Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
I never said liberal is left and conservative is right in the neat, schematic way you attribute to me. You're quite correct that the discourse of conservatism has a "liberal" flavor to it on cultural/reproductive issues, just as "liberals" have adopted a "conservative" conception of the marketplace as the touchstone of public policy. On the other hand, there are differences, but whether each of these individual differences has sufficiently important policy implications to dictate a change in strategy is something that must be carefully assessed. I don't know what Nader's position is on genetic engineering. It might not be something I'd like. Indeed, I'm sure with very little effort, I could come up with a whole shopping list of policy issues on which I'm to his left. It would be easy--I'm a socialist, and he is not. But I am also acutely aware of the constraints on social reform--much less revolution--in the United States--the stuff that usually comes packaged under the label "American exceptionalism." So in the absence of a magic wand that permits me to invoke the existence a militant American working class and a formidable tribune of the people, I'll support Nader, because he is giving expression to a politics that the major media would otherwise ignore. Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: o! come on.. You folks still continue to see the political spectrum divided between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US. Liberal is left; conservative is right. This distinction is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE! Even the political discourse of conservatism has a liberal flavour to it, especially if one thinks about the rise of _New Right_ after the 1980s. Somebody has mentioned that Nader supports reproductive freedoms thus he is progressive. What a big diffence? so does George Bush, so do neo-conservatives, so do libertarians...it has long been on _the_ agende of _new right_ that couples can choose the gender of their children freely before they are born. Initial stages of fetus formation (sex) can be modified through genetic engineering. The logical consequence of this engineering automatically matches with the religious idea that "produce more males and have less female babies". Does Nader have any problem with this sexist project of choosing your child's gender freely when he seemingly supports reproductive freedoms-- the same freedoms that are being strategically used by corporate powers in the US that design fascist genetic programs and export those programs to third world? I don't think so. They are all capitalist male pigs! they all want to control women's bodies. We should send all of them to the trash box! As a marxist feminist I am not giving any support to Nader obscurantist! (i can not vote anway so very good) Mine At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for Joel Blau
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
Mark: Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and upon which they would act if he were not around. Joel Blau A hundred years ago, bitter battles were fought between those who claimed the mantle of Marxist leadership (Kautsky, Bernstein etc) and those who from the margins of the movement (Luxemburg, Lenin) bitterly denounced them as impostors, bourgeois politicians and above all, "revisionists", whose purpose was to deny the possibility of capitalist crisis and the reality of proletarian revolution, and to deliver the working class bound hand and foot to its mortal enemies. The same thing is going on now, not just here but al over the place. It is part of a pre-revolutionary ferment. Mark Jones wrote: Joel Blau wrote: > > > This reading of current American politics is absolutely > breath-taking in its > misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in > 1902; we may have > turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are > not in anything > remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; Nobody says that the US is in a prerevolutionary situation. I'm not going to bandy words with people whose seeming purpose is to obfuscate. There clearly is a colossal ferment going on not just in US campuses but in many parts of the world, many social locales. As a matter of fact, Russia in 1902 was a picture of Edwardian social quiescence by comparison. We are not in that situation, not by a long way. But the masses are not rattling the White House gates, evidently. Therefore it is necessary to use this time to agitate, to mobilise and to politically educate people. The Nader campaign is an obvious opportunity to do that. As I understand it, Joel Blau's plan is to shut up, keep mum, don't talk politics or criticise the candidate's obvious shortcomings, and in this way maximise the electorate's interest in Nader. It is unserious and it illustrates how necessary IS a principled approach: meaning, support Nader, but as the rope supports the hanged man. Nader is a detour to nowhere. You cannot make an icon of him and sit on your hands and ignore the fact that his principal role is to safely vent mass anger while delivering a Bush presidency. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
to settle all theoretical differences as between say Louis Proyect, Doug Henwood and myself. If I lived in NY and knew Henwood personally I would urge him all the time, day and night, to use his powerful position and to take on a role of *political leadership* for which he is well suited. I would urge him to play a leading role in the planning of events and to run for office. And this process would be the context in which one could try to reach conclusions on outstanding theoretical issues, however contingent, unstable and shortlived such conclusions might be in practice. That is always the way it is, anyway. Movements which boil up from the social depths like A16, Seattle etc, always and inevitably revitalise the politics of a whole class as well as reinvigorating its enemies, always ignite new struggles and above all, awlays produce new parties, new programs and new LEADERS. The question of leadership is profoundly important and it is because I think of Henwood's suitability that, as a matter of fact, I press him about it and why I keep on mentioning it as a possibility. Mark Jones Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 10:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21072] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of] Mark, please, stop characterizing others. I suspect that if you wrote in more temporate terms, Doug would probably agree with much that you say. You know that he loves to play the devil's advocate. Now, I am characterizing him. Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: I think there's lots of oil left; the tighter constraint is that burning all we have may well choke us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the odds suck in betting against human ingenuity, even under capitalism, at devising new energy sources. I think profit imperatives have severely slowed research into them. But they'll probably arrive. This is interesting; it's the first time Doug has shown his n-c colours so clearly. Mark -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
This reading of current American politics is absolutely breath-taking in its misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in 1902; we may have turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are not in anything remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; and Ralph Nader--whatever his political foibles (and there are plenty)--is probably going to get more votes as a candidate to the left of the Democratic nominee than anybody since Henry Wallace in 1948. The need to attack him because he does not have the correct political line is just another mind-boggling example of putting a Russian pre-revolutionary lens over everything, so that the Bolsheviks can once again relive their triumph over the Mensheviks. The distortion is so great that it makes Anerican politics absolutely unrecognizeable to anyone with a serious interest in changing its content and direction, and while I don't claim particular expertise on contemporary British politics, I doubt that guidelines derived from Russia in 1902 are much help there, either. Joel Blau M A Jones wrote: A hundred years ago, bitter battles were fought between those who claimed the mantle of Marxist leadership (Kautsky, Bernstein etc) and those who from the margins of the movement (Luxemburg, Lenin) bitterly denounced them as impostors, bourgeois politicians and above all, "revisionists", whose purpose was to deny the possibility of capitalist crisis and the reality of proletarian revolution, and to deliver the working class bound hand and foot to its mortal enemies. The same thing is going on now, not just here but al over the place. It is part of a pre-revolutionary ferment.
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
Joel Blau wrote: This reading of current American politics is absolutely breath-taking in its misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in 1902; we may have turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are not in anything remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; Nobody says that the US is in a prerevolutionary situation. I'm not going to bandy words with people whose seeming purpose is to obfuscate. There clearly is a colossal ferment going on not just in US campuses but in many parts of the world, many social locales. As a matter of fact, Russia in 1902 was a picture of Edwardian social quiescence by comparison. We are not in that situation, not by a long way. But the masses are not rattling the White House gates, evidently. Therefore it is necessary to use this time to agitate, to mobilise and to politically educate people. The Nader campaign is an obvious opportunity to do that. As I understand it, Joel Blau's plan is to shut up, keep mum, don't talk politics or criticise the candidate's obvious shortcomings, and in this way maximise the electorate's interest in Nader. It is unserious and it illustrates how necessary IS a principled approach: meaning, support Nader, but as the rope supports the hanged man. Nader is a detour to nowhere. You cannot make an icon of him and sit on your hands and ignore the fact that his principal role is to safely vent mass anger while delivering a Bush presidency. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
Jim is not correct at all, he is merely baiting me in the hopes you'll unsub me. Pity. It would be better if he tried to argue the issues. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 30 June 2000 17:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21029] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of] Jim is absolutely correct here. I on only barely on line. I am in Vancouver for the History of Economics meetings. Please. I don't want to have to unsub anybody, but we have to avoid this sort of talk. Jim Devine wrote: At 01:49 AM 06/30/2000 +0100, you wrote: Yelling at people that they are atavists, apocalyptics etc, doesn't answer any more than Jim Devine throwing queenie fits answers the questions. so Mr. Jones is gay-bashing me? I find that insults are always the last refuge of the fuzzy thinker. In any event, though Jones thinks of this as an insult, I do not. My sister is gay and she is an excellent person. However, I think that gay-bashing does not belong on pen-l. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
