Re: Re: Angel of History (was Re: Geras vs Laclau)

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the language
of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a socialist. In
fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns off the people you want
to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a religious thing for people who have
developed that identity over time.

I'm still a socialist; I haven't changed my views about the possibility of a
better form of economic organization one whit, beyond certain refinements,
in maybe 18 years.  Of course many of you think that market socialis, is a
pretty poor excuse for socialism, but for what it's worth, I still advocate
it whenever I can.

As far as what distinguishes us politically from Leo, I am not sure that is
an interesting question. We disagree with Leo on, among other things, the
defensibility of historical materialism. We also disgree with him--these are
probably connected facts--on the Democratic Party. Beyond that, Leo does a
lot of good activist union and human rights work, from what I can make out.
If we were in NYC and working in his areas, we'd probably work with him
happily, same as Nathan, who is an absolutely super activist. Practically
speaking, we are all reformists or sectarians. If and when we ourselves ever
get close enough to larger changes, we will see on which side of what line
people fall out. There are a lot of self-styled Marxists I'd trust in those
circumstances less than Leo or Nathan.

--jks


> > I agree that Marxism has collapsed as an organizing principle, and
> > is not likely to come back. But the questions raised here are not
> > about the principles around which _we_ should organize, but about
> > those arouns which _society_ is organized, that is, around the truth
> > of historical materialism. It is a total non sequiter to say, when
> > someone propounds, e.g., a class analysis of South Africa, or
> > whatever, "But Marxism is not an effective rallying cry anymore."
> > The question is rather whether the class analysis is _true_. --jks
>
> Marxism as a revolutionary political project is dead now in rich
> nations, but I'd rather see it brought back to life, with a
> forward-looking, not backward-looking, perspective.  While I, too,
> believe that class analysis is true & useful in itself, endless
> debates on truth without a view to a socialist future are a bit
> scholastic, you know.  What distinguishes us politically from Leo?
> Well, we don't support the Democratic Party, & we protest imperialist
> ventures be they done by Dems or Repubs.  And?
>
> I'm sympathetic to what Michael Keaney said on the political ecology
> thread.
>
> At 11:13 AM +0300 6/20/01, Keaney Michael wrote:
> > It's not as if single-issue movements start in a vacuum. But it is
> > incumbent upon the Left to engage with these and realise their
> > progressive potential, lest they are led down cul-de-sacs like
> > nationalism, racism, or Third Way modernisation.
>
> At 12:53 PM +0300 6/19/01, Keaney Michael wrote:
> > The global anticapitalist movement is a promising development.
> > However, as Jim O'C. has repeatedly written in CNS, it encompasses a
> > whole spectrum of political views, and requires some sort of
> > theoretically-grounded leadership. That does not necessitate some
> > kind of top-down "democratic" centralist party organisation, but it
> > does require engaging with the movement and bringing to bear the
> > insights of a tradition that is responsible for the most robust
> > challenge to the prevailing political-economic system in history
>
> Yoshie

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com