[Marxism] realities of academic labor vs. G's fantasies
ian at ianpace.com
Tue Jul 25 16:01:37 MDT 2006
From: "Louis R Godena" <louisgodena at ids.net>
> When someone translates Ian's perambulations into English, I'll respond.
> The one cogent thought in his post; to wit;
>>There of course is an alternative, a very real one, to the dissolution of
>>the institutions bequeathed by social democracy, flawed though they are.
>>That alternative is total surrender to the bosses and the marketplace.
> I much prefer Lenin's "alternative", which is, in fact, "dissolution" of
> the institutions "bequeathed" by social democracy, and a people's
> government --
And that really looks like it's just round the corner, doesn't it? I'm not a
reformist by any means (if I was, I couldn't call myself a Marxist - though
I'm not keen on the term anyhow), but do realise that there are short-term
issues to deal with as well as preparing for a workers' state.
> itself of course temporary -- acting with the sole goal of liquidating
> the exploiting class and thus in time abolishing itself (after all, as
> Lenin said, "where there is freedom, there is no state, where the state
> exists, there is no freedom).
Again, do you think there is anything for genuine leftists to do in this
highly unrevolutionary times other than contemplate utopian revolution?
> And no, lifetime sinecures for the lazy and unproductive -- which includes
> most academics, and there are statistics to prove it --
That sounds like a bosses charter, absolute. I'm sure you could find some
statistics to show that various types of workers can be lazy and
unproductive - so would you therefore abolish lifetime sinecures for them as
well (by the way, a low-level academic does not get paid much differently to
someone in a reasonable white-collar job)?
> is not marxism, it is welfare state capitalism which in the long run is a
> far more lethal enemy than anything devised by Murdoch or Thatcher.
So you would abolish the welfare state and leave everything in the hands of
the market? I find that view contemptuous, and I feel no solidarity or
identification with anyone who thinks that way. Try arguing that to a family
living on benefits, that the welfare state that at least stops them starving
(some of the time) is a worse option (because of the 'long run') than the
Murdoch/Thatcher (Reagan/Bush/etc.) alternative proposed.
More information about the Marxism