>And what light of reason am I supposed to have seen
>with which I presume to illuminate the hoi polloi
>socialists or commies?
"It is quite rational not to be a radical. It will only get you in trouble. Witness moi, for starters. I can say this in fancy language talking about collective action problems and n-person prisoner's dilemmas, but what I am asking for is some rational reason to think that that we are going someplace good."
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/027008.html
That snotty little reply to Turbulo as well.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/027057.html
>Are you another one of those
>people who wants to remind me that I am not a
>socialist or commie? Fine, I'm not, who cares. If I
>ever need a reference when I am nominated for a
>federal judgership, I'll ask you guys. "Is he a
>socialist or commie?" "oh, no, not at all, just
>another apologist for bourgeois liberalism." "Oh,
>that's good. Wait, did you say liberalism? So he is a
>commie."
Oh, fuck off. You remind people here every so often about this nonsense yourself; why should I bother?
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/026982.html
>I guess real socialists of commies can't tell the diff
>between Swedish social democary and US neoliberalism
>-- as long as there are capitalists and wage labor
>it's all the same. Is that what you are saying?
No.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/027117.html
You're committing the same category error Doug did wrt what Turbulo said. T. wasn't talking about degrees, he was answering "yes" to the question: must a welfare state be capitalist? How about explaining where we're so obviously wrong?
>Am I supposed to be ideologically deficient because I
>think this is false, because I think that social
>democracy would be a great advance even if it
>wouldn't, what end exploitation, make the working
>class into the ruling class, etc?
We differ here (no skin off my nose) by degrees.
I'd love to see the chain of logic you're following that arrives with my supposed conclusion that the welfare state is bad and must be opposed. I'm happy with a welfare state; I just want to push beyond it.
>If I am a litle
>sharp about people who appear to say this sort of
>thing, it's because I think it's manifest rubbish and
>politically totally counterproductive.
You said a mouthful above; what's rubbish? That you're "ideologically deficient"? That you think we mustn't go beyond a welfare state? That you think the idea of free associations of producers rather than owners and workers (no matter how well cared for they are) is the best that we can do? That that's all we can do _for the moment_? What?
>I've tried being nice about it -- even today, but this
>same old ultraleftist shit keep coming back, along
>with the litmus test. I won't identify as a
>Marxist-Leninist, so I must be some kind of
>pro-capitalist apologist. No wonder you guys are
>totally isolated. Shesh. Maybe you want it that way,
>it's the only thing I can figure.
Oh, please! Ultraleftism? I'll take that as a compliment coming from you.
I won't see your "common sense" so I must be an ultra, right? See? I can get all nasty and generalizing too, Bigmouth!
I'm not giving you a fucking litmus test, neither was Turbulo! Get it through your head! You've stated before where you stand and why, and that's your own damn business! What I don't like is your attitude, shown-up so admirably by your snide remark!
As for that apologist stuff: an apologist is someone who actively apologizes; I've yet to see you (or anyone on this list) do that for capitalism. If we differ on specific stuff, well, lah-di-fucking-dah!
Unload that guilt and paranoia of yours on someone else!
Todd
>jks