Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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
Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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
Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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
Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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
Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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?
== 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?
== 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?
== 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 bureaucracy – have
Re: [Marxism] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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] Has John Rees's crew been reading the Unrepentant Marxist?
== 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
== 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 leninstombb...@googlemail.com To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Vladimiro_Giacch=E9?= md1...@mclink.it 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?
== 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
== 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' md1...@mclink.itwrote: 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?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Not your most original contribution, but it fits quite well with their hide behind front groups and con the working class towards socialism down the road with transitional demands approach to politics. On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: 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 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?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 12.04.10 00:17, Louis Proyect wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: Not your most original contribution, but it fits quite well with their hide behind front groups and con the working class towards socialism down the road with transitional demands approach to politics. I would regard it as a major step forward if they dropped the hammer-and-sickle, proletarian mumbo-jumbo in and of itself. The British SWP has never used the hammer-and-sickle as an emblem. The fist-symbol used by the party was originally created by an SWP member for the first Tom Robinson Band album and then adopted by the party. When the group was called IS it used another fist emblem. Einde O'Callaghan 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
