M-TH: (Fwd) Last Magazine, from the people who brought you LM
They're Not Stopping. Last Magazine - I wonder how long they can remain quiet, I doubt Mike Hume will being going into early retirement just yet. --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:55:23 +0100 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brendan O'Neill) From: Brendan O'Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Last Magazine, from the people who brought you LM Dear friend, As someone who worked on LM magazine before it was closed down by the ITN v LM libel trial, I'm proud to be involved in Last Magazine. Last Magazine is the last word in "libertarian nonsense". It is 124 pages of everything that needs to be said about the timid, terrified, cynical, censorious, undemocratic, dumbed-down, ignorant, inf "LM was sentenced to death by gagging order after just three agenda-setting years", says editor Mick Hume. "But the spirit of LM is alive and kicking against the pricks. There is life after a libel t "Last Magazine will be the shortest-lived title in publishing history. It is a one-off, too good for a culture so intolerant of dissent and offensive opinions. Enjoy it while it lasts." (Memo to lawyers. This is not LM. This is Last Magazine. Any resemblance to publications living or dead is entirely intellectual.) --- Last Magazine costs £7.50 plus postage. To order your copy, phone the credit card hotline on +44 (0) 20 7269 9222 Or email me back for more information. Yours sincerely, Brendan O'Neill --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: List problems
David, So am I. Though they all appear to be on the same subject, but that might just be a coincidence. But out of interest why are you subscribed twice? To increase the number of subscribers? John > Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:42:50 +0100 (BST) > From: David Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: M-TH: List problems > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > I'm seeing lots of duplicate messages from the marxism-thaxis list with > the headers included in the body of the message, so the subject is blank > for example. It might a problem at my end but I'm seeing it on both of > my emails addresses that are subscribed. > > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jim heartfield wrote: > [...] > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
Chris said that he > we are going to have to learn how to use this proportional electoral system I > predict over the next ten years a group will emerge that will put a more > radical reasonably-coherent reformist position. I think the LSA already had put a radical reasonably-coherent reformist position and that even under a Proportional electoral system they were embarrassingly rejected. Also If it will take them ten year to be in a position to properly contest these elections, perhaps longer to win a seat, still longer to attain the position of official opposition, yet more years to gain control of the assembly. then there are all the other local authorities and the national and UK Parliaments. They would then have to move from a radical reformist position to a revolutionary one. Through out which them mustn't create further delays by internal disagreement. This may well be the right road to revolution but I don't suppose any of us will still be alive to confirm it. > This should still not be about tailing behind bourgeois parties or > bourgeois politics. But without the first past the post system, that is > less of a danger. Countries which do have a PR parliamentary system still have marginalised and ineffectual Marxist parties. The Parliamentary 'Communist' Parties in France and Italy do not appear to be any closer to their non-Parliamentary equivalents in Britain. As i said the only place I can think that the electoral road did succeed was in Chile but it was a rather short-lived victory. > How this can link up with revolution, the question John Walker poses, is > that this radical party must articulate issues that make sense in terms of > immediate tactics as well as with long term goals. One can articulate issues without running for governmental office. In the two issues that have been raise - the LSA and the MAy Day Protesters - it is the latter that have got the most coverage to the most people and have raised the wider political issues of Global capitalism and the environment. The LSA has reached virtually no-one outside London and where it has it has just criticized Blair. And in London itself they are hardly the key subject of conversation. The revolution may well be a slow process. but the Left seem to be still digging themselves out of a hole whereas the MAy Day protest does at least seem to have made it onto the first rung of the ladder. But Perhaps i am hoping for too much too soon. > Meanwhile we will have to see whether the extra-parliamentary anarchist > anti-capital protesters will find a more effective way of locating their > direct action within the context of a larger political space which they > have to open up with the help of serious radical reformers. They do seem to have open up a far larger political space with their direct action that the Left have with their electioneering. But to divert this activity into the narrow world of an local Assembly and pressurising of the Major to act upon his few power strikes me a severely misdirected. > Don't expect the IMF to schedule its next major international conference > here in London in the near future! politically I would prefer that they did meet here. Ken brave step to threaten to ban them (which isn't in his discretion anyway) is hardly a blow to global capital as they will probably just meet somewhere else more peaceful. Still unconvinced, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election
> I just read, all four of your posts on Red Ken and the Mayoralty race. > Bollocks!~!!! Is that aimed at me or them? Or even my selective quotation. > If the "Bolsheviks" in the UK, want to pretend that their strategic > entrism into the Labour Party, to deliver a blow to Blairite "Third Way" > Neo-Liberalism, is a Leninist policy, I say let their more naive rank and > filers believe that. I not sure anyone has ever claimed that Socialist Organiser is Leninist. > I think anyone with any experiernce, on the Brit Left, > is hoping and working to makesure, Ken, wins, this platform. A platform to make reactionary allainces with anyone (anyone but the Left) willing to bolster his credibility in ordered to allow him to make his rather particular 'Left' (and often, such as his support for the War in Yugoslavia, etc., not so Left) sounding soundbites. >The powers he > will have, will be constrained, in any case, so those "betrayals" that > abstentionist ultra-leftists, like Walker worries about, Walker is the abstentionist ultra-leftist! And i don't feel betrayed as if you listen to what the Labour Party or Livingstone actually s will stand a better > chance of being resisted the stronger the vote and the extra-parliamentary > movement, inside and outside, the Labour Party. > If Walker, has sometype of insurrectionary strategy or dredging up the > "Vanguard Party", well then, I guess he inhabits some other zone of reality. > (Unless he is an anarchist or council communist, that I can respect more!) > > Michael > Pugliese > - Original Message - > From: J.WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:20 AM > Subject: M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election > > > > *Socialist Outlook* May, p.3 > > > > 'A Livingstone victory will be a key defeat for Blairism' > > 'Combined by a serious vote for the London Socialist Allaince' > > 'LSA supporter should be pleased so long as it establishes itself as > > the clear fifth force in this election' [the fifth! - jw] 'Support for > > Livingstone - a difficult task given his failure to take a lead, or > > even produce basic campaign material' His 'disgraceful statement that > > he intends to appoint a repesentative from each of the four (sic) main > > parties as his Deputy' 'He must be forced to withdraw' his clear > > statement to choose Tories and Liberal Democrats as partners [so > > partnership Labour (Blairites) is OK! - jw] 'He has made noises that > > he may not mount a full frontal challenge to the government' on the > > key-issue of tube privatisation. They call on him to build a huge mass > > movement campaign for a massive demonstration in the autumn. > > > > JW - So Livingstone is against Blairism (but not Labourism!); he is > > unlikely to lead, organise or possible even support any mass campaign > > for improving the condition of the working class in London; he is more > > interested in an alliance with Tories and Liberals than to even > > acknowlege the demands of his own socialist supporters and would like > > to rejoin the always-has-been-always-will-be Labour Party. And yet > > they are going to call on the people of London to vote for him. So > > when he does betray the fact that his 'Red Ken' credential are merely > > a façade and the people in London begin to suffer under his > > administration the those people will turn to the Left and say 'well > > you told us to vote for him!' This could possibilly, if linked to > > other developments in London, lead them into the hands of the fascists > > and the anarchist who have maintained a consistent opposition. > > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > Assistant Editor information Rylands IRS division JRULM e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 275 3741 fax: 275 7207 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
David wrote: > Turnout in elections is certainly falling and will probably fall further > at the next general election, but IMHO this represents not a rejection of > the 'parliamentary road' than a rejection of the possibility of any kind > of change. Yes I agree. I may actively abstain from election but I am greatly in the minority. The mass of the working class either just see all politics as beside the point or think of partys that 'they're all the same'. Only the anarchists and those Marxists who have always opposed the Labour Party actually reject it (either permanently or temporarilily > As far tactics go, elections seem the high point of political activity. They seem to be the high point of media interest in politics. And we mistake our interest in it for it actually being important. > British trade unions are in process of becoming insurance salesmen and > student politics is concerned either with issues of narrow self-interest > (like tuition fees) or with politically correct causes like Tibet. What > would you suggest for some alternative to contesting elections? I agree with that too. As i said i would look to the new movements which have sprung up separate from the Labour Party (and largely from the Left). The Anti-roads protestors, animal rights, campaigns against deportations, anti-racist and anti-fascist groups, prisoners rights, those anti-capitalist demonstrators, etc. People using new methods of stuggle and not relying on the offical Labour movement to pass motions and make election promises. If one compares the 'parliamentary road' to the non-parliamentary one then one can see how litlle progress the former makes. From the miners candidates of the 19th century who, as soon as they got into office we won over by the privelege and new lifestyle. The first Communist MP, R B Cunningham Graham, just spent most of his time being thrown out of the chamber. He raised various issues but was fustrated at not actually being able to DO anything in parliament. And John Burns MP great achievement was the march into the West End of London and throw bricks through all the windows. I don't know of anything he did in Parliament itself. In the 20th century the Communist Party only got a few MPs elected and they just operated as a left-wing section of the Labour Party (and seemed quite satisfied in doing so). Whereas outside the narrow confines of electioneering we saw the movement for the 10 Hour Day, the General Strike, the mass unemployed movement, the suffragettes, the fight against the Fascists, the Irish hunger strike, the Gay Liberation Front, the 1981 and 1984 uprising in the prodominantly black communities, Greenham Common women, the miners strike, the Poll Tax movement, the Strangeways revolt, opposition to the Gulf War, the anti-deportation campaigns, the anti-roads protests, the anti-capitalism demostrations. There are probably thousands I've missed. But these seem to me to be key to building a mass movement with the possiblility of leading in a revolutionary direction in a way that electing a handful of people to a bourgeoie talking shop just doesn't seem to. I honestly cannot see how one goes from elections to revolutions (without repeating the disasterous mistakes of Allende in Chile). Others may argue that electioneering is just a part of the struggle but in practice it does seem to overshadow all else. John Walker John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
Chris replied: > Proportional voting and tactical voting are becoming more important here. > Although there are delays in the London counting, one result tonight shows > massive tactical voting got the Conservative MP out in a Parliamentary > by-election, with Labour voters switching to Liberal Democrat. I'm afraid the whole parliamentary system leaves me completely cold I really don't care if their are more Liberals or Labour or Tories - history, since universal(ish) suffrage, has shown that in office their actions are all much the same. Though some argument could be made that Labour gets away with a little more actually regressive acts than the Tories would dare to. > Ken's vote is partly a protest vote and most votes are votes against someone. A protest against what - not capitalism, not privatisation (Ken want the Tube to be funded by the banks rather than business partnerships), not against cuts in services for the least well off and the least able in London. Its a vote for one manipulator of the media against another. In actual fact he is likely to get half of the votes from a turn out of only 30-40 per cent of the voters of London (ignoring those not registered to vote but including all those people with an extra home in London - like two-homes Ken!). So from this 17.5 per cent support we know that a significant number are people who actually cast their Assembly vote for the Tories, Liberals, New Labour and the Greens. It is a protest vote but it doesn't seem to be the sort of protest imagined by the Left. > All this talk of entrism is a waste of time. Serious discussion of tactical > voting is not. There is an advantage in having at least one radical left > representative in the Greater London Assembly. Voting for the Left is not tactical voting its just a wasted vote which if you are merely anti-Tory (and I'm not) simply splits the vote. Unless I am much mistaken the Left has done so badly it will not even get the 5 per cent needed to get even one person elected. Yet the Greens may well get 3! All they have done is to follow on the coat-tails of Livingstone who despite all their complaints is still hoping to rejoin the Labour Party and campaign for Blair's re-election in next years election. My main argument (as I am not keen on just going over the old debates of anti-parliamentarianism) is that the Left in its opposition to New Labour either harks back to a false Golden Age of Old Labour which it cannot attain or cannot see beyond elections as the key way forward. One group which this will seek to alienate is the poorest sections of the working class (around here in the local election less that 9 per cent voted!) and the new movements of environmental protesters, refugee campaigns and the Anti-Capitalist activists. As more and more of them reject the parliamentary road as moribund and a diversion it is becoming more and more significant for the Left. It is not a question of prinicipled objection but just that tactically, at the moment, it does not seem to be very relevant. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
Dear comrades, I have been quietly reading the Left press in relation to the London Election and Ken Livingstone London's Mayoral candidate which is happening today. A large section of the Trotskyist Left and the Marxist Leninist CPGB are backing Ken Livingstone and have gathered themselves together into the London Socialist Alliance and will stand for the Greater London Authority (where if they are lucky they may win just one seat!). As someone who leans more towards the position of William Morris and the Socialist League of the 1880s (I haven't yet found a parliamentary or council election where I would actually vote - though I'm not actually opposed in principle) I find their positions untenable. They call for a break from Blair but this leave completely the nature of the Labour Party itself and how far they rely on Old Labour and the Labour Left. In my opinion Blair does is not a aberration in the Labour party but constant with its very founding ethos of Keir Hardy, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Snowden, MacDonald, etc... He just says openly what the Labour party has always done in practice. For a flavour of the debate I have trawled through a small sample and quote them in the following emails [with my own comments in square brackets or as JW - ]. I'm I the only one who cannot make any sense of what on earth they think their up to and their inability to come to a coherent position. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Morning Star on London Elections
They are not supporting the LSA but their position though more bizaar is still similar in struggling to react to the situation. *Morning Star* 29.3.2000. - the CPB opposes mayors - wanted Livingstone to stay in the Labour Party - the CPB supports a vote for Ken Livingstone as Mayor 'Socialist and Trad Unionists in the Labour Party should not fragment the left in the Party.' A vote for Ken would 'deal a bloody nose to Blair' [big deal! - jw] 'A vote for the Communist and progressive list will be a vote for the working class and democratic policies against big business' 'A vote for Labour in the constituencies will be a vote for the mass electorial party of the organised Labour movement, which must be won back to progressive policies' ['won back' - it never was progressive! - JW] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Workers Power on the London Elections (2)
*Workers Power*, May, p.15 Quoting Livingstone's biographer Carvel, that in the great battles of the GLC he did 'not mobilise the people who were most effected by the Lord's judgement [on cheap travel fares]: the poor, the unemployed and the housebound.' 'He refused to call for industrial action of transport workers even though the unions and workers were keen.' They tell of his betrayal of the Miners and of other councils trying to withstand Tory cuts. 'Without an actual break by the Labour-affiliated unions the existing reformist party, a new mini-reformist party would be a joke' '100 years of Labour history show that a reformist, parliamentary party never defends workers and always subordinates the workers' interest to electorial victory' And then quite incredibly they say, 'As far a affiliation to Labour is concerned, we don't say "disaffiliate now". That would concede ground to Blair without a battle. Unions should maintain their affiliation, in order to fight inside Labour against the Blair leadership.' [! - jw] Assistant Editor information Rylands IRS division JRULM e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 275 3741 fax: 275 7207 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election
*Socialist Outlook* May, p.3 'A Livingstone victory will be a key defeat for Blairism' 'Combined by a serious vote for the London Socialist Allaince' 'LSA supporter should be pleased so long as it establishes itself as the clear fifth force in this election' [the fifth! - jw] 'Support for Livingstone - a difficult task given his failure to take a lead, or even produce basic campaign material' His 'disgraceful statement that he intends to appoint a repesentative from each of the four (sic) main parties as his Deputy' 'He must be forced to withdraw' his clear statement to choose Tories and Liberal Democrats as partners [so partnership Labour (Blairites) is OK! - jw] 'He has made noises that he may not mount a full frontal challenge to the government' on the key-issue of tube privatisation. They call on him to build a huge mass movement campaign for a massive demonstration in the autumn. JW - So Livingstone is against Blairism (but not Labourism!); he is unlikely to lead, organise or possible even support any mass campaign for improving the condition of the working class in London; he is more interested in an alliance with Tories and Liberals than to even acknowlege the demands of his own socialist supporters and would like to rejoin the always-has-been-always-will-be Labour Party. And yet they are going to call on the people of London to vote for him. So when he does betray the fact that his 'Red Ken' credential are merely a façade and the people in London begin to suffer under his administration the those people will turn to the Left and say 'well you told us to vote for him!' This could possibilly, if linked to other developments in London, lead them into the hands of the fascists and the anarchist who have maintained a consistent opposition. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Workers Power on the London Elections (1)
*Workers Power* (March 2000) pp.2 & 14. Who having called for a vote for Labour in 1997 admit: 'Parliamentary and council politics are, at the best of times, a sham. The GLA will have fewer powers than most parish councils. Which seems to be contradicted by: 'Workers Power will make the GLA a focus of struggle' 'Global capitalism means a return to "old Labour" is impossible: capitalism can no longer afford the reforms it once delivered'. We need a working class party 'that fights election in the knowledge that the real power does not lie in parliament or the town hall.' JW - they also have a whole page feature on the lesson for the LSA from Lenin and the Duma. This article makes no sense as the situation in Russia was so different to that in present day Britain. As the article argues the Bolshevics used their election as a platform on which to avoid arrest and to prevent comrades being imprisoned or exiled. Russia had not even managed to attain a stable parliamentary system and therefore the tactics are not comparable to a local election for an assembly which few would argue is under threat of constantly being disolved. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: (Fwd) policing strategy?
Thought this might be of interest relating to the May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations in London. Equally up here in Manchester an enormous number of horses and police vans were deployed all over the city centre to deal with around a matter of 100s of people. Also I notice on the national news this morning that they charged the manchester demonstrators with drugs offences - so perhaps they were mad anarchist spliff-wielding thugs attempting to bring down the state by getting the population of manchester high on the fumes!!! John --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:47:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: policing strategy? From: John Lindsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: John Lindsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I was interested last nite to be turned off a bus at Elephant and Castle and have to walk to Waterloo, where police had closed the streets.. I don't know how large this cordon was, but we are talking miles not yards from parliament sq for a demo of 3k? and this was incidently after 10pm! Apart from the impact on public transport, I wonder whether we are seeing the state setting its agenda by talking up the significance of something which managed to make all the front pages this morning... and preparing for a new mayor whose response was completely predictable? sorry to bore capital and class with such parochial matters :) Assistant Editor information Rylands IRS division JRULM e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 275 3741 fax: 275 7207 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: this is progressive/ China
harles, I agreed with every thing you said about the nature of China today. The only think I would want to add was to your remark: > Despite its obvious shortcomings, I still happen to view China as a > socialist country, though just hanging on, and retain the perspective > that it remains possible for China to once again reverse direction to > the left*only this time on the basis of a considerably more advanced > economy and a much larger proportion of the population in the working > class. I think to reverse the situation would require a massive change in direction. Once Capital has its hold on any other economic system by its very nature it will take hold and destroy that system - it is always parasitic. And it will destroy Socialism if allowed to festor just like it destroyed Feudalism. to do nothing is to allow it to grow. It doesn't matter if one looks at China or a North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. unless the people actually do something to actively surpress the spread of Capital it will surely rampage throughout the economy. These countries, in their isolation and in the absolute need for them to survive free from direct intervention from Imperialism will - without future revolutions in other countries - eventually cease to be socialist at all. I think that would be a further defeat for socialism throughout the world - but that, I'm afraid, is the times we live in. But we should be under the illussion that these countries can make a political choice to remain socialist and yet economically to be allowing greater and greater access for Capital. Yours still hoping, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Putative about Putin
Chris wrote: > I think it is more an attempt to forge a special relationship with Blair in > which they are using each other. Putin is a creature created by the > oligarch media owners in Russia. He has been well advised by media > specialists about how to manage his image. They have clearly liaised > closely with Alistair Campbell, Blair's expert spin doctor, in > orchestrating the visit by Tony and Cheryl last month to meet the Putin's > at a special performance of "War and Peace". > > Blair has always sought to use personal charm and dynamism to help Britain > punch above its weight. He now seeks to present himself as an intermediary > between Putin and Clinton, especially on the strategic arms limitation > negotiations, Surely this is to reduce political analysis to clever tricks with smoke and mirrors. That it is all a matter of individual personalities and internal propaganda advantage. This might be interesting comment for the bourgeois press (and their largely proletarian and middle class readership) but surely Marxists should aim for a little more indepth analysis of the real underlying factors for a possible (historic) alliance between Russia and Britain, beyond the photo-oportunities with smart suits and fashionable wives. In my view the real important factor appear in your later brief paragraph: > The press release also refers to financial talks between Britain and > Russia, designed of course for Britain to get some tactical advantage > relative to German and French capitalism in Russia. We'll wait and see which is the more important... Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Gay magazine censored by NetBenef
Comrades, As a follow-up to an earlier posting I forwarded about internet censorship at the end of March. John Walker >X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Outcast Magazine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Outcast Magazine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: 'Net Libel' law to be challenged in Europe >Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:07:36 +0100 >Organization: Outcast Publishing Limited >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 >X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >P R E S S R E L E A S E >For immediate use - 12th April 2000 > > >Outcast editor to challenge 'Net Libel' law in the >European Court of Human Rights > > >The editor of a radical current affairs magazine has begun a legal >challenge to amend the law that holds Internet Service Providers >(ISPs) liable for the content of all websites they host. It will be >the first European Court case concerning freedom of expression on the >Internet. > >Chris Morris will argue that the current law effectively prevents >small magazines and individuals from publishing controversial >articles on the Internet. Outcast's own website was suspended two >weeks ago because lawyers for a rival magazine warned Outcast's ISP, >NetBenefit PLC, that an article due to appear on the site next month >might be defamatory to their client. The site was closed down >immediately and is now hosted in exile on a server in America. > >Morris will be represented by David Price, a leading libel lawyer, >who will argue that the current law breaches Article 10 of the >European Convention of Human Rights - the right to freedom of speech. > >Chris Morris, said today: > >'The current law is unworkable. Whereas editors can make informed >decisions about whether to publish controversial articles, having >heard all the evidence, ISPs can only decide whether or not they >trust the word of the journalist. It would be very expensive for >them to fact check every article, so they err on the side of caution. > >'Ministers have been unable to give an assurance that this issue will >be given parliamentary time. A legal challenge seems to me to be the >only way to put this issue on the agenda, and ensure that the law is >clarified. > >'My case will not make it any easier for journalists to publish >libellous or dishonest material. I believe that journalists and >editors must always be held to account. But we should be accountable >to the courts, not to an ISP whose only interest in the article is a >commercial one.' > > >Notes to editors: > >- Outcast is a queer current affairs magazine run by volunteers. >Contributors include Peter Tatchell, Ken Livingstone MP, David Borrow >MP, Paul Burston, Mark Simpson, Chas Newkey-Burden, Emma Butcher and >many other well-known writers. > >- The magazine's website can be found at >http://www.outcastmagazine.co.uk === John Walker email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Gay magazine censored by NetBenef
I thought this may be of interest to any Left group which has a web page hosted by a commercial company. John Walker --- Forwarded Message Follows --- To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:38:22 +0100 From: "OutRage!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [or-britisles] GAGGED: Gay magazine censored by NetBenefit PLC Press Release For immediate use - 30th March 2000 GAGGED: Community magazine's website censored by Pink Paper publishers and NetBenefit PLC Lawyers acting for Chronos Publishing Limited have succeeded in censoring Outcast magazine's website because they claim an article *might* be published on the site at some point in the future, and that such an article *might* be critical of their client. The remarkable announcement was made yesterday evening by NetBenefit PLC, the company which currently hosts the website. The company says it was warned by Mischon de Reya solicitors that it would be jointly liable for any defamatory content that was published by Outcast, and decided take preventative action. In a letter to the magazine's editor, NetBenefit said: "While reserving our rights, under our terms and conditions, to suspend your site without notice at any time, we advise you that we will suspend your website with effect from 6pm today unless we receive from your solicitors written assurance that the entire content of your website does not contain any defamatory material." That letter arrived at 4pm yesterday, two hours before the 6pm deadline, although the warning letter from Mishcon de Reya was sent to NetBenefit nearly two weeks ago. Outcast - a small community-run publication - could not afford a solicitor who could give the necessary assurance at such short notice, so the website was shut down at 7pm. Outcast's editor, Chris Morris, said today: "This precedent appears to allow any firm of solicitors to censor a magazine's entire website because they are concerned about one article - an article which they haven't even seen, because it hasn't yet been published. "NetBenefit has over-reacted to the Demon net libel case. As would most big Internet companies, they have decided to side with the big, rich firm of solicitors against a small community-run magazine, because it is easier and less risky for them to do so. That is very worrying for anyone who believes in debate and free speech." Further information: Chris Morris, 020-8354 0790 Notes to editors: - Outcast is a queer current affairs magazine run by a group of volunteers. Contributors include Peter Tatchell, Ken Livingstone MP, David Borrow MP, Paul Burston, Mark Simpson, Chas Newkey-Burden and many other well-known writers. - The case of Laurence Godfrey v Demon Internet, settled out of court today, is expected to prompt legislation that states ISPs are not responsible for the content of the e-mail accounts, newsgroups or websites they host. Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 1. Fill in the brief application 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2646/7/_/628620/_/954423716/ Community email addresses: Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL's: http://www.outrage.org.uk http://www.onelist.com/community/or-britisles --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: (Fwd) re:Livingstone
This was in the letters page of last week's Weekly Worker (I hope neither the paper or comrade Biddulph mine my circulating it). I thought it might be useful as it is a first hand account of what is going on in London. JohnWalker --- Forwarded Message Follows --- LSA and Livingstone The recent London Socialist Alliance rally certainly left its mark in terms of enthusiastic campaigning for socialism. But what kind of political mark will it make? The rally was predominantly left social democratic in political tone, which was set by the Socialist Workers Party. In Paul Foot's speech, the implicit and explicit theme was that socialism was easy: no problems - it is the most simple thing in the world. There are homeless; there are empty houses - what is easier than to put them together? We are all on the same side - forget about the details and sectarian squabbles. Let us all stand as socialists with Ken Livingstone. All we need is activists to encourage workers to have the confidence to act. We have to transform ourselves to transform capitalism. For the working class to become hegemonic in society entails immense difficulties, which can be overcome, but only if we address the problems and raise our political culture and theory to overcome the obstacles. A fighting mood is not enough. The devil is in the detail and debating our differences is not necessarily sectarian. We need agitators, but in the ideological sense of the Putney debates in the English Revolution. Anne Murphy was the only speaker to raise the problem that Ken Livingstone and his slate might not be on our side - if Ken chooses rich, liberal Tories and less rich liberals or a rainbow coalition rather than a working class slate. The meeting ignored the possibility of "keeping the Trots out of sight", as the Evening Standard advised. This was to avoid debating complicated tactical and other political differences. But this was surely just the meeting where such debates should take place, to raise not just the mood, but the consciousness of the movement. Pat Stack, the SWP chair, had ruled out any open debate from the floor at the outset of the meeting. So comrades could not discuss how a rainbow coalition might effect the politics of Ken as a symbol of working class discontent. Another implicit theme of the meeting which surfaced in a number of speeches was an emotional nostalgia for a lost workers' party (old Labour). The naive sentiment that before New Labour the Labour Party was to some extent vaguely socialist or somehow belonged to us. So those who considered themselves old Labour and those outside the Labour Party who had similar values could all get together in non-sectarian unity against New Labour. This non-aggression pact between the SWP and old Labour meant that the wider political issues of the direction and character of the LSA and the need for a new mass communist party were fudged. The new workers' party could be a resurgence of old Labour and the ousting of the New Labour leadership - with a little help from the far left. Piers Corbyn, one of the carefully pre-selected speakers from the floor, was a symbol of this mood. He told the meeting he had resigned. Not from the Labour Party, but from his post of New Labour campaigns officer in Southwark. He could not bring himself to campaign for Dobson, but then again he could not bring himself to resign from the Labour Party. Candy Udwin also struck an emotional social democratic note when she said her New Labour personnel manager - who is her rival candidate in the elections - should not even be in the Labour Party, let alone its candidate. But New Labour is exactly where this personnel manager, who supports privatisation and witch hunts against trade unionists, should be. Where else would she be politically? The vague emotionalism about the Labour Party being gradually stolen from us is another example of the fact that organisational independence does not mean political independence from Labourism. Anne Murphy was arguably the only speaker to systematically present a political perspective that went beyond the spontaneous politics of the mayoral campaign. Most of the speeches simply repeated points about undemocratic stitch-up and so o
Re: M-TH: Livingstone stands in London
>Hugh: It's a question of a movement being built >around >Livingstone's candidacy >gather behind it all the popular >disaffection and hatred for New Labour's neo-liberal Tory policies I am always amazed at the left's dogged support for the pro-Imperialist, pro-Capitalist, Opporunist, racist and chauvinist Labour Party - even when it is attacking it. It always attempts to rescue some glimmer of Socialism from it or some historical act ot individual that proves it has a socialist heart even if it has a capialist face. Hugh narrows his attack on the part to its New Labour leadership. A leadership voted for by most of its members which stood in the last election and was backed by Livingstone, the Labour left and most of the left outside the Labour Party (other than those who stood their own candidates). He attacks their neo-liberal Tory policies as if the Old Labour social democratic and opportunnist policies were so much better. If one actually compares the record of Labour and Tory dispassionately then it is often the Labour party which has shown itself most capable of carring out the most reactionary acts which the Tories wouldn't have got away with so easily (A point Engels makes). >From carpet-bombing Kurdistan in 1924 to extending the bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999. In between which it applauded the execution of James Connelly, supporting the war effort in both world wars, paved the way for the safe handing over of Viet Nam to the French and of indonesia to the Dutch, the conscript war in Korea. All the works of Old Labour. It brought in the first of a series of racist Immigration Acts, sent the troops into Ireland, introduced Diplock courts and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, extended the 'sus' laws against Black people, fought the Grunwick strike, the Notting Hill Carnival and defended the National Front rally leading to the death of Blair Peach. Which bit of Old Labour was so good? New Labour isn't so new - it just the same old Party. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Monthy Review - friend or foe
Comrades, Just thought I would forward this to the list. Does anyone know whether Ellen Wood is the ideal person to be editing the Monthly Review or if the board was right in removing her to make way for someone more radical. John Date sent:Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:38:12 + Organization: University of Warwick Subject: Urgent -- Crisis at Monthly Review/Ellen Wood's removal From: "Mr. Gregory Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to:"Mr. Gregory Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comrades, Moves to remove Ellen Wood as an editor of Monthly Review are underway. Please find below a letter addressed to members of the Board of the Monthly Review Foundation. Hope you will sign it. Please include your name and (if applicable) your affiliation at the bottom of the letter (following 'Yours in solidarity,'). Pass it on to anyone else who might be supportive. A modest number of signatures has been collected in the past three days -- among them Chomsky, Brenner, Aijaz Ahmad -- but time is short. Please address your reply directly to me, at [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Members of the Board of the Monthly Review Foundation Dear friends, We are writing to express our alarm about reports that some Board members of the MR Foundation are seeking the resignation or removal of Ellen Meiksins Wood as an editor of Monthly Review. We believe such a move would do irreparable damage to MRs future as a significant institution of the socialist left. As people who have read, subscribed to, supported, and written for Monthly Review, we implore you to do whatever is necessary to prevent Ellens resignation or removal. We are well aware that we lack knowledge of the specific disputes and grievances, imagined or real, which have caused some Board members to contemplate this destructive course of action. Yet, this can be something of an advantage at a moment like this. Removal from the day-to-day operations often provides a distance from which to better see the larger picture. And what we see is a terrible threat to MRs position as a major institution of the left. One of the great and enduring strengths of MR has been its spirit of socialist pluralism its tolerance, indeed encouragement, of a range of differences and viewpoints that inhabit a common space of critical Marxism, of an independent socialism that, as Paul Sweezy puts it in the May 1999 MR is "revolutionary, non-reformist, non-revisionist and at the same time non-dogmatic, non-fundamentalist." The addition of Ellen as an editor fit beautifully with this ethos. The author of many major books of socialist scholarship, Ellens work is distinguished by its critical, independent, non-sectarian spirit and its exceptional originality. When Paul and Harry wrote in the March 1997 MR that, with Ellens appointment as an editor, they had an answer and "a good one" to the "essential continuity" of MR, we agreed wholeheartedly. We couldnt imagine a better person to carry forward MRs commitment to intelligent, thoughtful and provocative socialist analysis. And her untiring work on behalf of Monthly Review over the past three years has fully vindicated that judgment. To throw away everything that the addition of Ellen has meant to MR would be irresponsible and reckless in the extreme. What Noam Chomsky wrote in MRs November 1999 fundraising appeal bears quoting in this context. We all appreciate, he wrote, the importance of "stable, long-lasting institutions of an independent left reliable, searching, stimulating thought and debate without the debilitating factionalism that has been such a painful internal barrier to progress." "I have to admit," he continued, "that a while back, I was personally concerned about the continuity of this enterprise, which has played such a critically important role. With Ellen now taking on a leading role, those concerns are gone. There couldnt have been a finer choice . . ." We agree as, we think, do hundreds upon hundreds of others who have supported MR over the years. A move to push Ellen out of Monthly Review could only hurt the magazine and damage MRs public image, its reputation as a bastion of socialist sanity free of the splits, purges and factionalism that have repeatedly undermined the left. We call on all members of the Board of the Monthly Review Foundation to do everything in their power to avert this course of events. We implore you to find the intelligence, good sense, solidarity, and generosity of spirit to resolve differences without a damaging and debilitating parting of the ways. You owe it to yourselves. And you owe it to the many of us who look to MR for another fifty years of work "stimulating thought and debate without the debilitating factionalism that has been such a painful barrier to progress." The future of a major institution of the left is yours to preserve, or to squander. W
Re: M-TH: Idealist discussion of quantum theory
Chris, What exactly is you concern? I have only briefly glanced through the article and the review a few pages earlier. Does your possible objection lie in the fact that the experiment would appear to bolster Schrodinger's thought experiment (I am personally rather hostile to thought experiments per se) which as I understand it - from the few, contractory, accounts I have read - is an undialectical 'proof' for idealism (or possibly just Kantianism? Or possibly I'm wrong?) As far as I can see the Boulder group experiment appears to be just an improvement of the measuring device and a new error-correction scheme. My scientific background is virtually non-existant and my understanding of the difference between classical and quantum is rather vague. What is the relationship between this experiment and dialectics versus idealism, in simple(ish) terms? Thanks for alterting us to this article John P.S. I presume from the silence that the discussion on Gramsci has died a death. Chris wrote: > This abstract from the 20 Jan 00 edition of Nature suggests there is an > undialectical idealism in the discussion of quantum theory in the form of > stories about "Schrödinger's cat". > The implications of this argument about quantum theory are IMO not clear: > whether it can still apply to non-closed systems i.e. actual reality, > rather than an experiment with an artificially restriced number of variables. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Gramsci on the State
Chris wrote: > Gramsci is not a revisionist. A revisionist means a Marxist pariah, > with a label hung round his neck. That is hardly a technical definition of the word. Your right, it is often just used as a means of abuse but there again one of your claims was that Gramsci was misused. In my experience revisionism seems to refer to those people within tradition orthodox Marxism (particularly that which goes from Marx to Engels to Lenin) who think that after a point it faltered (through Stalin & Soviet dogmaticism) and seek to revise Marxism in light of this. This usually means the rejection of the assumed positivism and determinism associated with Engels, for some perceived purer Marx-based Marxism. I think this was definitely the case with Croce and Gentile. The question is how far Gramsci's critique of them allows him to break away from being tarred with the same brush. One of the main points of contention in regard to this is whether Gramsci shares a certain amount of their idealism (or even philosophic realism in a Kantian sense) in his denial of the independent existence of the external world separate from human cognition. Chris wrote: > political power determines the only strategy capable of undermining > the present order and leading to a socialist transformation: a war of > position, or trench warfare; while the war of movement, or frontal attack, > which was successful in the very different circumstances of tsarist Russia. Your quote just seems to offer another form of the same military metaphor. What is a proletarian or bourgeois 'trench'? Where is the 'front' of capitalism? > Are you in favour of frontal revolutionary attack in Western Europe? > If so how will you avoid being isolated and defeated? Trench warfare - if I remember my history correctly - did not win the war. In fact, it resulted in mass carnage and human destruction on an horrific scale with little advantage to either side. The full frontal attack you associate with the October revolution was, in comparison with the war in the Western trenches, both more successful and less destructive. Even in the case of trench warfare, in the end, the only way to secure a victory was to send men over the top in a full frontal attack. No wonder Gramsci has been perverted by revisionists, reformists and reactionaries when his language is so pliable that almost any meaning could be made from it. Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Gramsci on the State
Chris, You seem to have come to a point of stalemate as to in what way Gramsci is or is not a revisionist, but IMO both side have offered little evidence from which anyone, who is not well versed in Gramsci-ism, could come to a reasoned conclusion either way. On the basis of clarification rather than harsh criticism could you elaborate on a few of the points you raise? You talk of the: > analysis of whether the balance of forces is now suited to a war of > position or a war of movement? What on earth is 'a war of position' or 'a war of movement'? Again these smack, not of theoretical tools related to the class struggle, but broader, bland terms arising more from the general tradition of radical continental European political theory and philosophy. Your conclusion that: > Gramsci's is a method that says in effect, never stop struggling > look for every opportunity for advance even when the balance of forces look >unfavourable. Cats in a bag struggle and, in doing so, tear each other apart. Struggle is not an end in itself. The question is not whether he was in favour of struggle (which is a consequence of class based societies) but the direction and rate of advance. Also when you say that: > Maybe some people make rightist deviations in the name of Gramsci > but what is the evidence that Gramsci had illusions about the > fundamental class character of the state and is a "revisionist"? Is it just a small number of people? Or do almost all (present company excepted) those who look to Gramsci pervert his true intentions? Was Gramsci the only Gramsci-ian? (candidates are to illustrate their answers with specific examples) :-) Finally just a minor point you say that > his experience concentrated by imprisonment under state power What was his experience? More importantly was he active inside prison? Was he still connected to the movement outside? Or were his own theoretical museings a more important use of his time? Prison is not an excuse for inactivity or lack of political involvement. Many political figures have had experience in prison and people like Bobby Sands and the Irish hunger strikers, Mrs Pankhurst and the suffragettes, Nelson Mandela, Steve Bilko, George Jackson, Angela Davies, Winston Silcott, Mumia Abu Jamal, etc., etc. either managed to continue their active struggle within the confines of the prison and / or remained an important part of the movement outside. Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Gramsci on the State
Hi all (though ALL at the moment doesn't seem to be many!), David B wrote in relation to Gramski's theory that it was the: > doctrine that revolution is evolution and will only take place when all > the objective pre-conditions are present - namely a fully developed > working class (and culture) etc - as determined by petty bourgeois > intellectuals. This just about sums-up my fear about my very brief reading of him and from what Chris has said. That although he probably does not outrightly say so this appears to lie behind his rather woolly (with the odd caveat of a revolutionary buzzword) rhetoric. A sort of mix of Communist Party practice and interests with a more revolutionary sounding Fabianism. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Gramsci on the State
Hello all, Everyone seems to be very quiet at the moment leaving Chris and Hugh to fight it out among themselves (and my posts received no replies either). Perhaps this list has moved from theory into practice and so their are only the inactive ones left ! (N.B. That was a joke) Well Chris and Hugh, I found your discussion on Gramski very interesting but I do not really know enough about him to comment much (as I said when Chris raised it in relation to Ali). But I am afraid I am still not sure quite what he argued or whether I agree with his fundamental position or not? Although I disagree with all Hugh's Trotskist attacks nevertheless I do find myself feeling highly skeptical about Gramski. Over the new year I also looked at some of his pre-prison writings (because the CUP book is the only one I have and not because of any of the peculiar comments you made about him writing in prison ?!?!?) and found them far from convincing. Part of the problem may be in the comment that Chris made about his theory applying to the state in advanced capitalist countries and his theory appears to be confined to (or tailored to, or appeals to) the Communist Parties in those countries. Are their many Gramscites in the oppressed nations? Also I still haven't the faintest idea what hegemony is. Or whether it IS (in a material sense) at all. But I can see how all this might fit very well with Chris interest in Marxism and psychology and part of that great effort to combine Marx with Freud. Which, even if it were possible, I'm sure I would not find it very palatable. I would rather stick with an idea of the state based on its physical manifestations with a view of consciousness still based on the Marxist definition based on the effect of the material world. But perhaps I still misunderstand Gramski and he would agree too. I remain suspicious but not unconvincable. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: Vote for Karl Marx!
Just to pick up on another old thread from before the new year. In our discussion of the Person of the Millennium list Einstein seems to have been put into the camp of the reactionaries (unlike the much more dubious Gandhi, Mandela and King). A defence of his revolutionary credentials and an example of his Marxist writing was forwarded to another Marxist List which I thought might be interesting to pass on. For the sake of space I have cut the 1st half of Einstein's article but the whole thing has been reprinted in the May 1998 edition of the Monthly Review and appears on their website at: http//www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm >From: CyberBrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein--Time's Person of the Century >Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 21:16:37 -0800 > > >>Time Magazine just named Albert Einstein "Person of > >>the Century." Bourgeois society hails Einstein as a > >>genius, as one who has contributed immensely to the > >>revolutionization of science and technology, and the > >>dramatic technological advances of the century. There > >>is little to dispute these contributions of his to society. > >> > >>Bourgeois society, however, calls no attention to the > >>social views of the man they praise for his scientific > >>genius, the man who was a Jewish refugee, a pacifist, > >>an internationalist, a vegetarian, a musician, > >>a man of deep compassion. As the century comes to > >>a close, it is fitting to recall what the "person of the century" > >>had to say regarding capitalist society, especially so > >>on New Year's Day, the anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. > >> > >>The following article is a little-known article that > >>Einstein wrote for Monthly Review in May 1949: > >> > >>WHY SOCIALISM? > >>by Albert Einstein > >> .[snip]. > >>The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it > >>exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the > >>evil. We see before us a huge community of producers, > >>the members of which are unceasingly striving to > >>deprive each other of the fruits of their collective > >>labor--not by force, but on the whole in faithful > >>compliance with legally established rules. In this > >>respect, it is important to realize that the means of > >>production--that is to say, the entire productive > >>capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods > >>as well as additional capital goods--may legally be, > >>and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. > >> > >>For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that > >>follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not > >>share in the ownership of the means of > >>production--although this does not quite correspond to > >>the customary use of the term. The owner of the means > >>of production is in a position to purchase the labor > >>power of the worker. By using the means of production, > >>the worker produces new goods which become the > >>property of the capitalist. The essential point about > >>this process is the relation between what the worker > >>produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms > >>of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is > >>"free," what the worker receives is determined not by > >>the real value of the goods he produces, but by his > >>minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for > >>labor power in relation to the number of workers > >>competing for jobs. It is important to understand that > >>even in theory the payment of the worker is not > >>determined by the value of his product. > >> > >>Private capital tends to become concentrated in few > >>hands, partly because of competition among the > >>capitalists, and partly because technological > >>development and the increasing division of labor > >>encourage the formation of larger units of production > >>at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of > >>these developments is an oligarchy of private capital, > >>the enormous power of which cannot be effectively > >>checked even by a democratically organized political > >>society. This is true since the members of legislative > >>bodies are selected by political parties, largely > >>financed or otherwise influenced by private > >>capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate > >>the electorate from the legislature. The consequence > >>is that the representatives of the people do not in > >>fact sufficiently protect the interests of the > >>underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, > >>under existing conditions, private capitalists > >>inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main > >>sources of information (press, radio, education). It > >>is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases > >>quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come > >>to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use > >>of his political rights. > >> > >>The situation prevailing in an economy based on the >
Re: M-TH: Liberalsim and Socialism today
Rob, Just to pick up on your response to Neil & Doug (whose post I haven't read all of, so I hope I am not repeating anything already said) I think that there is a difference between true left Liberalism (with a capital L) and Socialism (again with a capital). As someone whose partner is a left Liberal, from a strong Liberal background going right back to Dilke, I know only too well that, at base, they are incompatible. Liberals believe fundamentally that society is made up of and functions only at the level of individuals coming together with one another. In deciding the merit of certain ideas or actions it is the needs of the individual which takes precedence. Socialism has as its core however that society is primarily made up of humanity as a whole with individuals acting as part of the whole. Its aims, objectives, practical and theoretical work is based upon the needs of society. One only need compare that key text of left Liberalism John Stuart Mill's 'Principles of Political Economy' (1848) with that fundamental Socialist text 'The Communist Manifesto' to realise that they do indeed share a great deal of common ground. But for all of mill's radicalism he never became a Socialist and Marx never turned Liberal. Although these are dry philosophical differences which may not appear to be of much practical importance but - especially at crucial points - the differences can be vital. Even where left Liberals and Socialists can make common cause it should not be under the illusion that these differences have been bridged but in the full understanding that two separate positions happen to have come to the same conclusion in relation to the specific circumstances of the moment. Such an alliance always leaves open the possibility of subsequent division. I am not suggesting that we refuse to co-operate with left Liberals for this reason (there are many Socialist I would find much more politically dangerous) but we must not imagine that they have become Socialist because of it. The best example of a left Liberal is probably the libertarian anarchists who, I for one, often find myself in total practical agreement but I know that their support in a pre-revolutionary period will be marked by bitter division once the revolution is victorious. Emma Goldman went to visit Lenin immediately after the October Revolution and congratulated him on their victory but made it quite clear that she was totally opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or any continuance of the state (though of course Simon's socialist SPGB would have agreed with her!). IMO this will almost always be the case except for those left Liberals who are actually converted to Socialism (but then they wouldn't be Liberals anymore). In the stuggle against capitalism the difference between various radical, progressive and oppositional ideological (in the best sense of the word) positions will often seem to be relatively trival. But at certain points these differences manifest themselves and after the revolution they almost certainly come into conflict as their visions of what the new society should consist of are irreconsilable. We should be aware of difference between Socialist and others (also including religious revolutionaries) and differences within socialism itself but we should not allow this proper understanding to disrupt the practical struggle necessary for us to attain our particular revolutionary goals. If they want to help let them. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Millennial greetings
Hugh, I cannot help but agree with George. The only sense in which socialism has any relation to millennia is that in a few years time we could celebrate the setting up of the communist societies by early Christian radicals (Christian Gnostics if I remember correctly). There is nothing specific about the passing of the last couple of thousand years that isn't just the celebration of the general progress of humanity unbound as it is by the secifics of modern time measurement. I am afraid i also have to point out that it is of course not the end of the millennium, this is not the new millennium you will all have to wait another year for that. Early Christianity and the Roman Emperors who converted did not have the concept of nought / zero (they had to wait for the rise of the Islamic mathematitions for that). And so the numbered the calender from year one hence only 1999 have actually passed since the beginning of this particular dating system (which has slipped into almost universal use for international purposes). I also think it is rather dangerous to borrow the rhetoric of Christianity in this way. The only decent reason for celebrating a millennium is that it shows up the failure of the messianic basis of Christianity which has continuously predicted the ending of human history with an imminent second coming of a divinity (or a prophet depending on the brand of Christianity) and a Millennia of heaven on earth. To turn Marxism into an equally prophetic secular religion is just asking for people to accuse you of the same idealism. Well without any millenium bug I think the only people to benifit in this millennium so far are all the capitalist selling memorabilia and the politician who used it to improve their standing. Nothing like throwing a big party to keep the workers spirits up. Worked a treat. John Walker (who went to bed early) --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Ali BBC sportsperson of the century
Hello all,
I'm afraid I have reconnected to a computer now, so to skip back a
week or so, Chris wrote:
> An awareness of class and national oppression is absorbed in childhood.
> A child notices whether their mother or father is treated with respect
> and by whom ... Much of this is subconscious or only semi-conscious.
Without entering into a whole new area of conflict, I have no time
for such concepts as 'the subconscious' nor the Freudian (et al)
baggage which accompanies it.
I think the only importance of racism is social, institutional and
bound up with the state. It is not that the police force or prison
service just happens coincidently to contain a high proportion of
individuals who happen to have naughty racist thoughts due to their
childhood upbringing, But that the state requires a repressive system
of social control ('bodies of armed men') which for socio-economic
reasons is directed disproportionately at Black and Irish people.
The colour of one's skin or one's psychological disposition does not
really come into it. Black officers, due to their own privilege
positions, often remain compliant or even actively collude in the
actions of these bodies. Also I remember witnessing young men from a
afro-caribbean background standing shoulder to shoulder with fascists
in a physical attack on the Muslim community in Bradford. And in
Manchester I remember that one local National Front group contained
at least one black person.
We all know of 'mild' racists (as opposed to the physically violent
ones) who have a number of black colleague or friends and who would
have no problem cheering Ali but who still come out with racist
remarks when looking at black people as a social group. ('some of my
best friend are black but they are the exception the rest should
be sent home... the rest are just a bunch of crooks... steal our
jobs... etc.')
Racism is not a mere problems of individuals with wrong ideas but the
ideological form of real political class interests, based on the
maintenance of (often quite minimal) privilege.
> It is all part of the ripples across the ideological super-structural pool.
Surely Chris this refutes your original grand claim, doesn't it?
Especially if as I argued the ripple was not necessarily in a
progressive direction.
You asked,
> I feel your remarks above assume that the way forward in revolutionary
> change is through clear-sighted marxists becoming more clear sighted. I am
> in favour of this but I think the process of revolutionary change, spread
> out over several decades, involves the subconscious of the masses. They
> need to experience in practice the issues that marxists
> think they can see clearly in consciousness.
No that is not at all what I (meant to) argue. Marxist can be as
clear-sighted as they like you cannot create socialism just by
imagining it (that is utopian socialism). Marx and Engels and others
were clear-sighted Marxists but they did not produce a revolution
(in their life time). Again I have grave problems with this
'subconscious' thing but I agree that revolutionary change spreads
over decades without all the proletariat having a deep
clear-sighted theoretical understanding of the forces that effect
capitalism, the effect of their political actions or the effect of
the eventual revolutionary change. Where I think I disagree is that I
do not think this lack of understanding is a psychological problem
but a social, political and economic one. These influences effect all
the participant in capitalism and result in them acting in certain
ways which they have not rationalized beforehand. then their gets to
a point when the differences in society become so stark that it
become clear to all what they class position indicates is their best
way forward.
You repeat again the fact that I conceded that, Ali
> risked prison, risked never being able to fight again in any
> country of the world, risked isolation from his community.
But again I cannot see how this heroism is transferred through the BBC
poll into the white audience and then turned into revolutionary
change, except in its effect on you and the others who already view
Ali as a hero (and who are already committed to revolutionary
change). How do we know that the audience saw proletarian
internationalism in his quivering lip and not just the quivering
lip of a great boxing hero battling against parkinson's disease. They
may agree with you that he is
> A brave and intelligent man.
but that does not bind them to the cause of revolutionary change.
I'm not sure that brings the gap between our positions any closer
(I fear not) though I hope it further clarifies mine. I am not
interested in forcing either party to agree just to make sure we can
see clearly what the other position is and whether there is any
foundation strong enough to erect a bridge (to continue the metaphor).
Yours,
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Rajani Palme Dutt
George, He died in 1974 after sixty years at the heart of the British communist movement. In fact the 20th December marked the 25th anniversary of his death (and as he must have been born at the turn of the century it must be close to the 100th anniversary of his birth - perhaps a better thing to celebrate than Christmas!) His political career goes back to 1916 when he was imprisoned as a 'conscientious objector' (though he was a socialist objector not a pacifist). On his release after a year he was active in the anti-war movement and in October 1917 denounced the war on Marxist grounds and spoke out in support of the Bolsheviks in the final stage of their stuggle against the Kerensky government. At this point he was a memeber of the ILP but in 1920 became a foundation member of the Communist Party on which, from 1923, he was the youngest member of its Executive Committee (standing down in 1965 to make way for younger comrades). He is probably best known for his founding and editorship of Labour Monthly (often refered to a LM !) from 1921 until his death. Through out that period his 'Notes of the Month' were famous within the labour and trade union movement (his last one written 4 days before his death and published postumously). So well known was his column that he became effectionately known just by the initials which signed off his report, RPD. This and his books, 'IndiaToday', 'Fascism & Social Revolution' and 'The Crisis of Britain & the British Empire' were read all over the world. He was a unswirving defender of the Soviet Union and the the Victory of 1917. He was born to a Indian father and Swedish mother (Palme was his mother's family name), his father went to Cambridge to study medicine and became a poor man's doctor there. As a child Raji would have listened to the great political disputes between the moderate and extremist wings of the Indian Nationalist leaders who would visit his home. He was later to stay for a while with Nehru in 1935 (the year before he bacame president of the National Congress) and helped to direct him in a more progressive and socialist direction. His works include: 'The Two Internationals' (1920) from the attitudes to the war within the 2nd International to the emergence of the Communist International. 'Socialism & the Living Wage' (1927) just after the 1926 General Strike. 'Fascism & Social Revolution' (1934) at the time of Mosley's blackshirts. 'Modern British Reformism' 'India Today' (1940) which was banned in India 'Britain's Crisis of Empire' (1949) 'Problems of Contemporary History' (1963) 'The International' (1964) plus his contribution to the 'Outline History of the Communist International' (1971) I hope that is all helpful. I'm sure there is far more to say about him but that's the basic detain I know. John. > Is Palme Dutt still alive.Who was he? I remember reading a book of his > called From Yalta to Vietnam. Have not seen it about since --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Christmas
George suggests: > Lets not all stop communicating by on the list over the Christmas period as generally > happens. After all communists dont recognise Christmas as their festival. A lot of so > called communists tend to be commies when it is easy and convenient. Thats all very well but this bloody festival and the ridiculous numerological celebration of the change of date in this country means that one is forced to suffer virtual isolation. No shops open, no transport, no post, places deserted or over-crowed and the insessant duty to participate in this sharade are all absolutely insufferable. (Ideally I should spend the time in China or Cuba or another country that doesn't do that that sort of thing) My problem is that part of this enforced celebration means that I no longer have access to a computer over this period, so I will just have to save up all my posts until everything reopens. I look forward to reading everyone else when I return. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Degrees and the disadvantaged
George, A belatted reply to you question. The system they seem to be pursuing is effectively been operating in various guises in Britain for a long time. It is not actually targetted at the disadvantaged but it does allow people with lower grades to get in. The open University which I did my degree through will allow people in without any qualifications and was set up presicely to offer mature students who had not succeeded in the educational system or who had gone straight into a job from school to get a degree. The reason why capitalism is interested paying to educate people who have not got a good track record are numerous. The most obvious is that fact that in the main mature student do better in education (mainly because they have chosen to go back rather than been forced by parents or lack of a job) despite their early low achievement (I've no actual figures - only various people I know). The other issue is that it is necessary precisely because the education system in forces young people to go through is much more about social control and containment than anything to do with learning and scholarship. It is a hierachical sytem much more interested in the learning and regurgitating of factual information than improving the intellectual life of the students. Capitalism cannot afford to lose these enthusiastic individuals just because its narrow system of assessment is not suited to their particular abilities. Also many mature student are already in employment and therefore it work as a subsidy to companies who would otherwise have to provide in-house training. Another reason is that it give hope to the majority of people whose intellectual attainment does not fit in with capitalist education or the restrictive system which requires them to have to choose in their late teens (when they have much more to think about than education). In my view the whole basis of the education system is moribund and only socialism (such as in Cuba) can even attempt to offer free education to people of all ages and abilities with the breadth of diversity which would allow people to excell intellectualy in the direction they are best suited for. I could say much more but my posts have been growing rather worryingly recently. Luckily for some they are due to stop for 10 days tomorrow as I won't have access to a computer over the holiday period. John > Whatever about giving grants to disadvantaged pupils I cannot see any fairness, so to > speak, in this kind of system. Surely the bourgeoisie are undermining their own >bourgeois > norms of justice and fairness by undermining academic achievement as a criterion as >to who > should go to college to take degrees. Since there are only a limited number of degree > places in all the universities in Ireland this means that this modified system allows > students who did not do as well as others to gain a place in a university. > > Can anybody explain why the bourgeois state is introducing such as system. It cannot >be > because they care about the disadvantaged. === John Walker email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Vote for Karl Marx!
George, Although I remember the fact of Ghandi's reactionary background from a meeting on the Indian Independence struggle and other sources I read some time ago, most of the quotes I gave come from Palme Dutt's 'India To-Day' published by Left Book Club/Gollancz in 1940. It is well worth looking at his other sections on Ghandi's role. Especially his defence of support of the regressive primitive economics of Khadi production - 'it is necessary to understand that machinery is bad.' And his role within the Congress in incorporating and then difusing the more socialist leaning of people like Nehru. It is definitely worth a read. John > Dear John > > Your reply was appreciated > > Warm regards > George Pennefather > > Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at > http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ > > George Pennefather asked: > > How do you mean that Ghandi did not keep to his own > > principles of non-violence. > > He not only gave his full backing to the British war effort in the > 1st Imperialist War (1914-19) but also calling on young Indians to > follow his reactionary lead telling them to 'think imperially' and > 'do their duty' > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Ali BBC sportsperson of the century
Chris replied: > I agree there are reservations about boxing. It is dangerous. I don't actually remember mentioning its danger to the health of boxers as a reason to oppose it (perhaps CB did). If people want to beat each other to a pulp then IM(liberal)O they are in most circumstances perfectly free to do so (just as I would support the recent victims of the arrest of a group of local men involved in S&M). I would perhaps rather they didn't do it and would prefer not to have to watch but it is hardly of world shattering importance (except where it shatters their mental or physical world). > It is true it is invariably about working class people fighting. But > so are most mass spectator sports. My argument could be extended to include all major commercial sports. Boxing was just one of the most obviously problematic. > It was not mentioned but I would agree there have to be reservations > about the ideological significance of black islam. That was not > mentioned last week. Oh, I did mention it on Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:23:20, if rather hesitant as to the extent of my reservations. You go on to say that 'images of positive role models are important.' This seems to be at the heart of you enthusiasm for this poll. This sounds very much like bourgeois race relations speak to me. Without raising the whole rather complex and long-winded issue of the nature of racism for marxists (unless someone's determined I do), surely racism is more than just an ideological issue of white people having 'incorrect' views and black people having low self-esteem. Racism is - as you hinted at - more than an ideological question for a Marxist. It should be an economic question and for some of us a question which lies at the very heart of the nature of imperialism (or at least the context of the global economy for those who oppose the term imperialism). The idea that black role models (a racially conceived version of the individualist idea of the Great Men theory of history) is one pursued by the British Conservative government and its Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) following the uprisings in predominantly black inner-city communities in the early and mid 1980s. The creation of 'community leaders' (funny how there is no equivalent mouthpieces for white communities) with their paid jobs who can afford to move out of the areas they are supposedly to be speaking for. The division of the black community into respectable role models and evil role models (a 20th century racial equivalent of the deserving and un-deserving poor). Your argument in the form you have put forward so far seems not to be very different. It reminds me (dare I say it) of the sort of thing LM would raise (apologies for any offence). > Like Hugh, (who essentially agrees with me apart from having to take > a customary swipe at reformism) I also remember the black power > salute at the Olympics. That took courage. Can you explain in greater detail how this historical event manifests itself in a BBC poll which in itself amount to a revolutionary change? What is the actual mechanism Where by one can go from what I admit was a significant and courageous action to a material effect in present day society? What REAL individual, significant (however small) revolutionary change has occurred? What sort of minor individual changes does Gramski refer to? Isn't it, at best, all part of the ebb and flow of politics (ripple across the ideological superstructural pool? Or is it, in fact, politically insignificant or down right reactionary? As I have said before and I think is worth reiterating, I am not opposed the the importance of the actual event or the courage of the individuals mentioned I just honestly cannot for the life of me see how this specific poll actually manifests itself as a revolutionary (not merely progressive) change. Or is it's effect on you and CB a significant change in itself? > I really know nothing about boxing but the BBC expert sportsreporter > claimed his skill and ability reached new heights. Certainly he > trained hard enough. And was fighting fit within a short space of > coming out of prison. What on earth has his skill and ability got to do with anything? And surely his dedication to training is indicative of the fact that his dedication to politics - both inside prison and on his release - was not interfering with his boxing (or eventually his income from it!). > Nelson Mandela also used pride about boxing to make links with the > black community in the USA. I've attacked nice Mr Mandela in another post, so I won't do it again. Your statement that: > In England there has been a fight over 20 - 30 years against racism > in sport. The fascists particularly tried to recruit at football > matches. That battle has been largely won, although we should not be > complacent. The BBCvote clinched it. Seems to indicate that this one vote (which the media has now long forgotten in the time since you originally mentio
Re: M-TH: Re: Vote for Karl Marx!
George Pennefather asked: > How do you mean that Ghandi did not keep to his own > principles of non-violence. He not only gave his full backing to the British war effort in the 1st Imperialist War (1914-19) but also calling on young Indians to follow his reactionary lead telling them to 'think imperially' and 'do their duty' In a letter from himself and other Congress leaders in London at the time to the British Secretary of State they wrote: 'It was thought desirable by many of us that during the crisis that has overtaken the Empire... those Indians who are residing in the United Kingdom and who can at all do so should place themselves unconditionally at the service of the Authorities. On behalf of ourselves and those whose names appear on the list appended hereto, we beg to offer our services to the Authorities.' This is hardly the position of a dedicated peace campaigner who is committed to non-violent resolution to conflicts. This at a time when the likes of Sylvia Pankhurst and John Maclean were campaigning against the war effort and the revolutionary nationalist movement in Ireland took the opportunity to further their aims rather than back the Imperialist country that they had been fighting all that time. Further to that, Ghandi made a personal offer of service in the Mesopotamian campaign to the Viceroy on his return to India (who excused him on health grounds, remarking that 'his very presence in India itself would be of more service than any he might render abroad'). Following the Viceroy's Delhi Conference of 1917 and right up to July 1918 Ghandi was involved with a recruiting campaign urging Gujarati peasants to win Swaraj by joining the army. This was at a time of general unrest in India, crippling financial contribution being extracted from the poor for the war, rising prices, large scale profiteering and towards the close of the war the mass toll of the influenza epidemic which killed 14 million Indians. At the same time India saw the growth of revolutionary movements in the Punab, the rise of a communist movement under the leadership of M N Roy and mutinies in the army which in turn were followed by ruthless suppressions, executions, sentences and new repressive legislation. As well as these 'mistakes' he made in contradicting his own position I still cannot believe that any communism would offer support to this most reactionary of bourgeois nationalist leaders as he was also a rabid anti -communist who was committed to preventing the rise of the 'red ruin' of the fight of the workers and peasants. In 1932, interviewed by Le Monde (20.2.1932) he stated, My social theory is that although we are all born equal... it is natural that some of us should be more fitted than others to acquire material gain. Those who are capable wish to acquire more, and they bend their abilities to this end, If they use their abilities in the best spirit they will be working to the benefit of the people.' There are more similar statement by this religious apologist for capitalism. If anyone can think of a defence of this poor frail little man (who makes such a good image for Western movies) who peacefully and quietly lead the Indian nation to such a revolutionary new society then please do let me know. Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Vote for Karl Marx!
> >"Real" Marxists would instead be trying to bump Nelson Mandela and Martin > >Luther King up higher, along with Marx, and help keep Gandhi where he is. > No offense to Mandela, King or Gandhi Why not offend them? They are hardly great working class revolutionaries. I'd rather have Marx on his own than any of them three. Mandela is a bougeois nationalist who on gaining power did little for the great mass of the population who have not got any of the small benifits they were promised. The Reverend King is hardly the first name I would think of as a Marxist as representative of the black movement. What about Malcolm X, George Jackson, Angela Davis even Marcus Garvey. And Gandhi, well he couldn't even managed to keep to his own principles of non-violence never mind leading a 'real' Marxist revolution. I'm not greatly keen on the individualist Leonardo but Newton and Darwin were so bad in the context of their own society (and where is Freud and Nietzsche). Wasn't Einstein a supporter of dialectical materialism or is that just optomistic thinking on my part? Was he ever a member of a Marxist organisation in Germany? And anyway if voting ever changed anthing they would ban it! John. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Ali BBC sportsperson of the century
Hugh wanted to: > get a bit of Marxist method into this discussion. Before giving a potted history of the 1950-1970s he declared that: > John W is saying that as long as the bourgeoisie is in > power, nothing that happens indicates any revolutionary pressure. Did I say that? I think what I was actually saying was restricted to the specifics of the Ali case and boxing. I absolutely think that there are things that happen which DO indicate revolutionary pressure I just cannot see any in this instance. He goes on to say: > What's happening is that the social power of the working class and many > subordinate (super-exploited) groups, such as blacks and women, has been > growing constantly in imperialist countries since World War 2. he also mentions the ' the youth and female "revolutions" of the late >50s, 60s and early 70s, the black> "revolution" of the 60s etc So what revolutionary women were there in this vote Part of this discussion I suspect has more to do with certain male comrades who actually like Ali mainly because of his performance in the ring. The truth is that they disguise there enjoyment of the macho 'sport' of boxing under the cloak of revolutionary respectability (perhaps they are the 'middle aged' men who 'remember the glory days of their youth' which Hugh argues are the majority of the voters). His great revolutionary victory might not have been so warmly welcomed if this list contained a few more (or more vocal) women and young people. As Bob says you are defending 'something that the kids don't even remember'. (Though I'm sure you enjoyed the 60s yourself.) Oddly he concludes this political discourse with the claim that: > This is also recognition for the black power sprinters with their raised > black fists in Mexico 1968. How is it? Except for you? > So as I see it, even the posh halls of the bourgeoisie have to let a breath > of air in from the hurricane blowing outside. Of course they try to contain > it, but just look at what they're trying to contain! What else did Ali do that was so great? He was just influenced by the situation he was in, he hardly led it. Also just being a Muslim is not necessarily a revolutionary act, in fact one could make a similar argument to that I made against boxing (though I am not sure I would go that far). > it certainly wasn't by being a black Elvis and trotting > off to serve his imperialist masters. Does it therefore follow that if Elvis is to win the 'music personality of the century' then this would be a great victory for the forces of reaction and further bolster the power of the bourgeoisie The point I am making is that he is actually remembered for his boxing. If it wasn't for the fact that he was a boxer - and that boxing is actively and widely promoted by a section of the bourgeoisie - then any political act he was involved in would have gone unnoticed. Still unconvinced, John. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked again, 'So now we can be told the relevance of dialectical materialism ...' You clearly haven't got the point of my differentiation between radical agitational politics and scientific socialism. From the point of view of utopian socialism then you are absolutely right in being sceptical of the relevance of dialectical materialism to the immediate needs of a revolutionary struggle. All that is relevant is simple straight forward propaganda which stirs the masses into action and will offer hope for a better society. That's relatively straight forward and there are a whole host of political movements (left, right, green, anarchist...) who can offer their own varieties. If that is where your political sympathies lie then good luck to you (as luck is about all that holds these movements up). This position would rule out most of the works of Marx which are in their great lumbering form hardly the stuff of political propaganda. Grundrissa, most of the 4 volumes of capital, Marx early philosophical works, etc. are not really relevant to the everyday struggle of the masses and those few who do read them are probably already quite settled in their opinion on and activity in the revolutionary movement. The relevance is that it is all scientifically correct regardless of the revolutionary needs of the toiling masses. The revolutionary struggle does not of itself make a theory correct. It is because the theory is correct that it can be relevant to the revolutionary struggle it has analysed as the key to historical change. I am not and never have been just a 'socialist', I am not interested in radicalism and agitation for its own sake. What I am is a convinced adherent of scientific socialism as a rational, coherent and all encompassing analysis of the society in which I live. That has to include not only the social world of human society but of all the aspects of the universe. (Incidentally, I am also skeptical of moral appeals for communism). Also, if you accept Marx's authorship and argument in his preface to 'A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy' then consciousness is determined not by human society or by humans own ideas but is fundamentally the result of changes in the material world surrounding the conscious being; therefore a theory of that material world has to be incorporated into (and is relevant to) Marx's overall theory if its foundation are not to be revealed to have been build on thin air. Finally Lew concluded with a little bit of medieval history: 'The followers of Canute thought that he had an insight into the way nature worked and could use that knowledge to change nature for their benefit. Canute stood on the sea shore to prove to his followers that he could not stop the tide and had no special powers. A fact of nature indeed.' Exactly, the point is they were scientifically wrong! The bourgeoisie which clings to it nice safe scientific view that the universe is static and hence their cosy economic system could be equally static (regardless of the hopeful protestations of the pugnacious lefties) runs scared of the idea that everything is subject to change and the tide of history is unstoppable. They use science to change nature for the benifit of capitalism. Some (just like Canute) are aware of the scientific truth and either accept the inevitability of their economic decline or like Marx, Engles et al are won over by rational argument and proper science to the side of the agent for such a change, the proletariat. (But just to make sure I am not misunderstood, I am NOT therefore arguing that dialectical materialism is relevant because it has the spin off of convincing a handful of rational individuals of the necessity of revolution). I am afraid that is as relevant an answer as I can manage, anyone else got a better or more succinct reply to Lew's scepticism? John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Ali BBC sportsperson of the century
Good morning Chris, I would love to spell out my criticism of Gramski in great detail but the truth is that not coming from the eurocommunist wing I know almost nothing about him or his brand of communism, except your remark. What I objected to and what completely mystifies me is (other than a sort of chaos theory of everything inevitable linking to everything else) how the minor event (and miniscule political implication of that event) of Mohammad Ali being sports personality of the century leads in any meaningful way toward revolution. What is the 'wider sense' in which the votes were symbolic of more than boxing? Surely those who voted for him because of his political stand on a war long since gone are not made any more revolutionary by the action of voting in such a media event than they already must have been. Who in the world is going to be influenced in a revolutionary direction by the knowledge that the centuries greatest sporting personality went to prison? If anything the whole thing is merely a strengthening of reaction. The idea that voting for someone has any real effect is mere bolstering of the parliamentary democracy which uses the same system. The idea of personality of the century strenthen the bourgeois ideology of the importance of the individual. The Carlylian hero-worship, the ideology that it is great men who make history not humanity as a whole. And what whas the so-called 'sport' that this man excelled in (as well as the sports personality of the year) but boxing. Do you have a theoiry of the revolutionary potential of the activity of boxing? Perhaps as a means of building up class fighters who can go out and punch the bourgeoisie into submission! IMO boxing is one of the great distraction which the bourgeoisie supports in order to distract the working class from what should be the real target of their agression. They idea of two working class people punching each other until one of the collapses (and the health problems they sustain in later life) must be sheer delight to the bourgeoisie and especially that section which takes millions of pounds from the working class through gambling on such fights (aided by their ability to 'fix' fights). If anything Ali victory is a victory for the bourgeoisie and its constant aim to prevent militancy against them. One could even argue that boxing (like gambling and drinking) is the opiate of the masses. Regards, JOhn --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Chris, As I work in the university library I have tried to find some of the papers of Schorlemmer but I have not suceeded in locating anything of interest. I have looked through all his published works in English but do not know enough about chenistry to spot the interesting bits. All the biographies are in German from the commemorations in the GDR, but I do not read German. As the geatest communist in Germany as Marx and Engels described him it is a pity there is not more on him especially in Britain where he lived all his adult life and who was so significant in Organic Chemistry (in fact the world's first professor of the subject). He really did come to communism because of the its scientific rationale. What is the 2000 page document you are referring to? What other information on him do you have? I would greatly appreciate more information on him? Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Hi again, IMO comrades - who are outraged at the economic system they find themselves in; who are morally offended by the massive poverty which sits unpleasantly next to the exclusivity of the great wealth of society - are drawn to Marxism as one amongst a number of possible solutions to this state-of-affairs. It has the added advantage that it flatters their intelligence with its claims to scientific rigour but it is perhaps sheer chance that they chose Marxism rather that anarchism, Fabianism, more vague forms of socialism or even of a paternal liberalism. Marx and Engels were not convinced by this bleeding heart socialism or the politics of disgruntled opposition which were based largely on sentimental and emotional ties rather than on the rational scientific examination of all the elements of society and the *understanding* of necessity of change. These comrades seem to think that we should not put Marx's theories up to general scientific assessment for fear they would be found wanting in the light of modern science and hence the cosy ideology they have found - to satisfy their hatred of the evil of capitalism - would be lost (or would be relegated to the level of all the other brands of 'socialism' they could equally have chosen.) To ask, 'What is the relevance of dialectical materialism to the class struggle?' demonstrates the very problem. Their commitment to the class struggle is not in doubt but it misses entirely the whole point of Marxism's solution to the class struggle. Just as the soldier in a war may be a brilliant fighter but need have no idea what he or she is fighting for. On the basis of the immediate needs of the class struggle on could ditch much of the works of Marx as irrelevant. Why does Marx include all that dull history on the origins of money, of machinery, or various forms of labour, etc.? Why does the whole debate on anthropology interest him so much? Why write an enormous work on incorrect theories of surplus value? Surely the rallying call of the Communist Manifesto is enough? Surely Das Kapital could be severely edited into a more manageable form (what's the point of volume 2 anyhow?!?) ? This reasoning (and it does have some logic) highlight precisely what differentiates Marxism from other form of agitational left politics and misunderstands the specific historical context under which Marx and Engels were working. Marx's personal economic material conditions were not such that they would, in themselves, effect his consciousness in a revolutionary way. He was a philosophy student from a well-to-do family who in his exploration of the way history developed and how societies were constituted lead him to a scientific theory to explain more clearly human social development. That theory was not limited - like Utopian Socialism - to mere supposition and wishful thinking, but was solid and needed to be able to withstand investigation by any other scientist. Marx understood that limits cannot be placed on science. One cannot have a theory of gravity which does not apply universally and at all times, so one cannot have a materialist theory based on dialectic which applies to society and nothing else. Marx argument for dialectics being a description of the way history (natural and social) operates was precisely to avoid Utopian Socialism diverting the masses and to prove that the bourgeois would be subject to these same laws. Like King Canute, no matter what they did the tide would eventually turn against them and wash them away. That was just a fact of nature. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Hi, >From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe. Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is, another form of Utopian Socialism. Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics existing in nature: 'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water, exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of Philosophy) In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital) 'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11) 'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15) 'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867) 'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale 16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says: 'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family) This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the subject. Are all these works just frauds? Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' ! Please do explain I would love to know. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Ali BBC sportsperson of the century
Chris actually wrote that: > One of the problems of a Gramscian concept of revolutionary change in a > developed capitalist society it what individual changes are significant, > however small. If Mohammad Ali was voted Sports personality of the century is really such a revolutionary change odd that the rest of you report of the event fails to mention he avoidance of fighting in Vietnam. I think it was for his activities in the rather brutal 'sport' of boxing that he was being remembered. His role as a class fighter (a fight he thought should be a religious rather than a class action) was a tiny one at the time and has since been forgotten by all but the most revolutionary minded. In his acceptance speach he made no mention of the new conflicts the USA is involved in, so it hardly has any contemporary relevance. All your example seeks to show is the deparate clutching-at-straws that Gramski's position ends up. IMO individual changes are small no matter how significant. In Ali's case the example is both small and insignificant ! John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Fwd: LM COMMENTARY: The problem with anti-capitalist d
Hi Russ, > I'm all for the romance of revolution and there's plenty of the old and new > romantic about me, but when Romanticism itself gets crawls forth in Turtle > garb, well then I maintain the right to exclaim that this ain't no disco, > this ain't no party... I am not sure what the actual point here is in this rather peculiar discussion but as Marxists are we opposed to turtle costumes in principle or is it a pragmatic objection to the trivialisation of politics. I have been on many demos which have not just been ranks of grey overalls and donkey-jacketted workers marching in unison. Animal rights groups protecting at vivisection, greenpeace campaigning against seal-culling and many other such campaigns have used costumes a props to grab attention in the media. Is this a illigitate Marxist tactic. I wonder if similar thing were done in Marx day? Certainly caricature literary and illustrative pervades socialist literature. I think the main think than annoys Nick Hume is that a turtle costume would ruin his lovely hairdo and crease his expensive designer clothes. The RCP ahs always seem to have the attitude that revolutionaries should always be respectably physically in order to seem more outrageous when they open their mouths. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Longer version of paper for women's liberation
Dear all, Apologies for resending the last post from a couple of days ago! I'm afraid I can never read certain comrade's messages as their are no line breaks in their replies (althought the text they are commenting on is fine). Therefore I have to reply and break it with carriage returns. I should have just sent it back to me but I forgot to change the 'To:' Does this happen to anyone else as this is now a new upgraded machine and I still get the same problem? Any way gives you all an opportunity to read Charles piece again as I don't think it generated any comment the first time. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Longer version of paper for women's liberation
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 17:11:04 -0500 From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: M-TH: Longer version of paper for women's liberation Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Women's Liberation: A Comradely Critique of the Manifesto and Historical Materialism (For Angela Y. Davis) By Charles Brown To me _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ remains extraordinarily persuasive of the historical epoch of which we are today still a part. The argument of the Manifesto is convincing in However, The Manifesto shows cowardice , and more bourgeois than communist finesse in dealing with marriage, the family, patriarchy and monogamy. Marx and Engels say the bourgeoisie accus Marx and Engels dodge the dialectical requirement that they present an affirmative, not just negative aspect, to their critique of bourgeois society's form of the family. They defer to theWhat is the Communist proposal for the next form of the family ? Given Marx and Engels'' dialectical, evolutionary-revolutionary perspective on every other institution, presumably for th To me this all demonstrates the European taboo on public (and much private), revolutionary discussion and critique of reproductive institutions and practices ( the mode of reproduction) is Marx and Engels did creep up on telling the truth about the revolutionary direction of the develop nt of the family. Many years after the Manifesto, in _The Origin of the Family, Private " Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular work consists in resolving the religious world into its But that the secular basis detaches itself from itse itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this The latter therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionised in practice. Thus, for instance, _after the earthlyfamily is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and practice_" (emphasis added, C.B) So, Marx knew that monogamy would be revolutionised and "destroyed". He just did not shout it, the way he did "expropriate the expropriators" and the like. Let us examine the issue a little more deeply. By the Manifesto every Marxist knows the A,B,C's of historical materialism or the materialist conception of history. The history of hit In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels asserted an elementary anthropological or "human nature" rationale for this conception. In a section titled "History: Fundamental Conditions, th "*life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life." Production and economic classes are the starting point of Marxist analysis of human society because human life, like all plant and animal life must fulfill biological needs to exist as lif Yet , it is fundamental in biology that the basic life sustaining processes of a species are twofold. There is obtaining the material means of life and subsistence or success of survival of Thus, having premised their theory in part on human biology, our "species-being",, Marx and Engels are logically obligated to develop historical materialism based, not only on the logic of In The German Ideology, they did recognize reproduction as a "fundamental condition of history" along with production. However, they give reproduction or , at least, "the family" a subord "The third circumstance which, from the very outset, enters into historical development, is that men, who daily remake their own life begin to make other men, to propagate their kind: the relationbetween man and woman, parents and children, the family. The family, which to begin with is the only social relationship, becomes later, when incr
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Dear all Just been of for a few days (using up the sick leave!) and your all back to Dialectical Materialism. It clear must be a significant issue. I haven't read all the messages but Chris' substantial reply of 7/12/99 (23:24) seemed to sum up my position most clearly. It is NOT possible to suggest that Marx denied the existence of dialectics operating in nature. It is possible to suggest that he did not think that dialectical materialism existed except as an analogy to social life, but that is difficult. Engels clearly did think dialectics operated in nature as did their joint advisor and close friend, Karl Schorlemmer (Jollymeier, who worked in the building across the road from me here.) If Marx did agree then he is unlikely to have gone out of his way to proclaim it as he was busy with other tasks and had left Engels to deal with the issue. If he was opposed then the heated arguments this would of caused (as can be seen by its reappearence even on this list) would certainly have been recorded somewhere in the correspondence. Instead, on 22 June 1867, we find him saying: 'Hegel's discovery - the law of merely quantitive changes turning into qualiative changes - [holds] good alike in history and natural science.' How do you explain this? Is he scared of upsetting his two friends, is he intimidated by their scientific knowledge or had he forgot that 'only the former can be found in the works of Marx' Also when Engels wrote (and presumeably while he was writing) Anti-During - as a manifesto of their joint position within the German Socialist Workers Party - we would have to believe he neither read it or knew what it contained (we do know Marx had a copy.) It is hard to prove he read it (harder to prove he didn't!), he did provide a chapter and provided the preface to the abbreviated French edition, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, descibing Engels as 'one of the most eminent representatives of contemorary socialism'. He did know that it would include much on the sciences in general and he would have known the sort of theories it was attacking. So was Marx stupid, neglegent or had he given up caring about this important issue. Hardly a good way to ask someone to write a defence of your position within the communist movement who you disagreed so fundamentally. So Simon et al, your 'Hero' Marx looks less and less like the Great Man you need to cling to for fear of Leninism - or worst still Engelsianism! - if he did oppose dialectical materialism but was too shy to say so. Regards, John (An Engelsianist Leninist) --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Meszaros article
Ian you wrote that: > the official verdict of the CCP that Stalin was 70% correct > and 30% wrong is far too kind.>There is a good evaluation of > internal CPSU evidence in *New Left Review* The official verdict or the evaluation of the CPSU evidence is hardly an arbiter of any view on the subject. It is like putting the sole assessment of Thatcher or Regan in the hands of the Conservative Party or the Republicans. As if that settled the debate. > Social change depends on collective action, disillusion with the > current system, and hope in prospects of a new beginning. Action - Disillusion - Hope Are they not any other factors that can bring about social change such as the material productive forces coming into conflict with existing relations of production ! ! ! The task [of social revolution] only arises when the material conditions for its solution exist, or are a least in formation. I may be wrong but that was a contribution made by a certain person in his analysis of political economy, but perhaps he was mistaken. Just being disgruntled with a society and hoping for the future is one sided. When Marx and Engels discuss Utopian Socialism they point out that sections of the aristocracy are equally disillusioned with socialism and hope for a new beginning. But their collective action is futile - as without favourable material conditions of production they are left, like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. This is not to say I am in favour of the opposite extreme of strict economic determinism or technological determinism (aka Cohen ?) which I think is equally un-Marxist. While we cannot make revolution or attain communism merely by wanting it hard enough or convincing the masses that they would like it better, on the other hand, we cannot sit and wait for the course of history to do all the work for us (perhaps a vanguard party might have a use afterall ;-) ). > Marx spoke of the necessity of the working class being schooled for > 20, 60, etc years in struggle for social change before it is fit for > governing society (and production). Don't forget that the bourgeoisie from its birth in the 15th or 16 century took about 300 years to get to the position of governing society - so historically we are doing well. The necessity of a time delay between the physical revolution and the a self-governing and self-productive classless society is the big problem in Simon's arguments. Although I cannot find a nice quote from Marx, my good old friend Engels points out that - following the revolution - communism 'will develop more quickly or more slowly according to whether the country has more developed industry, more wealth, and a more considerable mass of productive forces'. Finally just on the bit where you wrote: > Well, I agree. In fact, I suggested that feudal culture lives on in our > society more than we might suppose. I mentioned pre-revolutionary Russia > and China as cases where that was especially rather than exclusively so. Yes, I thought that is what you must have been the case. The problem with emails (especially in regard to philosophical and political debate) is that it is very often difficult to clarify exactly what someone means. As Stalin said 'Everything is connected to everything else' and if one has a consistent philosophy one's position on what minor issue effects the logic of one's argument in relation to another. Yours in clarification and consistency. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Every word?
Hugh, This is a bit unfair as I was trying to be generally complementary. Though I am not exactly sure how you can presume on what basis I would disagree. I must be SO obvious! :) > Including this too? > >> But the reality is that in this whole century capitalism has been > >> objectively ripe for revolution If by 'whole century' Dave means that throughout the century there have been opportunities for revolution then I agree. If he meant that at all point in all places revolution was constantly busting out then I am not so sure. Of course, in my view it has been a century of fruiting (to keep the metaphor) socialist revolutions. The only problem is that in western European countries (especially the failure in Germany following the 1st Imperialialist War) the ripe fruits have not been harvested and has been left to go rotten. But I would blame that of the strenth of Eurocentric Menchevism and people (perhaps like you Hugh) who have sought to make alliance with reactionary reformist 'socialist' parties (such as you outspoken call for a vote for the Labour Party because of its supposed 'left-wing' candidate). Or the diversion into Labour movement internal battles which - while sometimes being progressive - are rarely revolutionary. Reforms should be the by-product of the striving for revolution not an end in themselves. > >> it was the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Trotsky > >> who developed marxism beyond Eurocentric menshevism > Trotsky too?? Trotsky as the post-Menchevich leader of the Red Army, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Politburo member was o.k. as far as I am concened, just many others were. But I think that ice-picks can have more uses than just breaking ice :) Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: China and LOV
Thanks Dave, I haven't really been reading much of this thread I'm afraid but reading your reply here I counldn't help but agree with every word. I thought I would just say (for the record!) John > Simon shows all the signs of evolutionary menshevik thinking. > Because for him the LOV is universal to class society, he can't see > that the revolution in Russia was a qualitative change. Nor that the > deformed revolution that followed in China was also. He cannot see > that the reason that the imperialist powers campaigned for 70 years > to defeat the revolution was that it posed a genuine alternative to, > not just a slightly less efficient model of, capitalism. He > counter-poses to that actual history, where Lenin used the term > 'state capitalism' in a very different way to mean the survival of > the market in a workers state, a blueprint of 'real socialism'. This > is the quiescent, academic "world party of socialism" intellectuals > offering their blue print to the masses, covered by the patronising > bullshit about 'self-activity'. > > Frankly, this is a petty bourgeois rendition of marxism. It has its > material roots in the non-historic but nonetheless reactionary role > of petty bourgeois intellectuals who must attach themselves as > parasites to one or other of the main classes to survive. Those who > attach themselves to the working class attempt to suck it dry. > Today the western pb intelligentsia is reviving classic menshevism > by exploiting the current period of historic defeats of workers > with the disintegration of the SU and other DWS's. Its theme is > that the revolution has not happened yet (October was premature, the > Bolsheviks were substitionist blah blah) and will not until > capitalism has exhausted its developmental potential for creating > privileged jobs for the petty bourgeois. But the reality is that in > this whole century capitalism has been objectively ripe for > revolution, and it was the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Trotsky > who developed marxism beyond Eurocentric menshevism to take > advantage of that reality. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re:LOV, butterflies and babies
Hello Simon, When you write: > that imperialism is (arguably) the current international capitalist relationship > does not mean that our definition of capitalism is somehow inadequate What is the relationship between the two part of the sentance as they do not seem to logicall follow. Surely a definition of capitalism which does not take into account it curent international relationship is inadequate. While I may share the fear about those who seek to 'update' Marxism it is equally wrong to have the view that every part of his economic theory is unaltered by the continuous developments within capitalism. His own positions changed within his life-time and if you count Engels as a Marxist (which perhaps you don't) then clearly by the 1880s thing had changed a lot. Marx may have said much more if he had lived to write volume six of Captial but the task was left to others. And it continues constantly. > I am saying that there is nothing magical about the universe giving > agency to it, consciously or unconsciously. No one is arguing that the universe chooses to be dialectical no more than gravity chooses to put things onto the floor. > I am showing > then that a dialectical WAY of seeing the world, thus acting on the world, > and thus changing it over time, is supported by such a materialist > position. >From this do you think that dialectics is confined to social relations or to nature. Or just WAY merely apply to an appearence of dialectics in nature. Do you disagree with Engels (and possibly Marx) or do you think that blind devotion to his theory is the problem? Sorry have to go stop there but I will pick up on a few other things from that post if it is not too annoying! Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Meszaros article: "Communism Is No Utopia"
Simon, How can we demonstrate the 'state of nature' prior to the revolution? How do you negate the capitalist worldview scientifically? Surely to delete capitalism from the make-up of the world always ends-up looking like a previous stage in history as that is the only basis of comparison. This is what most Utopian Socialist writing do. To say that people are not naturally capitalist leave open lots of historical example of non-capitalist humanity for previous historical stages. I don't understand what inital point you are making as you end by agreeing that 'what we actually are, as you recognise, will be found out after' the revolution. > I think you are being a bit harsh on anarchists I specifically avoided reference to anarchists in general I was only comparing him to that extreme for of left wing liberalism which often manifests itself within the tradition of anarchism and again only that section which tends towards Utopianism (often quite openly). Out-and-out anarchism I greatly admire what I despice is people holding such views mascarading as revolutionary Marxists. What anarchists were you thinking of who shun morals and/or ethics? Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Meszaros article
Ian, You wrote praised Meszaros' article for > We can do without worship (or vilification) of > Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc. Were we reading the same article as mine was littered with vilifications of Stalin and the Bolshevik revolution. You talk of some on the left of turning Marxism into a secular religion well the charge could be made that others have turned it into a secular witch-hunt. While I would not normally go out of my way to argue against these sorts of attacks I did so because his vilification obsured the nature of that society. It set up an Aunt-Sally in order to make his argument look like the only reasonable way forward way. > In my darker > moments, I ask whether we will ever be really up to the demands of the the > collective ownership of the means of production (but only in darker > moments, and only wondering - I am knowm usually for my irrepressible > optimism). This is what I think is the danger of projecting a future communism society. As if this was some objective reality which will come about in a specific and detailed form which we can ever predict from within a class-based society. That it will happen is a prediction that Marx could make from the particular historical point from which he wrote. But he knew only too well that a detailed sketch was beyond his analysis. You point about feudal culture existing in pre-revolutionary Russia, China etc. was a bit confusing as did not feudal culture continue post-revolution and does it not still occur in bourgeois society right up to today. I notice that both you and I still live in a Bourgeoie society with an hereditary head of state and 90 artistocrat still sit in its second chamber. Feudalism may have died but the body has not decayed away yet. And where it may no longer exist in an economic sense its cultural aspects still continue. Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Meszaros article: "Communism Is No Utopia"
Going back to the original article Meszaros says: > freedom is not something that simply falls out of the sky and hits us, > and then everything is all right. It is a very complex social > transformation, and at the same time involves a certain conception of > humanity and its conditions of existence. IMO the 'state of nature' debate can never be resolved scientifically until we have actual communism. Either one has faith in the 'natural condition of man' being lovely or you don't. Kropotkin and the anarchist argue very well that man is naturally co-operative, caring and considerate whereas someone like Hobbes argued that the condition of man was always to be nasty, cruel, brutish and short. How one decides scientifically without any concrete empirical evidence is beyond me. I think we should leave the question to the future a class-less society with humanity free is the only real test of how that humanity will operate (to predetermine it would be to prove that it was not really free). The quote from Capital Vol 3, London 1981, pp958-9 did not for me prove his argument. Marx use of the normally moral imperative 'must' I did not read a a moral direction but as a natural inevitability - it 'will' happen not it 'should' happen. > it is value-laden, an aspiration towards which we have to strive. > Unless society is orientated in the direction > of overcoming such terrible legacies, such terrible determinations of > the system, there is no hope that we can move forward. Talk of aspiration and HOPE (good old hope!) always makes me worry. I much prefer talk of the inevitability towards which material conditions are leading, when the contradictions with class-based society WILL unravel and 'human nature' is given its freedom. > Labour cannot simply > emancipate itself, and take over the role of the previous ruling classes > which subordinated the rest of society. IMO it must ! Dream of a future society if you must but - unless you can prove its scientifically inevitability (or even likelihood) - then do not burden the rest of us with your false hopes. Christianity has spent the last 2000 years convincing people that the promise land is just a lifetime away and although millions believe there ability to achieve their promises is far from realization. If the workers just want hope then I think religion has had much better practice than we can ever have. They also get paid for it! > the individual moral dimension is > absolutely essential... He is now sounding more and more like the ultra-Liberalism of the anarchists tradition which is closely associated with utopian socialism. They also try hard to plough a course between aspiration and hard reality. At which point in order to keep posts down to a manageable length I will break off now. I'll be back for more. John === John Walker email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re:LOV, butterflies and babies
Simon,
I was fascinated to read your comment:
> Please, not imperialism. Capitalism.
Well, I had no idea that there were socialists of any sort who
actually opposed the word Imperialism entirely. It is hardly a
Leninist term as the the nice Mr. Hobson was a staunch Liberal.
Unless you are accusing Lenin of being a Liberal (perhaps the logic
could be taken as far as labelling Good old Uncle Joe as that great
Liberal leader Stalin ! !!). There are also many Trotskist who use
the term some like Workers Power openly and many other just throw it
in from time to time, though preferring late capitalism or monopoly
capitalism. Does the SPGB actually believe capitalism has changed at
all since Marx & Engels were writing or your Party came into being
(which I think was just before Hobson wrote his book).
More seriously though your definition of socialist revolution in this
post and the litany of metaphors did rather confuse me. Especially
when you said
> social revolution is the production of a new historical form
> dictated by the physical nature of the entity - in this case, the structure
> of the brain
Not by the body?
Most socially revolutions have been very bodily affairs. Unless by
brain you would include head-butting police officers.
> This is, I would argue, the basis for
> "dialectics": there is nothing dialectical about the universe, but there is
> about us.
So there is no convincing you of the merits of Dialectical
Materialism or the arguments of Engels? Also if there is nothing
dialectical about the universe but there is about us does it follow
that we are not part of the universe (or is that problem solved
dialectically too).On this subject, scientifically how would you
explain locomotion?
>We don't pull an idea out of the hat: we *recreate* it in
> ourselves and in our organization
Unless your polyphony of metaphors is just clouding my understanding,
isn't this just Hegelianism - pure and simple?
> The working class IS the socialism... socialism is the sum total of
> our human relations
You complain about people using the term Imperialism (which at least
we all know what is meant by it nowadays) but what on earth do YOU
mean by socialism.
Do you mean by socialism what Marx and Engels went out of there way
to define as communism? Or do you mean any form of socialism from
utopian socialism to national socialism to market socialism to soviet
style socialism to Fabian socialism to democratic socialism to all
the other brands of socialism? I don't want to sound rude but I
really have no idea what you mean by it?
Finally on the quote above, Surely any society is the sum total of
our human relations. Capitalism is the sum total of the certain
class-based human relations existing at at a certain historical
stage. As you said back in the beginning of you post if i understand
correctly; humanist is the substance of these various forms.
Oh well I don't seem to be agreeing with much you are saying now
perhaps we should go back to discussing the family.
Regards,
John
>
> > Simon's metaphor shows that he understands actual historical economic
> > developments to be natural and ahistorical, the product of one
> > undifferentiated humanity, and not a process determined by class struggle.
> > This is of course equally obvious in his criticism of Dave's presentation
> > of Marx's view of value, in which Simon sees value as the eternal,
> > historically undifferentiated product of human labour (or worse, essence
> of
> > human labour).
>
> Whoa there. What I am saying is that change is due to the material logic of
> human existence, and not your ahistorical idea of an outside agency acting
> on it, which is religion whether that agency is the angelic host or the
> heroic vanguard. And on value, well, we've been over this. You are talking
> about suspending the PRICE mechanism. The system that treats human labour
> as a value, alienating human labour from human existence, is the
> abstraction, and judging the "value" is done by an arbitrary method. The
> internal logic of capitalism is, since you are treating a human as an
> object, their value is based on what it takes to reproduce them as an
> object, the same as any other commodity: whether this is determined by the
> market or by the commissar doesn't matter, except that the commissar is
> taking an arbitrary relationship and then being arbitrary about its
> judgement, and claiming to abolish the relationship! How alienated can one
> person get?
>
> > This leads to a political line that is compounded of theoretical fatalism
> > (it'll happen as a natural process, inevitably) and its hyperactive
> > counterpart, individual heroics ("we, the heroes, must act since no-one
> > else understands anything).
>
> Now you're really fantasising. You're trying to put words in my mouth which
> I never said. Red card for you. It also is completely the opposite of my
> position. I am arguing that members of the working class
M-TH: Red Ken or plain old Labour
Dear all, I was wondering what others here thought of the issue of Ken Livingstone standing for Mayor of London. He has made it quite clear that he would want to work with the City of London Stock Market and although he has made some concessions to his old Left allies on the Underground (with which the Tories and Liberals would not great disagree) he is clearly far from rejecting capitalism, even in a gradualist Fabian sense. And yet many on the left (some who do not normally call for a vote for the reactionary Labour Party) will call for voters in London to vote Labour if Livingstone is their candidate. It is much like the usual suspects (SWP et al) calling for a vote for Labour (without illusions, of course!) just because Prescott (an old Trade Unionist) is its deputy leader or merely because it has 20 old-Left winger' still clinging on. As an anti-parliamentarian I am naturally against. As a Marxist oppose to reforminst Social(ist) Democratic Parties like Labour I am again dismade that the Left's response in greater and greater numbers is to continue to follow the coat-tails of such parties. Will they ever manage to break from Labour ? John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: The fall of the CPGB
I found a couple of links for the article on the history of the CPGB and its various divisions since the winding up of the official organisation in 1991. The link to the Marxist Leninist List is: http://www.eGroups.com/group/marxist-leninist-list/4119.html The original document can also be found at: http://www.raisio.se/igeldard/LA/political/moscom.txt and was originally published by Britain's right-wing Libertarian Alliance. It is entitled "THE BRITISH COMMUNIST MOVEMENT AND MOSCOW: HOW THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION AFFECTED THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND ITS SUCCESSOR ORGANISATIONS". There is a long selection (the original being 30 odd pages) below. If anyone know of another history which is also relatively (for a right-wing organisation) un-biased on the Communist parties in Britain please let me know. Thanks, John 8 The Party's Dissolution - Democratic Left On the 22nd of November 1991 the Party was finally dissolved, at its 43rd Congress (Mercer, 1994). All the crucial votes here were won by the reformers with two-to-one majorities. Nina Temple believes that she managed to get majorities of this size for her proposals partly due to the Moscow Gold disclosures. As mentioned above, many of her natural supporters had left the Party already. This meant the internal balance within the Party had shifted to those members - generally the older ones - who were not necessarily against reform, but who were emotionally more strongly tied to the Party's traditions. Moscow Gold had nevertheless shown to this type of member that the game was now truly up. The Congress which dissolved the Communist Party also launched its official successor organisation, the Democratic Left. This organisation is still run by Nina Temple. It is not a political party and does not put up candidates for election. Nina Temple believes that, with the British electoral system, a group such as theirs could be more effective building political alliances and campaigning on issues rather than operating as a fully fledged political party. It has had some success in building political alliances around the issues of anti-Tory tactical voting, with their GROT - "Get Rid Of Them" - campaign and their electoral reform campaign, which has gained the support even of the Conservative MP John Biffen. The political outlook of the Democratic Left is very much the open radical one envisaged by the modernisers within the old Communist Party. Issues surrounding feminism, ethnic minorities and gay rights are very important to the organisation. It is also very keen on the idea of European federalism, so long as it has a socially aware agenda. One can see the extent to which the modernisers have tried to distance themselves from the other currents within the old Party by the fact that the Democratic Left's constitution does not even mention Marxism. There is a `Marxist-Leninist Forum' within the Democratic Left - it is not clear to me if this is a splinter of the old `Straight Left' faction, but this does seem likely - which is, however, very much marginalised within and in no way represents the mainstream of the Democratic Left. Even an attempt to put a commitment in the organisation's constitution to public ownership was defeated; this occurred nearly four years before a similar commitment was ditched by the Labour Party. Democratic Left talks much today about its commitment to `radical democracy' both within its internal structures and also within society at large. All in all these are extraordinary changes for a group with its origins (interview with Nina Temple, 1995). Democratic Left is a far smaller organisation than the Communist Party ever was. It has 1,370 members according to its own figures, while the Communist Party had 4,600 members at its very end. Organisationally it has also declined. Democratic Left has a permanent staff of three and small modern offices near King's Cross station; when Nina Temple took over as general secretary in 1990, the party had fifty full-time staff and large offices in Covent Garden (Temple, ibid). Financially the organisation survives on the income from the assets it inherited from the old party. The value of these assets have been put to me at variously £2,500,000 by Nina Temple and £4,000,000 by Brian Denny, the national organiser of the Communist Party of Britain. Indeed many of the detractors of the Democratic Left argue that the only reason for its continued existence is to keep its hands on these assets. It is even felt that the modernisers only stayed within the Party in order to control the Party's money and kept it out of the hands of the traditionalists (interviews with John Haylett, Brian Denny and Andy Brooks, 1995). The modernising faction of the old Communist Party thus responded to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by abandoning their remaining commitment to Marxism. The only vestige of the old days which is still their is the involvement of some of the lead
Re: M-TH: Meszaros article: "Communism Is No Utopia"
Meszaros says that communism concerns control and asks: > what sort of control? In the past it was assumed that political control would do It was not political control that was at the heart of Communism but the control of the means of poduction, short and simple. Communism is effectively about people controling there own production. In fact, in the sense he seems to be inferring, political control (i.e. via the state) is precisely what communism seeks to surplant. The phrase 'the withering away of the state' as a definition of communism comes to mind. > If you look around the world today, most of the former communist > parties have abandoned the name 'communist'. The original CPGB now > calls itself the 'Democratic Left'. Well a small section of reformist members who won control of its assets do (and some of them may still consider themselves to be communists regardless of the party name). There was an interesting article on its collapse posted to the Marxist-Leninist list I'll check the url if anyone's interested. > In the former Soviet Union and the east European countries, there > has been a complete change, a complete abandonment of all > principles. The former communist leaders of eastern Europe have > turned themselves into capitalists It was the captialism forces both within and without the CPs which brought about these changes not because they changed their minds but that the economic conditions changed with pressure from Imperialism. This meant that their own economic interests no longer accorded with communist priniclples but with the re-introduction of the capitalist market. The same forces have also arisen in China and Cuba but for the time being they haven't brought about the same destruction. He then goes on to Stalin (ignoring Lenins advocation of the same point - and I presume even Trotsky!): > For him, communism meant overtaking the United States in coal, pig > iron and steel production. How seriously can you take any notion of > 'communism' which defines the idea in such totally vacuous and > utterly fetishistic terms. You can double the United States pig iron > production, and you have not moved one inch in the direction of > communism. Communism is exactly about the question of production. Without large scale production (regardless of its relation to other countries) it would be impossible to bring about the radical shift necessary from a largely backwards, peasant-ridden, mostly agricultural society (as almost all these countries were) into an industrial one. But perhaps Meszaros' view of communism has more in common with Proudhon and some anarchists view of small farmholds. A sort of peasant society without the feudal lords and other classes bothering them. There can be no move to what Marx's means by communism except in relation to the improvement of production to provide for all and not just a few. The other problem with Meszaros' obsessive attacks on so-called Stalinist communism is that he does what many do when attacking these countries and that is to start out by attacking first a hate-figure like stalin and then the communist parties and then to slip un-noticed the 'fact' that these countries were Communist. It is not a mere oversight that the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was not the USCR as it made no claim to have attained Communism, the state had far from withered away (in fact it was quite openly a dictatorship of the proletariat). They did not claim that one could build 'communism in one country'. No one was more aware of the then inability to achieve a move to a communist society than the people in the Communist Parties. What they achieved was not communism but what they did show was that a break from Capitalism in the intense period of Imperialism was no longer merely a Utopian pipe-dream. Those who condemn these countries out-of-hand (such a Simon's 100 year old SPGB) have to come to terms with the fact that their belief in the transition to Communism - if not a Utopia - has not got off the planning stage. Which after a century and a half would certainly convince me that Marx was just wrong or at least so wildly optimistic that we can have no idea how long capitalism will last. Marxism then slips from a science of the historical development of human society to quasi-religious belief that humanity must be liberated one day. For some that is solice enough. I could go on but I have to have something to eat. I will be back. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Meszaros article
James, Thanks for the article, well it managed to work me up and I haven't finished it yet!!! One point about your brief reply, which may just be me being over picky is where you say: > What we need to do now is to formulate the vision that Meszaros describes in > simple, attractive and concrete images, so that ordinary people can picture > the alternative. The communist alternative is really very simple. If enough > people see that soon enough, the "barbarism" side of the alternative will be > rejected. This again is just presenting the means of achieving communism not in the realm of action, not in the realm of the outcome of the contraditions manifest within capitalism, but as someadvertising battle. "Don't buy their barbarism its really awful, just taste it and see. What you need madam is our new brighter, cleans whiter communism" Without accusing you, this tendency to view class struggle as a problem of consciousness is in my view very dangerous and rather prevalent as it always is in time of left wing contemplation whic arises in period of limited widespead class struggle. My fear is that it sucks Marxism back into it Hegelian roots a\nd allows Hegel to stand Marx on his own head as Marx had done to him. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
Chris wrote > I think I agree with much of the thrust of the posts by John and Simon. If > I understand them correctly they are both criticising the social and > psychological effects of capitalism. I think this is a very important area > of criticism of late capitalist society, and is essential for the battle > for ideological hegemony of socialist ideas. Oh dear! I am personally (and politically) horrified that this is what you think I (or Simon) was arguing. I cannot find a single part of the above that I would ever say. I was criticising the economic effects of capitalism. The social and especially the psychological effects I was trying to avoid completely. The idea of late capitalism smacks of Mandel and Sweezy and the Trotskites which I would want to distance myself from and 'the battle for ideological hegemony of socialist ideas' is the mumbo-jumbo of Gramskism which I am equally uninfluenced by. > To be consistent with Marx's terminology I would not say "private > production" here. I would say "outside the realm of commodity production". Domestic work was always outside the realm of commdoity production the point about domestic work under captialism is it moves from being 'a public, socially necessary industry' to being separated from social production. Under capitalism the concrete labour of an individual becomes directly social only so far as the product ofthat labour aquires an exchange value. > This is all part of the "social life process" of our species. Only a subset of these > activities are organised through commodity exchange, and only a subset of this > subset are organised for the production of surplus value by capital Yes, I have pointed out that there is a limited scope for indirectly sociallising domesic work as Marx points out when discussing unproductive labour. But domestic labour in the home does not even fall into this category as it is not even exchanged for revenue as the work of a cook or laundress is. > No the distinction is not that capitalism is about the material, and > socialists are about the spiritual. Who said it was? Or is this just a rhetorical flourish on a different topic. I don't know about Simon but I am not sure your reply to the same conversation. How spiritual is WORLD SOCIALISM for you Simon? :-) John (who is look forward to a material communism) --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
Simon wrote (before the discussion was side-lined slightly): > In general, the family is > communal living which is resistant to mass production, a bit like > reproducing labour in a series of small factory lots rather than one big > factory. But if by mass production you are trying to indicate that an non-family method of housework could be provided within capitalism which generate surplus value or was productive labour, then I do not think that is possible. Although some capitalists may put some domestic workers to work capitalistically (while also carrying out their own domestic toil) this merely results in money being circulated not surplus value being created. This process will always be limited as domestic work cannot be socialised under capitalism. Domestic work is part of private production and falls outside the realm of social production. On top of this as capital comes to rely on women and children to entering the labour market so surplus value increase as well as the rate of exploitation. But this brings about a fall in the rate of profit and hence leads to a capitalist crisis resulting in an increase in the reserve army of labour and women are rapidly and easily thrown back into domestic drudgery. Hence the stuggle for women's liberation, and the abolition of the family as an economic unit, will always be united with the struggle against capitalism. 'nough said, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Whither the Family
Simon wrote: > I would agree with you that communal living is far cheaper for > the reproduction of labour than individual consumption. But we were talking > about the family, which is effectively communal living minus. Did you mean to add anything to this sentence 'minus.' what? If communal living is far cheaper and if capitalism has proved that the maintenance of drudgery is possible within the institution of the family then surely it must be in its interest to defend the family. > The ideal for > capitalism is what it has pushed the lower end of the working class towards > - and which I am now in - communal houses where workers share in the > facilities, cleaning, etc. but there is no institutionalized resistance to > the capitalist economic process. I would have thought the communal houses DO offer the possibility of institutionalised resistance or are you referring to the family here. Again this is not a new Marx well knew the existence of the workhouse and the asylum where those who could not maintain a proper family household could be provided for - in poor conditions - on mass. > One of the classic features of the family > is the "housewife"performing tasks individually for her family which would be > more efficiently done communally by creches, launderettes, etc. Yes more efficiently done but not profitably done. Again these communal facilities are nothing new. The launderette has - and is - the centre of many working class communities, as is the voluntary playgroup or some form of inter-family childcare. the point is that these task are paid for by free labour based on the sole income of the worker (and / or the 'housewife's' part-time employment). > the campaign for paid housework has already > progressed as far as capitalism wants it to, in the shape of strict > benefits like family credit, covering the reproduction of the family as a > contract. Well the welfare state in Britain may be able to provide family credit but the rest of the world's working class (who provide the profit to the West to allow such extra benefits) have only starvation to look at if they do not provide these service for free. > Only if that drudge is fooled into having an artificially low standard of > living. Feminism destroys the patriarchal family, which is the family as a > unit with a worker and a drudge. They are not fooled they are force there are not enough full-time jobs in the system most of the time to provide any employment to a vast proportion of the population, so they are forced into drudgery, just like single people were forced into the workhouse (or now onto the streets!) The one great blow to the family was not feminism (which IF it had succeeded within capitalism would have had the effect you suggest) but the 2nd Imperialist War where women left the family (or the family left them) and filled the factories. > But my argument would be that the call for wages for housework is already > answered, as pointed out above. Many of the jobs that person then does are, > as I have pointed out, paid for by the state as if as a contract. I do not think the call for wages for housework (I presume you mean the concept rather than the organisation, but either way) has been met at all. You refer to family credit but the work of the houseworker if it only took 10 hours a day (from preparing breakfast to clearing away after the evening meal) and was paid for at the rate of the minimum wage would cost capitalism over £220. This does not take into account the fact that they are on call 24 hours a day, they may have elderly relatives or people with disablilities who need extra care, it does not pay for clothing or materials, it does not include tax contribution, sickness benefit, extra pension contributions, holiday pay... I think that if it was totalled up - and Wages For Housework did a calculation via the UN of the cost globally - I expect it would come as a great shock to many of us and would deal a near fatal blow to capitalism if those houseworkers demanded it. > I've never really had to deal with the question before - though I would fit > the argument on needing a non-capitalist sector of the family as broadly > Luxembergian (on the "capitalism needs non capitalist societies" approach). Do you have a reference? I know nearly nothing about Luxembergianism. One other point on which I am not clear is whether you are mourning the loss of the family in history or whether you are merely pointing out its decline due to capitalism. Does it have any validity? Comradely regards John Walker P.S. I'll try to be less verbose next time... === John Walker email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re:A new regular feature in LM magazine
Simon, I would greatly enjoy a serious debate but I just wasn't clear if it was your own particular conviction as it appears in your first reply or a party position in the making as it appears in the second. And in either case it was not clear to me what you thought was new in such a position. Much of what you said (other than that 99% of the world population makes up the economic working class) can be found in the throughout Marx and Engles writings. Your central point appears to be that the traditional model has altered but as you point out that was just a caricature and so you seem to be just restating the more scientific Marxist definition of the working class as a economic class confronting capital with no power except to fight politically (and physically) against it. If I am correct then I agree whole-heartedly. If on the other hand you argument is that we now live in a post-industrial, post-family virtual world where the working class become a disparate collection of individuals economically opposed to capital but unable to mobilize socially then I remain very wary. This could certainly be taken as the ultimate conclusion of your argument by the likes of the cyber-communists! > No. I am saying that the economic ruling class constitute about 1% or less > of the world's population. I am not talking about the various remnants of > previous economic stages, like petit-b and peasants, and the lumpen-proles > are members of the economic working class who attack their fellow workers > in the service of capital, right? Well what are you saying - you said that the economic working class was 99% which if you mean the proletariat as Marx defined it does no add up. What it just rhetoric? You initial post was that the problem we all need to confront is 'who are the working class and while rejecting the caricature your definition is far from clear. These other classes may be part of the previous economic stages but they are still here and they still effect the balance of political forces. On other minor point the lumpen-proletariat (that dangerous class that social scum) I have always viewed as a broad spectrum of the dispossessed who vasilate between classes and hence are easily won over to the services of capital but usually in the form of something approaching fascism - but this is often a thorny issue- especially if one tries to define them). Regards, JOHN --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Whither the Family
As I said I would deal with your points on the family spearately I origionally wrote: > > What I actually said was that 'point of the family in bourgeois > > society should IDEALLY be one that puts up with the worker's long > > hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no > > cost to capitalism) maintain and reproduce the worker.' That the > > present crisises of capitalism make it more and more difficult to > > maintain such an institution (even with the help of the Church) is > > merely demonstative of its structural decline. Also I think you will > > find that, far from an atomised society maintained by packaged > > homecare utilities, for the most part many couples still have one > > person who works as well dealing with the household maintanence. For > > all the talk of 'new men' this role is still generally performed by > > women working in low-paid part-time evening work and whatever form it > > takes it is rarely paid for directly by capitalism. and Simon replied: > Hmm... I accept that that may be the position today. What I was saying is > that the family is continuing to fragment, and capitalism's own raison > d'etre supports that. The family would ideally do all the things you > mention, but then again ideally the workers would reproduce their labour as > work units in the cheapest manner possible. Capitalism has no particular > use for the family unless it cheapens reproduction of labour, and I would > say that it probably doesn't. Have you ever tried maintaining yourself alone. To clean a kitchen, bathroom etc used by just one person is not much less effort than for a a number of people. To make a meal for several is proportionally far cheaper and easier than to make one each. The same is true of housing, to a limited extent clothing (depending on who the group is!), heating etc. I just cannot see anyway in which capitalism could benefit if people all lived in separate units - feeding, cleaning and maintaining themselves - all working in the labour market or recieving direct state support.On top of that, as part of the reserve army of labour, it will always be more efficient that the worker devotes all their time and efforts to working for the capitalist and have their reproductive (in the widest sense) need supplied by someone outside the capitalist labour market. It is the weaknesses and contradictions within capitalism, not because it is in a position of strength, that the institution of the family is breaking down. Nor is it a new phenomena we saw it is Weimar Germany with mass prositution, a significant gay culture and the loss of many of the traditional head-of-the-household who were killed or mutilated in the 1st Imperialist War. I have only one qualifier to what is a pretty standard position (shame there are not more women or people fromthe feminist tradition on this list as these are really very old arguments, presently thrown into sharp relief) and that is that my understanding of the family is not that it need be biologically or religiously constituted. Only that some form of division of labour be present to allow some to work for capitalism and some to work for free to maintain the workforce (with the added advantage of allowing the latter to be called upon to swell the ranks of the working class in times of need). The call for wages for housework has never been one capitalism has been able to concede to. I could go on but i think for the time being it is best to leave it there as for many this will be a familiar argument within Marxism. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re:A new regular feature in LM magazine
Simon Wrote in reply yo me: >I sometimes think that if there are enough Trotskyist splinters they >will make a whole crucifix :-) The whoke point about the Split from the IS was as a break from Trotskyism (I think the IMG was also Trotskyist but I amd not absolutely positive). I am also not sure the RCP/LM view of Trotskyism, I don't think they reject it outright like the RCG does but they certainly don't stress it. Members I knew seem to take the view that So read him and others didn't. > I was actually running a trial argument past you Oh thank you, how kind. > that there is an economic working class, as the WSM would see it, which 99% of the >world's > population would fit into (without going into the "who is still a peasant" > argument: assume of the capitalist world), and defined by their relations > to capital, and a much smaller and dwindling group who have a historical > tradition of opposition to capitalists So does that mean that the sum total of the Bourgeoisie, peti-bourgeoisie, lumpen proletariat and peasantry (however constituted) make up only 1 per cent of the population (c.60 mil) ! And within this there is still a further section (perhaps like MArx and Engels were) who for non-economic reasons are won over to the struggle again capitalism. > for example have never been in a union (NUS doesn't count...?) The working class as only that section of the population restricted to the Trade Union movement is not a definition I have found in Marx's writings but only in the practice and propaganda of various left groups. > and experience capitalism as an overwhelming force rather than as a particular > capitalist b***ard to be lynched. The whole point about Marxist theory was that it is not individual capitalists who were the problem but of captial as a force which acts just as much on the bourgeois as the proletariat. I'm not sure that this 'trial argument' comes to that cannot be found just in the Communist Manifesto. It may be new and revalatory ti non-Marxists in the historical tradition of opposition to capitalist but I'm not sure it comes as a great surprise to most on this list. The argument on the family I will deal with in another Email as it appears to be quite distinct. John Walker > > > What I actually said was that 'point of the family in bourgeois > > society should IDEALLY be one that puts up with the worker's long > > hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no > > cost to capitalism) maintain and reporduce the worker.' That the > > present crisises of capitalism make it more and more difficult to > > maintain such an institution (even with the help of the Church) is > > merely demonstative of its structural decline. Also I think you will > > find that, far from an atomised society maintained by packaged > > homecare utilities, for the most part many couples still have one > > person who works as well dealing with the household maintanence. For > > all the talk of 'new men' this role is still generally performed by > > women working in low-paid part-time evening work and whatever form it > > takes it is rarely paid for directly by capitalism. > > Hmm... I accept that that may be the position today. What I was saying is > that the family is continuing to fragment, and capitalism's own raison > d'etre supports that. The family would ideally do all the things you > mention, but then again ideally the workers would reproduce their labour as > work units in the cheapest manner possible. Capitalism has no particular > use for the family unless it cheapens reproduction of labour, and I would > say that it probably doesn't. > > Look forward to your reply, > > Simon > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Cyber-communism
Russell wrote: > Have any Thaxians aware of Ricahrd Barbrook and the Hypermedia Research > Centre's debates with Wired Magazine? > Interesting stuff @ http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/ma.theory.4.db Looking at the first bit of 'Cyber-Communism' all i can say is that I could not find one bit I could agree with. I do think people on the left can truely believe in communism and the whole thing seems to be an attack against the USSR (which clearly for all his protestations seems still to pose a threat). I think the point about a Cyber-economy transcending capitalism is only plausable to people who spend all their time on the computer and not enough in the real world. The printing press did not bring down Feudalism and the only real money made in this cyber world is in microchip manufacture and selling non-cyber products the rest merely melts into air. JohnWalker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: CPGB archives
Just a quick question. Does anyone know where the old-CPGB (not the Leninist) archives are now held? If they are in the Marx Memorial Library is it still under refurbishment? It is not for me much as I would like to have the time to study them, but a friend writing a dissertation on the General Strike in Salford who is interested in their oral history programme of 1986. If anyone has any info on that sort of thing too I sure he would welcome it. Thanks in advance, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re:A new regular feature in LM magazine
Simon, > Surely LM cannot be a serious magazine? I thought that the expose in > the Guardian a few months back (I can't remember the exact weekend, > but it was in the Weekend supplement) was very good, pointing out > that effectively a remaining section of the WRP cult (Gerry Healey's > old mob, till he died I think) had decided to reconstitute > themselves as their paper, like Mormons with a family business. I didn't see that Gaurdian piece (or if I did I don't remeber that part) but LM heritage does not come from the WRP. Unless someone else can correct me it traces back from the Revolutionary Communist Party which was the Revolutionary Communist Tendency which split from the Revolutionary Communist Group which itself was a mix of dissaffected Marxist from the International Socialists (now SWP) and the (I think now defunct) International Marxist Group. Before that my knowledge of Left history gets a little vague. As Far as I am aware the WRP was far more Trotskist (if you know what I mean) then any of LM Marxist ancestors. The idea that LM was just a self-obsessed cult appears to me to be rather simplistic and does not help us to explain - what is of most interest to me and that is - why should a group which split over its belief in the active role of the Party should have been the first left group to formally have decapitated the Party as such. And how does that fit into its unique political positions on the left which go right through The Next Step, TNS (they always liked initials), Living Marxism and LM? > I think the problem is - who are the working class? The working class as > politically described - flat cap and whippet, overalls, all the caricatures > - which mapped onto the economic struggle has almost disappeared, to leave > behind the economic working class which as yet has no such structures. So a > worker as economically defined, who is part of the vast majority i.e. not > in a thriving, powerful union - confronts capitalists, (who are also > politically constituted) as an individual, with no power. The resort is > then to appeal to capital as an arbiter, that the capitalists is making a > mistake by his or her own rules. I do not quite understand what you are saying here. But if it is a version of 'well the traditional working class, on which Marx and Engels et al based their studies, has now withered away in an Information technological revolution,' then I think that may be correct for certain sections of the working class in the advanced Capitalist countries I am not so sure that it applies to the vast majority of the working class across the globe. Who for the most part work in factories under conditional and with similar socal relations as existed in Western European nations in the 19th century. But perhaps that is not what you meant! > I think this fetishises a particular institution. The family is a heavily > subsidised institution - viz single workers, gay couples, two income no > kids, etc. As new techniques for having children and caring for them > emerge, in the next century it may become a Roman Catholic backwater. The > traditional labour reproduction functions, like being fed, having washed > clothes, etc. are being provided in individual packages. What I actually said was that 'point of the family in bourgeois society should IDEALLY be one that puts up with the worker's long hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no cost to capitalism) maintain and reporduce the worker.' That the present crisises of capitalism make it more and more difficult to maintain such an institution (even with the help of the Church) is merely demonstative of its structural decline. Also I think you will find that, far from an atomised society maintained by packaged homecare utilities, for the most part many couples still have one person who works as well dealing with the household maintanence. For all the talk of 'new men' this role is still generally performed by women working in low-paid part-time evening work and whatever form it takes it is rarely paid for directly by capitalism. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Fw: A new regular feature in LM magazine
George, Surely this cannot be a serious column. Not only is the format, of Furedi as agony aunt simply bizare, but the politics that lie behind it (which is the real point) are beyond comprehension. That we live in a world where one can wander up to the employer and quietly explain that it is inefficient in the long term to make him work long hours is beyond comprehension. And if that isn't possible the problem is some psychobabble about inner unfullfillment. The whole point of the family in bourgeois society should ideally be one that puts up with the worker's long hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no cost to capitalism) maintain and reporduce the worker. As a Marxist, one is reminded of the great stuggle for the eight hour day - which was not fought by careful explaination to bosses - but on the streets, with the support of Marx and Engels. And didn't Karl have a theory of alienation which was a little more scientific than the ideology of the workaholic. But then LM isn't Living Marxism any more. And like the ex-Marxism Today lot they do seem to be moving on a slow drift to the right. If it is - as I initially hoped - merely a hoax then my apologies to Furedi but the fact that it is believable is worrying enough. John Walker > COLUMN: HOW TO SUSTAIN A MARRIAGE > IN AN AGE OF DECLINING EXPECTATIONS > > BY DR. FRANK FUREDI (TENURED SOCIOLOGIST) > > Q: My husband is simply never home. He works until at least 9:00 P.M. > - and for six hours or so on either Saturday or Sunday - because he > says it's expected. Even though I have some household help, it's a > tremendous strain on me to raise two daughters, ages 1 1/2 and 4, > without a father around. On a recent Sunday, I was running a > 102-degree fever, and he still went to the office. How can I cope with > this? > > A: You could tell him, quite seriously, that unless he can create more > time to be a husband and father, you and the children will be forced > to fire him. He needs to find a way to make clear to his employer > that, while he's willing to work overtime in emergencies, this > round-the-clock face time must end. Apart from what it's doing to his > family, his schedule is going to burn him out - if it hasn't already - > and make him a much less effective employee. Of course, the > possibility exists that even if his boss weren't pressuring him to put > in long hours, he would do so anyway because he's a workaholic. In > that case, you both need to figure out what he's trying to escape from > - like other addicts, workaholics are hiding from inner turmoil. It > could be the responsibilities of parenting two preschool-age children. > Clearly, it's time for a frank discussion of what each of you expects > from your marriage and what is missing. If that gets you nowhere, I'd > strongly suggest he carve out time in his schedule for marriage > counseling. Should you keep going on the way you're going, I foresee > disaster. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Re: M-TH: A plea
Nor this one (it must be me): --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: Self To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Re: M-TH: A plea Date sent: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:13:23 David Welsh wrote: > Well the barrier to social revolution is the widespread absence of >any belief > in a replacement for the existing order, So if we believed harder we could create a revolution regardless of economic crisis, or do the two have to coincide or in a some dialectic process? > during the twentieth century when there always has been (at least) the Soviet > Union to provide an alternative model. Here I can agree up to a point. That the one advantage which communists had over socialist, Fabians, Trotskists and anarchists is that we could point to a real revolution to prove that our arguement were not merely some pipe dream utopia. To so extent Cuba still fulfills this role to a lesser degree (and possibly China if one is that way inclined). > all the scenarios provided by Comrade> Walker either take place in >a distant country or repeat the past. I do not agree with all the scenarios I mentioned but the are only distant countries to you. They are very important to most of the workers in the world and equally to Imperialism which no longer recognises distances as very significant. That Britain would be uneffected by revolution in the Brazil et al, I I would argue to miss the point. >I would> love to be to offer a plan of action for British communists >but I can't, > greater unity (as was attempted around the European >elections) Oh yes a left coalition of Labour Party expelled socialists fighting a European election hardly anyone voted in (or even noticed!) I am sure that would have capitalism quaking in its boots (as I am sure William Morris would agree). I sorry if I was a liitle harsh but you said all the thing I most despair of in left politics - idealism, Eurocentrism and parliamentarianism. But then disagreeing is what Marxists do best, isn't it? No offence, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: A plea
Rob, One of the great fears about asking a question is to have too many too long replies. So can I ask the most difficult question which merits the lengthist of answers BUT to ask for only a *brief* reply. The question is: What are we waiting for? What do comrades consider is the MOST IMPORTANT single obstacle to revolution at the present time? Are we waiting for a further decline in the Far Eastern economies? A counter-counter revolution in Russia? A all-American or EU-wide general strike? A increased radicalism of direct action environmental campaigns globally? Or will Capitalism continue to stregthen as the Chinese market is further opened up and reformist wings continue to dominate most national movements? Will a continued escualtion in trade wars and regional disputes between the major Imperialist powers lead to a re-run of 1914? Or a country such as Brazil, the Phillipines or Indonesia having a revolution will greatly weaken Imperialism and offer new hope to workers everywhere proving that Marxism is not dead? Remember it is just the question of what is the most significant hold- up to what I presume everyone still expects is an eventual revolutionary situation. That should be enough to get you going. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism
> Why should we, as socialists or Marxists, adopt such a perspective? > In what way does it contribute to the struggle for socialism? > Lew Lew, The importance of dialectical materialism to the struggle for socialism is in my opinion twofold. First, people like Engles wanted to appeal to the broad and popular interest in science and philosophy which - although it is not as important as it was in the 19th century - is still an significant part of the political and ideological situation. This is even more important if one believes the Communist Manifesto claim that: 'A portion of the bourgeois goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.' This section (perhaps like Engels himself) clearly will not be won over by the economic circumstances but by the validity of Marxism as a science which is consistent, rational and comprehensive. Second, is the linked point, that Marxism is not just the same as some more moralistic socialist political ideologies which seek to win over sympathetic individuals who feel sorry for (or even responsible for) the misery of the poor. Such as Fabian socialism, social democracy, paternalism and forms of anarchism and liberalism. Marxism aimed to be a scientific socialism. It theories were based upon an actual explaination of the universe and human society which will operate regardless of our wishes. It does not argue what sought of society we OUGHT to have but what we will have. Fact replaces hope. Any science or philosophy (natural philosophy was still used to encompass both) which makes any sense and relates to the real world must, if it is to be accepted, be all inclusive. One cannot have a science of human society whose theories do not transfer correctly to the rest of the natural world (unless one argues that humans are super-natural). That (as perhaps a (peti-)'bourgeois ideologist' myself) is why I think dialectical materialism is still important to Marxism if it is not to be merely a utopian philosophy (which is how many still appear to think it is). Regards, John Walker. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: M-TH Republican Movement & GFA
Comrades, In my opinion as someone from Britain, the Republican movement though now far from it revolutionary arder of previous years is still the legitimate voice of the national liberation struggle against British Imperialism. It might not have the aims we might like, it may have made compromises with the British government which we may prefer they didn't but that is a reflection of the change in political situation globally. The weakness of the republican movement (I think the IRSP the only avowedly Marxist republican group is now almost non-existent) is not an excuse for Communist who are in an equally weak position to attack what small moves they are making. The problem goes back to 1979-81 when MacGuinness and Adams took over the leadership of Sinn Fein, marking the move from the revolutionary leadership of Bobby Sands, the Hunger Strikers and their supporters. The revolutionaries were defeated by British imperialism, just as Connolley had been at the beginning of the century. And the bourgeois and peti-bourgeois wing of the National Liberation movement came to the fore. This was repeated internationally: in South Africa (Bilko for President Mandela) and Palestine (the Intifada for Arafat). The only thing for those in the Imperialist countries is to support the right of nations to Self-determination whatever wing happens to be in the assendency and to try to weaken imperialism from the heart of the beast and hence give greater room to those revolutionsry forces in the national liberation movement to make greater advances. Regards, John. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: dialectical materialism
Jeremy wrote: > Precisely what is the nature of dialectical materialism? I have seen > descriptions of it as a method, theory, doctrine and philosophy. All of those desciptions are correct. Dialectical materialism (diamat as they called it in the USSR) is a philosophy with a theory of the natural which is materialist and a method of investigation which is dialectical; and became the docrine of a large section of the Second and all of the Third International. Although Lenin said that 'Marx and Engels scores of times termed their philosophical views dialectical materialism' I have not found any direct use of the term in the English translation of their works. The first person to have definitely used the term was Plekahov in 1891. He developed his position in 'Fundamental Problems of Marxism'. Probably the greatest advocate was Joseph Stalin in 'Dialectical & Historical Materialism' (1938) which is published in 'Problems of Leninism'. It opens be declaring: 'Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist Leninist PartyIts method of studying the phenomena of nature is dialectical. Its conception of nature is materialistic.' and goes on to note that 'Historical materialism is the extension of dialectical materialism to the study of social life.' One does not study the world as some snapshot but as existence in flux. He is following on from Lenin in his 'Development is the struggle of opposites' (In: 'On the Question of Dialectics' 1915). There is also a brief overview in Lenin 'On Marx and Engels'. But more importantly from Engels' preface to the 2nd edn. of 'Dialectics of Nature': 'In nature amid the welter of innumerable changes the same dialectical laws of motion force their way through as those which in history govern the apparent fortuitousness of events.' In my opinion, Engels had always sought to put Marxism on a proper scientific basis for the physical science as well as the human sciences. So 'Dialectics of Nature' proposes a natural philosophy unifying enlightenment materialism with the Hegelian dialectic while ditching their mechanism nad idealism repectively. The three main 'Laws' of dialectical materialism are: 1. Gradual quantitive changes give rise to revolutionary qualative changes. 2. Concrete reality is a unity of contradictions. 3. Opposites negate one another (law of te negation of the negation). These are applied to economic questions of Value, philosophical questions of mind and matter and scientific questions of evolution. Other writers on dialectical materialism include Maurice Cornfield and Mao. The main critics are Marxist humanists such as Lukacs and Korsch who stress the dialectic to the extent that the materialism may be lost to idealism. Whereas at the opposite pole Popper, the Frankfurt School, Della Volpe (and I presume Gramski and Sartre) oppose it Hegelian basis. Depending on what else you have read, the interest you have in the subject and your own political position I hope this goes some way to answerring your question. For a fuller answer look-up some of the sources mentioned. Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: Living Marxism and over-accumulation
Comrades, Sorry I'm a bit confused by all this over-accumulation and under- consumption debate (as my earlier unresolved Gold question revealed I haven't got far through Book I of Capital, never mind Book III !). So it would be useful to know what exactly the old RCP/now LM were actually arguing? Does anyone have any references or is it just other's interpretation of the logic (dangerous word perhaps?) of their position? When the RCT split in 1974/5 was it related to economic differences with Yaffe & co. (a stong opponent of under- and over- consuption arguments describing them as effectively Neo-Malthusian) or were the differences just about the role of the Party etc.? Is the RCP/LM being singled out here for any particular reason? Are they unusual in taking such as position? I know it was against the general position of Cliff in the I.S. and the many in the C.P., but Ido not know any specifically RCP/LM economic writings and most of the debate was carried on within the C.S.E. which I don't think they had any members in. But I am happy to be corrected. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Tragedy and farce
I thought that the front page report in The Independent (UK) this week might be of interest: Serb Army 'Unscathed by NATO' Robert Fisk, Belgrade Nato killed far more Serb civilians than soldiers during its 11-week bombardment of the country and most of the Yugoslav Third Army emerged unscathed from the massive air attacks on its forces in Kososvo... Nato officers have been astonished that thousands of Yugoslav tanks , missile launchers, artillery batteries, personel carriers and trucks have been withdrawn from the province with barely a scratch on them. At least 60,000 Yugoslav troops - rather than the 40,000 estimated... Yugoslav military sources said that more than half the 600 soldiers who died in Serbia were killed in guerrila fighting with the KLA rather than NATO bombing Full report - www.independent.co.uk/stories/B2106902.html __ As Marx noted: history repeats itself; though first time as tragedy and second as farce. Iraq being the first and Serbia the latter. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: NATO wins, state caps & basics
Hugh Thank you. I apologies for the mistake you are right I clearly did mean 'State Capitalism' as neil had described it in his original message. I don't agree with the Trotskyist position because I am not a Trotskyist. I think that had the USSR followed Trotsky it would have been defeated much earlier and revolutions in Eastern Europe and even the far east would have been less likely to have happened or to have survived. I defended all the Socialist countries as a bulwalk against Imperialism and a progressive step towards communism (particularly Yugoslavia under Tito) up until 1989 when I DO think Socialism broke down, except in Cuba China and North Korea. Trotskism tends to underestimate the difficulties in maintaining a revolution in a largly un-industrialised, peasant society - which is where all revolutions have so far occured. Whereas in countries where the Trotskists dominate left politics they don't appear to have got past first base in creating a revolution and are therefore not in such a good position to criticise. Sorry to go on (I could say much more!) but you did ask. Regards, John Walker > > John W wrote: > > >I do not agree with the trotskyist position, I think that they were > >(and some still are Socialist countries), but it would be wrong to > >accuse them of supporting 'State Socialism' without giving some > >examples. > > If this isn't a misprint for "State Capitalism", then there's something > very wrong here! > > Otherwise, it would interest me to hear just why John doesn't agree with > the Trotskyist position. > > Cheers, > > Hugh > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: NATO wins, state caps & basics
> Trotskyism never defended the Stalinist regimes of these degenerated > (USSR), revolutionary but deformed (Yugoslavia, Vietnam, China, Cuba) and > deformed workers states. It characterized them as counter-revolutionary > regimes and the implacable enemies of the world working class. Which has > been demonstrated. The regime is not the same as the state. Yes, I am not sure where Neil is from (or what Russ was questioning), but my experience from Britain (or at least the north of England bit) is that the major Trotskyist parties have all condemned so called 'state capitalism' in the sort of language Hugh uses in his reply. It was only the old CPers and the MArxist Leninists who gave any support to the Socialist Countries and they did not regard them as degenerate. 'Niether Washington nor Moscow' was the slogan I heard most from the Trots here. The only exception may be in America where American Militant/Pathfinder (who have operated over here for a number of years) do support Cuba very strongly but that has far more to do with their opposition to American Imperialism in Latin American that a defence of Communist countries. They did not hold the same view of China, USSR or the Warsaw Pact countries. I do not agree with the trotskyist position, I think that they were (and some still are Socialist countries), but it would be wrong to accuse them of supporting 'State Socialism' without giving some examples. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: NATO wins
Dear Neil, One doesn't have to believe that Yugo, China and Russia are 'Worker's States' to know that a scramble for the ex-communist states is being mounted by imperialism. And that the further advances of capital into these countries is not in the interests of the working class internationally. Even never-socialist countries such as Libya with its centralised economy (if i remember correctly) which is not - for various reasons - fully open to capital exploitation are worthy of support from anti- imperialists. If only on the basis that my enemies enemy is my friend (not a principle which should always apply!). And if one could give support to Libya then it is even less of a problem to support countries which are atleast vaguely progressive and anti-imperialist such as China (who abstained on the UN vote), North Korea and Cuba (which opposed NATOs actions). Regards, John Walker An anti-trotskyist who supported the Socialist countries as progressive not degenerate. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Doug on GOLD
Doug (who seems to have a view opposed by all the other Marxist on the list) wrote: > There was a tie to gold under Bretton Woods. Currencies were defined > relative to the US$, and US$1 was defined as 1/35 oz. of gold. This > arrangement ended in the early 1970s, and currencies were allowed to float. > Gold is traded on the commodity markets alongside silver and platinum but > it no longer has any privileged monetary role. Greenspan is said to watch > the gold price for hints of inflation panic, but he watches lots of other > things too. Gold no longer functions as the transcendental signified of the > monetary realm, which makes conservatives of all kinds - supply-siders and > Marxists - very nervous. > Doug This does not answer my question ! Which is about the FUNDAMENTAL relationship (from a MArxist not Keynesian point of view) between commodity exchange and money as a commodity and the univeral equivalent. > >Are you arguing that there is ABSOLUTLY NO RELATION between gold as > >universal commodity (containing socially necessary labour power) and > >commodity exchange? > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Aveling on GOLD
One problem with the Gold question I raised appears to me to be a confusion about which function of money each person is referring to. In his 'Student's Marx' Edward Aveling's commentary to Pt. 1, Ch.III, sect 3, he notes six functions of money in the home sphere: 1. Measure of Value 2. Standard of Price 3. Money of Account 4. Circulating Medium 5. Physical Money (m rather than M) 6. Credit Money Clearly at least 4, 5 & 6 need not involve gold at all. But it does seem to be vital for 1 (unless another universal commodity is used, e.g. silver). At the end of the section there is Universal Money which he says has 3 basic functions: 1. Settling International Balances 2. Universal Means of Payment 3. Univeral Embodiment of Social Wealth Does this commentary on Das Kapital help to clarify some of the confusions (or disagreements) which have arisen? Yours helpfully, JOhn Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Marx's GOLD
Dear all, If you could slow down this debate slightly, please can anyone tell me if in Marx's own day what the relation between the amount of gold in the economy and the amount of other commodies being exchanged was. Was there (at that time) enough gold he;d to honour all the transactions? And if there was not (and I believe there wasn't) what was the cause of the short-fall? I hope this is quite simple and could allow some point of agreement before the discussion sinks into a tirade of abuse unrelated to the question on Marx's undersanding of the fuction of Gold as the measure of value. Kind regards, john walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Marx on GOLD
Doug, You seem not to be offering any cogent argument in favour of you more radical view except to throw none explanatory insults at other list members. This doesn't really help me in my simple inquiry. Your only point appears to be that Marx's C-M-C is now only C-pretend M-C. I understand that one can delay the actual exchange of C with M (and visa versa). But it is quite another thing to argue that no exchange of commodities for an equivalent in Money (which at base is the commodity gold) has occured since Breton Wood. Are you arguing that there is ABSOLUTLY NO RELATION between gold as universal commodity (containing socially necessary labour power) and commodity exchange? Please give a reasoned and calm answer as I do want to understand rather than attempt to catch you out. Many thanks, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Marx on GOLD
Thanks for all your replies but now I am completely confused. How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour time necessary for its production. Obviously gold need not be used money of account or the circulating medium but surely in the exchange C-M-C the three items must be commensurable. If 2 coats = hundredweight of corn then M must embody the same amount of socially necessarry labour time as is contained in the coats and the corn. Is this wrong? The last problem I have with the replies is that why does the Bank of England still hold gold reserves for all the UK banks and moves them from one to another at the end of the days trading? This is also done at Fort Knox for balancing the accounts between countries. Is this just because they misunderstand that it is only paper money enforced by military power that gives value. Still mystified by gold, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Marx on GOLD
To readers of Das Kapital, Here is a theoretical question on Marx's most important work which I hope someone can help me with. There is a group of us here in Manchester slowly going through Das Kapital and although we can get to grips with most of the first few chapters, one problenm we cannot resolve is the relationship between the amount of gold and the amount of paper money, coins, credit, etc. Is the value of the coin money equal the amount of gold, is it proportional or is there any direct relation? o they just have to have some Gold? In the exchange C-M-C does M = the amount of concretised labour in an amount of gold equal to that required to make C ? This question is rather confused, but if anyone has any idea what it is I am still struggling to understand could youn please help. Many thanks, John Walker Manchester, UK. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Paragraph on Balkans
Chris, I think you might want to note that this list is aimed at MARXISTS not left reformists (to whom I would hope it would be opposed!) and the Guardian has never been Marxist. In fact it was set up as a Liberal paper and is still funded by the, politically Liberal, Scott Trust (named after it great Editor C.P. Scott, a leading British Zionist). When they bought the Observer they funded it with the profits from their right-wing regional tabloid. The Guardian is also the paper that recently published an article by the progressive John Pilger then took the unpresidented step of publishing a letter attacking it by the editorial staff. Pilger had said that the Rambuwee Agreement would have imposed a free market on Kosovo. The Diplomatic Editor wrote that this was untrue and the agreement said no such thing. The following day another journalist phoned him up to show him where it DID said what Pilger had stated (from the text on the Guardian's web page!) he admited that he had not read the Agreement text. And he is their Diplomatic Editor !!! If that is 'an effective ventilation of the sort of left reformist position in Britain' then I am afraid I'm not really much interested. Regards, John Walker Manchester, UK --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: The EU & the Balkans
Everyone's reply to my 'Paragraph on the Balkans' was quite interesting even if it was longer than a short paragraph on your view of the situation. I6t would be much more useful to have a brief note on what everyone's position is (both theoretically and in their propaganda), who you do and do not support and what you think is the one big issue. One point that does not seem to be raised in the role of the European Union. There is clearly much opposition to NATO and Bob raises the issue of the US/UK dominated UN, but it is the German dominated EU which is challenging US influence in the Balkans. It has no military of its own at present but it a strong economic force in the region and hopes to gather up into itself as many of the ex-communist countries as is profitable and politically necessary. The slogan should read: NATO/United Nations/European Union out of the Balkans Regards, JOHN WALKER --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: re: Paragraph on Balkans
Steve, Thanks for the info. on London. Up here, in Manchester, Workers Power are the only active Marxist organisation (I'm not sure if Socialist Outlook is Marxist) which is campaigning hard and vosiferously for the K.L.A. Regards John Walker N.B. I have not even seen WorkersFIGHT on sale around here. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: Paragraph on Balkans
Dave wrote: > Kosovars should defend themselves also against any Serb oppression. Surely they are defending themselves by calling on the assistance of NATO to arm and fight for them. You might not agree but that was their decision. > We hope that multiethnic militias can stop Serb oppression and unite > workers against imperialism. Communists should always remain optomistic but we should never rely on HOPE. Revolutions are not built on hope but on analysis and action. Hope should be left to the Social(ist) Democrats and the religious who are so much better at it. > we have to spell out the ABC's of communist leadership in oppressed > countries as well. Otherwise workers will fall into the trap of > popular fronts with their bourgeoisies. So what you are saying is that, unless they are directed by the left in the imperialist countries (who have dramatically failed to build any serious Anti-Imperialist movement) then those fighting in the oppressed countries will fail. This seems to fly in the face of Marx and Engels' post-1848 position, when they agreed that Ireland was the key to revolution in Britain not the other way round. This appears to have been proved correct by the example of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam etc. who have shown that it is the workers of the oppressed nations who are the most revolutionary in practice. It should be us who follow their lead, their action and their ability to come to the right decisions without the benefit of 'western education'. This is even more so when interferring in their struggle in a situation they clearly know best. Puzzled, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: paragraph on Balkans
Just a BRIEF reply to Dave's reply to Rob. Without wanting to sound too sectarian there were a few points in the repy which don't seem to make much sense to me. The arguement appears to be that we should defend Yugoslavia as well as supporting the right of Kosovars to defend themselves. Rob's 'dual defeatism' seems to be replaced by 'dual defence-ism'. Is this you position and is it consistant with reality. As for the Trotskyist rhetoric of: > in the Yugoslav army the rank-and-file have to organise to take > control of the army; to encourage the formation of multi-ethnic > militia; to act against any reactionary paramilitaries engaged in > ethnic cleansing; and to call for a truce if and when it is necessary > for the workers movement to survive. > Communists lead this movement by forming cells in the army and > in militias and workers councils. I do not care much for Left-ists in the Imperialist counteries issuing political strategies to comrades in a far more difficult and critical situation in oppressed countries. One final more general point is one the varing responses of the left. In Britain the support for Yugoslavia is coming from the Old Pro- Soviet Communist Parties with the bulk of the left remaining relatively neutral and the Trotskyist Workers Power isolated in its support for the KLA while opposing NATO. What are other comrades experience (as opposed to their own positions. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: paragraph on Balkans
In response to Rob, my expaination would be that with the collapse of the socialist bloc, and the catastophic effects of capitalism on Russia, Imperialism (in the dual guise NATO & the EU) is attempting to pick off all of Russia's neighbours before it has chance to recover. Yugoslavia was the only bulwalk to this advance eastwards (completing the West's 1939-45 war aims). Like in the old Austro- Hungary, they aim to cut it up & redistribute it to border states and so isolate and weaken Russia. A Marxist response is far than obvious to me. Other than all out support for Y.C.P., as some argue (we can't support the KLA), there is no real group to support (like Kashmir) and we are left merely hurling abuse at NATO. Regards John Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I propose we each put in one paragraph what best explains the Yugoslav > business to us. No essays requested, just a few quick words concerning the > single most salient reason for what's going on. We all recognise there may > be many reasons and many interested parties, that differing contexts would > allow/disallow such adventures for such reasons etc, but you're all busy > people (or so it seems), and all I ask is one par on the Yugoslav business > *in particular* (ie no general motherhood and apple pie rhetoric). --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Cars in the drive
Russell, I was pointing out that there was an appear ance and a political practice which points to an underlying economic basis, which I felt was in need of investigation, when looking at the make up of proletariat. I did not say that a home, a car and some saving made someone wealthy but that there was a stage at which some workers did have excessive priviledges above and beyond the necessities for living, travel and consumption. In fact if you look closely I made it absolutely clear that even these priviledge people were still part of the working class and I stressed that the peti-Bourgeois was a seperate class outside the working class which is economically constituted on the basis, not of their income level, but by the fact that they owned the means of production. I was raising a problem with the view that the working class was a unified whole making up 99% of the world's population (without racism, sexism, homophobia ...). As this did not help us answer the question - which matters most to me - as to why this massive unified class has not managed to break its economic chains? What does it have to lose? For me the only point to knowing what constitutes the working class, other than sociological investigation, is to know how the class struggle will proceed. What is likely to restrain it, and what is likely to take it forward. To not analyse this problem leaves one to supporting anything contains the working class (such as the Labour Party, the Democrats, police and prison officer unions). One only need read Engels desparate letters to Marx on the inability of the British working class (especially the craft unions) to do (or think) anything beyond the interests of British imperialism. And it leaves many on the left to just blame the lack of revolutionary vigor on the leadership (often democratically elected) which some-how hood-winks the rank-and-file away from there true historical role based on their economic conditions. I agree entirely that 'what needs to be comprehended is the real dynamic- how the relatively privileged gain their 'rewards', how they are exploited, whether their gains are at the expense of less well off workers within their nation state, or whether both gain from the wider exploitation of the third world etc.' I was just warning that few people have attempted such a detailed investigation. Yours, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: British left and intelligence agencies thread
Chris wrote: > I think the New Communist Party split off in support of the Soviet invasion > of Afghanistan in 1979. The New Communist Party has a web site and are sort > of Brezhnev socialists. And they have been quite active recently with the strong support for the Yugoslavian Communist Party. I disagree with their position with regard to Britain but their coverage and contact with the Socialist, ex-Socialist and progressive countries has always been interesting. Once a tankie always a tankie. > The CPB was formed in the course of the battle for the Morning Star in the > 1980's. It supports the British Road to Socialism But weren't there (perhaps there still are) two CPBs - the Morning Star and, was it, 7 Days (or were they someone else). There always seemed to be more newspapers than variations on the CP initials. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: British left and intelligence agencies thread
Michael Pugliese wrote: > Can Chris Burford expand on this magazine and it's project > for us Yanks, along with the other fragments of the post-split >CPGB into Democratic Left, Morning Star and other fractions and >factions and tendencies? I'm afraid the split occured much earlier as the Morning Star was the journal of half of the Communist Party of Britain. There was also the New Communist Party (who were always my favourites from the split). If I am not mistaken the initial split was over Hungary and the end of the CPGB just produced a reduce Democratic Left. But perhaps someone else is better informed than me. JOHN WALKER --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: A new regular feature in LM magazine
Simon wrote: > Didn't realise it was mainstream. I've had to fight tooth and nail > for it I don't think I said it was mainstream, as classical (or orthodox) Marxism is hardly mainstream on the left. I just meant that it was quite close in many part to what Marx and Engels were fighting tooth and nail for 150 years ago. > I was suggesting that the "disparate collection of individuals" > idea is a reaction to the collapse of a particular > cultural group which were seen as the whole of the working class, > but negated by the fact that for socialists the working class is > properly defined by its relation to capital. Now here is where you loose me. Whose is the 'disparate collection of individuals idea' ? Are you referring to a new political argument or just another rehashing of liberalism? What exactly is the 'particular cultural group' which has collapsed? Where has it collapsed? In Britain or globally? > Even though certain people are seen as middle class and many workers hold shares and >have bank accounts, the economic facts of existence predominate. > leaving a working class with no particular differences (e.g.racism > etc.) and a revolutionary party. Hope that doesn't sound too starry eyed. Yes I think at present this is starry eyed. It is on this point that I DO disagree quite strongly. Priviledged workers - with shares and large savings with numerous cars in the drive of some large house taking lots of foreign holidays - do have some economic interest in capitalism. Revolution would inevitably threaten these priviledges. They are not capitalists, they are not peti-Bourgeois, but they do have privileges over other blue collar or non-collar workers and the unemployed and as you say economic facts of existence predominate. Now, this could lead to quite a pessimistic position, depending on how one calculates the size of this proportion. Clearly globally it is very small but they form the backbone of social democracy and reformist socialism in the wealthier nations. The optimistic point is that even in these countries they have a more immediate threat to their priviledge than revolution, and that is the fact that capitalism (or more correctly imperialism) cannot sustain their position indefinitely. They did well in Britain in the age of Empire (as Engels notes); they saw a revival in the post-war boom & continued profits from the third world; and they have had a reprieve with the opening up of markets in Eastern Europe, Russia and China. The inevitable crisis in capitalism and the inherent fall in the rate of profit has to threaten the high living standards of priviledged workers. As to the peti-bourgeoisie I think you are wrong if you dismiss them out of hand when trying to define the working class. I am thinking of shopkeepers who own their premises and stock, black cab drivers who own their cars, market traders who own their barrow and goods, etc. Why is it that there is a predominance of reaction amongst this section? Why do they tend to back capitalism when it come to the crunch? It is because they do own the means of production (if only on a small scale) and hence do have more to lose than their chains. A rosey-eyed view of the battle between capital and labour does not explain why people are not all revolutionary, and more important why they actually work against the progressive forces or divert them into reformism. > the lumpen is a dangerous grouping - mainly in the question of > defaulting on their class Just a final point. Their class is not necessarily the working class - they can be poor aristocrats (one is reminded of Prince Kropotkin), wandering beggars who do not enter into the labour process but rely on the generosity of the wealthy, wounded military men, bankrupted capitalists, sections of the peti-bourgeoisie who are not making enough money. Some times they will come down on the side of the revolutionaries but perhaps more often the will side with the Bourgeoisie. Perhaps they no longer exist any more? Oh dear just a wordy! John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
