have something to say
>> that is actually sensible.
>>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100509/fc13c784/attachment.html>