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
>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!
Hans wrote..
>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 was responsible.
I bet! Being that reports here last night were talking about "citizen m
[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 was
Doug wrote..
>
>Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
>political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis
>to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were
>implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a
Rob wrote
>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 d
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
>
>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
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Bob Malecki wrote:
>If we do not want to see a repeat than we will have to sought out the
>question of leadership in the workers movement which can give a successful
>programmatic and organizational answer to fascism which is the final
>instrument the bourgeoisie needs to stop a pre-revolutionary
Deadwood writes...
>
>Maybe Hugh has been inspired by some experience of the mobilization of the
>Swedish working class that he'd like to share with us.
>
>Doug
Actually I can Doug. In fact the largest procentual May 1 demo by the workers movement
took part in a small city just against the Naz
Jim replying to Hugh..
>
>Hugh's revolutionary zeal is such that he thinks that it is a betrayal
>of principle to address an audience of 500 000, as opposed to one of 5.
No Jim. This is not the case at all. Communists including Hugh do not oppose using the
bourgeois press. The point is what yo
11 matches
Mail list logo
