Ken wrote:
>
> I have some very telling criticism for you, but first this
> condign compliment. Your defense of the "Principle of
> Population" to the group of feminists was truly exilharating.
They didn't think so. They keep asking me to go away. They seem to hate me
paroxysmically.
> my point here is that you never considered any
> of these unreconstructed Communist jeremiads "irrelevant."
Believe me, I did. You may not have noticed only because you are not tuned
the way "marxists" are, so my wounding barbs looked like nothing to you. I
could say more, but I won't. I'm not falling on my sword, either, so there.
>when I challenge this two-value logic
> with a fact-on-the-ground called Mondragon, and an ideology
> called Cooperation, I am treated to a one-two punch. First
> Julien tags me as "anti-Soviet," then moderator Mark sends the
> warning that my subject is off-limits.
Not a warning! I just pleaded for relevance to the Crash.
>
> Yes, but people posting here can go on and on about fine points
> of the Spanish Civil war, and titillate each other to new heights
People who bang on about the Spanish Civil War will not even be asked to
demonstrate relevance, because there clearly is none. They will be asked to
leave (quite a few have left, and not voluntarily, either. They are welcome
back, to discuss the CRASH).
> Well, Mark, had you been equable in your criticism, I would take
> it in stride. Instead, your prejudice is showing. Cooperation
> as a solution to capitalism has gotten short shrift not only
> here, but in many a Socialist International.
I can only repeat that all I am asking for is you to show the relevance of
Mondragon. If I'm a bit sceptical, it's because I have done some reading
about Mondragon and I think it kind of found its place in the capitalist
world market, just like for instance the USSR also found its place. But
actually, cooperation IS a live issue, surely.
> Leftists have been free
> to politically rant at will here?
Trust me, they have not been left free to rant.
>
> Truthfully, it is folly to try to separate ecology and political
> economy. As someone else said on this list today, no matter what
> happens you're still going to have to have some kind of political
> economy, made up of many of the same factors. Doesn't it make
> good sense to try to explore which ones might be most conducive
> to ecological security?
Agreed. I am in favour of more political economy, not less. I just wish
people would do more research, give us more facts, and rant less (this is
not directed at you, obviously, but at all of us, me included)
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
