Re: Cool it: was Filipovic and thedictatorship of the proletariat

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:28 15/10/00 -0700, Michael wrote:
> I am only scanning a few messages this morning.  I will not be able to plow
> through everything for a few days.  I hope that this is not typical.  Chris
> seems to be throwing out flame bait.  Lou deflected it with humor, just as
> Doug
> did a few days ago with Lou.

No problem. Burford (as he studiously calls me) and Proyect understand your
draconian attitude to the list very well.

I for my part thought the remarks were so diversionary as to be not worth a
reply, since the issue is not whether you take money from Soros, or whether
Louis Proyect may post to this list.

Despite making a joke about it (I take your word for that, but humour
travels between countries very badly on the internet) he has already
moderated the volume of his own contributions substantially: 10 on 13th, 2
on 14th, and none so far today. As I pointed out in what I maintain was a
perfectly reasoned comment, it was in his interests, to do so. My remark
was neither intended as flame bait nor did it produce that response.


Since you have not been able to read the whole polemic, I attach what
preceded the passage that Proyect quoted, and took heed of. Sustained
engaged debate, but if Proyect does not wish to be seen to reply to these
substantive points, that is his prerogative. I am aware you do not like
anyone to be challenged to reply to a point.

If someone wants to tell me that Proyect's remark about "of course"
Filipovic "belongs in prison", was a jjoke I will listen, but I do not
think it was, as it is consistent with his whole political line.  If
Proyect wishes to advise you he has nothing more to say on this thread, I
am willing to accept a ruling that this thread is closed.



Chris Burford

London

> Proyect's argument is of course circular, and I anticipated a response
> like this. I too had seen the capitalist and governmental connections. I
> recalled his characterisation of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
> with which Filipovic has connections as the "Helstinky" Committee for
> Human Rights.
>
>
> Proyect seems unable to address the question that state centralised
> socialism with repression of individual rights has been collapsing all
> over eastern Europe. The record shows that these state socialist societies
> had important positive features, but the communists who have regrouped to
> carry forward what was positive of that tradition, where they have been
> successful, have accepted a plural society, the rule of law, and
> individual human rights.
>
>
> Proyect wisely enough avoids repeating his comment that "of course"
> Filipovic belongs in prison (ie now) and avoids commenting on whether the
> other names a gave also deserved and still deserve their prison terms.
>
>
> He avoids dealing with the issue that had Danas, Filipovic's paper, felt
> they could publish his reports without fear, he would surely have
> preferred to publish them there, just as British papers published reports
> of the atrocities by British soldiers in the Malvinas. Would Proyect still
> prefer a situation which prevailed until just over a week ago, that Serb
> television feared to publish reports of atrocities. Presumably on grounds
> of anti-imperialist patriotism, Proyect would consider that this
> censorship should remain.
>
>
> It is part of the circular problem that Proyect analyses the whole
> question of Yugoslavia from a reductionist and mechanical viewpoint which
> orientates itself exclusively for or against imperialism, and does not
> analyse the contradictions and the problems of socialism within that state.
>
>
> Hence the crudity of Proyect's application  of the principle of the
> dictatorship of the proletariat and his reductionist use of the marxist method.
>
>
> I am sure Michael does not seriously expect contributors with major
> differences over the interpretation of marxism and the current way forward
> for progressive struggle, to "play nicely". It is normal and appropriate
> that a degree of formality and chilliness may actually help to clarify the
> issues and lines of demarcation.