Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sharpening class contradictions
Revolutionary greetings fellow thaxists, Before everyone heads off, a belated revolutionary new year good wishes to Rob, James, Hugh and Charles and anyone else who's still watching. I agree with Hugh that the virtual demise of this list is a symptom of the healthy revival of class struggles. So we should not be downhearted but rather bloody raving optimists. I have to admit that I have been busy elsewhere, and that the type of discussion that we used to have on this list seems rather pedestrian compared to what is happening with the war on terrorism and the revolution in Argentina. I see Charles popping on some other lists now and then but hardly anyone else. M Thaxis was one of the first lists I joined back in 1995 too. The internet was a good forum for me in those days as we had just split with the LRCI and I was used to having full on debates. But as you would expect when few of us on this list are members of actual left tendencies, once we parted with the raving Maoists these debates basically went nowhere unless others too became active. For that reason I am on more activist lists where the chances of recruiting people to revolutionary Trotskyism is much higher. Most of my internet activity is on Yahoo these days. The ISKRA group was very active for a couple of years but seems to have slowed right down as the situation in Russia has been upstaged by Bush and Cos plan to reconquer the world. The group that is well worth a visit if you are not there right now is Argentina_Solidarity at Yahoo where the events in Argentina right now are being thrashed over. This is the best test for the left for some years. What do you say Hugh? Many of the themes that we talked about a few years back, such as Bolshevism vs Menshevism are now being put to the practical test in Argentina and elsewhere. The tendency for LA trotskyism to default into the patriotic front is a legacy of menshevism. The falling rate of profit, and value analysis, has been overtaken over by the actual TRPF and devaluation of a world depression. Anarchism is also back on the map with the anti-capitalist movement. Both are symptoms of the weakness of the revolutionary left and were totally non-plussed by Bushes war. But we have to be vigilant against anarchism playing the same counter-revolutionary role today that it did in Spain in the 1930's. Not that the revolutionary left came out with flying colours. You may know of Eric Lee who runs LabourStart coming out in favour of the Wests bombing of Afghanistan causing some ructions on his website? A lot of the left tried to form anti- war movements with pacifists and the results were predictable, a first-round victory to Bush where he redefined 'terrorism' to by used against any form of anti-capitalist resistance at home and abroad. In NZ we formed an anti-imperialist coalition with the hard left which came out for the defence of Afghanistan and defeat of the US. So we gained a solid grouping on the left that forms a pole of attraction in the class war against the US imperialist offensive. We are having regular meetings and actions on Argentina, Palelstine etc. So I would say we should bid goodbye to M-Th. When it was good it was very good. But while events are moving far too fast for its membership it serves no useful purpose. Lets all work to make sure we don't have to revive it this side of socialism. Dave B (CWGNZ) On 22 Jan 2002 at 4:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > G'day all, > > I'd written, > > > Or shall we wrap the old list up and slip her quietly into the > > dustbin? > > Well, I think the eloquent silence with which this was greeted can't > be ignored. If no-one on the list nominates for the position of list > moderator within the week, I shall have to let Hans know Thaxis is > sans moderator and, very possibly, sans raison d'etre. > > All the best to all, > Rob. > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] rejig
James wrote: Well this list is called Thaxis, an amalgam of the words - theory and praxis. And I would think a discussion of both theory and praxis, especially in light of recent events (i.e. September 11, the Bush "war against terrorism", as well as the ongoing "anti-globalization" movement) which raise anew a lot of issues including the relationship between Marxism and anarchism, between Marxism and pacifism, what role, if any do have Leninist "vanguard" parties have to play in the 21st century. I endorse this statement and the sentiments about moderation. I'll certainly hang around to see if it works. Dave B ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re: [Arg_Solid] Re: Peronist coup ( and Reading Capital Politically)
I think that Li'l Joe is right. Not to put the building of soviets and their arming on the agenda right now is to leave Argentine workers exposed to another military/fascist coup. Trotsky said we have to say what is necessary not what is possible, leave that to the reformists and centrists (and their imperialist bosses). The crisis of leadership, or the lack of a vanguard party, really shows up in the heat of thestruggle in Argentina. We have Karl Carlile saying on this list that the downfall of de la Rua was a Peronist plot by the Argentine bosses to protect their assets at the expense of imperialism. No, Peronism was always a nationalist party of the bosses that was used to subordinated Argentine workers. The left in large degree tailed Peronism. But today it is different, the Argentina bosses are too weak to keep workers on their side since they don't call the tune. The role of national capital that was created during and after the war has been taken over totally by US and Spanish capital in the last ten years. It is the demand by US and Spanish imperialism to force the workers to pay for the crisis that has produced an uprising of unemployed and so-called 'middle class' workers against imperialist rule. The Peronists are desparately trying to contain this upsurge within the bounds of the patriotic front for national salvation. But they objectively cannot. Already the consciousness of the masses has leaped ahead. Those who still see a national solution are looking to themselves, i.e. the PA and a 'new republic' or Constituent Assembly to do it - not the bankrupt Peronists. Those remaining workers loyal to Peronism are probably in the pay of Duhalde and the imperialists. (Karl forgets that Duhalde was Menem's right hand man). But meanwhile, it is not up to them, but to the leading forces of the workers to bring Duhalde down with strike action. Some of the Trotskyist left are acting like Bolshevik-Leninsts. THey have faced down the Peronist thugs on the streets, and called for the arming of the PAs as the order of the day. Others, are more limited by their failure to break from national Trotskyism and are promoting electoralist half-way houses, claiming that this stage is necessary to advance workers' consciousness. There is nothing wrong with a CA tactic in this situation, provided however that it is not promoted as a necessary democratic stage in the revolution and is subordinated to the PAs and a national assembly of PAs. Why? Because the US ruling class will not tolerate a move towards a Constituent Assembly and will use their victory over 'terrorism' and their open chequebook approach to the oppressed countries to intervene militarily against any such development. Already US forces are in the North of Argentina. Nothing will be gained by workers acting 'peaceful'. This will be read as weakness and an invitation to smash the gains already made. So as well as the call for the National Assembly of Picqueteros on Feb 19, there has to be immediate building and arming of the Popular Assemblies, so that the will of the masses can be expressed by a majority for a workers' government backed by its own militia. That would take the Argentine revolution beyond the 'halfway house' of a 'new bourgeois republic' of the MNR, Allende, Sandanista type government, and give the Western left a real test of its mettle to see if it can seriously take on its 'enemies at home' and stop the US smashing the revolution. LI'L Joes' point about the workers' militia has to be raised in the US and Europe too. So who is in the running to form the vanguard party to lead the revolution in the US and Europe? Dave B On 24 Jan 2002 at 10:41, Li'l Joe wrote: > --- tialsedov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The issue of arms is something that the Argentine workers will have > > to confront when they need to. > > > > But Lil Joe is wrong on several counts. First the statement that it > > "takes and army to defeat army" is quite a-historical unless one has > > a broader definition of "army." The Shah of Iran was overthrown with > > actually few arms involved but smashing of his army by the masses, > > at great sacrafice to themselves. His army was US trained. > > > > The Tsar's army was defeated from within. > > > > The Argentine army is a whole different kettle of fish. It in no way > > compares to army of Russia under the Tsar...but is a professional > > army more akin to a national police force than a proletarian > > composed force most of us are familiar with. In fact, the cops in > > Argentina probably have more similiarity with the workers than > > anyone in the army, underpaid and ill equiped as they were. It's one > > of the reasons the masses were succesful in overrunning the > > Presidential palace in Decemeber, the cops allotmant of tear gas ran > > out early due to budget cuts. > > > > The murders of picketers in La Salta last year, and the attack on > > their barric
[Marxism-Thaxis] (Fwd) Call against NATO summit in Munich
-Smash NATO! Fight with the Wretched of the Earth against Imperialism! Call by the Anti-imperialist Camp to join protests against the NATO-conference in Munich. On February 1st and 2nd, the NATO Conference on Security will be taking place in Munich, Germany. Under the pretext of discussing security strategies, high ranking army officers and politicians of NATO member countries will gather in order to discuss strategies of carrying out their war against the poor and exploited. NATO is the military arm of imperialism. It is its main instruments to wage war against whatever country or people who dares to resist imperialist subjugation. In the last decade we have seen NATO bombing Iraq, once a prosperous country, back to the medieval times, causing in 11 years millions of deaths. We have seen NATO attacking Yugoslavia, bringing death, destruction, devastation, nuclear contamination to millions of people. While we are reading, we know that troops from NATO member countries are bombing and destroying Afghanistan, one of the poorest and suffering countries of the world all that in the name of Freedom and Justice. NATO is the military arm of a political and economic system imperialist globalisation that means nothing else than war, famine, exploitation and oppression for the big majority of the world population. Against globalisation, a broad resistance movement has been growing in several countries in the very heart of imperialism, protesting against its various institutions in Seattle, Prague, Nice, Goteborg, Genoa and Brussels. Genoa has shown that imperialism does not hesitate to massively use violence also in its own countries. However, Genoa has also clearly shown, what had already been apparent before: the anti-globalisation movement is highly heterogenous. Its numerous components have strongly differing political approaches and aims, reaching from openly reformist forces who call for a differenet globalisation to anti-imperialist and revolutionary communist organisations. It is apparent that imperialism has been trying to split the movement co-opting those who expressed their readiness to serve as the better side of globalisation that is to say globalisation from below. Under the guise of human rights and democracy they provided the NGOs cover for the imperialist aggressions. Those forces who have been hesitating or refused that choice got violently repressed as we have seen in Gothenburg, Genoa and Brussels resulting in the first martyr of the anti-globalisation movement Carlo Giuliani. Therefore we have to defend ferociously the democratic right to resist against globalisation, capitalism and imperialism which is being more and more restricted. We refuse the division put forward by the bourgeois media between peaceful and responsible protesters and violent and irresponsible radicals. It was essentially the state machinery which attacked and self-defence has been a necessity. At the same time we warn certain parts of the movement not to get caught in that very same trap. To proclaim the attack in exacerbated verbal radicalism (actually seeking the media spectacle covering up lacking political consequence to side with the wretched of the world like the people of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Colombia and to fight the imperialist attacks) under the given disproportionate relationship of forces leads inevitably to defeat. This is not only true for those who just talk about attacking but also those who actually did attack regarding the use of violence as a matter of principle. The Genoa defeat in terms of street fighting should teach us a lesson. September 11 has shown us what really does separate the anti-imperialist forces fighting consequently against globalisation and those ready to compromise with imperialism. September 11 was a political acid test for the anti-globalisation movement challenging it to show how deep its opposition against this imperialist system was rooted. A worldwide massive propaganda campaign against terrorism, unprecedented in its racist and imperialist contents, was preparing the ground for the latest imperialist war, the so-called war of Good against the Evil. Instead of totally rejecting the imperialist approach, instead of negating any right to whatever imperialist institution to call whoever terrorist, instead of unconditionally defending the right of the oppressed and exploited masses of the South to take up their liberation struggle regardless of its forms, the anti-globalisation movement has in many of its components either openely sided with imperialism or maintained a position! of neutrality equally condemning the imperialist war as well as the terrorist attacks. Thus, as a final consequence it has failed to side with those, who it proclaims to be fighting for: the dispossessed, the exploited, the suffering masses of the South of the world. Today, under the pretext of its war against terrorism imperialism is prepar
[Marxism-Thaxis] fwd[Arg_Solid] Argentina!
Very good summary of momentous events in Argentina.
--- Forwarded message follows ---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "sf_adam.rm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:24:48 -
Subject:[Arg_Solid] (Jordi Martorell)Re: IDOM: National
Workers' Assembly meeting - a big step forwa Send reply to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
Argentina:
National Workers' Assembly meeting - a big step forward
By Jordi Martorell
On Saturday, February 16, thousands of workers, unemployed and
members of the popular assemblies, met in the Plaza de Mayo
square in
the Argentinean capital Buenos Aires. This was the beginning of
the
National Assembly of Workers (employed and unemployed). The
day after,
two thousand elected delegates met at the Avellaneda Colonial
Theatre,
representing unemployed workers' organisations from all over the
country, but also local trade union branches, groups of workers' in
struggle, neighbourhood popular assemblies, etc.
This meeting is the highest point so far of the movement towards
the
creation of an alternative power of the workers and the masses in
Argentina. The movement, which started with the revolutionary
events
of December 19 and 20, has advanced very rapidly not only in its
organisational forms but also in the political conclusions that it has
drawn.
The popular assemblies, which meet weekly in every
neighbourhood, now
cover most areas in Buenos Aires and its periphery and are also
spreading to other provinces. Starting on January 12, the popular
assemblies in Buenos Aires have started weekly meetings every
Sunday
to co-ordinate their actions and discussions in common. These
meetings
of delegates from different neighbourhood assemblies
("interbarrial")
have grown in size and now are gatherings of 3 to 4,000 people.
There
are reports of similar meetings taking place in the provinces. For
instance in Rosario delegates representing 24 popular assemblies
meet
regularly.
These meetings discuss both the programme of the assemblies and
the
actions to be taken and are run on extremely democratic lines.
Everyone is allowed only three minutes to speak and at the
interbarrial meetings only elected delegates from neighbourhood
assemblies or groups of workers in struggle are allowed to speak.
At
the end of the meeting all proposals are put to the vote.
The assemblies which at the beginning were mainly concentrated
on the
struggle against the "corralito" (government imposed freeze on
bank
account withdrawals) have now adopted a very advanced
programme of
demands which challenges every aspect of capitalist rule. These
include the repudiation of the foreign debt, the nationalisation of
the banks, the renationalisation of all privatised utilities, popular
election of Supreme Court judges, the taking into state control of
pension funds (AFJP), etc.
The popular assemblies and the workers' movement
Most important of all, the movement of the popular assemblies has
taken important steps towards linking up with the workers and the
movement of the unemployed. For a few years now Argentina has
witnessed a movement of very militant actions on the part of
unemployed workers, which take direct action and organise road
blocks
demanding jobs and subsidies. These piqueteros organised two
national
meetings to co-ordinate the movement in July and September last
year.
The interbarrial in Buenos Aires decided to join the two piquetero
marches called on January 28 and February 5, and various popular
assemblies greeted the piqueteros in their neighbourhoods. A new
slogan was coined which expressed the unity between the
assemblies and
the piqueteros: "Piquete y cacerola, la lucha es una sola" (pickets
and pans, same struggle - this refers to the pickets organised by
unemployed workers and the "pots and pans" protests organised by
the
assemblies). Furthermore the assemblies established links with
groups
of workers in struggle in their neighbourhoods. This was the case
with
the workers of the Brukman textile company who have now
occupied the
factory to oppose any lay-offs and demand that the company be
nationalised under workers' control.
The workers' movement has so far not participated in these
protests as
an independent force. This does not at all mean that workers are
passive. In the last three years there have been 8 very militant
general strikes. Workers also participate in the popular assemblies
in
their neighbourhoods. One of the reasons why there has been no
mass
strike movement so far is the fear of unemployment, which has now
reached an official level of more than 20%. Another important factor
is the stranglehold of the trade union bureaucracy of the main CGT
federation.
This is why the calling of the National Workers Assembly is such an
important step forward. The September National Piquetero Meeting
of
unemployed workers' organisations agreed to call a new national
m
[Marxism-Thaxis] (Fwd) [OCPPR] Emergency statement of the SWL of Palestine
Date sent: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 18:38:33 - Subject: Emergency statement of the SWL of Palestine Defeat Sharon's Insane War Drive The Palestinian people are facing a barbaric war waged by the Sharon-Peres government with full approval and support by the greatest terrorist organization on earth, the United Stated of America. The war against the Palestinian Authority is aimed against the Palestinian popular uprising, and at the same time it seeks to derail the class struggle of the workers class in Israel into an orgy of nationalist death and destruction. In this difficult hour we are calling for the unconditional defense of the Palestinian people and the PA, including Arafat, against the Zionist criminal aggression. Our defense is not conditioned on the political character of the PA and its actions. We are calling the Palestinians, the Arab popular masses and the international working class and militant youth in Europe and America to mobilize themselves immediately against the ethnic cleansing operations of the IDF. We are calling on the Jewish workers in this country to oppose and fight back Sharon's insanity, which is endangering the existence of the Jewish workers and poor. We are calling on Jews everywhere to mobilize themselves against the insanity of the Zionists. This criminal government is the source of a new and most dangerous worldwide wave of anti-Semitism. In order to overcome it, is absolutely necessary for the Jewish workers to break from Zionism. Israel is a very sick Apartheid state on the death raw. In its dying stage it generates only destruction, insanity and death. The road of survival for the Jewish workers is to unite with their Palestinian brothers and sisters in the struggle to end occupation, for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and for a united, secular, democratic and socialist Republic of Palestine. It is a Zionist-Imperialist lie that Israel is defending itself against the Palestinians, in reality Sharon is acting according to a plan. He wants a regional war in order to drive many Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank and Gaza. On March 29, at the end of the Arab summit in Beirut, the Lebanese minister of foreign affairs, the Saudi foreign minister prince Saud al-Faisal and the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, triumphantly told the world that a "just and comprehensive peace is a strategic option for the Arab states." This "initiative" which called on Israel to pull out from the Occupied Territories, gave Israel control over 82% of the historical land of Palestine, cleared of the refugees expelled by Israel in 1948 and 1967. The Arab rulers' support or Partition in Palestine is an open betrayal of the right of the self-determination of the Palestinians people, especially of the right of return of the four million refugees, motivated by their fear of social explosion among the Arab masses. It of course received the enthusiastic support of the petty-bourgeois and pro-imperialist Israeli "left," which misleads the Jewish masses into believing that it is possible to have "peace" (i.e. a peaceful control of the Arab markets and workers) between the Zionist state and its neighboring Arab states in the framework of the imperialist Pax Americana. Were Israel a state seeking peace with its Arab neighbors, it would have grabbed this offer with both hands. However the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative, claiming that the complete Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories will result in the destruction of Israel. On Sunday, in a less than five-minute-long speech, which made 14 mentions of the word "terrorism," Sharon who seemed deranged, told the Israeli television: "The chairman of the Palestinian Authority is the enemy of Israel and the entire free world." The Arab League's appeals to the US to save the stability in the Middle East have also fallen on deaf ears, as Bush has declared in the face of Israel move to reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza that "Israel has the right to defend itself." This rejection exposes the fact truth that imperialism and its Zionist outpost do not have any "peaceful" solution to the crisis. Imperialism attempts to overcome the growing world crisis using brutal and naked force and demanding total submission. In spite of the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an Israeli pullback, the Israeli tanks besieged Ramallah including Arafat's headquarters. The Israeli soldiers are shouting over loudspeakers for Arafat and his entourage to "come out with their hands up." So far Arafat has refused to surrender, preferring to die as a Shayd (Martyr). But while Arafat would like to see himself as a modern Saladin, as late as March 30 he continued to appeal to the imperialist world leaders for help from a dark, windowless room, as Israeli troops tightened the siege of his compound and stormed his office buildings. He brings to mind the Chilean president Salvador All
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
On 14 Apr 2002 at 9:22, Chris Burford wrote: > The forces of Chavez would have every right now to impose a > dictatorship of the proletariat, hopefully nuanced in the way Hal > Draper has argued, as emergency dicatatorial powers. There are already > reports that the events of the last few days have exposed who is a > true friend of Chavez and who is not. There must be scores to settle. What are you talking about Chris. Chavez styles himself as a 'Bolivarian' i.e. he wants to finish the bourgeois revolution only. And as you suggest he will do a deal with imperialism rather than fight for this goal consistently. His supporters do not yet understand that and oppose the undemocratic coup full of illusions in democracy. The dicatorship of the proletariat requires a mass consciousness of workers and poor peasants sufficient to take power. > I agree with Louis Proyect's reservations about the concept of civil > society. It too is a contradiction. Originally used in a somewhat > negative sense by Marx, it has been used by Gramscian supporters as a > potentially positive arena for struggle. IMO Wilpert uses it in a > dialectical sense referring to progressive and conservative attitudes > to civil society. Whenever you hear the term civil society fear for your life. > The good news of this year is that militant street demonstations in > Argentina and Venezuela can force the fall of a government. The bad > news is that the balance of forces in the world overwhelmingly favours > finance capital and its supporters in each country. A progressive > regime needs both a resolute core of supporters, and the ability to > defuse the opposition, if not win over the great majority of the > population. So are you saying that the great majority can be mobilised by a left bourgeois leader like Chavez to win against global capital, or does a revolutionary party and program need to intervene to call for the building of soviets and a workers militia? > That IMO opinion points to the need for an agenda that is not > exclusively socialist, but is "new democratic", embracing civil rights > issues but from a progressive social perspective. 'Not exclusively socialist' can only mean part bourgeois. That is the class confusion of the popular front. The communist program embraces bourgeois civil rights but it recognises that workers have to overthrow the bourgeois state to realise any real workers democracy. > Let us hope Chavez can stay and this has an impact on the global > balance of forces. It will take more than hope. The lessons of similar regimes, the Popular Unity in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the popular revolution in Ecuador in 2000, all show that if there is no worker and poor peasant seizure of power, the right will regroup and stage a counter-revolution against the masses. Dave B > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] (Fwd) [Arg_Solid] The Coup Will Be Televised
--- Forwarded message follows --- To: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rwarded by: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date sent: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:40:57 +0100 (BST) Subject:[Arg_Solid] The Coup Will Be Televised Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] text number one... (I can also send these as word attachments for those interested.) Jon Beasley-Murray Spanish and Portuguese University of Manchester [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.art.man.ac.uk/spanish/jbm.html http://www.art.man.ac.uk/lacs/ -- "The Coup *Will* be Televised: Hugo Chavez's Downfall and the Venezuelan multitude" by Jon Beasley-Murray So this is how one lives a modern coup d'tat: watching television. Venezuela's coup (and coup it is, make no mistake) took place in the media, fomented by the media, and with the media themselves the apparent object of both sides' contention. But while South America's longest-standing democracy was brought down in the confused glare of media spectacle, any attempt to turn this spectacle into narrative or analysis must also take into account, first, oil and, second, the general breakdown of Latin American political legitimacy, of which this coup has been just one (particularly bloody) symptom. In Caracas, Venezuela's capital, everyone has been watching television over the past few days: every restaurant, shop, and business has had a television on, showing almost constant news coverage, and diners and shoppers have been dividing their attention between what they are consuming and what they are seeing of developments in the ongoing crisis that came to a head last night with the overthrow of president Hugo Chavez. For several months now, support for (now former) president Chavez's once overwhelmingly popular regime has been in steady decline, in part as a result of a relentless assault by both the press and the television networks. In response, Chavez took to decreeing so-called "chains," in which he obliged all the networks to broadcast his own--often long and rambling--addresses to the nation. The media only redoubled its opposition, subverting the broadcasts by superposing text protesting against this "abuse" of press freedom, or for instance by splitting the screen between Chavez's speech on the one side and images of anti-government demonstrations on the other. Moreover, through the media came more and more calls for the president's resignation or, failing that, for the intervention of the military. The military has now answered these calls. The trigger for the most recent convulsions has been (predictably enough) a battle for control of Venezuela's oil. The country is the world's fourth largest producer, and the third largest exporter of oil to the United States; the state oil company, PDVSA (the world's largest oil company and Latin America's largest company of any kind), is crucial to the economy as a whole, and among Chavez's policies had been the attempt to rejuvenate OPEC and to run PDVSA according to national and political priorities rather than simply acceding to market demands. Two weeks ago, the president sacked several members of the company's board of directors, replacing them with his own allies. The management immediately cried foul, initiating a production slowdown, and taking up a position at the vocal centre of anti-government protest. At the weekend, Chavez replaced more board members, and on Monday the union federation Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) and the national chamber of commerce, FEDECAMERAS, allied with the oil industry's management and joined to call a general strike for Tuesday 10th. While the opposition gathered to demonstrate around the headquarters of PDVSA, in Caracas's opulent East Side, those loyal to the government congregated around the presidential palace in the more working class and dilapidated city centre. Tuesday night Chavez decreed another chain, declaring to the nation that the strike had been a failure; in response, the coalition of union, business, and oil management declared that the strike had been 100% successful (of course, the truth was somewhere in between) and announced, first, another day's general strike and, then, the following day, that the strike would be indefinite. The atmosphere in the city became palpably tenser. Opposition supporters, mainly from the middle and upper classes, drove through the city, the national flag and the black flag of opposition waving from the electric windows of their four-wheel drive vehicles, while a broader spectrum of opponents added to the cacophony by banging pots and pans from their windows (exchanging shouted insults with government supporters) either when Chavez appeared on television or, on those days when he was off the screen, at pre-
[Marxism-Thaxis] (Fwd) [Arg_Solid] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
-Date forwarded:Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:16:22 +0100 (BST) Forwarded by: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date sent: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:42:25 +0100 (BST) Subject:[Arg_Solid] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] text number two... Jon Beasley-Murray Spanish and Portuguese University of Manchester [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.art.man.ac.uk/spanish/jbm.html http://www.art.man.ac.uk/lacs/ - "The Revolution Will Not be Televised: Hugo Chavez's Return and the Venezuelan multitude" So this is how a modern coup d'etat is overthrown: almost invisibly, at the margins of the media. Venezuela's return to democracy (and democracy it is, make no mistake) took place despite a self-imposed media blackout of astonishing proportions. A huge popular revolt against an illegitimate regime took place while the country's middle class was watching soap operas and game shows; television networks took notice only in the very final moments, and, even then, only once they were absolutely forced to do so. Thereafter television could do no more than bear mute witness to a series of events almost without precedent in Latin America--and perhaps elsewhere--as a repressive regime, result of a pact between the military and business, was brought down less than forty-eight hours after its initial triumph. These events resist representation and have yet to be turned into narrative or analysis (the day after, the newspapers have simply failed to appear), but they inspire thoughts of new forms of Latin American political legitimacy, of which this revolt may be just one (particularly startling) harbinger. By Friday night, Caracas, Venezuela's capital, seemed to be returning to normal the day after the coup that had brought down the increasingly unpopular regime of president Hugo Chavez. In the middle classes' traditional nightspots, such as the nearby village of El Hatillo, with its picturesque colonial architecture and shops selling traditional handicrafts, the many restaurants were full and lively. Those who had banged on pots and pans over the past few months and marched the previous day to protest against the government seemed to be breathing a sigh of relief that the whole process had eventually been resolved so quickly and apparently so easily. "A Step in the Right Direction" was the banner headline on the front page of one major newspaper on the Saturday, and the new president, Pedro Carmona (former head of the Venezuelan chamber of commerce), was beginning to name the members of his "transitional" government, while the first new policies were being announced. Control over the state oil company, PDVSA (the world's largest oil company and Latin America's largest company of any kind), had been central to the ongoing crisis that had led to the coup, and its head of production announced, to much applause, that "not one barrel of oil" would now be sent to Cuba. Not all was celebration, it is true: the television showed scenes of mourning for the thirteen who had died in the violent end to Thursday's protest march, but the stations also eagerly covered live the police raids (breathless reporters in tow) hunting down the Chavez supporters who were allegedly responsible for these deaths. Elsewhere, however, another story was afoot, the news circulating partially, by word of mouth or mobile phone. Early Saturday afternoon, I received three phone calls in quick succession: one from somebody due to come round to the place I was staying, who called on his mobile to say he was turning back as he had heard there were barricades in the streets and an uprising in a military base; another from a journalist who also cancelled an appointment, and who said that a parachute regiment and a section of the air force had rebelled; a third from a friend who warned there were fire-fights in the city centre, and that a state of siege might soon be imposed. My friend added that none of this would appear on the television. I turned it on: indeed, not a sign. Other friends came by, full of similar rumours, and with word that people were gathering outside the national palace. Given the continued lack of news coverage, we decided to go out and take a look for ourselves. Approaching the city centre, we saw that indeed crowds were converging. But as we drove around, we saw almost no sign of any police or army on the streets. In the centre itself, and at the site of Thursday's disturbances, some improvised barricades had been put up, constructed with piles of rubbish or with burning tyres, marking out the territory around the national palace itself. The demonstration was not large, but it was growing. We then headed towards the city's opulent East Side, and came across a procession of people ad
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
There is no space for any solution between reaction and revolution in a semi-colony like Venezuela dominated by US imperialism. Completing the national democratic revolution will take a socialist revolution as we learned in Russia and which has been proven by armed popular movements in China, Cuba, Vietnam all of which fell short of socialism, as well as in the negative elsewhere ever since. You say that the issues of 'power and security' cannot be ignored. Which class power and security are you referring to? The ruling class, including the populist left like Chavez, will not give up their 'power and security'. The failed coup was really only about a difference of opinion in the ruling class about how to maintain it. The working class has to seize the power to maintain its security. Or perhaps you are hinting at a Constituent Assembly as a means of making the transition from bourgeois democracy to socialism? If the coup had succeeded and the country was now being run by a rightwing junta or by the military the call for the CA would be an important transitional demand. But now that Chavez is back as the 'elected' president, what is needed is the mobilisation of the workers who came out to support him into independent Popular Assemblies like in Argentina. Chavez will not do this. He would rather rely on the loyalty of the parachutists. The workers have to organise and put the populist Chavez and his military fraction to the test by demanding that the oil industry be put under workers control and the oil revenues be redistributed to the workers and put into jobs, housing, health and education; that the rich be heavily taxed; the companies that close are occupied and managed by the workers; that remaining landlords be expropriated and land redistributed into state farms under workers control; that absentee bosses be expropriated; that Venezuela breaks all its ties with US imperialism. On 16 Apr 2002 at 7:32, Chris Burford wrote: > At 15/04/02 12:26 -0400, Charles wrote: > > > >There is now talk of "middle class" leaving Venzuela, and presumably > >capital is fleeing even more rapidly out of the country. > > > > > > > >CB: And moving where ? To Miami, with all the fascist trash kicked > >out by Latin American revolutions ? > > > True this may be an impediment, but capital itself haemorrhages very > fast when the bourgeoisie no longer want to keep their money in a > country. No regime can safely ignore this, as Argentina found. > > > >Charles: The qualitative leap is that mass, militant street > >demonstrations can PROTECT AND SAVE a truly democratic government. > >This is historic. > > > Yes. The article I am also posting about the position taken by the > Organisation of American States shows that norms of civil society, > even right wing norms, may be important to allow an environment in > which militant street demonstrations can save a government. > > I too salute the proletarian audacity of the core supporters of > Chavez. The reason why he was wise to call for national unity however, > is that a serious analysis of a balance of forces requires you to look > at the sectors of the population that you are not winning over, and > are leaving for your opponents to recruit. > > That is why, IMO and without direct knowledge of the country of > course, I think that the most successful political programme is one > that will be national democratic in character and not just a socialist > dictatorship of workers and poor peasants, as Dave B implies. (That > does *not* mean that the issue of power and security can be ignored.) > > Chris Burford > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Class Struggle #44
Comrades, Class Struggle #44 April/May 2002 is now on our website at: http://www.geocities.com/communistworker/cs44.html Dave B ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Decline of American Power?
Of course you can read all of Wallerstein's 'signs' in the reverse. In 1974 there was a cold war. The USSR was a major power that faced off the US in many parts of the world. The 'evil empire' was such a powerful enemy it was easy to get the 'free world' organised behind the US banner. That's why the US was able to get others to pay for its power. When the US economy went into deficit this was not a sign of weakness but of getting others to pay its bills. Its like being the only creditor who does not ever have to pay up. For Japanese to say US dollars are out is out of this world. So not only did the US dominate the non-soviet world, but its determination to destroy the evil empire succeeded in 1989. This is a sign of impotence? But the most obvious absurdity of Wallerstein's position is the post- S11 world. THe US responded to S11 with something approaching super-imperialism. I didn't notice a lot of dissent in the US about bombing Afghanistan. That's gunship diplomacy turned into a blank cheque for Asia's oil. Now we have Europe (the next Empire?) allowing US citizens immunity from international law. Some Empire in the making. OK there has been dissent over going into Iraq. But this is a difference over how best to pursue imperialist interests. Provoking Islam will be to bring an enemy into existence that might far outweigh the gains to the US from this adventure. France and Germany are trying to protect their oil interests. The US has Iraq sown up by Israel. It has central Asia sown up because it dominates those middling powers that surround it, Russia, Pakestan, India and China. So why take out Saddam? Taking out Saddam would be the act of empire rampant. Is an empire that has been in decline since 1974 about to engage in free fall regime change? Sept 11 was seized on by the Bush wing of the US ruling class to advance its interests over US imperial interests in general. Re-colonisation gets direct control of oil and would bring about a instant drop in prices to these oil barons, but it also makes it clear that the US is taking desparate risks to restore falling profits. What is weak is capitalism; what is not weak is imperialism in its death agonies. But since imperialism is capitalism in extremis, its weakness is that of capitalism. This is where Wallerstein and all those who dehistoricise 'empire' to give us a checklist of past empires to draw conclusions about imperialism are non-marxist. US imperialism in its death agony will thrash about with destructive power in a Starwars scenario until it has its guts hollowed out by revolution from within. But it has the power to destroy the world if this does not happen. Superfical arguments about 'America's' decline remind me of comrade Joe's evolutionary optimism regarding fascism. Don't worry comrades Herr Hitler is yesterday's man. Dave B On 5 Oct 2002 at 17:32, Jim Farmelant wrote: > > > * Is the American empire already over? > > By DOUG SAUNDERS > Saturday, October 5, 2002 - Page F3 > > ..."The United States has been fading as a global power since the > 1970s, and the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks has merely > accelerated this decline." So says Immanuel Wallerstein, the Yale > University political scientistIn a forthcoming book, to be titled > Decline of American Power,he describes his country as "a lone > superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and > few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos > it cannot control." > > In his view, America gave up the ghost in 1974, when it admitted > defeat in Vietnam and discovered that the conflict had more or less > exhausted the gold reserves, crippling its ability to remain a major > economic power. It has remained the focus of the world's attention > partly for lack of any serious challenger to the greenback for the > world's savings, and because it has kept attracting foreign > investments at a rate of $1.2-billion (U.S.) per day. > > But if it comes to a crunch, the United States can no longer prevail > either economically or -- here is the most controversial statement -- > militarily. In Mr. Wallerstein's calculus, of the three major wars the > United States has fought since the Second World War, one was a defeat > and two (Korea and the Gulf War) were draws. > > Iraq, he told me recently, would be an end game. "The policy of the > U.S. government, which all administrations have been following since > the seventies, has been to slow down the decline by pushing on all > fronts. The hawks currently in power have to work very, very hard > twisting arms very, very tightly to get the minimal legal > justification for Iraq that they want now. This kind of thing, they > used to get with a snap of the fingers." > > You don't have to agree with Mr. Wallerstein's hyperbolic view to be a > member of the Over camp -- and many do disagree: When he first brought > it up in the journal Foreign
[Marxism-Thaxis] [Arg_Solid] National Workers Assembly - Political Resolu
National Assembly of Employed and Unemployed Workers September 28th-29th, 2002 (Buenos Aires, Argentina) Political Resolutions Document The social and economic crisis has worsened, with the working class and the people as a whole suffering its consequences. It is not the crisis of a model, nor does it admit, as a result, superficial solutions attempting to humanize capitalism. This is a general crisis of the capitalist system of domination expressed in the policies carried out by the Duhalde government, which is tottering because it is unable to renew any consensus over how these policies should be put into practice. Duhaldes government has attempted to survive by assassinating piqueteros (picketeers) and has dug its own grave. The repressive turn destined to "clean the highways and streets" ended not only in political defeat but also in the bringing forward of the elections as a maneuver for the survival of a washed-up government. The reaction of the masses of the Popular Assemblies on June 27th to the call on the same afternoon as the massacre of Puente Pueyrredón by piquetero organizations that were the protagonists on the national day of the 26th, the reaction of the students and workers, afterwards extended in the great political mobilizations of July 3rd and 9th, defined the Argentine political process towards a new ascent in the struggles of the working class and people in Argentina. Struggles of the working class and people that the government has not been able to abort in spite of the provocations mounted by the forces of repression on the Pueyrredón Bridge which cost the lives of our brothers Maximiliano K The occupation and production under workers control in factories and companies bankrupted by the capitalists has been reinforced with new occupations, like that of Perfil (publishing and printing), that of the miners of Río Turbio, faced with the collapse of the privatizing concessionaire, that of the occupation and demand for expropriation and placing under workers control of Grissinópoli (bakery), of Chilavert, which have consolidated the process of Zanón, Brukman, the Junín Clinic of Córdoba, the Tigre Supermarkets in Rosario, and the experience of workers control of accounts at Transporte del Oeste (Transport). The teachers struggle has been enormous, with the occupation of the School Boards in La Plata, Berisso and Ensenada, with the encampments and occupation of schools, with the huge mobilizations of the teachers union in struggle for the defense of the Teachers Statute, just as Perfil did for the Journalists Statute. And this battle against labor flexibilization opened a new chapter with the approval in the Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires of the six-hour workday for subway workers, the result of a colossal workers mobilization of the 1,600 brothers and sisters of Metrovías, sanctioning an initial sharing out of work-hours, paving the way for genuinely new jobs, the stategic demand of our movement for the unity of the employed and unemployed in the working class. New anti-bureaucratic and class struggle slates are being organized in Railway Signalmen and in the UEPC (teachers of Cordoba) unions, reinforcing the process of expulsion of the bureaucracy led by the ceramists of Neuquén and the SOIP at the head of 7,000 workers of the fishing industry in Mar del Plata. Shop floor committees are being won back. The Popular Assemblies defend the factory occupations, and themselves occupy sites and public spaces for the struggle of the people. Also supported by them, renters and land and building squatters and occupiers have led extraordinary pickets and mobilizations for land and housing. The scrap cardboard and paper collectors erect roadblocks and the railway workers, with the same piquetero method, have stopped lay-offs at Interactiva, a subsidiary of Metropolitano. The organizations participating here have opposed the [officialist] councils of crisis and reconciliation, source of cronyism, of corruption and of capitalist business deals. The heads of households plan created in order to sweep away the combative piquetera organizations have failed in their attempt; we have widened the struggle to extend it to youth and adults alike, and to duplicate the amount awarded. We have given no truce, we have deepened our struggle and as part of it we attended the National Encampment called by the Bloque Piquetero Nacional (National Picketeer Bloc), the MIJD (Independent Movement of Pensioners and the Unemployed Movimiento Independiente de Jubilados y Desempleados) and Barrios de Pie (Neighborhoods on their Feet), giving continuity to the plan of struggle and aiming directly at "All of them have got to go." We have again welded the alliance between the workers and the Popular Assemblies on August 7th-8th, transforming the anti-imperialist days of struggle against ONeill in an e The absence of the political and trade union center-left in the popular struggles has a
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
He is probably referring to 'a defence of class consciousness: tailism and the dialectic' published by Verso last year. It has a foreword by John Rees of the SWP and a postface by Slavoj Zizek. Where does the review by Peter Hudis appear in full? I would be interested in seeing it as I think that the publication of this book wrapped in SWP foreplay and Zizek imposturing is a caricature of Lukacs on the party. Dave B On 4 Jul 01, at 0:42, Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day Thaxists, > > Michael Pugliese apparently had trouble getting this to the list. > There was something attached, but I couldn't do a thing with it. I'd > love to see it if it has anything to do with H&CC, Michael. Anyone > else know anything about this, btw? > > Cheers, > Rob. > > >> > The Dialectic and 'The Party': Lukács' HISTORY AND CLASS > >> > CONSCIOUSNESS reconsidered > >> > > >> > by Peter Hudis > >> > > >> > The startling discovery, made several years ago in an archive > >> > in > >> > Moscow, of a heretofore unknown manuscript defending HISTORY AND > >> > CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS by its author, Georg Lukács, seemed destined > >> > to impel a reconsideration of one of the most important chapters > >> > in the history of Marxism. > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Marxism for Bill = vanguard=alienation=feudalism. Why don't you add in a dash of exploitation and oppression, totalitariansim even, then you can buddy up to the bourgeois. On 9 Jul 01, at 14:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 1:21 AM +1100 9/7/01, Rob Schaap wrote: > > > >until all forms of alienation are totally uprooted. > > > >A big ask. I, for one, would not pay homage to an aparat that > >promises to dissolve itself only when they've identified, never mind > >uprooted, *all* forms of alienation. > > Since such a vanguard operates as an elite itself, it is inherently > alienating of those outside the ranks of the vanguard. *All* forms of > alienation can't be eliminated without eliminating the vanguard > itself. > > Effectively, the vanguard approach merely substitutes one form of > alienation for another. So it isn't a step forward. The question that > then arises is whether it represents a step backwards, or a zero step. > I think it is a step backwards, the vanguard approach seems to involve > a regression to a form of absolute and arbitrary power, more akin to > feudalism than socialism. > > Bill Bartlett > Bracknell Tas > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Well why not read What is to be Done and find out? On 12 Jul 01, at 0:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 9:15 PM +0200 10/7/01, Bob Malecki wrote: > > >Ah Bill? What exactly is a "vanguard". Betcha don't even know.. > > I quoted sufficient of the original context to show clearly in what > context I was ridiculing "vanguard". In case people hadn't taken the > trouble to read all of the post I was replying to. > > Here is the part of the post I quoted: > > > >until all forms of alienation are totally uprooted. > > > > A big ask. I, for one, would not pay homage to an aparat that > >promises to dissolve itself only when they've identified, never mind > >uprooted, *all* forms of alienation. > > So the context was apparently a so-called "vanguard" party (party > representing a minority) that HOLDS POWER (otherwise how could *they* > uproot all forms of alienation). A dictatorship in plain English. > > I don't need to know anymore than that. I'm no Marxist scholar by a > long shot, but I thought the idea was that emancipation of the working > class must be the class-conscious act of the working class itself? > Unfortunately there is no way that can be reconciled with > 'vanguardism', so I don't see how 'vanguardism' can be reconciled with > Marxism. > > Bill Bartlett > Bracknell Tas > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Oh so now we have the rendition of Marx as a minor bourgeois democrat. Which makes Lenin and co stupid not to have realised this when they abolished the Constituent Assembly because that was real democracy and not just another figleaf of the bourgeois dictatorship. Which of course is conforting for what remains of the petty bourgeois left today who take their cue from Subcommanders and best-selling journalists and the hope that their jobs will remain secure in the transition to socialism. On 14 Jul 01, at 20:46, Lewis Higgins wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Bob Malecki > > > Are you saying here that the Bolshevik Partry under Lenin > > and Trotsky usurped the political power? > > Yes. In the election for the Constituent Assembly in late 1917 the > Bolsheviks got a quarter of the popular vote. Lenin was shocked by > this result and duly dissolved the Assembly, giving as his reason that > people had changed their mind after the vote. The next free election > came in 1991. > > > "All vanguards" have led to.What a cover up Lew. A > > specific set of conditions led to political power being > > ursurped. > > You don't deny that *all* vanguards have led to a dictatorship *over* > the proletariat. If local conditions were to blame there would be > exceptions, but there isn't. Even in a genuinely mass supported > movement such as Castroite Cuba, real political power is in the hands > of the elite. > > > By the way why did Marx build the first > > International? > > To spread working class unity. One of Marx's main contributions was to > explicitly preclude vanguardism (see his and Engels' open letter > quoted earlier). I take seriously Marx and Engels' claim that the > emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the working > class itself - though it follows logically from the highly > participatory society which Marx thought would replace capitalism. > Vanguardism was and is an obstacle to that objective. > > -- > Lew > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Lew and Neil accuse Bob of timewarpism. Then they quote or cite Engels or Marx from the 1870's as if these quotes settled the matter. This debate was kicked off by an article shooting down Lukacs 'vanguardism' and praising Zizek for his insight that the heart of Leninism was his 'voluntarism' i.e. capacity to act as an individual! That says it all today even self-proclaimed commies are supposed to be individuals otherwise that is a real downer on our human rights isnt it? Lew do you really think that What is to be Done advocates that the petty bourgeois or bourgeois indoctrinate workers as the answer? None of this 'dictatorship of the party' stuff understands the sense in which Lenin used the term 'dictatorship'. It just means class rule. As he argued in WITBD the working class is ruled by bourgeois ideology until it becomes class consciousness through the INTERVENTION OF THE CONSCIOUS VANGUARD. The vanguard embodies class rule, it does not subsitute for it unless it ceases to be democratic centralist. To reject the democratic centralist vanguard and substitute some wanky petty bourgeois self important notion of half-way idealised radical democracy in its council, anarchist or reformist forms, is COUNTER- REVOLUTIONARY. The 2Oth century downer on the communist vanguard is a fake left echo of bourgeois triumphalism (note the implication that one or other bunch of fakes substitutes itself as the REAL vanguard). The reason that most of you do it is that you damn well know that it was only the vanguard that made the revolution last time and it will do so next time to your horror. So to put the sins of petty bourgeois counter-revolution onto the back of Lenin and vanguardism is so transparent that it makes you look like a pack of hacks. Dave B On 13 Jul 01, at 20:53, Lewis Higgins wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Bob Malecki: > > > The romantic, holier then thou view of the working class > > emancipating itself is shown quite clearly in Lenin's > > writings. I think something along the lines of the working > > class as a whole ( can at best ) become trade union > > concious. But only the vanguard of the workers can be a > > revolutionary concious to open a way to a new society by > > overthrowing the old and building a new on its ashes.. > > Marx and Engels' open letter to the SPD in 1879: > > "When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle > cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the > working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with > people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to > emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic > big bourgeois and petty bourgeois." > > > So it is not good enough that you personally draw a > > conclusion. But prove your point. If "vanguardism" is > > counter your ideas of the whole class. Please a little > > theroretical proof to prove your point, Those revolutions > > that historically have taken place so far show quite > > clearly that it was a vanguard of the workers and peasants > > that carried it out. Even if they were ursurped politically > > by Stalinism and what it represents. > > I like the "even if" political power was usurped. When workers allow a > vanguard to rule on their behalf, political power has already been > usurped. Vanguardism has always resulted in a dictatorship *over* the > working class. > > -- > Lew > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Well Rob its OK to get indignant, as you used to when called you a Menshevik. But when we get outright garbage and quote chopping ostensibly to prove that vanguardism is 'fuedalism' we have to say - hold on what is the minimum expectation for discussion on this list. Some experience with marxism? If this garbage persists the we have to ask, what motivates it on a marxism list? Menshevism is the substitution of petty bourgeois intelligentcia for the working class as revolutionary subject - something that Lukacs was dead against. Preaching self-activity and spontaneity as the answer is what Rosa Luxemburg did and look where that got her. At least ht e Bolsheviks had their revolution. And it would not have gone pearshaped had Luxemburg had hers too. Dave B On 15 Jul 01, at 20:12, Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day Thaxists, > > Some of the very best theoreticians and analysts, indeed some of the > very best human beings, to have contributed to the Marxian cause have > been Trotskyists (reading the likes of Trotsky and Draper is never > time wasted, for mine), and it'd be nice to disagree with professed > members of Trot tendencies without being told we're treacherous petit > bourgeois enemies of the working class. That's just the kind of > purist well-poisoning belligerence that leaves many of us so > suspicious as to how vanguardism might develop - and how , > historically, it seems it did ... > > And I, for one, do not believe all power did rest with the soviets - > in fact, I think the revolutionary opportunity/necessity came to > Russia before tenable soviets, and the entrenched, durable, > democratic, culture of resistance upon which sovietism would depend, > had developed. Trotsky came to think so, after all. He didn't think > the revolutionary opportunity should not have been taken at the time. > But it did go pear-shaped, and when it did, that was part of Trotsky's > analysis. That's praxis - have a go, learn, change, have another go. > > For mine, what the USSR got was party substitutionalism, a fat aparat > standing over and against its 'constituency', flabby stasis, the > gulags, and 1990. I think they're all related, so I think we've > learned something and we need to change. You don't. We disagree. > That's all. > > Cheers, > Rob. > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
You repeat yourself. M and E said in the CM that the working class must emancipate themselves and not be told what to do by petty bourgeois or bourgeois. They also said in the CM that communists: "are on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties in every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the prolelariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." You quote What is to be Done as if that proves your point. When Lenin talks about intellectuals bringing revolutionary consciousness to the working class, he does not mean petty bourgeois or bourgeois intellectuals telling workers what to do> This is what the Mensheviks (that's by term for you Rob remember) do when they say workers' must emancipate themselves. Read all of WITBD where Lenin says this phrase about 'spontaneity' is itself a version of bourgeois ideology. The Leninist ideology you reject is Marxism. How do you think Marxism develops unless tested in action by a vanguard party. If we had to wait for the sum total of the many aimless discussions that go on on so-called marxist lists on the internet to advance marxism we would be still be waiting in the next millennium. As for Marx being converted by his experience of working class activity, that's only partly true. It was this experience that acted to focus his philosophic critique and journalist iconoclasm into a revolutionary science. By the way Lew, this destroys your whole argument, since it proves that Marx was an intellectual from outside the working class that brought the revolutionary theory to the masses. Do you think that the masses would have outgrown Proudhon or Bernstein by themselves? No. The only workers who saw through petty bourgeois socialism were those led and educated in struggle by a revolutionary vanguard (which included Marx and Engels and their program the CM). Which brings us back to Luxemburg. She died because she was not a Bolshevik. And Zizek's reading of Lenin. If the Russian revolution had to depend upon Lenin's capacity to act as a free agent, then it would not have happened. Lenin was the sharpest expression of democratic centralism in his own person. This is what marxist leadership is. It has nothing to do with bourgeois free will. Dave B Dave B On 15 Jul 01, at 10:24, Lewis Higgins wrote: > -Original Message- > > From: davidb > > > Then they quote or cite Engels or Marx from the 1870's as if these > quotes settled the matter. > > It settles what position Marx and Engels took on this issue: > > "When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle > cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the > working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with > people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to > emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic > big bourgeois and petty bourgeois." > > > Lew do you really think that What is to be Done advocates that the > petty bourgeois or bourgeois > indoctrinate workers as the answer? > > From Lenin's What is to be Done?: > > "We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic > consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them > from without. The history of all countries shows that the > working-class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only > trade union consciousness... The theory of socialism, however, grew > out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated > by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by > intellectuals." > > The history of all countries shows that Leninists can only achieve a > vanguardist consciousness. Socialist understanding will have to be > brought to them from without, by the working class. > > Incidentally, Marx became a communist mainly through his experiences > with the workers' radical clubs in Paris - especially Moses Hess, an > ordinary worker. > > -- > Lew > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS JOINS THE POSSE
On 5 Oct 01, at 11:14, Sebastian Budgen wrote: > But Hitchens now seems > also much more noisily and aggressively than the prudent and > politick Berlin to be placing his brain and his pen at the command > of the Empire. From a critic of power he is becoming one of its mere > servants. This melancholy spectacle should not stop us rallying the > widest possible coalition against the coming war. > > Alex Callinicos > 5 October 2001 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hitchens progress should not surprise Marxists. Liberals are fair weather friends. Imperialist war concentrates the mind and our real class interests. Hitchens up to the bosses is hardly a shock. Remarkable to suggest that this is a 'melancholy spectacle' . I would have thought it hugely satisfying. And far from being an obstacle to our movement, its a relief that we don't have to read the Hitchens of this world to build a workers anti imperialist movement. Dave B ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
