Another Generation Lost?
Lev Lafayette
Another Generation Lost? Doubts About the Socialist Alliance
There can be no doubt it was an enthusiastic evening. On April 10, some two
hundred people attended a meeting at Brunswick Town Hall launching an
electoral alliance of the radical left calling itself "Socialist Alliance".
Consisting of the Democratic Socialist Party, the International Socialist
Organisation, Socialist Alternative, Workers Power, Workers Liberty, Workers
League, the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Democracy, and the
Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (in exile), the alliance is being heralded as
having "enormous potential", "huge opportunities" and so forth.
Notably absent from this Alliance are major radical left parties such as the
Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Party, and the Socialist
Equality Party, along with at least a dozen minor - and probably forgotten -
organisations. It seems that even to this day, only a tentative alliance
with significant exclusions can be formed among the alphabet soup of the far
left of Australian politics, who continue to form separate political
organisations on differences concerning an uprising in a Slavic kingdom some
eighty years ago. And as much members of these organisations laugh at the
tiny sect known as the Sparticists, they seem oblivious to the fact that the
joke's on them. The Sparticists are merely a microcosmic parody of far left
parties as a whole - sectarian, ineffectual and irrelevant.
It is not as if the confused miasma of the Australian far left hasn't
experimented with unification in the past. In the mid-1980s far larger
alliances that the current circumstances were cooked up between the
Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Socialist
Party of Australia, the Association for Communist Unity, the BLF and a
multitude of left independents (Bob Gould, Frank Hardy, Ken McLeod). The
local and international circumstances were better as well. The Australian
Labor Party was at the time as right-wing as it ever had been and hopefully
ever will be. At the same time positive developments in the Soviet Union
through 'glasnost' and 'perestroika', as well as a genuine commitment to
nuclear disarmament made socialism a viable and credible local and
international alternative.
Eventually of course, these discussions all fell apart. The CPA dissolved,
with a section going into the ALP. The SPA re-named itself as the CPA and
the SWP renamed itself the DSP. Meanwhile, Gorbachev's attempt to reform
communism collapsed and the conservative Coalition gained national
government in this country. The momentum for the much-heralded "new left
party" was taken up by the Greens, a body and ideology which defies the
chief theoreticians of the fringe parties and which continues to grow.
The radical left parties in Australia, then and now, are too fragmented, too
centered around tiny sects with cultic leaderships, utterly paranoid of
others encroaching on their territory, virulent in their defense of obscure
interpretations of their version of history and Marxist (and only Marxist)
orthodoxy. As part of his excellent far-sightedness it is little wonder that
Marx himself once remarked Je ne suis pas une 'Marxiste'
But it doesn't stop there. The platform of Socialist Alliance is, to say the
least, undeveloped and for that matter, nor particularly socialist. There is
no mention of public ownership of infrastructure industries. There is no
mention of democratic control over the means of production, let alone even
partial industrial democracy. There is no mention of community control of
their local environment and decentralised essential industries. There is no
mention of automatic union membership. There is no mention of Constitutional
or electoral reform.
Indeed, on a whole slate of issues - personal and civil rights, the
environment, international relations, and natural monopolies the Socialist
Alliance is actually far more right wing than say, the Greens, or for that
matter, the A.L.P's Pledge Unions - Labor Left group. The platform of
Socialist Alliance exposes them as merely liberals in substance with a
radical vocabulary. Either that or their practical perspective is so
moribund that their leadership is more interested in enticing slogans rather
than the possibility of making policy reality.
Actually the latter is most probable. Because the simple fact of the matter
is that Socialist Alliance will have next to zero effect on Australian
politics. Since 1984, there have been forty-seven candidates for the House
of Representatives from the radical left, including the Socialist Workers'
Party, the Democratic Socialist Party (same leopard, different spots), the
Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Party of Australia and the
Socialist Equality Party. The highest vote that any of them has received was
3.0%, which was R. Daniell of the SWP for Reid in 1984. Even then that vote
was less than half of what the informal vote was.
In fact, since 1984 radical left parties have received an average vote of
less than 1.0%. In the past decade, the highest vote received in 1.5%.
Informal votes are typically between four and ten times greater than their
primaries. They've never even had a single trade union affiliate to them.
Rather than displaying leadership, intrusions into community actions and
mass movements have been notoriously destructive.
Under such circumstances, one would imagine that at some point that these
organisations might actually consider that there is something fundamentally
wrong with their ideological perspective in Australian conditions. Instead,
the same hackneyed apologies are repeated over and over. Sometimes the mass
media is at fault for being opposed to the socialist agenda. Sometimes it's
the fault of electors, who ignorantly cast their vote apparently against
their own interests. Sometimes parliamentary democracy is to blame.
These apologies simply don't hold up to the cold light of day. The
capitalist media certainly have some capacity to temporarily distort
people's opinions, but they cannot control their ideas and reasoning in the
long term. Yet the people consistently vote against these organisations but
have voted for the Greens, who are certainly equally disliked by the
capitalist powers. As for the complaints about alleged elector ignorance or
the parliamentary system, one wonders whether these people have ever
considered the possibility that people - and not through any alleged
ignorance - do not actually want the abolition of a democratic system but
rather an expansion of it to the economic sphere?
Despite this litany of cultic sectarianism, an irrelevant, ungrounded
platform and a history of mass movement, union and electoral indifference,
the organisations that make up Socialist Alliance manage to attract a number
of young activists each year, who - with starry-eyed idealism - believe they
have discovered the true shining path. True, many have joined simply for
drinking partners or for the opportunity to belong to an organisation where
every day is like Scavenger Hunt. For this and the reasons outlined the
numbers of these organisations only vary slightly over the years. But a
number are genuinely interested in politics in a serious manner - and these
people I feel particular sorrow for, as they are potentially a lost
generation.
For what use it to spend youthful political motivation in an alliance that
will collapse within a few years, through a combination of inter-Nicene
warfare and electoral indifference? Just as deconstruction is always easier
than reconstruction and criticism always easier than critique it is perhaps
understandable that inexperienced political activists seek solace in the
bizarre subculture of far left orthodoxy with no prospect of actually
implementing social change.
But at some stage - and hopefully earlier rather than later - the dual
desires of universal justice and personal freedom will demand political
maturity from the most serious of the individuals involved in these
organisations that are doomed to the trashcan of history. When that bolt of
enlightenment strikes these individuals then perhaps they will be able, with
sober senses, to direct their energies in the institutions of real political
power with the practical intent of exposing the political and economic
system to conspicuous tests. For it is only in this fashion - as
unfashionable as it may be - that one can make an effective stand for the
"old fashioned" values of individual freedom, social democracy and most of
all, that most anachronistic of values - human dignity.
Lev Lafayette
Ashworth Centre for Social Theory, Department of History and Philosophy of
Science.
Neville Duguid
> The radical left parties in Australia, then and now, are too fragmented, too
> centered around tiny sects with cultic leaderships, utterly paranoid
Why wouldn't your co-revolutionaries be paranoid?
Lenin was the only one who thought that way in 1917, so he had the whole
fuhrer field to himself. All the other rival revolutionary party leaders
were opposed to a small elitist cabal dictating the course of their
Revolution. Today the lesson your new recruits have been indoctrinated
with by the universities is that Lenin's is the only sure way to success
in their situation. In other words, the socialist leader who is the
most ruthless in using and disposing of his coalition "tools" ;) is the
one who will end up consigning the rest of them into the dustbin of
history.
There was only one Lenin in 1917. There are probably millions of
would-be Lenins today who have been trained by public education to see
Lenin's methods as not only valid and normal, but as the only proven
path to success in their situation. I mean they would have enrolled in
Materials Science if they wanted to be Engineers, but they studied Marx
and Lenin instead.. They are probably not even interested in
investigating the techniques of the "losers" of 1917, but only in
emulating the "winner". (True blue Aussie folk wisdom has always viewed
such tangles of thwarted ambition as just another case of "too many
chiefs and not enough indians" ;-)
Even if your rival party and faction leaders don't all aspire to a
similar position of personal supremacy, who in his right mind among them
could risk allowing a potential rival to get ahead of them along the one
road they have all been taught is the only way to go?
Being as they are most likely, educationally clones of yourself, how
could any of your "colleagues" feel anything but paranoid under the
circumstances they have mired themselves within ;-)
> of
> others encroaching on their territory, virulent in their defense of obscure
> interpretations of their version of history and Marxist (and only Marxist)
> orthodoxy. As part of his excellent far-sightedness it is little wonder that
> Marx himself once remarked Je ne suis pas une 'Marxiste'
--
Neville Duguid * "He who lives by tactics dies by tactics" *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * - a journo, on the occasion of *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * Malcolm Fraser's downfall *
alterity
<l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>But at some stage - and hopefully earlier rather than later - the dual
>desires of universal justice and personal freedom will demand political
>maturity from the most serious of the individuals involved in these
>organisations that are doomed to the trashcan of history.
In your aspirations are the seeds of distruction. Mono-state socialism
will never be consistent with he small-liberal objectives of personal
freedom and individual agency. Powerful collectives cannot act for the
good of all in diverse pluralistic societies.
Lev, its time to accept that the best left is small-l liberalism, not
socialism.
Mosley Jones III
http://westernaustralia.dynip.com/x/default.asp?sf=viclabor
"Lev Lafayette" <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.101041...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
Murray
what the hell?
"> http://westernaustralia.dynip.com/x/default.asp?sf=viclabor
Murray
> There > having "enormous potential", "huge opportunities" and so forth.
>
> Notably absent from this Alliance are major radical left parties such as
the
> Communist Party of Australia
The CPA is a movement set up to avoid the 'new left' and go back to stalin.
>the Socialist Party,
the SP realised that the party isn't an alliance rather a means for the DSP
and ISO to have hegemony over the left.
>Socialist Equality Party>
The SA doesn't have enough worship of David North for their liking.
> organisations on differences concerning an uprising in a Slavic kingdom
some
> eighty years ago.
The Russian revolution is a bit more than that Lev.
>
> It is not as if the confused miasma of the Australian far left hasn't
> experimented with unification in the past. In the mid-1980s far larger
> alliances that the current circumstances were cooked up between the
> Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Socialist
> Party of Australia, the Association for Communist Unity, the BLF and a
> multitude of left independents (Bob Gould, Frank Hardy, Ken McLeod).
All allainces broken up by the SWP, ie; thr first time they wanted to keep
resistance as an independent organisation (it would be the swp in another
form)
tHERE was also the 'socialist alliance' between the SPA (now CPA) and SWP
(now DSP). not that either side will admit it.
The difference is, the DSP can finally have hegemony over the alliance
unlike the last (and probably better) attempts at left unity.
The
> local and international circumstances were better as well. The Australian
> Labor Party was at the time as right-wing as it ever had been and
hopefully
> ever will be.
The ALP nowadays is more right wing than it was in the 1980s. And when
government falls into its hands its giing to contiinue what
Howard/keating/hawke have been doing since 1983. Its not been 5 years of
Howard wheer the working class has been attacked. Its been the 13 years of
Hawke and Keating.
.
>
> But it doesn't stop there. The platform of Socialist Alliance is, to say
the
> least, undeveloped and for that matter, nor particularly socialist. There
is
> no mention of public ownership of infrastructure industries. There is no
> mention of democratic control over the means of production, let alone even
> partial industrial democracy. There is no mention of community control of
> their local environment and decentralised essential industries. There is
no
> mention of automatic union membership. There is no mention of
Constitutional
> or electoral reform.
But theres an issue of 'frighttening the horses'. Even that minimal program
is well to the left of the ALP.
Since 1984, there have been forty-seven candidates for the House
> In fact, since 1984 radical left parties have received an average vote of
> less than 1.0%. In the past decade, the highest vote received in 1.5%.
> Informal votes are typically between four and ten times greater than their
> primaries. They've never even had a single trade union affiliate to them.
> Rather than displaying leadership, intrusions into community actions and
> mass movements have been notoriously destructive.
You seem to be ignorant of state votes, eg Steve Jolly's 12.5% in victoria
in 1999.
>
> Under such circumstances, one would imagine that at some point that these
> organisations might actually consider that there is something
fundamentally
> wrong with their ideological perspective in Australian conditions.
Instead,
> the same hackneyed apologies are repeated over and over. Sometimes the
mass
> media is at fault for being opposed to the socialist agenda. Sometimes
it's
> the fault of electors, who ignorantly cast their vote apparently against
> their own interests. Sometimes parliamentary democracy is to blame.
Shouldn't you also consider the failures of auto-laborism which causes the
Peldge Unions to be good socialists but ineffectual ones.
>
> These apologies simply don't hold up to the cold light of day. The
> capitalist media certainly have some capacity to temporarily distort
> people's opinions, but they cannot control their ideas and reasoning in
the
> long term.
Bull shit! Read Noam Chomsky's "manufacturing consent", there is more need
to control people by the media in a capitalist/democratic society than a
totalitarian state.
> Despite this litany of cultic sectarianism, an irrelevant, ungrounded
> platform and a history of mass movement, union and electoral indifference,
> the organisations that make up Socialist Alliance manage to attract a
number
> of young activists each year, who - with starry-eyed idealism - believe
they
> have discovered the true shining path. True, many have joined simply for
> drinking partners or for the opportunity to belong to an organisation
where
> every day is like Scavenger Hunt. For this and the reasons outlined the
> numbers of these organisations only vary slightly over the years. But a
> number are genuinely interested in politics in a serious manner - and
these
> people I feel particular sorrow for, as they are potentially a lost
> generation.
What? all youth should join the Peldge Unions, seems to me that you suffer
from the "shining light" syndrome yourself.
DAVE MURRAY
business student, Newcastle University
Che Guava
and a rare display of political maturity on aus.pol..
I suspect that any review amongst those you suggest
could benefit from some self-examination, will instead
focus on labelling you a reactionary.
More significantly, even were they to reflect, and
choose positive engagement, their numbers are quite
insignificant compared to the large number who
remain largely alienated from the political process.
More seem seduced by materialism than ideological purity,
by inertia rather than fanatacism, by apathy and disillusion.
and many are just happy to be safely ensconsed in the
more fortunate of Australia's two classes: Comfort and Need.
I am attaching my deconstructive critique of the Right
for comparative purposes: ;-)
__________________________________
Lev Lafayette wrote:
> Another Generation Lost?
"Generation? ..Squaaaaark!.... It's NOT a GENERATION!!!"
__________________________________
We can only wish those migrating to far right political organisations
the same degree of voter response.
Their attack on the political mainstream, obscuring political
differences and presenting the main players as Laborals
is as simplistic and doctrinaire as much of the left rhetoric
has been.
Australians seem to take their politics like their 'religion'
not very interested in theological niceties, certainly not
interested in disputation about fine points of scriptural
interpretation (ideology)....
You can pretty much believe and espouse what you want,
it's the way you treat people which determines how you will
be judged.
ouch.
In mitigation, I'm sure that applies more to Hillard than Guava.
> it is perhaps
> understandable that inexperienced political activists seek solace in the
> bizarre subculture of far left orthodoxy with no prospect of actually
> implementing social change.
And that those disillusioned with the political struggle altogether
might succumb to nihilism, cynicism or black humour.
Lev , I think this following paragraph is one of the finest written in this NG,
and I believe it reflects much of the thinking and attitudes that led
young Jacques to make his similar committment to your party political
opponents... both are positions I respect because they seem equally
fuelled by decency, or as you eloquently put it a desire for "universal justice
and personal freedom"
So my comments are not meant to detract in any way from a whole
hearted endorsment;
> But at some stage - and hopefully earlier rather than later - the dual
> desires of universal justice and personal freedom will demand political
> maturity from the most serious of the individuals involved in these
> organisations that are doomed to the trashcan of history.
The dissolution of the Communist Party appears to be one such example,
but as you describe, others spring up to replace them, so that there
is no shortage of institutions dedicated to pointless waste of energy,
and they seem to demonstrate tenacious longevity.
I suspect that it is precisely because they are not hard work, but play,
that they are so popular.. a bit like aus.pol?
> When that bolt of
> enlightenment strikes these individuals then perhaps they will be able, with
> sober senses, to direct their energies in the institutions of real political
> power with the practical intent of exposing the political and economic
> system to conspicuous tests.
Are you speaking here of community and grassroots organisations,
rather than political parties.. or both?
In either case, while there may be some energies to be productively
redirected from ideological masturbation, the numbers are small.
What will make political action attractive to the much larger populace.
Here it seems that some of these values are less well developed than others:
> For it is only in this fashion - as
> unfashionable as it may be - that one can make an effective stand for the
> "old fashioned" values of individual freedom, social democracy and most of
> all, that most anachronistic of values - human dignity.
Individual freedom remains very popular... it's a licence to many.
Which means social democracy and human dignity have been
under attack, globally, and atruggling to fight a comeback.
I feel we will be called upon to develop a new spirit to
resolve the clash between justice and selfishness.
>From Lady Liberty to detention camps...
...solutions to these dilemmas is the necessary role of leadership..
.. and when that exists, the institutions which display it will *attract*
Che Guava
Che Guava wrote:
<snip>
> > For it is only in this fashion - as
> > unfashionable as it may be - that one can make an effective stand for the
> > "old fashioned" values of individual freedom, social democracy and most of
> > all, that most anachronistic of values - human dignity.
>
> Individual freedom remains very popular... it's a licence to many.
> Which means social democracy and human dignity have been
> under attack, globally, and atruggling to fight a comeback.
>
> I feel we will be called upon to develop a new spirit to
> resolve the clash between justice and selfishness.
>
the following line is mine, not Levs as the ">" indicates :
> >From Lady Liberty to detention camps...
(our attitudes have hardened to the 'huddled masses'),
Lev Lafayette
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Neville Duguid wrote:
> Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > The radical left parties in Australia, then and now, are too fragmented, too
> > centered around tiny sects with cultic leaderships, utterly paranoid
>
> Why wouldn't your co-revolutionaries be paranoid?
>
> Lenin was the only one who thought that way in 1917, so he had the whole
> fuhrer field to himself. All the other rival revolutionary party leaders
<Snip!>
Great. As I mentioned, perhaps the most foolish thing about the fringe
left's behaviour is their infatuation with different interpretations of
the Russian revolution.
But I never thought I'd see you as part of it.
Lev Lafayette.
l...@student.unimelb.edu.au http://www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~lev
Deridarata
Lev Lafayette wrote:
> Another Generation Lost? Doubts About the Socialist Alliance
>
<snip>
>
> The radical left parties in Australia, then and now, are too fragmented, too
> centered around tiny sects with cultic leaderships, utterly paranoid of
> others encroaching on their territory, virulent in their defense of obscure
> interpretations of their version of history and Marxist (and only Marxist)
> orthodoxy. As part of his excellent far-sightedness it is little wonder that
> Marx himself once remarked Je ne suis pas une 'Marxiste'
Capitalist discourse and capitalism
Henry M. von Ludwig
Department of Ontology, University of Michigan
Andreas Drucker
Department of Politics, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.
1. Concensuses of rubicon
If one examines capitalist discourse, one is faced with a choice:
either reject the subcultural paradigm of discourse or conclude
that narrativity has significance. The characteristic theme of von
Junz's[1] critique of structuralist socialism is a neocapitalist
paradox.
Thus, Sontag uses the term 'capitalist discourse' to denote
the role of the artist as writer. An abundance of narratives concerning
structuralist socialism may be found.
However, in Material Girl, Madonna examines Marxist socialism;
in Erotica, however, she reiterates capitalist discourse. The
premise of the textual paradigm of concensus suggests that the significance
of the artist is deconstruction. Therefore, the subject
is interpolated into a capitalist discourse that includes art as a reality.
The primary theme of the works of Madonna is the bridge
between society and sexual identity.
2. Madonna and capitalism
The main theme of Porter's[2] model of structuralist socialism is the
defining characteristic, and therefore the futility, of subtextual society.
It could be said that Lyotard uses the term 'capitalist discourse' to
denote not discourse, but postdiscourse.
The subject is contextualised into a capitalism that includes
culture as a whole.
However, several theories concerning a self-sufficient totality exist.
Drucker[3] states that we have to choose between the
predialectic paradigm of reality and Lacanist obscurity.
In a sense, Bataille uses the term 'capitalism' to denote the
absurdity, and subsequent meaninglessness, of textual narrativity.
Any number of appropriations concerning subdialectic Marxism may be revealed.
3. Capitalist discourse and the constructive paradigm of discourse
If one examines precultural dematerialism, one is faced with a choice:
either accept the constructive paradigm of discourse or
conclude that the establishment is capable of truth. But Sartre's essay
on capitalist discourse holds that sexuality is part of the
stasis of language, but only if the premise of capitalism is invalid; if that
is not the case, class, perhaps surprisingly, has intrinsic
meaning. Marx uses the term 'the constructive paradigm of discourse'
to denote not sublimation, as Bataille would have it, but
neosublimation.
It could be said that many narratives concerning a mythopoetical
paradox exist. Lyotard uses the term 'Foucaultist power
relations' to denote not, in fact, discourse, but subdiscourse.
However, any number of theories concerning capitalist discourse
may be found. The subject is interpolated into a constructive
paradigm of discourse that includes truth as a whole. Therefore,
deconstructive socialism implies that the goal of the writer is
social comment, given that narrativity is equal to sexuality.
Lyotard uses the term 'capitalism' to denote the role of the poet as
writer.
4. Madonna and the constructive paradigm of discourse
"Culture is a legal fiction," says Foucault. In a sense, the
subject is contextualised into a Batailleist `powerful communication'
that includes art as a reality. The example of capitalist discourse
prevalent in Madonna's Material Girl emerges again in
Erotica, although in a more self-falsifying sense.
The primary theme of the works of Madonna is the common
ground between class and society. But Debord uses the term 'the
constructive paradigm of discourse' to denote a mythopoetical paradox.
If neotextual materialism holds, the works of Madonna
are modernistic.
However, Bataille suggests the use of capitalist discourse to
challenge hierarchy. Many deconstructions concerning not
materialism as such, but prematerialism exist.
But Foucault uses the term 'the constructive paradigm of
discourse' to denote a self-fulfilling reality. An abundance of narratives
concerning capitalist discourse may be revealed.
Thus, the characteristic theme of d'Erlette's[4] critique of materialist
theory is not narrative, but prenarrative. Sartre's analysis of
capitalist discourse states that sexuality may be used to entrench capitalism.
1. von Junz, P. K. J. ed. (1999) Narratives of Fatal flaw: Capitalism
and capitalist discourse. University of California Press
2. Porter, V. D. (1983) Capitalist discourse and capitalism. Harvard University
Press
3. Drucker, U. ed. (1977) Reinventing Realism: Capitalism and capitalist
discourse. Loompanics
4. d'Erlette, D. P. T. (1981) Capitalist discourse and capitalism. Schlangekraft
Lev Lafayette
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Murray wrote:
> The
> > local and international circumstances were better as well. The Australian
> > Labor Party was at the time as right-wing as it ever had been and
> hopefully
> > ever will be.
> The ALP nowadays is more right wing than it was in the 1980s. And when
> government falls into its hands its giing to contiinue what
> Howard/keating/hawke have been doing since 1983. Its not been 5 years of
> Howard wheer the working class has been attacked. Its been the 13 years of
> Hawke and Keating.
I disagree. I think that the current national platform is significantly to
the left of what the ALP was like in the mid-80s.
> > Informal votes are typically between four and ten times greater than their
> > primaries. They've never even had a single trade union affiliate to them.
> > Rather than displaying leadership, intrusions into community actions and
> > mass movements have been notoriously destructive.
>
> You seem to be ignorant of state votes, eg Steve Jolly's 12.5% in victoria
> in 1999.
Not at all. Jolly's result has not been repeated anywhere else. Witness
how the far left has done in the WA and QLD elections. The highest vote
received is Reid's in Maylands - 1.2% The point is that people have
however voted strongly for the Greens.
> > the fault of electors, who ignorantly cast their vote apparently against
> > their own interests. Sometimes parliamentary democracy is to blame.
>
> Shouldn't you also consider the failures of auto-laborism which causes the
> Peldge Unions to be good socialists but ineffectual ones.
I disgree. For our relative size we have significant inflence over the
policy implementations in Victoria.
> > people's opinions, but they cannot control their ideas and reasoning in
> the
> > long term.
>
> Bull shit! Read Noam Chomsky's "manufacturing consent", there is more need
> to control people by the media in a capitalist/democratic society than a
> totalitarian state.
I disagree with Chomsky. Whilst there is great capacity for opinions to be
distorted I do not think that that this hegemonic. People do have the
capacity to uncover alternative interpretations to that posed by the mass
media. After all, you've managed it - why not anyone else?
> these
> > people I feel particular sorrow for, as they are potentially a lost
> > generation.
>
> What? all youth should join the Peldge Unions, seems to me that you suffer
> from the "shining light" syndrome yourself.
I made no such suggestion. If anything the article seems to suggest that I
favoured the Greens over the group that I belong to. What I feel is
important is that activists orientate themselves to the real institutions
of political power. Whilst Socialist Alliance is doing that as an
electoral alliance in my opinion, due to the nature and character of the
fringe left, political energies spent in that direction will be largely
wasted.
soupnazi
<l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Murray wrote:
>
>> The
>> > local and international circumstances were better as well. The Australian
>> > Labor Party was at the time as right-wing as it ever had been and
>> hopefully
>> > ever will be.
>> The ALP nowadays is more right wing than it was in the 1980s. And when
>> government falls into its hands its giing to contiinue what
>> Howard/keating/hawke have been doing since 1983. Its not been 5 years of
>> Howard wheer the working class has been attacked. Its been the 13 years of
>> Hawke and Keating.
>
>I disagree. I think that the current national platform is significantly to
>the left of what the ALP was like in the mid-80s.
and where do tossers like latham et al.
fit on this 'national platform' ?
hmmm.
Lev Lafayette
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Deridarata wrote:
>
>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > Another Generation Lost? Doubts About the Socialist Alliance
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The radical left parties in Australia, then and now, are too fragmented, too
> > centered around tiny sects with cultic leaderships, utterly paranoid of
> > others encroaching on their territory, virulent in their defense of obscure
> > interpretations of their version of history and Marxist (and only Marxist)
> > orthodoxy. As part of his excellent far-sightedness it is little wonder that
> > Marx himself once remarked Je ne suis pas une 'Marxiste'
I take it you've found the postmodern essay writing program then?
>
Lev Lafayette
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, soupnazi wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:45:13 +1000, Lev Lafayette
> <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Murray wrote:
> >
> >> The
> >> > local and international circumstances were better as well. The Australian
> >> > Labor Party was at the time as right-wing as it ever had been and
> >> hopefully
> >> > ever will be.
> >> The ALP nowadays is more right wing than it was in the 1980s. And when
> >> government falls into its hands its giing to contiinue what
> >> Howard/keating/hawke have been doing since 1983. Its not been 5 years of
> >> Howard wheer the working class has been attacked. Its been the 13 years of
> >> Hawke and Keating.
> >
> >I disagree. I think that the current national platform is significantly to
> >the left of what the ALP was like in the mid-80s.
>
> and where do tossers like latham et al.
> fit on this 'national platform' ?
I don't see much influence of Latham in the national platform.
For thoise unfamiliar with it, I posted a review on the ng last year. A
copy of that reviews can be found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/zine/laborleft/platform.html
Peter Lucas
"Murray" <yar...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ad65bae$1...@news.hunterlink.net.au...
>
> what the hell?
>
[URL snipped]
Stop perpetuating the fuckwit!! Otherwise you are no better than him.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Another Generation Lost? Doubts About the Socialist Alliance
> There can be no doubt it was an enthusiastic evening. On April 10, some two
> hundred people attended a meeting at Brunswick Town Hall launching an
> electoral alliance of the radical left calling itself "Socialist Alliance".
> Consisting of the Democratic Socialist Party, the International Socialist
> Organisation, Socialist Alternative, Workers Power, Workers Liberty, Workers
> League, the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Democracy, and the
> Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (in exile), the alliance is being heralded as
> having "enormous potential", "huge opportunities" and so forth.
> Notably absent from this Alliance are major radical left parties such as the
> Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Party, and the Socialist
> Equality Party, along with at least a dozen minor - and probably forgotten -
> organisations. It seems that even to this day, only a tentative alliance
> with significant exclusions can be formed among the alphabet soup of the far
> left of Australian politics, who continue to form separate political
> organisations on differences concerning an uprising in a Slavic kingdom some
> eighty years ago. [...]
This kind of reminds of the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", when two
rival political sects, each intending to kidnap the emperor (or whatever)
encounter each other in the catacombs under the palace. After a bit of a row
between both groups, someone says, "brothers, let's unite against a common
enemy". "The Judean Peoples' Front!" (a third group despised by both), they
all exclaim in unison. "No, no, no, the Romans", says the fellow who had
suggested uniting. "Oh yes, the Romans", they all grumble half-heartedly.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [...]
By the way, did you get that haircut yet?
Lev Lafayette
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Che Guava wrote:
> A fine analytical piece, Lev,
> and a rare display of political maturity on aus.pol..
Thanks.
>
> I suspect that any review amongst those you suggest
> could benefit from some self-examination, will instead
> focus on labelling you a reactionary.
Yes, I'm waiting for those remarks. So far the reaction I've had has been
pretty positive. But I have no doubt that the more dogmatic of my supposed
comrades will start quoting Lenin at a biblical style to me.
> More significantly, even were they to reflect, and
> choose positive engagement, their numbers are quite
> insignificant compared to the large number who
> remain largely alienated from the political process.
Indeed! But nonetheless, their numbers _significant_. There's at least a
few hundred activists in each of larger of the fringe left parties. Yet
their efforts are largely unrewarded because actual participation in the
political system is perceived as "selling out".
> I am attaching my deconstructive critique of the Right
> for comparative purposes: ;-)
But of course ;-)
> __________________________________
>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > Another Generation Lost?
>
> "Generation? ..Squaaaaark!.... It's NOT a GENERATION!!!"
The people whom I have in mind are...
Indeed, the far right will always attract a stronger protest vote than the
far left. Whilst both attack the political mainstream, the left wants to
politicise society and its institutions, whereas the far right only wants
a small elite to actually manage affairs.
Hmmm... I think you're correct there.
>
> > it is perhaps
> > understandable that inexperienced political activists seek solace in the
> > bizarre subculture of far left orthodoxy with no prospect of actually
> > implementing social change.
>
> And that those disillusioned with the political struggle altogether
> might succumb to nihilism, cynicism or black humour.
>
> Lev , I think this following paragraph is one of the finest written in
> this NG,
>
> and I believe it reflects much of the thinking and attitudes that led
> young Jacques to make his similar committment to your party political
> opponents... both are positions I respect because they seem equally
> fuelled by decency, or as you eloquently put it a desire for "universal justice
> and personal freedom"
Yes, I trust Jacques motivations entirely. He hasn't joined the Liberal
Party out of hatred or fear of the creeping socialism of the Labor Party
or anything like that. He is genuinely interested in a _liberal_ society -
one where personal freedom is paramount and there is motivation of
generoisty towards our less fortunate brethren.
>
> So my comments are not meant to detract in any way from a whole
> hearted endorsment;
>
> > But at some stage - and hopefully earlier rather than later - the dual
> > desires of universal justice and personal freedom will demand political
> > maturity from the most serious of the individuals involved in these
> > organisations that are doomed to the trashcan of history.
>
> The dissolution of the Communist Party appears to be one such example,
> but as you describe, others spring up to replace them, so that there
> is no shortage of institutions dedicated to pointless waste of energy,
> and they seem to demonstrate tenacious longevity.
>
> I suspect that it is precisely because they are not hard work, but play,
> that they are so popular.. a bit like aus.pol?
In many cases this is true. But there is also an insular aspect of
belonging to a group of a dozen our so all with the same ideas. Sometimes
one must simply confront those who have completely different ideas to what
one has. In this respect, aus.politics is miles ahead of most political
'clubs'.
>
> > When that bolt of
> > enlightenment strikes these individuals then perhaps they will be able, with
> > sober senses, to direct their energies in the institutions of real political
> > power with the practical intent of exposing the political and economic
> > system to conspicuous tests.
>
> Are you speaking here of community and grassroots organisations,
> rather than political parties.. or both?
Both! People should be active on their local issues and harass their local
councillors, their state and federal mps until the community is able to
assert its power of its supposed representatives.
>
> In either case, while there may be some energies to be productively
> redirected from ideological masturbation, the numbers are small.
>
> What will make political action attractive to the much larger populace.
Historically, it has only ever been the possibility that political action
will be succesful. Protests without direction will let off steam, but
unless there is a goal-orientation it is a waste of energy.
> Here it seems that some of these values are less well developed than others:
>
> > For it is only in this fashion - as
> > unfashionable as it may be - that one can make an effective stand for the
> > "old fashioned" values of individual freedom, social democracy and most of
> > all, that most anachronistic of values - human dignity.
>
> Individual freedom remains very popular... it's a licence to many.
> Which means social democracy and human dignity have been
> under attack, globally, and atruggling to fight a comeback.
Indeed. Individual freedom without social responsibility is a crime equal
to social control of the individual.
>
> I feel we will be called upon to develop a new spirit to
> resolve the clash between justice and selfishness.
All revolutions in the human spirit are moral revolutions..
>
> >From Lady Liberty to detention camps...
>
> ...solutions to these dilemmas is the necessary role of leadership..
> .. and when that exists, the institutions which display it will *attract*
As a motivating follow to that quote: At the beginning of the rise of
fascism Walter Benjamin wrote:
"Nur um der Hoffnungslosen willen ist uns die Hofnung gegeben."
"It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to use".
Best wishes,
barbwire
Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.101041...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
>
barbwire
>
>
> > There > having "enormous potential", "huge opportunities" and so forth.
> >
> > Notably absent from this Alliance are major radical left parties such as
> the
> > Communist Party of Australia
> The CPA is a movement set up to avoid the 'new left' and go back to
stalin.
hardly, dave: we just say the 'new left' isn't terribly new and isn't
terribly left. dressing up small 'l' liberalism in left rhetoric isn't a
great advance for anybody, and serves no practical purpose for the working
people of australia or the world.
the cpa was set up to renew the working class movement in australia: it's
true we have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are definitely further down
that path today than we were a year ago, and we will be further down the
path next year, the socialist alliance notwithstanding.
the party had a number of problems with the so-called 'socialist alliance':
but we weren't the only organisation that did. in my own opinion, the
alliance is nothing more than an opportunistic ploy by the dsp to give
themselves defacto political control over the left in australia. if the
socialist alliance is still operating in any shape or form in a year i --
for one -- will be amazed.
years ago, we had discussions for a long period of time with the dsp:
nothing ever came of it, basically because of the dsp. they don't want to do
anything they aren't in control of: and the dsp is dead scared of open and
honest discussion of their policies and programme, and with good reason.
their policies are their achilles heel: they cannot allow open criticism,
because if it occurs the contradictions inherent in their programme come to
the fore.
barbwire
Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.101041...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
> I disagree. I think that the current national platform is significantly to
> the left of what the ALP was like in the mid-80s.
you're missing the obvious point, lev: the alp is now in opposition, trying
to regain lost support from the left. the alp has a history -- that goes
back almost a century -- of talking left in opposition and then walking
right when they're in government. it's been a consistent electoral ploy,
although it appears to only work well on the alp left.
barbwire
Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.101041...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
> I disagree with Chomsky. Whilst there is great capacity for opinions to be
> distorted I do not think that that this hegemonic. People do have the
> capacity to uncover alternative interpretations to that posed by the mass
> media. After all, you've managed it - why not anyone else?
>
i think your view is almost naive. people look for political answers when
objective circumstances in their lives force them into it, by and large: and
not all periods of time produce the same motivation. after the end of the
second world war, capitalism was able to produce almost 35 years of relative
economic stability: the motivation for mass working class political
radicalisation was absent for almost two generations.
RT
barbwire <barb...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
news:3ad82e10$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Barb, baby, make that 55 years. Now be a good kid and hop in the bath and
slash your wrists in the name of socialism and stop bothering the rest of us
who are busily making a quid.
barbwire
RT <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9b9gas$4al$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> Barb, baby, make that 55 years. Now be a good kid and hop in the bath
and
> slash your wrists in the name of socialism and stop bothering the rest of
us
> who are busily making a quid.
err...what's your point?
Lev Lafayette
Your position is not at all exclusive to mine. Your claim that most people
only search for alternative interpretations when the 'objective
circumstances' directs them to is in no way exclusive to my position that
some people search for alternative interpretations when the 'subjective
reasons' directs them to.
Once I again, I state that Chomsky is incorrect. After all, you (and I)
have seen through the veil of capitalist distortion. Why not anyone else?
Murray
of my post.
DAVE
"barbwire" <barb...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
news:3ad8...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Murray
> the cpa was set up to renew the working class movement in australia: it's
> true we have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are definitely further down
> that path today than we were a year ago, and we will be further down the
> path next year, the socialist alliance notwithstanding.
As well, to unendingly slander my third cousin Dennis Freeney.
>
> the party had a number of problems with the so-called 'socialist
alliance':
> but we weren't the only organisation that did. in my own opinion, the
> alliance is nothing more than an opportunistic ploy by the dsp to give
> themselves defacto political control over the left in australia. if the
> socialist alliance is still operating in any shape or form in a year i --
> for one -- will be amazed.
True so would I. I don't agree with the formation of the SA. Its a piece of
EGO-feeding for the DSP. Some sort of network makes sense though
soupnazi
<l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>Once I again, I state that Chomsky is incorrect. After all, you (and I)
>have seen through the veil of capitalist distortion. Why not anyone else?
you and i are, perhaps, equipped with the 'tools' required
to lift the 'veil' ??
you dont think that a substantial level of visual literacy may be
required in order to critique, for example, a news bulletin ?
one must be armed with a knowledge of the codes and conventions
in order to critique these media products.......
can betty balga and joe joondalup buy these 'tools' at wa salvage ?
;-)
soupnazi
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 11:35:21 +1000, Lev Lafayette
><l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Once I again, I state that Chomsky is incorrect. After all, you (and I)
>>have seen through the veil of capitalist distortion. Why not anyone else?
chomsky himself says the punters have the capacities to see through the
the veil of capitalist distortion which blinds them, but they've got to
make the effort......
who has the time or tools or actually gives a fuck enough to
make the effort ??
not betty or joe......for most it's a struggle to live and breathe
alone.....