Symposium

Symposium

The question poses a choice between “radical hope,” which sounds grand, and “piecemeal” pleading for a “little more” democracy, which sounds piddling. Who would oppose “radical hope,” given such an alternative? From a realistic point of view, radical hope can, in any case, always be “projected,” if that is our desire (which it is)—either because social conditions are so bad that practically any improvement would be radical or because conditions aren’t bad at all, thus establishing a precedent for radical betterment in the future. So allow me to put the question in this slightly different and less convenient way: if we keep trying to project a radical hope by sticking more or less to our main arguments from the past, will our efforts still be credible

...

Lima