Ken,
Everything LM has said on all these points are variations of what many
rightwings have said. A few mildly progressive iconoclastic statements does
not make up for a general support for righting neoliberalism.
On higher education, the article is not about money reform (although it's
mentioned, much as the Right in the US complains "lowered standards" in the
US due to racial inclusion have undermined it), but on how education has
been corrupted by those seeking economic advancement, not knowledge. It's a
variation on the rightwing academic bashing in the US.
And don't even try to defend LM on environmentalism-- they have slews of
articles attacking the Greens and every other pro-environment group as
enemies of progress. It is their views, not those they criticize, that are
antiscientific and ideological. THeir obsession with "progress" is
explicitly of the classical sort, where they bemoan every environmental
critique ad nauseum.
As for domestic violence, their position is just itself vile, playing a
numbers game to downplay its importance. This is where they jump in bed
almost literally with Camille Paglia and her feminist bashing.
Hey, I love iconoclasm as much as the next person; but don't call it
progressive or anti-imperialist. Just call it the marketing opportunity it
is.
-- Nathan Newman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 1:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:17212] Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post
>
>
> 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
>
