more on road-rage Ken

M A Jones jones118 at
Thu May 25 05:45:33 MDT 2000

James, I have the settled impression that it is you who reprsents 'the
forces of unreconstructed
 bolshevism', not Ken. Leaving aside the details of your case, like your
allegations about Ken's 'personal wealth', which are wrong enough to be
slanderous, I should have thought that the 'sham' nature of bourgeois
parliaments hardly needs exposing, and explains why so few people bother to
vote any more. So exposing what is already universally acknowledged ought
not really to be our task. People are just not as thick as you think they
are; I love the way you patronise your fellow workers. Actually, they're
quite savvy and they know for instance that even shams connect with reality
to some extent; and the sham of Westminster democracy is less of a sham than
for instance, is democracy in let us say parts of the world where there are
no parliaments at all, and no tradition of democracy, no popular culture and
no civil society at all. I don't believe you can have spent much time in
those parts of the world, places where if you are robbed you can't call the
cops because there is more than a probability that the cops organised the
robbery or are protecting the robbers; the kind of skin-crawling fear which
how most ordinary people experience their lives in such places (a majority
of humans on this planet, we're talking about) is, as it were, outside your
ken, I suspect. Bourgheois democracy is a form of mass, organised hypocrisy,
true, but even hypocrisy has some things going for it. Victorian sexual
hypocrisy allowed and was coiver for the mass rape of working class women by
bourgeois men, and even institutionalised rape at that. But hypocrisy is
also tacit ackowledgement that something is wrong, and tacit recognition
that rights exist even in the non-observance. It acknowledges a space for
resistance and struggle. Societies which avoid the irksome problem of
forcing one to be hypocritical by simply beheading opponents (let's say,
feudal England) do not offer such perspectives for strugkle and resistance.
This is why, James my boy, we marxists, starting with Marx, on the whole
assess the French Enlightenment to be a Good Thing even though we mostly
always understood, especially since Marx pointed it out, that this was just
exercise in mass hypocrisy by the ascendant bourgeois, who otherwise could
not continue in business while covering up their untold crimes.

You may be surprised to learn that nothing in the foregoing is news to
Outrageous Ken and that he is capable of and indeed has said all of the
above himself at one time or another. (Damn these hypocrites! What mazes
they draw us in! Yes, it really is true that 4 walls is 3 too many, huh?)

Your honest rejection of hypocrisy is a fine and wonderful thing, but let's
face it, James, you can't wander around heath and heather like Rob Roy at
Hogmanay all your life, being holier-than-the-rest-of-us. At some point you
have to connect up with the real world your working class brothers and
sisters live in. Telling them that Westminster is a sham is Ladybird
politics and if you ever dare say it to a real worker in a  real Glasgow
bar on Friday night, they tell you to fuck off, don't they? And rightly so.

Mark Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: "red-rebel" <red-rebel at>
To: <marxism at>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: more on road-rage Ken

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: M A Jones <jones118 at>
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:47 AM
> Subject: more on road-rage Ken
> >
> > It may be true that Ken is in the pockets of City finance types (it
> isn't).
> "Red" Ken isn't just "in their pockets". He is one of them.

More information about the Marxism mailing list