Huh? My post addressed something written by Eric Beck, as I made glaringly clear. And Eric Beck didn’t even start the thread. I’m supposed to be accountable to the title of a thread, written by someone else, and make a judgment on how well I think the title is written, before I can address the body of the post? Answering a thread is “apparent acceptance” of a thread’s *title*?
“It is an empty bit of cheerleading…”
I had to read and re-read your post to understand the “it” you are referring to. "It" is apparently my username. So—you took flight on speculative reveries about what I wrote based on my *username*?
Originating thread titles, usernames—do you ever find time to get to actual messages?
Yes, socialism or barbarism. Those are the choices. Yes, it comes from Luxemburg. Three words from a corpus of millions. How you can expand a username to a requirement for fealty to the collected writings of Luxemburg is beyond me. Or whatever it is that I must fulfill in your eyes before I am allowed to use this particular twenty-letter username. It is all very confusing.
“She alone among the great leaders of the 2d/3d Internationals made a clear break with bourgeois Progressive Theory.”
Huh? Bourgeois progressive theory ties the development of human progress to the expansion of market relations, which it conflates with a general definition of human freedom. Luxemburg “alone among the great leaders of the 2d/3d Internationals made a clear break” with this?
"Empire" today can only (in seerious thought) mean the Empire of Capital…” etc.
Please continue this with whoever titled the thread, not me. That would be dredmond.
“…Luxemburg's serious recognition that barbarism was at _least_ as probably an outcome as socialism…”
Well, from the vantage point of August 2010, I agree with the statement “…barbarism [is] at _least_ as probabl[e] an outcome as socialism,” which I assume is also saying, in this I agree with *you*. However, I am unable to attribute this interpretation to *Luxemburg*. I know of no evidence that she ever allowed for doubt of the eventual triumph of socialism. In the spirit of your post to me, I will make an unfair assumption based on nothing you actually wrote, and assume that you have been misled by an ahistorical reading of Luxemburg. Feel free to try to enlighten me otherwise, if you can.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> This post, with its apparent acceptance of the baby talk of "Empie still
> suicidal," rather conflicts wioth your pseudonym. How do you interpret
> Luxemburg's slogan?
>
> It is an empty bit of cheerleading unless grounded in Luxemburg's
...