kelley wrote:
>
> At 12:41 AM 9/16/01 -0700, Lawrence wrote:
> > >>>
> >MBS:
> >Now is the time, I would say, to address chauvinism
> >and indiscriminate military actions, not for christ's
> >sakes to advance a 'left' agenda.
> ><<<
> >
> >For my part, I will never understand why anyone would ever want to be seen
> >as advancing a "left" or "right" agenda. Why not be seen as advancing an
> >"intelligent" agenda? Why not be seen as advancing the "best" agenda? Or the
> >wisest? Or the most informed? Why "left" or "right"? It amazes me that some
> >people identify with these labels, so much that they want to compete for it.
> >As a purely practical matter, I think most of the public wants to hear the
> >"best" agenda, not a "left" or "right" one. But even if pragmatism is not a
> >concern, I still have never understood why someone would prefer labeling
> >their opinion as "left" rather than "intelligent."
>
> because 'left' in this space--LBO--doesn't mean left as it is meant in
> common parlance. left means utilizing a materialist analysis, at it's most
> basic level.
>
Someone recently quoted Che: "It's not my fault," he said, "that reality is marxist."
Carrol