Well unsaid.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
