[Marxism] Callinicos reacts to the NPA

[Paddy Apling]

This message was intended for Joaquin alone.
I placed his e-mail address to over-write the list address, nut it evidently 
converted back to the list before I sent it!!

This makes me wonder why the list system makes it so difficult to send a 
reply off-list ....  The Reply All button merely comes up with the list 
address, instead of the list address + sender's address, which would allow 
one easily to eliminate the list as recipient....

Perhaps Les could comment ?

Paddy
http://apling.freeservers.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paddy Apling" <e.c.apling at btinternet.com>
Cc: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" 
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>; <jbustelo at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Callinicos reacts to the NPA


> Joaquin, you have REALLY hit the nail on the head with this epistle !!
>
> An excellent and simple - yet erudite and even poetic - explanation of the 
> difference between the r-r-r-revolutionary sectarian and the true 
> revolutionary, the working-class (even if his class origin and position 
> may well be entirely bourgeois or of the  professional elite) 
> agitator-educator..
>
> The word Joaquin in the From column nearly always indicates something that 
> demands immediate avoidance of that well-used delete-key.
>
> This one demands use of the Copy to Folder link instead !!
>
> Comradely greetings (4 days after my 84th birthday)
>
> Paddy
> http://apling.freeservers.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
> To: <e.c.apling at btinternet.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Callinicos reacts to the NPA
>
>
>> Luko writes: <<It is not enough to know what you are _against_ (it is 
>> called
>> the "anti-capitalist party"), but what you are _for.>>
>>
>> I'm not going to try to be cute, or facetious, or obscure in this post, 
>> just
>> straightforward. I think Luko has put his finger on *precisely* what the
>> error is, at least expressed in ideological terms, which is that you have 
>> to
>> know what you are "for."
>>
>> I believe, in counterposition to Luko and others, that the important 
>> thing
>> is NOT "knowing what you are for," at least not in any ultimate or even
>> quasi-definitive way that will STILL be true two or three years from now,
>> should a revolution break out, but knowing *who you ARE.*
>>
>