I wonder why people on the far left aren't listened to, because, really, in the face of economic collapse at the hands of right-wing lunatics, you're right, the most important thing really is probably to make sure our definitions of the various brands of the Hobbesian fantasy are tidy and not used in a casual way.
CLEARLY that is the most important predicate of the Revolution.
In fact, we should probably take some time out to put the spit-and-polish on *all* our definitions because goodness knows when the shit hits the fan we don't want to be saying "Trotskyist" when we mean "Leninist with Vanguardist leanings".
I mean the Left has put a LOT of time into getting these definitions right, so let's not see that time wasted, eh?
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Eubulides <prince.plumples at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM, boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, of course William Poole resigned in March, so I guess it is you who
> > needs to catch up on reading, not I.
>
> ===================
>
> Well I don't read the newspapers and I have even less of a sense of
> humor than you do; I was shocked, simply shocked when Poole resigned.
>
>
> >
> > Poole also said that Fannie and Freddie should be liquidated and that it
> was
> > unfortunate that we could reasonably expect the government to rescue
> them.
> > He's a laissez-faire lunatic who has gotten the entire credit crisis
> > empirically wrong because he's blinded by ideology, as has the rest of
> the
> > Administration.
>
> ==================
>
> Of course you're the only one who isn't blinded by ideology,
> especially not by the blinkered old institutionalist ideology that
> pointed out the contradictions and historical inacurracies of
> so-called laissez faire decades before you and I were born.
> >
> > I have no idea what point you are even trying to make other than trying
> to
> > gainsay that which is tru eby any reasonable definition.
>
> ================
>
> By any reasonable definition I'm aware of, laissez-faire is an
> incoherent political theory, though the lunatic charge vis a vis Poole
> is a ridiculous ad hominem that adds nothing to the discussion. And
> time is too scarce for me to send you a bibliography of stuff to
> support my claim--you can look the references up in the lbo and pen-l
> archives as I've posted them in the past.
>
> Yours in blindness,
>
> Ian
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- peace,
boddi
http://financialroadtosocialism.blogspot.com/