>>>>
So, you don't think Carrol's comments were wrong, they were simply amusing.
>>>>
[mbs] Carrol's comments are always both. In re: myself and the specific one, they are a slippery type of cop-baiting. And not the first time, by a long shot. Cop-baiting merits a punch in the nose, not a reasoned counter-argument. I don't have to account for myself to some dude who, for all I know, could be E. Howard Hunt playing with himself.
Now to your soliliquy:
>>>>>>>>
Freely associating? Perhaps I am paying attention to what you've written,
as much to the paradoxes as to the 'logic'. If you don't want people to
associate one statement with another, then I suggest you try shape-shifting.
Let me retrace the steps: You denounce people for criticising the presence and speeches of Buchanan,>>>>>
[mbs] Let's trace the retracing too.
My criticism is of blanket denunciations of the movement, based on tertiary aspects of it, like PB oinking at an IBT rally. I have criticized PB myself; that's not the issue.
>>>>>>>>
you declare that they are no longer a part of "the
movement" on that basis,
>>>>>>>>
[mbs] With blanket denunciations, they effectively write themselves out of the movement. This is not an act of proscription on my part. Obviously I don't have that power. It's merely a statement of what I observe. I think this abstention is unfortunate. If I didn't, I wouldn't talk about it so much.
>>>>>>
you remain silent on the comments by Dolan and
others lauding Buchanan, you defend and/or downplay chauvinist and racist
comments . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] Oh really? When have I defended a chauvinist or racist comment? Since you have undertaken such an exhaustive study of my remarks, why not cite a specific example?
I've never laid eyes on Dolan so I won't speak on his public behavior. I am suspicious of all negative accounts. I have criticized some things he is reported to have said. You'll have to check your archives.
As for discounting chauvinism, I think this goes to the difference between political analysis and moral posturing. If a revolting statement is made at a rally that is mostly in a good cause, then to me the main thing to note is the latter, not the former.
>>>>>>>
as if they are not important whilst on other occassions insisting
that 'this is just how it is', and you have decided that a tactical
co-ordination with the right is desirable. Simultaneously, you have
variously bellittled and patronised the Black Bloc (now expanded into the
RACB), the most recent being the rather peculiar comment "oh, that'll work",
>>>>>>
[mbs] How can one not belittle a bunch of suburban white kids calling themselves the "Black Bloc"? It's too funny to pass up. They ought to harken back to the Yippies, who had no reluctance to make fun of everything, including themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
and you've argued against 'violence' (though not as vehemently as Nathan)
whilst being more than prepared to support bombings by NATO, etc. The
"connection" is all too obvious: this is not just a disagreement over
tactics, but over the shape, direction and politics of "the movement" or, in
other words, aims.
>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] All true, though not logically well-integrated. Going against group discipline by breaking windows is quite different from the Balkan situation.
>>>>>>>
I disagree with Carrol on many things; but on this point, he is right: "The
real division is between those who want a mass movement to emerge from the
November actions, with strong local roots, and those (like Sawicki, etc. on
this list) who want to discipline that potential mass movement in the
service of union and Democratic Party bureaucrats and their intellectual
servants."
>>>>>>>>
[mbs] see above, re: cop-baiting.
I will say that I'd like nothing better than to see a mass movement that is independent of both union crats and the DP. and 'its intellectual servants.' I think the LP in the U.S., of which I'm a member, has the best potential to do that, though it's not doing it now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
I would just like Carrol's position to be more consistently applied, esp as
it relates to the question of criticising the Chinese Govt, and his
abandonment of such a view when it comes to countries other than the US.
Which is to say that this is the only way in which one could conduct a
criticism of the Chinese Govt sans the xenophobia, and why he can only think
to exclude any possibility of such a criticism at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] Fortunately while the anarchists and stalinists conduct their olympian discourse, the world will go on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
But, to return to the issue of responsibility: at times, you've simply
asserted that 'this is how it is' as the basis for your particular politics
and alliances. In other words, you assert the fact of a bad world or at
the very least of 'realistic limits' in order to absolve yourself of
responsibility for the decisions you actively make which reproduce that and
those limits.
>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] I'm not responsible for the lousy political choices I have. I am responsible for not choosing the best one. I would be grossly irresponsible for pretending I can simply invent my own political universe and then scream at everyone to join me in my delusions.
>>>>>>>>>
I'm not suggesting that any decision here is going to be
without problems, but think that everyone is capable of enough intelligence
to ascertain what those might be, and hope that people are honest enough not
to resort to evasions like 'collateral damage' or 'unintended consequences'
as a way of claiming that they are not responsible.
>>>
[mbs] see preceding.
>>>>>>>
You have argued that Buchanan's presence, and the xenophobia, are a
"sideshow". They are not. What determines whether or not the racism is a
sideshow is the extent to which it might be possible to remove those aspects
and still retain the campaigns. How crucial is pandering to xenophobia,
indeed fanning xenophobia, to the success of the social democratic vision?
Given what I said above, it seems to me that it is crucial, . . .
>>>
[mbs] Actually I think I've made a better case for that than you have, since you and others typically put it in the form of bourgeois moral grounds, couched in cliches about the need for all to unite.
>>>>>>>
and the index of
that is the extent to which you are so quick to announce Tim and others as
no longer a part of "the movement", but remain relatively silent on and at
times embrace the Buchananites into the fold, as have Dolan et al. It's
about a decision that draws a line between acceptable strategies and
intolerable ones. You always have choices, none of which can be verified as
'realistic' without a good deal of arranging and omission. You are
responsible for those decisions. Angela
>>>>>>>
You seem to be repeating yourself here, so I'll let you have the last word.
mbs