I couldn't find 1988 Archives but I did check through some of the other articles
that Nathan mentions. His quotes are quite selective. Even though I read through
the articles quite quickly
I do not think that they deserve Nathan's dismissive attitude I get the
impression that LM accepts a wide range of articles. Almost all of them are
provocative and iconoclastic and even the wilder ones make some excellent
criticisms of views that are just accepted as "gospel" by many leftists. Many
articles do not seem to be written by Marxists.
The article on education pointed out that Thatcher started the trend toward
greater inclusiveness in UK universities and also introduced fees. By the time
Blair came in universities were expected to include more and more students but
were receiving half the former amount of money per student. The author is, like
Nathan, a reformist. Believing that it is not possible to get much more money
out of the government, the only way the mass of new students are going to get a
decent education is through more money coming from them. The author advocates
scholarships, grants, and loans with payback tied to earnings after graduation.
Hardly the most reactionary plan. I expect that the author would regard those
who cry out for free tuition as out in left field, regarding them as Nathan does
third parties. Given that the universities will depend upon student fees and not
just government money, the author believes that this will make universities more
responsive to student wishes. He thinks also that students will demand quality.
Now he may be wrong about all this but it is hardly as reactionary or
as unreasonable as you make it sound. The result of the author's reforms would
still be a
far more accessible university system than that in the USA.
The article on pollution makes some interesting points Industrial pollution,
much of it apparently coming from Europe seems to be a more significant part of
pollution than private cars. Trucks and buses in the UK are not subject to the
same pollution controls as private cars and they contribute a considerable part
of what vehicular pollution there is. Pollution by private cars has in fact gone
down dramatically with the introduction of pollution control devices.
The article about domestic violence notes that data on such violence is not
reliable. Often the data comes from self reports and collections of data that
include verbal abuse etc. The authors briefly describe the debate between
feminists and pro-male groups who lob statistics at each other attempting to
show that there is a bias against males or that males are overwhelmingly the
perpetrators of violence etc. The authors claim that the whole debate may create
feelings of distrust between sexes and difficulties for establishing intimate
relationships. It also invites authorities to intervene more and more into
intimate relationships. A woman may not have much power over her husband but
often the state will not take her voice into consideration either when it comes
to laying charges. They are laid even without her consent, all in the name of
empowering her. Now this may all be wrong but it is hardly conspirational. It
brings up
serious questions that the left just does not like to face.
Many of the articles are like that. THere is an article on female genital
circumcision that will drive most liberals and feminists up the wall and I
certainly don't agree with it but the article makes a case for the whole
movement as an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of the west and its
customs against darkest Africa. At least the article enabled me to understand
why some African countries and some African women react against the movement. As
one African woman said "Who are you Western feminists to tell me what I can or
cannot do to my body?"
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Nathan Newman wrote:
> >On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> >
> > By the way, this outcome undermines the argument that LM is some
> > sinister tool of British capital, doesn't it?
>
> Only if you subscribe to a conspiracy-totalitarian version where British
> capital controls every institution, including the left-leaning reporters who
> brought the lawsuit, along with the minds of the jury who convicted LM.
>
> I'd never paid much attention to LM before this whole libel suit fight, but
> reading all the articles by them and about them, from their denial of
> genocide in Rwanda to the long strange history of their precursor
> Revolutionary Communist Party to their new enthusiasm for free market "human
> potential", they seem like a pernicious opportunistic organization more
> interested in publicity than social change of any progressive variety. In
> their whole bizarre mixture of "anti-establishment" politics combined with
> antifeminism and pro-capitalist enthusiasm along with odd connections to
> power, they remind me of a weird mix between Lyndon LaRouche, Camille Paglia
> and Tina Brown.
>
> That folks like Yoshie declare them anti-imperialists when they publicize so
> many reactionary political positions amazes me. Some samples:
>
> On Asian Financial Crisis: "Certainly, life will be tough for many East
> Asian people, financial institutions and companies for a year or so. There
> will be a boom in bankruptcies. But these economies will likely come through
> a period of shakeout and forced restructuring with an even stronger
> productive base. No pain, no gain has always been the way in the market
> economy."(March 1988)
>
> Attacking Expanded College Access and Advocating Higher Fees: "There can be
> no 'right' to education in universities, because you cannot exercise this
> supposed right without having certain capacities - an interest in truth,
> curiosity, a certain sense of wonder, an ability to follow abstract
> argument, and so on. It happens that these capacities are pretty rare."
> (Oct. 1999)
>
> On Domestic Violence: "The problem here is not a 'gender bias' so much as a
> grossly inflated representation of the extent of domestic violence. ...In
> the drive to show that the other sex is as capable of degraded behaviour,
> the important point about the rarity of domestic violence is lost."(Feb.
> 2000)
>
> Pollution: "Yet recent evidence casts serious doubt on the assumed link
> between air pollution, ill health and cars...if you are a healthy person you
> have little to fear from air pollution."(April 1999)
>
> On Microsoft & Internet: "Might it not in fact be a great thing if
> Microsoft, or somebody else, went even further and really did come to
> dominate the market?...The US government's attack on Microsoft's monopoly
> position does not make sense. It was not Gates who determined that there
> would be a monopoly; it was the market, in the shape of software developers
> and consumers."
>
> Global Warming: "Change is the norm, and nature has no preferred state - but
> should we, from a human-centred perspective, have an ideal climate in
> mind?...So why should we have anything to fear from global warming? Some
> areas of productive farmland would be lost, but they would be more than
> replaced by new areas for agriculture."(January 1988)
>
> British libel laws stink on pinciple, but the world loses very little
> politically from the demise of this kind of crap that defends every
> environmental and financial excess by capitalism as an attempt to expand
> human freedom and "progress."
>
> -- Nathan Newman
