G'day Ian, I will look for Sklar's work as soon as I can. I must confesss to being very out of touch with recent publications and this sounds like something well worth exploring.
In terms of strategic assessments, there is I think a tripartite division rather than a simple opposition between legal and illegal, a ground which lies in between which I would call extra-legal - it is this which I think is the aiming point. Breaking laws is in itself no big thing, there are so many laws on the books that technically many of us are in breach at least some of the time just going about our normal lives. In a sense it has always been the case of that there are laws and laws, the defining point being the readiness of the state to act and having acted how much social agreement there is to the action. I could, if this does not sound like too much of word play, say communists should follow legal forms when these fall directly in line with class interests, otherwise they should act outside such concerns. Illegality in the meaniful sense only falls on those acts which cannot in themselves be justified socially. The trick is, I believe, not to make a fetish of the law one way or another - it is far more a moving feast than it is often given credit for, and far more flexible in practice than it appears in the abstract. I hope this makes sense, what cripples debate in my limited experience is when it is bound to legal vs illegal means when the means are everything and the legal questions for the most part abstract. Breaking shop windows for instance may be useful, but most often is not etc. Those that justify such actions as actions rarely look at usefulness rather they use symbolism as a justification (more often it is youthful rebellion and should be treated as such) anyhow symbolism is at best an artistic approach to decorating real action, it is silly that it should substitute for it. So other than underscoring the middle ground of extra-legal space in the debate, I am in agreement with you - it is as ever a strategic question. All the best and hope to hear more soon. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:12:52 -0700 Subject: [PEN-L:19106] Re: Re: Lenin and Engels, force and violence [Hi Greg, see below] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Schofield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The pity is Chris I think my quibble has blunted the far more important point you were making in your original posting. > > I have been trying to get Marxists to talk on this vital area for sometime, not just "Empire" but imperialism as a passed period and the new situation of the state - to no avail!! ========== The leading US scholar on post-Imperialism is Richard L. Sklar. His work points to the ways and means by which corporate power is in the drivers seat of the global political economy, with a theory of classes that is richly informed by ideas from Paul Mattick Jr., Rolf Dahrendorf, Marx, Veblen, C Wright Mills and others. One of the best texts to analyze the current conundrums, that incorporates[hah!] those researchers ideas with acute attention to the legal history of capitalism in the US is SCott Bowman's "The Modern Corporation and American Political Thought." As far as I can remember, the text does not show up in H&N's work. > > Why is it? Why cannot decent debate be made on these topics?? > > I suspect because they cut to close to the heart of things and few are prepared to look inside - whatever the reason it is damned frustrating. > > Perhaps looking at class force (the idea of having political force in the present age) might help - I do not know. I again suspect thaqt much of the political discussion that does happen is far more reified than it at first appears - there is still a lot of silly squabbling about lines as if these have any impact when the very basics of class organisation are in tatters. > > Extra-legal force is something that interests me very much, illegal force not at all (all shades of terrorism as far as I am concerned - a best a fairly harmless outlet for the frustrations of youth, at worst - well we know aspects of that well enough). > > Again Chris I apologise for bringing in a side issue and appear once again to have killed off useful debate by so doing. > > Greg Schofield > Perth Austrlia ============ Well that's where we on the left, such as it is, must be strategic; the boundary between the 'legal' and the 'illegal' and how those terms are constituted by class interests. Ian
