Re: [Marxism] American style

[Glenn Parton]

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




WL,
 
This list is not for me, so I'm unsubscribing as soon as I send this to you, 
but I will send you some comments (directly to your email) on the new article 
"Bipartisanship," that I like very much.
 
glenn 

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] American style: tomorrow elections, Obama , The Future is Up to Us

[Glenn Parton]

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




 
 
WL,
 
Defeating the Republican Party is the politics of emergency, which is very 
different from building a deep, long-range radical movement, and that's why I 
vote Democratic unless there's a Green or Socialist who has a chance to win. 
 
I don't know why you say that "building a socialist movement is a middle class 
pipe dream"?
 
The idea of using "church time" for another project is a novel ideal. I like it!
 
I agree that America is undergoing an economic revolution to an 
electronic-technological regime, but the Subjective factor still lags behind?
 
Could you say more about "the historical errors of American communism". I think 
that  the ritualization of language and dogmatism are reasons why the 
socialists and communists parties have failed in America.
 
More later today
 
 
g
 
 

> 

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] American style

[Glenn Parton]

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



 WL,
 
I'm on my way out the door to my second job, but I will respond to both of your 
messages asap, probably tomorrow afternoon. Thank you very much. 
 
g
 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> a Dump Obama movement afoot: replace Obama in the primaries with a true 
> progressive. What's your take on this effort, as a Marxist? 
> 
> glenn 
> 
> Reply 
> 
> Progressive?
> 
> Richard Nixon himself (a man I loved to hate), was progressive concerning a 
> huge part of Civil Rights. But was he "progressive?" Nixon's 
> administration was the architect of official black capitalism and using 
> government as an 
> insurgent instrument to desegregate institutions. This reform of the 
> system was a precondition for its expansion. Nixon's administration coined 
> "affirmative action," demanding quotas as proof of desegregation policy. "Who 
> and how many as proof of policy" was the watchword. 
> 
> Today, the "reactionary right" has spent 30 years attacking this system of 
> affirmative action, quotas and so-called big government. 
> 
> Who and what is progressive in national politics ought to be weighed 
> against an on going living process, with differences between national, local 
> and governor sized elections. 
> 
> Brother, we're subject to be under martial law by October 2012. 
> 
> II. Progressive 
> 
> Opposing expansion of police power, seeking to strip from the executive 
> branch and intelligence, built up mandates of authority since Nixon, is 
> progressive in November 2010. Avoiding jail in America is progressive, every 
> since Paris Hilton and Martha Stewart. When jailing blonds becomes a public 
> ritual, the state - executive authority, is fighting women and anyone can be 
> jailed for something or another. 
> 
> "Who's next?" 
> 
> Betty Crocker? 
> 
> After Betty goes Aunt Jemina. 
> 
> Then, somebody who" looks like" Maria - Mexican immigrant housekeepers. We 
> wake up one morning and everyone's children are born in jail, with 
> biological tag implants and a prison record. 
> 
> Obama increases police and executive power, which makes him a cop's cop. 
> 
> Cop systems use government to hire people to spy on other people, jail them 
> and beat them up. Americans do not put on their job applications, "I want 
> to beat people up, jail them and spy on my mother." Lots of people within 
> the executive branch is progressive, opposing expansion of police power but 
> needed a job. 
> 
> Working for a "progressive presidential contender" inside and outside the 
> two party system seems to be "the question." 
> 
> Using ones tiny organization resources to shape "national party primary 
> candidates," is a waste of my time, money, patients and good humor as a 
> suggestion. If a third party candidate is the issue, then communists and 
> socialist recruit within this process. 
> 
> III. 
> 
> I do not advocate communists work within the Democratic Party to shape its 
> primary Presidential election in 2012 . . . or back in 2008, 04, 1998, 
> going back to Jesse Jackson first run for President. When "big Jesse" ran for 
> president, this was the first modern - post desegregation, breach in 
> national politics. Before "big Jesse" Presidential run I advocate nothing 
> other 
> than "Freedom Now" as the cutting edge of the fight for emancipation of the 
> proletariat. 
> 
> On the local level, working within the two party systems is a different 
> attitude. Specifically, we ran a local communist candidate within the 
> Democratic primary due to election laws outlawing third party candidates. 
> This 
> meant we went overboard and put the "hammer and sickle" - literally, on all 
> our 
> campaign literature and posters. As things turned out, going overboard was 
> the right thing to do. 
> 
> Detroit in the 1970's was on political fire. During the next election cycle 
> a combination of forces were able to overturn this state law. This 
> condition meant the Communist Labor Party and the Socialist Workers Party 
> could 
> run candidates on their party platforms. 
> 
> What happened is this: campaign handbills focused on the issue of the 
> election and policy 100% favorable to the workers. We spoke of George Edwards 
> being in the pocket of the banks in this kind of literature. In the paper - 
> communist press, we spoke of the banks and high finance, and the system of 
> capitalist exploitation. 
> 
> IV. 
> 
> Communists are going to recruit people in the Democratic Party, because 
> communists are involved in electoral work. My opinion is this; outside of 
> ones 
> organization support for a "

Re: [Marxism] American style

[Waistline2]

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



a Dump Obama movement afoot: replace Obama in the primaries with a true  
progressive. What's your take on this effort, as a Marxist? 
 
glenn 
 
Reply 
 
Progressive?
 
Richard Nixon himself (a man I loved to hate), was progressive concerning a 
 huge part of Civil Rights. But was he "progressive?" Nixon's 
administration was  the architect of official black capitalism and using 
government as an 
insurgent  instrument to desegregate institutions. This reform of the 
system was a  precondition for its expansion. Nixon's administration coined 
"affirmative  action," demanding quotas as proof of desegregation policy. "Who 
and how many as  proof of policy" was the watchword. 
 
Today, the "reactionary right" has spent 30 years attacking this system of  
affirmative action, quotas and so-called big government. 
 
Who and what is progressive in national politics ought to be weighed  
against an on going  living process, with differences between national,  local 
and governor sized elections. 
 
Brother, we're subject to be under martial law by October 2012. 
 
II. Progressive 
 
Opposing expansion of police power, seeking to strip from the executive  
branch and intelligence, built up mandates of authority since Nixon, is  
progressive in November 2010. Avoiding jail in America is progressive, every  
since Paris Hilton and Martha Stewart. When jailing blonds becomes a public  
ritual, the state - executive authority, is fighting women and anyone can be  
jailed for something or another. 
 
"Who's next?" 
 
Betty Crocker? 
 
After Betty goes Aunt Jemina. 
 
Then, somebody who" looks like" Maria - Mexican immigrant housekeepers. We  
wake up one morning and everyone's children are born in jail, with 
biological  tag implants and a prison record. 
 
Obama increases police and executive power, which makes him a cop's cop. 
 
Cop systems use government to hire people to spy on other people, jail them 
 and beat them up. Americans do not put on their job applications, "I want 
to  beat people up, jail them and spy on my mother." Lots of people within 
the  executive branch is progressive, opposing expansion of police power but 
needed a  job. 
 
Working for a "progressive presidential contender" inside and outside the  
two party system seems to be "the question." 
 
Using ones tiny organization resources to shape "national party primary  
candidates," is a waste of my time, money, patients and good humor as a  
suggestion. If a third party candidate is the issue, then communists and  
socialist recruit within this process. 
 
III. 
 
I do not advocate communists work within the Democratic Party to shape its  
primary Presidential election in 2012 . . . or back in 2008, 04, 1998, 
going  back to Jesse Jackson first run for President. When "big Jesse" ran for  
president, this was the first modern - post desegregation, breach in 
national  politics. Before "big Jesse" Presidential run I advocate nothing 
other 
than  "Freedom Now" as the cutting edge of the fight for emancipation of the  
proletariat. 
 
On the local level, working within the two party systems is a different  
attitude. Specifically, we ran a local communist candidate within the 
Democratic  primary due to election laws outlawing third party candidates. This 
meant we  went overboard and put the "hammer and sickle" - literally, on all 
our 
campaign  literature and posters. As things turned out, going overboard was 
the right  thing to do. 
 
Detroit in the 1970's was on political fire. During the next election cycle 
 a combination of forces were able to overturn this state law. This 
condition  meant the Communist Labor Party and the Socialist Workers Party 
could 
run  candidates on their party platforms. 
 
What happened is this: campaign handbills focused on the issue of the  
election and policy 100% favorable to the workers. We spoke of George Edwards  
being in the pocket of the banks in this kind of literature. In the paper -  
communist press, we spoke of the banks and high finance, and the system of  
capitalist exploitation. 
 
IV. 
 
Communists are going to recruit people in the Democratic Party, because  
communists are involved in electoral work. My opinion is this; outside of ones 
 organization support for a "Third Party" effort, it makes no sense to 
abandon  this work. It is enough for ones newspapers and pamphlets to implement 
"boycott  working within the democratic party" by omission, rather than 
polemic. 
 
The proletariat already boycotts elections and the electoral process. Thus, 
 communist literature doesn't spend much time focused on elections.  The  
proletariat in permanent intractable boycott doesn't want you giving them a  
handbill or petition having to do with political bums, and a bunch of 
thieves,  

Re: [Marxism] American style

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
I really like the communal effort of your organization, including "Rally 
Comrades." Of course some people know better than others, but that's not the 
main thing. Everyone, who is politically aware, has something worthwhile to 
say, and  the truth is an integral politics. In the later years of his life, 
Rudolf Bahro had some interesting things to say about the process of political 
integration in which not all perspectives are equal, but the aperspectival 
truth is a true synthesis. Do you know his later work? 
 
Anyhow, here's a question for you: There's a Dump Obama movement afoot: replace 
Obama in the primaries with a true progressive. What's your take on this 
effort, as a Marxist?
 
glenn
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> Perry's "Epoch of Social Revolution" sparked a massive debate within the 
> communist/socialist ideological currents. Initially, we were dubbed 
> "techno-communist," revisionist and deniers of "workers revolution" to speak 
> of a 
> new form of the proletariat birthed in correspondence to a new technology 
> regime. 
> 
>> 
>
> 
  

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] American style

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
Thank you. That's helpful. More later, after work.
 
glenn
 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American style

[Waistline2]

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




I'm now reading Nelson Peery's "Entering An epoch of Social Revolution,"  
and I see that he has the right focus. 
 
Pleased to meet you on Marxmail, courtesy of Louis Proyect. 
 
glenn 
 
Reply 
 
I been kicking around the list for about ten years, "mellowing out a bit."  
The list has become a surprising resource for me, thanks in part to the 
steam of  articles provided by Lou. 
 
Perry's "Epoch of Social Revolution" sparked a massive debate within the  
communist/socialist ideological currents. Initially, we were dubbed  
"techno-communist," revisionist and deniers of "workers revolution" to speak of 
 a 
new form of the proletariat birthed in correspondence to a new technology  
regime. 
 
Much of the initial debate has subsided, with most folks - not all,  
accepting our society is passing through a new - post industrial, revolution in 
 
the means of production and not merely a "communications revolution." As life 
 would have it, the bulk of our little group was concentrated in the 
Midwest -  Detroit and Chicago, and the Southwest, Cali and Texas, embodying a 
different  experience with American life than the experience on the  "east 
coast." The  impact of the new technology regime has been a lived experience 
from  longshoremen to autoworkers. 
 
My extended family contains three living generations of folks working in  
the auto industry and as union activists. The factory my dad walked into - 
Ford  Rouge Local 600 and the industry my generation children work in today is 
 profoundly different. Dad, an electrician and tinkerer, entered the 
industry in  the 1950's. We entered in the early 70's (older brother in 1968 
retiring in 2008  after 40 years with 30 years as a union rep and 10 years as 
an 
International  representative) and our kids entering in the late 90's and a 
couple of years  ago. Today plants are akin to walking onto a Star Trek 
science fiction set. The  difference is between walking to the local drug store 
to test the vacuum tubes  of early stereo record players and I-pods. 
 
The new technology literally destroys the value relation, and with it the  
basis of capitalism as exchange of commodity equivalents based on private  
ownership of means of production. At an early stage of the industrial  
revolution, the industrial advance grew the modern industrial working class in  
absolute terms and tore up the world of manual labor and manufacturing. The  
world of the industrial machine, industrial time concepts and industrial  
society in general, is being torn up in front of us. 
 
By 2030, when my newest grandchild will turn 21 and probably become 4th  
generation manager in auto, his generation will not dispute the deep social  
consequences that are stages/phases of application of a new revolutionary  
technology regime.  His generation will wonder what we were arguing about  in 
1998. 
 
Mindboggling change is to put it mildly. 
 
WL.
 
 


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] American style

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
Just finished "The Politics of Bipartisanship." It's a brilliant Marxist 
analysis of American electoral politics, and that's EXACTLY what is needed 
right now in my opinion. I have some reservations about what is said regarding 
the necessity of a Third Party, but that's OK because the most important thing 
at this historical moment is that WE have this conversation, and bring forth a 
lot of perspectives that will help us move forward.
 
I'm now reading Nelson Peery's "Entering An epoch of Social Revolution," and I 
see that he has the right focus.   
 
Pleased to  meet you on Marxmail, courtesy of Louis Proyect.
 
glenn
 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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




WL,
 
Thank you once again for your in-depth analysis of the American political 
scene. I get your basic point: the role of intellectual revolutionaries is to 
help the people in moving along what you call the "line of march. Simply put, 
you see workers, who are displaced by advancing technological society, engaging 
in more and more of a struggle against the State; they cannot really get at 
corporate employers, so they will increasingly demand the satisfaction of their 
needs from the State. In this way, the economic struggle becomes a political 
struggle, and with the help of revolutionaries, the collective awareness is 
ultimately reached that it is necessary (for the satisfaction of human needs) 
to make the means of production public property. Is that the gist of it? I find 
it to be a novel and insightful perspective that I need to further consider?
 
The manner in which "Rally Comrades" is organized and functions is fascinating, 
and I'm glad to hear that these kind of political-communal experiments are 
happening in America. As you know, America has its own history of Utopian 
experimentation, which may not be as bold or deep, generally speaking, as 
European-style alternative living and working circles, but there's a rich 
history here to be build on.
 
I'm going to read the new essay on the politics of bipartisanship this 
afternoon, and post some comments asap.
Naturally, I'm very interested to hear more about your class on "America and 
the Marxist approach". What else can you tell me about it?
 
glenn> 
> 
> Marx economic determinism - (how revolution in means of production and 
> corresponding political relations compel society to leaps to a new mode of 
> production),

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] American style

[Waistline2]

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


Yes, "Rally Comrades" has great material. Who writes those articles? They  
do make sense! I tried to subscribe just now, but the page gets "broken," so 
 I'll try again tomorrow, after I read the new essay you recommended, and 
I'll  probably get back to you tomorrow. 
 
Reply 
 
Rally has an editorial board and an interesting process. For instance am  
article from Detroit about Detroit would start with an individual but include 
 lengthy decision with comrades and go through several drafts. The 
intention is  to describe some kind of logic and real motion amongst people in 
real 
time. The  article is submitted to the editorial board for review.  What is 
being  reviewed is the class logic and dynamics of capital's breakdown from 
the  standpoint of revolution in the means of production. A Detroit article 
would not  simply talk about Detroit but areas of Michigan or the Rustbelt. 
 
Comments are made - written, and the article comes back to Detroit for  
rewrite and/or clarification. The purpose is striving to involve collectives  
rather than one individual. If the article is the product of one individual, 
the  question is "what is its purpose," no matter how good or accurate it 
may  be.  Individuals can submit articles and from time to time such article  
appear under the writer's name. 
 
I would never submit an article under my name for several reasons including 
 first the wisdom of a collective and the "material need" - living  
process, to hold intact a league of revolutionaries. The LRNA is not a  
Leninist 
sect seeking to achieve cohesiveness based on some notion of democratic  
centralism. Cohesiveness is rooted in the American style and history.   Plus, 
articles under your name are "yours" forever and no one wants to edit an  
individual. More often than not you are going to be wrong and violate a general 
 
theory premise of Marx. Then some comrade is going to ask, "Why didn't you 
ask  someone or get your article reviewed by other 'eyes' - "I's?" The only 
answer is  always "because I thought I was smarter than everyone else." 
 
I use Rally as a "location beacon." No matter what part of America I move  
to, I can locate myself within a larger spontaneous motion of the American  
working class.
 
WL. 


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] American-style

[Waistline2]

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



I'm not so naïve to think that simply telling folks the Truth is enough to  
change society, but I do think that Marx's economic determinism 
acknowledges the  transcending role of consciousness, and where else should we 
expect 
this  transcendence to come from if not from the working class or liberal 
class that  constitutes Capitalism? In other works, it's true, as you say that 
the serfs did  not overthrow Feudalism. The new emerging Capitalist class 
did that, but I don't  see a new class emerging to overthrow Capitalism 
without the leadership of  (working class) intellectuals. What do you think? 
 
glenn
 
Reply 
 
 
 
I agree. 
 
Marx economic determinism - (how revolution in means of production and  
corresponding political relations compel society to leaps to a new mode of  
production), define an environment where conscious activity works. Marx general 
 law of social revolution does not tell us what to do in the here and now.  
 My rule of thumb is "theory knows" and "doctrine does." 
 
Consciousness is a big word. Conscious awareness as activity, is bounded by 
 means of production, - the determinant. We dream the unrealizable and 
possess  the power of abstraction and this ability is always tempered by real 
things in  life. We need to know "where we are at" on the scale of 
"progressive  accumulation of means of production" and theory helps solve this 
"need to 
know."  Then there is the issue of class consciousness, two very big words. 
 
Class consciousness is not strike consciousness, or more pathetically  
"fighting the bosses," which is becoming apparent in the events in France. 
Class 
 consciousness is awareness that one must take the "commanding heights of 
state  power" to reorganize society to meet the needs of proletarians as a 
class. In my  opinion this is what "class for itself" means. 
 
The proletariat needs its "think tanks," proletarian and bourgeois/petty  
bourgeois intellectuals. We - proletarians, need intellectual life like a hog 
 needs slop. 
 
I. 
 
The "American mind" - an abstraction, and "American history behavior" is  
the American style.  America was founded by ideological groups and this  
requires a writer to state what words mean, because different ideological 
groups 
 imparted different meaning to the same word. "Revolution" meant something  
different to diverse groups in the 1770's.  This remains the case today. 
 
Overthrowing capital in favor of some form of socialism or overthrowing the 
 "bourgeois property relations" requires "political insurrection" or 
securing the  "commanding heights" of political power. 
 
What causes political insurrection? Political insurrection grows out of a  
political crisis. 
 
A thousand and one things can precipitate a political crisis, including the 
 landing of UFO's, a meteor hitting the earth, a tsunami, earth quake or 
everyone  getting up on the "wrong side of bed" on the same day. An 
insurrectionary  movement in an environment of revolution in the means of 
production 
is a  distinct thing. 
 
By revolution is meant something different than political insurrection,  
palace of military coup. 
 
Revolution comes about as the result of qualitative changes in the means of 
 production. Political insurrection does not require a qualitative change 
in the  means of production as a precondition. For revolution an antagonism 
must  develops between the new emerging economic relations (technology 
regime) and the  old, static political relations defining the old society. It 
is 
called  "antagonism" as a description of the logic of new means of production 
destroying  and sublating an entire old technology regime and its political 
superstructure.  The growth of the new technology regime is predicated upon 
destruction of the  old technology regime and its property relations. 
 
Under advanced economic communism, which can be defined today as 12th  
generation advanced robotics and we are at the third generation, revolution in  
the means of production no longer advance based on class antagonism, or the  
external collision of propertied classes. 
 
Revolution in our means of production, and then our living bourgeoisie in  
its political form is overthrowing the capital relation - (a historically  
evolved social relations of production based on wage labor form), in real 
time.  This is because the bourgeoisie is conscious of itself as a class and  
consciously experience every incremental advance in productive forces. In  
America we suffer but the capitalist face death in the market - go out of  
business. The politically dominant section of capital long ago sensed and  
understood it's disconnecting with commodity production or the commodity form. 
 
Revolution in the means of production destroys the old 

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
Yes, "Rally Commades" has great material. Who writes those articles? They do 
make sense! I tried to subscribe just now, but the page gets "broken," so I'll 
try again tomorrow, after I read the new essay you recommended, and I'll 
probably get back to you tomorrow.
 
Nice photo!
glenn
 

> 
> WL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Waistline2]

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




I looked at the League of Revolutionaries for a New America. What a  great 
perspective!, and I mean that sincerely. The essays are very clear and  
profound in my humble opinion. Of course I don't agree with all the major  
claims, but I do agree with most of them, and I'm still reading. 
 
Glenn 
 
Reply 
 
I assume you have read material from "Rally Comrades." 
 
It is really a good paper with an intense Marxist lens. I have read no  
paper on the socialist or communist ideological left that even comes close to  
the details and insights of each article. As a general rule I read every 
thread  on this list and about two hours of internet reading everyday before 
attending  all kinds of meetings and conducting a regular class on "America 
and the Marxist  approach."  Currently we are studying - reading out loud with 
discussion,  the "Future is Up to Us" by Nelson Peery.  Excellent book. 
 
Given the moment, allow me to suggest reading the March 2010 article "The  
Politics of Bipartisanship: Clearing the Way for the New Economy."  
_http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/articles/v20ed2art1.html_ 
(http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/articles/v20ed2art1.html)  
 
This is in light of the upcoming midterm election and Lou's article, "Bill  
Fletcher channels Gus Hall." 
 
Here is a picture of yours truly taken at the Detroit Social Forum,  
featured in the "People Tribune." 
_http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2010.07/PT.2010.07.10.shtml_ 
(http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2010.07/PT.2010.07.10.shtml) 
 
The League is not the kind of sectarian organization that spends its time  
instructing everyone on earth - (from inside Empire America), on "what to 
do."  Nor is it a so-called Leninist type organization. Its focus is the 
American  style, rather than imaginary "internationalism," more often than not 
just plain  American chauvinism. 
 
In all earnest I have read most of the "revolutionary papers" for 42 years  
and nothing really impresses me easy. I'm impressed by the paper and people 
 associated with this group.  They make sense. 
 
WL.
 
 


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] American-style

[Waistline2]

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


I will vote Tuesday and probably pass out some of John Conyers Jr. (14th  
Congressional District) literature, although I reside in the 13th. Support 
for  Conyers rest on his HR 676. 
 
90% o my vote will go to the Michigan Green’s. For Governor I will vote for 
 Virg Bernero, a Democrat due to his stand on several issues affecting 
unions and  the proletariat.  
 
I have an interest in the Governor of Wayne State University, Regent of  
University of Michigan, Trustee of Michigan State University, Governor and  
Lieutenant Governor and will vote against proposal 10-1 and 10-2. The first  
proposal seeks to convene a Constitutional Convention to revision the State  
Constitution. The second seeks to prohibit felons from holding government 
jobs,  which means excluding a class of people from lifetime government  
employment.  I am undecided on the Judiciary, but a few of the judges are  not 
that bad, given the nature of their jobs. 
 
The group I work with, League of Revolutionaries for a New America supports 
 and endorses no one in the election, which was the case in the past 
presidential  election. The voter turnout in Detroit might be 20% this time 
around.  
 
Then again, I voted in the August primary. 
 
WL. 


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] American-style

[Joaquín Bustelo]

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


On 10/23/2010 8:04 PM, Mark Lause wrote:
> Right now, is there any doubt that most people who call themselves
> "progressive" voted for Obama and are actively trying to rationalize a
> Democratic vote this election.  Frankly, I think they're less pushing things
> in a positive direction than my aging, bad-tempered cat, who has the good
> sense to screech his discontent from time to time.  Progressives who confine
> themselves to such things are a bridge to nowhere.

This is not the real problem. The problem is that there's no one else to 
vote for. Not in any realistic sense. And that, in turn, is a reflection 
of a deeper problem: There's no real, cohered, sustained social/protest 
movement that can give rise to an alternative in the electoral arena.

If campaigning for Democrats is a waste of time, what does that make 
railing against it in the abstract?

If God had meant for us to have a labor party, she would have given us a 
labor *movement.*

It is the reality that we have no labor movement that is at the root of 
our difficulties.

And I fear our difficulties have just begun. Things are getting very ugly.

Joaquín


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] American-style (sorry)

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
Don't apologize because this is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped to 
start: to examine the surface of American politics toward the goal of building 
a deep, long-range movement in America. I almost called this thread "Toward a 
Theory of Revolution (fundamental change) in America, but decided on the more 
general label of "21st Century American-style Socialism." It seems to me that 
there hasn't been a lot of really good comprehensive work of this kind in 
several decades, but I admit that I don't a have as close a relationship to the 
relevant literature as I once did. Nevertheless, fresh attempts are needed to 
identify the new forces or tendencies for revolution in America, as well as the 
counter-forces that function to preserve the status quo or worse. Your new post 
is a goldmine in this regard, so I will study it and get back to you asap?
glenn
 > 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reread what I wrote and   

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] American-style

[Waistline2]

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




The anti-intellectualism practiced within the Left is still a problem  as 
far as I can see? 21st Century American computer-technology makes possible a  
new revolutionary agency? What's your view about how to build, or even 
begin to  build, a collective revolutionary left? What do you think of using 
electoral  politics as a tool for getting our message out? 
 
glenn 
 
Reply 
 
Until we learn how to speak in terms that match the way the American  
peoples think things out in real time, we are in trouble. How people think  
things out in real time express the moment. This is the essence of the  
American 
style. 
 
Yes, the electoral arena is an indispensible area of work. This may not  
entail voting for a democrat or republican candidate in a local race; running  
ones own "independent" candidate or "third party efforts." Much depends on 
local  and state "third party laws," primary laws as who can vote for whom, 
forces  available for petition campaigns, etc. The real action is the voters 
and the  degree to which socialist literature can reach them. 
 
Voter registration remains a valid area of work the broad left can take  
part in. Living in Florida a couple of years gave me a new appreciation for  
voter registration and efforts to stay on the voting roll after Bush 2000. If 
in  a given area social forces are ripe for an independent working class 
candidate,  "go for it." If one is able to run a socialist or "Vote Communist 
Campaign" so  be it.  I do have some experience with successfully getting on 
the state  ballot from the 1970's. "Back in the day" the Michigan Socialist 
Workers Party  (SWP) and Communist Labor Party (CLP) successfully won 
ballot status during the  same election. If memory serves me correct, each 
candidate required 20,000  signatures. This meant actually engaging the voting 
section of the proletariat.  Since both parties name include "socialist" and 
"communist" this activity was a  beautiful thing. 
 
There was the 1996 formation of the US Labor Party, which might in the  
immediate future need summing up to avoid some of the pitfalls of sustaining a  
party of labor. One thing is certain; "from nothing comes nothing" and a 
new  Labor party is going to be built from fragments of the old organized 
labor  - trade union, movement and fragments of the Democratic and Republican  
Party, and all smaller parties across the breath and depth of America.  
American is a huge country and one policy seems to me a mistake. 
 
Electing better politicians is important and mean those expressing the  
striving and needs of the working class, from the lens and standpoint of its  
most destitute sector. 
 
I have zero "national grand strategy," only a generalized "line of march,"  
along the probable path our proletariat is increasingly pushed to travel as 
a  way to socially necessary means of life. For instance, "boycott all 
elections  without an alternative to Dems or Repubs" everyone in America means 
do not do  electoral work since there is no rational reason to take part in 
voter  registration in most places in America. 
 
Here is some of the problem: every time a major corporation publicly  
announces it is hiring, 10 - 30 thousand people show up. It is not yet clear to 
 
the American people that capital cannot employ all those willing to work.  
Electoral work for revolutionaries means taking this fact of our lives to 
voting  America and asks them "how do we solve this problem?" 
 
By revolutionaries I do not mean socialist and communists, some who are  
revolutionary and reactionary. By revolutionary is meant those fighting a  
practical struggle to make government, state and the system favorable to the  
proletariat. There, I've said it again . . . proletariat. 
 
II. 
 
A section of the proletariat and its intellectual counterpart begins to  
"think things out" independent of the bourgeoisie; to the degree the living  
proletariat connection with bourgeois property in the process of production 
is  broken. The proletariat is revolutionary in its decay as a class bonded 
to old  social relations of production. 
 
The industrial proletariat of our past was not revolutionary in  
relationship to industrial capital or financial industrial capital and its  
institutional relations in the superstructure.  This old proletariat was  
revolutionary in relations to manufacture, feudalism and the first stage of the 
 
industrial revolution. The failure of "social revolution of the proletariat" in 
 
the advanced countries was not a "subjective weakness of revolutionaries" - 
our  parents and their parents, but an objectivem-mmaterial, impossibility. No 
class  can overthrow the social relations of which it constitutes. 
 
Some deeply believe failure of revolution in Ame

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



WL,
 
I appreciate the thoughtful concern that you and a few others have given to 
this thread. You have just laid out what appears to me to be an original 
account of the meaning of the term "progressive," so I need to read it several 
times, ponder it, and then I will respond, probably tomorrow (mon) afternoon.
 
glenn
 
> From: waistli...@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:42:11 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style
> To: rai...@hotmail.com
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defining the politics and class sociology of "progressive" is a recurring 
> subject of this list. Is industrialism progressive on the scale of history? 
> During the period of the direct colonial system, one section of Marxism 
> defined resistance to direct colonial structures and combat against the 
> imperial storm troopers as progressive. During WW II "progressive" had a 
> specific 
> meaning. 
> 
> In the movie Casablanca, bar owner Rick is cast as a progressive democrat 
> in relationship to German fascism and its military representatives. Is Rick 
> progressive in fact? My opinion is Rick is progressive as an 
> anti-fascist/anti-communist democrat of the era of the war against the 
> fascist axis. 
> 
> When legal segregation was under dismantling, a complex intersection of 
> classes (social forces) pushed forth desegregating American society. 
> Desegregation generated its political polarity, as those for and against 
> desegregation. Those opposing desegregation were "reactionary." Communists 
> and 
> socialists operated within the general desegregation - progressive, political 
> polarity. 
> 
> It gets more complicated in real time. Progressive ought to be anchored in 
> real time. 
> 
> Obama is not progressive. Nor is he reactionary. Rather, I place Obama on 
> the "revolutionary right," increasingly fascist but not "reactionary." 
> 
> Obama is on the "revolutionary right" meaning he is fighting for a 
> revolutionary overhaul of the system based on a revolutionary new technology 
> regime and a new form of private property detached from surplus value 
> production. Obama politics of bipartisanship is not an impulse to return to 
> the past, 
> the meaning of reactionary, but an attempt to shape the evolutionary leap 
> to a new mode of production with a new form of private property. 
> 
> This approach implies a reactionary and revolutionary component of the 
> left, however one defines the left. "Left" for the past 100 years has meant 
> the 
> left bench of the bourgeoisie. Communists identified themselves with and 
> within the broad "left wing" during a period of evolutionary leap from 
> agrarian relations to industrial relations, or the period of destruction of 
> political feudalism. This period of history is long gone. 
> 
> It seems to me the "reactionary left" demands a return to the past, or 
> restoration of the buying and selling of labor ability, based on the social 
> relations of capital of an era gone. At its worse the reactionary Left calls 
> for restoration of the old Roosevelt Coalition, or a "new" New Deal, 
> believing this program rather than WW II brought the American economy out of 
> crisis. This feature of the "left" under conditions of an evolutionary leap 
> to a 
> new mode of production is not clear to all at this moment. 
> 
> Demanding the return of "our jobs" is neither progressive nor clever, but 
> apparently something we have to grapple with. Many working class folks hold 
> to magical thinking believing "we" can return to the post WW II period of 
> class fluidity and higher wages. 
> 
> It gets more complicated because the distressed segments of the proletariat 
> have no choice but to demand government aid. Is seeking government aid 
> progressive? Large corporations have no choice but to seek government bailout 
> facing market failure. General Motors and Chrysler are examples of 
> non-financial companies going "belly up." 
> 
> Real class struggle is a messy business, with complex overlapping demands 
> by all classes and class fragments, compelled to attack the system as it 
> exists. 
> 
> I don't seek to avoid this issue, but defining and clarif

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Waistline2]

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




Defining the politics and class sociology of "progressive" is a  recurring 
subject of this list. Is industrialism progressive on the scale of  history? 
During the period of the direct colonial system, one section of Marxism  
defined resistance to direct colonial structures and combat against the 
imperial  storm troopers as progressive. During WW II "progressive" had a 
specific 
 meaning. 
 
In the movie Casablanca, bar owner Rick is cast as a progressive democrat  
in relationship to German fascism and its military representatives. Is Rick  
progressive in fact? My opinion is Rick is progressive as an  
anti-fascist/anti-communist democrat of the era of the war against the fascist  
axis. 
 
When legal segregation was under dismantling, a complex intersection of  
classes (social forces) pushed forth desegregating American society.  
Desegregation generated its political polarity, as those for and against  
desegregation. Those opposing desegregation were "reactionary." Communists and  
socialists operated within the general desegregation - progressive, political  
polarity. 
 
It gets more complicated in real time. Progressive ought to be anchored in  
real time. 
 
Obama is not progressive. Nor is he reactionary. Rather, I place Obama on  
the "revolutionary right," increasingly fascist but not "reactionary." 
 
Obama is on the "revolutionary right" meaning he is fighting for a  
revolutionary overhaul of the system based on a revolutionary new technology  
regime and a new form of private property detached from surplus value  
production. Obama politics of bipartisanship is not an impulse to return to the 
 past, 
the meaning of reactionary, but an attempt to shape the evolutionary leap  
to a new mode of production with a new form of private property. 
 
This approach implies a reactionary and revolutionary component of the  
left, however one defines the left. "Left" for the past 100 years has meant the 
 left bench of the bourgeoisie. Communists identified themselves with and 
within  the broad "left wing" during a period of evolutionary leap from 
agrarian  relations to industrial relations, or the period of destruction of 
political  feudalism. This period of history is long gone. 
 
It seems to me the "reactionary left" demands a return to the past, or  
restoration of the buying and selling of labor ability, based on the social  
relations of capital of an era gone. At its worse the reactionary Left calls 
for  restoration of the old Roosevelt Coalition, or a "new" New Deal, 
believing this  program rather than WW II brought the American economy out of 
crisis. This  feature of the "left" under conditions of an evolutionary leap to 
a 
new mode of  production is not clear to all at this moment. 
 
Demanding the return of "our jobs" is neither progressive nor clever, but  
apparently something we have to grapple with. Many working class folks hold 
to  magical thinking believing "we" can return to the post WW II period of 
class  fluidity and higher wages. 
 
It gets more complicated because the distressed segments of the proletariat 
 have no choice but to demand government aid. Is seeking government aid  
progressive? Large corporations have no choice but to seek government bailout  
facing market failure. General Motors and Chrysler are examples of 
non-financial  companies going "belly up." 
 
Real class struggle is a messy business, with complex overlapping demands  
by all classes and class fragments, compelled to attack the system as it 
exists. 
 
I don't seek to avoid this issue, but defining and clarifying what is  
"progressive" outside an actual context is virtually impossible. As a curve of  
history, the rising bourgeoisie manifest and express a new "revolutionary  
agency" - is progressive, in the form of new means of production, a new form 
of  wealth (private property), as these new forms of social intercourse 
evolved in  antagonism with the old dying feudal social order. Here, 
progressive 
implies  conveyor of "new revolutionary social relations of production." 
 
My current premise is that we are not facing just "the business cycle."  
What Marxists call "crisis of overproduction." We face the business cycle 
crisis  during a leap - transition, to a new mode of production predicated on a 
new  technology regime or advanced robotics, or new means of production. 
 
Hence, a section of the ruling class as capital and a section of the  
working class as proletariat have been effectively ejected from the old capital 
 
social relation founded on the buying and selling of labor ability.  Thus,  
the old political system - superstructure, is being attacked and torn up by 
the  dominant ruling clique of capital, and must come under assault by the  
proletariat exclud

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Tom,
 
I'm all for mass actions, and there's a multitude of ways tot get our ideas 
out. I happen to believe in the primacy of radical political 
education/communication, and perhaps that's one more reason why working within 
the uncensored "progressive" blogs appeals to me, but focusing on issues that 
most/many people already agree with never seems to lead to  Alternative 
consciousness, but starting with S//C also has its problems, as Mark noted ? 
What's needed is a leap of consciousness, and that probably has a lot to do 
with personal experience?
 
glenn
 
 
 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Mark,
 
The danger is that  We don't get to the point of clearly articulating and 
explaining the End of Capitalism and the concrete Alternative. I suspect that 
there are a significant  number of closet radicals in the progressive movement, 
but they get lost in process/strategy. I actually favor a more direct approach. 
I see your point about presenting things as a "shift of control", but  the 
situation is truly ambiguous because even workers control would not necessarily 
mean liberation unless they also reached emancipatory consciousness. Agree?
 
glenn
 
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:54:27 -0400
> From: markala...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style
> To: rai...@hotmail.com
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> I suppose that socialism in the abstract isn't a good start. We start with
> immediate problems and begin to pose questions in such a way as to clarify
> that socialism is the solution. 

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] American-style

[Thomas Bias]

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


I agree. This is why I thought (and still think) that it was a good idea
enthusiastically to build the 10-2-10 rally, in spite of the organizers'
intent on using it to promote voting for the Democrats. 175,000-200,000
workers--disproportionately workers of color--in the streets is a good
thing, full stop, case closed. Socialists earning a reputation for doing the
work to make it successful is also a good thing, causing people to take our
IDEAS that much more seriously. In the past we had the problem that the
Democrats and their representatives in the labor movement counterposed mass
action to voting Democratic, and all too often mass action didn't happen.
This year, they took a gamble, and socialists did the right thing by seizing
the opportunity.

Tom



I suppose that socialism in the abstract isn't a good start.  We start with
immediate problems and begin to pose questions in such a way as to clarify
that socialism is the solution.  Lead the horse to water and don't worry
about making it drink.  It'll get thirsty enough. We just make sure it knows
where to go...

Indeed, most people actually have very good impulses on most things: the
wars, health care, environment, etc.  Most people favor many of the things
that we do, but they just don't know how to get them.  This is why we
present these things in such a way as to emphasize a shift in
control...democratic oversight and accountability rather than regulatory
solutions, etc.

The inverse of this involves emphasizing the irrelevance of solutions that
remain within the confines of capitalism...the Democratic/Republican
flim-flam, particularly.

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] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


I suppose that socialism in the abstract isn't a good start.  We start with
immediate problems and begin to pose questions in such a way as to clarify
that socialism is the solution.  Lead the horse to water and don't worry
about making it drink.  It'll get thirsty enough. We just make sure it knows
where to go...

Indeed, most people actually have very good impulses on most things: the
wars, health care, environment, etc.  Most people favor many of the things
that we do, but they just don't know how to get them.  This is why we
present these things in such a way as to emphasize a shift in
control...democratic oversight and accountability rather than regulatory
solutions, etc.

The inverse of this involves emphasizing the irrelevance of solutions that
remain within the confines of capitalism...the Democratic/Republican
flim-flam, particularly.

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Mark,
 
I didn't say, or mean to say, that We are not getting our ideas to  relevant 
blogs. I'm just asking for ideas on the best way to present Socialist/C ideas 
to, say, Open Salon and the Seminal (now known as MYFDL)? , if you think the 
task is important? The Daily KOZ seems to be too much pro-capitalism to bother 
with. Perhaps Left Talk? 
 
g
 
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> I called bloggers a "mixed bag" not only because of the diverse politics,
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


I called bloggers a "mixed bag" not only because of the diverse politics,
but the fact that blogs cater to different audiences and function on a
different scale.  You or I can set up a blog.  There are blogs about the
Marxist-Leninist struggle for proletarian clarity amidst the factional
frenzy (yawn), etc.

The problem is that there are legions of blogs (and should we throw in
Facebook communities?) that could provide us with a platform.  And when I
say legions, I'm not exaggerating

Be specific.  What are the top five blogs are we not getting our ideas to?

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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




Hey Mark,
 
I don’t want to defend Olbermann, especially since I’ve been railing against 
the Progressive leadership for months now on other websites, and because that’s 
not the focus of my question to fellow Socialists and Communists at the moment, 
so let’s go back to the “mixed bag of bloggers” that you referred to. Within 
this diverse group, there’s a lot of intelligent folks, Can We? how can We? 
move them to radical/higher consciousness? More specifically, it there a way to 
tailor our message so that it appeals to those who are full of facts, 
information, electoral processes and issues, but lack Vision of a completely 
different life-style?
 
glenn

> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> Yes, Glenn. When the media gives someone like Keith Olbermann a platform,
> he is, for all practical purposes, a corporate mouthpiece.
> 
> 
  

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] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


Yes, Glenn.  When the media gives someone like Keith Olbermann a platform,
he is, for all practical purposes, a corporate mouthpiece.

If MSNBC gives me my own talk show, I'd be, for all practical purposes, a
corporate mouthpiece.

There is no Santa Claus.

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



 
 
Are you telling me, Mark, that Keith Olbermann is a corporate mouthpiece? I 
don't think so? He's not a radical, and that's a big problem in my mind, but 
he's a broadcaster, I believe, hat We shouldn't write off? Actually, I don't 
think there's much chance of folks like me influencing Olbermann, but what 
about all the little professional and amateur intellectual progressives out 
there? Is it worthwhile trying to build a bridge with them? I'm not sure myself?
 
I'm retiring for the evening, but I be back online tomorrow morning.
 
g
 
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


Glenn Parton  wrote:

>
> I'm not sure that we can or should ignore or minimize the importance of the
> intellectual progressive broadcasters and bloggers. Let's face it, Countdown
> (with Keith Olberman) helps to quiet Fox Noise, or what do you think? I too
> dislike one-way communication/education, and that's why I only pariticipate
> on open blogs, and I find that they do provide a lot of valuable facts, and
> up-to-the-minute information, but little radical consciousness? So far I
> have not been able to make much head way in terms of radicalizing these
> folks, and that's why I'm asking for insights from others about possible
> ways of doing so. I'm a mailman (who has read a lot of books to be sure)
> with not much time or energy at this point in my life for travel, or out of
> town meetings, especially since I live in a rural community in N. CA.
> Perhaps I've been forced to believe in the battle of ideas on the internet,
> or perhaps this really is an important forum for making history in the 21st
> Century?
>

There's a connection between medium and message.  Don't conflate bloggers
with broadcasters.  The former are a mixed bag, and the latter are a
basically corporate mouthpieces, whether they're on Fox or MSNBC.  One of
them sells a special patent medicine to people who believe it'll protect
them from alien abductions.  The other calls it something else and sells it
to people who want to regrow a fine head of hair.  But it's all snake oil.

Just think about the simple reform of campaign finance reform and the
virtually complete consignment of American politics to unlimited corporate
spending.  All that money winds up going to corporate media.  Neither MSNBC
nor Fox will ever lift a finger to hurt their own bottom line.

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Tom,
 
I agree with most of what you say, but I'm not sure that we can or should 
ignore or minimize the importance of the intellectual progressive broadcasters 
and bloggers. Let's face it, Countdown (with Keith Olberman) helps to quiet Fox 
Noise, or what do you think? I too dislike one-way communication/education, and 
that's why I only pariticipate on open blogs, and I find that they do provide a 
lot of valuable facts, and up-to-the-minute information, but little radical 
consciousness? So far I have not been able to make much head way in terms of 
radicalizing these folks, and that's why I'm asking for insights from others 
about possible ways of doing so. I'm a mailman (who has read a lot of books to 
be sure) with not much time or energy at this point in my life for travel, or 
out of town meetings, especially since I live in a rural community in N. CA. 
Perhaps I've been forced to believe in the battle of ideas on the internet, or 
perhaps this really is an important forum for making history in the 21st 
Century? 
 
I'll be 60 in  a few months.
g
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> Glenn, there's no contradiction between being a worker with one's hands on
> the means of production and being an intellectual
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Wouldn'd you say that intellectual progressives also need to hear the
> socialist message, or do you think that they can't be reached?
> 
> glenn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Thomas Bias]

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


Glenn, there's no contradiction between being a worker with one's hands on
the means of production and being an intellectual. As the employing class
squeezes the working class, and especially the nonwhite section of the
working class, new leaders will emerge from the fightback struggle as it
develops. These are the REAL intellectuals, and those with whom it is most
important that socialists must engage in dialogue. And be sure of one other
thing: the education process is not just a one-way process. Socialists like
you and me must do as much listening as talking and be open to learning from
emerging leaders in the working class and communities of color. We may have
read more books, but that doesn't mean that we have all the answers, and the
best education is the education that one receives in the course of the
struggle. I'm 60 years old now, and I'm not even close to graduating yet.

Tom

Tom,
 
Wouldn'd you say that intellectual progressives also need to hear the
socialist message, or do you think that they can't be reached?
 
glenn




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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Tom,
 
Wouldn'd you say that intellectual progressives also need to hear the socialist 
message, or do you think that they can't be reached?
 
glenn
 
> From: bia...@embarqmail.com
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:57:05 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style
> To: rai...@hotmail.com
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> It's not so much what people THINK, as who they are. The people to whom we
> should reach out are the organized workers and people of color who are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



I see what you mean now! Do you think that some progressives are pushing things 
in the right direction? How about the professional progressives, for lack of  
better words,  who blog everyday for specific issues that might actually 
improve the quality of life in America for ordinary people at least a little? 
Any ideas about how We, who believe that the whole thing is still moving in the 
wrong direction, bridge with these folks?I agree with Tom's point about the 
importance of building respect, but I'm not likely to personally bond with most 
of the young professional progressives who are an important political force in 
this country?
glenn
 
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> But if you want to build bridges someplace, you'd better have a good, clear
> idea of where you're hoping to anchor the other end of the bridge, right?
>
  

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] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


But if you want to build bridges someplace, you'd better have a good, clear
idea of where you're hoping to anchor the other end of the bridge, right?
The trouble with "progressive" is that it's always adopted by people who are
all over the map politically.  The root of the term "progress" is the
opposite of "regress."  It means moving forward as opposed to moving
backwards.  I always tell my students, what this means actually  depends on
which way you're facing.

Right now, is there any doubt that most people who call themselves
"progressive" voted for Obama and are actively trying to rationalize a
Democratic vote this election.  Frankly, I think they're less pushing things
in a positive direction than my aging, bad-tempered cat, who has the good
sense to screech his discontent from time to time.  Progressives who confine
themselves to such things are a bridge to nowhere.

Where Tom's just hit the nail on the head is a question of who's getting off
their consumerist ballot-casting butts and doing something.

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] American-style

[Thomas Bias]

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


It's not so much what people THINK, as who they are. The people to whom we
should reach out are the organized workers and people of color who are
willing to get up off their couches and take political action. To know who
they are, all you had to do was go to Washington on 2 October. The people
who attended the ONWT rally are the people who need to hear the socialist
message, and there is no doubt in my mind that they are receptive to it. But
it has to be presented in an intelligent and respectful way, and that's the
challenge we face. The way to start building a bridge to them is to be
involved in action like ONWT and to be seen as people who get things done in
a positive way. Earning respect in ACTION is the first step to convincing
others of our ideas.

Tom

-Original Message-

ML,
 
The term "progressive" is used everywhere in American politics. I believe it
has a general meaning, if not a singular meaning. Wouldn't you agree? If you
don't like that term, then think of people in America who are  Left of
Obama, but not (yet?) Socialists or Communists. Clealy, there are many
people like Olbermann, for example, who speak, write, blog and organize
everyday around issues that would improve the lives of ordinary folks, but
show no hint, as far as I can tell, of being Socialists. My question is" How
do WE  build a bridge with them?
 
glenn




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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



ML,
 
The term "progressive" is used everywhere in American politics. I believe it 
has a general meaning, if not a singular meaning. Wouldn't you agree? If you 
don't like that term, then think of people in America who are  Left of Obama, 
but not (yet?) Socialists or Communists. Clealy, there are many people like 
Olbermann, for example, who speak, write, blog and organize everyday around 
issues that would improve the lives of ordinary folks, but show no hint, as far 
as I can tell, of being Socialists. My question is" How do WE  build a bridge 
with them?
 
glenn
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> The notion that there is so singular thing as "a progressive movement" is
> mistaken. As far as that goes, so is the very idea that we can define the
> term "progressive" in any meaningful way...that is, something that reflects
> how the term's used in the wider world...particularly as it's
> self-applied
> 
  

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] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


The notion that there is so singular thing as "a progressive movement" is
mistaken.  As far as that goes, so is the very idea that we can define the
term "progressive" in any meaningful way...that is, something that reflects
how the term's used in the wider world...particularly as it's
self-applied

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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




WL.
 
Your observation that progressives are focused on issues that put human needs 
ahead of corporate profits is spot on, and you provide a useful insight that We 
(from the 60s) were driven more by moral imperatives (such as ending the war in 
Vietnam) than the (potentially) “new revolutionaries,” who are mostly trying to 
avoid growing destitution (in part because We were privileged middle and upper 
middle class youth). I’m still pondering your comments overall, and it would be 
helpful to know what you think not only about the base of the progressive 
movement--which is pretty much what you have characterized to me, I 
believe--but what’s your take on the leadership of the progressive movement? I 
mean not only folks such as Olbermann, David Corn, Norman Soloman, and the 
other stars or celebrities, taken as a whole, but what about all the 
progressive bloggers out there? It seems to me that some of the best and 
brightest young people in America are to be found in this arena, but not many 
of them are socialists/communists, as far has I can see? What is a good way for 
radicals to relate to these different layers of the progressive movement?
 
glenn 

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] American-style

[Thomas Bias]

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


I was first attracted to the Socialist Workers Party by its campaign  
of Fred Halstead for President and Paul Boutelle for Vice President  
in 1968. I was involved with the Democratic party at the time—working  
for Eugene McCarthy's campaign—but I liked Halstead and Boutelle's  
straightforward message, as a contrast to some of the mealymouthed,  
compromising stuff from my own candidate. Stay tuned: I'm planning on  
telling the whole story of my experience with the Democratic party  
later this month or early next.

Tom


On Oct 22, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Glenn Parton wrote:

> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m wondering if electoral politics can work for the purpose of  
> getting the Communist/Socialist message out, to publicly explain  
> the symptoms of the money-sickness in America, and offer a cure. It  
> seems clear enough that any politician and/or activist who ignores  
> the basic fact that America requires a whole new foundation, is  
> building a house of cards, but since there are many bright folks,  
> especially youth, in Dem-Progressive politics, there might be a  
> good way to build a bridge with them, and eventually bring them  
> over to our side, so I would like to hear what others think?
>
> glenn
>   
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/ 
> marxism/biastg%40embarqmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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




 
I’m wondering if electoral politics can work for the purpose of getting the 
Communist/Socialist message out, to publicly explain the symptoms of the 
money-sickness in America, and offer a cure. It seems clear enough that any 
politician and/or activist who ignores the basic fact that America requires a 
whole new foundation, is building a house of cards, but since there are many 
bright folks, especially youth, in Dem-Progressive politics, there might be a 
good way to build a bridge with them, and eventually bring them over to our 
side, so I would like to hear what others think?
 
glenn
  

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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




 
I would put it this way: America needs a planned economy for the satisfaction 
of basic/vital needs for all. Agree?
 
glenn

 
 
> From: waistli...@aol.com
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:39:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style
> To: rai...@hotmail.com
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> Broad advocacy for "Nationalization" and explanation of its meaning to the 
> working class masses is on the agenda. The "agenda" grows out of the 
> spontaneous impulses of all classes struggling to mitigate and survive crisis 
> of 
> capital in an environment of revolution in the means of production. General 
> Motors and Chrysler have been partially nationalized. 
> 
> Health care or "Medicare for all" with zero cost to the individual is 
> something our working class is spontaneously fighting for in the here and 
> now. 
> Expanded "section 8" - "Public housing," with no cost to the individual or 
> cost based on income. Full nationalization of public education; zero cost to 
> the local state jurisdictions or the individual. State jurisdictions 
> should have no role in education delivery. Nationalization of utilities; a 
> nationalized system of public transportation. Nationalize pensions. 
> 
> In a few words, nationalization of socially necessary means of life, with 
> zero demand of labor exchange as a precondition for delivery of services. 
> 
> As a vision the "national state system" and federal authority - government, 
> should be barred and prohibited from owning any property, including 
> military installations. Abolish the stock market; abolish the new non-banking 
> financial institutions. Heck, abolish the banking system and temporarily 
> replace it with credit unions and payday loan centers. 
> 
> WL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[S. Artesian]

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


Why is the question of land rents so critical?
- Original Message - 
From: "Matthew Russo" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style


> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> An "American style Socialism" would first address the question of land
> rent.  Raising RE property taxes would be the appropriate transitional
> programmatic outcome.
> 
> -Matt



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] American-style

[Tom Cod]

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


Hey, I'd be careful with that, remember Prop 13?  raise real estate taxes on
whom?  you?  Think about it.  Potentially a good ultraleft "transitional
demand" . . . to drive the "middle class" to the camp of the right.  Raise
them on commercial realty and residential realty over a certain valuation.
 And when I say commercial realty I expect a careful examination of ag land
as it relates to small farmers which should be excluded from that.


>

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] American-style

[Mark Lause]

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


I agree with Matt on land rent, and share his sense that: "Raising RE
property taxes would be the appropriate transitional programmatic outcome."


But there's nothing 21st century about it.  It's strictly 19th century.
Right from Henry George, who got it from the previous generation of working
class land reformers, who built on Tom Paine's Agrarian Justice, etc.

\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] American-style

[Matthew Russo]

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


An "American style Socialism" would first address the question of land
rent.  Raising RE property taxes would be the appropriate transitional
programmatic outcome.

-Matt

"As a newcomer to the list, I have observed so far that there doesn't seem
to be much general discussion about developing a 21st Century American-style
Socialism. Should we begin one (in addition to our concerns with revolutions
elsewhere of course)? The relationship between American Progressives and
Socialists could be is a starting point, and I have a few ideas in this
regard, if there is any interest?"

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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



Ok, I'll put something together over the next week. Pleasant dreams!
 
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:36:40 -0400
> From: l...@panix.com
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] American-style
> To: rai...@hotmail.com
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
> 
> 
> On 10/17/10 1:12 PM, Glenn Parton wrote:
> 
> > Louis Proyect,
> >
> > As a newcomer to the list, I have observed so far that there doesn't
> > seem to be much general discussion about developing a 21st Century
> > American-style Socialism. Should we begin one (in addition to our
> > concerns with revolutions elsewhere of course)? The relationship
> > between American Progressives and Socialists could be is a starting
> > point, and I have a few ideas in this regard, if there is any
> > interest?
> 
> Go ahead and start a conversation. This list is fairly permissive and 
> just about anything goes, as long as I didn't wake up on the wrong side 
> of bed that day. Just keep your posts within 35,000 bytes.
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rain51%40hotmail.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

Re: [Marxism] American-style

[Louis Proyect]

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


On 10/17/10 1:12 PM, Glenn Parton wrote:

> Louis Proyect,
>
> As a newcomer to the list, I have observed so far that there doesn't
> seem to be much general discussion about developing a 21st Century
> American-style Socialism. Should we begin one (in addition to our
> concerns with revolutions elsewhere of course)? The relationship
> between American Progressives and Socialists could be is a starting
> point, and I have a few ideas in this regard, if there is any
> interest?

Go ahead and start a conversation. This list is fairly permissive and 
just about anything goes, as long as I didn't wake up on the wrong side 
of bed that day. Just keep your posts within 35,000 bytes.


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] American-style

[Glenn Parton]

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



 Louis Proyect, 
 
As a newcomer to the list, I have observed so far that there doesn't seem to be 
much general discussion about developing a 21st Century American-style 
Socialism. Should we begin one (in addition to our concerns with revolutions 
elsewhere of course)? The relationship between American Progressives and 
Socialists could be is a starting point, and I have a few ideas in this regard, 
if there is any interest?
  

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