Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Kenneth Campbell wrote: Lou -- I hesitate to write... but I must state... I know you are smart... But these ambush letters in which you ask a question and copy it to a list... is not right. Private is private. I assume that this was meant as a private communication, but I will answer it publicly since Ken should no better than to start up with me again. When I threw him off Marxmail for making fun of Mine Doyran's sig file (but did not do this to Mike Friedman, whose sig file also alludes to his abd status), he demanded that all his posts be removed from Marxmail archives. It turns out that he had no legal legs to stand on, but when he threatened to complain to U. of Utah, we decided to accomodate him. But to this day, as far as I know, the same stupid messages with all their smart-alec baiting, are on mail-archive.com. Ken won't waste time demanding that his messages be removed from that site, because the owners know their intellectual property law and can't be bothered by such petty harrassment. So, go to hell, Ken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
And isn't time for us to ditch the epithet anti-globalization, to beat a dead horse already? absolutely! that's why I put that word in quotation marks when I posted the article by Fausto Bertinotti to pen-l. It's his mistake to use that term. Jim
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Lou -- I hesitate to write... but I must state... I know you are smart... But these ambush letters in which you ask a question and copy it to a list... is not right. Private is private. Ken. -- Literature is the art of writing something that will be read twice; journalism what will be read once. -- Cyril Connolly
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Devine, James wrote: I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. in 25 words or less, how would you summarize the Empire thesis? What's relevant here is that imperial power is far more dispersed and polycentric than the old-fashioned Washington/Hollywood/Wall Street rules the world models would have it. A major part of the Bush agenda in Iraq was to show the world that the U.S. runs the show, and the messy outcome is showing that it doesn't. That was more like 50 words, but it's still pretty short. Doug
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Doug Henwood wrote: Devine, James wrote: I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. in 25 words or less, how would you summarize the Empire thesis? What's relevant here is that imperial power is far more dispersed and polycentric than the old-fashioned Washington/Hollywood/Wall Street rules the world models would have it. A major part of the Bush agenda in Iraq was to show the world that the U.S. runs the show, and the messy outcome is showing that it doesn't. Not really. Empires that are strong enough can take a lot of messy outcomes and go merrily on the way. There are various potential weaknesses in u.s. hegemony but only potential. That hegemony will survive, even flourish, until it is militarily/politically driven from the mid-east and far-east and until a large and militant mass movement at home demands that it _acccept_ that foreign defeat. The USSR used to look favorably on its negative balance of payments. The whole world was sending it wealth. Until there is serious political resistance (backed by reasonable military force) from other nations, the u.s. balance of payments 'problem' should be regarded not as a problem but merely as an index of the amount of tribute it is collecting from its empire (and even more from its junior partners in that empire -- Japan EU). Carrol That was more like 50 words, but it's still pretty short. Doug
Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
I am commenting on selected passages from an article that can be read in its entirety at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1016107,00.html Reformist social democracy is no longer on the agenda The anti-globalisation movement is the basis of a left alternative Fausto Bertinotti The anti-globalisation movement is the first movement that represents a break with the 20th century and its truths and myths. At present it is the main source of politics for an alternative to the global right. When, on February 15, 100 million people took to the streets, the New York Times referred to it as a second world power, a power that in the name of peace opposed those who wanted war. But the February 15th demonstrations were mounted despite the grumbling of Michael Hardt that it was diverting attention from the real movement, namely anti-globalization. It has countered the crisis of democracy with embryonic new democratic institutions. It has challenged the division of political labour among trade unions, parties and cooperatives and shifted the focus of political debate from institutions to social relations, bringing feelings and everyday life back into the realm of politics. It has also tackled the theme of power, in terms not of achieving and keeping it, but of transforming, dissolving and reconstructing power through self-government. And it has challenged the model of a party leading the movement, proposing instead the notion of networks and links among groups, associations, parties and newspapers. transforming, dissolving and reconstructing power through self-government? Does anybody know what he is saying? I certainly don't. An alternative European left can find its strategy only within the anti-globalisation movement. The key issue both for the movement and for us is the clash between peace and war. The movement has identified the global dimension of war and the fact that it is inbuilt in a system which cannot do without it. It was this conviction that turned the anti-globalisation movement into the backbone of the peace movement. Really? As far as I can tell, the backbone of the peace movement in the USA is the much-pilloried ANSWER coalition. Meanwhile, the UPJ, which has much more of a quotient of antiglobalization outfits like Global Exchange in its ranks, is working overtime to figure out how to involve the movement in stopping Bush. For veterans of the American left, especially those familiar with the CPUSA, this can mean only one thing and it ain't good. And you also have the hard-core anti-globalization black block types, like Chuck Zero, who despise UPJ and ANSWER equally. The animosity seems driven by the same considerations that perturb Michael Hardt. With imperialism going at full blast, they wish that the mass movement would return to breaking Starbucks windows--as if that will get US troops out of Iraq or prevent nuclear war with North Korea. In Italy, the Refounded Communists, together with others, tried to do this through the referendum on extending employment protection to all workers. We were defeated, but the referendum took its inspiration from the movement, the idea of the struggle for equal rights against job insecurity. This battle, however, has not taken on a European dimension. The European trade unions decided not to call a general strike against the war, which would have also been a boost to the fight against neo-liberalism. Now there is the chance of re-opening a Europe-wide battle over the welfare state. In the face of converging government policies, only an organisation fighting at European level can make its case. I have no idea why this should be a precondition. When the multinationals in combination with the comprador bourgeoisie in Bolivia tried to privatize water, the indigenous people fought like hell to beat back this attack and they were successful. The way to move forward in politics is militancy, not necessarily creating continent-wide formations. It seems to me that the main problem in Europe is not related to geography but to opportunism, a long-time problem for the left that predates Naomi Klein. When the French left backed Chirac, it ceded ground to the class enemy. Moves such as this have to be challenged in order for us to go on the offensive. Unless they move in this direction, the European anti-capitalist leftwing parties risk disappearing in terms of political representation; and within the anti-globalisation movement there could develop a temptation to flee from politics. The forces of the European left cannot depend on social democracy. They must break away with a radical, united initiative. Not only the prospects of the left and the anti-globalisation movement, but even the existence of Europe as an autonomous entity, is at stake. Hate to sound old-fashioned, but what about socialism? * Fausto Bertinotti is national secretary of Italy's Refounded Communist party (Rifondazione Comunista) and a member of the Italian and European parliaments.
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. in 25 words or less, how would you summarize the Empire thesis? Jim
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Kenneth Campbell wrote: Jesus... Lou... You okay? No, Ken, I am not all right. I don't like being threatened by you. I don't like having my time wasted going through the Marxmail archives to weed out your god-damned messages. I was willing to let the whole thing drop, but you should know better than to chastise me about these issues on PEN-L, where I am happy to ignore you or anybody else I've come to grief with. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Jesus... Lou... You okay? None the less, the letter to the editor Marxism is not sufficient for my family. Writing things doesn't work alone. Ken. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP Kenneth Campbell wrote: Lou -- I hesitate to write... but I must state... I know you are smart... But these ambush letters in which you ask a question and copy it to a list... is not right. Private is private. I assume that this was meant as a private communication, but I will answer it publicly since Ken should no better than to start up with me again. When I threw him off Marxmail for making fun of Mine Doyran's sig file (but did not do this to Mike Friedman, whose sig file also alludes to his abd status), he demanded that all his posts be removed from Marxmail archives. It turns out that he had no legal legs to stand on, but when he threatened to complain to U. of Utah, we decided to accomodate him. But to this day, as far as I know, the same stupid messages with all their smart-alec baiting, are on mail-archive.com. Ken won't waste time demanding that his messages be removed from that site, because the owners know their intellectual property law and can't be bothered by such petty harrassment. So, go to hell, Ken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
On Monday, August 11, 2003 at 16:04:29 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: Devine, James wrote: I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. in 25 words or less, how would you summarize the Empire thesis? What's relevant here is that imperial power is far more dispersed and polycentric than the old-fashioned Washington/Hollywood/Wall Street rules the world models would have it. A major part of the Bush agenda in Iraq was to show the world that the U.S. runs the show, and the messy outcome is showing that it doesn't. I agree with your later comment in which you mention Kautsky, but I don't with this last sentence. I don't think the chaos shows this. I think the U.S. runs the show internationally in that what it says pretty much goes. If any other country objects to our policy, that's just too bad and we'll do what we want. To me, that's pretty much running the show. Should things get messy when we invade and take over a country, that just shows that dominating others is sometimes, well, messy. In the meantime, the crisis will be useful for averting attention from the domestic policy that will harm the great majority of the population, and cleaning up the mess will be paid for by the public (Iraqi and U.S.), etc. Bill
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
It's always the person responding to the irritable grouch that gets the reprimand, isn't it? Doug Doug, when did you take Jerry Levy's place on PEN-L? Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Michael Perelman wrote: let's keep cool. It's always the person responding to the irritable grouch that gets the reprimand, isn't it? Doug
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
let's keep cool. On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 02:03:10PM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: Jesus... Lou... You okay? None the less, the letter to the editor Marxism is not sufficient for my family. Writing things doesn't work alone. Ken. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP Kenneth Campbell wrote: Lou -- I hesitate to write... but I must state... I know you are smart... But these ambush letters in which you ask a question and copy it to a list... is not right. Private is private. I assume that this was meant as a private communication, but I will answer it publicly since Ken should no better than to start up with me again. When I threw him off Marxmail for making fun of Mine Doyran's sig file (but did not do this to Mike Friedman, whose sig file also alludes to his abd status), he demanded that all his posts be removed from Marxmail archives. It turns out that he had no legal legs to stand on, but when he threatened to complain to U. of Utah, we decided to accomodate him. But to this day, as far as I know, the same stupid messages with all their smart-alec baiting, are on mail-archive.com. Ken won't waste time demanding that his messages be removed from that site, because the owners know their intellectual property law and can't be bothered by such petty harrassment. So, go to hell, Ken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Doug wrote: It's always the person responding to the irritable grouch that gets the reprimand, isn't it? Louie wrote: Doug, when did you take Jerry Levy's place on PEN-L? It amazes me that so little has changed. I knew Jerry Levy online 6-7 years ago, back when I disappeared from leftie lists to raise some kids and money. Yet, here it all is. Unchanged. Same debate points. After 6-7 years! I mean, even ants and forest critters would have eaten a dead body by now... Ken. -- The Olden Days, alas, are turned to clay. -- Ishtar, at the Deluge
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
A trap set for protesters Michael Hardt Friday February 21, 2003 The Guardian full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899852,00.html HARDT: Corresponding in part to the new US anti-Europeanism, there is today in Europe and across the world a growing anti-Americanism. In particular, the coordinated protests last weekend against the war were animated by various kinds of anti-Americanism - and that is inevitable. The US government has left no doubt that it is the author of this war and so protest against the war must, inevitably, be also protest against the United States. REPLY: What is the evidence of this anti-Americanism? Carrying around a picture of George W. Bush with bloody fangs or something? Indeed, this business of anti-Americanism is mainly a preoccupation of the red-baiting left or the reactionary bourgeois press as exemplified by this quote from the Murdoch press last Sunday: Some on the old left see the problem. The issue is not Blair or spin, it's not even Bush, it's tyranny. Veterans like Arnold Wesker and Salman Rushdie and, most trenchantly, Julie Burchill - I'll come back to her - are pro-war. The Wesker-Rushdie line is that Saddam's reign has been so terrible for the people of Iraq that common humanity alone justifies war. Wesker has for a long time advocated the setting up of an International Benign Force - an army that would be sent in to sort out the bad guys. But, failing that, reflex anti-Americanism - or, indeed, anti-Blairism - shouldn't trap anybody into pig-headed pacifism when a brief act of belligerence can free the people. If this is the sort of thing that Hardt is alluding to, he's wasting our time per usual. HARDT: The globalisation protest movements were far superior to the anti-war movements in this regard. They not only recognised the complex and plural nature of the forces that dominate capitalist globalisation today - the dominant nation states, certainly, but also the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the major corporations, and so forth - but they imagined an alternative, democratic globalisation consisting of plural exchanges across national and regional borders based on equality and freedom. REPLY: But the one thing they did not recognize was that imperialism was the nature of the beast, rather than unregulated capital flows which would be restrained by a Tobin Tax or some other such nonsense. What irks the good professor is that the Starbucks window-breakers have been marginalized in the current phase of the struggle and that brontosaurus-Marxists like the WWP, the British SWP et al are taking the initiative. HARDT: One of the great achievements of the globalisation protest movements, in other words, has been to put an end to thinking of politics as a contest among nations or blocs of nations. Internationalism has been reinvented as a politics of global network connections with a global vision of possible futures. In this context, anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism no longer make sense. REPLY: global network connections with a global vision of possible futures? Sounds like a Verizon commercial. HARDT: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war. We need to oppose this war, but we must also look beyond it and avoid being drawn into the trap of its narrow political logic. While opposing the war we must maintain the expansive political vision and open horizons that the globalisation movements have achieved. We can leave to Bush, Chirac, Blair, and Schrder the tired game of anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism. REPLY: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war? Get used to it professor, we are living in an epoch of wars, civil wars and revolution. Time to put the Spinoza back on the shelf and reread Lenin--and for some first people, including Hardt based on the evidence, to read him for the first time. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] But the February 15th demonstrations were mounted despite the grumbling of Michael Hardt that it was diverting attention from the real movement, namely anti-globalization. = [Oh really? And isn't time for us to ditch the epithet anti-globalization, to beat a dead horse already?] A trap set for protesters Michael Hardt Friday February 21, 2003 The Guardian There is a new anti-Europeanism in Washington. The United States, of course, has a long tradition of ideological conflict with Europe. The old anti-Europeanism generally protested against the overwhelming power of European states, their arrogance, and their imperialist endeavours. Today, however, the relationship is reversed. The new anti-Europeanism is based on the US position of power and it protests instead against European states failing to yield to its power and support its projects. The most immediate issue for Washington is the European lack of support for the US plans for war on Iraq. And Washington's primary strategy in recent weeks is to divide and conquer. On one hand, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, with his usual brazen condescension, calls those European nations who question the US project, primarily France and Germany, the old Europe, dismissing them as unimportant. The recent Wall Street Journal letter of support for the US war effort, on the other hand, signed by Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar, poses the other side of the divide. In a broader framework, the entire project of US unilateralism, which extends well beyond this coming war with Iraq, is itself necessarily anti-European. The unilateralists in Washington are threatened by the idea that Europe, or any other cluster of states, could compete with its power on equal terms. (The rising value of the euro with respect to the dollar contributes, of course, to the perception of two potentially equal and competing power blocs.) Bush, Rumsfeld and their ilk will not accept the possibility of a bi-polar world. They left that behind with the cold war. Any threats to the uni-polar order must be dismissed or destroyed. Washington's new anti-Europeanism is really an expression of their unilateralist project. Corresponding in part to the new US anti-Europeanism, there is today in Europe and across the world a growing anti-Americanism. In particular, the coordinated protests last weekend against the war were animated by various kinds of anti-Americanism - and that is inevitable. The US government has left no doubt that it is the author of this war and so protest against the war must, inevitably, be also protest against the United States. This anti-Americanism, however, although certainly justifiable, is a trap. The problem is, not only does it tend to create an overly unified and homogeneous view of the United States, obscuring the wide margins of dissent in the nation, but also that, mirroring the new US anti-Europeanism, it tends to reinforce the notion that our political alternatives rest on the major nations and power blocs. It contributes to the impression, for instance, that the leaders of Europe represent our primary political path - the moral, multilateralist alternative to the bellicose, unilateralist Americans. This anti-Americanism of the anti-war movements tends to close down the horizons of our political imagination and limit us to a bi-polar (or worse, nationalist) view of the world. The globalisation protest movements were far superior to the anti-war movements in this regard. They not only recognised the complex and plural nature of the forces that dominate capitalist globalisation today - the dominant nation states, certainly, but also the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the major corporations, and so forth - but they imagined an alternative, democratic globalisation consisting of plural exchanges across national and regional borders based on equality and freedom. One of the great achievements of the globalisation protest movements, in other words, has been to put an end to thinking of politics as a contest among nations or blocs of nations. Internationalism has been reinvented as a politics of global network connections with a global vision of possible futures. In this context, anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism no longer make sense. It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war. We need to oppose this war, but we must also look beyond it and avoid being drawn into the trap of its narrow political logic. While opposing the war we must maintain the expansive political vision and open horizons that the globalisation movements have achieved. We can leave to Bush, Chirac, Blair, and Schröder the tired game of anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism. · Michael Hardt is professor of literature at Duke University,
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Michael Hardt wrote: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war. We need to oppose this war, but we must also look beyond it and avoid being drawn into the trap of its narrow political logic. While opposing the war we must maintain the expansive political vision and open horizons that the globalisation movements have achieved. We can leave to Bush, Chirac, Blair, and Schröder the tired game of anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism. This actually sounds pretty good 100 days after the end of hostilities in Iraq. Solo American imperialism isn't the all-powerful force that Bush (and many of his critics) imagined it to be. U.S. prestige is at 20- or 30-year lows, the Blair government is teetering, and the PNAC countries-to-invade list is badly in need of revision. I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. Doug
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Doug writes: I'd say the Empire thesis has some life in it yet. I asked: in 25 words or less, how would you summarize the Empire thesis? Doug replies: What's relevant here is that imperial power is far more dispersed and polycentric than the old-fashioned Washington/Hollywood/Wall Street rules the world models would have it. A major part of the Bush agenda in Iraq was to show the world that the U.S. runs the show, and the messy outcome is showing that it doesn't. I think that it's a mistake to identify this view -- that imperial power is dispersed and polycentric -- with the Empire thesis. (Maybe Doug is trying to say that Hardt isn't a doo-doo head, perhaps in response to people who attack Hardt as a covert way to slam Doug; but that's another question.) In my view, there are two levels or elements to imperialism as we currently know it: 1) the hegemony of the US; and 2) imperialism as a world system of structured inequality, domination, dependency, and exploitation. The excessive emphasis on the first seems to be what Doug is criticizing (using the Empire thesis). It's associated with a wide variety of populists and Marxists. The emphasis on the second is associated with Lenin and a wide variety of Marxists. The Empire Thesis (as Doug explains it) seems a variation on this, since it can involve dispersed and polycentric power within the core. After all, Lenin's original thesis (and that of Bukharin) involved competing imperial powers. To me, both levels are important to understanding the world. The current stage of imperialism is different in that there's a hegemon (the US) and no competing world system (the USSR, a communist China, etc.) But there's also continuity because abstract imperialism (element 2) persists from earlier eras. If we over-emphasize element 1, it can degenerate into crude anti-Americanism, nationalism, etc. and an adulation of Chirac. If we over-emphasize element 2, we lose contact with the empirical world. Jim
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Look, I have been gone all day. An old friend from my hometown visited, who is writing a book on colleges. I get back and see nastiness. With several hundred e-mails, I look at them quickly and relatively randomly. So when I try to give a cease and decist order, the post to which it is attached in not necessarily an indication of the source of the problem. On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:30:11PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: It's always the person responding to the irritable grouch that gets the reprimand, isn't it? Doug Doug, when did you take Jerry Levy's place on PEN-L? Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply to an Observer article by the Italian Refounded CP
Devine, James wrote: In my view, there are two levels or elements to imperialism as we currently know it: 1) the hegemony of the US; and 2) imperialism as a world system of structured inequality, domination, dependency, and exploitation. The excessive emphasis on the first seems to be what Doug is criticizing (using the Empire thesis). It's associated with a wide variety of populists and Marxists. The emphasis on the second is associated with Lenin and a wide variety of Marxists. The Empire Thesis (as Doug explains it) seems a variation on this, since it can involve dispersed and polycentric power within the core. After all, Lenin's original thesis (and that of Bukharin) involved competing imperial powers. But the point is that the system isn't one of competition among major powers anymore - it's one in which the major powers have (or had, until 1/20/01) mostly harmonious interests. That was Kautsky's heresy, no? Doug
