Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
Justin wrote: Nonetheless there are certain obvious differences between 1917 and now, like the existence of mass working class radical movements of the left and the far left, and a history of revolutionary struggle that shook the government within living memory, and socialist parties that were not mere infinitesmal cults, and a whole lotta other stuff, including a weak and hapless ruling class and a rigid and inflexible state structure. None of that exists now. 1. In my opinion, this entire perspective depends on a prior decontextualised idea or definition of what a revolutionary movement means, or what it should be like. For example, Lenin did such and such, Castro did such and such, Mao did such and such, that is why we should do it. 2. But why should workingclass people, radical middleclass people, black people, hispanics, poor people, farmers etc. always organise the same way ? 3. As far as I can see, those people are nowadays more organised and more conscious than they were ever before, and also have much greater behavioural flexibility than before. Maybe dogmatic Marxists cannot see it, but I can. I can prove it with very objective indicators as well. 4. It's refreshing to me, that they have thrown out a bunch of methods that didn't work, anyway. I hope they keep doing that, too. Why stick with methods that don't work, that aren't successful ? 5. The pessimism is an artifact of a certain mentality, a certain way of thinking, which has nothing much to do with objective reality. It's a mood, and moods change. The pessimism grows out of an incapacity, but the incapacity itself grows out of an unwillingness to change thinking, and try something new, to consider a point of view that makes success possible. 6. The fact, that people organise their lives and activities in a way which doesn't conform to some ideal typology you or I might have, is of no concern. The primary question is not how people SHOULD organise, but how they DO organise already, that is the point of departure. 10. Because, any viable organisation must built on the way that people are already organising, the way that their real nature is, and organisational theory must start not from past primitivism or romanticisation of the past, but from the most advanced technologies and methods available today. The capacity for organisation is one of the great strengths of Americans, and obviously, they have to organise in accordance with their own nature, like I said. 11. If I constantly ruminated about the fact, that the way people live their lives, and the way that they organise, does not conform to my own picture of how they should be doing it, then I am constantly thrown into despair and disappointment. Moreover, I alienate myself from the community I have to deal with, rather than be part of it. 12. I mean, there might be some ways of organising that I personally like, or some styles that I don't like, and I would stay out of certain scenes, for sure. But the point of departure is always the actual ways of organising that people already have. There is nothing particularly original about this insight, as far as organisation is concerned, it's just ABC. So let the Marxists theorise about Lenin, I will generalise from how people are now, and how they will be. 13. Suppose I got a new job (which I want), and on my first day I walk in, and I started to say to my new colleagues, listen up guys, you're doing it all wrong, and we have to reorganise everything now, because we need a Leninist Party and we need a Workers Council and we need lots of people demonstrating with red flags. 14. People would think I am crazy, they would say, who are you, and I'd be fired before I even really knew my ass from my elbow in the job. At most, they would say, maybe your ideas have some merit, but that is not how we do things around here. And I might fall from one amazement into another, because these people get things done, even although they are not getting things done, in a way which conforms to my thinking about it. 15. But what's really important here ? The fact, that things are getting done, or the fact, that they are not getting things done in a way that fits with my idea of how they should be doing it, the way I've learnt it, the way a textbook says you should do it, and so on ? Well, obviously it is the fact that things are getting done. 16. You don't organise for the sake of organisation, you organise to get things done, to get some kind of specific result. Organising is a means to an end. We evaluate organisational styles on their capacity to achieve results. 17. As I indicated in my short piece on sectarianism, this is not how the sectarian operates, because the sectarian wants to impose his own organisational model on people as the only correct one, and then wonders why people don't accept it. And it's obvious, why they don't accept it. Because it's not in their nature to organise that way, it's not their style. 18. Now I can run
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
Your are aiming this at the wrong guy. I do not despair because the workers do not respond to the call of a Leninist Party the way you suggest I think they should. I am in any case opposed to the Bolshevik model. As I have said here many times, I am a lowercase liberal democrat. I mentioned the differences from 1917 because someone mentioned 1917 as a situation where beforehand it didn't look like there was going to be change. I ssid it was different from now. That does not imply that I hold 1917 up as a standard, model, or ideal. I don't. I have no a priori notion of what a revolutionary moment or situation is. I just know what whatever a revolutionary movement is, this isn't it. I don't see the greater organization and flexibility you see. Maybe this is an artifact of my being in the US. I am glad you are full of hope and cheer. I myself am being driven back with pitchforks to support John Kerry in the dismal hope that he will restore the usual level of horror and slow the rate of destruction. If I am too pessimistic, no one has explained to me why. The consensus that has emerged from this discussion is that we should not think to hard about the odds or the future, but should just keep fighting. I suppose we must, but it does seem like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve. jks --- Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin wrote: 1. In my opinion, this entire perspective depends on a prior decontextualised idea or definition of what a revolutionary movement means, or what it should be like. 2. But why should workingclass people, radical middleclass people, black people, hispanics, poor people, farmers etc. always organise the same way ? 3. As far as I can see, those people are nowadays more organised and more conscious than they were ever before, and also have much greater behavioural flexibility than before. Maybe dogmatic Marxists cannot see it, but I can. I can prove it with very objective indicators as well. 4. It's refreshing to me, that they have thrown out a bunch of methods that didn't work, anyway. I hope they keep doing that, too. Why stick with methods that don't work, that aren't successful ? 5. The pessimism is an artifact of a certain mentality, a certain way of thinking, which has nothing much to do with objective reality. It's a mood, and moods change. The pessimism grows out of an incapacity, but the incapacity itself grows out of an unwillingness to change thinking, and try something new, to consider a point of view that makes success possible. SNIP __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
I sympathize with you Justin. I returned to live in the US from abroad and I think that might have something to do with your pessimism (especially if you frequent certain circles for work etc) Still, there are plenty of improvements even in the US over the last 40 years here is an excerpt from Chomsky: And at the third, and most important, level, it's a matter of our own choices. None of this is graven in stone. There are many examples rather similar to this, where things have been changed by public action. We may remember that this month, March, 2002, happens to be the 40th anniversary of the first public announcement of the U.S. attack against South Vietnam. In March, 1962, the Kennedy administration announced that the U.S. Air Force would be flying missions against the South Vietnamese. Use of chemical warfare was instituted to destroy food crops. Hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions of people were driven into concentration camps, urban slums. Napalm was authorized. All of this proceeded with no protest. That's why there's no commemoration, today, of the 40th anniversary. Nobody even remembers. There was no protest, virtually none, here in Berkeley or in anyplace, for a long time. It took years before substantial public opposition developed. It did finally develop, as somebody, Barbara, somebody pointed out, and it made a big differences. One of the differences it made is that it contributed, along with the civil rights movement and other activism of the time, to making this a much more civilized country, in many ways. I'm not talking about the leadership, I'm not talking about the intellectual classes, but the general population has changed. No American president could dream of anything remotely like that today. And the same is true in many other areas. And it didn't happen by magic or gifts from angels or anything like that. It came from committed, dedicated public activism on the part of millions and millions of people. And it did make a much better country. There's plenty wrong, but, as compared with 40 years ago, the improvement is enormous. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
--- dave dorkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sympathize with you Justin. I returned to live in the US from abroad and I think that might have something to do with your pessimism (especially if you frequent certain circles for work etc) Still, there are plenty of improvements even in the US over the last 40 years here is an excerpt from Chomsky: I am not saying everything is going to hell in a handbasket, there is no improvement, we have made no progress, it's just like 1900, that we are doomed, or any such thing. There have been improvements. Some have been considerable. I would not overstate matters; the backlash has been considerable at a time when in most of the country it is fatal for a politician to say that he is a liberal. Nonetheless, my point was circumscribed. I am saying that the prospects for what people here are calling revolutionary socialism, the replacement of capitalism by something better, are very dim because there sre no organized forces pushing for that, and because capital is verys trong, resiliant, and flexible. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
Dave wrote: I sympathize with you Justin. I returned to live in the US from abroad and I think that might have something to do with your pessimism (especially if you frequent certain circles for work etc) Now that Justin is a rich lawyer, his career as a poor professor of philosophy derailed by the politics of academia, he should take a break and travel abroad, which I think will reinvigorate his political spirits more than any PEN-pals can. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
I was far more able to travel abroad as an academic than I am as lawyer. And I am talking about hopes for my country. I am aware that people in Other Countries are doing better than we are here. jks --- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave wrote: I sympathize with you Justin. I returned to live in the US from abroad and I think that might have something to do with your pessimism (especially if you frequent certain circles for work etc) Now that Justin is a rich lawyer, his career as a poor professor of philosophy derailed by the politics of academia, he should take a break and travel abroad, which I think will reinvigorate his political spirits more than any PEN-pals can. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
I follow your point though in addition to Solidarity, CCDS and other similar groups there are more individuals than one might at times think who are sympathetic to much of what I imagine most socialists to desire. There will be ebbs and flows and a few hundred years of capitalism isnt eternity, whether we live to see something radically different or not (which would be nice). In any event, I sympathise with you and do think a nice trip to Italy and some Italian social centers might raise your spirits in the meantime... Cheers Dave --- andie nachgeborenen I am saying that the prospects for what people here are calling revolutionary socialism, the replacement of capitalism by something better, are very dim because there are no organized forces pushing for that because capital is very strong... __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Socialist Scholars Conference - reply to Justin
Now that Justin is a rich lawyer, his career as a poor professor of philosophy derailed by the politics of academia, he should take a break and travel abroad, which I think will reinvigorate his political spirits more than any PEN-pals can. It's not for me to say what Justin ought to do, obviously, but he's always welcome to stay with me while I still live here. We still have freedom of speech here, although the liberals and christianists both want to shut us down. Benito Spinoza was in favour of it, and it's been a tradition since that time here, it's actually very difficult to shut down. I hope some American lawyers will go to Venezuela though, to demonstrate that there also still some Americans at least, who DO respect international legal agreements. If I am too pessimistic, no one has explained to me why. The consensus that has emerged from this discussion is that we should not think to hard about the odds or the future, but should just keep fighting. I suppose we must, but it does seem like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve. I cannot explain your pessimism either, at least not on this list. But these optimism/pessimism themes have no interest for me anyway, I'm a bit beyond that really these days, it's just distracting. Do we always have to fight ? I think often we're doing well enough just by being ourselves, doing our thing, and sharing what we have to share. Mainly I just like to think about the arguments, otherwise I get bored. Personally, I struggle more with myself and getting enough things done. I'm fifteen years behind with my life, because of the hassles I had, mistakes I made, the spying, Hollywood games, media complexities, lying accusations and all that, all the troubles you have, when you get all these people parenting you without your consent. It's demoralising, absurd. You end up with many bad feelings, a confused sense of responsibility, and an empty bank account, and then you still have to do all the stuff you wanted to get done, 15 years ago. I think John Kerry is correct, in stating that the world's governments want Mr Bush to step down, even if he gets lots of corporate handouts in return for his rich handouts to the corporations. The main reason for that is, that the international relations scene has suffered a cultural regression by the unilateral Judeo-christianist imperialism of his cabinet, and that sensible, rational discussions can no longer take place by people who are experienced in the field (with a few honourable exceptions). It basically doesn't really matter who is in power, Bush or Kerry, from the point of view of the financial markets, except that with Kerry, there's a possibility we're still talking sense in international relations and that there's more honesty, rather than superstitious anxiety stories about Moses, the prophets and the apocalypse. Personally I'd vote for the Greens if I was a US citizen. Anything to break up the tweedle-dee, tweedle dum politics. I think America needs politicians who understand that most of the world isn't America, and that they are only one player in the concert of nations, and that America has caused the death of far more people than the USSR ever did. In other words, no more brainless, unscientific ideology as a basis for policy. How are they going to get them ? There must be an absolute stop to the idiotic war on terrorism, axis of evil and other manic, fear-mongering theories, which hide mass murder while the focus is on a few individual terrorists, who, when caught, are treated bestially just to prove who has moral superiority here. Jurriaan
