Michael Pugliese forwards:
> the post that Michael forwards, with its portrait of Negri and
> autonomia, is very entertaining.
>
> Didn't the old trotskyist movement call this sort of "argument" amalgam?
>
> Although in this case it seems to be underpinned by ignorance more than
> anything else . . .
>
> Steve
=====
This sort of post is not very helpful. Not helpful at all, in fact. Who is
Steve Wright? I assume he's not the grotesque disc jockey employed by the
BBC (although as entertaining). And what is the justification for
characterising Louis P.'s post as "underpinned by ignorance"? One flat
counter-assertion from an unknown does not a refutation make.
Rather than lobbing second hand smears, or indeed interminable hyperlinks,
howsabout engaging with the argument?
Michael K.
