Re: Anglo-Saxon Labour Party trend and Discontent with Unions

[rahul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rahul Mahajan)]

Louis G:

>Malecki, ever the convivial nitwit, writes:
>
>>Been watching your posts for a few days now. They appear to be a tendency of
>>partically mindless activism, partially a family of revolutionaries,
>>partially a poor little Turkey third world mentality, partially anti
>>Leninists and finally a blend of various reformist and stalinist ideas under
>>the guise of being something new..
>
>Malecki, if you had an ounce of credibility with anyone, anywhere,  I'd
>travel to Sweden forthwith and pour ground-up Valu Jet discount coupons into
>your oatmeal.    "Mindless activism"?   "family" of "revolutionaries"?
>"third world mentality"?    Malecki,  what in hell is the matter with you?
>
>Or do we need to meet on the field of honor?

Louis, I agree with you completely here (is that a first?), but I really
don't think Zeynep needs a champion. She's quite capable of slaying bigger
ogres than malecki-in-exile by herself.

>Truly amazing.    A 'static' view of marxian dialectics.   "Hardly changed"?
>A Labor Party, such as was tentatively born in Cleveland earlier this month,
>as flawed and as ambiguous as it is, would not have been possible twenty,
>ten, or even five years ago.    It is a halting, ambivalent, but nontheless
>clear challenge to the two party system that has dominated American politics
>since 1860.    It is, in fact, the most significant political party to
>emerge from elements of the working class movement since the American Labor
>Party of 1948.

I know you still believe in turning the world in a Gulag, but you seem to
have mellowed out a lot. If it's because of something you're taking, let me
know, because I could use a bit myself. I never expected you to have a good
word for the Labor Party. We'll make you a reformist social democrat yet.

Rahul




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---