characterisation

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 18/06/01 17:20 -0700, Michael wrote:

> try to avoid characterizing other[s].


I certainly was not intending not to respect the rules of the list but I
have to say I feel rather baffled about how to implement this advice and I
am not quite sure which part of my post brought it to mind.  Is there
somewhere where the problem of characterisation has been explained more
fully? I presume that it is mainly to try to stop the sticking of false
labels on people or telling them what they are thinking.

I assume that the life of a list is created by the exchange and contrast of
ideas. A dialogue has its dialectic. A list of clones would be dead. It is
an issue of the collective production of knowledge, as Doyle has suggested.
From the one sidedness of individual contributions, as Michael has pointed
out in the analysis of history, can come a more integrated whole, beyond
the ability of any one contributor.

While arguing my corner, I was not intending just to put Louis Proyect down
unfairly but to define two contradictions: one over the concept of fronts,
the other over the struggle against opportunism - of course in terms
favourable to my own perspectives but not in ways that if Louis Proyect had
wished to take them up, was completely unfair to his position, which he is
always free to characterise more accurately himself.

I understand I think Michael's guidance about not challenging: other
contributors have the option of commenting or not commenting.

There are limits to how much rules can control a list: there needs to be an
approach to dealing with the contradictions that are inherent in a list.

Besides there are the issues of characterising other positions outside this
list, such as Brenner or Woods to name just two examples which would have
to be controlled if characterisation as such is seen as the problem on this
list.

Is it not a characterisation when Louis Proyect referred on his own list to

> the PEN-L mailing list, which is top-heavy with liberals, social democrats
> and Henwoodites [3rd June]


On opportunism it is going to leave Louis Proyect feeling obliged to
struggle by innuendo, like when he implies, presumably more for my benefit
than for developing the quesiton of South Africa, that he does not advocate

>  popular fronts between working class parties and bourgeois parties run
> by Tony
> Blair or Bill Clinton

[Nor do I, so I left did not pursue the question]

But Louis Proyect's fairly frequent references to Kautskyism indicate (how
can I say this without risking another characterisation?) a well recognised
tradition in one wing of marxist thought that the struggle for marxism
develops in the course of the struggle against opportunism and revisionism.

My reply is that on a list devoted to left perspectives on political
economy one can hardly object about, or apologise for, the presence of
significant numbers of people who appear to be liberals of social
democrats. There is no point in getting provoked by them. Rather, a
Gramscian approach would be to win ideological hegemony in such an arena by
working selectively with what is good in all contributions.

That does not mean that the issue of opportunism needs to be brushed under
the carpet, but it can, I suggest, be better addressed in relation to
concrete political or economic choices now, whether they run ahead of, or
behind of the range of possibilities open to progressive people.

If Louis Proyect and others cannot be given the opportunity of
differentiating themselves from positions they consider liberal or social
democrat, they might logically be obliged to withdraw from such a list as
this, which would reduce the range of debate.


> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:57:13AM +0100, Chris Burford wrote:
> > At 17/06/01 11:51 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > >Bufrod:
> > > >In order to build a successful united front it is important to
> understand
> > > >the different positions of different sections of the working people.
> > >
> > >I advocate united fronts between working class organizations, not popular
> > >fronts between working class parties and bourgeois parties run by Tony
> > >Blair or Bill Clinton.
> >
> > What Proyect or Bufrod advocate is pretty unimportant unless it links to
> > practice that can change the world. The practical experience of the South
> > African Communist Party is more telling (but of course not decisive).
> >
> > What Proyect misses here is the concept of a united front as used by
> people
> > in a tradition he might consider Stalinist. It differs from formulas based
> > on an alliance of organisations.
> >
> > Yusuf Dadoo referred to a united front of forces, and I think when this
> > issue has come up in the past Proyect has had a blind spot to this way of
> > looking at things. It has its own problems but it permits an analysis
> > beyond a tactical front of organisations. It is about building overlapping
> > alliances of forces.
> >
> > For example the SACP showed an ability to interact with the Black
> > Consciousness Movement that arose in Soweto in the middle 70's and with
> the
> > Mass Democratic Movement. It handled relations with the ANC, and with
> > business and with international bodies in a flexible way in alliance with
> > the ANC and South African Congress of Trades Unions, not in spite of, but
> > *because* there was this overarching aim of looking for a wide united
> > front. I really think Proyect has a blind spot about this and his comments
> > are restricted to a Trotskyist analysis of the issues of popular fronts of
> > political parties in Europe in the 1930's. Is that unfair?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >I have given the example of South Africa. Whether you agree with the
> SACP
> > > >1962 formulation of "colonialism of a special type" it is surprising to
> > > >write about South Africa without mentioning colonialism.
> > >
> > >I have no idea what "colonialism of a special type" means. Is a "special
> > >type" a secret? Do I have to answer some riddle like in "Turandot" to find
> > >out whether this means capitalist? If I don't guess the riddle correctly,
> > >will my head be chopped off?
> >
> >
> > I checked the web for the South African Communist Party before posting. I
> > do not recall their exact formulation and Proyect or others may be able to
> > supply a fuller explanation. What I recalled however is relevant to the
> > debate: that they needed a formula that took into account the specific
> > combination of continuing colonialism with fairly advanced capitalist
> > development. That is why there is an objective basis for seriously
> > comparing but also contrasting South Africa and Latin America.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >Marx's last unfinished chapter in Capital Vol III refers to
> > > >
> > > >"the infinite fragmentation of interests and positions into which the
> > > >division of social labour splits ... workers."
> > >
> > >What make people like you and Yoshie so hung up on quoting Marx? I
> think if
> > >he knew that if people would end up quoting him in 2001 like radio
> > >preachers quote the Gospels, he spin in his grave at such a rapid rate
> that
> > >a dynamo attached to his corpse would supply the electricity needs of
> Great
> > >Britain for 10 years.
> >
> > Because
> >
> > a) any serious reference to Marx or Engels is to look at their method
> > rather than to apply a rule book. Their method is to analyse concrete
> > situations concretely but in order to determine the underlying processes.
> > (That could probably be expressed better: if so, fine.)  I felt it was
> > necessary and constructive to challenge Proyect's formulation brushing
> over
> > the fine detail of the formations of classes and strata in a particular
> > society.
> >
> > b) because if we do not interest ourselves in apply the marxist
> *method* to
> > concrete political tasks, then we are reduced to talking about defining
> > ourselves as Marxists on subjective grounds, (with a capital M) unlike
> > non-Marxists, and as Revolutionaries as distinguished from
> > non-revolutionaries. To fight this out on subjective grounds rather than
> > objective grounds is a recipe for endless recriminations about who is
> > Marxist and who is not, rather than arguing in what has, as Doyle argues,
> > to be a collective endeavour to find a way ahead.
> >
> > Yes the struggle against opportunism is a well recognised feature of some
> > varieties of marxism, but I would say it can only be done in relation to
> > the possibilities of political practice, in guarding against left
> > opportunist and right opportunist errors about real choices.
> >
> > I think that Proyect by contrast sees it as a struggle that has to be
> waged
> > almost detached from concrete reality on the basis of subjective attitude.
> > Yet that way can only lead from the highest flown ideals to the
> politics of
> > a small friendship circle, defined by who you feel is really Revolutionary
> > like yourself, (and you never know when even those are going to disappoint
> > you and have to be denounced as having exposed themselves as opportunists).
> >
> > I find it strange that a moderator of a list called the Marxism List
> should
> > suggest that when someone quotes a passage of Marx in argument with him,
> > they are somehow "hung up" on Marx.
> >
> > If Proyect wishes to make a virtue of the revolutionary spirit of brushing
> > over what Marx called
> >
> > > >"the infinite fragmentation of interests and positions into which the
> > > >division of social labour splits ... workers."
> >
> > I would not question the fact that he has a strong revolutionary sense of
> > purpose, but I would question whether it is entirely marxist in
> methodology.
> >
> > Really what we are up against, as Doyle implies, is that no one person can
> > hold truth in their hands on issues as big as this. Despite the internet
> > apparently being incredibly free, the social interaction inexorably exerts
> > a pressure for self discipline, if we are to learn anything together.
> >
> > Chris Burford
> >
> > London.
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Chris Burford

London