You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Machloket does not mean Disorder
- Thread starter Jeff Grossman
- Start date
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Nice.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
We can still flex mightily whatever minuscule leeway we have within the groupthink.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Not so much groupthink as a pretty impressive, self-created community of taste. The fact that Zylberberg's claims are too silly to attend to, shouldn't really fool is into thinking this bored is, in practice, one that hosts a wide variety of tastes. Of course we do argue, but so did the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Not so much groupthink as a pretty impressive, self-created community of taste.
That's a very eloquent way to phrase it, and closer to the truth of the matter.
Of course we do argue, but so did the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.
Ahh, that takes me back. That distinction was really important to Dressner; he and my father discussed it at length over dinner one night. I may have grasped it at some point, but it slipped away.
Tristan Welles
Tristan Welles
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Not so much groupthink as a pretty impressive, self-created community of taste.
That's a very eloquent way to phrase it, and closer to the truth of the matter.
Of course we do argue, but so did the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.
Ahh, that takes me back. That distinction was really important to Dressner; he and my father discussed it at length over dinner one night. I may have grasped it at some point, but it slipped away.
The easy way to remember it: Mensheviks = minority, Bolsheviks were the majority (1904 party conference) and that settled things.
Bolsheviks wanted immediate revolution, Mensheviks not so sure.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I should think the great grenache division, alone, would qualify us as open-minded.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
... shouldn't really fool is into thinking this bored is, in practice, one that hosts a wide variety of tastes.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Not so much groupthink as a pretty impressive, self-created community of taste.
That's a very eloquent way to phrase it, and closer to the truth of the matter.
Of course we do argue, but so did the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.
Ahh, that takes me back. That distinction was really important to Dressner; he and my father discussed it at length over dinner one night. I may have grasped it at some point, but it slipped away.
The easy way to remember it: Mensheviks = minority, Bolsheviks were the majority (1904 party conference) and that settled things.
Bolsheviks wanted immediate revolution, Mensheviks not so sure.
I believe the menshies were actually the majority but the
bolshies won on points (the big names were bolshies) and they got to make up the names, so they named themselves the majority. Also, the argument was whether to concentrate always and immediately on world revolution of the proletariat or whether to concentrate on Russia,where they were. This was still a bone of contention in the 30s between Stalin and Trotsky, hence the endurance of the titles. American lefties and lefty deviationists may have argued between manly commie revolution and lily livered peaceful socialism but this was an argument between commies.