Re: [Marxism] Camejo and Shawki/ISO and so it goes...

["M. Junaid Alam" <mjunaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"

I agree partially with Joe-- to attract people like myself the ISO must make
a genuine break with the State Capitalist tradition because it will keep them
locked into a sectarian and economistic methodology. "

I don't adhere to state-cap thought, even when I was an ISO member I found it 
totally
unconvincing, and it seemed like a cop-out, a way of avoiding a difficult 
historical
question. But I have to say I completely disagree with the notion that this is 
of any
real significance in terms of the ISO broadening its appeal. Who really cares 
about this
whole argument about whether state x or y is deformed or bureacratic or 
state-cap except
a handful of old Communists and Trotskyists? Obviously that includes some 
people here,
but when you talk about critical issues that will broaden appeal, we can't be 
talking in
terms of what the ISO needs to do to get any one of _us_ on board. We're 
already Marxist.

Frankly I think the opposite tack needs to be taken. No more litmus tests on 
500 different
issues relating to 1917 and Lenin and when the "real" worker's state was 
democratic or not.
That is the kind of thing that can only turn people off. You shouldn't have to 
agree to taking
one side or the other on a whole checklist of ancient arguments that bear 
little or no relation
to modern-day political problems Americans face. I may argue with a guy over 
Cliffite state
capitalism when we are just sitting around and shooting the breeze, but I'll be 
damned if that
becomes a barrier when it comes time to defend someone or some group that is 
oppressed, ie.
workers, women, minorities, foreigners, being persecuted anywhere.

"
No doubt it's the case that the Marxist left in
the US lacks roots in the working class. You constantly harp on this truism
while suggesting that the fault lies entirely with intellectual elitism on the
part of left groups. Assuming for argument's sake that you're right, is the
antidote some kind of merging with the masses and waiting for some organic
leadership to emerge from oppressed groups, while in the meantime ignoring the
international aspects of an increasingly globalized and interconnected 
capitalism?
Is a populistic anti-intellectualism any better then a dilettantish
intellectualism?"

I agree with this completely. Too much breezy and facile one-sided dismissal is 
going on here.
Again, I refer to the Yates article I posted earlier to put the issue of the 
working-class *in
its proper context*. Abstract rhetoric about how heroic and righteous the 
working-class is, and
how misguided and messed up left activists are is a caricature of both sides. 
The interesting thing about
the argument heaping all blame on left activists is that it mirrors the 
right-wing argument that
leftists are all a bunch of latte-elite-limousine liberals. It's the same kind 
of smarmy argument
that paints a broad brush and is pretty meretricious once you get beneath the 
surface of it.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism