Following up on commentary offered by formerly a wage slave (Formerly) on Mr. Wolff's Obamania, in response to this one's commentary offered here.
Formerly writes: It's a basic principle of civilized discussion that one should not attribute bad motives lightly.
This one very much agrees. The problem comes that here, in the great aboriginal graveyard, launcher of cruise missiles and mass-slaughterer of countless--focus only on the children if that helps sharpen the example--for one to seek attention as "against state tyranny" while supporting the state is a bad motive.
The omnipresent, nigh-omni-ignored context of horrific, as-yet-endless mass homicide makes it of extreme importance when humans begin to discuss social policy. Against that backdrop of constant murder, one who cries, "Support our leaders, though they may be guilty of these colossal evils!" is highly suspect, to say only the hundredth part of the least. As the Professor brays about the game-day marketing techniques of elevating Party D above Party R, which would guarantee the perpetuation and expansion of what has already been perpetuated and expanded in just these most recent few years, he commits an evil akin to supporting any murderous tyrant you'd like to pluck out of human history.
Buy a new Volvo, celebrate Christmas, enjoy watching the NFL, pay your taxes if you like--but to go beyond these things and go out of your way to advance the cause of the killers is one of the innumerable nadirs of human behavior in this time.
For shared humanity, this one pleads with the Professor and his readers--when not being deleted down his memory hole, like so many nuclear regulatory inspectors at the Springfield power plant--to reconsider his policy of supporting vast evil. Yes, there are always reasons given for why supporting vast evil is acceptable, but the Socratic path leads not even there, in the land of censorship. This one would be happy to follow that path and see how Mr. Wolff or anyone else could instruct her.
Formerly writes: From what I've seen at the Occupy Wall Street web site, participants in the Occupy Movement are very clear on that point. They say it's okay to disagree, but you've got to be respectful.
Which is exactly why they'll accomplish little more than being a pressure release valve for dissatisfied job-seekers. Citing a supposed partial consensus from someone who may or may not speak for a contingent of informal members of an occupy movement does not sway this one.
Formerly writes: You are unhappy at the thought that Obama will continue because it will mean more killing (mass murders) as well as restrictions on female sexuality and economic decline. I see no reason to believe that RPW would disagree with you about that.
Possibly he does not. Which makes his support of such things even more horrific. Not only his support, but his enthusiastic support, which he clings to with all the earnestness of an old-time baseball fan tracking statistics on a scorecard. While ten little girls are blown into raw sausage down on the field. Just because the dead bodies are not at our very feet, should we be any less upset at the thought of someone supporting the killing? For such actions, the Professor shocks and horrifies this one.
A state of society without government or laws is not the society advanced by the single most powerful individual on the planet today--a wealthy American who supports extrajudicial assassinations, and is funded by the oldest political party on the planet: the party primarily responsible for African-American slavery, the World Wars, the dropping of the atomic bomb, and the 1990s Iraqi genocide. There is no way that supporting the DLC's latest product is "anarchist." It is so very much the opposite that it goes beyond any bound of relativism and interpretation.
Similarly, but with dead bodies replaced by dollar signs, supporting Obama/DLC is in no remote way Marxist, pseudo-Marxist, or revisionist-Marxist. The only conceivable explanations for anarchy/Marxism fall within one of the following forms:
1) The Professor supports Obama because he personally knows Obama, and they have an ancient blood oath that, once Obama is elected for a second term, he will dismantle the government;
2) The Professor supports Obama because he suspects that Obama's behavior is so vile that it will cause world revolution, thereby ending capitalism and the state;
3) The Professor supports Obama because he believes that Obama's "centrist" and/or murderous policies are a tiny step in the right direction, and because he lacks the cognitive ability to realize that extrajudicial assassinations, the ending of habeas corpus, and high-tech drone/psyops warfare worldwide are actually more extensions of state power than less.
Please do suggest an alternative if one is available. "I" won't go so far as to speak about the Professor in the terms that Arthur Silber uses, but I will say that, if those were my children, I'd want to go beyond what Silber says. The murderer's chorus is a disgusting, vile thing, and only in our shared humanity, and willingness to listen and not censor, can we free those trapped in the dungeons beneath Omelas.
Another thing to remember is that the remark was actually intended for Dave, though others are welcome to read it if they wish. To Dave, the Professor actually is an anarchist/Marxist. The Professor's ivory tower over-analyzation of various favored white-person talking points and establishment history is exactly the kind of inanity that causes that behavior to be repulsive to the standard image of the "red stater"--which is why that stereotypical red stater clings to the Republican Party, and doesn't want to consider options labeled "anarchist" or "Marxist," however much of an improvement those might offer she or he. By calling himself an anarchist/Marxist, then supporting a corporate death-tyrant like Obama, Mr. Wolff makes people like Dave believe that different authority structures are really just running cover for a grinning demon like the banker-enriching drone-launcher Himself.