On 6/23/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The list can tolerate differences of opinion, but not nastiness.
In response to ...I guess a sarcastic paraphrase, of what sartesian (Real name unknown) thinks I mean:
It's not the theory I object to, criticizing the rigidity of current Marxist organizations, it's the practice-- the practice that takes you to endorsing Democrats, scorning actual class analysis, thumping the King Hubbert bible of Peak Oil, etc.
First of all, the American Marxism I see isn't rigid. It's quite fluid in it's dogmatism. "...endorsing Democrats": Individuals perhaps... One comes to mind, Dennis Kucinich. He's just another 'democrat' I guess. I perhaps am guilty of homogenizing Marxists in a similar manner, so, point taken. "...scorning actual class analysis..": I just finished doing an 'actual class analysis, American Marxists as a 'class', sociologically compared to Hare Krishnas and Gurdjieffians (giggle). He doesn't like my analysis, or the grouping I used to illustrate, and ad homs sarcastically instead of delivering ANY INFORMATION to disprove my point. FWIW, I've never read any of Hubbert's works. The inability to restore dwindling reserves despite billions and billions of dollars spent on exploration and the nasty wars, buying off oppressive regimes, black ops, needed to secure the territory for exploration and actually explore it, just to claim big finds (unproven, on paper) that are downgraded later when no one's noticing, is just one chapter in a rather large volume of works called 'Peak oil was sooo yesterday... denial & rationalization is now.' ... _._ Leigh
