[Marxism] Earl Browder
cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Fri Oct 7 14:57:11 MDT 2005
Mark Lause :
I've never been "sneaky" and being called "degenerate" by Mr. Brown
means nothing to me.
CB: It's sneaky because you didn't explicitly direct it at me, but just
bring out of the blue a reference to not replying to "drunks". It's also
degenerate and _ad hominem_ for obvious reasons.
Sorry to be "degenerate," but some of us actually care about getting
these things right.... Let me be specific....
CB: The implication that I don't care about getting it right is more
gratutious slander, degenerate "argument". No, you don't care about getting
it right more than I do.
-clip- more degenerate slander.
...and that he doesn't care
enough even to be consistent about it. He has asserted (without
offering the least glimmer of evidence or proof) that "we" (not defined)
were in a "front" with the early Republican Party.
So, are you saying that radicals, abolitiontists, did not work with the
Republican Party in that period ?
You have asserted that I was inconsistent, but you have pointedout the
(You are the one who used the term "we" first. I just picked up your term.
You started using this "we" covering several American generations when you
"Related...in this earlier period, it wasn't a question of "working with the
Republican Party" in the 1850s and 1860s. The continuity of radicalism in
those days were in the ideas not the organizations werewhich are short-lived
and mostly misunderstood and mythologized later.The reality is that
we--Marxists, socialists, radicals generally--WERE Republicans. _We_ (
emphasis added -CB)had kicked off the Republicans as a third party movement
and contributed much to building it into something capable of breaking
through the duopoly of the Democrats and Whigs. _We_ (emphasis added -CB)
did this because _we_ saw organizations as performing specific functions
historically and not as churches with all the answers.")
You seem to forget what you have said. But everything you say is recorded ,
ML: It was said to be a "united front" one time and a "popular front"
CB: Point to the post where I said "united front". I only referred to
"popular fronts" in my posts.
ML : This is drooling nonsense, and drinking is the kindest possible
interpretation I can put on such reckless careening through a past won at no
small coast to our class and our movement.
CB: Calling it drooling nonsense is not an argument, so I assume you don't
have one,and that's why you are dodging .
In the end, Mr. Brown's own words inspire no confidence whatsoever that he
knows the difference between a "front" and the other end of the bull.Which
probably explains much about his approach to history.
Sorry, some of us just give a fuck.
CB: I get to the ass of your post , and there are no arguments, only a bunch
of _ad hominem_'s. This is really weak. There are lots of drunks who argue
better than you just did.
Anyway, you started this idea of going back to 1820 and comparing radicals
trying to work with the Democratic Party unsuccessfully (quite appropriately
referred to as a "fronting" with them) with the 1930's. I find the first
comparison with the 1820's on this thread
"ML: Indeed, independent parties like the "Workies" and the Locofocos of
the1820s and 1830s debated the nature of the new Democratic Party, which
swallowed enough of them to kill the movement. And it's gone on ever since
with any third party that's shown any ability to pose a threat to
them--Socialists, Greenbackers, Populists, Greens, etc."
CB:So, I just followed your creative approach and showed where radicals
worked _successfully_ with Republicans leading up to the Civil War. You
didn't reply to that , but went off trying to dismiss me as drunk. Bad move.
You lose the argument as it stands, unless you can get something out of your
mouth on the Republican example and not me as a person unrelated to what I'm
arguing ( see elementary rules of arguing, logical fallacies and the like)
More information about the Marxism