My friend on PEN-L has forwarded me a small snowstorm of email, all in one day, in response to a rather innocuous reply to some comments about Z I offered yesterday. I am not exactly sure what to do in reply. I have more than enough online work to do on the bulletin board system that I sysop, called Left on Line. There is much discussion on it, and other work to do as well. So I will reply to what I received this time, but I have to say, I am not on PEN-L, I don't have time to be on it, and I cannot in good faith promise that I will keep up my end of exchanges initiated on it. I'm sorry for that, but we all have our responsibilities... That said, here are a few quick takes on the various messages shunted to me. BO>> Suppose it was really true that to eschew hierarchy and oppression in BO>> the workplace introduced a degree less efficiency or frugality or BO>> whatever else then to operate like, say, Ford. Would you then say that BO>> in this choice between some more material efficiency and operating BO>> without oppressive, alienating structures, left organizations should BO>> opt for the former? Of course I would opt for more justice, equity, solidarity, participation, trying as well to get the necessary work done. I believe I said this in my prior message though I can't for the life of me see why I bothered, since who wouldn't say this. There are realted questions that arise that I can see sensible radical people having real disagreements about: should there be equilibration of job circumstances and empowerment at work? Should remuneration be according to effort and sacrifice, not output? BO>The reason I ventilated so much spleen at the LBBS mishap (btw, I got the BO>package last night finally) is that beneath the surface I am really BO>developing a deep antagonism toward the type of politics that Z represents. BO>It was wrong of me not to get straight to the point, as I am doing now. I suppose that would have been better. But what politics are we talking about here? BO>The other night I got a South End press brochure in the mail and BO>discovered an announcement for a new book on ecology. It tries to make BO>the case that experiments like Mondragon are the key to solving the BO>world's environmental crisis. Actually, SEP sent me the book. If you look in it you will find that it dimisses the work Robin Hahnel and I have done on economic vision, and on critiquing markets, in a brief sideswipe as if the crudity or stupidity of our arguments was self-evident. So I don't much like this book either, or parts of it that I have skimmed, anyhow. But what does that tell us? Only that SEP doesn't vet books for agreement with each other--but then, that is to the good, isn't it? The type of politics that this represents BO>is as much as an obstacle to genuine social and political progress as the BO>"Economists" of Lenin's day were to a Russian revolution. Z's whole project BO>is to attack and discredit Marxism from the standpoint of some sort of BO>amorphous localized, emancipatory social and economic transformation. BO>What nonsense. Well, I don't know what Z's whole project would encompass or refer to--surely there is a range of opinions and stances represented in its pages. But you are correct that I personally am critical of much about Marxism, and central planning. My critiques focus on two fronts regarding marxism: economism, and what I believe is a flawed economic approach. I (and Robin Hahnel) have written about all this at length elsewhere. If you had some substantive comment on our views, you certainly haven't offered it. As to what we are for, other than the word amorphous, who on the left would oppose an emanicipatory social and economic transformation? In fact, Hahnel and I are not vague at all. Far from it we have openly presented a quite developed model for an economy that can foster equity, diversity, solidarity, particpatory self management, and yet be efficient and productive. We could of course have it all wrong. But amorphous? What does that mean? BO>Later in the year I will review the politics of the Z current and post a BO>number of articles to this list. Peter Bohmer can either forward them on to BO>you, or you can join the list, or I will post them to your bulletin board. I BO>any case, I am determined to wage a merciless struggle against the BO>anti-Marxist propaganda you have been putting forth. Good for you. And I wish you well.
