G'day Bob,
I think Doug's questions would be answered if we could get a handle on
a) What constitutes a pre-revolutionary situation?
b) In which respects might we be said to be approximating one?
c) In which respects might we not be said to be approximating one?
d) Can the developments within
Bob Malecki wrote:
You mean we're in a pre-revolutioanry situation now? So the alleged rise of
Nazis, from London to Littleton, is somehow a response to this? How do you
know?
Doug
What?
Bob
Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
political threat, and by your
[This post was delayed because it was sent from an address
not subscr*bed to the list. Hans Ehrbar.]
It seems the British police have arrested an individual for the bombings
who they claim was acting alone, the spokesman went out of his way to deny
claims that any organised far right group
Hugh's long reply to Doug
Bob's being very empirical here, which is why Doug is trying to lure him
into bed with him. Me I stick with Trotsky. He wrote about the Spanish
*Revolution* as from 1931 to 1939.
As much as I would like to agree and do with Hugh and do in regards to the world since
Bob Malecki wrote:
I bet! Being that reports here last night were talking about "citizen
militias" to defend themselves. No wonder the cops came up with a "lone"
suspect! Think if Jim had tried to link up this with some militant trade
unions rather then pushing is Repunzell version!
This is
I think Bob is onto something. Over there at LM there is a collective mind
set that people worry too much over things like pollution, the safety of
consumer products, neo-nazi activities, etc. The line is handed down by
Furedi and informed by the "sociology of risk," the latest libertarian
craze
