[Marxism] Pablo Solon on the Peoples Climate Summit

[Ian Angus]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


VIDEO:
Bolivia's UN Ambassador, Pablo Solon, explains what happened in
Copenhagen, and why his country has called the Peoples Climate Summit.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=2077

Ian Angus


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Malatesta

[Tom Cod]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errico_Malatesta

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Comintern (The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Party)

[Tom Cod]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


What you mean "crypto-bakunisist"?

http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/Proyect_reply.htm

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Christian  wrote:


> Also, I speculate that the present sorry state of most of the so-called
> Left throughout the world
> is due more to crypto-Bakuninism than to Leninism per se.
>
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Millibands

[Ambrose Andrews]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 13 April 2010 04:56, Les Schaffer  wrote:
>
> it would be nice to know more about the tree... who is daddy millband?
>

Among other things, he was co-editor of the annual 'Socilialist
Register' with Leo Panitch.

And author of many good books:

http://www.librarything.com/author/milibandralph

(and two of his offspring now populate the Brown ministry.)

  -AA.


-- 
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambr...@vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambr...@jabber.fsfe.org
skype:znalo7
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] From A Friend

[S. Artesian]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Loren Goldner asked me to post this to the list, which I am happy to do.

After a "decent interval" following its publication in New Politics No. 47, I 
have posted my article

"Global Leveraged Buyout or 'the Longest Boom in Capitalist History'?
A Reply to Robert Fitch"

critiquing Fitch's inability to distinguish between a phase of decadence in 
which capital expands while social reproduction contracts, from the actual 
expanded reproduction of society that characterized booms in capitalism's 
ascendant phase.

See the Break Their Haughty Power web site

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner

Fitch's article to which I reply is linked in mine.

Comments/critique appreciated.

Loren



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] An interesting development

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> Given that this is an era when even the "real" labor parties of the
> world Labour in the UK, the SPD in Germany--- are at best "bourgeois
> workers parties" (to use Lenin's parlance) with operative social liberal
> politics, one has to question what the point of building a party of this
> nature would be.  If the social movements were strong enough to allow for a
> social democratic (labor) party to succeed within our SMPD,
> Presidential-election system, the neoliberals wouldn't have control of the
> Democratic Party to begin with.  

If you think that the DP's assault on the Nader campaign was brutal, 
wait until you see what happens when the trade unions enter the 
electoral arena. There will be hell to pay.

> 
> Also as Doug (Henwood) mentions:
> 
> "A NC friend in the know says that, sadly, there may not be much here. The
> guy behind the move is Dana Cope, director of the State Employees Assoc. of
> North Carolina, who's been steadily drifting to the right. 

He may be drifting to the right, but forming a labor party takes a lot 
of guts.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] An interesting development

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Given that this is an era when even the "real" labor parties of the
world Labour in the UK, the SPD in Germany--- are at best "bourgeois
workers parties" (to use Lenin's parlance) with operative social liberal
politics, one has to question what the point of building a party of this
nature would be.  If the social movements were strong enough to allow for a
social democratic (labor) party to succeed within our SMPD,
Presidential-election system, the neoliberals wouldn't have control of the
Democratic Party to begin with.  Not that even that would make tremendous
difference. I do recognize what a left-of-center national labor party would
mean in the context of American history, but if you build a new party to
manage the capitalist state and you get a capitalist party.  Looking across
the pond at the Labour party, I'm not all that envious.  Looking at the NPA
in France or the Left Bloc in Portugal is a bit more heartening.  The
difference being that these organizations
are explicitly anti-capitalist opposition movements

Also as Doug (Henwood) mentions:

"A NC friend in the know says that, sadly, there may not be much here. The
guy behind the move is Dana Cope, director of the State Employees Assoc. of
North Carolina, who's been steadily drifting to the right. Most recently, he
supported an effort by affluent white families and public school
privatization types to eliminate a school diversity policy in Wake County.
(For more, see .) It's not clear that
national SEIU is putting anything into this - which is important, because NC
has one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the U.S. You'd need
something like 70,000 sigs to get on the ballot, which isn't going to happen
without a major, well-funded effort."

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Louis Proyect  wrote:

> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
>
> (I trust the SEIU bureaucracy as far as I can throw it, but this
> is still notable.)
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Millibands

[Gary MacLennan]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


A good friend of mine was a personal friend of Ralph Milliband and got to
know the boys as they grew up.  It seems that one day they looked at the
father and decided that he had achieved nothing as a militant communist.  So
they came in from the cold and now are an essential part of the Labour Party
machine and the American Imperial imperative.

Some achievement boys!  Well done.

Of course this is a terrible betrayal of all the father stood for, but as I
always point out that aside from the psychological dimensions of such
actions, and there would have been a very sublimated drive to a kind of
patricide, the material benefits of betraying the father have been
considerable.  Quite simply because of the father  the boys had something to
sell and the Establishment was very willing to part with the 30 pieces of
silver.

regards

Gary

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Comintern (The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Party)

[Christian]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 4/12/2010 6:39 PM, S. Artesian wrote:
> In general, and in particular, I advise staying clear of ideologies.  Marx's
> analysis and it revolutionary impact is highly unideological, highly
> concrete.  Stalinism is a bit more than a personality cult, having a bit
> more responsibility for what happened to the prospects for the international
> socialist revolution than, say, Bakuninism, or Ayn Randism.
>
>

I get to thinking sometimes that the present state of affairs in 
capitalist America may be the result of
Randian "libertarian" thinking among the ruling class and most of the 
working class.

Also, I speculate that the present sorry state of most of the so-called 
Left throughout the world
is due more to crypto-Bakuninism than to Leninism per se.

I think Marx would disagree with your opinion about his work's impact 
being "highly unideological".
Marx's work may have practical significance but it never ceases, not for 
a moment, to be ideological.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Comintern (The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Party)

[S. Artesian]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


In general, and in particular, I advise staying clear of ideologies.  Marx's 
analysis and it revolutionary impact is highly unideological, highly 
concrete.  Stalinism is a bit more than a personality cult, having a bit 
more responsibility for what happened to the prospects for the international 
socialist revolution than, say, Bakuninism, or Ayn Randism.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jason Matthes"  



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] History of the Marxist Internationals (conclusion, the call for a Fifth International)

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/history-of-the-marxist-internationals-conclusion-the-call-for-a-fifth-international/


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Millibands

[farmela...@juno.com]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




Daddy Milliband was Ralph Milliband.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Miliband
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_8_55/ai_112411341/

Jim Farmelant
http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant

-- Original Message --
From: Les Schaffer 
Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Millibands
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:56:34 -0400



On 4/12/10 2:44 PM, Ernest Leif wrote:
> Just read NYRB article on Afghanistan by David Milliband. Now I know that
> apples sometimes fall far, very far, from the the tree but WTF? His father
> must be rolling over in his grave. Just had to put this out there.
>

it would be nice to know more about the tree... who is daddy millband?

Les




Acai Berry ... EXPOSED
Warning! Health Reporter Discovers the Shocking Truth About Acai Berry
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4bc372dfdc0f923a92dst05vuc


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Millibands

[Les Schaffer]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 4/12/10 2:44 PM, Ernest Leif wrote:
> Just read NYRB article on Afghanistan by David Milliband. Now I know that
> apples sometimes fall far, very far, from the the tree but WTF? His father
> must be rolling over in his grave. Just had to put this out there.
>

it would be nice to know more about the tree... who is daddy millband?

Les


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Kyn

[Paul Cockshott]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




I have now read Kyn's protest.

I have at no time indicated that Kyn was a current supporter of socialism. He 
did however do pioneering work on the computation of sectoral labour values 
using input output tables, this preceeded the work of Shaikh and his students 
at the New School, and it seemed therefore appropriate to give him credit for 
the work that he did in the 1960s. I had already gathered from his current 
position that he is no longer a socialist.

If time allows I may write a response to his criticism of the labour theory of 
value. His points about the computing
power required to perform detailed calculations of labour values have been 
refuted by us many times since the 1990s.
With 1990 technology it was already possible, now with 20 years advance in 
computing power it is even easier.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


If by the "purity of our ideals" you mean socialism and if by "our actual
impotence" you mean the lack of socialism in the world, then yes, it's a
problem we're all well aware of.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Vladimiro Giacche' wrote:

>
> I'm afraid it's hard to find any socialist society in the world on this
> basis.
> In the past, in the present as well as in the future.
> Sometimes I'm inclined to think that the purity of our ideals is a proxy of
> our actual impotence...
>
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] An interesting development

[Erik Toren]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Interesting, but I am still waiting to see when this
http://www.thelaborparty.org/index.html goes national.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Mazzocchi

Erik Toren


On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Louis Proyect  wrote:
>
>
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/seiu-launches-third-party-in-north-carolina.php
> SEIU Launches Third Party In North Carolina
> Evan McMorris-Santoro | April 8, 2010, 6:48PM


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


My real bone of contention with the SWP isn't the substance of its politics,
but rather how they pursue those politics Engaging in valuable work from
below in social movements and in "united fronts," but never really broaching
idea of the unity of Marxists, as Marxists, in a Marxist party that would
allow for permanent factions and freedom of discussion and debate and form
the social base for a rejuvenated left.  I remember during my first week of
my first semester at college when I went to an anti-war rally and
was bombarded with Socialist Workers, Revolution! newspapers, even a
Workers' Vanguard or two, the PSL's paper, etc and I had no idea what to
make of all these left-sects even though I knew my politics were vaguely
socialist and I was familiar with the figure of Leon Trotsky (background I
doubt most people have).  What I see (from afar mind you) are a bunch of
groups duplicating each others efforts, a bunch of competiting sects and no
viable revolutionary left.  Why couldn't SPEW, the SPW and the smaller
groupings like the CPGB and Permanent Revolution be in the same party?
 Given freedom of discussion, I have no doubt that a principled line will
win out.  I guess this is the definition of a liquidationist stance, but is
the alternative for groups like the SPW just hovering around the 5, 6
thousand mark until objective conditions allow for an explosion in their
ranks?

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Richard Seymour <
leninstombb...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Well, Kevin Murphy is a scholar who has worked hard to arrive at his
> understanding of Stalinism, not least with his /Revolution and
> Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory/.  I don't
> think him at all batty, regardless of how uncivil he might have been to
> you in the past.
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew

[Vladimiro Giacche']

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


 

> ==
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:46:00 +0100
> From: Richard Seymour 
> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Vladimiro_Giacch=E9?= 
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew   beenreading the 
> Unrepentant Marxist?
> ==
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a 
> message.
> ==

> Similarly, I would argue that you are wrong to describe Cuba 
> as a
> socialist society, and that to see it as such is inconsistent 
> with the
> basic principle that for there to be a socialist society, the 
> working
> class has to be in power.  

I'm afraid it's hard to find any socialist society in the world on this basis. 
In the past, in the present as well as in the future.
Sometimes I'm inclined to think that the purity of our ideals is a proxy of our 
actual impotence...



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Richard Seymour wrote:
> Well, Kevin Murphy is a scholar who has worked hard to arrive at his
> understanding of Stalinism, not least with his /Revolution and
> Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory/.  I don't
> think him at all batty, regardless of how uncivil he might have been to
> you in the past.

I had a glance at this book about a year ago and it seemed like a 
very nice dissertation. With all the time he used to waste on 
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, I am surprised he ever got if 
finished. Perhaps if you were on this newsgroup, you might have 
seen the battiness I alluded to, including his claim that Cuban 
helicopters dropped sandbags on rafts trying to reach Miami in 
order to murder all those aboard. His hatred of Cuba was palpable.

> Similarly, I would argue that you are wrong to describe Cuba as a
> socialist society, and that to see it as such is inconsistent with the
> basic principle that for there to be a socialist society, the working
> class has to be in power.  But it doesn't follow that the state caps
> want to have you ex-communicated from the marxist tradition.

Actually, I rather enjoy being excommunicated. After 10 years in 
the American SWP, I would tend to reject any club that would have 
me as a member.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 16:58, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's a problem, however. If there is Stalinism in Cuba, 
> something I heard on almost a daily basis from Kevin Murphy, the 
> batty winner of the Isaac Deutscher Prize a couple of years ago, 
> then I am a Stalinist. In fact, he used to call me "Koba", the 
> lovely chap.
>
>   

Well, Kevin Murphy is a scholar who has worked hard to arrive at his
understanding of Stalinism, not least with his /Revolution and
Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory/.  I don't
think him at all batty, regardless of how uncivil he might have been to
you in the past.

Here's the substantive issue.  It's not a minor principle of marxism
that "the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working
class".  This happens to be fundamental.  But, according to the SWP
(UK), even Trotsky didn't take that point to its logical conclusion in
his analysis of the USSR.  Now, there is no way that the SWP regards
Trotsky as somehow external to the "authentic" marxist tradition. 
Similarly, I would argue that you are wrong to describe Cuba as a
socialist society, and that to see it as such is inconsistent with the
basic principle that for there to be a socialist society, the working
class has to be in power.  But it doesn't follow that the state caps
want to have you ex-communicated from the marxist tradition.
-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Hugo Chavez on the need for a new international

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Adam Richmond wrote:
> 
> 
> If you are referring to Chavez' speech in November 2009, that
> speech as not been translated to the best of my knowledge. It
> is apparently 5 hours long and only part of it dealt with the
> question of the Fifth International.
> 

Yes, I found pretty much what I was looking for here:

http://directaction.org.au/issue18/chavez_calls_for_fifth_socialist_international


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 15:53, Louis Proyect wrote:
> I am not talking about their ideology, obviously. I am talking 
> about their understanding of "Leninism".
>   

Well, quite.  But I wasn't talking about ideology either - I was
speaking of culture, organisation and ways of relating to others.  You
infer from your experience of the SWP US things about the SWP UK, but
these inferences - so I was explaining - aren't valid.  If the SWP US
are obsessed with "revolutionary continuity", whatever that is, it
doesn't follow that those of us on the other side of the Atlantic who
happen to use the same name, are.  It just doesn't "consume" us in the
way that you suggested.

> John Molyneux, "The authentic Marxist tradition"
>
> The authentic Marxist tradition is not difficult to identify. It 
> runs, from Marx and Engels ...
>   

And yet, strange to relate, this assertion does not entail that the SWP
UK is the sole "true" bearer of the marxist tradition (note the definite
article), which is the caricature upon which I originally commented. 
What is the purpose of the cited essay?  In a nutshell, it is to
distinguish marxism from Stalinism - a reasonable point, I would have
thought.  Since there are those who castigate marxism as an inherently
totalitarian doctrine, as one that leads to dictatorship and terror
wherever it is applied, Molyneux recalls that there is a better
tradition, of "socialism from below", which is closer to the original
intent of the First Internationalists, much of the Second International,
the early Bolsheviks, and the minority of marxists who rejected
Stalinism since its inception.  That the SWP argues that this is closer
to both the letter and spirit of marxism than the scholastic
pseudo-scientific official discourses of the USSR, for example, hardly
amounts to the erection of a sectarian party line.  That it also wishes
to situate itself among that minority tradition is, again, not an
argument for revolutionary purity.  It is not a small matter that
marxism became associated with a grotesque tyranny and its epigones, and
it is not unimportant, petty or sectarian to take issue with that.  The
only basis on which it is possible to do so is to examine the concrete
history of marxist ideas and movements as they developed, from Marx
onward, and to offer an explanation as to what went wrong - which is
what Molyneux was doing.  Possibly, marxists should stop doing this,
"dump" it all as so much "junk", but that does mean abandoning any idea
of rebutting anticommunist anathema and keeping marxist ideas relevant.
-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Hugo Chavez on the need for a new international

[Adam Richmond]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


If you are referring to Chavez' speech in November 2009, that speech as not 
been translated to the best of my knowledge. It is apparently 5 hours long and 
only part of it dealt with the question of the Fifth International. 





From: Louis Proyect 
To: Adam Richmond 
Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 8:13:33 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Hugo Chavez on the need for a new international

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I cannot find the text of his actual speech. If anybody has it, 
either in Spanish or English, please send it to me or post a link 
here.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/adambrichmond%40yahoo.com



  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Hugo Chavez on the need for a new international

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I cannot find the text of his actual speech. If anybody has it, 
either in Spanish or English, please send it to me or post a link 
here.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Richard Seymour wrote:
> Another way in which what you've said is a non-sequitur is that there is
> no such entity as "groups like the American SWP and the British SWP". 
> They are apples and oranges as regards their way of organising, their
> internal culture, their relationship with others, etc etc.  You have
> experience of one, and not of the other, and I recommend that you don't
> confuse the two. 

I am not talking about their ideology, obviously. I am talking 
about their understanding of "Leninism".

> The party I joined and have been a member of for over a dozen years now
> has /never/ evinced any obessesion with "revolutionary continuity" as
> long as I have been around, and we do not pretend to be the "true"
> successors to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (and Bukharin and Gramsci
> and Luxembourg and various other interesting thinkers and
> revolutionaries) - at least, if any member of the SWP has ever made such
> a silly claim, I trust they are suitably embarrassed by it.

John Molyneux, "The authentic Marxist tradition"

The authentic Marxist tradition is not difficult to identify. It 
runs, from Marx and Engels, through the revolutionary left wing of 
the Second International (especially in Russia and Germany), 
reaches its height with the Russian Revolution and the early years 
of the Comintern, and is continued, in the most difficult 
circumstances possible, by the Left Opposition and the Trotskyist 
movement in the 1930s. The history and theory of this tradition 
has been so copiously analysed, defended and, where necessary, 
criticised by members of our own political tendency, [139] that 
only a few general observations are required here.

It is a tradition whose leading representatives, after its 
founders, are clearly Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky, but they are 
surrounded by many figures of only slightly lesser stature – 
Mehring, Zetkin, the early Bukharin, James Connolly, John McLean, 
Victor Serge, Alfred Rosmer, and so on, as well as hundreds of 
thousands of working class fighters.

It is a tradition which has sought always to unite theory and 
practice and therefore has never rested content with received 
wisdom or fixed dogma but has sought to apply Marxism to a 
changing world. Its most important contributions include theories 
of the party (Lenin), the mass strike (Luxemburg), permanent 
revolution (Trotsky), imperialism and the world economy 
(Luxemburg, Bukharin, Lenin and Trotsky), the 
counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism (Trotsky), fascism 
(Trotsky) and the restoration of the activist, dialectical element 
in Marxist philosophy (Lenin, Gramsci and Lukacs).

It has been for most of its existence, with the exception of the 
revolutionary years of 1917–23, the tradition of a tiny minority. 
This is unfortunate but unavoidable. The ruling ideas are the 
ideas of the ruling class and the mass of workers reach 
revolutionary consciousness only in revolutionary struggle. The 
permanent co-existence of a mass Marxist movement with capitalism 
is therefore impossible. Its very presence constitutes a threat to 
the capitalist order which, if it is not realised, will be 
removed. It is therefore a tradition whose advances and retreats 
reflect, in the last analysis, the advances and retreats of the 
working class.

It is not a monolithic tradition, but is characterised by vigorous 
debate (think of Luxemburg and Lenin on the party and the national 
question, or Lenin and Trotsky on the nature of the Russian 
Revolution, or the internal debates of the Bolshevik Party before 
and after 1917). Nor is it a tradition free from error (witness 
Trotsky's workers' state analysis of Russia). But it is united by 
the class basis on which it stands, the world working class [140], 
and therefore has been in an important sense cumulative, with each 
Marxist generation building on the achievements of its forebears.

It is also our tradition. The traditions which the Socialist 
Workers Party in Britain and its international affiliates have 
sought to continue and develop over more than thirty years. 
Historical circumstances have not yet confronted us with the 
flames of war, revolution and counter-revolution. These are the 
conditions which put movements and theories to the test, revealing 
their inadequacies but also allowing them to achieve their full 
stature. Consequently, our achievements, theoretical and 
practical, appear small beer compared with those of our 
predecessors. Nonetheless, our major theoretical contributions and 
distinctive political positions – the state capitalist analysis of 
Stalinist states, the theory of deflected permanent revolution in 
the Third World, the analysis of the arms economy boom and the new 
economic crisis, the critique of the trade union

[Marxism] WOLA versus Honduran democracy

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://www.counterpunch.org/pine04122010.html


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 15:26, Louis Proyect wrote:
> You can't have it both ways. Groups like the American SWP and the 
> British SWP are consumed with the question of "revolutionary 
> continuity", showing that they are the true successors of Marx, 
> Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Just read Tony Cliff on "Trotskyism 
> after Trotsky" to get a feel for how important pedigree is:
>
> http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/cliff/works/1999/trotism/ch06.htm
>
> I propose dumping this kind of junk, but my message is directed 
> more to the young unaffiliated Marxists who read my blog or 
> subscribe to Marxmail rather than members of such groups who would 
> regard me as a "liquidationist" or worse.
>
>   

I'm curious to know how exactly it is I mean to "have it both ways"? 
You didn't explain that.  At any rate, your statement is a
non-sequitur.  I am aware of your position regarding Trotskyism and
such, but it doesn't actually follow from the previous discussion, which
concerned a bit of silliness and show-boating on the part of one of my
former comrades regarding the language of socialism.

Another way in which what you've said is a non-sequitur is that there is
no such entity as "groups like the American SWP and the British SWP". 
They are apples and oranges as regards their way of organising, their
internal culture, their relationship with others, etc etc.  You have
experience of one, and not of the other, and I recommend that you don't
confuse the two. 

The party I joined and have been a member of for over a dozen years now
has /never/ evinced any obessesion with "revolutionary continuity" as
long as I have been around, and we do not pretend to be the "true"
successors to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (and Bukharin and Gramsci
and Luxembourg and various other interesting thinkers and
revolutionaries) - at least, if any member of the SWP has ever made such
a silly claim, I trust they are suitably embarrassed by it.


-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Thomas Bias]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


It reminds me of when I went to Sunday School in the Episcopal Church  
and we were taught about the Apostolic Succession. It meant that all  
Anglican bishops could trace the bishops who consecrated them all the  
way back to the 12 Apostles. We were taught that the Lutherans and  
Methodists (for example) had allowed that succession to be broken.  
Sometimes I wonder if this kind of sectarianism is a peculiarity of  
the English-speaking world and that because of the peculiar character  
of the Reformation in Great Britain it became part of our culture  
that has been allowed to infect the socialist movement.

> You can't have it both ways. Groups like the American SWP and the
> British SWP are consumed with the question of "revolutionary
> continuity", showing that they are the true successors of Marx,
> Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Just read Tony Cliff on "Trotskyism
> after Trotsky" to get a feel for how important pedigree is:
>
> http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/cliff/works/1999/trotism/ch06.htm



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 15:18, Louis Proyect wrote:
> While I am not familiar with all the disputed issues, I know that the
> Respect experience was fairly important. Both sides seem to support a
> "united front" approach to electoral formations such as Respect that
> in my opinion is a formula for disaster since it requires the
> "revolutionary" members of the group to accept the discipline of their
> own organization. From my own experience in the American SWP, this
> kind of behavior in the mass movement alienated just about everybody
> who was not a member or sympathizer of our sect.
>

This isn't quite right. 

1) I can't speak for everyone, but the concept of "united front of a
special kind", which was John Rees' innovation, is not one that has
enjoyed universal support in the SWP.  In fairness, I also understand
that Rees himself is not committed to that formula - though perhaps that
was a negotiating position adopted when he was still in the party. 

2) It isn't the "united front of a special kind" formula that requires
members to accept the discipline of their own organisation, it is the
fact that they are members.  This would be expected however one
classified participation in an electoral group.  Nor do I believe that
this in itself leads to problems - it doesn't usually affect our ability
to operate in a fraternal and open way with others in different
campaigns.  Provided the party is determined to work constructively
within whatever organisation it joins, party discipline should usually
help rather than hinder relations with that organisation.

3) In the case of Respect, I might add, it was the failure of certain
members to accept the discipline of their organisation, their failure to
be accountable for how they conducted themselves as SWP members within
Respect, that caused a great part of the problem - many people were
simply unaware of much of what was taking place.  Had that
accountability been in place, the very real divisions in Respect might
have been handled far more tactfully and amicably than they were.

I apologise for filling up Marxmail with what must look like parochial
gossip, but as you appear to be drawing broader lessons from these
experiences, I feel impelled to clarify what took place.

-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Afghan bus passengers killed by American troops

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


NY Times April 12, 2010
U.S. Troops Fire on Bus in Afghanistan, Killing Civilians
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and TAIMOOR SHAH

KABUL, Afghanistan — American troops raked a large passenger bus 
with gunfire near the southern city of Kandahar on Monday morning, 
killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18, Afghan 
authorities and survivors said.

The attack infuriated Kandahar leaders and could harm public 
opinion before perhaps the most important offensive of the war, a 
campaign that is intended to take control of the Kandahar region 
from the Taliban this summer.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered around a bus station on the 
western outskirts of Kandahar, shouting anti-American chants and 
blocking the road for an hour, according to people in the area.

The American military confirmed the shooting but there were 
disputes over details, including whether the troops who fired on 
the bus had first shot flares and warned the driver to stay back.

One of the bus passengers and a man who identified himself as the 
driver said that an American convoy about 70 yards ahead of the 
bus opened fire as the bus began to pull to the side of the road 
to allow another military convoy traveling behind to pass.

The two convoys and the bus were on the main highway in Sanzari, 
about 15 miles west of Kandahar city. All of the windows on one 
side of the bus were shot out.

Troops opened fire on the bus just after daybreak as it was taking 
dozens of passengers to Nimruz Province, said Zalmy Ayoubi, a 
spokesman for the Kandahar provincial governor.

Some of the wounded were in critical condition, and the death toll 
could rise, local officials said.

Mr. Ayoubi said five civilians had been killed, including one woman.

The Interior Ministry in Kabul issued a statement saying four 
civilians had been killed and 18 wounded, blaming “NATO forces” 
traveling in front of the bus for the shooting.

An American military spokeswoman put the toll at four dead — 
including one woman — and said five people had been wounded.

The military spokeswoman confirmed that a convoy traveling west, 
in front of the bus, had opened fire, but said the second convoy 
was traveling eastbound toward the bus.

She also said that immediately before the shooting the troops 
fired three flares toward the bus to warn the driver he was 
following too closely, and that one soldier raised his fist in the 
air as another warning. She also said the driver of the bus was 
killed.

However, the man who identified himself as the driver said the bus 
did not violate any signal from the troops.

“I was going to take the bus off the road,” said the man, Mohammed 
Nabi. Then the convoy ahead opened fire from a distance of 60 to 
70 yards.

“It is a huge bus full of passengers, and if they think we were a 
suicide bomber, we are sad that the Americans have killed innocent 
people,” he said. “We don’t feel safe while traveling on the main 
highways anymore because of NATO convoys.”

Mr. Ayoubi, the provincial spokesman, said, “We strongly condemn 
this action carried out by NATO forces, and we want a thorough 
investigation of the incident, to find out why they targeted the 
civilian bus.”

If the Afghan government’s casualty toll is correct, it would 
suggest that troops fired scores or even hundreds of rounds. It 
was not clear why such a large fusillade would have been directed 
at a passenger bus.

“An American convoy was ahead of us and another convoy was 
following us, and we were going to pull off of the road, and 
suddenly the Americans opened fire,” said one passenger, Nida 
Mohammed, who suffered a shoulder injury.

“We were not close to them, maybe 60 yards away from their 
convoy,” Mr. Mohammed said.

A helicopter evacuated some of the wounded, he said.

“This bus wasn’t like an a suicide bomber, and we did not touch or 
come close to the convoy,” Mr. Mohammed said. “It seems they are 
opening fire on civilians intentionally.”

Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported from Kabul, and Taimoor Shah from 
Kandahar, Afghanistan. Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting from Kabul.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Richard Seymour wrote:

> *shrugs*...  I mean, really, Louis.  Who /isn't/ looking to the future? 
> Do you know anyone who explicitly says they're looking to the past? 

You can't have it both ways. Groups like the American SWP and the 
British SWP are consumed with the question of "revolutionary 
continuity", showing that they are the true successors of Marx, 
Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Just read Tony Cliff on "Trotskyism 
after Trotsky" to get a feel for how important pedigree is:

http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/cliff/works/1999/trotism/ch06.htm

I propose dumping this kind of junk, but my message is directed 
more to the young unaffiliated Marxists who read my blog or 
subscribe to Marxmail rather than members of such groups who would 
regard me as a "liquidationist" or worse.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 14:37, Louis Proyect wrote:
>It’s quite obvious really – why give yourself a name that 
> sounds very old-fashioned when you are new and looking to the 
> future? And why choose a name that sounds like every little 
> left-wing group there’s ever been?
>   

*shrugs*...  I mean, really, Louis.  Who /isn't/ looking to the future? 
Do you know anyone who explicitly says they're looking to the past?  Or
who claims to want to imitate the failures of the past?  Doesn't every
politician in the world castigate the past relentlessly?  Tired
solutions, thereof.  Failed remedies, thereof.  Outmoded ideas,
thereof.  The future, by contrast, is just as glam as can be.  The
Idiot's Guide to PR surely has a section all of its own about how
marvellous and estimable the future really is.  It's just like someone
saying they oppose the bad and admire the good.  It's platitudinous
public relations twaddle, designed to simulate openness, reflectiveness,
and new thinking.

More to the point, the name doesn't make the difference in this
respect.  What the name does is concisely communicate the nature of
one's politics.  It doesn't prevent one from being stuck in a time-warp,
it doesn't differentiate one from Bob Avakian's gang, it doesn't stop
one from being dogmatic, and it doesn't stop one from circling the drain
just like previous sects.  And, again, the idea that calling oneself a
socialist is inherently more dated than calling oneself conservative or
liberal or social democratic or Christian Democratic (etc etc etc.) is
trite.

No offence to my ex-comrades, but for all the emphasis they have placed
on dynamism, verve and various cognate terms, I am even less impressed
by the quality of their current strategic thinking than I was when they
were still comrades to man.


-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Richard Seymour wrote:
> Sure, but there's a difference between the question of how radicals
> relate to the masses and how revolutionaries should do so.  I'm in
> favour of forming broader groups that could be called any number of
> things.  They certainly don't have to say 'socialist', or 'workers', or
> 'communist', or 'hammer' in their name.  I was in a group that called
> itself 'Respect' for Christs' sake.  

For people new to Marxmail and unfamiliar with British far left 
politics, Richard is a member of the British SWP that recently 
suffered something of a split involving leading members John Rees 
and Lindsey German. While I am not familiar with all the disputed 
issues, I know that the Respect experience was fairly important. 
Both sides seem to support a "united front" approach to electoral 
formations such as Respect that in my opinion is a formula for 
disaster since it requires the "revolutionary" members of the 
group to accept the discipline of their own organization. From my 
own experience in the American SWP, this kind of behavior in the 
mass movement alienated just about everybody who was not a member 
or sympathizer of our sect.

Here is my analysis:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/the-swp-respect-and-the-united-front/


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Kyn and Scottish/Bremen Schools

[Néstor Gorojovsky]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Went to Kyn´s article, and found out a most interesting thing.

If Kyn is quite solid in his denunciation of the "schools of Scotland
and Bremen" as at best ill-researchers of the sources they quote, it
looks like this is a debate between misquoters. Kyn states that among
his students there is a "Federico Morchio, Minister, Argentina."

You can be absolutely certain that this Morchio has never been
Minister at the Federal level in Argentina, ever.

At most, he was "chief of cabinet in the Secretary for Industry,
Commerce and Small/medium enterprises" during the early, and most
neoliberal, moments of the Kirchner administration (2003). His being a
"minister" has to do with a third rank position in the Arg Diplomatic
Service, where he seems to be acting on secondary or third-rank issues
related to Foreign Direct Investment. A typical position-eater of the
neoliberal breed, a grey bureaucrat that either has duped Kyn into
believing he has got a ministerial rank, either has been presented by
Kyn as still another neoliberal pupil of his in the former "neoliberal
paradise" of Argentina.

If Kyn´s remaining examples of "students" and "colleagues" are
consistent, I would think it twice before calling this man a "market
socialist", BTW. What I believe is that both Kyn and the two schools
belong to the same gender of budget nipping intellectuals. They just
cater to different buyers.

-- 

Néstor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 12/04/2010 14:26, Louis Proyect wrote:
> It all depends. In the late 1800s, socialism was a mass movement 
> that millions of workers identified with, even if they never held 
> membership. By the 1940s, this had changed fundamentally. Workers 
> either viewed themselves as Communist, with all the problems this 
> involved. Or they viewed themselves as socialists in the reformist 
> tradition. Tiny groups vying for their allegiance called 
> themselves socialist (or communist) as well but *never recruited 
> large numbers of workers*. So the basic raison d'etre for 
> launching a new socialist formation of this sort was never 
> fulfilled. The reason Camejo explored the idea of dumping the old 
> vocabulary was to force radicals to rethink how they connected to 
> the masses. He followed up the North Star Network with activity in 
> the Green Party, which for a brief time could have functioned as a 
> pole of attraction for Marxists in the U.S., just as Die Linke 
> does in Germany or other such groups in Europe. I think such 
> formations will play an increasingly important role until the 
> workers are ready in massive numbers to join a revolutionary 
> organization that looks nothing like the self-declared vanguard 
> parties of today. That is not to say that self-declared vanguard 
> formations cannot play a useful role today. They do. But they are 
> constitutionally incapable of breaking through their own 
> self-imposed sectarian glass ceiling.
>
>   

Sure, but there's a difference between the question of how radicals
relate to the masses and how revolutionaries should do so.  I'm in
favour of forming broader groups that could be called any number of
things.  They certainly don't have to say 'socialist', or 'workers', or
'communist', or 'hammer' in their name.  I was in a group that called
itself 'Respect' for Christs' sake.  And I agree with your basic point
that such broad radical left formations will be important in the medium
term, for much the reasons that you lay out.  But within such
formations, there will be revolutionaries of various kinds, perhaps
organised as either a faction or a party.  It is important that they are
open about their politics - if they take their politics seriously, that is.

The sentence in Snowdon's article that we're discussing rejected the use
of the language of socialism in a left-wing group's name on the grounds
that "it is the 21st Century".  Well, yes it is.  But the language of
socialism does not inherently limit one's appeal, it isn't itself any
more dated than the language of liberalism or conservatism (a lot less
so) and it isn't what has held socialists back.  The Scottish Socialist
Party, eg, was not destroyed because it called itself socialist, but
because it tore itself apart overt a Murdoch media witch-hunt.


-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] History of the Green Party and Movements in the U.S.

[David Thorstad]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I apologize if this article from 2006 has already appeared on the list. DT

http://www.social-ecology.org/2006/01/the-greens-as-a-social-movement-values-and-conflicts-2/
 

 




Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Richard Seymour wrote:
> Avoiding the
> words "socialist", "workers" etc is only appropriate if either a) the
> group you intend to set up has nothing to do with revolutionary
> socialism, or b) you believe that people who might be put off by mention
> of socialism can be deceived into joining a marxist group.  

It all depends. In the late 1800s, socialism was a mass movement 
that millions of workers identified with, even if they never held 
membership. By the 1940s, this had changed fundamentally. Workers 
either viewed themselves as Communist, with all the problems this 
involved. Or they viewed themselves as socialists in the reformist 
tradition. Tiny groups vying for their allegiance called 
themselves socialist (or communist) as well but *never recruited 
large numbers of workers*. So the basic raison d'etre for 
launching a new socialist formation of this sort was never 
fulfilled. The reason Camejo explored the idea of dumping the old 
vocabulary was to force radicals to rethink how they connected to 
the masses. He followed up the North Star Network with activity in 
the Green Party, which for a brief time could have functioned as a 
pole of attraction for Marxists in the U.S., just as Die Linke 
does in Germany or other such groups in Europe. I think such 
formations will play an increasingly important role until the 
workers are ready in massive numbers to join a revolutionary 
organization that looks nothing like the self-declared vanguard 
parties of today. That is not to say that self-declared vanguard 
formations cannot play a useful role today. They do. But they are 
constitutionally incapable of breaking through their own 
self-imposed sectarian glass ceiling.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Chris Hedges - the face of resistance

[Dennis Brasky]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/one_marines_liberty_walk_for_the_rest_of_us_20100411/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Greetings all

[Mark Lause]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Yes, welcome.

Grab a chair and pour a glass

Then, feel free find a revisionist, throw the contents of the glass at them
and break the chair over their head.

ML

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?

[Richard Seymour]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 11/04/2010 23:06, Louis Proyect wrote:
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
>
>  From Rees's "How to start a new left wing group: the rules":
>
> Avoid the words socialist, communist, Marxist, workers and Party when 
> coining your group's name. It is the 21st century.
>
> full: 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/blogs/66-luna17-activist/4573-how-to-start-a-new-left-wing-group-the-rules
>   

Just to be clear, that was written by a Newcastle-based member of the
/Counterfire/ group named Alex Snowdon rather than by John Rees
himself.  It appears on /Rees's Pieces/ (/Counterfire/'s cognomenclature
in the UK), I suspect, because the site features almost everything
written on its' members blogs.

To answer your question, it may be that Alex read your blog, and decided
to take that advice.   However, I suspect what is more likely is that he
is making fun of how ridiculous new sects look when they take to
rationalising a series of choices forced on them by circumstances beyond
their control, and then offere these as a series of pat 'rules' that
anyone forming a new leftist group can follow.  Hence, dropping
newspapers only makes sense if you don't have a grassroots network or a
trade union base - otherwise it's actually not possible to build an
active membership without the face-to-face interaction that paper sales
provide.  Having a "sense of perspective" about how "tiny" you are is
only comforting if your membership is not much above sixty - usually,
having a "sense of perspective" entails being realistic about your
capacities, not soothing one's soul about the poverty of said
capacities.  Rediscovering the "ABC of your tradition" and not slagging
off the party you've just left is only appropriate if you have just left
a party and wish to stake a claim to its "tradition" (cf Lindsey
German's summation of the principles of said tradition: "bending the
stick", "seizing the key link in the chain" and "the polemic"), while at
the same time constantly slagging off the party you've just left in
thinly veiled terms for having abandoned said "tradition".  Avoiding the
words "socialist", "workers" etc is only appropriate if either a) the
group you intend to set up has nothing to do with revolutionary
socialism, or b) you believe that people who might be put off by mention
of socialism can be deceived into joining a marxist group.  The rest is
just filler, and ruins what is otherwise a very witty satire on the
grandiose delusions of grand-standing personality cults.  He should have
called it "Hot Sects! Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RCP".


-- 
Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com
Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com