". It has not infrequently been suggested that Marxism Today begat Blair."
Suggested? This is rather incomplete. See "Forging a New Agenda" by Blair for more context: http://www.unz.org/Pub/MarxismToday-1991oct-00032 On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Hinrich Kuhls <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] "The second was the debate on the nature of > Thatcherism, which was introduced by Stuart Hall > in a memorable article entitled 'The Great Moving > Right Show' in January 1979 and which for the > first time used the term 'Thatcherism': > > http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/79_01_hall.pdf > > The conventional view on both the left and right > at the time was that Thatcherism a term that > they rejected was simply a contontinuation of > Toryism. They could not have been more wrong: nor > Marxism Today more right. Within a decade, this > too became the conventional wisdom." [...] > > > From the introduction (2006) to the MT archives: > http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/index_frame.htm > > [...] "Marxism Today uniquely combined two > characteristics: a level of analysis unrivalled > in such a publication together with a commitment > to the left. At the core of Marxism Today's > importance lay its central arguments. If the > 1990s was, true to the idiom of New Labour, > characterised by fad and fashion, Marxism Today > was quite the opposite: it was a magazine of > profound political and intellectual substance. > The real yardstick, as always, is the test of > time. In this respect, Marxism Today has no peers, either then or since. > > Of course, as a monthly magazine, which was > determinedly topical, many of the articles are > clearly of their time and context. But others > still shine like beacons, illuminating the time > in which they were written, revealing historic > turning-points when all around them were blind to > such epochal change. Here was Marxism Today at > its brilliant best: big picture analysis, hugely > relevant, mining the deeper changes which were to > transform the whole character of the world in which we lived. > > In this context, I would like to mention three > debates that for me define the historic > importance of Marxism Today. The first was the > 'Forward March of Labour Halted?', which was > initiated by Eric Hobsbawm in September 1978 in a > now famous article bearing that title. Hobsbawm > argued that the labour movement was in historic > decline. He and the magazine were furiously > at attacked for propounding such a heresy. Within > a decade, or less, it had become the new commonsense. > > The second was the debate on the nature of > Thatcherism, which was introduced by Stuart Hall > in a memorable article entitled 'The Great Moving > Right Show' in January 1979 and which for the > first time used the term 'Thatcherism'. > > The conventional view on both the left and right > at the time was that Thatcherism a term that > they rejected was simply a contontinuation of > Toryism. They could not have been more wrong: nor > Marxism Today more right. Within a decade, this > too became the conventional wisdom. > > Finally, there was the debate on 'New Times', > which was inaugurated with the special issue of > that name in October 1988. It was, in a multitude > of respects, a tour de force. It sought to > understand the profound changes in society, > culture and the economy, to which neo-liberalism > was a response and to which it sought to lay > claim. Post-fordism, globalisation, the state, > the changing nature of the culture, > post-modernism this being the era of 'post-' > this, that and everything and much else besides > were put under the analytical seearchlight. It > was Marxism Today's boldest project of all and attracted enormous > publicity. > > In an important sense, though, unlike the Forward > March of Labour Halted and Thatcherism, it was to > remain uncompleted, the beginning of something > rather than the end: moreover, the MT proposition > was to be contested in a most fundamental way, as > the rise of Blair and New Labour was subsequently > to illustrate. It has not infrequently been > suggested that Marxism Today begat Blair. This > contains an element of truth in that, like Blair > but more than a decade before him, Marxism Today > recognised the obsolescence of much of the left's proposition. > > But in another sense, it is completely wrong: > while, Marxism Today's project was the creation > of a new kind of left and left proposition - > for an utterly transformed world, Blair's project > was the opposite, namely acquiescence in the > Thatcherite agenda and a denial of the very notion of the left. " [...] > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
