Don't forget the devine Devine!
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Juriaan and > Bendien of a personal Marx quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua > outside time without extension who from the heights of devine apathia > devine athambia devine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for > reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the devine Marcuse with > those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment > plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it > will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still > and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than > nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of > the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of > Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established > beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of > men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is > established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a > result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond > all doubt that in view of the labour theory of value of Fartov and Belcher > left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it > is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that > man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of > alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and > concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of > the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis > football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating > camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn > summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline > and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for > reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume > flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a > word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely > concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will > tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss > per caput since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch > four ounce per caput approximately by and large more or less to the nearest > decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in > Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are > there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the > labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more > grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg > and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers > running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely > the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the > earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their > Louis Proyect six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth > abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold an sea on land and in the > air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there > but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of > stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to > shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons > unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the > stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the > skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left > unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas > abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the > tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations) > tennis... the stones... so calm... Cunard... unfinished... > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Jurriaan Bendien < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It would be easy to mistake Tom Walker as a member of the New Marxist >> Exploiting Class, because he has a lot of the typical behaviours associated >> with it, the jeering, lying and sneering and so forth. Nevertheless I would >> not include him, because he is not a Marxist by any stretch of the >> imagination, and because I think his ideas are not useful for anything, and >> therefore it is difficult to see how he could exploit anybody. But I am >> open to other arguments.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ------**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In reply to Jim Devine’s query:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I don’t have the time to explain the theory with all kinds of academic >> subtleties and niceties here, but I can give a brief sketch as follows:** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> The formation of a new class, caste or elite in actually existing >> socialist societies has been commented on by numerous leftists with some >> scruple or moral conscience, including: Altvater, Arthur, Bahro, Behrens, >> Bence, Bettelheim, Boeuve, Bordiga, Brenner, Burnham, Carlo, Carter, >> Chattopadyay, Cliff, Cox, Cycon, Daum, Deutscher, Dunayevskaya, Dutschke, >> Feher, Fernandez, Finger, Frolich, Furedi, Grandizo, Haraszti, Hegedus, >> Heller, Hilferding, Holmberg, James, Kautsky, Kis, Kofler, Konrad, Korsch, >> Kowalik, Kuron, Laurat, Loone, Machover, Marcuse, Markus, Mattick, Melotti, >> Miasnikov, Modzelewski, Mohun, Naville, Neussus, Pannekoek, Peret, Pollock, >> Rakovsky, Resnick, Rizzi, Rosdolsky, Sandemose, Sapir, Schachtman, >> Schmiederer, Singer, Sohn-Rethel, Sternberg, Stojanovic, Sweezy, Ticktin, >> Voslensky, Weil, Wolff, Worrall, and Zimin.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Characteristic of most of the theories mooted by these authors, is the >> “disconnect” between (1) Marxism, and (2) the class or elite power obtained >> by Marxist leaders. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> This was never mentioned in Marcel van der Linden’s book “Western Marxism >> and the Soviet Union” (which I translated into English). Marcel’s narrative >> was along the lines: “I don’t know what the answer is, and they don’t >> either, but I hope they give us some clues.”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The leftist analysts of the “new class” (or new elite, or ruling caste) >> typically assumed, that Marxism is “sugar and spice and all things nice”, >> and that if it isn’t, then it cannot be Marxism. With this kind of >> assumption, it is reasoned that if a new class or elite did emerge in >> actually existing socialist societies, then this cannot have had anything >> to do with Marxism. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> In this way, Marxism (in whatever flavor or variant) is always >> exonerated. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Very precise arguments are often made about this, such as that the true >> revolutionary Marxism existed until 1923, or 1928, or 1956, or 1960, or >> 1989, and that thereafter it degenerated into some other doctrine which >> wasn’t Marxism. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Deutscher talked poetically and liturgically in terms of “the gulf >> between the idea and reality.” In non-revolutionary times, you had to carry >> the Marxist Talmud on your back, until the revolutionary time would come >> again when the idea could realize itself. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The ideological assumption in all this, is as simple as it is banale: >> either developments were revolutionary and progressive, in which case >> Marxism was being applied, or they were reactionary and barbaric, in which >> case Marxism had nothing to do with it. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The idea that there could be anything wrong with Marxism itself, is >> completely excluded, it is a sort of “blind spot”. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Nikolai Bukharin in fact very precisely defined this blind spot, because >> in his critique of Kautsky, he tried to provide a logically conclusive >> theoretical argument to prove once and for all that the Bolsheviks could >> not be a new ruling class, true in virtue of the truth of its logical >> premises, the primary one being that a ruling class by definition owns the >> means of production. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The concept of the New Marxist Exploiting Class aims to overcome this >> kind of implausible interpretation, by specifically emphasizing that the >> new exploiting class was a MARXIST exploiting class, and it exploited >> ruthlessly specifically by applying a MARXIST ideology. The fact that it >> did so, led to a by now legendary cynical humour among the people in >> Eastern Europe, sharply contrasting the lofty rhetoric of the Marxist >> rulers with the oppressive realities of life. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The implication in NMEC theory is, that Marxism is itself not a “squeaky >> clean” ideology, but already contains the germs of new forms of social >> oppression in the way that it theorizes social reality.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Sociologically speaking, the New Marxist Exploiting Class usually has its >> main roots among the skilled working class and the lower middle class, >> though it depends on what historical period or country we are talking >> about. As Deutscher remarks somewhere, Marxism provided middle class people >> with a convenient instrumentarium to understand the state and society, and >> their own place in the social order.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> We are talking about personalities desirous of wealth, fame, adventure >> and power, who seek to rise out of their class, people with a mixture of >> motives revolving around social envy, status anxiety, contempt for their >> competitors, and moral indignation about unfairness and injustice. What >> they have in common is, that they try to manipulate people’s sympathies for >> the oppressed for the purpose of their own campaign to climb to power, >> their own political career, their own interests. They need not be >> especially creative people, they could just be people who feel good >> following a doctrine or faith, or people who like to spy over the shoulder >> of their betters, in order to find out how they can advance their own >> position. Formally it looks they are overflowing with the milk of human >> kindness, but in substance they are parasitic and extractive.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The general conclusion of the NMEC analysis is that although the Marxists >> were able to highlight, explain and alleviate some forms of human >> oppression fairly well, the very idea of “Marxism” as an eponymous doctrine >> was a bad and mistaken idea, and that if we want to improve, we have to >> start again to forge a new way of thinking, completely freed from the >> chatter about “Lenin said”, “Trotsky said”, “Mao said” (or “Marx said”!) >> etc. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> There can of course be no dispute that these Marxists in their own time >> did put a lot of ideas to the test, and that the tests can tell us >> important things, but we don’t want that again.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I think the Trotskyoids and neo-Trotskyoids played a very clever trick >> when they rejected any idea that the USSR, China etc. could be “socialist”. >> Socialism was sugar and spice and all things nice, you see. So if there was >> real oppression in socialist countries, then they could not be socialist. >> It is a simple and compelling thought, no doubt. However, not only does >> such a theory flatly contradict the reality experienced by of hundreds of >> millions of socialist citizens, it also has nothing in common with Marx. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I think Marx realized very well, already in the 1840s, that there were >> all kinds of possible socialisms, and he liked to heckle a lot of the >> socialistic ideas in the emigrant community of which he was part. Hal >> Draper documented that in one of his books. The only consistent position >> is, to say that the USSR and Soviet-type societies were really socialist, >> but that it was a specifically RUSSIAN (or CHINESE, CUBAN, VIETNAMESE) >> socialism, which emerged under highly specific historical conditions, and >> therefore was not necessarily any exemplar for other countries (or even no >> exemplar for what socialism really ought to be). **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I think Hal Draper got an inkling of the truth, with his tale about the >> “two souls of socialism” – socialism from above, and socialism from below. >> He realized very well, that socialism could have an oppressive as well as a >> progressive content, which is true. But his spiritual metaphor prevented >> him from thinking his own idea through till the end, to its logical >> conclusion, that is all. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Draper could not quite make himself believe, that if there was a >> socialism from above, that this was really a “socialism” (just as much as a >> socialism from below), warts and all. His idea seems to have been that in >> the revolutionary transformations of society, the true socialist idea got >> lost, and its upholders were wiped off the stage of history, and thus, that >> although the revolution might have been socialist-inspired, successive >> waves of leaders created a bureaucratic collectivism, a sort of monster >> which had nothing to do with socialism.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Of course, the NMEC analysis does not agree with Draper, although being >> sympathetic to his idea. Draper’s analysis is delightfully spiritual and >> poetic, but not a materialist analysis.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is not to deny the importance of spirituality, of course. But >> anybody can call himself a “humanist” while pursuing a profoundly >> anti-humanist program.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> J.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
