First of all, this sort of exchange has no place here.
Second, this particular debate seems to involve Max vs. the others. When
we reach that stage, especially when it becomes repetitive, it is time to
stop.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote:
> then why write to me?
>
jd again:
. . . It depends on whether Lenin were leading a workers' democratic
government or
not and acted according to the principles of workers' democracy. If he were
a dictator of the proletariat rather than being subject to the democratic
will of the proletariat, he could easily be as bad as B
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
>
>
> BTW, in terms of strategy & tactics, I'm a pacifist. I don't think that the
> left should engage in violence unless it's absolutely necessary. Further, it
> might be okay it's done in a way to promote grass-roots democracy and
> popular power. The latter is real
CC: First a couple of minor points. (1) I think it best to keep the word
"pacifist" to name those who oppose any and all war under all
conditions. In this sense Max's term, "selective pacifist," is simple
bad writing. Is there anyone who has ever approved of all wars? Gee. . . .
Now things are r
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now things are really getting nasty. Bad writing. Hmmmph.
> No, a selective pacifist is one who professes universal
principles --
> opposition to any use of organized violence -- but applies them to
> fewer than all wars.
Selective pacifism reflects confusion.
Consistent pacifism is not confused; it's just wrong.
mbs
t I will settle for simple
confusion,
> borne of excessive exposure to bad propaganda.
> mbs
===
Ghandi was confused? MLK?.
Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19987] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Max tells the "truth"
> Selective pacifism reflects confusion.
> Consiste
Max Sawicky wrote:
> Selective pacifism reflects confusion.
> Consistent pacifism is not confused; it's just wrong.
>
where is the confusion? if i state a theory and explicitly specify the
outliers, would you call that confused? if i were to say "i am a pacifist
in the sense that i oppose all
