It is an empty bit of cheerleading unless grounded in Luxemburg's serious recognition that barbarism was at _least_ as probably an outcome as socialism. She alone among the great leaders of the 2d/3d Internationals made a clear break with bourgeois Progressive Theory. "Empire" today can only (in seerious thought) mean the Empire of Capital. No crisis or other catastrphe can, in itself, threaten that empire. If you don't hit it, it won't fall. And it is not going to be easy at all to hit it.
Carrol
socialismorbarbarism wrote:
>
> Eric Beck on Taibbi: "Well, I guess if you've got a formula that
> works, you might as well go
> with it. What did Spy magazine used to call it, Script-O-Matic? A
> little New Deal nostalgia here, a little populist outrage there, some
> nationalist cant about "our" economy," all lined with a
> high-testosterone writing style, and boom--you've got yourself an
> article."
>
> This is very unfair. We all know that the Democrats are in bed with
> the financiers. But Taibbi’s story “tells the facts and names the
> names,” the fine slogan of Counterpunch that Counterpunch rarely
> fulfills.
>
> Taibbi’s piece is excellent reporting. It is not easy to do.
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, <dredmond at efn.org> wrote:
> >> The latest:
> >>
> >> ------------
> >> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/188551
> ....
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk