Just a quick question. Does anyone know where the old-CPGB (not the
Leninist) archives are now held? If they are in the Marx Memorial
Library is it still under refurbishment?
It is not for me much as I would like to have the time to study them,
but a friend writing a dissertation on the
Have any Thaxians aware of Ricahrd Barbrook and the Hypermedia Research
Centre's debates with Wired Magazine?
Interesting stuff @ http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/ma.theory.4.db
Looking at the first bit of 'Cyber-Communism' all i can say is that
I could not find one bit I could
Simon Wrote in reply yo me:
I sometimes think that if there are enough Trotskyist splinters they
will make a whole crucifix :-)
The whoke point about the Split from the IS was as a break from
Trotskyism (I think the IMG was also Trotskyist but I amd not
absolutely positive). I am also not
As I said I would deal with your points on the family spearately
I origionally wrote:
What I actually said was that '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
I would greatly enjoy a serious debate but I just wasn't clear if it
was your own particular conviction as it appears in your first reply
or a party position in the making as it appears in the second. And in
either case it was not clear to me what you thought was new in such a
I would agree with you that communal living is far cheaper for
the reproduction of labour than individual consumption. But we were talking
about the family, which is effectively communal living minus.
Did you mean to add anything to this sentence 'minus.' what?
Didn't realise it was mainstream. I've had to fight tooth and nail
I don't think I said it was mainstream, as classical (or orthodox)
Marxism is hardly mainstream on the left. I just meant that it was
quite close in many part to what Marx and Engels were fighting tooth
Michael Pugliese wrote:
Can Chris Burford expand on this magazine and it's project
for us Yanks, along with the other fragments of the post-split
CPGB into Democratic Left, Morning Star and other fractions and
factions and tendencies?
I think the New Communist Party split off in support of the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1979. The New Communist Party has a web site and are sort
of Brezhnev socialists.
And they have been quite active recently with the strong support for
the Yugoslavian Communist Party.
I was pointing out that there was an appear ance and a political
practice which points to an underlying economic basis, which I felt
was in need of investigation, when looking at the make up of
proletariat. I did not say that a home, a car and some saving made
someone wealthy but
Simon wrote (before the discussion was side-lined slightly):
In general, the family is
communal living which is resistant to mass production, a bit like
reproducing labour in a series of small factory lots rather than one big
But if by mass production you are trying to indicate that
I think I agree with much of the thrust of the posts by John and Simon. If
I understand them correctly they are both criticising the social and
psychological effects of capitalism. I think this is a very important area
of criticism of late capitalist society, and is essential for
Meszaros says that communism concerns control and asks:
what sort of control? In the past it was assumed that political control would do
It was not political control that was at the heart of Communism but
the control of the means of poduction, short and simple. Communism is
I found a couple of links for the article on the history of the CPGB
and its various divisions since the winding up of the official
organisation in 1991.
The link to the Marxist Leninist List is:
The original document can also be
I was wondering what others here thought of the issue of Ken
Livingstone standing for Mayor of London. He has made it quite clear
that he would want to work with the City of London Stock Market and
although he has made some concessions to his old Left allies on the
I was fascinated to read your comment:
Please, not imperialism. Capitalism.
Well, I had no idea that there were socialists of any sort who
actually opposed the word Imperialism entirely. It is hardly a
Leninist term as the the nice Mr. Hobson was a staunch Liberal.
Unless you are
Going back to the original article Meszaros says:
freedom is not something that simply falls out of the sky and hits us,
and then everything is all right. It is a very complex social
transformation, and at the same time involves a certain conception of
humanity and its conditions of
When you write:
that imperialism is (arguably) the current international capitalist relationship
does not mean that our definition of capitalism is somehow inadequate
What is the relationship between the two part of the sentance as
they do not seem to logicall follow. Surely a
I haven't really been reading much of this thread I'm afraid but
reading your reply here I counldn't help but agree with every word.
I thought I would just say (for the record!)
Simon shows all the signs of evolutionary menshevik thinking.
Because for him the LOV is
This is a bit unfair as I was trying to be generally complementary.
Though I am not exactly sure how you can presume on what basis I
would disagree. I must be SO obvious! :)
Including this too?
But the reality is that in this whole century capitalism has been
objectively ripe for
Ian you wrote that:
the official verdict of the CCP that Stalin was 70% correct
and 30% wrong is far too kind.There is a good evaluation of
internal CPSU evidence in *New Left Review*
The official verdict or the evaluation of the CPSU evidence is hardly
an arbiter of any view on the subject.
Just been of for a few days (using up the sick leave!) and your all
back to Dialectical Materialism. It clear must be a significant
issue. I haven't read all the messages but Chris' substantial reply
of 7/12/99 (23:24) seemed to sum up my position most clearly.
It is NOT possible
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 17:11:04 -0500
From: "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: M-TH: Longer version of paper for women's liberation
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apologies for resending the last post from a couple of days ago!
I'm afraid I can never read certain comrade's messages as their are
no line breaks in their replies (althought the text they are
commenting on is fine). Therefore I have to reply and break it with
carriage returns. I
I'm all for the romance of revolution and there's plenty of the old and new
romantic about me, but when Romanticism itself gets crawls forth in Turtle
garb, well then I maintain the right to exclaim that this ain't no disco,
this ain't no party...
I am not sure what the actual
Chris actually wrote that:
One of the problems of a Gramscian concept of revolutionary change in a
developed capitalist society it what individual changes are significant,
If Mohammad Ali was voted Sports personality of the century is really
such a revolutionary change odd
IMO comrades - who are outraged at the economic system they find
themselves in; who are morally offended by the massive poverty which
sits unpleasantly next to the exclusivity of the great wealth of
society - are drawn to Marxism as one amongst a number of possible
solutions to this
As I work in the university library I have tried to find some of the
papers of Schorlemmer but I have not suceeded in locating anything of
interest. I have looked through all his published works in English
but do not know enough about chenistry to spot the interesting bits.
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked again,
'So now we can be told the relevance of dialectical materialism ...'
You clearly haven't got the point of my differentiation between
radical agitational politics and scientific socialism. From the point
of view of utopian socialism then you are absolutely
Hugh wanted to:
get a bit of Marxist method into this discussion.
Before giving a potted history of the 1950-1970s he declared that:
John W is saying that as long as the bourgeoisie is in
power, nothing that happens indicates any revolutionary pressure.
Did I say that? I think what I was
"Real" Marxists would instead be trying to bump Nelson Mandela and Martin
Luther King up higher, along with Marx, and help keep Gandhi where he is.
No offense to Mandela, King or Gandhi
Why not offend them? They are hardly great working class
revolutionaries. I'd rather have Marx on his
George Pennefather asked:
How do you mean that Ghandi did not keep to his own
principles of non-violence.
He not only gave his full backing to the British war effort in the
1st Imperialist War (1914-19) but also calling on young Indians to
follow his reactionary lead telling them to 'think
I agree there are reservations about boxing. It is dangerous.
I don't actually remember mentioning its danger to the health of
boxers as a reason to oppose it (perhaps CB did). If people want to
beat each other to a pulp then IM(liberal)O they are in most
Although I remember the fact of Ghandi's reactionary background from
a meeting on the Indian Independence struggle and other sources I
read some time ago, most of the quotes I gave come from Palme Dutt's
'India To-Day' published by Left Book Club/Gollancz in 1940. It is
He died in 1974 after sixty years at the heart of the
British communist movement. In fact the 20th December marked the 25th
anniversary of his death (and as he must have been born at the turn
of the century it must be close to the 100th anniversary of his birth
- perhaps a better
I'm afraid I have reconnected to a computer now, so to skip back a
week or so, Chris wrote:
An awareness of class and national oppression is absorbed in childhood.
A child notices whether their mother or father is treated with respect
and by whom ... Much of this is
I cannot help but agree with George. The only sense in which
socialism has any relation to millennia is that in a few years time we
could celebrate the setting up of the communist societies by early
Christian radicals (Christian Gnostics if I remember correctly).
There is nothing
Just to pick up on your response to Neil Doug (whose post I
haven't read all of, so I hope I am not repeating anything
already said) I think that there is a difference between true left
Liberalism (with a capital L) and Socialism (again with a capital).
As someone whose partner is a
Everyone seems to be very quiet at the moment leaving Chris and Hugh
to fight it out among themselves (and my posts received no replies
either). Perhaps this list has moved from theory into practice and so
their are only the inactive ones left ! (N.B. That was a joke)
Hi all (though ALL at the moment doesn't seem to be many!),
David B wrote in relation to Gramski's theory that it was the:
doctrine that revolution is evolution and will only take place when all
the objective pre-conditions are present - namely a fully developed
working class (and culture)
You seem to have come to a point of stalemate as to in what way
Gramsci is or is not a revisionist, but IMO both side have offered
little evidence from which anyone, who is not well versed in
Gramsci-ism, could come to a reasoned conclusion either way.
On the basis of clarification
What exactly is you concern?
I have only briefly glanced through the article and the review a few
pages earlier. Does your possible objection lie in the fact that the
experiment would appear to bolster Schrodinger's thought experiment
(I am personally rather hostile to thought
Gramsci is not a revisionist. A revisionist means a Marxist pariah,
with a label hung round his neck.
That is hardly a technical definition of the word. Your right, it is
often just used as a means of abuse but there again one of your claims
was that Gramsci was misused. In my
Just thought I would forward this to the list. Does anyone know
whether Ellen Wood is the ideal person to be editing the Monthly
Review or if the board was right in removing her to make way for
someone more radical.
Date sent:Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:38:12 +
Hugh: It's a question of a movement being built around
Livingstone's candidacy gather behind it all the popular
disaffection and hatred for New Labour's neo-liberal Tory policies
I am always amazed at the left's dogged support for the
pro-Imperialist, pro-Capitalist, Opporunist, racist
This was in the letters page of last week's Weekly Worker (I hope
neither the paper or comrade Biddulph mine my circulating it). I
thought it might be useful as it is a first hand account of what is
going on in London.
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
LSA and Livingstone
I thought this may be of interest to any Left group which has a web
page hosted by a commercial company.
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:38:22 +0100
As a follow-up to an earlier posting I forwarded about internet
censorship at the end of March.
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Outcast Magazine" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Outcast Magazine" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 'Net Libel' law to be challenged in Europe
I think it is more an attempt to forge a special relationship with Blair in
which they are using each other. Putin is a creature created by the
oligarch media owners in Russia. He has been well advised by media
specialists about how to manage his image. They have clearly
Thought this might be of interest relating to the May Day
anti-capitalist demonstrations in London.
Equally up here in Manchester an enormous number of horses and police
vans were deployed all over the city centre to deal with around a
matter of 100s of people. Also I notice on the national
*Workers Power* (March 2000) pp.2 14.
Who having called for a vote for Labour in 1997 admit:
'Parliamentary and council politics are, at the best of times, a sham.
The GLA will have fewer powers than most parish councils. Which seems
to be contradicted by: 'Workers Power will make the GLA a
*Socialist Outlook* May, p.3
'A Livingstone victory will be a key defeat for Blairism'
'Combined by a serious vote for the London Socialist Allaince'
'LSA supporter should be pleased so long as it establishes itself as
the clear fifth force in this election' [the fifth! - jw] 'Support for
*Workers Power*, May, p.15
Quoting Livingstone's biographer Carvel, that in the great battles of
the GLC he did 'not mobilise the people who were most effected by the
Lord's judgement [on cheap travel fares]: the poor, the unemployed and
the housebound.' 'He refused to call for industrial action
They are not supporting the LSA but their position though more bizaar
is still similar in struggling to react to the situation.
*Morning Star* 29.3.2000.
- the CPB opposes mayors
- wanted Livingstone to stay in the Labour Party
- the CPB supports a vote for Ken Livingstone as Mayor
I have been quietly reading the Left press in relation to the London
Election and Ken Livingstone London's Mayoral candidate which is
A large section of the Trotskyist Left and the Marxist Leninist CPGB
are backing Ken Livingstone and have gathered themselves
Proportional voting and tactical voting are becoming more important here.
Although there are delays in the London counting, one result tonight shows
massive tactical voting got the Conservative MP out in a Parliamentary
by-election, with Labour voters switching to Liberal
Turnout in elections is certainly falling and will probably fall further
at the next general election, but IMHO this represents not a rejection of
the 'parliamentary road' than a rejection of the possibility of any kind
Yes I agree. I may actively abstain from
(Unless he is an anarchist or council communist, that I can respect more!)
- Original Message -
From: J.WALKER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:20 AM
Chris said that he
we are going to have to learn how to use this proportional electoral system
predict over the next ten years a group will emerge that will put a more
radical reasonably-coherent reformist position.
I think the LSA already had put a radical reasonably-coherent
So am I. Though they all appear to be on the same subject, but that
might just be a coincidence.
But out of interest why are you subscribed twice? To
increase the number of subscribers?
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:42:50 +0100 (BST)
From: David Welch [EMAIL
They're Not Stopping.
Last Magazine - I wonder how long they can remain quiet, I doubt Mike
Hume will being going into early retirement just yet.
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:55:23 +0100
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brendan O'Neill)
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
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
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
N.B. I have not even seen WorkersFIGHT on sale
Everyone's reply to my 'Paragraph on the Balkans' was quite
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
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
To readers of Das Kapital,
Here is a theoretical question on Marx's most important work which I
hope someone can help me with.
There is a group of us here in Manchester slowly going through Das
Kapital and although we can get to grips with most of the first few
chapters, one problenm we
Thanks for all your replies but now I am completely confused.
How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
time necessary for its production.
Obviously gold need not be used money of account or the
You seem not to be offering any cogent argument in favour of you
more radical view except to throw none explanatory insults at other
list members. This doesn't really help me in my simple inquiry.
Your only point appears to be that Marx's C-M-C is now only C-pretend
M-C. I understand
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
One problem with the Gold question I raised appears to me to be a
confusion about which function of money each person is referring to.
In his 'Student's Marx' Edward Aveling's commentary to Pt. 1, Ch.III,
sect 3, he notes six functions of money in the home sphere:
1. Measure of Value
Doug (who seems to have a view opposed by all the other Marxist on
the list) wrote:
There was a tie to gold under Bretton Woods. Currencies were defined
relative to the US$, and US$1 was defined as 1/35 oz. of gold. This
arrangement ended in the early 1970s, and currencies were allowed to
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
Trotskyism never defended the Stalinist regimes of these degenerated
(USSR), revolutionary but deformed (Yugoslavia, Vietnam, China, Cuba) and
deformed workers states. It characterized them as counter-revolutionary
regimes and the implacable enemies of the world working class. Which has
I thought that the front page report in The Independent (UK) this week
might be of interest:
Serb Army 'Unscathed by NATO'
Robert Fisk, Belgrade
Nato killed far more Serb civilians than soldiers during its 11-week
bombardment of the country and most of the Yugoslav Third Army
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
Precisely what is the nature of dialectical materialism? I have seen
descriptions of it as a method, theory, doctrine and philosophy.
All of those desciptions are correct. Dialectical materialism (diamat
as they called it in the USSR) is a philosophy with a theory of the
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
Why should we, as socialists or Marxists, adopt such a perspective?
In what way does it contribute to the struggle for socialism?
The importance of dialectical materialism to the struggle for
socialism is in my opinion twofold.
First, people like Engles wanted to appeal to the
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
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
Mail list logo