>>>The democratic rhetoric of Rousseau and Tocqueville becomes
>>>meaningless and obfuscatory emissions of hot gasses by Clinton or
>>>Blair.
>>
>>Such hyperbole is not good for communication...
>
>So you believe Clinton when he talks about being in favor of democracy?
>
Of course Clinton and B
>Brad wrote:
>>>Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the
>>>language of
>>>socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not.
>>>Perhaps we have to invent a new political language.
>
>Brad writes:
>>Yep. Back to Tocqueville and Rousseau...
>
>If
>>The democratic rhetoric of Rousseau and Tocqueville becomes meaningless
>>and obfuscatory emissions of hot gasses by Clinton or Blair.
>
>Such hyperbole is not good for communication even in face-to-face
>conversation or as part of an extended essay which allows the reader to
>understand the
Brad wrote:
>>Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the
>>language of
>>socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not.
>>Perhaps we have to invent a new political language.
Brad writes:
>Yep. Back to Tocqueville and Rousseau...
If Brad is no
Tocquville and Rousseau offer a "new" language? I don't deny we have lots to learn
from them, but if "new" is what we need, they don't qualify. --jks
I think it is worth while to rescue the language of
>socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not.
>Perhaps we have
>Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the language of
>socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not.
>Perhaps we have to invent a new political language.
>
>Rod
Yep. Back to Tocqueville and Rousseau...
One needs to first understand Marx before even talking about Leninism..
Mine
>Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the
>language of >socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but
perhaps it is >not. >Perhaps we have to invent a new political language.
R
Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the language of
socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not.
Perhaps we have to invent a new political language.
Rod
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> Rod,
> I would prefer the kind of socialism t
>... But my point is that whatever the reason, Russia did not socialise the
>means of production, and should not be called socialist.
>
>Rod
I don't know if it does any good to say that the USSR wasn't socialist,
since the vast majority of humanity uses that tag.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: 23 May 2000 05:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:19438] Re: Re: Re: Withering away of the state
At 06:54 AM 05/23/2000 +1000, you wrote:
>Nice post, Rod! An
Jim: I agree that circumstances both internal and external had a great deal to
do with what happened in Russia. I don't blame it all on Lenin. Socialism in a
poor country is an extremely difficult proposition. But my point is that
whatever the reason, Russia did not socialise the means of producti
At 06:54 AM 05/23/2000 +1000, you wrote:
>Nice post, Rod! And I tend to side with Barkley on the SR Constituent
>Assembly, too - which seems to me to have been a more promising midwife for
>the sort of transformations you discuss (especially in light of the
>resolutions they were passing in their
age-
> From: Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:11 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:19273] Re: Re: Re: : withering away of the state (fwd)
>
> >I have read everything.
> >
> >Rod
>
This may seem a cliche, but I'd say it is more complex than "yea, yea, or nay, nay", (
I really hate to say this one) "good and bad", "success and failure".
It had some good and some bad ( and ugly), some success and some failure ( and freedom
even).
For us, the importance of the SU is to le
Perhaps but that could cut two ways,
as in socialism yes, good no. No
reason to assume every form of socialism
would be desirable.
mbs
> I bet if we took a count more people would consider the USSR
> socialism (communism even) than not.
>
> CB
>
> >>> Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 09:15P
Rod,
"Everything"? Really? Ponomaesh Russki yazik?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:11 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19273] Re: Re: Re: : withering away of the
for example?
Mine
>I have read everything.
>Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What did you read about Soviet socialism?
>
> Mine
>
> >Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people
> >mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call
> >it wh
I have read everything.
Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What did you read about Soviet socialism?
>
> Mine
>
> >Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people
> >mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call
> >it what you want, but I don't
In a message dated 5/18/00 9:19:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people
mean by
the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call it what
you want,
but I don't call it socialism. >>
Barkley writes:
> I did not mean that the vision was pathetic. I meant that the
> actual outcome in light of the vision/
>(forecast) was pathetic.
but as I said:
> >Of course, there are lots of things that famous people said that we can
> >dismiss as "pathetic jokes," with the benefit of
20 matches
Mail list logo
