Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Here's the article that I promised to post on the World Social Forum. It appeared on ZNET's activism list. Warning: it's long, but, I think, worthwhile. Peter Hollings SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (And an eye-witness account of the World Social Forum) Yo comrades Hi everyone... Here is an article I just whipped together recently upon arriving back in Australia. Beware though... It's pretty long. It prints out to about 14 pages. Some feedback about the ideas contained within would be great. And for those in Perth, it would be good to get some dialogue happening about a possible Perth Social Forum as well. In solidarity, Marco Hewitt --- SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (And an eye-witness account of the World Social Forum) There is no doubt that neo-liberalism is in crisis. It's crisis is that of it's own legitimacy. Its imperial ideology and institutions are increasingly being called into question and attacked by the global citizenry informed by a new global consciousness. UK writer and activist, George Monbiot, actually believes that we may be on the verge of a new 'metaphysical mutation', a rare moment in history which sweeps away old systems and revolutionises the way people think, the world over. Historical examples are the emergence of Islam and Christianity, and the Enlightenment period. In the present day, there has been an explosive rebirth of fresh thinking and new ideas about human possibility and potential, and an outright rejection of the TINA doctrine (There Is No Alternative). What we are witnessing is a rediscovery of human agency and a new optimism about our collective power to change the world. The World Social Forum in January this year in Mumbai, India, saw the gathering of 100,000 people - 70,000 of them Indian of every state, caste, class, religion, and ethnicity, and 30,000 of them from overseas from 120 different countries - to express their opposition to neo-liberalism, exchange experiences, create and strengthen alliances, discuss and debate alternatives, and celebrate the growing global culture of resistance and revolt. The slogan that was popularised in Porto Alegre, Another World is Possible, echoed in every hall and tent, under every tree and on every dusty crowded street of the Nesco Grounds that hosted the mammoth forum. The WSF's shift to India this year reflected its recognition of the need to broaden its reach and involve a greater number of individuals and social movements from the African and Asian continents at the sharp end of imperialism and neo-liberalism. After all, the first three forums had largely been confined to European and Latin American social movements. Mumbai has a suitably radical history, being the birthplace of India's independence movement in 1885, as well as the birthplace of India's very first trade union in 1890. India's national liberation movement in the Forties inspired all subsequent national liberation movements, throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Important and heroic struggles continue to be waged all over India, such as the struggles against the dam project in the Narmada Valley, against the Coca-Cola plant in Plachimada, and against the Western companies responsible for the gas tragedy in Bhopal. Initially there were hesitations about holding the Forum in Mumbai, seeing that it is over-crowded and polluted, and does not have the advantage of a progressive local government like in Porto Alegre. There were fears that conservative forces would try to sabotage the event but this did not happen. The forum's move to India turned out to be highly successful. Mumbai is home to nearly 20 million people, half of whom either live in slums or on the streets. The sheer degree and conspicuousness of urban poverty in Mumbai shocked many international participants of the forum. Filthy, pencil-thin beggars, mainly women and children, flocked to the forum gates. They were a sobering reminder to all forum participants of the urgency and importance of humanity's task in building another world. In the hundreds of conference halls and tents of the forum, the poor could no longer be talked about in the abstract; they were living and breathing just beyond the forum's perimiters. The forum in India resolved to adopt, as its main themes, opposition to imperialist globalisation, patriarchy, and militarism, and in order to address the specific concerns of South Asia (while still maintaining a global perspective), opposition to casteism and racism (descent-based oppression, exploitation, exclusion, and discrimination), and communalism (religious sectarianism and fundamentalism). In the weeks leading up to the World Social Forum, several startling billboards sprung up around Mumbai. For example, one billboard had the format of a huge postcard on which was written, Dear George Bush, Give peace a chance. Visit the land of non-violence. Regards, Raja Rani Travels. And another, advertising Air
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
This article is very long for the list. It is better to post a small part and a URL if possible. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
A URL is also better because it provides some reference data and because it eliminates pesky email reader formatting problems. I encourage everyone to post a URL whenever possible, whether or not you also include full text of an article. Peter, if you have it could you please either post the URL for the story to the list or send it direct to my email address (listed below)? Thanks, Frederick Emrich, Editor commons-blog (http://info-commons.org/blog/) RSS Feed: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/index.rdf info-commons.org (http://info-commons.org/index.shtml) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism This article is very long for the list. It is better to post a small part and a URL if possible. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Unfortunately, I cannot find the article (even using their search engine) on the ZNet website. Perhaps, this is because it was only recently posted to their activism email forum and is not yet on the website. You might be interested in the website if you're not already familiar with it: http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm . There is also an affiliated site at http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/zmagtop.htm, and an activism school accessable via http://www.zmag.org/ . I'll forward the article directly to whomever lets me know. Just send your address to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fredrick, I will need your address, too.) Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.org Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism A URL is also better because it provides some reference data and because it eliminates pesky email reader formatting problems. I encourage everyone to post a URL whenever possible, whether or not you also include full text of an article. Peter, if you have it could you please either post the URL for the story to the list or send it direct to my email address (listed below)? Thanks, Frederick Emrich, Editor commons-blog (http://info-commons.org/blog/) RSS Feed: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/index.rdf info-commons.org (http://info-commons.org/index.shtml) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism This article is very long for the list. It is better to post a small part and a URL if possible. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Louis wrote: B-52's raining Volkswagen size bombs on peasant villages recruited me to socialism, not elegant descriptions of the benefits of a future world. I do not see how the one need exclude the other, and it really avoids the question of what would recruit young people to socialism these days anyway. The very term recruiting is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. People search for forms of association which are no longer ruled by people who claim to have all the answers in advance, whether religious or secular, but who through respect for dialogue and individuality can show the benefits of joint work. They reject grand narratives not because they necessarily hate grand narratives or disagree with them, but rather because they cannot find a place for themselves in those grand narratives - the big story wasn't developed from their story, but somebody wanted to impose a big story on their story. What I think you really need to understand is why somebody would become a politically organised socialist in the first place. If you disregard the labels, there are in the USA literally millions of unconscious socialists - they live their lives in conformity with principles which can only be described as Marxist, class conscious or socialist etc. even if they do not call it that. There is little point in lecturing these people on calling things by the politically correct names, as you might as idealist in a university, which is indeed likely to be counterproductive for ordinary folks, rather, the challenge is how you could get them to cooperate in a way which both benefits them, and has a real effect. If you recognise that this is the problem, then you can begin to make an analysis which really answers that problem. But a dogmatic, sectarian stance cannot solve it. It cannot even frame the problem. In the 40-60,000 strong Dutch Socialist Party (even if in your terms it is reformist), it is recognised that the motivational structures different groups of potential socialists is different, they are interpellated by different themes. Thus, an honest socialist, leftist or Marxist would say: I believe that the most important priority for me is to work on such-and-such a theme, issue or problem with such-and-suc a group, but I also realise, that this does not exclude the preoccupations of other socialists, who may be interested in quite different topics from me. There is room for everybody, we just try to find a place for everybody. The objection to that is, well how then can you have a unified political organisation, instead of a loose, hotch-potch coalition, never mind a virile, disciplined bolshevik party, steeled in relentless struggle, headed by Louis Proyect or Jack Barnes ? And the answer to that is basically, that you have to affirm the validity of what people are already doing, and demonstrate how they could work together more effectively, in a way that is really beneficial to them, as well as having a real political effect. So the true political organiser in that sense is constantly searching for common themes which can unify people to work together, based on an overall plan. S/he establishes himself as leader only only through really showing the way. I do not not pretend to do this correctly, I am not so strong or competent you know, my abilities or initiatives were wrecked in two countries so far. But the American Left - it doesn't even have any plan, an agenda for American socialism in the 21st century. Reciting texts from James Cannon ain't going to help solving those problems, and that is why today the American radicals in their majority do not get significantly beyond Green party politics. Jurriaan
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Jurriaan wrote: The very term recruiting is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. This is a very good point. The appeal of autonomism is that you can call yourself a revolutionary without actually forming organizations and taking responsibility for anything. This was also the appeal of the New Left in the 1960s. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism - rejoinder
This is a very good point. The appeal of autonomism is that you can call yourself a revolutionary without actually forming organizations and taking responsibility for anything. This was also the appeal of the New Left in the 1960s. But, with due respect, even there I think you are mistaken. Autonomists often form very extensive networks and, certainly, here in Amsterdam the Autonoom Centrum is a definite organising post. See for yourself at http://www.xs4all.nl/~ac/ . In the New Zealand unemployed rights movement there were also many good people who were autonomists that you could learn a lot from. If it had not been for this Centre in Amsterdam, many people here would have been dead or sick, and that is not a small thing, at least not for me, because I have to be concerned, above all else, with life. The autonomists also take an active role in championing the cause of immigrants unjustifiably deported from this country. You might not necessarily win a car through autonomism, but that doesn't mean much of their work isn't extremely valuable. I'm not disparaging them at all, and I don't think I ever have, I've only just had some specific arguments with some autonomists sometimes, about points of theory. But heck, a lot of them are far more capable than I am, that's the reality. If I were to write a critique of the autonomists, I would do it by tackling the issue that they feel is their very strongest case. But why ? I see no political point in it whatsoever at this time. I prefer to criticise ideas which I believe are an obstacle to my own political program, real opponents, but even if they are real opponents, this doesn't necessarily mean they do not deserve respect, and that aside, I have to keep firmly in mind what the purpose of criticism is, otherwise I will slide into critical criticism which is easy to do, if I do not watch out. In saying this, I don't want to posture as more politically correct than you are. I am saying it only because I strongly believe it is an ABC principle of any effective politics. Jurriaan
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Jurriaan Bendien wrote: you have to affirm the validity of what people are already doing, and demonstrate how they could work together more effectively, in a way that is really beneficial to them, as well as having a real political effect. I've been following this thread on RS, noting the despair of change, etc., and just wanted to let you know that I read a really nice essay on the World Social Forum. I'll post it later when I get to my other computer. There are people out there who see hope. No, perhaps they are not turned on to some grandiose revolution, but there are millions of us, whether we're Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Greens, anti-Globalists, environmentalists, etc., etc., that are thinking many of the same things and, what's more important, sharing, to a large degree, goals. I do not have time now to give this the thought that it deserves, but I have several litte ideas. First, I think about the Internet an an enabling technology. The Internet could be a very valuable tool. As an example, I think the Bush administration has underestimated the power of the Internet to share informattion and facilitate organization. I doubt that the Administration anticipated the way information would leak around the barriers erected by the corporate media: consider the kidnapping of Aristede. A second thought is that any force for change is helped and motivated by knowing what it has accomplished and where it is going -- this is in addition to the information sharing and organizing aspects of the Internet mentioned above. I'm talking here about metrics. It's nice to know that 80,000 people turned up for the WSF at Mumbai. It'd be nicer to see a listing of specific initiatives agreed to be undertaken and the progress achieved on each. This is the stuff of facilitating the self-organization of groups: the information is up there for all to see, take credit, or corrective action. Another thought would be that within the context I have described there might emerge specific initiatives. For example, specific corporations might be targeted for a boycott. Similarly, products from a specific country and that country's currency might be boycotted. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism Louis wrote: B-52's raining Volkswagen size bombs on peasant villages recruited me to socialism, not elegant descriptions of the benefits of a future world. I do not see how the one need exclude the other, and it really avoids the question of what would recruit young people to socialism these days anyway. The very term recruiting is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. People search for forms of association which are no longer ruled by people who claim to have all the answers in advance, whether religious or secular, but who through respect for dialogue and individuality can show the benefits of joint work. They reject grand narratives not because they necessarily hate grand narratives or disagree with them, but rather because they cannot find a place for themselves in those grand narratives - the big story wasn't developed from their story, but somebody wanted to impose a big story on their story. What I think you really need to understand is why somebody would become a politically organised socialist in the first place. If you disregard the labels, there are in the USA literally millions of unconscious socialists - they live their lives in conformity with principles which can only be described as Marxist, class conscious or socialist etc. even if they do not call it that. There is little point in lecturing these people on calling things by the politically correct names, as you might as idealist in a university, which is indeed likely to be counterproductive for ordinary folks, rather, the challenge is how you could get them to cooperate in a way which both benefits them, and has a real effect. If you recognise that this is the problem, then you can begin to make an analysis which really answers that problem. But a dogmatic, sectarian stance cannot solve it. It cannot even frame the problem. In the 40-60,000 strong Dutch Socialist Party (even if in your terms it is reformist), it is recognised that the motivational structures different groups of potential socialists is different, they are interpellated by different themes. Thus, an honest socialist, leftist or Marxist would say: I believe that the most important priority for me is to work on such-and-such a theme, issue or problem with such-and-suc a group, but I also realise, that this does not exclude the preoccupations of other socialists, who may be interested in quite
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
In a message dated 3/16/2004 10:15:20 AM Central Standard Time, lnp3 @PANIX.COM writes: Jurriaan wrote: The very term recruiting is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. This is a very good point. The appeal of autonomism is that you can call yourself a revolutionary without actually forming organizations and taking responsibility for anything. This was also the appeal of the New Left in the 1960s. Louis Proyect Comment Nothing in my opinion could be more absurd. I have perhaps recruited between 150-200 individuals directly to a cause and perhaps 100 to an organization. As a union leader my job was to consistently recruit the members to various causes or to volunteer to give their time and energy to specific issues. The act of winning over people to engage an issue is called recruitment. I have recurited people to the communist organization I once belonged to on the basis of pushing forward the activity we were already involved in. Only intellectuals detached from the living fabric of the life of our diverse peoples and class can be recruited to an organization that is founded on the basis of an abstraction. This is not a bad thing but the arena of educational institutions. Communists or Marxists insurgent organizations are instruments of action, not debating societies. The program of communism founded by Karl Marx has not been understood. Victory to the workers in their current struggle has always been the program of communists. Why on earth or in Gods name would a rationale person try and recruit the working masses to a theory? American history is instructive and the abolitionists movement needs to be studied and understood by the radical intelligencia. The abolitionists published a broad array of literature that had as its focal point the ending of slavery. There were communists involved in the anti-slavery struggle and they recruited people to the cause of overthrowing slavery not a theory or method of abstraction deployed by Marx. Karl Marx himself was an abolitionists and wrote significant literature on slavery and the Civil War. People are recruited to causes and rallied on the basis of issues. The proposition presented above is absurd and cannot be verified as having a reality outside of sectarian groups. For instance the Mormons are a sectarian group. They attempt to win over people to their sectarian view of genesis and the destiny of man. Nevertheless in their activity they attempt to win people on the basis of engaging their issues. Winning people over to a vision is of course radically different from trying to win people over to a theory. It is an old axiom of communism and Marxism as insurgency, that the workers are educated on the basis of their own experience and the communists emerge as leaders on the basis of leading people where they are all ready in motion to go. It is also a fact of life and reality that everyone has a boss or rather a division of labor must exist in any organization or there is no basis to verify administrative decisions that express what every the organization is organized to do. There are going to be bosses or people that volunteer or are elected to manifest the responsibility to carry out the administration of things in any organization including a bingo club. Anyone that has worked in a factory or any place else in society during the past 100 years understands that collective discussion and individual responsibility is important to carry out the will of any organization. There are going to be bosses. Leadership or being boss means you have accepted - one way or another, responsibility to do something. In the real world . . . but then again we are not talking about the real world or real people or real acitivity. Melvin P.
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
There are going to be bosses. Leadership or being boss means you have accepted - one way or another, responsibility to do something. Okay, so now there are going to be bosses. The question raised however is: how do they become bosses, by what process ? How do they establish their leadership ? To explicate the problem simply, let's just take you and me in an ordinary managerial situation. I propose, for example, something like this: 1) Melvin, I am your boss and you got to do what I say, just do it, don't ask me why, this is a matter on unquestioning obedience in the great cause which we share. Remember Joe Stalin. or: 2) Melvin, you're my guy, you are a leader, I want you to lead these people, because I know you will succeed, I have every confidence in your ability to lead. or: 3) Melvin, you're the boss and I haven't a clue, I am at a loss, I want you to tell me what to do, and whatever you say, I am going to do exactly what you say, and nothing else. or: 4) Melvin, I think we have both one half of the truth. We got to talk, maybe we ought to go back to school, but we need each other anyhow to get the full picture here. or: 5) Melvin, today you've been the boss telling the story, but tomorrow I need to be the boss, because your competency is not relevant to this job. or: 6) Melvin, whatever happens, you've got to defend me and guard my ass, because if we fail, we're both in deep shit. or: 7) Melvin, whatever you do, whatever you say, I will always support and defend you, no matter what happens. This is true love here. or 8) Melvin, you're an okay guy, but I cannot see how we could every cooperate on anything. There is no way we can be friends, ever. 9) Melvin, things have turned out different then I thought, and we cannot do what we said we were going to do, we have to do something different. I don't know how you are going to do it, but you have to explain to our people we have to do something else. 10) Melvin, you said this and did that, now people are up in arms about it, I don't how the hell I am going to solve this, you have to give me a clue, I'm the wally here. How are you going to respond to this kinda stuff ? I'd be interested to know. Also raise the thing to a higher level and imagine all these questions are coming at you at the same time from different people. How are you going to deal with it ? Jurriaan
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Peter, Thanks for your comment, which is encouraging. I've never really had any despair about political prospects or the lack of them. I don't care about that, it's none of my concern. For most of the 1980s and some years in the 1990s I was involved in various groups and campaigns on and off. But I didn't have any expectations of political success, I was just trying to find out stuff for myself about the meaning of success. I despair only about my own inadequacies, one has these moods, but that's just a personal, subjective thing, I don't propose to project that on the world or on other people. You can get oodles of people who project their own pathology onto you, and then it takes a very thick skin to shrug that off, because some insults go very deep, they go to the bone, to the heart, they dehumanise. Sometimes I just think, cannot be bothered anymore, kick the bucket, but all things must pass, including the worst. I have never disparaged the WSF, I don't see any point in that, I just try to figure out what it's about, or why people would set up an alternative conference to it, what the political basis of it is, and so on. However, I don't really believe in the buzzword of globalisation other than the world is round, hot air, etc. and conferences are not really my thing except for a few specific purposes. I might could talk about cloud shapes, it's wonderful to lie down on your back and look at the changing cloud shapes, but saying that I could infer what the world is thinking and doing from cloud shapes is a bit like reading tea leaves. Other people say if the talk is about globalisation, you should be talking about it, but I don't, I just say hot air, the world is round, etc. The obverse of sectarianism is an exaggerated concern with anti-sectarianism, whereas it's best just to disregard sectarians as much as possible since giving attention only feeds the sectarians whatever they cannot get from anywhere else. You will get these people who try to prove how unsectarian they are, they want to expose sectarians to prove how unsectarian they are. Anti-sectarianism can be a cover for opportunist tail endism and vagueness. Then you have to stand back and look at the big picture, and not get flushed away by a political maelstrom, where you're running behind events and just being reactive. Main thing with the WSF is: we can all agree, that another world is possible, all 6.2 billion of us. But now what ? What follows from this ? Are we just testifying to the faith ? What is the soul of this gathering ? Personally, I spent more time trying to figure out what the Davos conference people were thinking and doing, but I've seen few leftists publish on it (I haven't either, because I didn't finish what I was working on). I see the Internet as a means for sharing ideas, but not really as a major organisational tool in the political sense. I suppose it depends what you take organisation to be about. I know people who get very sophisticated in their Internet use and can achieve a considerable temporal compression as a result. And temporal consciousness is everything, if you want to organise. People try to wreck your species activity, you end up with a temporal problem, a relaxation problem and all sorts of problems. I have other things to contend with meantime, and I just use the Net mainly to share ideas and get answers. Especially when you've had problems with having your views misrepresented, it's a good device to state what you think, in a way which cannot be misconstrued and is on record for everybody. Regards Jurriaan
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
In a message dated 3/16/2004 4:35:06 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, so now there are going to be bosses. The question raised however is:how do they become bosses, by what process? How do they establish theirleadership ?To explicate the problem simply, let's just take you and me in an ordinarymanagerial situation. I propose, for example, something like this:1) Melvin, I am your boss and you got to do what I say, just do it, don'task me why, this is a matter on unquestioning obedience in the great causewhich we share. Remember Joe Stalin. Reply I worked in a factory all of my life and no one ever has to do what an individual says. Rather we have to do what the job - division of labor, calls for. Look . . . you see Stalinist dictatorship in anyone that disagrees with you. I see capitulation to the bourgeoisie to anything that does not allow the working class to consolidate itself into a military like strike force. OK. Why would I care who is my boss if my interest are being expressed? I am kind of a boss and cannot object to bosses - or, men and women who become authoritative in their field. Your personal capacity to research is breath taking. Your articles are always to long but so are mine. My objection will never be "you" being boss, but rather class interest. I remember Stalin and he gave African American blacks more political space, room and maneuvering than any person in history. I believe you take political positions of people who were not under the jackboot of the "democrats" in the America Union for a lifetime. I freaking loved Soviet Power with all its warts. There is another level of passion involved that makes a good writer really good. You do not have to live in the alley to understand the smell of the alley. Class sentimentality has to be overcome. Everyone is a Stalinists dog murderer that challenges the politics - sentimentality, of what you write - not the data base, and you get upset. I read what you write because you present lots of data - along with your mentality - but so do I. I am a Stalin man. People are going to die one way or another. You are going to have a boss. When I lose the vote I go home and go to sleep and you write books about how no one is shit except you. __ or:2) Melvin, you're my guy, you are a leader, I want you to lead these people,because I know you will succeed, I have every confidence in your ability tolead.or:3) Melvin, you're the boss and I haven't a clue, I am at a loss, I want youto tell me what to do, and whatever you say, I am going to do exactly whatyou say, and nothing else. _ Reply That is the real democracy. I cannot tell you what to do other than to slug it out. The classes and segments of classes move in different directions. You are not my enemy by a long shot. In fact several positions I have had concerning questions of gender and sex your writings have made me rethink and yield and reformulate. I do not object to the ball being thrown in my court but this does not mean we score. There are other things I have been compelled to rethink and question in the field of exchange and distribution. In fact my latest volume of Capital 3 is Penguin with an introduction by Ernest Mandel ___or:4) Melvin, I think we have both one half of the truth. We got to talk, maybewe ought to go back to school, but we need each other anyhow to get the fullPicture here.or:5) Melvin, today you've been the boss telling the story, but tomorrow I needto be the boss, because your competency is not relevant to this job.or:6) Melvin, whatever happens, you've got to defend me and guard my ass,because if we fail, we're both in deep shit.or:7) Melvin, whatever you do, whatever you say, I will always support anddefend you, no matter what happens. This is true love here.or8) Melvin, you're an okay guy, but I cannot see how we could every cooperateon anything. There is no way we can be friends, ever.9) Melvin, things have turned out different then I thought, and we cannot dowhat we said we were going to do, we have to do something different. I don'tknow how you are going to do it, but you have to explain to our people wehave to do something else.10) Melvin, you said this and did that, now people are up in arms about it,I don't how the hell I am going to solve this, you have to give me a clue,I'm the wally here.How are you going to respond to this kinda stuff ? I'd be interested toknow. Also raise the thing to a higher level and imagine all these questionsare coming at you at the same time from different people. How are you goingto deal with it ?Jurriaan _ It is important to me that I personally catch this wave of events with it specific language and texture. I am not a member of the communist class. I am not of the lower strata of the proletariat. In fact I am of the upper strata of the proletariat most
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
I think that this thread has gone on enough. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
