:
: : Now then - is this 'market socialist' "possibilism" a help or a hinderance? : If the demands of moderates like Roemer arent achieveable then the demands of "impossibilists" (I dont think what they want is impossible, I'm only using what appears to be a popular label) definitely arent.
: Why does everyone who insists that they are militants get so heated at people within thier own ranks calling for moderate reFORM? How can it be a hinderance? If anything it could be a very progressive watershed.
: Take nineteenth century britain and it's poor law administration that devided the nation into regions for the administration of "poor relief" and enforced to regional dividing line as militantly as an nation state does borders no one is suggesting that Britain should return to that are they? I think this type of watershed marketism is more progressive than current lasse faire capitalism and if it was successful, that is, irreversable it would only symbolise a move to the left socially, economically etc.
SDF: There is something to be said for "poor relief," that it is better than mass starvation. Otherwise, I think the thing about "waiting for Godot" was a debate between me and Red Deathy about the merits of W.S.M vs. the merits of the Green Party, whom RD thinks is a bunch of reformers and possibilists (though he admits there are some Marxists in the ranks). For my part, I don't think RD gave a serious answer when I challenged him with the Calhoun quote I repeated here. We do not live in the era of the First International any more. Let's deal with it.
