M A Jones wrote:
> Rod, I'd be happy to debate you but metaphysical assertions about 'infinite
> energy' which are easily + demonstrably untrue, are not a basis for debate.
> So yes, quit this silly non-debate.
Mark, I agree with this in substance, but much of my caterwauling at you
and Lou both on Pen-L and on Marxism has been aimed at those features
of your argument that, themselves tending to be metaphysical, encourage
metaphysics in reply.
Revolutions (peaceful or violent) have never been really majority affairs --
rather they have represented the majority of the population active (itself
usually a minority) at a given time. But if you and Lou are pretty much right
in your arguments on global warming and energy (and remember, that
has been my premise all along), then the kind of changes necessary are
going to require rather more massive public support than is usually needed
in the early stages of a revolutionary regime. So unless you really do agree
with Hans Ehrbar on the need for an elitist putsch to stop global warming,
you had better give some thought to how that mass support can be
(beginning now) marshalled -- and my prediction is that without the support
of a number of people holding the views you are now attacking rather
extravagantly, that movement is not going to come into existence.
We don't need Heartfield and the Sparts. We do need Jose and Nestor
and, yes, even Rod.
Carrol
