> >I agree current and near retirees are not in much
>>danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate
>>of young workers is completely up in the air. If
>>the long-term projections are right (which I
>>dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme
>>financial distress around 2050 or so.
Here's the start of the Meyerson article (L.A. WEEKLY) I referred to:
>Let's start with two propositions; first, Ralph Nader is a genuine
American hero who is running on what is the progressive community's dream
program for America. Second, his third-party President
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4027] RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
>. . .
> Actually, I think the people who will get
>screwed by the Bush s-s plan wi
. . .
Actually, I think the people who will get
screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those
in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have
their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young
will get their private accounts and avoid paying
high s-s taxes.
I agree current and near retirees are no
sed to pay for the new
scheme.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
>Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A
>
t: [PEN-L:3964] voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
> Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
>the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
>Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
>Clarence
ber 04, 2000 5:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3963] Re: voting for Nader
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
>
>> In fact, the big one on that probably was
>>abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
>>more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
>>Ginsbu
premise in mind: that state's rights
undermines national priorities.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew
Max Sawicky wrote:
>If I was king of the labor movement, I would devote
>all electoral resources to Congress. At least for the
>time being, the WH is a lost cause.
And, as every schoolchild knows, the executive branch is the
executive committee of the bourgeoisie. The legislative branch is a
Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A
>In what way is abortion a "proven issue"?
The GOP have historically used the issue to draw the christian alliances
into their camp by suggesting that they are the party of pro-life. If the
issue becomes a states rights issue the christian alliances would
kelley said on 11/5/00 10:10 A
> i honestly thought you were laboring under that impression since you
>seemed to think that it would be so damaging to the GOP. disposing of the
>abortion issue is no big deal. it is something that GOP would *like* to
>get rid of. it isn't that much of a tool
In what way is abortion a "proven issue"?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3976] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4
At 08:48 AM 11/5/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
>kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A
>
> >poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring
> >under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion.
> >that's not what it would mean, as you know.
>
>When "some
kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A
>poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring
>under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion.
>that's not what it would mean, as you know.
When "someone" suggested that disposing of a functional tool would b
At 05:33 AM 11/5/00 +, you wrote:
>>they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
>>they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
>>on demand.
>
>This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
>be an "undue burde
>they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
>they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
>on demand.
This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
be an "undue burden." --jks
>
__
Max Sawicky wrote,
>I've been working 'inside' for a decade now.
>Any support I have rendered to Clinton et al. has not
>helped me in anything I have done in the slightest bit.
Max,
According to Leonard, you've only served have your sentence.
I was sentenced to twenty years of boredom
At the risk of consoling the Goreoids, Souter was
an anomaly. He was chosen because Warren
Rudman lied about him to Sununu; told him he
was pro-life, when he knew he wasn't.
The Supreme Court concern is legitimate.
I think there are two overriding considerations.
One is the extent of ideologica
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4/00 4:31 P
>Besides increasing the overall level of repression, criminalizing abortion
>could have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had - permitting the
>elaboration of a rhetoric justifying the further expansion of repressive
>controls targeting disadvantag
At 04:34 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
>kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P
>
> >i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
> >order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
> >the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters
kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P
>i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
>order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
>the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor
>of unrestrained access to abortion.
work
to the advantage of the right wing in the same way the drug war has worked
to their advantage.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: voting for Nader
At 03:48 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
>kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
>
> >they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
> >they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
> >on demand. we don't have that anyway.
>
>The question was "h
kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
>they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
>they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
>on demand. we don't have that anyway.
The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the
long t
At 02:24 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
>
> > In fact, the big one on that probably was
> >abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
> >more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
> >Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
>
Jim Devine wrote:
>also, the Congressional Democrats are much more alert to the problem
>of people like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. I'm not sure Gore is,
>though, since he voted for Scalia.
Everyone did. It was 98-0.
Doug
At 02:33 PM 11/04/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
>the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
>Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
>Clarence Thomas.
also, the Congressional Democ
Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many justices have disappointed
to people who origin
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
> In fact, the big one on that probably was
>abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
>more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
>Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
>as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens.
>But, put anti
Message-
From: Michael Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3931] Re: voting for Nader
>> Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
>> 8 years of B
Tipped by a student column in the OSU student paper (Martha Knox,
"Voting for Nader won't hurt Gore's chances," _The Lantern_ 3
November 2000 at
<http://www.thelantern.com/archives/gendisp.asp?id=973258722515>), I
just visited "Yellow Dog Greens for Nader"
> Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
> 8 years of Bush/Dole?
> Eric
yes... Michael Hoover
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Stanley Aronowitz, Dist Prof, Sociology, Grad Ctr, CUNY
>Alan Sokal, Physics, NYU
Wow. Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Doug
I'm on that list, too, though they miscapitalize my name as "DeVine." To
err is human, to forgive...
At 11:00 AM 11/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
>http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/nader1.htm
>
>Some signatories:
>
>Michael Perelman, Economics, Calif St U, Chico
>Doug Henwood, Journalist, NYC
>Paul Buhle, A
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/nader1.htm
Some signatories:
Michael Perelman, Economics, Calif St U, Chico
Doug Henwood, Journalist, NYC
Paul Buhle, American Civilization, Brown U
Stanley Aronowitz, Dist Prof, Sociology, Grad Ctr, CUNY
Alan Sokal, Physics, NYU
Dean Baker, Co-Dir, Ctr for Economic
At 10:48 AM 11/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
>Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
>should be discussed.
hey, it's Hagelin! let's give the meditators their due...
BTW, I've noticed a lot of more stuff on US Nat
inauguration in memory of his former
membership in the KKK.
Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
should be discussed. But, hey, since we have a dead
man running for the Senate in Missouri (Mel Carnahan),
who is leading in the polls
Doug, [to pen-l folks, yes, I am back for awhile]
Actually I can vote for Nader without any Gore
loss guilt. Virginia is solid for Bush. Also, there will
be no Nader Paradox effect in my congressional
district as the incumbent Repug is unopposed. There
might be one in the local Senate
(From Mitchel Cohen, a Green Party activist)
A supporter of Leonard Peltier has asked Ralph Nader to step down and
endorse Gore. This is a response from Day Starr Chou, of the Flushing
Greens and the No Spray Coalition* (forwarded by Mitchel Cohen).
* Does not imply that the No Spray Coalition
>I wonder if people who were organizing big anti-war [in Vietnam]
>demonstrations... worried _ahead of time_ that their movements would
>"crash and burn."
They should have. Chicago in 1968 elected Richard Nixon president...
Brad DeLong
read. This specific thread is saying that
>Gore and the Goristas have themselves to blame if they lose. This
>business of scape-goating Nader is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug
>his own grave.
Oh, Gore and the Goristas will blame themselves if they lose. There
will be more than enoug
At 11:20 AM 11/1/00 -0800, you wrote:
>at least somebody is using comedy in the campaign
How naive! what these Nader folks don't understand it that it's _fear_ that
motivates people to vote for Gore! and people seem to be preferring Bush
because when you've got th
at least somebody is using comedy in the campaign
NADER CAMPAIGN UNVEILS NEW TELEVISION AND RADIO AD CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 31 - Ralph Nader's surging campaign today introduced
his latest radio and television spots. [ads below]
In the new 30-second television message a
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Nothing. The question was whether the Admin was
>helping movements. It isn't, far as I can see.
How do you define "helping movements"? Holding their hands and helping them
throw the rocks at the pol
Nothing. The question was whether the Admin was
helping movements. It isn't, far as I can see.
mbs
>For instance, the Clintonoids have had no discernable
>effect on the Living Wage movement, except to try and
>preempt it with the EITC
So what's wrong with the EITC?
Brad DeLong
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> The historical moment is really different now from the 1980s. Then,
> Reaganism was a new phenomenon on the world stage, and the right was
> ideologically clear and energized. Now it's as fuzzy as Al Gore's
> math. I doubt a serious right-wing agenda would be anywhere
"Forstater, Mathew" wrote:
>
> Not really. The Enslavement...whoops, sorry. Seriously, I don't think Perot
> was so important here. It was the Reagan deficits that the Dems saw as an
> opportunity for calling the Repubs fiscally irresponsible. It was a terrible
> strategy for the Dems.
Mat,
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>O.K. That's something. You are implying that a
>Dem appointed NLRB will be significantly *more*
>conducive to trade union growth than a Bush one.
>Of course, this is one data point. I wonder if
>those
> > A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
>> movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
>sad
>> years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
>>
>
>Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
>by Clinton since 1992 has fac
>I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
>course he is in no way responsible).
>
>The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
>Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
>the Republicans are guaranteed to alway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
>than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
>
>Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
>8 years of Bush/Dole?
You may remember that in 1992 the big bourgeoisie seemed seriousl
Jim:
Eric wrote:
>If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
>things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
>very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
>does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clin
Max Sawicky wrote:
> > A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
>> movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
>sad
>> years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
>>
>
>Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
>by Clinto
t;Subject: [PEN-L:3782] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:53:41 -0800
>
>I initially wrote,
> > But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
>Gore--appointing
> > people to, say, the National Labor Relations
>Board?
>
>Some responses
. . .This is the sort of thing that the Reagan NLRB
(and an elder Bush and Dole administration NLRB)
might not have decided although the activities
cited above are clear violations of the NLRA.
Eric
O.K. That's something. You are implying that a
Dem appointed NLRB will be significantly *more*
At 11:05 PM 10/30/00 +, you wrote:
>I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
>than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
evidence? it seems to me that Bush or Dole would have been much less
successful at co-opting (and defanging) of various dissident movements of
the lef
Eric wrote:
>If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
>things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
>very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
>does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clinton a
s saying that Gore and the Goristas
have themselves to blame if they lose. This business of scape-goating Nader
is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug his own grave.
Did the Gore forces try to appeal to the growing ranks of non-voters? did
they try to get people to register to vote in any signifi
My Dear Max,
RE
> Now now, Eric. My question was much
> more focused than that. You said Gore would
provide more
> space for progressive
> movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of
> Clinton has done so.
Gore would provide a better atmosphere than Bush.
Nader would provide a better
>Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than
>that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive
>movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so.
>You answered not with *how*, but with the cliche that however
>it did, there was more under Clinton than there would have
. . . Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is
president . . .
Eric
Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than
that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive
movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so.
You answered not with *how*, but with the cl
>
>On the other hand, the Big Boys, with their millions and millions in
>their campaign bucks, can wield their power to achieve all sorts of
>stuff. Gore tried being a populist intermittently during the
>campaign and saw his polls rise. But he didn't want to go too far,
>for that would offend
I initially wrote,
> But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
Gore--appointing
> people to, say, the National Labor Relations
Board?
Some responses have ranged from
1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol,
Gar),
2. progressive politics might have been better off
if Dole had become
yes indeed
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:09:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael wrote
> > Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
>
> Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
> point). Might not the same fate
they can get.
>
>A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
>movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad
>years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
>
>If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nade
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
> than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
>
> Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
> 8 years of Bush/Dole?
You glance at Chuck Grimes's argument (the only respectable
> mbs wrote
> > Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
> > by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
> > of progressive movements?
>
> I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
> than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
That answer begs the question of 'how.'
Michael wrote
> Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party?
Eric
mbs wrote
> Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
> by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
> of progressive movements?
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
course he is in no way responsible).
The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
the Republicans are guaranteed to always run
Eric N. wrote:
> > But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
> > people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
do you think that the Clinton/Gore policy of encouraging the mobility of
capital has strengthened the power and influence of the NLRB? or weakened
its pote
> A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
> movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
> years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
>
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:42:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
> things down the road, just remember what happened to th
the US. They need every (minor) bit of
production they can get.
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
If the hope is that a growing Gree
A great post.
Gene Coyle
Carrol Cox wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
> > people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
>
> If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
> will be do you want so
on their
"democratic" election charade. The Demo-publicans are wallowing in
corporate cash . They usually don't use all of it either. Some candidate s
will have a big stash already banked for the next election (and to just
invest -wax fat , etc).
But Nader and Buchanan (Greens a
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
> people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
-If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
> people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
will be do you want someone like Buchanan or someone like Gerald R. K.
Smith app
Michael wrote,
> It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win.
It pains me too.
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
Eric
Clinton/Dole have been very kind to them. The disgusting telecommunications bill
Recall that Dole was the one who denounced it.
Brad DeLong wrote:
> >It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
> >for is gridlock.
> >
> >I do have one question. Why do y
I wrote:
>>A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is
>>a vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's
>>my reply, amplified a bit:
>>
>> >If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or h
>It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
>for is gridlock.
>
>I do have one question. Why do you think that the media has been so much
>harder on Gore?
>
Who pays their bills?
Brad DeLong
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
for is gridlock.
I do have one question. Why do you think that the media has been so much
harder on Gore?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Ma
>A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for
>Nader is a vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's
>fault." Here's my reply, amplified a bit:
>
> >If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's).
Take resp
A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is a
vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's my
reply, amplified a bit:
>If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's). He's really
nothing but
This morning Nader referred to the Washington Post article favorably. He
regarded it as an acknowledgment that his campaign was achieving some success.
Jim Devine wrote:
> it's hard to tell if this is an opinion piece or a news story. It reads
> like the former, but looking at T
it's hard to tell if this is an opinion piece or a news story. It reads
like the former, but looking at TIME on-line, it appears to be a news
story. That's pretty bad.
At 06:35 PM 10/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>To Gore, He's Darth Nader and Dangerous The crusading gadfly lo
To Gore, He's Darth Nader and Dangerous The crusading gadfly looks poised
to tip a half-dozen swing states to Bush. Can Gore appeal to Nader voters'
sensible side?
BY FRANK PELLEGRINI
Ralph Nader meets the litmus test for a true gadfly candidate: He doesn't
give a crap i
At 09:57 AM 10/22/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>The MC at the Nader rally ... claimed poll results showing Nader at ... 9%
>in Connecticut.
where people know Joe Lieberman well?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
The MC at the Nader rally of 7,000 in Oakland, California (Oct.
21) claimed poll results showing Nader at 6% in the state, 8% in
Minnesota, and 9% in Connecticut.
Charles Andrews
An analysis of Nader's economic program is at
http://www.LaborRepublic.org/Essay40.htm
> From AlterNet.org
>http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9926
>
>Maximizing Ralph: The Free Nader Vote
>Don Hazen, AlterNet
>October 10, 2000
>
>Viewed on October 16, 2000
>
>---
>
>Fo
Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY ends with two very
interesting chapters on how a "Labor Republic" would be organized. His
utopia is very interesting because he is quite conscious of pro-capitalist
criticisms of his scheme. So far, it makes a lot of sense. BTW, following
his t
> Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> >This seems to be a gaping hole in left prescriptions for organizational
> >change at the micro and macro economic level. What would socializing IBM or
> >UPS, or McDonalds for that matter, look like?
>
> As opposed to small, locally owned enterprises? What would
> s
G'day Gar,
>why we should spend a little time on speculating on the nature of a
socialist society,
>on as old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
> ...
>Why -- because the myth of TINA (There Is No Alternative) is far more
>widespread than it ever was in Marxes day.
s NO ONE opposes the belief
that no alternative exists. What about the anti-globalization movement?
Well you will note that the mass as opposed to the anarchist vanguard
(however they deny it that is what many of the anarchists are) tends to
be Nader anti-corporate rather than Anarchist anti-captitali
At this point I was just going to let the argument drop -- but have
decided to pursue the mega-argument instead -- why we should spend a
little time on speculating on the nature of a socialist society, on as
old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
To start with, whe
>This misses the point. Transcendental meditators and witches run campaigns
>to recruit members. Personally, I'm a devotee of Adorno's Theses Against
>Occultism.
I hope that we're in the majority on this one, but I remember when the
Yippies tried to levitate the Pentagon. (Max, was that in you
>If you want supernatural help, perhaps you could try wishing on a star...
a star like Ronald Reagan?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Gar Lipow wrote:
> There are a few people who have come up with answers -- including Robin
> Hahnels and Michael Albert's Parecon scheme. However whenever it is
> brought up we get into an endless loop of argument.
This maillist constitutes a self-appointed Board of Experts. Now political
act
Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
>This seems to be a gaping hole in left prescriptions for organizational
>change at the micro and macro economic level. What would
socializing IBM or
>UPS, or McDonalds for that matter, look like?
As opposed to small, locally owned enterprises? What would
social
201 - 300 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
