In the interests of avoiding formalism, I suggest the following outline
approximates the principles articulated in the charter ...
Anyone who is prepared to discuss issues germaine to Marxist theory and
practice in good faith, be they self-professed Marxists or otherwise,
whether they favour reformist social democracy or Leninist revolution,
Manchester United or Manchester City, is welcome on this list while I've a
hand in it.
And I also happen to think that Marxism is too broad a church to exclude
'left reformism' (a tag carelessly tossed about in describing everything
from liberal humanism to various notions of just how closely - or not - a
revolution would ultimately approximate a sudden 'big bang' - revolutions
can take time and they can culminate through increments, after all -
consider tectonic dynamics).
We have to keep an eye on where we are and where we're not, after all. And
one place where we're not right now is anywhere near the lawns of the
winter palace (if that's the picture of 'revolution' held in most Thaxists'
heads - I wouldn't know). Furthermore, there's support in the big fella's
writings for reformism as revolutionary practice (eg. The Hague speech of
1872).
I continue to disagree heartily with Chris on the Yugoslavia question, but
I wouldn't waste time on a list where everyone agreed. And he does at
least evince a grasp of the inescapable fact that we'll be getting to
wherever we're going from where we are now. Good on him.
But NATO are still butchers.
Cheers,
Rob.
>At 17:00 28/05/99 GMT, you wrote:
>>Chris,
>>
>>I think you might want to note that this list is aimed at MARXISTS
>>not left reformists (to whom I would hope it would be opposed!) and
>>the Guardian has never been Marxist.
>
>
>Could I ask Rob and Bill to republish the list charter, or whatever it is
>called. I am sorry to be formal, but on both Leninist International (also
>supported from Utah) and Louis Proyect's marxism list there have been what
>I obviously consider arbitary rulings separate from specific reference to
>the list charter, against one individual's contributions. While that
>individual is me, the question is much wider than the fairness or otherwise
>of the treatment of one individual, but about whether there is the
>potentiality for a wide range of debate for the list as a whole. As Russ
>indicated, there is a desire for many to refute openly, not by censorship,
>incorrect leftist ideas. Arbitrary treatment of an individual may be unfair
>but its greater importance is that it damages the list. Any of us who take
>part in a discussion group need to value the process more than the
>pleasure of meeting ideological clones.
>
>I would say to John Walker that the reason why this list should be open to
>debate such leftist ideas as those of the Observer-Guardian group is that
>they are very influential, and are somewhat to the left of New Labour. If
>we have any sort of a Gramscian concept of winning a battle for hegemony,
>we have to take on board wider leftist ideas without being sectarian in a
>individual way but arguing effectively against what is wrong in them. That
>will also involve accepting what is correct in them.
>
>A narrow approach of denouncing all opportunists ideologically will not
>defeat opportunism. Opportunism, of both left and right, has to be defeated
>in the test of practice.
>
>I do not appeal for John Walker's sympathy. I suggest it is in the
>interests of the wider cause, that he regards me as at least a teacher by
>negative example.
>
>Could we please be reminded of the list charter, or whatever it is called?
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
