pause for focussed thought?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 24/11/01 14:21 -0800, you wrote:
> Mark, I asked you to put this to bed.  My e-mail has been blocked for a
> few hours, so this just came in.  I think that it would be best to unsub
> for a while.  I regard most of what you post to be very interesting.  You
> know a great deal about the oil industry and Russia.  Why in the world
> would you continue to stir the pot about Doug?

I think the comments do represent a more focussed criticism although I
think obviously Michael's advice should be respected.

But also on other lists, and I hope perhaps even within a week on this one,
I think the substantive points should be addressed in a sustained way.
Otherwise the appearance lingers that this is merely a personal
polarization between two individuals, or that there is censorship going on
(which I do not think there is providing the right form of the debate can
be agreed). Key issues IMO are:


> > >[COMMENT: George's proposals inhabit that new utopian world of financial
> > >gimmickry that the Tobin Tax also belongs to.


Although George's proposals are obviously reforms and IMHO she is blind to
the uneven accumulation of capital, are proposals for regulation of finance
at an international level necessarily gimmickry? I would be glad to join
with Mark in a future discussion reviewing how the debate has changed over
the last three years.


> > >Every major imperialist war has
> > >involved unprovoked attacks on "us". From a certain perspective, the USA
> > >was just as justified as taking revenge over Pearl Harbor as "we" are
> > >today.


The question of whether the war from 1941- 1945 was just an imperialist war
and only to be addressed in class terms needs fuller discussion. I know
Mark's position may not be identical to the brief comments indicated here.
Assumptions about these questions as well as about the best left response
to the first world war, underly what on the surface has been manifested in
a strong personal exchange. It is about imperial power, war, class
struggle, the probability of revolution. It needs a review of the role of
left opposition over the whole of the 20th century, and whether the
economic and political power relations have changed to a signficant degree
over that time.

I do not make these points to perpetuate a thread that Michael wants to be
put to one side for the time being [please do not reply on any matter of
substance] but to join procedurally at least in agreeing the importance of
the objective issues. That might make it easier for people to accept the
frustrations and prepare for a more sustained and possibly effective
arguing of the case they think is necessary, after a due interval which
Michael has requested.

Perhaps the test should be whether anyone can prepare a more sustained
argument on these questions which appears relevant to the aims of PEN-L and
let Michael see it before posting directly to the list.

Chris Burford

London