File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9712, message 57


Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:11:55 +0000
From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk>
Subject: M-TH: Blood and soil


In message <3.0.1.32.19971202112606.006c62c4-AT-pop.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> writes
>I disagree strongly with Doug on the nature of Living Marxism. I do not
>regard it as a current within the left. For all of the Marx citations,
>there is little to distinguish it from the constellation of think-tanks
>that are coming up with reasons to oppose the IPCC treaty from the right.
>And so on.

Welcome back to you too, Louis. When I unsubscribed from MI, I didn't
think that they would all get so bored with each other that they would
come here to track down the Living Marxism apostasy.

Louis wants to play St Peter at the gate of left wing heaven, but I'm
not asking for admittance. I do not beleive that the classical model of
left v right at all captures the tasks facing people today. Those who
try to impose those schemas borrowed form the past onto contemporary
conditions, will only fail to understand how much things have changed.

Environmentalism is a very good example. Mark, Louis and Doug all
readily agree that saving the threat to the environment is the defining
issue of the left. Yes, it probably is a defining issue of left wing
politics today, but that only demonstrates how much the left has turned
its back on its original goals.

Here is Trotsky's view from fifty years ago:

'Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental
spring of progress, and constructs the communist programme upon the
dynamics of the productive forces. If you conceive that some cosmic
catastrophe is going to destroy our planet in the fairly near future,
then you must, of course, reject the communist perspective along with
much else. Except for this as yet problematic danger, however, there is
not the slightest scientific ground for setting any limit in advance to
our technical productive and cultural possibilities. Marxism is
saturated with the optimism of progress.' 

Now of course Louis et al are at liberty to argue that the scientific
evidence is here, now, and that 'the communist view and much else'
should be rejected. 

I don't agree. The evidence of climate change in natural history clearly
dwarfs any human impact. You can cite your evidence if you like but I've
answered all these questions and will not repeat myself.

And if Louis wants copyright on the brandname 'left' he's welcome to it.
But everyone should understand that a left that is organised around the
themes of the soil, Nature, population concern, love of the land, fear
of progress, hostility to growth, and the romanticisation of indigenous
cultures, is not the left envisaged by Marxism.

Instead it is, in all its concerns, a return to the conservative
reaction that the middle classes embraced throughout the latter half of
the nineteenth century. Nobody, as Louis rightly says, should be
confused by the change of brandname.

Fraternally
-- 
James Heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005