Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 05:25:27 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu> Subject: M-I: Re: The Real Problem? Zeynep wrote: > I don't agree that the real problem is the views of some list members > regarding Stalin or Trotsky. It is their own ego that's the damn problem, > not Stalin, not Trotsky. Although it's true that egos can get intwined in political struggles, the current debates are not primarily about egos. Rather, they reflect deep political differences among listmembers. > I see a left that can't properly analyse and respond to globalisation, the > changing role of the nation-state, flexibilisation of employment, the growth > of nationalism and religious fundamentalism, the dynamics inside the > ex-Soviet bloc countries, the growth of the informal sector and the new > divisions within the working class, new forms of organisation needed to > fight against the "dirty war" and "illegalised warfare" techniques and low > intensity conflict methods. I agree that these topics should be discussed. However, a discussion around nationalism will inevitably discuss the perspective of the I-IV Internationals on that subject, and that includes an evaluation of Stalin and Trotsky on nationalism. The dynamics inside the ex-Soviet bloc countries can only be understood within the context of a historical understanding of the downfall of the USSR and that subject leads to a discussion of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, state-capitalism, degenerated workers' states, etc. A discussion of divisions in the working-class requires that we confront those Marxists who claim that the working-class in the advanced capitalist nations are a "reactionary tool of the imperialist bourgeoisie" and others whose hatred of "academics" means that they can't see that most academics are part of the working-class. If we discuss the informal sector we will need to discuss the international squatters movement. Yet, at least one subscriber called squatters "morons." In short, the dynamic of a discussion of the topics you propose will lead us back into a discussion of the political divisions already present on the list. Now what can be done? (1) Let's have an agreement by all that any issue related to the theory and practice of Marxism is appropriate for discussion here -- and that means no more whining about how Stalin and Stalinism, Mao and Maoism, Trotsky and Trotskyism, USSR, China, Peru, state-capitalism, etc. should not be discussed. One of the things that LNP didn't mention about the decline of the old marxism list was that it began when: (a) a certain person ridiculed the discussion of certain threads; and (b) when some, including some co-moderators, went out of their way into hounding new subscribers into unsubbing. We can do better. (2) If we want to have a *serious* discussion, then the accusations about listmembers being "agent provocateurs", "social fascists", "counter-revolutionaries", tools of the "imperialist bourgeoisie", etc. must cease. Such rhetoric only inhibits discussion and leads to flame wars. The problem isn't that the debates center around egos. The problem, rather, is that reasoned discussion of political perspectives are poisoned by this type of behavior and by others who believe that the best role model for Marxists is the most sexist talk show host on the airwaves in the US (Howard Stern). In other words, we need to create a culture where the principled and honest exchange of perspectives is encouraged and nourished. Jerry --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005