Jim writes:
>Hugh's revolutionary zeal is such that he thinks that it is a betrayal
>of principle to address an audience of 500 000, as opposed to one of 5.
Note the contemptuous put-down tone of "revolutionary zeal".
Note the "medium is the message" message -- doesn't matter what you say as
long as the ratings are high. Jim is like a very slothful version of the
his more mercurial turncoat ex-Left brothers in France the New
(ha-bloody-ha) Philosophers. The way to wealth and notoriety is open. All
he's got to do now is to remove Marxism from the title of his rag, make it
Living Modernity, Go With The Flow or whatever, and he'll be away.
>Like Bob, Hugh just keeps waiting for history to repeat itself. It
>doesn't.
Ah, yes, Jim. What is history? No deep social regularities at all? Just a
froth of unpredictable events, shimmering bubbles with ever-changing
patterns that need to be interpreted second by second, coming from nowhere
and then poof, gone! vanished again. Good job bank accounts are reliable
things, eh, and the pound's still strongish.
>Presumably articles in Hugh's journal 'An Audience of One' include the
>same redundant paragraph at the end about the falling rate of profit and
>the coming class struggle. But he should now that you can't say
>everything all at once. Even Lenin's (taken from Plekhanov) definition
>of propaganda 'many ideas to a few' doesn't mean every single idea.
Again the sneering reference to central phenomenon of social development
today. Jim's obviously troubled by the fact that more and more is getting
into my very short pieces, and it's far too relevant -- so pour some
vitriol on it and see if its goes away... It won't, it's what makes society
tick -- like a time-bomb.
>>Why is it sick? What class forces make it sick? If
>>it's sick, what alternatives has the bourgeoisie got up its sleeve to
>>replace it? Who needs fascist grouplets when the Labour Party in government
>>is strangling the labour movement anyway?
>
>Forgive me, but wasn't that the point of the article, that Labour's
>asylum bill was achieving more than the Fascist grouplets? Did you read
>it, or did you just think that you would disagree with it anyway?
Who the fuck would be able to guess the critical point of the article the
way it was all wrapped in nods and winks and knowing nudges. Perfectly
clear to everyone in the know already, mud in the face of anyone not. Which
is why the bourgeois media tolerates it. Irony is the weapon of the weak --
"we all know this is shit, so lets say it obscurely and have a good laugh
and hope they don't torture us for it". As the bourgeois state weakens, its
tolerance for satire and irony diminishes markedly. Pinochet had Don
Quixote burned. The Turkish and Serbian regimes have no sense of humour
(along with dozens of others).
Anyway doesn't Jim remember the main use of a Labour regime to the
bourgeoisie -- weakening the organizational and political strength of the
working class so that the fascists have an easier time when they're needed?
>>If opposition to fascism is all a
>>matter of consensus, why was the flesh and blood struggle against the
>>fascists some years ago fought by the forces of popular youth and
>>revolutionary socialism?
>
>Because the fascist movement fought back then was a movement with a real
>measure of support, amongst the middle classes and in the ruling
>classes. Those conditions do not hold today.
I see, the conditions for the working class and youth to go into struggle
are the support of the middle class and ruling classes. Great. No wonder
Jim's writing for the Times and Deadwood's such a fan of his.
>>
>>If fascism today is not an immediate perspective, it's because at the
>>moment the working class is still so strong (and in the current period it's
>>growing stronger) that armed gangs of lumpen reactionaries would directly
>>provoke the creation of armed self-defence bodies of workers, on a huge
>>scale.
>
>Hugh contradicts himself. As he explained earlier, armed suppression of
>the working class is not necessary, when the Labour party has succeeded
>in dismantling the labour movement from within. It is not because the
>working class is well-organised that the fascists have no support. On
>the contrary, it is because the working class is largely unorganised
>that the fascist parties are of no use to the ruling classes.
See you in the concentration camp, old son. Or do you think they'll leave
you alone because you don't really mean the "Marxism" in the rag's title?
"But sergeant, it was only radical coquetry to tickle the jaded palate of
the middle classes and get lefties to subsidize us! We didn't *mean* it..."
"That's right, yer Commie shit, now get yer trousers down before we burn
'em off yer..."
>I know Hugh does not believe me about this, but he should visit. His
>view of what happens in England seems to be drawn from the seventies.
Jim's view of England seems to be filtered through the same blinkers as
Buford and just to be on the safe side thoroughly polarized by Blair's spin
doctors first.
Nice to know Jim's suddenly become an authenticist, anyway. Now any time he
writes about women we'll ask him to change his sex first, and when was he
last in Kosova?
At least I'm in daily contact with people who have some idea what's
happening in both England and Yugoslavia (Manchester and Novi Sad good
enough??), which is more than can be said for the people Jim obviously
spends his time with.
When Canute tried to order back the tide, at least he was looking at it.
Jim's trying to do the same trick (like his soulmate Deadwood) with his
eyes firmly fixed the other way.
I bet the Times didn't even pay him well.
Cheers,
Hugh
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
