Re: oscar wilde on socialism?
it sounds like a response to Albert & Hahnel's participatory economy. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > I don't have any source, but the quote I recall (and one that > sounds much > more like Wilde) was "the problem with Socialism is that it > takes up too > many spare evenings." I'd love to hear the exact quote, of course. > > Frederick Emrich, Editor > > below was posted to another list... michael hoover > > The statement "The trouble with Socialism is too many meetings," is > > frequently attributed to Oscar Wilde. A Google search has turned up > > several attributions of the statement, but no formal citations. It > > does not appear in my editions of the Oxford Dictionary of > Quotations > > or Bergen Evans' Dictionary of Quotations. Does anyone have a firm > > citation to where (or if) he wrote or said it? Thanks.
Re: oscar wilde on socialism?
I don't have any source, but the quote I recall (and one that sounds much more like Wilde) was "the problem with Socialism is that it takes up too many spare evenings." I'd love to hear the exact quote, of course. Frederick Emrich, Editor commons-blog (http://info-commons.org/blog/) RSS Feed: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/index.rdf info-commons.org (http://info-commons.org/index.shtml) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L] oscar wilde on socialism? > below was posted to another list... michael hoover > > The statement "The trouble with Socialism is too many meetings," is > frequently attributed to Oscar Wilde. A Google search has turned up > several attributions of the statement, but no formal citations. It > does not appear in my editions of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations > or Bergen Evans' Dictionary of Quotations. Does anyone have a firm > citation to where (or if) he wrote or said it? Thanks.
Re: oscar wilde on socialism?
Sorry, all I know about that one, is the bit by Bob Dylan, Oh Mama, can this really be the end To be stuck here with my mobile phone With the Memphis blues again J.
oscar wilde on socialism?
below was posted to another list... michael hoover The statement "The trouble with Socialism is too many meetings," is frequently attributed to Oscar Wilde. A Google search has turned up several attributions of the statement, but no formal citations. It does not appear in my editions of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations or Bergen Evans' Dictionary of Quotations. Does anyone have a firm citation to where (or if) he wrote or said it? Thanks.
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
As far as I know, you are incorrect. Luxemburg coined the slogan, the idea was expressed first by Engels. J. - Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left > >was it marx or lenin > (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility...< > > Luxemburg coined the phrase "socialism or barbarism." > Jim > >
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
>was it marx or lenin (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility...< Luxemburg coined the phrase "socialism or barbarism." Jim
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
first, i wasn't running through the house and i didn't knock over the lamp, i don't know how it happened, really... second, i'm really not an engels contra marx person but... yes, there's a but... fe judged 'utopian socialists' moral-political philosophy via his dialectical understanding of natural sciences (particularly darwinian biology), problem is that this is either/or approach involving choice that really shouldn't be made, both are necessary but not for same purposes... one can certainly read in fe a reasoned attempt to convince folks that capitalism is bound to collapse, to be replaced by socialism...question is whether fe was saying that this was automatic/inevitable or whether people needed to be persuaded to join in and act to get rid of capitalism... doubtful that socialism will result from everything coming to grinding halt (great song by cure), was it marx or lenin (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility... gramsci pointed out that emotional, moral, philosophical, rational would all be needed to get folks to act to bring about socialism (he also favored development of "pre-figurative" working class socialist institutions and practices in midst of capitalist society)... michael hoover
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
--- Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carrol laid out the program in his post. (below) > > There are so many issues right now that can help > people see the path > forward. > > 1. Universal health care. Even at the depths of > Hillary's mess the > polling date showed strong support for single-payer. > Now when > corporations are screwing retirees and cutting > benefits and increasing > costs for active workers , ... > > 2. Patent rights for drug companies. As the prices > soar, the opportunity > for pointing out how governement funding could cut > costs and spread > benefits. > > 3. In electric power, the idea of local ownership, > local takeover of > utilities is quite popular. Difficult to pull off > because of years of > defenses built into our laws by the power companies. > But a useful > educational fight where it happens. > Environmentalists at the local level > can impact investment decisions (green power) and > the consumer side gets > lower prices. Where it exists now, public power does > a solid and popular > job. > > 4. The biggie: Taking away "corporate personhood." > As the movement to > eliminate personhood grows rapidly, some of the > adherents can take the > next leap, as Carrol describes. And when the > "campaign finance reform" > gang realizes that it ain't going nowhere without > the end of "corporate > free speech" this is going to be huge. > > 5., 6, 7., ... etc. Fill in the list. > And get organizing!!! > > Gene Coyle 8. Winning the class battle for democracy. 9. Abolition of the wage-system. 10. Social ownership of the means of production/consumption. 11. Production of goods and services as things (as opposed to commodities) for use and need. 12. Living in harmony with the Earth. Cheers, Mike B) = * I can clearly recall myself angrily storming towards the pod pick-up point, muttering under my breath, "Fucking son-of-a-bitch! What bastards! My life is going nowhere. I'm just a credit-slave to these chumps. They only care about their bloody profits. As far as theyre concerned, my sanity can be sacrificed on their holy altar of fiduciary responsibility. After all, The Corp is beholden, first and foremost to its stockholders. Screw the workers. Pure unadulterated crap! Theres no mystery to it. They wont hire more pilots because it would cut into the rate of profit." from WAGE-SLAVE'S ESCAPE http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Carrol laid out the program in his post. (below) There are so many issues right now that can help people see the path forward. 1. Universal health care. Even at the depths of Hillary's mess the polling date showed strong support for single-payer. Now when corporations are screwing retirees and cutting benefits and increasing costs for active workers , ... 2. Patent rights for drug companies. As the prices soar, the opportunity for pointing out how governement funding could cut costs and spread benefits. 3. In electric power, the idea of local ownership, local takeover of utilities is quite popular. Difficult to pull off because of years of defenses built into our laws by the power companies. But a useful educational fight where it happens. Environmentalists at the local level can impact investment decisions (green power) and the consumer side gets lower prices. Where it exists now, public power does a solid and popular job. 4. The biggie: Taking away "corporate personhood." As the movement to eliminate personhood grows rapidly, some of the adherents can take the next leap, as Carrol describes. And when the "campaign finance reform" gang realizes that it ain't going nowhere without the end of "corporate free speech" this is going to be huge. 5., 6, 7., ... etc. Fill in the list. And get organizing!!! Gene Coyle Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Sigh! Saul Alinksky had a slogan that is appropriate in this context (and which I in fact followed in all my attempts, _ever_, to move someone to socialism): You organize with your ears not your mouth. >From mid-1968 through 1973 I probably moved around 8 to 12 people to a socialist perspective, by which I mean involving them actively in movement politics and in a process of studying marxism. Without exception I did so without _ever_, once, using the word "socialism" or "marxism" or "revilution" or any synonym until _after_ they had indicated to me that they believed we needed socialism. (At least three of these people are still involved in left activity, one disappeared into Weatherman, and several others burnt out in the general meltdown of the early '80s. A couple of them would be back in the movement if real movement began again.) Your "asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics" simply doesn't make any sense. One simplyl does not ask them to do that. One asks them to attend an anti-war demonstration or a rally to get a framed black student out of jail. Et cetera. It is simply bizarre to expect people to jump to socialism on the basis of any sort of discussion of socialism. One involves people in resistance activities. Then one sees what happens, and if someone indicates a need for more, then the discussion begins. But people have to persuade themselves to socialism. One can't do it for them. You are still thinking like a writer rather than someone involved in active political work. And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, "revolutionary politics" consists in? Carrol Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, > >"revolutionary politics" consists in? > > Wish I knew. Since you seem to know everything, why don't you tell me? > I don't make big sweeping statements about "revolutionary politics," you do. I make statements about building a mass movement (relationship to revolution wholly open). You used the term. Not me. Tell us what you mean by it. Carrol > Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Carrol Cox wrote: And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, "revolutionary politics" consists in? Wish I knew. Since you seem to know everything, why don't you tell me? Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they > >tend to make the future seem less attractive. > > I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're > asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace > revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? > Sigh! Saul Alinksky had a slogan that is appropriate in this context (and which I in fact followed in all my attempts, _ever_, to move someone to socialism): You organize with your ears not your mouth. >From mid-1968 through 1973 I probably moved around 8 to 12 people to a socialist perspective, by which I mean involving them actively in movement politics and in a process of studying marxism. Without exception I did so without _ever_, once, using the word "socialism" or "marxism" or "revilution" or any synonym until _after_ they had indicated to me that they believed we needed socialism. (At least three of these people are still involved in left activity, one disappeared into Weatherman, and several others burnt out in the general meltdown of the early '80s. A couple of them would be back in the movement if real movement began again.) Your "asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics" simply doesn't make any sense. One simplyl does not ask them to do that. One asks them to attend an anti-war demonstration or a rally to get a framed black student out of jail. Et cetera. It is simply bizarre to expect people to jump to socialism on the basis of any sort of discussion of socialism. One involves people in resistance activities. Then one sees what happens, and if someone indicates a need for more, then the discussion begins. But people have to persuade themselves to socialism. One can't do it for them. You are still thinking like a writer rather than someone involved in active political work. And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, "revolutionary politics" consists in? Carrol > Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I used to offer that course. I taught it once to a class of economics students who wanted to be told what to think all the time. So I've been discouraged. BTW, according to Draper, Marx and Engels thought that utopian literature could be an important part of working-class self-education and discussion. They just didn't see it as a good guide to tactics, strategy, abnd history. Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 3:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left Of course, saying that you are for socialism conjures up the Cold War vision of the Soviet Union. Maybe, you do not even use the term socialism in opening up a dialogue. Jim Devine seems to offer a course that uses science-fiction to create a vision of a socialist society. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 06:26:21PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: > > Saying you're "for socialism" in this context sounds more than a a > little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It > has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the > True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a > significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure > don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I wasn't equating the two. Saying that they shared a "general tradition" is not
equating.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Hari Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the
Left
"Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE,
etc.)" Jim D.
COMMENT:
Mine is a simple remark, & in the context of the discussion taking place
on the matter- largely irrelevant. But I do object to the simplistic
equation of William Morris (A man deeply involved with forming a Marxist
Party and mass links) & Oscar Wilde (A man representing the highest of
individual courage). I say "largely irrelevant" - since the deeper
purposes & linkages of the men involved, informs the purpose of their
writings.
Hari
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Saying you're "for socialism" in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug Since the reference to True Leninists is presumably directed at me and since Doug filters out my email, I suppose it would not generate too much turmoil if I responded to this. People will not make a revolution in the USA based on the kind of objective conditions that have prevailed since the end of WWII. As long as there are expectations that you can find a job and raise a family, there is no reason for people to make a plunge into the unknown. However, as the economic situation continues to deteriorate, as we get more and more embroiled in imperialist wars and as the environmental crisis deepens, people will take extreme actions as a *defensive* measure. As happens in just about every single powerful revolutionary situation that we know of, the people will begin to form their own embryonic institutions of economic and political power. In 1917, they called them "Soviets". In Spain in the 1930s they took the form of workers or peasant committees. Etc., etc. Fundamentally, what happens in a revolution is that dual power is resolved either in favor of the workers who are seeking to rule in their own interest or the bosses who want to maintain their privileges. If the revolution is successful, the workers councils, etc. will become the new government. In the period leading up to the conquest of power, the discussion in the ranks of these committees will not be about socialism in the abstract but how to move the struggle forward to a successful conclusion. Once the workers take power, their ideas about running the economy will be tested in action. In an advanced country like the USA, socialism will be more feasible than ever in history. With the high level of education and technology, the USA will set the example for the rest of the world. Although I don't think it is necessary to campaign around questions of what a socialist American would look like, I suppose that discussions will unfold that reflect some themes found in Trotsky's writings. As inspiring as they are, they cannot be described as utopian: Leon Trotsky, "If America should go Communist": Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. "Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism. National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous. Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers' purchasing power. To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain. The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system. Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants. This, in addition to your technical equipment and your wealth, is the greatest asset of your coming communist revolution. Your revolution will be smoother in character than ours; you will not waste your energies and resources in costly social conflicts after the main issues have been decided; and you will move ahead so much more rapidly in consequence. full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-ame.htm Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Of course, saying that you are for socialism conjures up the Cold War vision of the Soviet Union. Maybe, you do not even use the term socialism in opening up a dialogue. Jim Devine seems to offer a course that uses science-fiction to create a vision of a socialist society. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 06:26:21PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: > > Saying you're "for socialism" in this context sounds more than a a > little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It > has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the > True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a > significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure > don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael Perelman wrote: The difference between a vision and a blueprint in the amount of detail involved. Such a distinction is necessarily vague. Almost everybody here favors socialism, perhaps except David S. who hangs out here for his amusement. I don't think that many of us have exactly the same idea of what socialism entails on a blueprint level. If we started talking about blueprints -- even among us socialists -- we would end up in endless arguements. Just recall the long, fruitless dialogues about the merits of market socialism. People can dream of going to Hollywood to be in the movies without seeing the scripts before they depart to realize their dream. Saying you're "for socialism" in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
The difference between a vision and a blueprint in the amount of detail involved. Such a distinction is necessarily vague. Almost everybody here favors socialism, perhaps except David S. who hangs out here for his amusement. I don't think that many of us have exactly the same idea of what socialism entails on a blueprint level. If we started talking about blueprints -- even among us socialists -- we would end up in endless arguements. Just recall the long, fruitless dialogues about the merits of market socialism. People can dream of going to Hollywood to be in the movies without seeing the scripts before they depart to realize their dream. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:03:45PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they > >tend to make the future seem less attractive. > > I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're > asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace > revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
"Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE, etc.)" Jim D. COMMENT: Mine is a simple remark, & in the context of the discussion taking place on the matter- largely irrelevant. But I do object to the simplistic equation of William Morris (A man deeply involved with forming a Marxist Party and mass links) & Oscar Wilde (A man representing the highest of individual courage). I say "largely irrelevant" - since the deeper purposes & linkages of the men involved, informs the purpose of their writings. Hari
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:07:12PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Perelman wrote: > > > I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not > > just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what > > we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can > > be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what > > we need. > > I agree that we need an alternative vision. It would be good if our > movement could produce something like William Morris did. However, that is > not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to blueprints for future societies > in the Albert-Hahnel mode since they are presented not as visions, but as > *necessary* roadmaps to the future. My beef with Weinstein, Panitch and > Jacoby is of another nature, however. These are all anti-Communists whose > vision of the future entails rejection of the compromised, messy but > *real* societies trying to create an alternative to capitalism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael wrote:
>I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can
>offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some
>other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is
>the creation of such a vision then it can be very important
>in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what
>we need.
I agree with this.
"Hope" counts in politics. Tis very human.
And, right now, a vision of "hopeful socialism" (utopianism) is
positive.
All politics are based on improving the lot of the individual. Without
"a vision," even them "realistic commies" remain but a braukellar
Marxist cadre trying to enlist disgruntled technocrats for a future
world of technocrats removed from utopia.
A vision/hope is important to a "mass movement" ("mass movement" being
translated as "Lots of people").
Ken.
--
The desire of the moth for the star,
Of the night for the morrow,
The devotion to something afar
>From the sphere of our sorrow.
-- Shelley
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Perelman wrote: > I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not > just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what > we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can > be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what > we need. I agree that we need an alternative vision. It would be good if our movement could produce something like William Morris did. However, that is not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to blueprints for future societies in the Albert-Hahnel mode since they are presented not as visions, but as *necessary* roadmaps to the future. My beef with Weinstein, Panitch and Jacoby is of another nature, however. These are all anti-Communists whose vision of the future entails rejection of the compromised, messy but *real* societies trying to create an alternative to capitalism.
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
There are some on pen-l who use "utopian" as an insult or a put-down. Any criticism of a putative socialist country, for example, evokes the term. Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:44:13AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > >In "The Long Detour," Weinstein argues that the time has come for the > >left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. > > I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming > became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled "End of Utopia" > (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all > the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo > Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, > while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 > years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. > > Utopia, ptooey!!! > > > > Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:44:13AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > >In "The Long Detour," Weinstein argues that the time has come for the > >left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. > > I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming > became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled "End of Utopia" > (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all > the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo > Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, > while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 > years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. > > Utopia, ptooey!!! > > > > Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE, etc.) Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 6:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Madison (WI) Capital Times Left Should Take a Page From Wilde by John Nichols Toward the close of his extraordinary new book, "The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left" (Westview), James Weinstein ruminates on an all-but-forgotten tract by Oscar Wilde. Weinstein, the eyes-wide-open historian and journalist who has been close to the core of American left-wing politics for the better part of 50 years, might not appear on the surface to be a Wilde man. But in the Anglo-Irish dramatist and dandy's classic 1893 essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Weinstein finds signposts that could point toward a brighter future for the American left. In year three of what Jefferson might refer to as a "reign of witches," when American freedoms are under constant attack, when foreign entanglements threaten to drag the country deeper into the imperialist thicket, and when the loyal opposition to George W. Bush is so loyal that there is all too little organized opposition, few would dispute Weinstein's assertion that the American left is too frequently "directionless and leaderless." Weinstein speaks with the authority of one who has, at many turns, offered both direction and leadership to the postwar left. The author of "The Decline of Socialism in America" and "The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State," Weinstein was the founder of the influential journal Socialist Review and the founding editor and publisher of the Chicago-based democratic socialist magazine In These Times. An old leftist, a new leftist, a radical and a pragmatist, Weinstein has held the banner of progressive politics aloft through so many struggles that he has passed from being a historian to being part of history. And, ever the optimist, he has not given up on the prospect that the next great chapter in the history of the American left may be no more distant than the next turned page. And Weinstein, wise as ever, has turned a page or so of Wilde in search of inspiration for framing the next left. Wilde's concern of more than a century ago, Weinstein observes, "was with the great majority of working people whose creativity, 'latent and potential in mankind generally,' was stifled by capitalism. By making financial gain rather than personal growth its aim, he wrote, capitalism had 'crushed true individualism.' It debarred those in one part of the community from realizing their individuality by starving them; and it confused the other part by measuring them in terms of what they possessed. Capitalism left people to think 'that the important thing (was) to have,' rather than 'to be.' " When he wrote "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Wilde's argument for the abolition of capitalism in order to free people "to be" was dismissed as unrealistic. "Few socialists shared Wilde's take on socialism in 1900 because it was difficult to see a future where such a system would be possible," explains Weinstein. "But here we are, a hundred and fifty years after Marx wrote the Manifesto and a hundred years after Wilde wrote 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism.' And while even now few envision such a future, the most advanced capitalist nations have nonetheless created the productive capacity for a society such as Marx and Wilde had in mind. The technology and productive capacity exist, but the vision is missing. The problem, then, is how to create a political movement with the will and the ability to realize that vision." In "The Long Detour," Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. Weinstein is no dreamer - he expects the building of a left that can compete in the marketplace of ideas and at the ballot box in 21st century America "will be a long arduous task, and there will be many false starts." But, he suggests,
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
In "The Long Detour," Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled "End of Utopia" (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. Utopia, ptooey!!! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Madison (WI) Capital Times Left Should Take a Page From Wilde by John Nichols Toward the close of his extraordinary new book, "The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left" (Westview), James Weinstein ruminates on an all-but-forgotten tract by Oscar Wilde. Weinstein, the eyes-wide-open historian and journalist who has been close to the core of American left-wing politics for the better part of 50 years, might not appear on the surface to be a Wilde man. But in the Anglo-Irish dramatist and dandy's classic 1893 essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Weinstein finds signposts that could point toward a brighter future for the American left. In year three of what Jefferson might refer to as a "reign of witches," when American freedoms are under constant attack, when foreign entanglements threaten to drag the country deeper into the imperialist thicket, and when the loyal opposition to George W. Bush is so loyal that there is all too little organized opposition, few would dispute Weinstein's assertion that the American left is too frequently "directionless and leaderless." Weinstein speaks with the authority of one who has, at many turns, offered both direction and leadership to the postwar left. The author of "The Decline of Socialism in America" and "The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State," Weinstein was the founder of the influential journal Socialist Review and the founding editor and publisher of the Chicago-based democratic socialist magazine In These Times. An old leftist, a new leftist, a radical and a pragmatist, Weinstein has held the banner of progressive politics aloft through so many struggles that he has passed from being a historian to being part of history. And, ever the optimist, he has not given up on the prospect that the next great chapter in the history of the American left may be no more distant than the next turned page. And Weinstein, wise as ever, has turned a page or so of Wilde in search of inspiration for framing the next left. Wilde's concern of more than a century ago, Weinstein observes, "was with the great majority of working people whose creativity, 'latent and potential in mankind generally,' was stifled by capitalism. By making financial gain rather than personal growth its aim, he wrote, capitalism had 'crushed true individualism.' It debarred those in one part of the community from realizing their individuality by starving them; and it confused the other part by measuring them in terms of what they possessed. Capitalism left people to think 'that the important thing (was) to have,' rather than 'to be.' " When he wrote "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Wilde's argument for the abolition of capitalism in order to free people "to be" was dismissed as unrealistic. "Few socialists shared Wilde's take on socialism in 1900 because it was difficult to see a future where such a system would be possible," explains Weinstein. "But here we are, a hundred and fifty years after Marx wrote the Manifesto and a hundred years after Wilde wrote 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism.' And while even now few envision such a future, the most advanced capitalist nations have nonetheless created the productive capacity for a society such as Marx and Wilde had in mind. The technology and productive capacity exist, but the vision is missing. The problem, then, is how to create a political movement with the will and the ability to realize that vision." In "The Long Detour," Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. Weinstein is no dreamer - he expects the building of a left that can compete in the marketplace of ideas and at the ballot box in 21st century America "will be a long arduous task, and there will be many false starts." But, he suggests, the renewal will be rooted in an understanding that the left must articulate an agenda that speaks to the highest hopes and promises reforms. And those reforms need to be not merely radical but rejuvenating for the souls of Americans, who are increasingly battered by a consumer culture so omnipresent that it leaves little room for personal growth or societal progress.
Re: Argentina and Oscar Wilde
> On Argentina story [Financial Times] : > > In spite of severe external shocks - an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and a devaluation of the > British pound - the 1967 programme was highly successful. The exchange rate parallel market premium > disappeared overnight and by 1968 inflation had retrenched significantly. International reserves > were replenished and after one year there was no need to renew a $125m loan from the International > Monetary Fund. More important, in 1968 gross domestic product growth was almost 5 per cent and by > 1969 it had climbed to an impressive 8.5 per cent. Or how to call for history to demonstrate its opposite. Far from being a "severe external shock" to Argentina, the devaluation of the British pound, in 1967, as well as crisis of the dollar, not yet freed from its gold parity, were then much favourable to the debt of the rest of the world. Today's situation is somewhat different.
Argentina and Oscar Wilde
[Financial Times] This Argentine scheme The new government is courting Brazil and planning to protect local industry. This is bad economics, says Sebastian Edwards Published: January 20 2002 20:11 | Last Updated: January 20 2002 21:54 At his first press conference, Jorge Remes Lenicov, Argentina's economy minister, was asked whether, in light of the country's inflationary history, the devaluation of the peso had any chance of success. Without hesitation, the minister referred to a historical precedent. Although he was then very young, he said, he remembered that in 1967 a 40 per cent devaluation had been highly successful; it did not generate inflation and the value of the peso stabilised rapidly. Politicians can indeed be guided by history, but not if they draw lessons from it selectively. What Mr Remes did not say is that the 1967 exchange rate realignment was complemented by a drastic reduction in Argentine import tariffs, a severe fiscal retrenchment and an extremely austere wage rate policy. The main objective was to restore international competitiveness while achieving fiscal balance and reducing inflation. A dual exchange rate system that had existed since 1964 was eliminated, no attempts were made to impose capital or exchange controls, and wage indexation was prohibited. During 1967 the fiscal deficit was reduced by 50 per cent and the following year it was cut in half again. In spite of severe external shocks - an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and a devaluation of the British pound - the 1967 programme was highly successful. The exchange rate parallel market premium disappeared overnight and by 1968 inflation had retrenched significantly. International reserves were replenished and after one year there was no need to renew a $125m loan from the International Monetary Fund. More important, in 1968 gross domestic product growth was almost 5 per cent and by 1969 it had climbed to an impressive 8.5 per cent. Although circumstances today are different, the 1967 episode offers important lessons on how to orchestrate a successful adjustment programme. The most important, perhaps, is that in 1967 Adalbert Krieger Vasena, economy minister, reduced import restrictions in order to increase competitiveness and productivity growth. Currently, Argentina has one of the most closed economies in the world - exports are less than 9 per cent of gross domestic product - and during the 1990s productivity growth was negative. In Chile, exports exceed 25 per cent of GDP, and productivity improvements have contributed, year after year, almost 3 percentage points to GDP growth. During the last decade two factors have contributed to Argentina's poor export performance and productivity growth: an overvalued exchange rate; and membership of Mercosur, the regional trading bloc that includes Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Several studies by the World Bank and others, have shown that Mercosur, with its high common external tariff on imports from outside the bloc, is the prototypical case of an inefficient customs union. Moreover, through Mercosur, Argentina has imported Brazil's rather weak institutions, historical protectionism and macroeconomic instability. If Argentina became truly integrated with the world economy, exports would rapidly become an engine of growth. Doing this, however, will require reducing tariffs as Krieger Vasena did in 1967, and by redefining Argentina's relationship with Mercosur. The best move would be to abandon the trading bloc, moving firmly towards unilateral trade liberalisation. This was the path followed by Chile during the 1970s, when it deserted the Andean Pact and embraced an export-oriented strategy. A second-best alternative would be to transform Mercosur into a free trade area, where each country decides the level of its import tariffs with the rest of the world. Under this type of arrangement, Argentina could still reduce its overall import tariffs while pursuing some type of diplomatic integration with Brazil and the other Mercosur members. The news coming from Buenos Aires suggests that Mr Lenicov is intending to do exactly the opposite. Instead of opening the economy, Brazil and Mercosur have been courted and Jose de Mendiguren, the new minister of production, has said that the government will protect local industry. A policy that requires the public sector to purchase, even at higher prices, locally produced goods, is to be strictly enforced. This is bad economics. If policies aimed at encouraging productivity improvements and international trade are implemented instead, Argentina could get over its present plight and recover growth rapidly. But if the populist and protectionist rhetoric takes hold, it will be difficult to disagree with Oscar Wilde's character Sir Robert Chiltern, who in the play An Ideal Husband declares, with great conviction: "This Argentine sch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's HardLabour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
Greetings Economists, Justin, your apologee is fine by me. In most cases if someone hears me, that is all that matters. I don't consider anything more important than that we can hear each other. I hope if the tables are turned you would find me similarly responsive. thank you, Doyle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
Let's try to him get back to some discussion is that are more relevant to understanding the economy around us. On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:48:51AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > > >I sort of have a different picture in my mind of what you are talking about > >than you seem to. I just do. > > > > I apologize if I ssid anything offensive or insensitive. Homosexual behavior > was, and as far as I know, is, pretty common among upper class English men, > although whether many of these would call themselves by any particular > label, I rather doubt. If I somehow managed to convey any sort of > disapproval for anybody's consensual sexual practices, I apologize and > disavow it; I have nothing but outrage for those who would harm or > intimidate or even sneer at anyone for his or her sexual preferences. I > haven't mentioned mine here, so of course you don't know what they are. Why > do you presume I am straight? > > As for strangeness, Houseman and Wittgenstein _were_ strange: they were > strange as individuals, as Brits or Austrians, as dons, as scholars, and as > homosexuals or however they would have described their same-sex practices. > (And yes, I am, aware of Monk's bio of W: it's part of my source for his > strangeness. There are other sources as well, not all of which agree with > Monk.) > > -jks > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
> >I sort of have a different picture in my mind of what you are talking about >than you seem to. I just do. > I apologize if I ssid anything offensive or insensitive. Homosexual behavior was, and as far as I know, is, pretty common among upper class English men, although whether many of these would call themselves by any particular label, I rather doubt. If I somehow managed to convey any sort of disapproval for anybody's consensual sexual practices, I apologize and disavow it; I have nothing but outrage for those who would harm or intimidate or even sneer at anyone for his or her sexual preferences. I haven't mentioned mine here, so of course you don't know what they are. Why do you presume I am straight? As for strangeness, Houseman and Wittgenstein _were_ strange: they were strange as individuals, as Brits or Austrians, as dons, as scholars, and as homosexuals or however they would have described their same-sex practices. (And yes, I am, aware of Monk's bio of W: it's part of my source for his strangeness. There are other sources as well, not all of which agree with Monk.) -jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde:was O Happy Day)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > [snip] > In the > anti-sodomitical periods before Wilde's, it was understood that > "sodomy" was a _universal_ temptation, with _everyone_ capable of > committing it; now, however, a new understanding of sex emerged: _not > everyone_ is inclined for "sodomy" -- only an _abnormal minority_ of > "homosexuals" are. Sodomy of course was also a *heterosexual* (to use an anachronistic expression) crime (anal intercourse). Probably others know the exact history of this better than I do, but I believe some of Byron's biographers have claimed that his immediate reason for leaving England was that he had practiced anal intercourse with his bride and she had told someone or was about to -- and potentially that was a capital crime. But in *Fanny* the heroine, while correcting the aim, takes good naturedly a seaman's starting to use the wrong entrance, though when she sees or hears (I can't remember exactly now) two men engaged in sodomy she calls the inn keeper or someone and they are hauled off for punishment. The distinction Yoshie describes lives on up to the present in thousands of jokes about the Royal Navy. E.G., the young lady who receives a proposal of marriage from a naval officer. Her mother tells her that naval officers make very fine husbands, but warns her that sooner or later her husband will ask her to roll over and she must not do it. After several years of marriage one night he asks her, roll over. Oh no, she says, my mother warned me. Look, he says, if you ever want that child you keep talking about, roll over. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (wasRe: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
Greetings Economists, I changed my mind, my sense of outrage has totally left me now that JKS has explained himself. I now understand totally exactly what JKS meant, for example here JKS writes, JKS, if rigorously enforced, it would have resulted in locking up about half or more of the uppah classes Doyle I just didn't know that before that half the British Upper classes are "homosexuals". Hmmm, where does the class line stop in England? And below that line, what percentage of working class men are homosexual? This is a revelation to me. JKS, Speaking of strange homosexuals in England Doyle, yes let's talk about strange homosexuals in England. I find it amusing to talk about strange homosexuals. JKS Wittgenstein and A.E. Housman... H hated W, regarded him as uncouth, despised his interest in rough trade, thought him ill-mannered and rude. H preferred pretty English lads from the middle classes. W liked dockworkers. Doyle, W he liked dockworkers? What did W like to do? What is rough trade, you mean working class? Let me put this in a context JKS. I dropped out of high school as opposed to going to Cambridge, and one of my cherished memories is being beaten up for being a queer while I was still in school. Now in those days I didn't know what the hell they were talking about except I was a sack of shit they could kick around. It was some time later that I had sex with a guy, but I remember being beaten in school pretty good even after I found out I liked sex with men. I sort of have a different picture in my mind of what you are talking about than you seem to. I just do. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
Obviously, English law of its day was unjust and oppressive. But one really should not go around suing people for libelling you, especially if the things they said are demonstrably true and everyone knows that they are true! I believe--perhaps Yoshie can correct me on this--that the sodomy statute was rarely enforced, particularly as, if rigorously enforced, it would have resulted in locking up about half or more of the uppah classes, at least the boys. I don't know whether lesbian activity was as prevalent as male homosexuality among the English classes. However, no one was likely to go after Wilde, despite the fact that everyone knew he was homosexual, until he forced a judicial declaration of the fact. Rather than trying to stand up for his preferences and kind of love--who can blame him for not doing it?--he got himself in deep trouble by accepting the prevailing hypocritical perception that theyw ere indecent. It's sad, although of course I do not dispute that he wasa victim of a terrible injustice. Speaking of strange homosexuals in England, I read in my alumni mag that Wittgenstein and A.E. Housman lived in the same entry in Trinity (I'm a Kingsman, Keynes's College), and H hated W, regarded him as uncouth, despised his interest in rough trade, thought him ill-mannered and rude. H preferred pretty English lads from the middle classes. W liked dockworkers. Probably H was jealous and resentful of of the fact that W, an Austrian aristo, threw away everything that H aspired to be. Anyway, W had the runs one day and asked to use the can in H's rooms. (English plumbing, don't ask. It wasn't any better when I was there.) H refused, forcing W to make tight-kneed trek across the quad. What a jerk. But we knew that. The alumni mags in England area little different from what we are used to. Every year I get an annual from Kings with fabulous obits, like the one for Sraffa. Someone recalled the story that, before Anthony Blunt, who was gay, was outed as a commie spy, Sraffa, who was not gay, as far as I know, but who was an unreconstructed Stalinist, was asked whether he was the Fourth Man. (Along with Philby, et al.) Sraffa made an "indescribably Italian gesture with his hands. 'I forget which one I was," he said." --jks >Greetings Economists, > JKS comments about Wilde that it was his fault that he was imprisoned, > >JKS, >It was his own damn fault. He shouldn't have prosecuted his erstwhile lover >Alfred Douglas's dad for defamation for calling him an invert or whatever >delicate word the the old fraud used. He was, of course, an invert; >everyone >knew it, and no one except Douglas' dad really cared. Btw Wilde was >prosecuted by Sir Edward Carson, an ancestor of a high school friend of >mine, later a Village Voice rock writer. --jks > >Doyle >I have the greatest trouble with this sort of statement. I cannot accept >however mistaken the course taken in a legal tactic it was for Wilde, that >it was Wilde's fault that he was imprisoned for "inversion". > >I believe this falls under the title of blaming the victim. If I was >arrested and imprisoned for homosexuality in an entrapment by a vice squad >and then I tried to deny my homosexuality to dodge being sent up for years >in prison am I at fault for the law? > >I have no desire whatsoever to debate this judgement call of Wilde's. I >protest strenuously this comment. >Doyle Saylor > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O Happy Day)
>
>The Victorian prohibition of homosexuality -- including love of
>comely boys, aristocratic as well as working-class -- eventually led
>to Wilde's conviction ("acts of gross indecency"). Wilde was then
>sentenced to two years of _hard labor_ in a London prison, which
>practically killed him:
>
It was his own damn fault. He shouldn't have prosecuted his erstwhile lover
Alfred Douglas's dad for defamation for calling him an invert or whatever
delicate word the the old fraud used. He was, of course, an invert; everyone
knew it, and no one except Douglas' dad really cared. Btw Wilde was
prosecuted by Sir Edward Carson, an ancestor of a high school friend of
mine, later a Village Voice rock writer. --jks
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was OHappy Day)
>>It's hard work being a Wilde socialist, politically & artistically. >>As for Wilde's artistic hard labor, see Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick; >>"Wilde's Hard Labor and the Birth of Gay Reading," _Oscar Wilde: A >>Collection of Essays_, ed. Jonathan Freedman, NY: Prentice Hall, >>1996. >> >>Yoshie > >Wait, what does it mean to be a Wilde socialist, artistically? > >Joanna To be able to affirm The Importance of Being Earnest ironically & paradoxically, without thinking that one's so-called "sexual identity" is the "truth" of one's self, whilst seducing everyone democratically to the pleasure of Bunburying in an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Yoshie
Wilde Socialist's Hard Labour (was Re: Oscar Wilde: was O HappyDay)
DP says:
> >Yes Oscar Wilde was genteel. So what. He definitely had no place in a
> >ditch.
> >Jennifer Young
>
>Well, that depended on the type of boys who did the digging.
The Victorian prohibition of homosexuality -- including love of
comely boys, aristocratic as well as working-class -- eventually led
to Wilde's conviction ("acts of gross indecency"). Wilde was then
sentenced to two years of _hard labor_ in a London prison, which
practically killed him:
* Wilde was taken to Pentonville prison where he was confined
alone in a small whitewashed cell. During the first few nights, he
couldn't sleep on the wood boards that passed for a bed and at meal
times he declined the stinking gruel he was offered. Only a little
time passed before exhaustion cured his insomnia and he ate whatever
the guards brought. Cramps from food poisoning followed his first
prison meal, and like the other prisoners at Pentonville, he was
cursed with chronic diarrhea. The cells lacked plumbing, so the once
fastidious Wilde was forced to live with a pot of his own excrement
that he could only empty when the guards permitted.
Regardless of his health, prison officials forced him to meet a daily
work quota. At first he had to walk a treadmill six hours a day, but
later he was assigned to work at oakum picking in his cell. A
traditional workhouse task, oakum picking required that he untwist
old rope into its constituent fibers, often until his fingers bled.
Conditions improved a little in November 1895, when he was
transferred to another prison, Reading Gaol. He still had to work,
but now at bookbinding and gardening instead of oakum picking, and he
was allowed pen and paper, a privilege denied him at Pentonville.
Finally allowed to express himself, Wilde wrote de Profundis
<http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/wilde.htm> *
Read _A Ballad of Reading Gaol_ by Wilde at
<http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/prisonwritings.html>.
It's hard work being a Wilde socialist, politically & artistically.
As for Wilde's artistic hard labor, see Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick;
"Wilde's Hard Labor and the Birth of Gay Reading," _Oscar Wilde: A
Collection of Essays_, ed. Jonathan Freedman, NY: Prentice Hall, 1996.
Yoshie
Oscar
Sam Lanfraco worries that it is -4F outside -- here it is -24C outside. Wither the Weather -- Sydney Australia, burning up in plus 40C, Europe washing away in rain, Manitoba freezing in -20s and -30s C -- whatever happened to global warming. Paul Phillips, Economics, Manitoba
Oscar
Sam Lanfraco worries that it is -4F outside -- here it is -24C outside. Wither the Weather -- Sydney Australia, burning up in plus 40C, Europe washing away in rain, Manitoba freezing in -20s and -30s C -- whatever happened to global warming. Paul Phillips, Economics, Manitoba
Oscar had it Wrong! (5 lines)
Forgive me but it is -4F outside and Oacar Wilde's reference had it wrong. Society doesn't depend on the "state of the weather", it depends on the "whether of the state", or maybe the "wither of the state". Sam Lanfranco, York University, [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA "Where we wonder whether the weather will wither"
Oscar had it Wrong! (5 lines)
Forgive me but it is -4F outside and Oacar Wilde's reference had it wrong. Society doesn't depend on the "state of the weather", it depends on the "whether of the state", or maybe the "wither of the state". Sam Lanfranco, York University, [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA "Where we wonder whether the weather will wither"
