A modicum of civility
hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Apr 2 03:42:35 MST 1996
>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, hariette spierings wrote:
>> So why don't you put politics in command my dear fellow and give as your
>> position on the questions raised instead of simple comments that only add to
>> the confussion. This is the last time I at ll bother with you if you do not
>> now yourself put "politics in command" in deeds and not just in words. OK!
>How *odd*, Adolfo. I'm a very recent newcomer to this list, and I *have*
>been putting my views out. Most primarily, in terms of a) the need to
>reassess revolutionary politics in a new period (a point on which you and
>I may not agree), b) on Stalinism in general, c) on economic growth and
>direction under socialism, and then on a number of peripheral issues.
>Of course, should you choose not to see my positions, that's a very
>different kettle of fish altogether.
There you are, you are putting generalities and peripheral issues in
command, apart from your admonitions - mostly directed against the
revolutionaries, since it took me to point it out to you for you to even
"notice" the minor detail that "doug" was in fact using "unpolitical"
language which could not but be answered with scorn. That is not putting
politics in command, that is ducking the issues and putting trivia in
May we now have your position on the fundamentals of this discussion, are
you for or against the revolution in Peru, are you with its friends, or with
its enemies, and in a question like that, there is no room for equivocation.
If you equivocate in something so fundamental to a class position, you would
not be putting politics, but equivocation in command. So, in a short and
clear note, if at all possible we await your response. When you actually
put "politics in commnad" clarity is one of the fundamental results.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism