In a message dated 7/5/2008 9:03:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> The moment a non-Marxist non-Leninist source is cited in a nominally M-L List as authoritative is yet another moment classical moment in revisionist opportunism. M-L grows by digging out and thrashing what is non- or anti-Leninist in the works of those who have acquired currency. << Comment All of Marx sources where . . . well non-Marxist. In the context of this thread Lenin's sources in Imperialism - the economic data, are non-Marxist. The fact of the matter is that Marxists and people on this list do not have the ability to gather the data and facts themselves and by default must learn to sift through data provided by the bourgeois intelligentsia. It is in fact the decay within the bourgeois intelligentsia that provides fresh elements of enlightenment to the proletariat. Many of us are more than capable of shifting through this material. This thread is about the modern form of financial imperialism, the new financial architecture and its impact on the world. It this important? Yes. Why? Because every communist worth their salt understand that we can only really fight in the political arena and new forms of financial imperialism have their corresponding form of engagement called politics. The era of domination of the speculator - not simply banking capital over/fused industrial capital, must by definition produce a some what different form of social and class conflict. That is why we study these things. Put it this way, we are not going to re-fight the period of the rise of the industrial union form. Or the Civil Rights Movement or the long eras of the national and then national colonial revolutions. It is not well thought out to condemn non-Marxist sources without evaluating the value of the material presented. What is truly scary is the inability of some comrades to evaluate the environment of the class struggle in real time and instead rest upon ideological proclamation. The demand is for clarity. Here is an example. Why is current US policy a push for a unipolar world? The ideologue rest content with answering "because the Soviet Union no longer exists." No, something else is taking place - and must be taking place, that expresses a new relationship within finance capital. In this respect I must offer a serious criticism of characterizing the essence of the financial era of Imperialism as monopoly capital without understanding financialization and how the financial industrial capitalist came to dominate capital on the basis of the consolidation of banking capital and centralization. That is why it was necessary to reprint Lenin so comrades could evaluate the material for themselves rather than rest content upon what some individual says. It is sinning against reality to pretend that there is nothing to be gained from studying non-Marxists. In fact it is childishness of the worse kind. WL ****** >> It's not name-calling. Waistline. It's political method. The issue is not that you don't have M -L views, nor is there some issue of which points is your view not M-L. The issue is your approach. There's no M-L method in it anywhere. Wishing for communism does not make it so, nor does it make the individual covering themselves in such wishes a communist or Marxist or Marxist-Leninist. Waistline is not atypical of a large swath of Left political opinion in the U.S., especially from a generation and level and years of movement experience and participation. This experience and participation has turned such individuals into a kind of "cordon sanitaire" against the spread / revival / renewal of the people's movement on the basis of modern communism. The experience of fighting for modern communism includes the last decade and a half of resisting in practical ways and situations the negative consequences of the collapse of the old Soviet-led camp. I neither see, hear nor otherwise sense such a treasury of experience, or even a hint of its existence, coming from Waistline. Instead, there's some recycling of hints of Left-ish consciousness popping up here or there in Henry Liu or this writer or that writer.<< Comment Name calling is not a political method. Name calling is an ideological weapon. Generally, the name calling on this list is simply a cover for a lack of substance. I feel no need to continually label your particular theories on monopoly capitalism as thick ideology, imported directly from the CPUSA. For instance writing about "the mean trend in the world" being revolution is just ideological posturing with no substance. If the main trend in the world we are living is revolution then produce the facts. Has not "the main trend" for the past 100 years been "revolution?" Of course it has and this revolution was from agricultural relations to industrial relations with bourgeoisie and proletariat fighting for ruling class position. The proletariat called its fight the fight for communism. The bourgeoisie called its fight the battle for the free market system. In the less economically developed areas the masses were thrown into waves of anti-colonial revolts and revolution. We live in different world apparently. "The mean trend in the world is revolution" is just silly talk. That one can speak of the experience of fighting for communism - (that includes the last decade) is mind boggling. Produce the evidence where the working class - including in the last decade, has been fighting for communism. Why live in a fantasy world? Are you referring to America or Canada? You write things that make no sense. The working class of America has no experience in fighting for communism outside of its inherent spontaneous striving to live and exist. The issue is not your evaluation of me as an individual or mythical political method of discourse. . The archives of this list contains enough material from me on strikes; the strike wave the 70's the peaking of the strike wave and the wave of rebellions spanning into the 1980s. Events within auto for at least the past 3 - 5 years, including the article on Chrysler the other day. If the list policy is to only present material by Marxist writers - which it is not, then who decides the article is sufficiently Marxist? Let me guess . . . Mr. Intangible. Experience? There was of course the lengthy discussion of Peter's Manual on Communist Organization and how it was implemented in our organization and the results. Discussion about the impact on the communist movement in America and what it meant when the social struggle shifted in the 1950s and comrades had dug into the trade unions and factories. Things like why a party is not an army and could not shift to recruit the new social forces because you cannot demand that people quit their jobs and relocate. Real issues have been discussed. There of course was the most intense discussion on the industrial proletariat and its rise and fall, as it was configured on the basis of the evolving electro-mechanical process. You apparently forget the long period of combat against the ideological terrorist doctrine on this list. This particular battle was based on decades of experience in real communist organization. Discussions in the past about nuclear power and the viral theory of disease are cutting edge. The latter is always timely because the proletarian masses are literally sick. You are not required to be interest is such discussions. although in retrospect it might do well to study something about the human body and health. ********* Listen to yourself: >> So where are the shoots of modern communism to be found in North America? Try the commentaries of K.C. Adams in TML Daily. These are the summation of weekly discussions every Thursday among hundreds of industrial steelworkers at Canada's main industrial steel plant, Stelco Hilton Works, in Hamilton, Ontario (about 200 miles east northeast of Detroit/Windsor or 30 miles west southwest of Toronto).<< Regards ****** Comment The mean shoots of modern communism in North America? The mean shoots of modern communism? No disrespect meant, but my attention right not is not about discussions of steel workers. That is not what is in front of me, nor do I work in a steel mill. You are free to relay to this list those discussions - of the steel workers, you find timely and important. What's the hold up? Isn't the truth that you write about the things you want to write about? Do you realize that you actually suggest reading an old article by Enver H. to explain modern dollar hegemony and its impact of the world proletariat? You screamed from the high heavens that there is nothing fundamentally different between the "policy of the dollar" arising on the basis of the conclusion of WWII and today's new non-banking financial architecture in the "unipolar world of today." "There is basically no significance to fiat currency or its importance to the evolution of the struggle of the proletariat today." You forget that it is precisely shifts within capital and its corresponding shape as politics that inform and condition the struggle of the proletariat. These are not academic and "big headed questions" but issues with a material meaning in real life. Behind American dollar hegemony is not just the classical polarization of wealth and poverty - that flows from the bourgeois property relations (private appropriation), but a new externalization - (breach of the historical bond between capital and a section of the proletariat) that did not exist during the time of Lenin. This is not the world of Lenin for Christ sake. This is not the world of Mao or Enver. Why try to recreate what Lenin did and his specific forms when the world has changed? Rather, why not abstract what is critical in Lenin with a view to our own proletariat in the here and now? Thick ideology prevents you from understanding what is taking place in the real world and it is precisely your ideology that runs against the grain of anyone trying to make sense of today's world and real events today. The world of my auto years are gone. In May I presented to this list an article about auto sector workers facing a 50% cut in wages. 50%!!! There is a reason why these workers are not in open rebellion, nor the rest of American society and the answer is not revisionism or simply bribery of the workers. Issues like this have been written about on this list. No one is required to agree with any individual on this list. What is needed is a real world Marxist shifting through the complex economic and social factors summing up the history of the proletariat in the historical imperial centers. Such is what everything I submit to this list and write about is geared to and the conclusions are very different from the traditional explanations of the class struggle. This is cutting edge stuff and you are not required to agree with any of it. Calling someone a revisionist and opportunists is no political method. This is not a party organization. In fact this method continues to limit the contributions to this list and keeps it narrowed down to the "true believers" and the three real Marxists left in the world. I could go on and on but why? Why not consider growing up a bit? WL **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
