[Marxism] Liar Mark Lause and faith-based socialism - what is the evidence ?

Jurriaan Bendien andromeda246 at hetnet.nl
Fri Aug 20 14:57:58 MDT 2004

Professor Mark Lause is at it again, brazenly misrepresenting what I said,
and telling lies. Lause never actually engages with what I say, but just
presents his professorial point of view from on high, about stuff like
"there is the bourgeoisie and there's the proletariat" and other trite
platitudes. He just toys with a few concepts, and maybe a few groupies think
he's great.

Professor Lause says: "Jurriaan has answered the question quite
straightforwardly." Yes, so I have, Lause got that part correct. But in what
follows, Lause shows he hasn't understood a fart about what I actually said,
it's in the one ear, and out the other. Laus continues with a general claim:
"He does not see socialism as the political expression of working class

This could be both true and false, but misses the point I made completely. I
said specifically "Personally, I think that workingclass political rule in
itself would be an advance, but still wouldn't mean much, if it didn't
embody a socialism which
contained "all the progressive tendencies of human development which
capitalist development has made possible". There are all sorts of species of
radicalism and revolutionism, and all sorts of strata of workers, but you
wouldn't catch me supporting all of them by a long shot. Part of middleclass
activity is also progressive."

Following Professor Lause's logic, you could conclude Khmersocialism must
have been "the political expression of working class interests." The whole
point is that there are all sorts of socialisms reflecting all sorts of
class interests. Since this is the case, Lause's banale schematism about
"socialism as the political expression of working class interests" is just a
generality, vacuous. Whether or not a socialism expresses workingclass
interests, depends on the kind of socialism it is. Socialists can equally
well misrepresent those interests.

Professor Lause claims: "He also says that he believes working class rule
might be an advance but not much of one."
Here Lause is lying brazenly, because I said "Personally, I think that
workingclass political rule in itself would be an advance, but still
wouldn't mean much, if it didn't embody a socialism which contained "all the
progressive tendencies of human development which capitalist development has
made possible". This is not at all the same thing. Professor Lause then
pontificates: "I have said earlier that those making such major claims
should provide appropriate arguments and proofs.  Earlier, he responded to
this by insisting that I have shirked my responsibility for not doing his
homework for him to make his arguments.  Maybe.  But the state of his
argument speaks for itself."

Professor Lause doesn't even know what an argument is, and he had presented
plenty proof of that already. What I said was (I will say it again) was
"Personally, I think that workingclass political rule in itself would be an
advance, but still wouldn't mean much, if it didn't embody a socialism which
contained "all the progressive tendencies of human development which
capitalist development has made possible". That is my personal opinion, and
I regard the creative part of the middle classes as progressive and a
potential socialist force.

Since there is no socialism in the United States or in Europe, no proof is
possible, the opinion refers rather to a political stance in the socialist
movement against infantile leftism of the type "capitalism bad, socialism
good, no further questions asked". Karl Marx was quite clear that capitalism
meant real progress, but at a terribly price also. The infantile leftists
turn this into an inanity by saying that everything about capitalist
civilisation is bad. In which case, they ought to do us a favour, and kill
themselves. Part of a mature politics, is understanding what is really
progress and what is progressive, and avoiding workerist delusions which
write off anything that is not certified "working class" as inimical to
progress. This is dork socialism.

Professor Lause then claims: "Jurriaan offers contradictory assertions."
Okay then, where are they ? It is just another lie. Lause is the one himself
asserting, without proof, that I offer "contradictory assertions". My
perspective developed over an interval of 25 years during which I read,
researched, got involved in socialist politics, and met with activists and
scholars from two dozen countries. I have a very consistent view on all the
important questions, and if I do not have one, I will tell you. As I said,
my experience of the USA is limited and I cannot comment on the politics of
all the different groups there, or on the condition of social classes in
great detail. But since I have been blasted with American propaganda from
when I was a child, I feel entitled to comment on the frauds and lies of
American imperialism.

Professor Lause claims: "He repudiates an across-the-board class solidarity
as leading to a mistaken support for privileged layers of the work force.
The solution to this kind of narrowly petty-bourgeoisified working class
involves our embracing the idea that "part of middleclass activity is also
progressive." Again a total falsification of my position, because I said no
such thing. I never mentioned any "across-the-board class solidarity" and I
never referred to "a mistaken support for privileged layers of the work
force." This is just an inference Lause had produced in bad faith. I never
referred to a "narrowly petty-bourgeoisified working class" and again Lause
is fantasising.

He says: "By this same kind of ability to argue against himself, Jurriaan
mockingly petty-bourgeois baits me, then pretends at the close that he is
braced for me again to petty-bourgeois bait him--something I never did--and
would not do." I have never said anything of the sort, again brazen lying. I
have said, that if Lause is a Professor, then we can expect something more
than fishing around and baiting with vague queries about "what is
petty-bourgeois". I have said that if Professor Louse is really interested
in this question beyond a farty joke, he ought to investigate that, after
all, that is what he is paid for, unless he is another academic seatwarmer.

Professor Lause then decides on a bit of mockery: "As arguments, these are
rather like the Cheshire cat. He also mocks the American Left for rooting
our perspective in a period when "the majority of the people at that time
consisted of peasants who couldn't even read" and our ongoing repudiation of
"the most advanced issues and methods in their own country or for that
matter in the world."  Again a brazen lie, showing Lause's illiteracy. I was
referring to American socialists basing themselves on the radicalism of the
Russian social democrats in the early years of the 20th century, instead of
basing themselves on the currently most advanced thinking in America itself
and in the world.

The real problem is that I do not fit in the lousy dogmatic categories which
Lause has devised to carve up the political universe for himself, and a
living proof of the idiocy of orthodox Marxism and its uni-linear schema's.
Once you really get into debate with this "Professor" he slithers and slides
around, commits himself to nothing more than generalities, misrepresents
your position, and tells outright lies about you. This behavioural style,
which aims to antagonise other socialists and sow division among socialists,
is why Marxism has turned off hundreds of thousands, even millions of
people, and why numerous socialists consider Marxists really as a nuisance.

Because they keep reproducing the worse tactics and hangovers from the
Stalinist era: false amalgams, misrepresentations, innuendo, slander, false
polemics, paranoia, the works. The underlying reason is that they see
themselves as having the "correct workingclass position" while everbody else
is wrong, and with an attitude like that you never get anywhere. It is
"faith-based socialism". In Holland, serious people gave this up long ago.
The Socialist Party has 43,000 members, the Marxist sects not even a few

Here in Amsterdam, what people would think is, that Lause is basically an
arrogant, infantile academic runt trying to bait people to see if they will
suck, who ought to do a course in logic and inform himself about advanced
socialist thinking, which recognises the differences between different sorts
of socialisms, defends what is progressive in our culture as it is now, and
understands the nature of the class structure in 2004. Professor Lause
doesn't do me the comradely and professional honour of correctly presenting
my views, as a scholar should, and thus I consider this discussion closed. I
don't care about having the last word - the lice are best avoided, because
they don't understand the ABC's of communication, and I don't want to be
distracted from my work anymore.


More information about the Marxism mailing list