[lbo-talk] Re: Political Cartography

Todd Archer todda39 at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 23 13:47:42 PST 2004


Justin said:


>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>To: todda39 at hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Political Cartography
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:40:57 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>I really have no idea of what you are trying to say,
>except that you disapprove of me, or my tone, or
>something. Don't bother to explain; it's quite clear
>that you haven't tried to read what I was saying in
>context.

Do you mind that I keep this above-board, Justin? Thank you so much.

Just in case anyone else does care (since you obviously don't), for the record:

I disapprove of what you said here:

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/027057.html

It wasn't warranted, especially after this (btw fwiw, I felt as negatively at Turbulo's non-answer here as you did; that's why I added a little bit more to mine):

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041115/027026.html

You just couldn't leave it alone, could you?

When I gave sign of my disapproval, you go rank and accuse me of calling you a capitalist apologist.

Suffice it to say, Justin: you really pissed me off by your casual blowing off of what Turbulo was talking about (since it's more or less the opinion I hold too), without even offering the faintest fig leaf of critique (such as Doug did).

Todd


>
>--- Todd Archer <todda39 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Justin said:
> >
> > >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
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
>http://my.yahoo.com
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list