[Marxism] As long as the British remain there will be some kindof IRA

J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk
Tue Mar 17 09:46:45 MDT 2009

I don’t think that I suggested avoidance of questioning 
acceptance of the existing state of affairs (although I am 
kind of interested in the knee-jerk ferocity which the use 
of the word morality attracts amongst you guys..). If an 
ethics of Marxist politics is as you say, analytical of 
the content of social struggles then surely it says 
something about the rights and wrongs of shooting 
pizza-guys? And just because Badiou says ethics don’t 
exist, don’t make it so

I didn’t squeak at what you said because of any inherent 
justification of ‘freedom fighter/terrorist’ dichotomy 
either – we all know what bollocks such words are, 
particularly the use of the word ‘terrorist’. It is, 
equally, not acceptable to just go and shoot someone out 
of a personally-selected sense of injustice, which after 
all is what keeps happening at schools and workplaces 
throughout the US. So what I want to know is, are you 
really suggesting that one person or a small group of 
people dressing an act of murder in the clothing of 
historical oppression is enough for it to become what they 
say it is? Are you obliged to assess all such acts through 
such an ideological prism and blame them all on 
imperialist capitalism?
(By the way, is it the Dr thing or the being English thing 
that’s freaking you out most? Because you really, really 
need to be adjusting your stereotypes
Dr Jon Cloke
Project Officer EnergyCentral and Research Associate
Global and World Cities Group
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU

E-mail: j.m.p.cloke at lboro.ac.uk
Tel: 00 44 07984 813681

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
  Mehmet Cagatay <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dr. Cloke, 
> Not Marxist dialectics but the miserable commonplace 
>moralism which dictates the acceptance of existing state 
>of affairs and its injustices enables us to evade our 
>responsibility to question the forms of subjective 
>commitment to the imperialist aggression, even if you may 
>be a part of it as an honest and respected English 
>gentleman who determined to show the catastrophic 
>consequences of insurgent violence to unsympathetic 
>Marxist sociopaths like me. But let me repeat Badiou, 
>ethics does not exist except the ethics of politics, 
>love, science and art. As S. Artesian pointed out, ethics 
>of Marxist politics entails to examine the concrete 
>material conditions and the content of social struggles. 
> I can't remember how many times I was under attack by 
>the question of "Are you against terrorism to not?" If 
>the current dominant ideological imperative is to 
>publicly declare our opposition to violent forms of 
>national struggles, class politics, social movements etc. 
>the question today is how not to be against violence and 
>how can we disclose the objective violence of the "human 
>animal" to maintain its existence and comfort within the 
>prevailing socio-economic order. So, for asocial Marxists 
>(asocial in the sense of distancing themselves from 
>commonplace opinions) the recent death of two British 
>soldiers and an Irish police officer is relevant insofar 
>as it serves to understand the objective violence that 
>originates from capitalist-imperialist oppression.  
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 

More information about the Marxism mailing list