Australian politics

Greg Schofield gschofield at
Fri May 25 21:45:25 MDT 2001

Phil I am glad we are in general accord, specifically in terms of solutions:

At 03:20  25/05/01 +1200, you wrote:
> >The liberal pluralism, does make it easier to manipulate people, with this
> >I agree, but it also has its deficit which is that there is less to
> >identify with, less to see oneself as a part of a society, rather it is an
> >ideology of atomisation. Good short term benefits but much easier to bowl
> >over if there is a new progressive ideology which can be identified with
> >and which makes people see themselves as part of something bigger than just
> >a collection of hedonists each making their own little way in the world.
>I agree with all this.  Which is precisely why I remain quite optimistic
>about the possibilities.  The question of questions is 'What is to be
>done?' to take advantage of this downside of the ruling class.
> >I suppose if you wrap all this together, that would be my point, the
> >bourgeoisie despite (sometimes because) of their triumphalism are
> >hegomonically weaker, getting away with everything as they are now doing,
> >casting aside restraints they also severe the many small bonds that once
> >connected their interests to society as a whole.
>True.  But as long as there is no credible opposition, this doesn't matter
>much.  They can get by.
> >Their appearance of strength is just the measure of the oppositions own
> >disconnection, it is therefore not an inherent strength but a defacto one.

On this there needs to be so much more discussion. If you get the chance
please have a look at the archives for my posting "On a University of
Historical" (unfortunately I accidently sent one blank copy
as well - there is no cure for stupidity). No one has replied to it,
perhaps it is just garbage, however the main point is that we should find
something within our power to construct as we find ourselves.

And we find ourselves on the net, so for me this is our common material
ground and hence the area where we should first organise ourselves.

I deployed the concept of a University because it seems to best fit what we
are already doing on the net in a disorganised way. We are debating,
publishing and researching, but we do this is a fractured fashion, it is
only by luck we find each other and there is a lot more luck involved if
even one argument actually moves forward by debate.

The first thing I would throw out is any desire at this stage to be either
theoretically or politically united, that will come but only if the
foundations are first laid properly and firmly.

What is to be done? always must begin as a material question. I don't know
if I am right in any of this but there may be a way forward by simply
reorganising ourselves so that there is one place to be advertised through
which everything else can be found in a sensible fashion.

I like the idea of a university analogy as this tends to structure things
in a sensible way that would be easy for people to follow  and find a place
within, plus with a few sensible ground rules there is no reason why
accommodation cannot be found for the arcane as well as the silly and the
rest of us fit in just as well.

I put this forward not as a solution but as a step towards a solution to
our political impasse. Phil I would be interested in anything you have to
say on this, but it would seem to me that What is to be done must begin
with the material condition of our meeting - the net, before anything else
can be pursued.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia

More information about the Marxism mailing list