From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: M-TH: Ecology and "value free" Marxism Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:23:44 -0600 (CST) Lou writes: > Meanwhile, Marxism's irrelevancy deepens. It clings to schemas that were > appropriate to the mid-19th century. When the subject of ecological > catastrophe comes up, people like Boucher blather on Lou, you know that all statements of the kind "Marxism [is such and such" are wrong. You reify "marxism" as though there really were a platonic form of the "M-L" party in existence, and the membership of that party and "Marxists" were one and the same, that the "line" of that Party and "Marxism" were the same. In fact, I suspect the bulk of the readership of *MR*, of *Against the Current*, of *Labor Notes*, of *New Left Review*, of *LBO* (and, incidentally, I'm speaking of *readership*, not *editorial collective*, so anyone's particular judgment of one or more of these periodicals is irrelevant), of *Prison Legal News*, of Cockburn's column in the *Nation*--that the bulk of this leadership, plus the bulk of those who attend various conferences and subscribe to various leftist maillists, are in one way or another "green." If Marxism were really even close to irrelevant, this list wouldn't exist and you would not be writing the post I'm responding to. We do not have an organized class movement, we do not have even the core of an organized class, we do not have a coherent set of marxist principles agreed to by a linked set of people and local groups. When that occurs, then you will be able to say that Marxism is relevant or irrelevant, but for now, such statements are irrelevant. You and Mark and others have been arguing well the case for believing the earth endangered. That's what Marxists are supposed to do--fight for the princples they believe in and try to unite others around them. And incidentally, while as I've already indicated, I'm bored with continued pointless debate for overt and unthinking "productivists," you are not going to get the kind of party you want, or the kind of party we all eventually participate in building, if you declare a divine line on ecology: you are going to have to unite with many who are sceptical with some parts of your position on ecology. You know that. In practice, I suspect that unity will in fact be fairly easy between those who accept essentially the position pushed by you and Mark and those who want to protect specific working class constituencies, or specific third-world peoples against being dumping grounds for waste or being flooded out by useless dams. You won't get full "philosophical unity," but there is nothing you have pushed harder since I first came on this list than you have your condemnation of the sectarian demand for "philosophical unity" as a precondition for political union. And in conclusion. Please. Really. Stop fighting with Boddi and James. All it does is rile you up to repeat established points. Fight with your friends: that's how the unity of principle that builds movements gets established, not by endlessly defeating the same pigeons. I think after three years of thrashing around, we are (thanks perhaps particularly to Mark) approaching that point where friends can carry on principled debate over real issues. Let's go for it. Carrol --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005