Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Juriaan and Bendien of a personal Marx quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of devine apathia devine athambia devine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the devine Marcuse with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labour theory of value of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per caput since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per caput approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Louis Proyect six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold an sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations) tennis... the stones... so calm... Cunard... unfinished...
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Jurriaan Bendien < [email protected]> wrote: > It would be easy to mistake Tom Walker as a member of the New Marxist > Exploiting Class, because he has a lot of the typical behaviours associated > with it, the jeering, lying and sneering and so forth. Nevertheless I would > not include him, because he is not a Marxist by any stretch of the > imagination, and because I think his ideas are not useful for anything, and > therefore it is difficult to see how he could exploit anybody. But I am > open to other arguments.**** > > ** ** > > ------**** > > ** ** > > In reply to Jim Devine’s query:**** > > ** ** > > I don’t have the time to explain the theory with all kinds of academic > subtleties and niceties here, but I can give a brief sketch as follows:*** > * > > ** ** > > The formation of a new class, caste or elite in actually existing > socialist societies has been commented on by numerous leftists with some > scruple or moral conscience, including: Altvater, Arthur, Bahro, Behrens, > Bence, Bettelheim, Boeuve, Bordiga, Brenner, Burnham, Carlo, Carter, > Chattopadyay, Cliff, Cox, Cycon, Daum, Deutscher, Dunayevskaya, Dutschke, > Feher, Fernandez, Finger, Frolich, Furedi, Grandizo, Haraszti, Hegedus, > Heller, Hilferding, Holmberg, James, Kautsky, Kis, Kofler, Konrad, Korsch, > Kowalik, Kuron, Laurat, Loone, Machover, Marcuse, Markus, Mattick, Melotti, > Miasnikov, Modzelewski, Mohun, Naville, Neussus, Pannekoek, Peret, Pollock, > Rakovsky, Resnick, Rizzi, Rosdolsky, Sandemose, Sapir, Schachtman, > Schmiederer, Singer, Sohn-Rethel, Sternberg, Stojanovic, Sweezy, Ticktin, > Voslensky, Weil, Wolff, Worrall, and Zimin.**** > > ** ** > > Characteristic of most of the theories mooted by these authors, is the > “disconnect” between (1) Marxism, and (2) the class or elite power obtained > by Marxist leaders. **** > > ** ** > > This was never mentioned in Marcel van der Linden’s book “Western Marxism > and the Soviet Union” (which I translated into English). Marcel’s narrative > was along the lines: “I don’t know what the answer is, and they don’t > either, but I hope they give us some clues.”**** > > ** ** > > The leftist analysts of the “new class” (or new elite, or ruling caste) > typically assumed, that Marxism is “sugar and spice and all things nice”, > and that if it isn’t, then it cannot be Marxism. With this kind of > assumption, it is reasoned that if a new class or elite did emerge in > actually existing socialist societies, then this cannot have had anything > to do with Marxism. **** > > ** ** > > In this way, Marxism (in whatever flavor or variant) is always exonerated. > **** > > ** ** > > Very precise arguments are often made about this, such as that the true > revolutionary Marxism existed until 1923, or 1928, or 1956, or 1960, or > 1989, and that thereafter it degenerated into some other doctrine which > wasn’t Marxism. **** > > ** ** > > Deutscher talked poetically and liturgically in terms of “the gulf between > the idea and reality.” In non-revolutionary times, you had to carry the > Marxist Talmud on your back, until the revolutionary time would come again > when the idea could realize itself. **** > > ** ** > > The ideological assumption in all this, is as simple as it is banale: > either developments were revolutionary and progressive, in which case > Marxism was being applied, or they were reactionary and barbaric, in which > case Marxism had nothing to do with it. **** > > ** ** > > The idea that there could be anything wrong with Marxism itself, is > completely excluded, it is a sort of “blind spot”. **** > > ** ** > > Nikolai Bukharin in fact very precisely defined this blind spot, because > in his critique of Kautsky, he tried to provide a logically conclusive > theoretical argument to prove once and for all that the Bolsheviks could > not be a new ruling class, true in virtue of the truth of its logical > premises, the primary one being that a ruling class by definition owns the > means of production. **** > > ** ** > > The concept of the New Marxist Exploiting Class aims to overcome this kind > of implausible interpretation, by specifically emphasizing that the new > exploiting class was a MARXIST exploiting class, and it exploited > ruthlessly specifically by applying a MARXIST ideology. The fact that it > did so, led to a by now legendary cynical humour among the people in > Eastern Europe, sharply contrasting the lofty rhetoric of the Marxist > rulers with the oppressive realities of life. **** > > ** ** > > The implication in NMEC theory is, that Marxism is itself not a “squeaky > clean” ideology, but already contains the germs of new forms of social > oppression in the way that it theorizes social reality.**** > > ** ** > > Sociologically speaking, the New Marxist Exploiting Class usually has its > main roots among the skilled working class and the lower middle class, > though it depends on what historical period or country we are talking > about. As Deutscher remarks somewhere, Marxism provided middle class people > with a convenient instrumentarium to understand the state and society, and > their own place in the social order.**** > > ** ** > > We are talking about personalities desirous of wealth, fame, adventure and > power, who seek to rise out of their class, people with a mixture of > motives revolving around social envy, status anxiety, contempt for their > competitors, and moral indignation about unfairness and injustice. What > they have in common is, that they try to manipulate people’s sympathies for > the oppressed for the purpose of their own campaign to climb to power, > their own political career, their own interests. They need not be > especially creative people, they could just be people who feel good > following a doctrine or faith, or people who like to spy over the shoulder > of their betters, in order to find out how they can advance their own > position. Formally it looks they are overflowing with the milk of human > kindness, but in substance they are parasitic and extractive.**** > > ** ** > > The general conclusion of the NMEC analysis is that although the Marxists > were able to highlight, explain and alleviate some forms of human > oppression fairly well, the very idea of “Marxism” as an eponymous doctrine > was a bad and mistaken idea, and that if we want to improve, we have to > start again to forge a new way of thinking, completely freed from the > chatter about “Lenin said”, “Trotsky said”, “Mao said” (or “Marx said”!) > etc. **** > > ** ** > > There can of course be no dispute that these Marxists in their own time > did put a lot of ideas to the test, and that the tests can tell us > important things, but we don’t want that again.**** > > ** ** > > I think the Trotskyoids and neo-Trotskyoids played a very clever trick > when they rejected any idea that the USSR, China etc. could be “socialist”. > Socialism was sugar and spice and all things nice, you see. So if there was > real oppression in socialist countries, then they could not be socialist. > It is a simple and compelling thought, no doubt. However, not only does > such a theory flatly contradict the reality experienced by of hundreds of > millions of socialist citizens, it also has nothing in common with Marx. * > *** > > ** ** > > I think Marx realized very well, already in the 1840s, that there were all > kinds of possible socialisms, and he liked to heckle a lot of the > socialistic ideas in the emigrant community of which he was part. Hal > Draper documented that in one of his books. The only consistent position > is, to say that the USSR and Soviet-type societies were really socialist, > but that it was a specifically RUSSIAN (or CHINESE, CUBAN, VIETNAMESE) > socialism, which emerged under highly specific historical conditions, and > therefore was not necessarily any exemplar for other countries (or even no > exemplar for what socialism really ought to be). **** > > ** ** > > I think Hal Draper got an inkling of the truth, with his tale about the > “two souls of socialism” – socialism from above, and socialism from below. > He realized very well, that socialism could have an oppressive as well as a > progressive content, which is true. But his spiritual metaphor prevented > him from thinking his own idea through till the end, to its logical > conclusion, that is all. **** > > ** ** > > Draper could not quite make himself believe, that if there was a socialism > from above, that this was really a “socialism” (just as much as a socialism > from below), warts and all. His idea seems to have been that in the > revolutionary transformations of society, the true socialist idea got lost, > and its upholders were wiped off the stage of history, and thus, that > although the revolution might have been socialist-inspired, successive > waves of leaders created a bureaucratic collectivism, a sort of monster > which had nothing to do with socialism.**** > > ** ** > > Of course, the NMEC analysis does not agree with Draper, although being > sympathetic to his idea. Draper’s analysis is delightfully spiritual and > poetic, but not a materialist analysis.**** > > ** ** > > This is not to deny the importance of spirituality, of course. But anybody > can call himself a “humanist” while pursuing a profoundly anti-humanist > program.**** > > ** ** > > J.**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
