[Marxism] Marxism Digest, Vol 48, Issue 27

Asit asitreds asitredsalute at gmail.com
Sun Oct 14 04:02:26 MDT 2007


regardind the nuclear debate and the left in india the left has taken
a centrist position
so they are plying the role of boursois oppositon so there should be
no illusion about them

On 10/14/07, Asit asitreds <asitredsalute at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/07, marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
> <marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu> wrote:
> > Send Marxism mailing list submissions to
> > 	marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > 	marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > 	marxism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Marxism digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re:  Indian Communists win the Fight against Indo-US
> >       (Dharmendra Kumar)
> >    2.  Why is labour unpleasant? (David Pic?n ?lvarez)
> >    3.  Bryan Palmer speaks at NYU (Louis Proyect)
> >    4.  Alberto M?ller Rojas, capitalism and socialism
> >       ( N?stor Gorojovsky )
> >    5. Re:  Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Sinking Ship (?) (David Walters)
> >    6. Re:  Why is labour unpleasant? (Carrol Cox)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:17:16 +0530
> > From: "Dharmendra Kumar" <monad96 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Indian Communists win the Fight against Indo-US
> > To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > Message-ID:
> > 	<5b14867d0710130947h4402adc5p1752208787a881b9 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > I feel like celeberating the Indian left's victory over the Indo-US
> nuclear
> > deal.But what really irks me is the lack of criticism of the nuclear
> energy
> > per se. Indian left is patting its back that it has saved the country'
> > sovereignty and averted the future risk of inspection from foreign
> > agencies.Doesn't it implicitly okey the ongoing Indian nuclear
> > programmes(both so called peaceful and violent)?
> > Dharmendra
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:49:22 +0200
> > From: David Pic?n ?lvarez <david at miradoiro.com>
> > Subject: [Marxism] Why is labour unpleasant?
> > To: "Marxism" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> > Message-ID: <000301c80db9$01da3e50$0302a8c0 at Nautilus>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> > 	reply-type=original
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This might seem like a stupid question, and maybe there are established
> > answers to it, but if so I don't know them. Why is it so that the vast
> > majority of productive work is unpleasant for the workers? One can see why
> > industrial work in the XIX century would be unpleasant: overlong working
> > days, repetitive alienated tasks, unergonomic conditions, danger of
> > industrial accidents, etc. However, in the developed countries and for the
> > majority of the workers, most of these things don't hold anymore: the
> > working day has grown much shorter, the tasks are more involved and less
> > mechanical, working conditions have improved unmeasurably, and so on. That
> > said, it is quite clear that most people do not find work pleasant. There
> > are many workers that haven't benefitted as much from improvements in
> > working environment as I note, but even those workers who have find work
> > unpleasant. What is the reason why work appears to be, at least in a
> > majority of cases, inherently unpleasant?
> >
> > --David.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:01:00 -0400
> > From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> > Subject: [Marxism] Bryan Palmer speaks at NYU
> > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> > 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> > Cc: PEN-L list <PEN-L at SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
> > Message-ID: <4710F9CC.50903 at panix.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> >
> > Last night I attended Bryan Palmer?s talk at the Tamiment Library at
> > NYU. Palmer spoke about volume one of his newly published biography of
> > James P. Cannon, the founder of American Trotskyism who died in 1970 at
> > the age of 84.
> >
> > Due to poor subway connections, I missed perhaps the first 15 minutes of
> > his talk but came away with the impression that Palmer has a somewhat
> > different take on Cannon than the small propaganda groups (to put it
> > diplomatically) who sponsored the meeting. Palmer saw Cannon as
> > promoting the unity of disparate groups who literally and figuratively
> > spoke different languages. In his concluding remarks, he referred to
> > Cannon as somebody who could help us work through the problems of
> > ?revolutionary regroupment? today, a term that the Spartacist League,
> > one of the sponsoring groups, regards as evidence of Palmer?s apostasy
> > from Trotskyism. In hair-splitting sects such as these (to dispense with
> > the diplomatic), Trotskyism is about nothing except fighting for ?the
> > program?, which amounts to a bundle of ideology that has almost no
> > connection to politics. Typically, this involves how to pinpoint when
> > the USSR became ?state capitalist? or ?a degenerated workers state?, etc.
> >
> > full:
> > http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/bryan-palmer-speaks-at-nyu/
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:04:56 -0300
> > From: " N?stor Gorojovsky " <nmgoro at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Marxism] Alberto M?ller Rojas, capitalism and socialism
> > To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
> > 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>, "The A-List"
> > 	<A-list at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> > Message-ID:
> > 	<2fa158550710131004j28ef70b6g5777f53941645a03 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > Alberto M?ller Rojas is one of the eldest top brass in the Venezuelan
> > Armed Forces. This is what he has to say about socialism and
> > capitalism:
> >
> > "El socialismo no es Satan?s. Satan?s es el capitalismo y el
> > socialismo es una salida honorable"
> >
> > That is,
> >
> > "Socialism is not Satan. Satan is capitalism, and socialism a
> > honorable way ahead"
> >
> >
> > --
> > N?stor
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:47:59 -0700
> > From: David Walters <dave.walters at comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Sinking Ship (?)
> > To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > Message-ID: <471104CF.6030608 at comcast.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > Hi Sukla,
> >  Well, I think you summed up the binary nature of this debate well. I
> > happen to agree with the communists (of various stripes) that the issue
> > IS national sovereignty and not proliferation. I think they have a
> > better understanding of the importance of the relationship of India to
> > the US than you have, IMHO. Had the deal be signed, it would of
> > subordinated the *totality* of India's nuclear program to the US,
> > resources would of dried up for indigenous atomic resources like
> > thorium, etc. It is a BAD deal from a pro-nuclear and pro-Indian
> > perspective.
> >
> > The development of a sustainable energy program for India isn't just in
> > the interest of Indian capitalists, it is in the interests of the Indian
> > people. The limited fossil resources that are polluting, murderous
> > resources means that some other form of power needs to be developed.
> > Hydro is limited...but I understand a few more GWs can be had...and
> > therefore is almost at it's peak now. Will climate change, there will
> > actually be less hydro resources available. We are feeling this in
> > California already, which is a heavily hydro dependent State in the US.
> >
> > There are no real plans to use renewable, integrated with recycling,
> > integrated with conservation that can come close to helping with India's
> > development, regardless of the type of gov't or the class that runs the
> > state. Only nuclear can do this and the majority of the Left understands
> > this. India's gov't for decades has dribbled in some capital to develop
> > indigenous nuclear technology. Now it has to take it REALLY seriously
> > and do this. There simply IS no other way.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:00:04 -0500
> > From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Why is labour unpleasant?
> > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> > 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> > Message-ID: <471107A4.C44F9EB7 at ilstu.edu>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> >
> >
> > David Pic?n ?lvarez wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This might seem like a stupid question, and maybe there are established
> > > answers to it, but if so I don't know them. Why is it so that the vast
> > > majority of productive work is unpleasant for the workers? One can see
> why
> > > industrial work in the XIX century would be unpleasant: overlong working
> > > days, repetitive alienated tasks, unergonomic conditions, danger of
> > > industrial accidents, etc.
> >
> > This is highly relative, and in compared to human need rather than to
> > past savagery, is not true. Hours (in _all lines of work, including much
> > office work_) are still savagely long (and this length is intensified by
> > commuting difficulties). Tasks, even many apparently "interesting" or
> > "mental" tasks, continue to be repetitive and alienating (i.e., have no
> > visible relationship to a visible product and a visible user), much
> > office work is is highly unergonomic. I'm not sure how much safer work
> > is: convenient store clerks and taxi drivers have high causualty rates
> > from murder; radiation; coal mines are intrinsically destructive of
> > human welfare; etc etc ets. Eight hours a day 5 or 6 days a week is
> > destructive of mental and physical well-being. (Foraging cultures seldom
> > 'work' more than a 15 to 20 hour week.)
> >
> > Even the work of university teaching (for larger and larger numbers) is
> > becoming increasingly less satisfactory and at the same time more
> > demanding, more time-consuming. I suspect the same is true for large
> > numbers of programmers, engineers, and even attorneys, accountants,
> > physicians, tool-and-die-makers and skilled construction workers.
> >
> > Don't let pointless contrasts with the 19th century distort
> > understanding of the present.
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxism mailing list
> > Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> >
> >
> > End of Marxism Digest, Vol 48, Issue 27
> > ***************************************
> >
>




More information about the Marxism mailing list