To Michael Dawson
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Nov 13 18:11:49 MST 2003
>Socialism will need a UN, in my opinion.
I would certainly think so. But I am not sure what this has to do with
sanctions against Iraq, imposing the rule of NATO in Yugoslavia, etc. All
such institutions have a class basis. The cops in Somoza's Nicaragua had a
different role and function than Sandinista Nicaragua.
>I am as much a Marxist as anybody. I simply think that policing left
>thought is not a high priority. Hell, 50 percent of what Marxists of the
>past have said is obsolete anyway. I don't agree with everything Doug
>Henwood, or anybody else, says and thinks. I simply respect his positive
>help in throwing light on the way capitalism works.
At the risk of becoming a bore, let me repeat myself. I do not criticize
Henwood's useful articles on money that appear in LBO, no matter how
infrequently it comes out. I am referring to Hardt and Negri. I have no
idea why you think that taking up "Empire" is tantamount to "policing left
thought". Is this what John Bellamy Foster was doing when he criticized
them in a recent MR article? Our movement grows through debate.
>I've read Trotsky and lots of other stuff on the USSR. None of it convinces
>me that the results were anything short of a disaster. I admire the
>Bolshevik's attempts to break away, but their project was doomed from the
>start, in part due to their early-Marxist tendency to dismiss democracy as a
But aren't you aware that Lenin's "State and Revolution" was noting but a
restatement of Marxist orthodoxy on the state?
>MLK and Gandhi were both socialists. I'm not sure what "contradictions" in
>their thoughts you're aware of, but MLK told his inner circle that "Karl
>Marx was right," and Gandhi termed "wealth without work" one the seven
Michael, I don't want to disappoint you but I have no intention of
bad-mouthing MLK or Gandhi. You can call them socialists if it pleases you,
but I have an orientation to CLR James and Che Guevara whose socialism was
based on historical materialism. Life involves political choices after all.
>As to pacifism and socialism, I also fail to perceive the contradiction.
>Isn't the point to use politics to win major changes in institutions?
>Sometimes violence is the only remaining alternative (as both MLK and Gandhi
>accepted, albeit with stringent emphasis on it being the truly last resort),
>but I see no reason to build it into the definition of socialism.
Despite my reputation as an ideological thug, I have no interest in
attacking pacifism either. David McReynolds is an old dear friend. I
advocate peaceful and legal change and advocate violence only in
self-defense. In any case, these questions are pretty abstract and not the
kind that I usually engage with (nor are they of much interest to Marxmail)
so this will be the last of our exchanges until I cc you with my response
to Henwood's Nation Magazine article.
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism