G'day all,
Quoth RD of the WSM via the SPGB:
>Nah, just plain bloody daft. Simple question - how can voting for
Livingstone lead to Socialism? Surely, it should be >axiomatic beyond doubt
that socialists should not engage in any activity that does not clearly have
the possibility of
>leading to Socialism.
Er, surely you don't purport to see the future so clearly that you know what
might lead to socialism? Nobody else on this list seems to have a clue.
And I bloody know I don't. So I'd probably vote for the left-most
non-psychotic candidate available. Where's the harm in in helping highlight
the disgusting hypocricy and totalitarian proclivities abroad at Number Ten?
And, whilst Ken can smell the chance of victory enough to desert his
erstwhile comrades for the purposes of the election, I'd rather he were
there than a Blair lackey or a Tory. And don't say it doesn't make a
difference. Livingstone's GLC was no oil painting, I'll allow, but it was
better than most of the rest of Maggie's Britain (and this from a confirmed
Londonphobe).
Anyway, I'd like to have a video of that ghastly smug little school prefect
of a primeminister copping a sound public thrashing for once. Poor solace,
perhaps, but go for what you can get in the short-term, I reckon.
>Voting for Livinstone just because he is against Blair is moronic in the
extreme - after all, the BNP are against Blair,
>are we going to back them? Livingstone has no programme beyond
administering capitalism with bells and whistles.
And neither, alas, does anyone else. And Livingstone is to the left of
Blair. I dare say we won't have too long to wait for the 'new economy'
suddenly to look rather old - and when it does, I'd rather be living in
Livingstone's London than in Blair's. Doncha reckon?
Tuberculosis is pretty horrible, but it's a meaningfull alternative to lung
cancer - if you know what I mean.
Yours just-a-tad-demoralised,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
