4219Re: More questions on the theory of the labor aristocracy
- Jan 22, 2004--- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Strauss
> I agree with Peter Boyle's presentation of the problemGood - lets move on.
> at this point.
>In fact, I will leave suchIndeed I know what you mean - after quoting you twice I
> methodological questions there until we have material
> to consider with them, because with every posting the
> distortions seem to grow exponentially.
lapse into a paraphrase on the basis that we all know
what we are saying but you say:
>Shane, did I write the "current situation was notNo you said:
>relevant". No, I said it must be studied in a certain
"Empirical investigation of the current state of
the class structure and the current circumstances in
the workers' movement in Australia" can't be relevant
to, or come into, any Marxist analysis, IMO, unless it
is historical, rather than sociological"
and I asked what the hell you meant. So if you think
I have distorted you I apologise.
Then Peter wades in after 3-4 posts with:
>Lenin was clearly the best Marxist of the 20th century. <snip>Its kinda strange since I haven't mentioned Lenin at all.
>Of course reality can prove the ideas of the smartest cookie
>in the socialist movement wrong. But that has to be demonstrated
>with a little more than the shallow, dismissive single sentences
>that Shane Hopkinson has come up with so far in this discussion.
Most of the 4-5 exchanges have been about clarifying Jon's
comment. My first post doesn't mention Lenin either - its
just about saying that I'd like the debate to be focused on
>But this puts a heavy challenge to all sides of this argumentIndeed, and trying to work, and run a Greens election campaign keeps
me busy as well. Bob obviously has a lot more textual knowledge and
can mix it with you on that score.
I hope we can get on with the
discussion of how the theory applies to Australia.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>