====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
"The fact of the matter is that our proletariat supports bourgeois property relations in the here and now. Nothing we write or say can change this because change is a mass process of experience and interpreting that experience." So, that's a yes on the support of bourgeois parties and their candidates, huh? Comment The Green party is a bourgeois party. I voted 90% in today’s election for their candidates. I stated this in no uncertain terms. Why on earth would you conclude I support the Democratic or Republican Party establishment? Let me guess; I am misreading what is written above. When Nader ran for president in 2000 his political organization and those attached to it constituted a “bourgeois party,” in the main. Now the various communist ideological groups that supported Nader could preserve their “ independence” based on their separate organization. I supported Nader in 2000. I supported the Freedom Now Party years ago, a bourgeois political party. We ran a communist candidate in the Democratic Party primary because it was impossible to get on the ballot, until the state laws outlawing third party’s was over turned. Yes, we were accused by some of our own comrades of supporting a bourgeois political party. I presented what you wrote and the reader is left to their interpretation. All this talk about “enemy” opens the door for bad things, and you know this. What of the comrades in small towns? In Detroit we have lots of latitude but all of America is not like Detroit. What qualifies you to write propositions as if you have some special insight into everywhere in America? Class enemy! Get a grip for Christ sake. A principled stand against engaging and working in the Democratic party or the Republican party for that matter, anywhere and at all times in every part of America, is a principled Marxist stand as I understand what you wrote. Why is that? Because you said so? Here is what you wrote: “I did, however, mean to get a reaction with My words and it seems they did but in the most unforeseen way from the a most unforeseen person. Amazing that you would call a principled stand against supporting the class enemy, especially when the choices are clear, "sectarian". It only proves my point about how low some of us have sunk. My record of activism and non-sectarian politics speaks for itself, but you will never see me "tacti cally" retreat my principles for the sake of "practicality". Pardon, maybe this is a principled stand. What principle is it might the feeble minded ask? The feeble mind inability to understand "the class enemy" is what you wrote about. Here is what you wrote: >> To be accurate, I said, "Your >words< Have at least one Enemy". I use that formulation to convey (a) that cajoling revolutionists to support bourgeois liberals out of "practicality" are the words of the class enemy and (b) that the individual who says this may simply be misguided, but it is not clear, so, rather than the individual, his "words" are my enemy. I know this might be a hard distinction for the feeble-minded, so, just know that had I meant to say someone is my enemy, I would say it plainly (and just to be unequivocally clear, I did not). << No one is against passion and zeal, but what is up with all this back biting and personal insults and class enemy talk, applied to a writer on this list? Everyone makes mistakes and go over the top from time to time. Your words are meant to hurt and insult. You move from words . . . "enemy" to the "class enemy" to "the feeble minded." Pardon my feeble mind. Grow up dude. WL. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
