.org
> Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 11:26 PM
> Your reply is one the most
> disgusting pieces of excrement I've ever seen on
> this mailing list.
perhaps you were born in 89. missed something.
>
> Considering I was born in 1989, turned 20 a few weeks ago
> and have less than
> 60 college credits under my belt, its safe to assume that
> I'm not seeking
> tenure.
i actually focus on dealing with retirement issues given that we know (dean baker/cepr and noted philanthropiss peter peterson) that social security will be bankrupt in 15 minutes (warhol, 60). i counsel the pre-k 'boom-boomer' set that now---even if you don't get tenure---is the time to put away for the future (or at least the repo-man).
so maybe its safe to say nobody knows what anybody is seeking. which is why my pre-k insurance plans i'd allus reccomend.
In the article posted on *The Activist*, the blog
> of the
> *Young*Democratic Socialists, I mention that I was an
> undergraduate.
> Does a YDS
> blog seem like a good venue for academic favor in your
> mind?
>
> Your definition of class struggle as “*the struggle for
> empowerment and
> emancipation [from] imperial forces*” is idiotic
> (assuming “for” was a typo)
> and doesn't include *class* just struggle, something that's
> quite telling.
>
> > *The general conclusion of the article is that Zizek
> has little of
> substance to say, apart from worn Marxist cliches, but does
> a charismatic
> job of the saying.*
>
> *Completely incorrect*. My comments on Zizek being often
> "wrong" was meant
> as a starting point to discuss his support for the
> revolutionary tradition.
> I don't object to the revolutionary legacy of the Jacobins
> or the 1917,
> which was established in the first part of my piece. I do
> believe that Zizek
> focuses far too much on the contradictions of capitalism
> and on
> revolutionary action and not enough on the *necessary
> precursors* to
> meaningful *class struggle* and social change. The point of
> the article was
> to advocate that the strategy of "orthodox" Marxism, namely
> the "strategy of
> patience" of the Kautsyian-center.
>
> > *" As soon being entertaining, hip and good looking is
> given priority over
> the truth we know we are in trouble”*
> The line you quote is a tongue-in-cheek nod to the idea
> that most of Zizek's
> supporters are NYU, New School, etc. graduate students, who
> don't have a
> firm grip of Marx or Lacan, but do flock to Zizek's
> lectures. P.S.-- Zizek
> an overweight, old man. He is however an academic that's
> very much in vogue
> and one that I'm forced to pay attention to, because he
> professes a believe
> in revolutionary Marxism.
>
> >*And there is the usual canard--with citation of a
> conspicuously
> Jewish-sounding, probably pro-Israel scholar*
>
> What a bunch of anti-Semetic bullshit. It's not even VEILED
> anti-Semetism.
>
> > *about religico-political suffering in the Arab world
> being do to a
> "post-Fordian" paradigm shift in economic tectonics and
> not, at least in
> significant part, to Western especially (with especially
> Israeli connivance)
> US imperial interference; the role the recent US invasion
> of Iraq may have
> played, a major event not to mention, is completely out of
> sight.*
>
> *What the fuck is a “religico-political”?* If you DON'T
> acknowledge that the
> collapse of state-centric economic systems; state
> socialism, Keynesianism,
> states that pressured state-developmentalist
> import-substitution towards a
> return to liberalization and the second wave of
> globalization has had a
> major impact on the world your an idiot.
>
> The defeat of the Arab nations in 1968 obviously played a
> role in destroying
> Arab nationalism, but the primary cause was the failure to
> adapt to these
> economic changes, making room in the radical Right. *The
> point* of this
> example is to show how capitalist collapse without intact
> organizations of
> proletarian power can open room for demagogic forces to
> enter the political
> scene.
>
> > *typical quality of contemporary academic writing:
> i.e., evasive,
> irresponsible, flippant about human suffering and outright
> dishonest in
> places.
>
> If one article could encapsulate all that I hate about
> left-liberal-intellectuals this is the one.*
>
> What's "academic" about this writing? What's evasive?
> What's
> irresponsible?*Does this
> **all** boil down to me quoting a Jew*? Or some simmering
> White-guilt
> boiling inside you and pushing you away from any author
> that might have some
> critical things to say about “anti-imperialist” radical
> right Islamism.
>
> *The article is very clear.* 1) It's a defense of the idea
> of revolution
> from liberal revisionists. 2) It's an attack on the
> “vulture theory” that
> collapse will inherently benefit the Left 3) It states that
> a “strategy of
> patience” and the slow process of class organization is
> necessary for the
> Left to take advantage of revolutionary situations (ie: my
> citing of
> Portugal). In the absence of an intellectual, organized
> Left, the best we
> can hope for is riots like in Greece.
>
> > *Presumably Noam Chomsky being a prominent one in
> mind. The author does of
> course have the tact not to criticism the man too harshly
> doubtless
> appreciating how well respected he is and not wanting to
> cause offense, in
> spite of the fact the article is contra everything he
> stands for.
>
> I don't see how this article is “contra” to everything
> Chomsky stands for.
> Real anarchists, not the “lifestylists” and assorted
> anti-intellectual
> morons that populate the American anarchist movement knew
> how to organize
> and struggle as a class, do you think the CNT/FAI were born
> overnight?
>
> Even if I was contesting Chomsky's views you seem to
> suggest that the best
> way to do so would be an ad hominen attack. Unfortunately,
> that's something
> I normally reserve for idiotic psuedo-Leftists like
> yourself.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>