This is a comment on purity versus success. Praxis for
change implies the intent to win (tomorrow, or after tomorrow). Now
my question to Professor Wagar: How are you going to win if your
definition of authenticity is so narrow that you disqualify 98% of your
possible allies? According to the perspective of historical materialism,
change can only be brought about successfully if it is supported by the
material interests of identifiable groups, classes and strata. If you
disqualify groups with strong material change interests--e.g., feminism--
as being unauthentic and apply the same judgment to many other really
existing change movements, how are you going to win? It looks like a
trade-off between the purity of an idea and success in praxis (or
practice), as debated by the left for the past 150 years or more.
Regards,
Gernot Kohler
Oakville, Canada