POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
I applaud Fred Murphy's sticking to the political "issues" raised by the
Protocol Son of this list (among others I think) and not making this an
attack on Joaquin Bustelo usual ... attacks on "The Left". Fred is trying
to rise above the obvious broad swash of Bustelo's usual written defecation
on every thing and every one that constitutes defenders of building a
revolutionary party or just wants to have a civil discussion on that, and
other questions of relevance to his always ready target he describes as
"The Left". I usually follow that model as well, though for Bustelo I make
an exception.
Fred's notes, correctly, that Occupy was a modern analogy (my term) to the
Chartists. He is of course correct. Bustelo has a history of rejection
modern day self-described vanguard parties. Certainly in part, for good
reason, no doubt. But of course what Bustelo does is to pass onto
everything *he* supports as the latest incantation of Karl Marx as if he is
John the Baptist notifying the bewildered mass of the arrival of the
Messiah. The theology for Bustelo, of course, is his prismatic view of Marx
and Marxism. This was ever so laid at the feet of this lest years ago when
he tried to argue that the Green Party US was the modern example of the
building of a broad based workers party as Marx would of prescribed.
Now once and debate the pros- and cons of any Green Party campaign on it's
merits of course, but the real issue was the class nature of the GP in it's
many manifestations. Bustelo would rain down his "Marxism" on anyone who
disagreed with him as somehow "not getting it" and of course, the Green
Party *is* a workers party because, after all, it is made up of wage
earners, ergo the working class, ergo the political anointment of the Green
Party as modern workers party. There is a history of part of Joaquin's
style of polemics. It's basically the "fuck you" approach: be the most
rabid and condemning of dissent from his views and one becomes irrelevant.
Disagree with John on Jesus and you are heretically condemned.
A few months or weeks ago it was his advocacy of working inside the
Democrats a la Sanders which was Joaquin's "because that is where the
struggle is at this moment" (pardon my channeling of him in paraphrase) and
of course with the usually implication that this is where Marx would be as
well. Joaquin ended that cute blog entry favoring Sander's quite FAKE "Our
Revolution" with "But at any rate, I think that Marxists need to recognize
the movement towards something akin to a social-democratic party that the
"Our Revolution" faction of the Democratic Party represents, and figure out
how to relate to it."
--
https://hatueysashes.blogspot.com/2017/04/sanders-make-democrats-party-of-working.html
Now with Occupy. A non-party and certainly non-working class (as opposed to
the Chartist *recognition* that is *workers* who need to be organized *as
workers* in response to the rise of industrial society) inspired by the
"Indiganato" movement in the Spanish State (we don't want the trade unions
here, they are not important so go away) but nevertheless youthful
inspiration of radical opposition to what was happening in society and
certainly supportable (as it WAS) by most socialists I know but it was not
a "working class movement" of the type Karl Marx talked about! Really, Bustelo,
is YOU who needs to read up on the Chartist and stop projecting on to any
thing that moves that it is the second coming of Karl Marx.
Hats off to Fred...again. 'nuff said ...
David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
