Re: Red Ken outrage

["red-rebel" <red-rebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Kromm <ckromm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Livinstone = Gulliani and Wilson? Seperately or combined?
>
> I never did take you seriously, but it's even harder now.


The point being, they are all there to administer capitialism. Why build
illusions in the different wings of capitlalism. Liberal or conservative
makes little difference. It is the capitalist system which will dictate how
they operate, not their personal beliefs. And thats even overlooking the
fact that Livingstone IS a right-wing populist. The fact that this extremely
wealthy lover of capitalism, who scabbed on the 6,000 sacked printworkers of
1986 and who is an outspoken fan of NATO genocide in Yugoslavia, can be
considered a "Left" just shows how fucked up the "Left" actually is, and how
far we still have to go.
I thought this was the "Marxism" list, not the "liberal reformist" list?!
I thought we were out to overthrow the system, not decide who is best to
manage it. Silly me.
But then again I imagine you are thet type of trot(?) who called on us to
vote Blair too? With "No illusions", of course.

James Tait.

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: red-rebel <red-rebel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Red Ken outrage
>
>
> > But the whole point of the "carping" is that Ken Livingstone is no more
a
> > "Red" than Rudolph Gulliani or Pete Wilson.
> >  If you support Ken, you support capitalism and imperialism, just as he
> > does.
> > A Capitalist is a Capitalist. (And from what I hear about Kens stocks &
> > shares fortune, he's as big a capitalist as any!)
> >
> > James Tait.