Living Marxism: Let's all glow in the dark!
Justin Flude
liber...@igc.apc.org wrote in article
<APC&1'0'78a24582'5...@igc.apc.org>...
> I prefer Patti Smith's attitude:
> "Hey, I'm from New York. There's another zone under the ozone."
> Please, technology has a price. We could all be hunters and gathers.
> The majority of infants could die in their first year.
> Pollution is the price of imperfect knowledge and the profit motive.
> Get a grip.
Careful. Lost Project will have you goosestepping in tune with Limbaugh
with talk like that. Does beige or khaki suit you?
Justin :)
Justin Flude
TGSCUNY <tgs...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971029185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> So basically, it's OK for you schmucks to continually ridicule and
caricature
> our arguments (opposing nukes in space travel = opposing space travel =
> "hunter gatherer" regression = tree hugging), but it's not OK for Louis
to
> make some pretty obvious connections to Limbaugh (or myself, with the La
> Rouchites, who were at the White House when we were there last month and
> pretty much saying the same thing)?
It would have been more honest of you, if you have to characterise my
position with reference to others who support it, to have identified it
with that of NASA and the many many other reasonable people who supported
the Cassini project. Saying that I'm as right-wing as Rush Limbaugh - or
even worse, as mad as LaRouch - is inevitably going to make the debate
personal, isn't it?
I'm probably a little touchy over it, because it's been a familiar refrain
all my political life. We were accused of being Tories because we refused
to tail labour bureaucrats in the miner's strike. We were accused of being
Tories because we rejected the idea that Western governments had an
interest in sanctions against apartheid. We were accused of being
Stalinists because we said that Gorbachev wasn't the 'political revolution'
but a counter-crisis strategy. And we've been accused of supporting
'genocidal Serbs' because we oppose the idea that Western countries must
bomb Bosnian Serbs to save Bosnia for democracy. Standing up for the truth
of that accusation may well cost LM $1,000,000+ if ITN win their libel case
against us (there's no public interest defence in the UK).
It might interest you to know that, compared to the conclusions of many of
the post-modernists, the right is often a better and more rational bet. At
least the traditional right tried to uphold universal values - it's own
Western values, admittedly, but at least it subscribed to the idea that a
set of common values and beliefs could unite and benefit humanity. The
post-modernist consensus, in which I include the Greens, rejects
universalism in favour of celebrating difference and inequality. Derrida
upholds the destruction of social reason and universalism as a positive
gain for humanity - can you tell me a right-winger other than the Nazis or
Nietzsche who would reject the Enlightenment so comprehensively? That
makes the PoMo crowd a bigger and more anti-Marxist problem than even
right-wing jerks like Limbaugh. Which is simply a reflection of just how
reactionary are the times we're living through, and how easy it is for the
traditional left to get confused by them.
Justin
Stephen R. Diamond
In article <01bce557$ffcb72d0$fdb78fc2@justinfpc>, "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>RE:
> Standing up for the truth of that accusation may well cost LM $1,000,000+
> if ITN win their libel case against us (there's no public interest
> defence in the UK)
Is truth not an absolute defense against defamation in the UK?
creb...@antares.com.br
> It might interest you to know that, compared to the conclusions of many of
> the post-modernists, the right is often a better and more rational bet. At
> least the traditional right tried to uphold universal values - it's own
> Western values, admittedly, but at least it subscribed to the idea that a
> set of common values and beliefs could unite and benefit humanity. The
> post-modernist consensus, in which I include the Greens, rejects
> universalism in favour of celebrating difference and inequality. Derrida
> upholds the destruction of social reason and universalism as a positive
> gain for humanity - can you tell me a right-winger other than the Nazis or
> Nietzsche who would reject the Enlightenment so comprehensively? That
> makes the PoMo crowd a bigger and more anti-Marxist problem than even
> right-wing jerks like Limbaugh. Which is simply a reflection of just how
> reactionary are the times we're living through, and how easy it is for the
> traditional left to get confused by them.
>
> Justin
Thinking of the opportunistic role played by the Greens in Brazil, where
they especialize in campaigning for the legalization of dope-smoking (no
offence, but that's not exactly a 1st. rate priority) and sentimental
defence of rain forests conservation, without a shred of scientific
argument(but I confess: I once hugged a lagoon in Rio)I would be inclined
to say that Justin has a point. But a marxist can not just oppose,IMHO,
the old Enlightnment ideal of unending human Progress and demand people
to support this ideal as some Categorical Imperative. If we are to
overcome the fragmentated, mutually excluding policies of POMo with some
global agenda, this agenda will not be born, as Pallas, from Jove's head,
but must be fostered as a global consensus that evolves from the concrete
struggles of the working class and his potential allies in the petty
bourgeisie. After all, Marxism is not only class politics; class
politics- centered on the paramountancy of a proletarian agenda- is but a
means to the global emancipation of mankind; but necessity of that
emancipacion must be objectively felt.BTW, I remember that Lenin created
the 1st. national park in the old Russian Empire- I believe in the Volga
estuary, in order to protect endangered spawning sturgeons.
Carlos Rebello
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Holmes
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 17:24:58 -0800
> From: Stephen R. Diamond <steph...@mindspring.com>
> To: John Holmes <jdho...@igc.apc.org>
> Newgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
> Subject: Re: Living Marxism: Let's all glow in the dark!
>
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.politics.socialism.trotsky)
>
> <posted & e-mailed>
>
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.971101...@igc.apc.org>, John
> Holmes <jdho...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the Enlightenment, which led to the French Revolution, totali-
> > tarianism, Robespierre, Marx, etc. is increasingly rejected by current
> > thinkers, who, when they defend "western values," are increasingly
> > defending what they call "the Judeo-Christian tradition." this even gets
> > echoed on a.p.s.t.
>
> Perhaps the difference here concerns only what 'thinkers' connotes. All or
> almost all the defenders of "western values" propogandize a lot, but think
> but little.
Can't disagree there. However, it should be noted that there are lots of
pseudo-thinkers out there trying to dress up current buzzwords about the
"Judeo-Christian tradition," "family values," "Western culture," etc.
into something more profound-sounding that mere bourgeois propaganda, and
that they tend to mold the current "zeitgeist" more than the people you
consider to be the "thinkers on the right."
> The thinkers on the right today defend a rationalistic
> utilitarianism, centered on the economic analysis of law.
I am vaguely aware of these people, who strike me as basically
a conservative offshoot of Oliver Wendell Holmes's "legal realism," whose
more organic descendents are actually the "critical legal studies" people,
who beneath their post-modernist surface garb are actually the contem-
porary descendents of Beardian economic determinism.
Translated into plain English for the non-cognoscenti:
Most contemporary legal history scholars, whether of Left or Right,
base their analyses on the idea that:
"Property is nine-tenths of the law,"
and recognize explicitly that law reflects the social needs of capitalism.
-jh-
Justin Flude
Stephen R. Diamond <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<stephend15-01...@user-36saedo.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> <posted & e-mailed>
>
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.971101...@igc.apc.org>, John
> Holmes <jdho...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the Enlightenment, which led to the French Revolution, totali-
> > tarianism, Robespierre, Marx, etc. is increasingly rejected by current
> > thinkers, who, when they defend "western values," are increasingly
> > defending what they call "the Judeo-Christian tradition." this even
gets
> > echoed on a.p.s.t.
>
> Perhaps the difference here concerns only what 'thinkers' connotes. All
or
> almost all the defenders of "western values" propogandize a lot, but
think
> utilitarianism, centered on the economic analysis of law.
I'd question that as their main position, but far more importantly it
misses the fact that the right is not leading any defense of anything at
the moment, they're out on a limb. Some intellectuals in the British Tory
Party, for example, are seriously musing whether to take up Ayn Rand as a
challenge to New Labour. That should be clear evidence to everyone that
the traditional right is finished for a while at least. It's the
post-modernists that dominate the debate in all its aspects.
Justin
Justin Flude
John Holmes <jdho...@igc.apc.org> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.91.971101...@igc.apc.org>...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 creb...@antares.com.br wrote:
> > ...
i.e.
> "Fog over Channel, continent isolated..." I doubt even the English are
> actually isolated enough from world intellectual currents for the above
> assertions to have anything to do with even English current thinking.
Derrida was very controversially awarded an honourary degree by Oxford
University a couple of years ago. Anglo-American philosophy, in the shape
of a large number of dons, were opposed to the award. They accused Derrida
of annihilating reason. Derrida was proposed by the literary crowd. It
was taken to a vote, and Derrida and the literary deconstructionists won.
Positivism and conventionalism were exposed as incapable of defending
rationality and the Enlightenment outlook of universalism and human
progress. The triumph of post-modernism is old news today - where have you
been hibernating?
> In fact, the Enlightenment, which led to the French Revolution, totali-
> tarianism, Robespierre, Marx, etc. is increasingly rejected by current
> thinkers, who, when they defend "western values," are increasingly
defending
> what they call "the Judeo-Christian tradition." this even gets echoed on
> a.p.s.t.
The Enlightenment has been 'increasingly rejected' since the beginning of
the century. The idea that science and technology could bring progress was
further discredited by the First and Second World Wars and the Holocaust.
Check out Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" for one of the central
texts. Your idea that the Enlightenment led to totalitarianism is another
key notion behind the Case Against Reason - perhaps you better rethink your
position if you want to defend science and reason?
As I said in the original post, until recently Western thinkers had to pay
lip-service to the idea of universal values, the idea that humanity could
be united around a core culture, even if the values they promoted were the
age-old ones of Western superiority and the "Judeo-Christian tradition".
What's different about today is that those thinkers, the 'traditonal'
right, can no longer claim that capitalism is a good social system that can
bring benefits to everyone. If you 'Marxists' lifted your head a little to
look beyond the peculiarities of the USA, you might realise this. Today,
the "post-modernist" outlook triumphs across the whole spectrum of thought
- the idea that diversity, irrationalism and inequality aren't problems to
be overcome, but things to be celebrated.
> In fact, that's a good part of what the media-manufactured
pseudo-hysteria
> of last month about Diana Spencer (does anyone still remember her? In
> the immortal words of Andy Warhol, everyone's famous for 15 minutes...)
was
> all about. Bring back "old Western values" i.e. feudalism, monarchy etc.
But didn't you notice that the 'old Western values' - epitomised by the
Queen and the old guard - badly lost the argument against the new Diana
cult of suffering, caring, and intolerance? Hopefully Marxists aren't dumb
enoug to think that just because the old guard are out on their ear, the
new lot must be better. But what am I saying - that's EXACTLY what the
left believes, hence 'Social Appeal' claiming that Diana is the prelude to
anti-monarchial revolution, the CPGB hailing her almost in the same terms
as Blair - the "People's Princess" etc etc. Isn't it funny how these
people have gone all quiet since?
> -John Holmes-
>
> PS: the above statement *is* at least awfully revealing about where Flude
> & the RCP are actually coming from, i.e. Limbaugh's corner of the
political
> map.
No it isn't - but your statement clearly reveals that your 'Marxism' just
doesn't have the intellectual roots to make sense of what's happening
nowadays, hence your defense of the post-modernists against the right.
creb...@antares.com.br
In article <01bce856$96935240$fdb78fc2@justinfpc>,
"Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com> wrote:
> The Enlightenment has been 'increasingly rejected' since the beginning of
> the century. The idea that science and technology could bring progress was
> further discredited by the First and Second World Wars and the Holocaust.
> Check out Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" for one of the central
> texts. Your idea that the Enlightenment led to totalitarianism is another
> key notion behind the Case Against Reason - perhaps you better rethink your
> position if you want to defend science and reason?
>
> As I said in the original post, until recently Western thinkers had to pay
> lip-service to the idea of universal values, the idea that humanity could
> be united around a core culture, even if the values they promoted were the
> age-old ones of Western superiority and the "Judeo-Christian tradition".
> What's different about today is that those thinkers, the 'traditonal'
> right, can no longer claim that capitalism is a good social system that can
> bring benefits to everyone. If you 'Marxists' lifted your head a little to
> look beyond the peculiarities of the USA, you might realise this. Today,
> the "post-modernist" outlook triumphs across the whole spectrum of thought
> - the idea that diversity, irrationalism and inequality aren't problems to
> be overcome, but things to be celebrated.
But then, Justin, the PoMo cult of diversity -that is, of narrow specific
group interest, remains still on the framework of bourgeois democracy. It
is the paralysis of bourgeois democracy, brought by unending clashes
between various vested interests, that can bring about renewed calls for
authoritarian solutions that can end in outright fascism. But then PoMo,
by all its petty-bourgeois philisteism, is not a "twin" of fascism,on the
contrary it is a tentative struggle too keep bourgeois democracy working,
and could become a basis to a broad front in defence of a socialist
programme. To scorn such a possibility, in my humble opinion, would be to
fall in 3rd. periodism of the saddest kind.
Fraternally and Comredely