<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>So a Canadian black man is a nationality completely seperate from </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>his nationality as a Canadian? And a member of a Canadian org, no </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>matter what his/her skin colour, approaching this man for a </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>membership would be internationalism in action? Or are you assuming </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>that just because a person in one country whose skin colour matches </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>or is close to that of other people in different countries these </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>people will have an "internationalist" affinity for one another, </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>beyond merely the accidental commonality of their skin colour? </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>I'm not sure you understood my arguement here. Im saying that I don't believe a Canadian bvlack man is a nationality completely seperate from that as a 'Canadian', and that the Canadian nationality itself is an abstraction! Hopefully this clears up the confusion.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>No, you didn't explicitly say it, but you seemed to, implicitly, by </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>stating: "we'd rather people relate to each other from </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>an internationalist perspective, rather than the below mentioned </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>practice." I took you as meaning that the recruiter and the </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>potential recruit would automatically meet one another via an </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>internationalist perspective, which seemed strange since recruits, </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>especially ones who are "cold solicited", might not have acquired an </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>internationalist consciousness by that time. The statement seemed </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>to be assuming too much. That's why I said what I did. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>Approach should always be internationalist, evne if the subject is not.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Well, that's fine; Marxists are big on education too from what I've </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>read. It must stem from being "of the Left" <TONGUE cheek in>. But </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>what about members of the oppressed class who identify with their </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>oppressors? </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P>The main distinction between marxism and anarchism is that while marxists are economic determinists, and seek political revolution before social and economic revolution, anarchists see the primary task of revolutionaries as being Social Revolution [this is why, prior to adopting the label "anarchists" were called simply Revolutionary Socialists] which is of course insperable from economic revolution. While marxists believe you can have these seperately at different times, anarchists believe they are inseperable. This is the main divide between Marx and Bakunin.</P> <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMQEN/2022">Get 2 months FREE*.</a> </html>