Rob and Chas,
This discussion is a load of shit.
Bolsheviks are not sectarian because they stand with the class in
all of its struggles. SDs are sectarian because they substitute
themselves for the proletariat, betray it, and generally shit on it as
unable, incapable, unprepared etc for the ho
G'day Chas,
Sez you:
"It is not clear that this is factually true. Left social democrats don't
have too many successful organizings that I can see, except by becoming
right "social democrats". Where there were successes, it is not clear that
communists didn't play as big or bigger role than the
>>> Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/29/00 11:16AM >>>
Can't say I'm a very happy left social democrat, but in the
absence, of a mass, radical democratic left, I'll take working in the less
reality impaired precincts of the social democratic swamp. At least they
have read and thought and
Quoth Michael,
>Can't say I'm a very happy left social democrat, but in the
>absence, of a mass, radical democratic left, I'll take working in the less
>reality impaired precincts of the social democratic swamp.
Well, at least I'm not as lonely a creature as I'd thought! Sad
left-soc-dems of th
Michael P writes:
>Can't say I'm a very happy left social democrat,
Why ever not?
>but in the absence, of a mass, radical democratic left, I'll take working
>in the >less reality impaired precincts of the social democratic swamp.
Try draining it.
>At least they have read and thought and organ
Just a quickie while I watch Australia play the Czecg Republic (the latter
lead 1-0 just after half-time in a cracking good match),
Thinking about Hugh and Doug's latest posts, it occurs to me that market
socialism may actually play a part in the mass mobilisation process itself
(should one come
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 7:35 AM
Subject: M-TH: Re: Market socialism & the 90s
> >Hugh Rodwell wrote:
> >
> >>If market socialism is such an attractive alternative, and vastly to be
> >>preferred to pa
>Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>
>>If market socialism is such an attractive alternative, and vastly to be
>>preferred to party dicatatorships, and capable of arising more or less
>>spontaneously in periods of mass mobilization, then why
>>
>>a) did it not arise spontaneously in the wake of the collapse of
