Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:38:54 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
En Lin Wei wrote:
> JB wrote:
>
> >>no. no no no no no no no no no. no. a vanguard is not, ipso facto,
> >>elitist. it may be enlightened . . .
>
> Which self-proclaimed vanguards are NOT elitist? Why is the very notion of
> a vanguard not elitist?
Back about 115 or so years ago a New York reporter interviewed a minor Victorian
economist living in exile in London. At the end of the interview the reporter,
after pausing, asked, "What is?"
After a pause so long he thought the old man had fallen asleep a reply came:
"Struggle."
You can't consider vanguards in the abstract. And in the concrete vanguards are
not (in a frequent cliche) "self-appointed leaders" -- they are
"self-*nominated* leaders." Just, for example, as the subscribers to this list
are self-*nominated* guides to Pound. Whether they *are* guides or not is not
theirs to decide, just as whether a vanguard is *followed* or not is not its to
decide. The concept of a vanguard is really quite democratic.
Human events are not very predictable, and struggles can go all whichways.
Labels such as "elitist" or "democratic" are not always very helpful.
Carrol Cox
|
|
|