>shag wrote:
> >
> > i was serious about these questions so when you get a moment carrol, could
> > you explain? thanks.
> >
>
>My brain is in low gear for various reasons but I will try to reply
>eventually. I want to put the reply inside the observation that in
>parliamentary regimes it is possible to electoral with non-electoral
>(real) work, making the former serve the latter. But our founding
>wrought well, frustrating what they called factional strife (i.e., class
>struggle), and u.s. leftists find themselves in an almost impossible
>quandary. Electoral work _by itself_ or as primary is simply
>reactionary, not merely impotent. So problems arise.
>
>Carrol
I don't see what the conversation about the bailout had to do with the election. So I'm not sure I understand even this.
My question, first, was: what should be discussed on a list which doug defines as existing for the purposes of discussing politics, culture, and economics from a left perspective. You are here, so I assume you feel that there's something to be gained by being here. What is it that you want to discuss.
My second question was about why current left opinion on the bailout is a talking point to be raised in the future. To whom are we going to be speaking? Why is the future the time, and not now? etc.
shag
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)