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

[hoodoorus@xxxxxxxxxxx]

It's not an unimportant point.  If you propagate the idea that every effort 
workers have made to build socialism has collapsed into state capitalism,  you 
are saying that history teaches us that every effort the working class has made 
to lead itself has reverted to capitalism.  From there, it's not a big leap to 
the question, "Why bother?"


-------------- Original message --------------

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