Re: M-TH: Fw: A new regular feature in LM magazine
George, Surely this cannot be a serious column. Not only is the format, of Furedi as agony aunt simply bizare, but the politics that lie behind it (which is the real point) are beyond comprehension. That we live in a world where one can wander up to the employer and quietly explain that it is inefficient in the long term to make him work long hours is beyond comprehension. And if that isn't possible the problem is some psychobabble about inner unfullfillment. The whole point of the family in bourgeois society should ideally be one that puts up with the worker's long hours and difficult conditions and to selflessly (and at little or no cost to capitalism) maintain and reporduce the worker. As a Marxist, one is reminded of the great stuggle for the eight hour day - which was not fought by careful explaination to bosses - but on the streets, with the support of Marx and Engels. And didn't Karl have a theory of alienation which was a little more scientific than the ideology of the workaholic. But then LM isn't Living Marxism any more. And like the ex-Marxism Today lot they do seem to be moving on a slow drift to the right. If it is - as I initially hoped - merely a hoax then my apologies to Furedi but the fact that it is believable is worrying enough. John Walker COLUMN: HOW TO SUSTAIN A MARRIAGE IN AN AGE OF DECLINING EXPECTATIONS BY DR. FRANK FUREDI (TENURED SOCIOLOGIST) Q: My husband is simply never home. He works until at least 9:00 P.M. - and for six hours or so on either Saturday or Sunday - because he says it's expected. Even though I have some household help, it's a tremendous strain on me to raise two daughters, ages 1 1/2 and 4, without a father around. On a recent Sunday, I was running a 102-degree fever, and he still went to the office. How can I cope with this? A: You could tell him, quite seriously, that unless he can create more time to be a husband and father, you and the children will be forced to fire him. He needs to find a way to make clear to his employer that, while he's willing to work overtime in emergencies, this round-the-clock face time must end. Apart from what it's doing to his family, his schedule is going to burn him out - if it hasn't already - and make him a much less effective employee. Of course, the possibility exists that even if his boss weren't pressuring him to put in long hours, he would do so anyway because he's a workaholic. In that case, you both need to figure out what he's trying to escape from - like other addicts, workaholics are hiding from inner turmoil. It could be the responsibilities of parenting two preschool-age children. Clearly, it's time for a frank discussion of what each of you expects from your marriage and what is missing. If that gets you nowhere, I'd strongly suggest he carve out time in his schedule for marriage counseling. Should you keep going on the way you're going, I foresee disaster. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: A plea
Rob, One of the great fears about asking a question is to have too many too long replies. So can I ask the most difficult question which merits the lengthist of answers BUT to ask for only a *brief* reply. The question is: What are we waiting for? What do comrades consider is the MOST IMPORTANT single obstacle to revolution at the present time? Are we waiting for a further decline in the Far Eastern economies? A counter-counter revolution in Russia? A all-American or EU-wide general strike? A increased radicalism of direct action environmental campaigns globally? Or will Capitalism continue to stregthen as the Chinese market is further opened up and reformist wings continue to dominate most national movements? Will a continued escualtion in trade wars and regional disputes between the major Imperialist powers lead to a re-run of 1914? Or a country such as Brazil, the Phillipines or Indonesia having a revolution will greatly weaken Imperialism and offer new hope to workers everywhere proving that Marxism is not dead? Remember it is just the question of what is the most significant hold- up to what I presume everyone still expects is an eventual revolutionary situation. That should be enough to get you going. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism
Why should we, as socialists or Marxists, adopt such a perspective? In what way does it contribute to the struggle for socialism? Lew Lew, The importance of dialectical materialism to the struggle for socialism is in my opinion twofold. First, people like Engles wanted to appeal to the broad and popular interest in science and philosophy which - although it is not as important as it was in the 19th century - is still an significant part of the political and ideological situation. This is even more important if one believes the Communist Manifesto claim that: 'A portion of the bourgeois goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.' This section (perhaps like Engels himself) clearly will not be won over by the economic circumstances but by the validity of Marxism as a science which is consistent, rational and comprehensive. Second, is the linked point, that Marxism is not just the same as some more moralistic socialist political ideologies which seek to win over sympathetic individuals who feel sorry for (or even responsible for) the misery of the poor. Such as Fabian socialism, social democracy, paternalism and forms of anarchism and liberalism. Marxism aimed to be a scientific socialism. It theories were based upon an actual explaination of the universe and human society which will operate regardless of our wishes. It does not argue what sought of society we OUGHT to have but what we will have. Fact replaces hope. Any science or philosophy (natural philosophy was still used to encompass both) which makes any sense and relates to the real world must, if it is to be accepted, be all inclusive. One cannot have a science of human society whose theories do not transfer correctly to the rest of the natural world (unless one argues that humans are super-natural). That (as perhaps a (peti-)'bourgeois ideologist' myself) is why I think dialectical materialism is still important to Marxism if it is not to be merely a utopian philosophy (which is how many still appear to think it is). Regards, John Walker. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: M-TH Republican Movement GFA
Comrades, In my opinion as someone from Britain, the Republican movement though now far from it revolutionary arder of previous years is still the legitimate voice of the national liberation struggle against British Imperialism. It might not have the aims we might like, it may have made compromises with the British government which we may prefer they didn't but that is a reflection of the change in political situation globally. The weakness of the republican movement (I think the IRSP the only avowedly Marxist republican group is now almost non-existent) is not an excuse for Communist who are in an equally weak position to attack what small moves they are making. The problem goes back to 1979-81 when MacGuinness and Adams took over the leadership of Sinn Fein, marking the move from the revolutionary leadership of Bobby Sands, the Hunger Strikers and their supporters. The revolutionaries were defeated by British imperialism, just as Connolley had been at the beginning of the century. And the bourgeois and peti-bourgeois wing of the National Liberation movement came to the fore. This was repeated internationally: in South Africa (Bilko for President Mandela) and Palestine (the Intifada for Arafat). The only thing for those in the Imperialist countries is to support the right of nations to Self-determination whatever wing happens to be in the assendency and to try to weaken imperialism from the heart of the beast and hence give greater room to those revolutionsry forces in the national liberation movement to make greater advances. Regards, John. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: Living Marxism and over-accumulation
Comrades, Sorry I'm a bit confused by all this over-accumulation and under- consumption debate (as my earlier unresolved Gold question revealed I haven't got far through Book I of Capital, never mind Book III !). So it would be useful to know what exactly the old RCP/now LM were actually arguing? Does anyone have any references or is it just other's interpretation of the logic (dangerous word perhaps?) of their position? When the RCT split in 1974/5 was it related to economic differences with Yaffe co. (a stong opponent of under- and over- consuption arguments describing them as effectively Neo-Malthusian) or were the differences just about the role of the Party etc.? Is the RCP/LM being singled out here for any particular reason? Are they unusual in taking such as position? I know it was against the general position of Cliff in the I.S. and the many in the C.P., but Ido not know any specifically RCP/LM economic writings and most of the debate was carried on within the C.S.E. which I don't think they had any members in. But I am happy to be corrected. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: NATO wins
Dear Neil, One doesn't have to believe that Yugo, China and Russia are 'Worker's States' to know that a scramble for the ex-communist states is being mounted by imperialism. And that the further advances of capital into these countries is not in the interests of the working class internationally. Even never-socialist countries such as Libya with its centralised economy (if i remember correctly) which is not - for various reasons - fully open to capital exploitation are worthy of support from anti- imperialists. If only on the basis that my enemies enemy is my friend (not a principle which should always apply!). And if one could give support to Libya then it is even less of a problem to support countries which are atleast vaguely progressive and anti-imperialist such as China (who abstained on the UN vote), North Korea and Cuba (which opposed NATOs actions). Regards, John Walker An anti-trotskyist who supported the Socialist countries as progressive not degenerate. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Marx's GOLD
Dear all, If you could slow down this debate slightly, please can anyone tell me if in Marx's own day what the relation between the amount of gold in the economy and the amount of other commodies being exchanged was. Was there (at that time) enough gold he;d to honour all the transactions? And if there was not (and I believe there wasn't) what was the cause of the short-fall? I hope this is quite simple and could allow some point of agreement before the discussion sinks into a tirade of abuse unrelated to the question on Marx's undersanding of the fuction of Gold as the measure of value. Kind regards, john walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Paragraph on Balkans
Chris, I think you might want to note that this list is aimed at MARXISTS not left reformists (to whom I would hope it would be opposed!) and the Guardian has never been Marxist. In fact it was set up as a Liberal paper and is still funded by the, politically Liberal, Scott Trust (named after it great Editor C.P. Scott, a leading British Zionist). When they bought the Observer they funded it with the profits from their right-wing regional tabloid. The Guardian is also the paper that recently published an article by the progressive John Pilger then took the unpresidented step of publishing a letter attacking it by the editorial staff. Pilger had said that the Rambuwee Agreement would have imposed a free market on Kosovo. The Diplomatic Editor wrote that this was untrue and the agreement said no such thing. The following day another journalist phoned him up to show him where it DID said what Pilger had stated (from the text on the Guardian's web page!) he admited that he had not read the Agreement text. And he is their Diplomatic Editor !!! If that is 'an effective ventilation of the sort of left reformist position in Britain' then I am afraid I'm not really much interested. Regards, John Walker Manchester, UK --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: re: Paragraph on Balkans
Steve, Thanks for the info. on London. Up here, in Manchester, Workers Power are the only active Marxist organisation (I'm not sure if Socialist Outlook is Marxist) which is campaigning hard and vosiferously for the K.L.A. Regards John Walker N.B. I have not even seen WorkersFIGHT on sale around here. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: The EU the Balkans
Everyone's reply to my 'Paragraph on the Balkans' was quite interesting even if it was longer than a short paragraph on your view of the situation. I6t would be much more useful to have a brief note on what everyone's position is (both theoretically and in their propaganda), who you do and do not support and what you think is the one big issue. One point that does not seem to be raised in the role of the European Union. There is clearly much opposition to NATO and Bob raises the issue of the US/UK dominated UN, but it is the German dominated EU which is challenging US influence in the Balkans. It has no military of its own at present but it a strong economic force in the region and hopes to gather up into itself as many of the ex-communist countries as is profitable and politically necessary. The slogan should read: NATO/United Nations/European Union out of the Balkans Regards, JOHN WALKER --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: paragraph on Balkans
Just a BRIEF reply to Dave's reply to Rob. Without wanting to sound too sectarian there were a few points in the repy which don't seem to make much sense to me. The arguement appears to be that we should defend Yugoslavia as well as supporting the right of Kosovars to defend themselves. Rob's 'dual defeatism' seems to be replaced by 'dual defence-ism'. Is this you position and is it consistant with reality. As for the Trotskyist rhetoric of: in the Yugoslav army the rank-and-file have to organise to take control of the army; to encourage the formation of multi-ethnic militia; to act against any reactionary paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing; and to call for a truce if and when it is necessary for the workers movement to survive. Communists lead this movement by forming cells in the army and in militias and workers councils. I do not care much for Left-ists in the Imperialist counteries issuing political strategies to comrades in a far more difficult and critical situation in oppressed countries. One final more general point is one the varing responses of the left. In Britain the support for Yugoslavia is coming from the Old Pro- Soviet Communist Parties with the bulk of the left remaining relatively neutral and the Trotskyist Workers Power isolated in its support for the KLA while opposing NATO. What are other comrades experience (as opposed to their own positions. Regards, John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: paragraph on Balkans
In response to Rob, my expaination would be that with the collapse of the socialist bloc, and the catastophic effects of capitalism on Russia, Imperialism (in the dual guise NATO the EU) is attempting to pick off all of Russia's neighbours before it has chance to recover. Yugoslavia was the only bulwalk to this advance eastwards (completing the West's 1939-45 war aims). Like in the old Austro- Hungary, they aim to cut it up redistribute it to border states and so isolate and weaken Russia. A Marxist response is far than obvious to me. Other than all out support for Y.C.P., as some argue (we can't support the KLA), there is no real group to support (like Kashmir) and we are left merely hurling abuse at NATO. Regards John Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] I propose we each put in one paragraph what best explains the Yugoslav business to us. No essays requested, just a few quick words concerning the single most salient reason for what's going on. We all recognise there may be many reasons and many interested parties, that differing contexts would allow/disallow such adventures for such reasons etc, but you're all busy people (or so it seems), and all I ask is one par on the Yugoslav business *in particular* (ie no general motherhood and apple pie rhetoric). --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
