Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 02:34 PM 11/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Who says they're enemies? I think Carrol and I are saying, in different ways, that Negri is a waste of time. As for the Nation, I stopped reading it a few years ago because it was too depressing. Don't really know what's going on with it now, but I find Harpers more interesting. Joanna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Chris Burford wrote: At 13/11/02 14:34 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. By the way, the editor of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, is very antiwar. People who hate certain Corn and Cooper pieces should note that most don't appear in the Nation - they're in the LA Weekly and such. And even if you think the Nation is a limp social imperialist rag, you have to concede it's been against every U.S. intervention I can think of and has never been particularly red-baiting. So go find better enemies. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? They aren't -- but this is a maillist, not the political bureau of a mass revolutionary party, or even the steering committee of a mass reform party. Why was Sokal such an urgent enemy on another list? The _Nation_ doesn't bother me -- it simply began to bore me (and I found out that anything interesting or useful in it always shows up on some maillist anyhow). They clearly have hired an incompetent book review editor, however, on the basis of the two book reviews I have seen reproduced on maillists (of Gould of Pinker). I do think it is verging on conspiracy theory to characterize those reviews as representing anything more serious than incompetence, however. Carrol Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Sorry, Doug, but you will have to get used to me taking potshots at people you look up to, whether it is Toni Negri or Marc Cooper. This is the Internet, after all. In any case, I have been throwing spitballs at postmodernism on the Internet since 1994 or so. This precedes by a number of years your cultivation of ties to Michael Hardt and Zizek. I thought the sort of thing they were writing was bullshit long before you began touting it. You wouldn't expect me to keep silent just so you wouldn't get ticked off? After all, Michael Hardt gets to defend his ideas on Charlie Rose and Marc Cooper uses the LA Weekly. You use your connections to get me a guest spot on Charlie Rose or a guest column in the Nation Magazine, and I'll stop poking fun at them on pen-l. Unless Michael Perelman wants to put a ban on making rude jokes at the expense of postmodernism on pen-l. When that day comes, I am out of here. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32161] Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Because they go against the Party Line (PL), which is Known to be True and is clearly beyond debate. They are Anathema! The only things we should care about are the tactics and strategy of agit-prop, to disseminate the PL. Perhaps we should care about various facts that we can use to back up the PL -- along with ways to reject or ignore those ideas and facts that don't fit with the PL. But if we keep our focus narrow, the masses will rise up and embrace the PL -- so we can sweep capitalism away! Previous on-line discussion lists have only tried to interpret the world. The point is to change it! Seriously, what can pen-l do about the war on Iraq? It sure seems like nada. So we can spend our time making fun of those who use incomprehensible jargon. That's pretty harmless, at least as gallows humor. Isn't it? It sure seems that we could also spend time on such things as the principles of socialism (i.e., what are we really for, anyway?) but some object to that. I recently received a series of off-list insults from one who didn't want to discuss socialism from below (the socialist philosophy that I adhere to), invoking his or her long and highly effective life as a political activist to justify this rejection. (Because I disagree with this person, I clearly have no experience in political action. Simultaneously, my views are to be rejected because I clearly have no experience with political action. What fun! a circular argument!) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
I don't think that they are THE ENEMY, but I am disappointed that they have taken the path that they did. Negri's early stuff was very impressive, but Italian friends say that the new book did not represent much of a turn for him. Maybe I just did not understand the earlier work. The Nation too used to be a wonderful resource for me. Maybe it was the Pacifica intervention that made me more upset with the magazine. So, if I, for one, feel anger, maybe it is something like someone who just got dumped by a loved one. On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:34:05PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Jim Devine: It sure seems that we could also spend time on such things as the principles of socialism (i.e., what are we really for, anyway?) but some object to that. I recently received a series of off-list insults from one who didn't want to discuss socialism from below (the socialist philosophy that I adhere to), invoking his or her long and highly effective life as a political activist to justify this rejection. In fact, there is a discussion going on over on Marxmail by members of Solidarity, a group that is in the socialism from below tradition. I welcome pen-l'ers to look at our archives to see how useful such a discussion can be when it is rooted in the day-to-day experience of activists. Here's a sample exchange between 2 people in their 20s, who are deeply committed to democratic socialism: --- Alex LoCascio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plain and simple, there exists a minority but nonetheless hugely influental current within Solidarity, emerging from the Draper wing, for whom trade union work, and only trade union work, is the all-encompassing focus for any socialist organization. I won't deny this, but I think we're beginning to move beyond it. I myself am not in a union, being a professional geek. I'm a political activist. Most comrades in Atlanta are of the same ilk, and there's been no pressure to change our focus. I think what Solidarity is realizing, though maybe not saying as much as we should, is that it's going to take a variety of different work to accomplish what we want. It's going to take trade union work, but it's going to also take political activism, educational work, student work, etc. You can't--and this is the failure of the SWP and other sects--rely on just *one* focus if you want to build a broad movement. The success or failure of the Solidarity regroupment project (and frankly, I'm of the opinion that it's time to cut one's losses, though I'd welcome evidence to the contrary) ultimately hinges upon it's ability to have a rational discussion of these failures, rather than just assuming that anyone lobbing these critiques just wants to shit on the lifelong work of some people (Solidarity's record on welcoming internal dissent, rather than engaging in high-school like pariah politics and ostracism, is not very good). I think regroupment is a success, but it's a long-term project. There's no way to just say hey! wanna regroup! and have everyone jump on board. You have to take it as it comes. Alex, I don't think I disagree with you. I think any disagreement we may have comes out of our viewpoint of Solidarity's potential. I think, given the nature of the organization, we have room to do great things. In Atlanta, we *are* doing great things. In the few short months since three of us got together and formed a twig, we've become a major force on the Left here. I think your criticisms are perfectly legit, but it's something that is capable of being repaired. I don't think Solidarity's work in Labor Notes and TDU is something to be dismissed, but you're absolutely right, it's not something that can be the *basis* of all Solidarity activity. Adam (Because I disagree with this person, I clearly have no experience in political action. No, you have no experience because that's obvious--not because you disagree with me. If you had such experience, you'd be framing your remarks to pen-l in terms of the above exchange rather than abstract discussions about what kind of socialism we need. Adam and Alex could be less interested in a discussion about whose vision was closer to Karl Marx's. They want to figure out how to unite Marxist activists. That is what is driving Marxmail forward nowadays. Virtually the entire leadership of the Australian left is debating perspectives there. We have also had important exchanges with the Workers World Party, the bogeymen of David Corn and company. We don't think they are bogeymen. We think they are comrades who can improve their anti-war work. Simultaneously, my views are to be rejected because I clearly have no experience with political action. What fun! a circular argument!) When you can discuss questions of how to build an effective anti-war movement or how to build a united front in Australia, I'd be happy to join you. As I have told you a million times, I am not interested in bull sessions about the contours of a future society. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
I am trying to wade through a load of e-mail today and just came upon this. This is absolutely uncalled far. Please stop immediately. On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:47:10PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Sorry, Doug, but you will have to get used to me taking potshots at people you look up to, whether it is Toni Negri or Marc Cooper. This is the Internet, after all. In any case, I have been throwing spitballs at postmodernism on the Internet since 1994 or so. This precedes by a number of years your cultivation of ties to Michael Hardt and Zizek. I thought the sort of thing they were writing was bullshit long before you began touting it. You wouldn't expect me to keep silent just so you wouldn't get ticked off? After all, Michael Hardt gets to defend his ideas on Charlie Rose and Marc Cooper uses the LA Weekly. You use your connections to get me a guest spot on Charlie Rose or a guest column in the Nation Magazine, and I'll stop poking fun at them on pen-l. Unless Michael Perelman wants to put a ban on making rude jokes at the expense of postmodernism on pen-l. When that day comes, I am out of here. 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 13/11/02 14:34 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. Chris Burford