Re: [Marxism] Of victory and victories

["S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify who is and is not dishonest and infantile and an insult to 
preschoolers:

1.  I wrote (complete with typos):  "according to Labor Notes,
the congressman did not suddenly appeared, but was appealed to by the union
leadership-- against something that willl be encountered again and again"

2. Mr Lause wrote in response:

"Politicians claim to represent working people and tax us for the privilege 
of hearing the claim.

When workers need representation, are they supposed to not call on the
government to live up to those claims? I don't see that as
politically astute nor as a problem of false consciousness. Then
again, I'm always doing what I can to thwart the triumph of American
socialism. (Remind me to get another bonus this week.)

Or did the Chicago Left failed in its duty because it didn't form a
circle to protect the sit-down strike and fight off the officeholders
and officeseekers with pointy sticks?"

3.  To which I replied:

"I don't think I posed this as a moral question. In fact, despite your best
efforts at misrepresenting what have written in this discussion about Obama,
and what his election means, and what the prospects are, I have posed
nothing as a moral question.

I was introducing a point of fact. And I said it is something that will be
encountered again and again (although with typos).

As for the ramifications of the appeal to the congressman-- the
ramifications are but an index to the early level of the struggle. In this
case they are no different than previous appeals during earlier struggles,
say the early civil rights battles, to the federal government for
intervention-- for FBI investigation and protections etc.

The key to this however, and to your entire position of equivocation is in
your statement:
"When workers need representation, are they supposed to not call on the
government to live up to those claims"

Indeed, when the workers need representation? So a congressman of the
Democratic party can represent the workers? They, the workers, need his
representation? Only if the struggle has barely begun, only if the workers
have not yet grasped that they, collectively, must become their own
representatives."

4. To which Mark replied....etc. etc. ad nauseum.   What Mark did not engage 
with of course was the notion of Gutierrez being a representative of the 
workers, of the content of their struggle, and what that means for the level 
of development and the future of that struggle-- exactly the same thing that 
Joaquin will not engage with-- or rather engages with only to drain of all 
class content and shepherd it back into the corral of "democratic, national 
rights."

5.  Now I admit that some of the problem must be mine, and my limited 
intellectual range, because for the life of me I can't figure out what Mark 
is saying, what his point is, based on his change in positions or 
clarifications, etc.  I've even asked him offlist to explain it to me since 
I am obviously not getting it.  Now I know context is everything, I know 
that because that was Mark's response to my query, but damned if I can even 
figure out what that means.

6. Anyway, I think the distinctions in positions are clear, and probably 
don't need the descriptors of infantile etc etc. and certainly think it is 
probably better if others weigh in on this, although I have no problem 
continuing myself-- it's just that, to borrow from Nestor, I'm a little to 
busy right now-- doing my laundry, actually, to keep taking out this 
garbage.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lause" <markalause@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Of victory and victories 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu