I am copying this post to him personally in the hope he would find it useful to respond on LBO-talk.
Chris Burford
London.
At 09:38 AM 11/8/98 +0000, I wrote:
>I wish to put a question to Nathan Newman at the end of this post so I hope
>at least he will skim down to the end. I am glad to see him join the debate.
<snip>
>My question to Nathan, certainly not hostile, but not necessarily in total
>agreement: (I need to be on guard against contributors like Louis Proyect
>and Mark Jones, struggling by lumping groups of subscribers they wish to
>attack, together.) I am interested to read your account of the relatively
>progressive features of the Clinton administration. But every post by
>definition is one sided, even if the balance of posts makes for a more
>all-sided and dialectical dialogue.
>
>How would you demonstrate that your position is not one sided, and does not
>necessarily entail:
>
>a) being fixated on elections, (crass parliamentarism)
>
>b) tailing after those sections of the bourgeoisie who you think
>progressive people should temporarily support
>
>c) creating personal illusions in individual bourgeois leaders?
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London.