the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify
differences.
Jim Devine
"'perceptual fault lines' run through apparently stable communities that appear to have
agreed on basic institutions and structures and on general governing rules.
I would disagree. It seems to me that maillists are primarily
conversational, and attempts to make them replace printed journals are
mostly wishful thinking. I my only rarely either read or write posts
much longer than 4 or 5 screens. Moreover, issues that really do depend
on large amounts of empi
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to
>clarify differences.
Yes, clearly there's little difference between pen-l and lbo on that score
:)
Carl
_
MSN
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28996] Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Louis writes:
> I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but
> you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information
> whenever you post.
That's good, but I like a weaker stan
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28995] Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify differences.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL
Michael writes:
> I would only add that in
>these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at
>least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such
>debates will write.
To be sure, most postings in most PEN-L debates appear as predictable
rehearsals of existi
Rob Schaap wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > >Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere?
>
> >Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere?
> It's the journey, dudes, not the destination.
How about, "Is this discussion becoming or going?"
Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in
these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at
least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such
debates will write.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
> In
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere?
>
>Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere?
>
>Doug
I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but you should
search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information whenever you
pos
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere?
Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere?
Doug
Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:25:03PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >Let us criticize by all means, and experiment, and learn. In an
> >off-list discussion Jim D accused me of being "vague" and
> >"ambiguous" about
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28970] Re: RE: liberalism
I wrote: >>It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for businesses, too.<<
Justin: >Like I said, it saved c pitalism.<
there's a difference: individual businesses often care about nothin
Of what use is a
>concept that includes the soviets of the revolutionary period and the U.S.
>Senate today under the same classification?
>
>Doug
Well, they have this in common: they are both government institutions
staffed by representatives who are elected by the people they are supposed
to
>
>It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for
>businesses, too.
Like I said, it saved c pitalism.
>
>Further, the "progressive" -- or better, the democratic -- aspects of New
>Deal liberalism did NOT arise from "liberalism" as much as from mass
>struggles (the Vet
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>Let us criticize by all means, and experiment, and learn. In an
>off-list discussion Jim D accused me of being "vague" and
>"ambiguous" about liberal democracy, which I am not, but my
>conception is very minimal, and compatible with many
>implementations. Including a w
> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
>
> Self-government? this means profound democracy to me
I like the term "profound democracy" better than "direct democracy,"
which (both in its positive and its negative aspects) is tied to
specific social structures of the past. For that reason also it
contributes
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28960] Re: liberalism
I don't know of anyone in favor of _direct_ democracy. I thought people were arguing for delegatory democracy, in which delegates can be recalled easily, fewer government officials are immune to democratic control, and there are clear limits o
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28928] liberalism
Justin:>>>These (Manchester and New Deal liberalisms) are economic liberalisms. I'm a political liberal, like Mill and Rawls.<<<
me:>>please explain.<<
Justin:>OK. Manchester liberalism is what we now call libertarianism, favoring a nightwatchman state an
It is interesting to look at the Jugoslav experience with
representative vs direct democracy to show some light on this
question. Direct democracy was just not feasible at the commune,
republic or national level so the delegate system was used with
elections conducted using constitutencies fr
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> I have already responded noless dogmatically.
"No Sir, I am not dogmatic, I am deliberate."
Samuel Johnson
:-)
Carrol
>
> >As I said, almost everyone. jks
>
>Almost everyone is right; as far as I can tell, yer man Posner is not in
>favour of representative government or of "extensive civil rights and
>liberties" in as much as these can't be derived from property rights.
That's unfair to Posner. His notion of
>As I said, almost everyone. jks
Almost everyone is right; as far as I can tell, yer man Posner is not in
favour of representative government or of "extensive civil rights and
liberties" in as much as these can't be derived from property rights.
What's your argument against his utopia of a smal
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28943] Re: Re: liberalism
>>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>>> As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors
> > > univ. suffrage --- Yes [Carrol's response]
> > > extensive civil rights and liberties Yes [ditto]
&g
>
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors
>
> > univ. suffrage --- Yes
>
> > extensive civil rights and liberties Yes
>
> > representative govt - NO
>
>This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never
>w
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >>
> As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors
> univ. suffrage --- Yes
> extensive civil rights and liberties Yes
> representative govt - NO
This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never
will.
It's replacem
25 matches
Mail list logo
