> By the way, this outcome undermines the argument that LM is some
> sinister tool of British capital, doesn't it?
>
> Doug
LM is/was a bizarre libertarian magazine that had cut its ties to the left
some time ago. Doug decided to publish in their pages fully knowing this.
Meanwhile he derides Alex Cockburn for speaking at an antiwar conference
run by libertarians.
There is not such thing as "British capital". In adopting the rhetoric of
the dogmatic left, one wonders which type of Marxism he has thrown
overboard in an announcement to LBO-Talk. The Marxism of Gramsci, which
understood intraclass ideological rivalries, or the Marxism of Bob
Malecki.
LM reflected the class interests of that segment of British capital
politically aligned with the Tory Party. The anticommunism of the Thatcher
years has become irrelevant to this camp, so that is why LM's
"iconoclastic" views on foreign policy are no bother. After all, people
like Pat Buchanan were saying much of the same thing here.
Finally, on the question of free speech. If Marxists in power were
constrained by this principle as enunciated by many here, the Cuban
revolution would have been overthrown years ago. One might even argue that
excess respect for free speech led to the overthrow of the FSLN in
Nicaragua.
(Michael, if you want to suspend my posting privileges for a week, go
ahead. I wil understand.)
Louis P.
