Re: [Marxism] Zizek on transgenders
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * It’s through an LARB promoted channel: http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: jamie pitman _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Zizek on transgenders
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * No, I linked to it from twitter a couple of days ago. I’ll look. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Louis Proyect _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Zizek on transgenders
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * He's wrote a long piece in LARB on this if you don't want dead eyes and greasy hair with your Hegelian bigotry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Louis Proyect via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Continuing thoughts on the British situation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Everything you say about the PLP is completely true; in fact, there are worse problems that the media have failed to report, e.g. the leadership challenge of Eagle and Smith is against party rules but the NEC let it slide. But that’s another thing and I don’t want to get bogged down in the bureaucracy of all this. The real issue with your analysis is *still* the assumption that there’s a great mass against neoliberalism. For me, this is one of the biggest problems with Leninism in general (Lenin’s deterministic notion everybody’s born a socialist). The Tories, under May, have already committed to switching off austerity and have thus stolen the march on a politically befuddled PLP. Add to this, Corbyn’s approval ratings are consistently at record lows. It’s legitimate to argue this is because of an almost universally hostile media – but also meaningless if it doesn’t change anything. If Corbyn loses a general election, the party (small ‘p’) is over. Even the likes off Owen Jones is now retreating from him. The point is even winning the battle against the PLP could well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] the restrictions on who can vote
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * More cynical still, although it may just be the time of night, is that the NEC is inviting anybody on the right (i.e. Tory voters) to sign up this time to get JC out. Tonight was a pyrrhic victory for somebody - not sure who. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] the restrictions on who can vote
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Anybody joining after 12th Jan is completely excluded. Anybody who was a registered supporter in last year’s election can pay 25 pound for a vote this time (though not including new members). A possible loophole is to join Unite or similar for an affiliate vote. That’s what I’m going to try tomorrow. For anyone of a slightly cynical mind, the regressive flat-fee and the timeline excluding the new membership upsurge may just be taken as gerrymandering. I personally don’t read Richard Seymour’s blog and would say look at labour insider, red labour, jon lansman or momentum on twitter instead. I wouldn’t be surprised if a stronger candidate than eagle emerges now – there’s much rumour about internal division within the coup. If not, legal action and/ or a split seem increasingly unavoidable. Or September’s party conference is going to be like the red wedding on game of thrones. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Once more on British Labour
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * This is not the end of the coup. Corbyn left and then the NEC ruled that anybody joining in the last 6 months (inc. me) will not be eligible to vote. That's a great majority of Corbyn’s base. Jamie Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism Sent: 12 July 2016 22:18 To: jamie pitman Subject: [Marxism] Once more on British Labour POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Much encouraged by Anthony's kind remarks, I thought I would venture another post. The news that the NEC of the Labour Party had ruled 18-14 that Corbyn would automatically be on the ballot in the forthcoming challenge has been greeted with jubilation by the Left and absolute dismay by the Centre and Right of the Labour Party. One should read the vile and the bile on the twitter feed in response to Paul Mason's triumphal tweet hailing Corbyn's victory to realise just how divided the Labour Party is at the present. The Right have played all their cards against Corbyn. That failed and now they must face an election. The Centre and the Right have set fire to their own party and used every opportunity in the Murdoch Media to thrash the leadership. As a result Labour has gone down in the polls and predictably they have blamed Corbyn. The intelligent ones on the right who do not believe their own lies and propaganda are faced with a terrible set of choices, now. They know that they cannot match the surge to Corbyn. They now have to split or shut up. Over 85% of the constituency parties supported Corbyn, and that means that the threat of deselection has become very real for the Right. British politics cannot now return to the status quo where there was a universal consensus among the political elites as to what constituted common sense. Amidst all the chaos, it could emerge that Corbyn is the only one with a plan. A re-election campaign is a blessing for Corbyn, because it plays to his strength, which is making appeals, out in the public arena and away from parliament, for social justice on behalf of and to those who need it most, that is the English, Scottish and Welsh working classes. That is why I personally am inclined to suspect there will be no election campaign. Poor old Angela Eagle who has been put up by the Blairite cynics has said she welcomes the election. She will not enjoy the experience. A note on the usual phrase that this is a battle for the soul of the Labour Party. That metaphor disguises a piece of neo-Platonism. There is no such thing as the soul of the Labour Party. This is a battle to construct a soul. At the moment the Left is enjoying a renewed strength thanks to the Blairite coup. As Richard Seymour puts it - Worst. Coup. Ever. comradely Gary _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Is it because you can rest assured one of your police will shoot them in the back and then get absolved of the crime? Or just that you cant be arsed to mow your own lawn? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Louis Proyect via Marxism Sent: 01 July 2016 22:49 To: jamie pitman Subject: Re: [Marxism] Brexit POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 7/1/16 5:35 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism wrote: >The Western media have made it clear that they do not accept the >people’s decision either. The vote is said to be “racist” and >therefore can be disregarded as illegitimate. I don't know if Paul Craig Roberts could figure out if something was racist unless it bit him on the ass. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/feb/21/20010221-021216-5265r/ To reach France, Third World invaders must cross seas. To reach the United States, Mexicans only have to walk across the border. Hordes of them do. Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations,” says, “Mexican immigration is a unique, disturbing and looming challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity and potentially to our future as a country. “If over 1 million Mexican soldiers crossed the border,” Huntington says, “Americans would treat it as a major threat to their national security and react accordingly.” Why then do we not react as vigorously to the invasion of 1 million Mexican civilians? _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Brexit was fueled by irrational xenophobia, not realeconomic grievances - Vox
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * This piece is also very close to my own argument in regards to the torrent of crass articles on Brexit: https://mappingimmigrationcontroversy.com/2016/06/29/on-the-misuses-of-sunderland-as-brexit-symbol/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Brexit was fueled by irrational xenophobia, not realeconomic grievances - Vox
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Boston, Lincolnshire returned the highest leave vote per capita in the uk: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7639 Boston has one of the highest rates of inward immigration per capita in the uk: http://www.bostontarget.co.uk/latest-immigration-figures-shock-lincolnshire/story-27694094-detail/story.html Immigration in Boston has lowered wages and made housing less affordable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541 This is borne out nationally in a new report by the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf I have no interest in endorsing these arguments; my point is that regardless of whether or not they are accurate in terms of wage pressure - and one can easily find studies and articles that disagree - they would still fail to satisfactorily account for the EU referendum result as a whole. For example, there are many places in the North and North West with high immigrant populations (Bradford West for example) that voted to leave: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36616673 The author of the Vox article makes an apriori assumption about voter motivation and then superimposes it on 17.4 million people. This is not to deny immigration wasn’t a major factor in the debate. It was. But if it explained everything, as the Vox article would contend, then surely we would have seen a similar number vote ukip at the general election for example. Instead, less than a quarter of that number did so. My point is that rather than dichotomising the economy and immigration, as much of the commentary has in line with the notion Remain campaigned on the former and Leave on the latter, Marxists in particular should at least make a stab at understanding their multivalent interconnections. Better articles, including many from the Guardian (the EUs biggest cheerleader), at least have managed to do so (the first link is to a Paul Mason piece): https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/what-drove-brexit-osbornomics-9ab448e54bb9#.56s17a71f https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/26/brexit-is-the-rejection-of-globalisation https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jun/28/the-privilege-of-the-elite-fuelled-the-anger-of-the-leave-voters http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/key-lesson-of-brexit-globalisation-must-work-for-all-of-britain https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/jun/30/labour-is-partly-to-blame-for-the-racists-capture-of-the-eu-debate Another point of interest, that I can’t now find the figures for, is that of the four or five boroughs in London that voted Leave (against the tide) perfectly maps onto those places where people are at most risk of eviction. Finally, this article responds well to the problems with the lazy Vox article and those similar: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/28/the-neoliberal-prison-brexit-hysteria-and-the-liberal-mind/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect via Marxism Sent: 30 June 2016 19:11 To: jamie pitman Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Brexit was fueled by irrational xenophobia, not realeconomic grievances - Vox POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * That’s not the only reason to believe Brexit was about xenophobia. Torsten Bell, director of the UK economic think tank Resolution Foundation, set out to test the hypothesis that "areas hardest hit by the financial crisis, or those where migration is said to have held down wages, voted heavily to leave." In other words, he tested the exact argument the pro-Leave camp is making: that people who voted to leave made a rational decision based on the real economic effects they’ve suffered from the rise in immigration. If that were the case, you’d expect places that have gotten poorer in the past decade (when mass migration took off) would have been the places that voted most heavily to leave the EU. But that’s not what Bell found. In fact, he found no correlation at all between areas where wages have fallen since 2002 and the share of votes for Leave in the referendum full: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12029786/brexit-uk-eu-immigration-xenophobia _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/s
Re: [Marxism] Corbyn's fate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * So the resignations keep on coming. Its now up to 65, plus all the MEPs joining the chorus for Corbyn to go. Im wondering if there's another mechanism within the ultra bureaucratic party rules that corbyns opposition are looking at; some sort of party equivalent of ‘constructive dismissal’? I also read they're going to try and coronate an alternative leader within parliament, even before a leadership election, leaving Jeremy as nominal national leader only. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Gary MacLennan _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Corbyn's fate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Hi Gary, I thought you mentioned 55% somewhere and wasn't sure what that reflected. Anyway, we're not in disagreement apart from I think its pretty obvious you're far more optimistic in outlook than I am generally. I would say Im unconvinced any deal can be made. All the PLP want is for Corbyn to go – hardly a basis for negotiation or compromise. Second, I think you underestimate how willing the PLP are to split the party. In the local elections, they genuinely seemed happy when Labour lost seats so that they could blame Corbyn. Two other important points upcoming: the loss of support from the likes of owen smith and andy slaughter is a really bad bellwether for Corbyn – these are not in any way Blairites. But, if his team are savvy, they could use the upcoming Chilcott report to bash the Blairites with. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Gary MacLennan _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Corbyn's fate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I disagree about the balance of forces. *As long as he’s on the ballot* the best thing Corbyn can do is have the leadership election and reinforce his mandate. Second, Corbyn has managed to make the Labour party specifically, and electoral politics in general, seem worth bothering with to disenchanted people like me, and even the present generation of young anarchists. So his support on the wider far left is uniquely strong. But his support nationally is awful, so ill say again he has worse approval ratings than Miliband's, which is unprecedented. If you've read something that contradicts that, you should provide a link (this is the make-or-break question if we have a snap general election (which isn't guaranteed)) Obviously the UK is living through the most turbulent political period in anybody's living memory, so even accurate opinion polls can be contradicted within days in times when history seems to have accelerated. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and Labour Party crisis in twitterdom
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * So the Labour Party held the no confidence vote in Jeremy Corbyn today. 172 MPs voted to say they had no confidence in their leader and 40 voted to support him. This means the coup has successfully deepened and widened and what started in the Blairite camps has spread through the centre and soft left MPs who had previously sided with Jezza. This all means that a leadership election is inevitable – the *crucial* question in the short term is whether Corbyn is automatically placed on any new ballot (the opposition argue that this is not the case. If it isn’t then he’s unlikely to get the numbers needed to put him there. He’ll go and so will tens of thousands of new members). If he is automatically on the ballot however, then there’s nothing to suggest that he still doesn’t enjoy overwhelming support from the membership and won’t be returned as leader. Even so, the scale of opposition (81%) makes the smooth running of the party impossible; this is obviously no small problem. More importantly, Corbyn’s wider popularity is still untested (sort of - he has consistently abysmal approval ratings but defied expectations in local elections twice this year - if he hadn’t then this coup would have happened a lot earlier). This is a *real* problem although I feel slightly dirty to admit it as the plotters are using it as the pretext for their coup. It is a real problem though because there is likely to be a snap general election before Christmas designed to give Cameron’s successor the mandate they’ll obviously need considering the UK is currently an anarchy with nobody leading government or the opposition. So another consequence of Brexit is that Corbynism is likely to be given its ultimate test way before anybody envisaged. I’m afraid I don’t believe Corbyn can win a GE (I’d obviously love him too but that’s not the point). I’ll continue to support him and go to any more demo’s as needed but I think the smart move would be to try and reunite Labour by offering Jeremy to step down but only if he’s replaced with McDonnell - preferably uncontested - but even if not, McDonnell would receive the same thumping mandate as Corbyn. This is unlikely to appease the rebels however, as McDonnell is Corbyn’s closest ally and from precisely the same political mould. My reason for suggesting it is simply that I think McDonnell is genuinely electable and the media would have little time to compile/ compose the sort of character assassination against him as they already have Corbyn. Corbyn has just refused to resign (which is the response everybody expected). Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gary MacLennan _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Seeing the whole picture after the referendum |SocialistWorker.org
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I knew Charlie from my swp days; he lives around the corner from me still I would imagine. Actually, to be honest, on the UK left more or less everybody knows everybody else. There’s a lot to agree with here but I still maintain its an issue that most of the commentariat do not know of who they speak. Not a clue. Particularly as most don’t venture beyond London and often have little clue of the hand-to-mouth nature of many other people’s lives. For many, pontificating on politics is a luxury they can’t afford. I couldn’t help but laugh either when he uses formulations that imply ‘historical missions’ etc. but some habits die hard I guess. This Grauniad article is quite interesting in pointing out just how fractured things actually are rather than just relying on the lazy ‘us and them’ optic (and sort of ties in with the Brexit threads and the Corbyn post from Gary yesterday): http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/28/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-not-the-labour-partys-real-problem Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Defensiveness and incomprehension? You either have real issues with arrogance or the sort of dull grasp on reality that comes from belonging to a group of a dozen or so deluded trots with a propensity for looking at their feet when talking to the public. It would be a dumb defence indeed that began by personally questioning whether I voted correctly. My messages were intended to be collegial/ anecdotal (I wish I hadn’t bothered) from somebody here rather than somebody else attempting to concoct a party line from afar. In that regard we probably inhabit different universes. I have no pretensions about leading the masses. I voted as an individual and didn’t try to convince anybody else to vote either way (indeed, my partner went the opposite way to me). What I am saying is your analysis is dangerously simplistic – not to defend some position that I don’t have – but because it is. For 10 of the 12 week campaign the main focus (from the remain side who made their voice louder) was the economy and not immigration. On a daily basis, ‘captains of industry’, asset managers, business leaders, celebrities and world leaders were wheeled out to tell everybody they were better in and biblical plagues would surely follow withdrawal (‘project fear’; psephology 101 – ‘it’s the economy, stupid’). The remain side consistently polled ahead of leave, and again – because I don’t follow an unbending line like a lobotomised trotbot – I intended to vote remain. It was the daily drubbing from neoliberals telling us all we couldn’t survive without them (without scarcely considering we’ve been lucky to last this long with them) that made me switch to leave. At that last-minute point, voting against Goldman Sachs didn’t seem to me the sort of ethical dilemma you apparently predicted with such prescience. Your assertion that attacks on the street/ the rise of the right was always a foregone conclusion according to determinations thrown up by the referendum is complete and utter nonsense. As should be clear by now, this isn’t a defence of my vote (that wouldn’t make sense in the context of what I’ve already written) but calling bullshit on the conceit that you saw all this coming in the parameters you suggest. As you’ve rightly said, the campaign was shaped by right-wing opinion from all sides (Corbyn being a nominal remainer but largely absent). And, as I said similarly, both sides were racist to varying degrees (leave more so, particularly in the final stages) meaning this wasn’t a simple binary. Both sides tried to marginalise Farage (think: the relationship between GOP and Trump) but it was the In side that delivered Farage a default platform because Cameron preferred arguing with him to avoid debating fellow Tories and maintain some party unity. When Farage produced an obscene poster reminiscent of Nazi propaganda he was denounced by both leave and remain. Such was the campaign. Add to this huge feelings of resentment from the parts of the country left behind by neoliberalism and it becomes more accurate to say it was the atmosphere of the whole campaign + four decades of an ever declining social safety net that created the situation we’re now in. In short, a pressure keg seeking a release valve which was (stupidly) delivered in the form of the referendum. The main point being that the far left throwing their paltry weight behind remain would have made zero difference. Remain winning by a slender margin would have made no difference. The same people would still have channelled decades of grievance – and lashed out violently in some cases - in what has felt like a fleeting moment of enfranchisement, rather than being emboldened, as your analysis would suggest. This would have been the result of a close leave or remain, and as I’ve said, the left were never in any position to alter the vote meaningfully (I.e. at all). Finally, I think you’re wrong to dichotomise the economics of the EU and the right wing reaction they are producing all over the continent – making the argument that remain equalled a simple win for anti-racism even murkier in my opinion. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: MM _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Sent too early. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: MM _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Defensiveness and incomprehension? You either have real issues with arrogance or the sort of dull grasp on reality that comes from belonging to a group of a dozen or so deluded trots with a propensity for looking at their feet when talking to the public. It would be a dumb defence indeed that began by personally questioning whether I voted correctly. My messages were intended to be collegial/ anecdotal (I wish I hadn’t bothered) from somebody here rather than somebody else attempting to concoct a party line from afar. In that regard we probably inhabit different universes. I have no pretensions about leading the masses. I voted as an individual and didn’t try to convince anybody else to vote either way (indeed, my partner went the opposite way to me). What I am saying is your analysis is dangerously simplistic – not to defend some position that I don’t have – but because it is. For 10 of the 12 week campaign the main focus (from the remain side who made their voice louder) was the economy and not immigration. On a daily basis, ‘captains of industry’, asset managers, business leaders, celebrities and world leaders were wheeled out to tell everybody they were better in and biblical plagues would surely follow withdrawal (‘project fear’; psephology 101 – ‘it’s the economy, stupid’). The remain side consistently polled ahead of leave, and again – because I don’t follow an unbending line like a lobotomised trotbot – I intended to vote remain. It was the daily drubbing from neoliberals telling us all we couldn’t survive without them (without ever considering we’ve been lucky to last this long with them) that made me switch to leave. At that last-minute point, voting against Goldman Sachs didn’t seem to me the sort of ethical dilemma you apparently predicted with such prescience. Your assertion that attacks on the street/ the rise of the right was always a foregone conclusion according to determinations thrown up by the referendum is complete and utter nonsense. As should be clear by now, this isn’t a defence of my vote (that wouldn’t make sense in the context of what I’ve already written) but calling bullshit on the conceit that you saw all this coming in the parameters you suggest. As you’ve rightly said, the campaign was shaped by right-wing opinion from all sides (Corbyn being a nominal remainer but largely absent). And, as I said similarly, both sides were racist to varying degrees (leave more so, particularly in the final stages) meaning this wasn’t a simple binary. Both sides tried to marginalise Farage (think: the relationship between GOP and Trump) but it was the In side that delivered Farage a default platform because Cameron preferred arguing with him to avoid debating fellow Tories and maintain some party unity. When Farage produced an obscene poster reminiscent of Nazi propaganda he was denounced by both leave and remain. What nobody considered was that large parts of the country who rightfully feel resentful at being left behind by neoliberalism didn’t give a fuck In short, the inter-dynamics between different sides were as distorted by Westminster politics as much as any thought of EU membership. You could argue that even if both sides were racist it is well-known here that the far-right have always favoured leave. But you could truthfully say that of the far left until the 90s. In short, the campaign from both sides EU Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: MM Sent: 28 June 2016 02:19 To: marinercarpen...@gmail.com Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:46 PM, marinercarpen...@gmail.com wrote: > Defensiveness and incomprehension at basically every point. There just isn’t much in your response that it even makes sense to try to respond to. PS: I’m not remotely important, but if even I saw what was coming, and that the only defensible position for the left was to try to defeat the referendum, then a lot of other people should have been able to see it as well. Some did. Many of those who didn’t have engaged in some of the most ridiculous, defensive bullshit I’ve seen in quite a while. Credit to you for at least being willing to admit “buyer’s remorse” (although I don’t care for the metaphor). _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and Labour Party crisis in twitterdom
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/bruising-day-ends-with-labour-in-turmoil-and-corbyn-turning-to-the-grassroots The [possibly] crucial point is whether or not Corbyn is automatically placed on the ballot. I’ve heard McDonnell say they’ve checked it legally and he is. But if he isn’t (or at least if the other side wangles it so he isn’t) then I’m afraid he’s done. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: marinercarpen...@gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The origins of the referendum are common knowledge. Nobody on the left welcomed the referendum as far as I know or saw it as an opportunity - so this point about ‘naive wishful thinking’ and ‘imagined internationalist, anti-racist uprising’ is a complete straw-man. Obviously people on both sides of the argument attacked Farage’s rhetoric. But racism was equally forthcoming from the other side, if more subtle (one of Cameron’s ‘concessions’ was, effectively, to starve migrants who hadn’t found a job). Moreover, the racist right were unleashed by the campaign itself, at least as much as the result, and (whilst a counter-factual) its difficult to imagine the outcome would have been any different if the result had been 48 – 52 the other way. Had it been so, Farage would be gunning for a second ref and many who voted leave would have had the feeling of exclusion (and its violent consequences) further reinforced. You talk about *I and others* as if you’re *remotely* important. I have no idea who you are/ represent/ write for. Are you suggesting everything would of been ok if I’d just read your article in The Workers Armpit or whatever? Have you any notion how marginal the far left are currently in the uk? How miniscule? And yet you seem to suggest the far left can shape discourse and set the agenda and, moreover, the message of the mainstream media is completely unimportant. You further seem to say that we just needed the right arguments/ theory. The truth is the far left here comprises a dwindling pool of public sector workers, academics and students. Many of which are relatively privileged in the eyes of the old industrial working class. In other words, the far left was completely powerless to shape this outcome (whatever the line had been) and, historically, has largely itself to blame through becoming stultified/ petrified in doctrine that could no longer explain the world to the people it sought to recruit. I personally have conceded buyers remorse in regards my vote but in the end it made no difference (I am not in a leninst Ponzi scheme nor will I ever be again) so you can stick your charge of complicity up your arse. The same with your sickeningly moralising coda written from another country. From: MM _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and Labour Party crisis in twitterdom
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Hi Gary, I went to the protest tonight; at about 7 o’clock when I left I think it would be more accurate to say there was more like 1,000 people there. (As I’m sure you’re aware) there’s an argument Corbyn has lost support due to the lacklustre campaign he ran to stay in the EU. The counter argument is that Corbyn’s reserved endorsement for remain was more in tune with a sceptical Labour base than many of his MPs (who painted the EU as a land of milk, honey and worker’s rights). It’s completely conceivable Corbyn did lose some support from some of his young supporters who were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining. But his mandate was such it is unlikely that it has made much difference (given the lack of support the others received). And so its also unlikely that this coup will be successful. But I’m beyond doubtful this has translated into much public support outside of the membership – I.e. in terms of Corbyn being able to win a general election – and the likelihood is we may well face a snap election this year to give Cameron’s successor a proper mandate to negotiate Brexit and, most likely, reboot Osborne’s austerity programme. Jamie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gary MacLennan via Marxism _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I’m not sure I understand what point you’re making...the insinuation seems to be along the lines of ‘the lady doth protest too much’? I’m also unsure about who you would identify as ‘the left’ in the UK; the only thing really happening here is Momentum. Nobody takes the swp seriously anymore since Martin Smith, Corbyn, Lexit; the average age of its membership is frightening – one cold winter and the party would be decimated. And for the time being, Left Unity function as an adjunct to Momentum as far as I can see. Anyway, having now read the Huff Post article, and with more incidents reported today, I would have to say I’m feeling more than a dose of buyer’s remorse. Re: Seymour’s article - Nobody on the far left that I know of ever thought of the EU ref as anything but a toss-up between two shitty options (he seems to infer he’s some sort of seer working for the institute of the brain-numbingly obvious). Plus he seems more than comfortable indulging Project Sneer himself. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: MM _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * MM wrote: “It’s bizarre how defensive left advocates of leave have been about this point; I haven’t seen a single serious example of this allegation, but it is repeatedly invoked by left advocates of leave, and always defensively. Very odd.” You must be joking? Listening to the radio now, this is being debated on both BBC radio 4 and LBC. The term ‘Project Sneer’ has even been coined to describe the argument/ phenomenon. There is a growing movement to rerun the referendum with the inference it should never have been left in the hands of Northern malcontents (a slightly dubious petition that’s already had 2 million signatures; prominent Labour, Tory and Liberal politicians making slightly different arguments that all end up with the UK either not leaving or re-joining). It’s impossible to distil the reasons for the 17.4 million who voted leave into one pat explanation. But the rejection of globalisation is becoming increasingly widespread. I’m now in London doing a PhD as a mature student, and suppose I would be – in demographic terms – a shoe-in for an ‘in’ vote; but I voted out because I grew up in the North where life chances have declined for decades. I left school and in a few years became a docker, a job that declined exponentially over the ten years I was there (loss of the national dock scheme; containerisation, casualisation etc); after that I retrained as a carpenter/ joiner. This started well but then the wages and the amount of work also fell through the floor at the start of the recession which was when I quit and went and began my first degree instead. As everybody knows, this decline continued in inverse proportionality with the ascendancy of London PLC (and will be why the Westminster consensus around devolving power/ subsidiarity to a local level will never work and will only provoke more resentment long term). This was what I voted against in part. I also voted against the fact that the EU has more or less outlawed even the mildest forms of social democracy. And I’ll be honest, *I’m not sure if I voted the right way* (there’s even terms/ hashtags that have been coined for this feeling: Regrexit and Bregret). But the list of crimes perpetrated by the EU is a long one, not least racist policing of the Schengen zone (generally ignored by liberals who paint the EU as a rainbow institution); it’s own corporate capture allowing MegaCorp to drown small business under a mountain of regulation that only MegaCorp can deal with; innumerate examples of steam-rollering democracy (ask the Dutch, French, Irish, Danish, Spanish, Greek, Italians or Polish people or just listen to more or less anything J-C Juncker’s ever said ever) reflected in the closed-door structure of the Commission; TTIP (although I’d imagine we’ll get some form of turbo-charged trade deal in-or-out) Etc. Etc. Etc. There is no doubt that Nigel Farage is a xenophobic, racist shitbucket who, unfortunately, a lot of pensioners and late middle aged manual workers identify with. During the campaign however, his most egregious announcements/ antics were denounced by everybody including the official leave side (who mostly prefer to signal their own nativism at a more socially acceptable dog-whistle pitch – but, for clarity, not all the leave campaign was fought on the anti or controlled immigration ticket). That Farage’s arguments didn’t have the influence attributed to them can possibly be seen in the overwhelming leave vote returned in areas with high ‘immigrant’ populations all over the mid North East and West. Anyway, the point is that attempting to paint the EU ref as a clash of any two homogenous constituencies of people (young/ old; progressive/ reactionary; north/ south; right/ left) is dumb. I haven’t read the Huff Post piece yet (I will do, and I’ve heard it mentioned on the radio this morning) but some of the Remain camp’s tears are unjustified. This referendum hasn’t created more racists (they were already there – e.g. some of the protests that have been cited include demonstrating outside a mosque – this has nothing at all to do with the EU or the issues it raised); somebody from the right of the Tory party was always going to succeed Cameron as well; our economy was fucked already (and by that I mean within the terms of debate given in the mainstream, I.e. our structural and fiscal deficits). I don’t buy the argument about the EU as guarantor of peace within Europe; it’s merely allowed our now waning, senile former imperialist powers to band together to continue to squeeze former colonies through ruinous trade deals. The question of whether racists h
[Marxism] Journal Article(s) Request
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Hi all, Can anybody help to access either/ both of these articles: Ulysses Santamaria, “Marx against Marx” in ‘Thesis Eleven’, May 1984, vol.9, no.1 Ulysses Santamaria, “Marx: Between Radical Idealism and Anarchic Individualism” in ‘Thesis Eleven’, 1986, 15: 1 Thanks in advance, Please send me off-list if successful... Jamie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Assad gave British Parliament a 'kill list' of IS fighters
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-assad-files-how-syrian-dictator-handed-kill-list-of-hundreds-of-islamic-state-fighters-to-british-mps/ar-AAgVEM1?ocid=spartanntp Sent from Mail for Windows 10 _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] how do British comrades see this complaint?
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * All the major party's are in a parlous state atm, but Corbyn remains the bete noire of all of our press, excluding maybe one or two guardian staffers (at least, Zoe Williams that I can think of) and the odd opinion piece, so not an unsurprising article and fair to say less impressive for its anecdotal nature. That said, Corbyn's completely underwhelming in Parliament most of the time and this week worse than a wheezing bag of shit for failing to capitalise on a 50/50 rift down the middle of the tories which, interrelatedly, potentially left their austerity programme moribund. McDonnell, his closest buddy & shadow chancellor, is far more impressive Imo, and talks about the 'new politics' but isn't actually above slinging shit at his rivals in the time honoured fashion. In Corbyn's defence, too many of his mp's are openly against him and either openly say so on the telly or roll their eyes when asked if they support his leadership. And, 2. its a long way to the next election unless tories completely lose their shit over Europe. But disappointing nonetheless, and while i agree generally with mcdonnell's critique of neoliberalism (standard fare) I get pissed off with politicians and academics who generally think the working class will be inspired by the promise of factory jobs over service sector ones. -Original Message- From: "Dennis Brasky via Marxism" Sent: 26/03/2016 20:30 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: [Marxism] how do British comrades see this complaint? POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/im-a-student-labour-supporter-but-i-just-quit-the-party-over-jeremy-corbyn-a6950961.html _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Marx’s Temporalities | Marx and Singularity | Review by Christian Lotz -
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I remember it as an easier read than maybe the review suggests. He expands on some of the themes Kevin Anderson explores regarding HM I suppose. Luca Basso and Roberto Finelli have also wrote interesting things about capital's temporalities. The review would have been better if it had pointed out how Tomba's view of Marx's treatment of time and history is actually at odds with much of the neue Marx lekture (which I think collapses into neo-kantianism with its unbridgeable divide between history and logic at its most extreme) - even if Tomba himself has personal affiliations with the likes of bellofiore and others. -Original Message- From: "Louis Proyect via Marxism" Sent: 25/01/2016 19:42 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Marx’s Temporalities | Marx and Singularity | Review by Christian Lotz - POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The overall strategy of Tomba’s work is the ultimate destruction of any teleological readings of Marx’s early as well as later work. Instead, with Marx, we are supposed to look at history as forms of “geological layers” (177) in which all layers and perspectives ultimately appear as contemporary possibilities, insofar as all non- and pre-capitalist forms of production can no longer be interpreted as stages toward the capitalist mode of production (182). History is made up by many non-synchronous “temporal pathways” (3), the consequence of which is that former struggles and simple juxtapositions of historical elements and historiographical positions become impossible. For example, as Tomba argues, Marx “drew attention to a communist tradition that had been at work within the bourgeois revolutions, and which conflicted with them” (34, 56). As a consequence, the “practical materialist” “rewrites the past in order to release the revolutionary possibilities for the present” (40). Memory, then, no longer is something of the past, but, instead, something that functions within a present and unleashed new possibilities (43). However, though even to the superficial reader it is clear that Marx’s development from his early writings, through the Grundrisse and Capital, up to his later historical research, points to a critique of teleology, Tomba does a marvelous job revealing the full complexities of and counter-tendencies in the development of capitalism, in the pre-capitalist mode of production, as well as in political developments. Similarly to scholars from the German Neue Marx Lektüre, Tomba implicitly presents a critique of much of twentieth century worldview Marxism that, as he puts it, operated with “a conception of the world that shared the same philosophy of history as that of the winners” (171), namely a determinist and linear vision of historical movement. But, with Tomba we not only learn to see history as counter-history (166), we also learn to understand the “counter-times of the workers’ struggle” (169). Moreover, Tomba shows how capital and value contain different temporalities and that the projection of a single temporality is itself a fetishization of time that comes into play with the perversion of all social relations into relations between things. The duality between use-value and value, however, is much more complex, as Tomba correctly argues, insofar as we find the time of labor, free time, time of surplus value, and time of necessary labor (137), all of which become intertwined with a plurality of exploitative practices and strategies and a plurality of its connected struggles about which Tomba wants us to think “in a historical-temporal multiversum” (156). full: http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2014/1019 _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] For Karl Marx, writers of romance novels areproductiveworkers
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Jairus Banaji, some of Mandel’s two volume book on Capital and also some of the proto industrialisation stuff is also of interest regarding subsumption – by showing how it relies very much on the social power of money to dominate – and isn’t just about changes in the production process. Hence (IMO), Marx’s line about ‘capitalist exploitation without the capitalist mode of production’ in the Results. Also, in the chapters on relative and absolute in vol. I, he treats hybrid subsumption, referencing domestic industry I think, synchronically with the factory system. In other words, in a completely non-stagist way as per your above point. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect Sent: 25 January 2016 17:39 To: marinercarpen...@gmail.com; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] For Karl Marx, writers of romance novels areproductiveworkers On 1/25/16 12:30 PM, jamie pitman via Marxism wrote: > Dobb, for my money, completely misinterprets subsumption (or > ‘subordination’ in his Studies), putting it in a historicist, stagist > frame. I would argue its precisely not this (i.e. a periodisation), > which is what most Marxist schools of thought have traditionally > argued. If you read the Results carefully, Marx claims that real > subsumption in one place/ sector will inaugurate formal subsumption > elsewhere. Massimiliano Tomba writes well about this in his book, the > name of which escapes me for now. But if you reject the > methodological nationalism of Brenner then this is the way forward > when thinking through subsumption – formal and real (hybrid and ideal > are further sub-categories, btw) in a complex interplay at the level > of a global pool of surplus value. As I stated in my article, this was pretty much Marx's view: I think that Marx probably understood that there is no Chinese wall between the creation of absolute and relative surplus value as he pointed out in chapter 16 of V. 1 of Capital that is titled “Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value”: From one standpoint, any distinction between absolute and relative surplus-value appears illusory. Relative surplus-value is absolute, since it compels the absolute prolongation of the working-day beyond the labour-time necessary to the existence of the labourer himself. Absolute surplus-value is relative, since it makes necessary such a development of the productiveness of labour, as will allow of the necessary labour-time being confined to a portion of the working-day. But if we keep in mind the behaviour of surplus-value, this appearance of identity vanishes. Once the capitalist mode of production is established and become general, the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value makes itself felt, whenever there is a question of raising the rate of surplus-value. Assuming that labour-power is paid for at its value, we are confronted by this alternative: given the productiveness of labour and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus-value can be raised only by the actual prolongation of the working-day; on the other hand, given the length of the working-day, that rise can be effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes of the components of the working-day, viz., necessary labour and surplus-labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below the value of labour-power, presupposes a change either in the productiveness or in the intensity of the labour. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] For Karl Marx, writers of romance novels are productiveworkers
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Dobb, for my money, completely misinterprets subsumption (or ‘subordination’ in his Studies), putting it in a historicist, stagist frame. I would argue its precisely not this (i.e. a periodisation), which is what most Marxist schools of thought have traditionally argued. If you read the Results carefully, Marx claims that real subsumption in one place/ sector will inaugurate formal subsumption elsewhere. Massimiliano Tomba writes well about this in his book, the name of which escapes me for now. But if you reject the methodological nationalism of Brenner then this is the way forward when thinking through subsumption – formal and real (hybrid and ideal are further sub-categories, btw) in a complex interplay at the level of a global pool of surplus value. Jamie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect via Marxism Sent: 25 January 2016 17:10 To: jamie pitman Subject: Re: [Marxism] For Karl Marx, writers of romance novels are productiveworkers POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 1/24/16 1:08 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > "Milton, for example, who did Paradise Lost, was an unproductive worker. > In contrast to this, the writer who delivers hackwork for his publisher > is a productive worker." > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm I am rereading some chapters in Maurice Dobb's "Studies in the Development of Capitalism" to get a handle on this formal subsumption business since Dobb is very good on the whole handicraft evolving into industrial capitalism angle. Despite his reputation as being a precursor to Brenner because of his famous debate with Paul Sweezy, Dobb was a hell of a lot closer to Sweezy than he was to Brenner (as Brenner would probably admit.) In any case, I came across this fascinating reference in Dobb to the origins of the word masterpiece that we would associate with John Milton, Michaelangelo, Beethoven et al. It turns out that it was originally a term used to describe a work submitted by a journeyman to qualify for entry into a guild in Medieval days. Here's wikipedia: "Originally, the term masterpiece referred to a piece of work produced by an apprentice or journeyman aspiring to become a master craftsman in the old European guild system. His fitness to qualify for guild membership was judged partly by the masterpiece, and if he was successful, the piece was retained by the guild. Great care was therefore taken to produce a fine piece in whatever the craft was, whether confectionery, painting, goldsmithing, knifemaking, or many other trades." Interesting to think that the word once used for a cake is now used routinely for just about everything, including Hollywood movies. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Once again on the formal/real subsumption question |Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Subsumption is the subject of my PhD thesis. It jars with a lot of traditional Marxism's most precious shibboleths - ltrpf and the Ricardian interpretation of the ltv, in particular. Jamie. -Original Message- From: "Louis Proyect via Marxism" Sent: 24/01/2016 20:31 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Once again on the formal/real subsumption question |Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * In my post on “Anglocentrism and the real subsumption of labor”, I mistakenly attributed Marx’s discussion of formal and real subsumption to the Grundrisse.. In actually is contained in “The Results of the Direct Production Process”, which is part of a third draft of Capital that Marx wrote between the summer of 1863 and the summer of 1864, and is based on a plan Marx made for the work in December 1862. After reading it, I find myself troubled by how it fits into Marx’s more general analysis of the exploitation of labor in light of his statement: Just as the production of absolute surplus value can be regarded as the material expression of the formal subsumption of labour under capital, so the production of relative surplus value can be regarded as that of the real subsumption of labour under capital. full: http://louisproyect.org/2016/01/24/once-again-on-the-formalreal-subsumption-question/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Exploiting women for reactionary and race-baiting campaigns (was: Hundreds of sexual assaults in Cologne - what the hell happened – any answers from German list members?)
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I agree with Kathleen as well. During the swp stuff a few years back (which inoculated me against leninism for life) it became staggering how experienced members reached for any excuse except the absolute scummery of the aggressor. There's a hint here of the aggressors in some accounts almost being portrayed as the victims. It seems to me that details about doors and blaming the police strike the same tenor. Its really not good enough to make a passing reference to the crimes (and doesn't the term 'groping' only trivialise assault?) in the opening paragraph and then talk about something else. And of course I think that there should be a robust response to any racist backlash, but I also think its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. -Original Message- From: "Dennis Brasky via Marxism" Sent: 10/01/2016 16:49 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: Re: [Marxism]Exploiting women for reactionary and race-baiting campaigns (was: Hundreds of sexual assaults in Cologne - what the hell happened – any answers from German list members?) POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Right on Kathleen! As Jeff said, I posted the original article not knowing about the political background of the author, but sickened over the story as well as why no one on this list mentioned it - one week after it had occured! I had been in the movement for many years before I learned about the true scope of the mass rape of German women perpetrated by the Red Army at the close of WW2. The uncomfortable silence over such a stain on the record of a (degenerated!) "workers' state" is similar to the discomfort of some in laying responsibility for this New Year's Eve attack. We are champions of the working class, yet when a section of that class engages in utterly reactionary behavior, we should feel no reluctance to condemn them in the strongest terms. When Trotsky spoke of the racist attitudes of white American workers towards Blacks including lynchings, he said that "we must teach the American beasts!" The same goes for attackers of women. I would think this to be ABC for "Marxists." On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Kathleen McCook via Marxism > > > of course. it could not be real to most men.this has not happened to you. > you feel better dismissing it? you do not want women in the public sphere? > it happens. it happens in subways. it happens in concert crowds. it happens > anywhere some think they can get away with it and women usually just move > away and on--because we have learned --as on this list--that many men will > be dismissive. it may be reassuring to you to think this is only a > political tactic, but it but it is a real thing that happens to women and > depresses our engagement in the world. > and this list cannot understand at all. it is always the women's > fault..either for being out in the world or finally having courage to speak > up because there were so many women in this case and then have it dismissed > once again. > Why not begin with the pain of the women's assault and violation? You make > the victims twice over by seeing this as political theater. > > _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] From a lurker on the NY Times Magazine article on Wisconsinunions
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The right to work slogan came from 1848 France. I remember looking this up some years back when it was used to name a front org for the execrable swp uk. Jamie. -Original Message- From: "Louis Proyect via Marxism" Sent: 21/06/2015 21:46 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: [Marxism] From a lurker on the NY Times Magazine article on Wisconsinunions POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Hi Louis, Interesting article, but wrong about the etymology. Ruggles didn't coin the phrase; I have found it as early as 1866. "In 1941, when the movement was still ascending, William Ruggles, a 40-year-old editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, coined the slogan “right to work.” Ruggles was alarmed by the growing strength of the labor movement, which in his view was intent on forcing all workers into unions. He proposed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit workers from having to pay dues to a union in order to hold a job in a “union shop.” “If the country does not want it, let us say so,” he wrote. “If we do want it, adopt it and maintain forever the right to work of every American.” _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Critique of Human Rights
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Zizek's wrote on this quite relentlessly from a more academic perspective; (if I remember correctly) his griping is mostly to do with HR obviating collective struggle and subscribing to a sovereign individual perspective. If that's the sort of thing ur after, then try Pashukanis, part of whose critique of the law is founded on the same line of argument. Jamie -Original Message- From: "Louis Proyect via Marxism" Sent: 26/05/2015 17:59 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: Re: [Marxism] Critique of Human Rights POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 5/26/15 12:46 PM, Douglas Medina via Marxism wrote: > > Does anyone have book suggestions for critiques of "Human Rights"? I > am looking for Marxist/left critiques, obviosly. I am not too > familiar with this literature so I figured the collective wisdom of > this list might help. > This is a problematic topic. Jean Bricmont's "Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War" is the most obvious choice but Bricmont is a Stalinist hack. A lot of the furor directed at HRW et al is deserved but for Bricmont and company, there's a tendency to whitewash Russia, Syria, Iran et al because HRW publishes a report demonstrating human rights abuses. I used to think along the same lines on Bricmont, especially on Yugoslavia, but abandoned ship after this gang backed Putin's war on Chechnya. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS RADICALZIATION IS IMPORTANT; AT WHATSTAGE IS IS AT; WHAT ARE ITS LIMITATIONS; AND HOW TO WIN BEST ELEMENTS TOTROTSKYISM!
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Wasn't Trotsky essentially a nationalist racist chauvinist afflicted with a leadership complex and, at best, a very distorted interpretation of Marx? -Original Message- From: "Anthony Brain via Marxism" Sent: 29/01/2015 00:38 To: "jamie pitman" Subject: [Marxism] WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS RADICALZIATION IS IMPORTANT; AT WHATSTAGE IS IS AT; WHAT ARE ITS LIMITATIONS; AND HOW TO WIN BEST ELEMENTS TOTROTSKYISM! POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * https://defendtrotskyism.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/why-trotskyists-in-order-to-win-cadres-to-trotskyism-from-this-middle-class-radicalisation-has-to-fight-for-our-politics-but-any-major-move-in-our-direction-act-as-a-bridge-to-trotskyism-by-anthony/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
