the difference between
> leftists who are
i wonder if there is a metric ('scientific, objective') which can tell what a leftist is, and whether they (or anyone) is serious.
and try to develop tactics and strategies to
> further the cause of
> economic and social justice, and even socialism for those
> who are
> socialists--which means thinking through what needs to be
> done and how to
> get from point A to point B in a struggle
assuming leftists want economic and social justice, then does this imply they are socialists, or not. (or social democrats, anarchists, greens, progressives, etc.) even conservatives and libertarians i think are for social and economic justice, they just define that differently. ('just us').
> "leftists" for whom
> involvement in politics is a hobby whose main purpose is
> self-expression of
> their particular pscyhodramas, anger, self-righteousness,
> and desire to feel
> superior to others.
didnt people like nzietche and shiller and artuad see these as serious political. 'the great rock n roll swindle.'.
We have seen good examples of both
> types on this list,
> and indeed one will see them pretty much everywhere.
maybe the 5 factor model? (covere in science not long ago, though many think it has some wack in it, particularily cross culturally). there is also the meyer-briggs idea (symbolists versus intuitionists, similar to mathematical logic.)
> main distinction
> between these two types, also, is whether they attempt to
> exclude everyone
> who does not agree with them from the inner circle of the
> righteous or
> whether they are looking to be as inclusive as possible in
> looking for
> allies in their cause.
sicnce science for the people really sxeems to only have a historical meaning, these exclusions seem pretty universAL AND axiomatic. its already 'for' the people, defined in a traditional way, and also essentially leftists and socialist. so, further exclusivity is just iterating the pattern.
one could ask 'the (abstract) people' or 'm(/)asses' what 'they' want, also. 'drill now'.
I guess I don't need to say
> where a "leftist" who
> thinks the exploitation of low-paid adjunct faculty is
> irrelevant fits into
> this division.
division implies a binary categorization; groups like MIM and 'workersaction' think most american workers, espcially unions, are actually part of the exploiting classes of the 'underdeveloped world'. so one could have other ways of fitting pieces in the puzzle.
i do think there is some valid critique in the idea that high college costs owe to development of expensive facilities and high salaries for a few, and so anyone who feels exploited (adjuncts, grad students seeking careers on all street, food workers, paying students...) might want to look at the whole chain of exploitation, rather than worry about their own particular hardships (eg high gas prices plus having to commute to 3 different schools to teach, or sell junk food to get their degree).
my binary classification might start there. 'you can get with this, or yiou can get with that'.
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Mandi Smallhorne
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> > How predictable! I have never been an academic, in my
> own country or
> > yours, but even so, I can see that this is about
> people who are indeed
> > employed at will – or is it that you believe that
> labour issues are only
> > valid if they apply to manual labourers?
> > ------------------------------
> Michael Balter
> Contributing Correspondent, Science
> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
> Boston University
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: michaelbalter.com
> Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com