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 Blair believe
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...
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
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 not being
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 tone.
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 not being
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
-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! And I tend
... 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]
22, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19425] Re: Withering away of the state
First, let's start with the word socialism and what it means. To me the
minimum
would be some socialisation of the means of production (I distinquish this
from
nationalisation). This entails the establishment of democratic
:19425] Re: Withering away of the state
First, let's start with the word socialism and what it means. To me the
minimum
would be some socialisation of the means of production (I distinquish this
from
nationalisation). This entails the establishment of democratic institutions
capable o
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19425] Re: Withering away of the state
First, let's start with the word socialism and what it means. To me the
minimum
would be some socialisation of the means of production (I distinquish this
from
natio
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 last days) than the dictatorship of
a
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
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 call it
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 what you
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/00 06:14PM
Jim,
I did not mean that the vision was pathetic. I
meant that the actual outcome in light of the vision/
(forecast) was pathetic.
_
CB: It was not Marx's vision that the state would whither away until there were no
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 state (fwd)
I
Doug Henwood wrote:
Wait a minute. A model that failed and which is now held in almost
universally low regard
I've never praised or dispraised any position on the grounds that
it was or was not "marxist." I'll break that habit now. The use of
the concept of "model" in reference to social
Charles says:
Claims such as Justin's that my approach to Lenin and Marx is like that of an
approach to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost, are, ironically, themselves, liberal
dogma, unfounded selfcongratulation that Justin or someone thinks more critically and
undogmatically than I. This is
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19300] Re: : withering away of the state
Charles Brown wrote:
Actually, isn't it a big part of our problem that what _most people_ DO
mean
by "socialism" what they had in the USSR? --jks
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/00 12:55PM
Charles says:
Claims such as Justin's that my approach to Lenin and Marx is like that of an
approach to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost, are, ironically, themselves, liberal
dogma, unfounded selfcongratulation that Justin or someone thinks more
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 09:15PM
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What did you read about Soviet socialism?
Mine
Intere
Subject: [PEN-L:19247] Re: withering away of the state
Barkley writes that Marx was
... also very utopian, especially the bit about the withering away of the
state. What a pathetic joke.
Of course, there are lots of things that famous people said that we can
dismiss as "pathetic
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
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.
Rod
Carrol Cox wrote:
Rod Hay wrote:
Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until
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.
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 09:15PM
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
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 call it socialism.
Rod
Carrol Cox wrote:
Rod Hay wrote:
31 matches
Mail list logo
