File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9710, message 656

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:12:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-I: Re: So, the nanny's "guilty" (fwd from moderator)

To marxism-international:

The following message from Andy Austin "bounced" to the moderators
(non-member submission).

Louis Godena,


To: James Farmelant <>
cc: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: M-I: So, the nanny's "guilty"?
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>


Godena's treatment of Goldhaugen has nothing really to do with Godena's
views of German versus American working class. Godena's opposition to
Goldhaugen is simply based on what perceived effect Goldhaugen's book has
on the Palestinian cause. The validity or consistency of Godena's speech
is quite irrelevant here (and in general), since he will say anything to
advance his goals, even it is means engaging in extreme anti-science and
anti-intellectual rhetoric. Godena sacrifices principle for principle. He
is a con man. He is reactionary.

Ironically, Godena's attitude towards Goldhaugen is almost like the
right-wing Zionist's attitude toward Chomsky. Chomsky is a critic of
Israel, as we know, and a supporter of the Palestinian cause. The
difference here is that Chomsky is writing specifically against Israel,
whereas Goldhaugen's book is on another subject, the Jewish Holocaust. As
I have pointed out before, the only way Godena can link Israel to the
Holocaust via Goldhaugen's book is via an implicit illegitimate teleology
that has either Jews or Nazis manufacturing the Holocaust for the purpose
of legitimating the future state of Israel. Despite his dramatic and
caustic protestations to the contrary, Godena has in effect made this
argument. Godena is an irrationalist, though, so logic (dialectical or
otherwise) is of no value to him. His arguments over time look like Swiss
cheese (and the rhetoric gets pretty cheesy, too). Pure ideology has no
need for scientific logic or fact. Godena is a vulgar ideologue. I find
him an embarrassment. He is why I left Marxism-International.


PS--I should have some material on the connections between pragmatism (the
Meadian variety) and historical materialism (Marxianism). I am producing a
paper that discussed the merits of a dialectical sociology, and I am using
these two men as exemplars and trying to adumbrate a synthesis. I am also
beginning my studies of Hegel.


>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, James Farmelant wrote:
>> I would think that contrary to William Lear most people on this list
>> who followed Louise Woodward's trial would agree with Lou Godena
>> that the jury's verdict was contemptible.  However, it is Lou's
>> statements
>> concerning the American working class that I find most curious.  While
>> I am not particularly interested in reopening the Goldhagen debate at
>> this time,  I do find it curious that Lou should have rejected out of
>> hand
>> Goldhagen's thesis out of hand.  What makes the German working class
>> so superior to the American working class for whom Lou has so much
>> contempt?  I wonder if the author of  *Hitler's Willing Executioners* 
>> had
>> not been one who had publicly clashed as Goldhagen reportedly
>> once did at the Harvard Book Store several years ago then perhaps
>> Lou would not have been so dismissive of that book's thesis.
>> 				James F.
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 22:10:47 -0500 (EST) (Louis R
>> Godena) writes:
>> >
>> >As I sit here writing, CNBC has just announced the verdict in the 
>> >Cambridge,
>> >Massachusetts "nanny" case.  As expected, a jury of squat, 
>> >slack-jawed,
>> >Bay-state crackers found her guilty of "murder", though in the
>> >second-degree. I'm not surprised.  There have been a number of grisly,
>> >high-profile murder cases in the past couple of months here in New 
>> >England,
>> >and I'm sure that the average juror, in his abject stupidity, is quite
>> >susceptible to the organized demonizing of all those who are denounced 
>> >by
>> >the State.  I mean, after all, these are the same morons who vote.  
>> >Could
>> >our rulers ask for a more docile or obliging audience?  
>> >
>> >Also on our televisions this day writhed the slimy, rotund countenance 
>> >of
>> >John Sweeney, the "new" face of the AFL-CIO, rubbing shoulders with 
>> >his
>> >natural allies, hardened anti-Communists, "born-again" Christer nuts, 
>> >jaded
>> >Hollywood has-beens, and the like.   His genuinely grotesque, Buenos
>> >Aires-sized ass, surrounded by seemingly millions of aburd little 
>> >American
>> >flags, as  he denounces "prison labor" in China, (as if prisons in 
>> >China
>> >weren't the very model of humaneness compared to, say, Marion, Ohio or 
>> >the
>> >tombs of Palestinian revolutionaries in the Negev), made me physically 
>> >ill.
>> >But then, I remembered.  Of what good is America's working class if it 
>> >can
>> >not serve its master.  These people, I am convinced, will follow 
>> >anyone as
>> >greyhounds follow the mechanical rabbit, forever chasing enemies far 
>> >and
>> >wide that always turn out to be -- none other than themselves.  
>> >
>> >The American working class, venal, open-mouthed and cowering, awaits 
>> >its
>> >Hitler.  
>> >
>> >Louis Godena
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- from list 
>> >---
>> >

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005