Carrol
On 10/11/2011 11:17 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> not really. carrol's point was that sometimes people argue that, if
> the NYT is against it, then we should be for it (and vice versa).
> Carrol says that's not such a good idea. If the NYT is in favor of
> OWS, then there's no reason to oppose it. I assumed he'd made a typoc
> based on the context of the rest of what he'd said.
>
> Sometimes reading the stuff that one comments on helps one avoid being
> left way out in the left field.
>
> lol
>
>> Carrol: "I haven't read this post, but I presume it is a strongly
>> negative critique"
>>
>> [WS:] Actually, it is a quite favorable review. Sometimes reading the
>> stuff that one comments on helps one avoid being left way out in the
>> left field.
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Carrol Cox<cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>> I haven't read this post, but I presume it is a strongly negative
>>> critique
>>> of Occupy all Street. But I do not believe that Mao's proposition
>>> (Oppose
>>> Whatever Our Enmies Support) is true in this case. It's true that
>>> the NYT is
>>> fairly consistent in its strong support of the might of Capital, but
>>> it can
>>> misjudge, so I reject Charles's argument that we should oppose the
>>> Occupy
>>> 'movement simply because the NYT thinks it has positive features.
>>> Nevertheless, the editorial should be interpreted by the people
>>> occupying
>>> Wall Street as a sort of "Heads Up," a caution to consider their
>>> actions
>>> carefully.
>>>
>>> Carrol
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>