Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:43:19 +0100 From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell) Subject: M-I: Centrism or revolutionary principles vs expediency Jerry L wrote on M-G: >Hugh wrote: > >> 6. Cyberseminar on centrism >> Jerry's suggestion is fine. But it would have to deal with the historical >> problems of the popular front to really get anywhere. Also, the kind of >> subscribers who get their kicks from cyberseminars are almost all of them >> centrists, who absolutely refuse to admit centrism has anything to do with >> them or the current state of affairs. And then there are the Maoists for >> whom centrism in the labour movement is just another name for target >> practice. The only middle course they recognize is the centrist bourgeoisie >> to schmoozle up to. > >I agree with all of the above -- and note how little support there was for >that suggestion on m-int. > >> So it's a great idea Jerry, but I think you'd be better off just posting >> what you think and developing a discussion with anyone willing to respond. > >I can't post on m-int. I have been S-U-S-P-E-N-D-E-D, haven't you heard? Yeah, I did notice, funnily enough... Then he raises an important point: >My crime? I don't really know. They said something about trying to >"destroy the list", but didn't give any examples or show any proof. And in fact I can't recall any attempt at providing examples or showing proof of this charge either. When exactly and in what way did Jerry try to "destroy" the list? This wouldn't be another case of people (including moderators) being bamboozled by Louis >< P's infernal cheek into thinking that Louis is the list and the list is Louis? Jerry's political disagreements with Louis >< P lead him not illogically to the conclusion that Louis stands for disastrous politics and sets an atrocious example with respect to the conduct of Marxist discussion. So he goes for the jugular. So why don't people praise his commitment the way they go on about Adolf-O's vulture-like single-mindedness as if it was something admirable? Now being a reasonable sort of bloke, I think I'm quite capable of spotting somebody trying to wreck a discussion group. And guess who I spotted trying to wreck a discussion group a few months back by dint of vicious and ungrounded cop-baiting? And guess who boasted about it to the list a bit later? And guess who's acting the violated virgin in the present case? More to the point, I never had the least suspicion that our subscribers have such dainty stomachs that they considered the recent flurry of heated exchanges a mortal threat to the survival of this forum. What the hell will they do when things get rough outside the luncheon parlour? Ask the Great Moderator in the Sky to suspend all those nasty chappies with guns for a couple of weeks? Perhaps we should rename M-I the Princess on a Pea list -- but since this is no slur against Zeynep let's call it the Little Princes on a Pea list. Jerry goes on to make a point about centrism: >I guess the centrists of various shades don't like me. :-(. I can't >understand why. I'm such a pleasant chap. Maybe it has something to do >with my having taken *principled* stands on m-int. Centrists don't like >principles. They get in the way of expediency. Anyone want to elaborate on principles versus expediency? With examples -- like helping squatters versus helping yourself to another bagel? I think what we'll probably find is that centrists *do* in fact operate on principles, but that they're not revolutionary socialist principles. The difficult thing about it, and the thing that requires lots of examples and a historical perspective is the fact that centrists *waver* so much between two sets of principles, since at least the more committed among them really do try to approach a revolutionary starting-point. G'nite, Hugh --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005