Welcome to Stephen Philion
lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Sun Jun 3 15:46:42 MDT 2001
As some of you may know, I am constantly being provoked on the PEN-L
mailing list, which is top-heavy with liberals, social democrats and
Henwoodites like Stephen. Stephen, like hundreds of other people, reads the
Marxism list archives compulsively but does not choose to subscribe. Since
he has been trying to get me thrown off PEN-L by writing baiting references
to discussions here, I have decided to add him to the Marxism list where I
feel free to answer him in the manner he deserves without putting needless
pressures on Michael Perelman. Furthermore, if he unsubs I will simply put
him back on. As long as there is a Marxism list, there will always be a
place at the table for Stephen Philion.
He just wrote on PEN-L:
Well yeah, but in that sense Pugliese just follows your example.
Mischaracterizations abound in your critical posts on Wood, Brenner, etc.
Even today on your Marxism list you are claiming once again, with utterly
no evidence, that Doug Henwood's arguments against the narrow
anti-corporatist pro-competition agenda found in certain elements of the
anti-globalization crowd are somehow pro-capitalism. Any reading of Doug's
article in LBO that is the source of this mischaracterization shows how
utterly bizarre your charges are.
Here is my reply:
The reference to Pugliese should be explained first. Pugliese, an
ubiquitous presence on leftwing mailing lists, is a DSA red-baiter. His
speciality was going to the bourgeois press and posting hair-raising
"exposes" of Serb atrocities. Now that Yugoslavia has been delivered to the
imperialists, he has switched gears and is posting articles from Yahoo and
Washington Post on the FARC going wild and chopping up peasants.
When I complained about crossposting items from the bourgeois press on a
leftwing mailing list, Philion has the audacity to link me in some fashion
with Pugliese. Why? Because I characterized Doug Henwood here on this list
as arguing from the same standpoint as Hardt-Negri. Any god-damned fool can
go to the LBO-Talk archives and find Henwood arguing in favor of
Hardt-Negri for the span of at least several weeks. Now Philion can come up
with his own interpretation of Hardt-Negri if he likes, but the New
Statesman stated in an interview with Negri that "Empire" is a defense of
globalization and adds:
"Turning Marx's theory of immiseration on its head, Negri argues that
modernisation has always been positive in the end. Each new phase of
capitalism has improved the position of the working class - and created a
platform for further liberation."
Now what is this crap besides Eduard Bernstein updated for the 21st
century? And why would Doug Henwood tout Hardt-Negri to his mailing list
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
More information about the Marxism