[lbo-talk] Spanish promiscuity or German erectile dysfunction?

[Alan P. Rudy]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> At 05:57 PM 5/4/2012, Michael Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:50:05 -0400
> > shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com (mailto:shag at cleandraws.com)> wrote:
> >  
> > > At 04:18 PM 5/4/2012, Marv Gandall wrote:
> > > > political people than the armchair wiseacres on this list who not only
> > > > talk left, but like to shout it from the rooftops, without having  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> > anywhere
> > > > near the history of engagement with community and working class struggles
> > > > - and the knowledge gleaned from this practical activity - that Huato and
> > > > Brown have.
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > you're talking about carrol?
> >  
> > Shag, you have to understand something here: 'practical activity' is a
> > code word for being a Democrat. The reference to poor Brown gives the game
> > away.
> >  
>  
> wow. OK. *shrug*
>  
> shag
Shag, I remember you getting really really mad at people for responding to what they assumed you said without actually reading what you wrote.  Marv clearly acknowledged Carrol's history of local organizing but argued that the polemical tack Carrol takes here wouldn't play in the labor and other circles he works in.  You've made similar claims about the arguments others here have made… that not having engaged the people you have, their arguments are far weaker than they think they are.  Marv was mad, he flamed Carrol, Carrol admitted he misread the issue at hand and wrote the wrong thing, in the face of an ongoing refusal to understand the particulars of what made Marv so mad he and I have argued that there's been a long pattern of Carrol making totalizing statements about other peoples' political failings that are inextricable from Marv's (and others') reactions to Carrol's misstatement.  You can shrug all you want but you've expressed similar reactions, and responded only somewhat differently, here before.  Do you refuse to work with anyone who's historically voted Democratic and has also done a little work for the Party at the local level?  Michael wants us to believe that such dealings are risible a derivable since they indicate an embrace of the national Party.  Marv said that while he doesn't accept CB's support for Obama, but he respects the work CB's done in Detroit through a range of associations, including those with the Democratic Party there… and that the labor, racial and class politics of Detroit and elsewhere are sufficiently different in Marv's experience so as to make the kinds of polemical positions Carrol takes here impractical and contradictory in that context.  Am I wrong to think that you've had similar reactions to some of Carrol's posts over the years?