No problem, Tom. I'll work on my political manifesto for you
asap.
Regards
Tahir
>>> "Tom Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/12 8:00 PM >>>
Thanks for outlining your differences with my viewpoint,
Tahir. As a
personal aside I find your attacks upon me as "tiresome" as
you've found
mine about you marxists. I pledged to be less abrasive and
pugnacious in
further discussion, and I hereby request that you do so as
well.
Can we reduce the level of flames? I KNOW that you find me a
misinformed
SOB. Many people do. Can we move beyond that to a more civil
discussion of
the issue? After all, in my last post I merely responded to
your questions
with truthful answers as to my opinions, and as little
rancor as I could
muster. Can you not return the favor? I even say "Please."
It really does
seem that the animosity between our viewpoints is getting in
the way of the
kind of discussion Mark, you and I aspire to on Crashlist
As for answering your specific questions: here is where I
"waffle" for the
present. As I wrote Mark off list, I am now in New Mexico
"on assignment"
and am at the mercy of a little old lady's antiquated 486
computer and
minimal internet access. This will be the case until prolly
about the 21st.
I would LOVE to take up the discussion again at that time;
but for now I
must pass. Those that choose to view this temporary
non-response as
avoidance are uncharitable, at best.
Respectfully,
Tom
PS I might suggest that since you have asked for my
"political project", you
could use the time of my absence to review the archives and
observe how many
times I have asked for the marxist one(s).
Message: 5
Date: 12 Oct 2000 10:58:32 +0200
From: "TAHIR WOOD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CrashList] In defence of a Marxian overview
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>"Embarkadero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/09 8:30 PM >>>
I reject the terminology "bourgeois state" because I think
that it is
over-simplistic and presents a kind of dichotomy which does
not exist in
reality. There is so much baggage associated with so many
marxist AND
capitalist/ "bourgeois" terms that it makes it a practical
impossibility for
a non-marxist to enter such a discussion with marxists
without invoking
screams of hostility from both sides.
You don't have to be a marxist to have a sense of history.
Do you understand that the feudal state in which the
nobility constituted the ruling class in Europe was
overthrown by various events and processes (e.g. the French
revolution, industrial revolution etc.) and replaced by a
different sort of state in which the brourgeoise (not a term
invented by Marxists, but one generally used especially in
some European countries) came to power? Would you like me to
spell out some of the different characteristics of these two
different sorts of state? Do understand that industry as we
know it was made possible through these very historical
processes or do I have to spell all this out for you to see
the difference between history and "ideology"?
3) As Hallyx stated: "the destruction of capitalism ... is
assured without
you're having to lift a finger."
This is a misleading statement as it stands, because it
hides the fact that it is really talking about the
destruction of something much more than capitalism and not
its revolutionary replacement by another social form. Are
you really so in love with the thought of barbarism, Tom?
Got your crossbow then?
4) The issue at hand is not stopping the crash, that is
impossible.
But
rather the issue is limiting the response of our culture --
capitalist,
marxist, fascist and non-aligned -- to destructive
overreaction to the
sudden perception of the abyss.
So what's the political project that can lead to this
"limiting". I submit that the choice of word is revealing:
as in let's hug trees but still respect mom and apple pie
and our great way of life!
1) It matters VERY LITTLE which methodology you choose, it
is the *attitude*
that matters. One may drive the Cadillac of capitalism
toward a good end, or
the (Is it Moskva? that big Russian limo?) big russian limo
of marxism on
toward a bad goal. It is the direction and the skill in
driving that counts.
This is rubbish. There has not been a non-captitalist social
formation since the overthrow of feudalism. And no-one has
succeeded in changing the direction of the capitalist limo,
not in Russia or anywhere else (and you have heard me say
this often enough to know what I think, so please don;t
attribute to me positions that you know I don't hold on
Russia or any other place). It's all been capitalism wall to
wall, Tom. And while we're about it let's dwell on the
historical role of your concept of "attitude". Does it
explain the transition from the feudal state to the
absolutist state to the (bourgeois) nation state? The
emergence at the dawn of capitalism of colonialism,
industrialism and the transition to wage labour? Give us an
idea of what all this concept of "attitude" explains. It
sounds to me rather like a managerialist version of having
the right "vibe" and then all problems of oppression and
exploitation will just disappear. Just smile and the whole
world smiles with you! ("But when you're crying, you bring
on the rain...")
"What is non-capitalist industry, science and technology? We
have never
experienced these, just as none of us has ever lived outside
of capitalism
in any other way."
This is 100% true. Where is the quote from?
2) The "bourgeois state" has some things to offer in solving
our problems.
Please answer the question, Tom, give me the political
project here, instead of such bland statements.
Capitalism is not the same as global imperialist
capitalism, nor is republican democracy the same as state
democracy or
fascism.
Same comment as above. Please, we need a little bit more
conceptual work here Tom.
The "bourgeois state" seems to be better skilled at
developing and
implementing technology, than either socialist-marxist
states or
totalitarian ones.
These are all bourgeois states if they're anything at all.
But yes capitalism under the revolutionary bourgeoisie has
given a tremendous boost to science and technology. As I
said, Marx and Engels described this already most poetically
150 years ago in the Manifesto. Get to the point.
If you assert that technology and science can assist in
"saving us" you should examine this aspect.
I am very interested in this topic, as you would have seen
from all my recent posts. But while this science and
technology is controlled by private interests to serve their
military industrial complex rather than the interests of
humanity, then I don't see the relevance of this point to
the political question that I asked.
There are other things within
what you perceive as the monolith of capitalism that are
positive;
And if they are genuinely so, then every one of them could
be retained in a better world.
but,
please Tahir, do NOT assume that by my saying so I am
defending the status
quo nor 100% of the capitalist culture 100% of the time.
But what are you saying? I'm just asking what your political
project is in the face of global catastrophe. Do you have
any ideas on this Tom or are you politically bankrupt? And
if the latter is the case what can you contribute to
discussing the political dimensions of the crash?
Forgive me for misunderstanding the ettiquette of this list,
I thought there
was more separation between threads and that attacking
marxists for
environmental denial and avoidance of any deeper discussion
of bio-issues
than uninformed hostility was permitted. Just as I admonish
you to look
beyond a monolithic viewpoint of capitalism, I do in fact
try to look at the
positive aspects of marxism. I am learning more every day.
Keep it up.
So
What can marixsm do to help mitigate the destructive
reaction of all
govenrnments to the sudden perception of the abyss?
It starts, for me, with the nature of the state. Unless we
come to terms with the power of the state and its repressive
apparatuses, particularly the interests that are served by
these, not by accident but through historical necessity,
then we are just perpetuating illusions. My question
remains, Tom, are you willing to go there or not? Please be
honest.
(And if you still don't understand why I don't subscribe to
your notions of a "marxist state" etc. refer to my polemic
with Nestor in the archives called On Mediation and
Contradiction. Debate with ME if you address me and not some
caricature marxist from your cold war mom-and
apple-pie-land.)
Socialism or barbarism?
Tahir
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public
profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources:
http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
- [CrashList] Tom's non-response to Tahir Tom Warren
- TAHIR WOOD
