>You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the
>language of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a
>socialist. In fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns
>off the people you want to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a
>religious thing for p
PEN-L:13740] Re: Angel of History (was Re: Geras vs Laclau)
> > Lou complains of
> >reformism of the SACP, the Mexican CP, FARC, & a host of other
> >outfits in the periphery, but in this they are merely following the
> >trend that happened much, much earlier in the
You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the language
of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a socialist. In
fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns off the people you want
to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a religious thing for people
>I agree that Marxism has collapsed as an organizing principle, and
>is not likely to come back. But the questions raised here are not
>about the principles around which _we_ should organize, but about
>those arouns which _society_ is organized, that is, around the truth
>of historical materia
> Lou complains of
>reformism of the SACP, the Mexican CP, FARC, & a host of other
>outfits in the periphery, but in this they are merely following the
>trend that happened much, much earlier in the core.
I must demur. The trend in question was the Comintern of the Popular Front
era which pr
CTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:13734] Angel of History (was Re: Geras vs Laclau)
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:01:52 -0400
>
>>Geras, I might add, has changed his views since that debate. On
>>two occasions, at a conference and as
>Geras, I might add, has changed his views since that debate. On
>two occasions, at a conference and as an invited speaker at York,
>I noted that in his presentation he seemed to be trying to get away
>from the idea of a 'single principle underlying the differences'. I
>asked, in a roundabout way
