Is that an intervention, Max? On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't forget the devine Devine! > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, 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 > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
