From cdb1003 at prodigy.net Sun Apr 5 05:45:46 2009 From: cdb1003 at prodigy.net (Charles Brown) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why Oprah Deserves to Be Rich and the Wall Street moguls notRalph Message-ID: <892767.3585.qm@web180115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dumain Why Oprah Deserves to Be Rich and the Wall Street Moguls Deserve... by Jed Diamond Posted March 14, 2009 http://www.thirdage.com/today/giving-back/why-oprah-deserves-to-be-rich-the-wall-street-moguls-dont?utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl_community-connections_20090319&utm_campaign=thirdage Kinda typical stupidity, no? Speaking of hype and BS, I saw Obama on Jay Leno last night. He's charming and slick, but he's basically covering up how the capitalism system operates, perpetuating universally accepted illusions. ^^^^^^ CB: I don't?think too many people are fooled, illusions not very universally accepted. ?Kinda hard to coverup how the capitalist system operates nowadays. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Apr 5 07:59:48 2009 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:59:48 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why Oprah Deserves to Be Rich and the Wall Street moguls notRalph In-Reply-To: <892767.3585.qm@web180115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <892767.3585.qm@web180115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The consequences of not being fooled? People are alert to the abuses of the system, not the nature of the system. I watched part of Obama's press conference--I don't know whether there were more than one--in Europe, and i was struck by his earnestness in securing international cooperation to fix the system, which is what he was hired to do. He understands interdependence in a globalized economy, but our notion of interdependence is predicated on something different, or rather, it should be. The more the governments of the world collude to fix the system, the more they become our common enemy, but we neither understand this nor are prepared to act on this understanding. Street riots perpetrated by small bands of anarchist jackoffs do not constitute meaningful organization. At 07:45 AM 4/5/2009, Charles Brown wrote: >Dumain >Why Oprah Deserves to Be Rich and the Wall Street Moguls Deserve... >by Jed Diamond >Posted March 14, 2009 >http://www.thirdage.com/today/giving-back/why-oprah-deserves-to-be-rich-the-wall-street-moguls-dont?utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl_community-connections_20090319&utm_campaign=thirdage > >Kinda typical stupidity, no? > >Speaking of hype and BS, I saw Obama on Jay Leno last night. He's >charming and slick, but he's basically covering up how the capitalism >system operates, perpetuating universally accepted illusions. > >^^^^^^ >CB: I don't think too many people are fooled, illusions >not very universally accepted. > Kinda hard to coverup how the capitalist system operates >nowadays. > > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.41/2040 - Release Date: >4/3/2009 5:54 PM From cb31450 at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 15:25:40 2009 From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:25:40 -0700 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama seeks to abolish world nukes (!) Message-ID: <5c2e4d230904051425k3d77ba69x8a49b7313d9d1a4c@mail.gmail.com> http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-nuclear-weapons/412784?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-nuclear-weapons/412784 From ballistanc at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 17:07:32 2009 From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: International Proposition... Message-ID: <17383.86754.qm@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, juan De La Cruz wrote: From: juan De La Cruz Subject: International Proposition... To: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:51 AM International Proposition to all groups and militants who struggle for the worldwide proletarian revolution * * * 1. Unabridged version of the "Propuesta" approved during the meeting of February 1986 in Uruguay On February 22 and 23 1986, a group of militants from certain countries (especially Argentina and Uruguay) met in Uruguay to discuss the present world situation and the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat. There was a general agreement between them that in the face of the world-wide attacks of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat and the present state of weakness, dispersion and isolation of the small revolutionary class forces, it is necessary to work together to reverse this situation in combating the sectarianism and nationalism which is implicit in certain conceptions of international work. In an attempt to change this situation, the comrades present put forward the following ideas and propositions. Some priminary considerations and fundamentalsIt might seem strange that here, some groups and a small number of militants, who are certainly generally unknown, suddenly launch an appeal, a proposition to all those who throughout the world uphold with greater or lesser strength, with greater or lesser clarity, the flag of proletarian internationalism, of the world proletarian revolution. But it's not just "here" or "all of a sudden" that once again the anguished cry of revolutionary minorities is raised, trying to break the chains imposed by capital, helplessly witnessing the terrifying blows which the bourgeoisie inflicts on the proletariat and themselves. Whether in periods of rising class struggle or the most violent moments of counter revolution, these revolutionary minorities discover, one by one, the meaning of isolation, the weakness of their small forces. A weakness which is not only numerical but fundamentally political, since it is impossible to resolve locally or nationally the problems with which revolutionaries are presently posed. We are convinced that in different places groups are arising which don't identify with the traditional left (Stalinist, Trotskyist and their different varieties), with politics aimed at helping the bourgeoisie to solve its problems, with the position of changing the state form of bourgeois domination or supporting its wars. Instead, the groups of which we speak try to elaborate a distinctive politics calling for the autonomy of the working class against the bourgeoisie and the struggle to destroy its domination and its state without preliminary (democratic) phases or stages. And we know what it means to swim against the current, without being able to count on any help, without the immediate possibility of reappropriating the historical experience of the revolutionary proletariat. We are working without fundamental theoretical/political texts being available in a dangerous atmosphere of repression. If, for some, certain definitions or positions are "ABC" which we don't write or talk about sufficiently clearly, for each of us to be able to describe the struggles requires a long process of struggles, of ruptures, of fear and uncertainties. In the schools here they teach us a saying of a famous man of the last century: "ideas cannot be killed". However, we have learnt that one kills those who have certain ideas (or positions) and that the dominant class can over a long period prevent the reappropriation, the awareness of, the link with and the development of experience, of ideas and positions which lives and builds up in different parts of the world. Thus, paradoxically, it took a monstrous repression (with a subsequent state of exile) and the (Falklands) war to make known here the existence of diverse radical currents and groups throughout the world. To make known - and that is still not enough - the experience of Germany and elsewhere after World War One. To get to know other positions which were neither Francoist nor Republican. And there is another history closer to us (which we hardly know at all). Departing from this we have had confirmation that groups currently exist which don't belong to the 'traditional' political currents, many of whom we didn't know before, and others of whom we don't know when and how they broke with capital and its fractions, but which express to different degrees different moments of rupture with the politics of capital. But if today we are aware that they exist, this doesn't mean that the present situation of isolation and of weakness has changed. On the contrary, we don't even hear enough about what's going on, not only in far away countries, but even in a nearby city or in a neighbouring quarter. And this shouldn't be understood as a curiosity or as a journalistic question: in Argentina for example, there are continually days when several million workers are in struggle without there being any coordination between them, so they sometimes don't even know that there is a struggle which is going on everywhere. And if this is the case for relatively massive movements, it's even worse with the contact and the awareness of the existence of avant-gardes appearing during these struggles or under their influence. And we are convinced that in the countries we live in, as elsewhere in the world, groups of workers and militants are being thrown up, trying to break with the politics of conciliation, of subordination to the bourgeoisie, but which, in the absence of an international reference, and with the strong presence of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement, end up being absorbed by some fraction of capital or simply disintegrating, disappearing. Few are those who manage to survive the first blows, and those who do so have an uncertain perspective or political isolation ahead of them. Having surmounted different stages and having to double back, they find themselves in an impasse, starting from scratch on new subjects. Something which is transformed into a daily reality, a helplessness which saps those limited forces which already have been politically and economically hammered. Isn't there an alternative to this? Must the preparation of a revolutionary internationalist politics, or at least an attempt at it, proceed step by step, group by group, city by city, nation by nation, generation by generation? Does each one have to go through the same stages, confront the same problems, receive the same blows, decipher the same letters, elaborate the same words, in order after some time and a long hard road, having become strong and "party like", to join up with ones "equals", or, in their absence, to "spread" to other nations? We don't believe that this is the only option. We don't even believe that this can lead to anything positive. On the contrary, we think that the only alternative we must work towards is the international one. Just as it's a mystification to talk about a communist society as long as there still exists even one capitalist country, the same goes for talking about internationalism if it is only conceived of as solidarity with workers' struggles throughout the world or as pompous phrases now and again against war, militarism or imperialism. For us, proletarian internationalism has a different meaning, and implies making the effort to go beyond general solidarity, since the international dimensions of the proletarian revolution demand the interaction and unification of efforts to work out a unique strategy at the world level and its political corollary in the tasks confronting us in the different zones and countries. Naturally this can't be resolved through voluntarism or from one day to the next. It will not be the fruit of a long, prolonged "educational" or "scientific" work such as was conceived by the Second International (and not only it), through an "accumulation of forces" ("winning militants one by one" and "elaborating THE theory" and structuring THE leadership which will be recognised when its time comes) for a far distant future confrontation, whereas every day we see the resistance and the struggle of the proletariat against capital (which in reality, for these "political currents", must be controlled, covered, isolated in such a way that they are adapted for the incessant "task" of supporting some fraction of the bourgeoisie against another, supposedly worse one). If the party of the working class is not one of these political groups calling itself such in one or more countries, if one can't agree with "the party for the working class" and the call for "the working class organised as a class, in other words as a party", this is not a simple game of words. If we reject the social-democratic ideas (Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.) of the party as an apparatus (intellectuals, workers, etc.) carrying the truth, which voluntarily constitutes itself within one nation and awaits recognition from the uncultivated masses, and the international as a federation of parties (or a party which spreads to other nations), this implies a break with these conceptions and practices which are totally opposed to proletarian internationalism and which in fact are just a way of manifesting and defending nationalist ideas. Among the latter, the most evident is that which conceives of the development of its own group (or their own groups) as a local or national question, with the aim of developing a decisive force for later on, which dedicates itself to making contacts with other groups in other-countries in order to absorb them or generally expose them through discussions and declarations. The international contacts are considered as "private property", with a bilateral practice predominating, something which can include periods of 'getting together' over so many years, finally coming together in the "United Nations" of "Revolutionaries". The practice of the Second International is a good example of this. We consider that this path can only lead to new frustrations and new mystifications, which is why it is necessary to struggle against all the interests, conceptions and the sectarianism which produce and reproduce the divisions created by the bourgeoisie in the defence of its internal markets, of its states, of "its" proletarians, in other words, of the surplus value it extracts. On certain accusationsWe don't know if the above is sufficient to present this proposition and justify it, or if it requires greater development. However, we believe it necessary to add precisions regarding certain accusations. To be sure, many will ask themselves: "With whom, to what point and how does one place oneself within a proletarian internationalist perspective? How to determine this? Who is to do so?" It's evident that nobody would think of working with, or even making a leaflet with someone in the enemy camp. Regarding the class enemy there can be neither conciliation nor entryism. But not everybody is an enemy. It cannot be denied that among the groups and persons not belonging to there is often intolerance, static visions and sectarianism. There is a practice of divergence, a dispute over "customers" in common, a nationalism and a "defence of ones' own back garden" disguised as intransigence. We cannot escape this problem in an international proposition. It's natural that nobody would think of working in a common perspective with a group of the Forth International or with a third world Maoist. But if the character of the enemy class is evident in certain cases, in others it's much more subtle, which makes it difficult to draw up a line of demarcation, all the more so when we are seeking to take a step forward in the present situation of weakness, isolation and dispersion. We believe that it is impossible to elaborate an ensemble of "programmatic" points, which would only be the proof of opportunism, unless they are so worked out and profound that perhaps only the group itself could agree, if at all. One shouldn't pretend either that groups and isolated individuals in each country of the world can ripen in the same way as in other zones or that we can take this or that definition which, as widespread as it may be in certain places, is not the product of a shared history, of which as we have already pointed out, little or nothing is known in other zones. Conversely, the almost one year long strike of the British miners didn't give rise to any serious attempt at coordinating a common response of the different groups and militants scattered across the globe, something which points not only to a weakness and a hesitation, but to sectarianism, to conceptions of the class struggle and of the party like those of social democracy. And in the face of the Iran-Iraq war? And of South Africa and Bolivia and elsewhere where the proletariat in struggle has received the hardest blows? What reply, however minimal, has been attempted at the international level? How to resolve this? How are the criteria for our recognition to be decided in order that from the outset the proposition to overcome the present situation isn't stillborn (either being ambiguous enough to lead to a free for all, or else being so strict that the only ones admitted are already working together?). For us, the criteria for our recognition is in practice. And that's what the second part of the Proposition deals with, even if the latter, no more than anything else, on evade the essential, unique "guarantee": the struggle. International propositionWith the objective of: - contributing to the modification of the present state of weakness of the tiny revolutionary and class forces scattered throughout the world, in order to raise its possibilities of action in the class struggle; - consolidating and enlarging today's sporadic comings together, in a proletarian internationalist tendency which exists today, with all its limits and errors, we propose the following:- A coordinated response in the face of certain attacks of capital (e.g. the question of the British miners, of the working class in South Africa, Iran-Iraq etc.): joint leaflets and campaigns, political information, moments of practical relations and orientations affecting the world proletariat. International information: about workers' struggles, in order to make propaganda as much as possible on the most important struggles taking place in each region or country in order to spread their echo and to reinforce the reality of proletarian internationalism and proletarian fraternity. about different political groups, not only participants in the proposal, but also enemies, since this is a necessary element for the political struggle against them. about historical experience, texts and documents produced in the long struggle of the proletariat against capital and all exploitation. Theoretical-political polemic with a view towards taking up joint positions and as a contribution to the development of revolutionary politics. For those who not only agree on a whole series of points but are in agreement on praxis, and who put forward all the points of this proposition, in particular point 1 (common action), it is vital to organise the discussion. And solely for those, we propose two things: The international organisation of correspondence, implying the creation of a fluid network of exchange and of communication, which should be one of the material bases of point 7. An International Review, which should not be conceived of as an ensemble of the political positions of the different groups brought together under a "collective" cover. On the contrary, it should be an instrument to consolidate the realised common activity, to propagate and argue shared positions and, to be sure, to develop the necessary public discussion on the vital questions concerning the tasks of the moment, the proposed activity and the "open" themes, given a common agreement on the necessity to include them. To the degree that there is the necessary agreement, to stimulate the participation of other groups in the press and vice versa; and the spreading of texts of the intervening groups. Move towards creating a common "internal" discussion: in other words, not limit oneself to the "official and public" polemic between groups, but also the discussion of communists in the face of "open" problems. All the activities and all the decisions which the participating groups take will be through general agreement, in other words, unanimously. To whom do we make this proposition?1/ Anyone in the world waging struggle against the attacks of capital, against all imperialist or inter-bourgeois wars, against all bourgeois states (regardless of shade or colour) with the aim of the working class imposing its dictatorship against the bourgeoisie, its social system and all forms of exploitation. 2/ All those who don't support any fraction of the bourgeoisie against another, but who struggle against them all. Those who don't defend inter-classist fronts, neither adhering to nor participating in them. 3/ Those who practically accept that "the working class has no country", this fundamental phrase which doesn't just say that the working class can't defend what they don't have but that they "can" and must intervene in the struggles and tasks posed in the different countries of the world, despite the fact that, from the bourgeois point of view, this would be seen as an interference against the "right of nations to self-determination". A right which is called for each time the revolutionary proletariat or its avant-garde reinforces its international links in the face of its class enemy, a right which is trampled on each time it comes to putting down and massacring revolutionary movements. 4/ Precisely for this reason, those who fight against the politics of "defence of the national economy", of economic recovery, of "sacrifices to resolve crisis", to those who don't swallow the policies of expansion of their own bourgeoisie even when the latter is economically, politically or militarily attacked; to those who always struggle against the entire bourgeoisie, both local and foreign. 5/ To those who combat the forces and the ideologies which set out to chain the proletarians to the economy and to the politics of the nation state, disarming them under the pretext of "realism" and the "lesser evil". 6/ To those who don't propose to "recuperate" or "reconquer" the unions. On the contrary, to those who characterise the latter as instruments and institutions of the bourgeoisie and of its state. In no way can the unions defend to the end the immediate interests of the proletariat. In no way can they serve the revolutionary interests of the proletariat. 7/ Those who agree that one of the tasks on this terrain is to battle to the end against the political line of class collaboration supported by the unions, and who contribute to making the rupture of the class from the unions irreversible. 8/ To those who do all they can to contribute to reinforcing all the attempts at unification of the proletariat, in order to confront capital, even partially, all the attempts at extension, generalisation and deepening of the struggles of resistance against capital. 9/ To those who defend the struggles against all varieties of capitalist repression, whether those exercised by the official (state) military forces of law and order, or that of its civilian colleagues of the left and right of capital. To those who, as best they can, collaborate with groups who suffer the blows of repression. 10/ To those avant-gardes who, in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its state, pitilessly combat those who limit themselves to criticising one of the forms which the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie takes on ( the most violent, military one in fact) and defend democracy or struggle for its development. 11/ In this sense, in the face of the bourgeoisie's false alternative of fascism/anti-fascism, to those who denounce the bourgeois class character of anti-fascist fronts and of democracy, and pose the necessity of struggling for the destruction of the bourgeois state, in whatever form it presents itself, with the objective of abolishing the system of wage labour and the world-wide elimination of class society and all forms of exploitation. 12/ To those for whom proletarian internationalism implies, first of all, the struggle against one's own bourgeoisie, revolutionary defeatism in all wars except the class war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and for the proletarian revolution. 13/ To those who, with whatever different theorisations of the party, agree on the fact that they are international from birth onwards, or they are nothing. 14/ Finally, to those who, in accordance with their strength and their situation have defined their tasks against the bourgeoisie, orientated towards two fundamental aspects: push the development of the proletariat's class autonomy; contribute to the construction and development of the politics of proletarian internationalism and the world party. In other words, whereas the means, the tasks and the priorities can be adapted in different ways depending on a given situation, all of this must be in relation to one sole perspective: the constitution of the working class as a world wide force for the destruction of the capitalist system. Final clarificationWe believe that the above formulations can and should be improved, corrected, completed. We aren't going to defend every last dot and comma of this Proposition, but its general sense. In the first discussions we have had on the present situation and on how to begin to change it, there have been comrades who have expressed a certain pessimism on the reception it will receive and on the possibilities of its realisation. We believe that in the face of the possibility (and the realities) of inter-bourgeois war, in the face of massacres of the workers, of children and the old, which are repeated in different parts of the world, and in the face of the ever-growing mountain of tasks imposed on revolutionaries at present, the politics of the sect, of greediness, of "leaving things till later" and the implicit or explicit, defence of the present "status quo" don't match up. The recognition of the present situation should be translated through a political initiative capable of recuperating the lost ground and of overcoming grave weaknesses. In this sense, the common engagement must be the struggle for a radical change in the international relations between revolutionaries. In other words, going beyond a simple exchange of positions (sometimes not even that) to a joint taking of positions in the face of the attack of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, to an indispensable coordination orienting the reflection and the debate on questions which consolidate the common perspective. Among the objections which could be raised in relation to the viability of this proposition, are ones on how to concretise it. Here we find in Point 5, if one agrees with it all, the means for studying how to organise its realisation. We don't pretend to give a reply here to each question and problem, but to manifest an engagement to struggle for its concretisation. It is evident that the rapid execution of certain things requires physical meetings. We don't believe that this is absolutely necessary, that is to say, at present it seems to us to be very difficult to achieve, at least for those of us who live in this part of the world. At present, we don't see the conditions allowing for the organisation of a really international meeting. A trip of 8,000km, the equivalent of more than 15 months wages for us (more than 20 if we take the minimum defined by the govt.) means that a trip abroad is (economically) forbidden to us. That's why we believe that to begin with the relations and discussions, at least between the non-Europeans and the Europeans, should be through correspondence. This will take more time and make the task more difficult, but it's not impossible, far from it (a letter from Europe, for example, if there isn't a strike, takes 15 to 20 days). Security conditions (those who have confidence in legality are not only childish but a danger for revolutionaries) also pose obstacles, but they can and will be resolved. Language also created inconveniences. For our part, and up till now, the only one we have been able to write is Spanish. Some of us can read Italian, Portuguese, and English with difficulty. With a bit of imagination, someone might manage to understand a little French, but there is nothing to be done with German. The other languages "don't exist". Taking this into account, what's in Castillan won't have the same circulation and rapidity or response as the other languages in the established order. To conclude, the initiative which we are presenting has been put forward in its fundamentals. Those who show an interest or agree with it, will receive a part entitled "More on Organisation". In other words, how we see its realisation and concretisation. We guarantee that all those who write to us will get a copy of all the replies received. The future organisation of the correspondence, discussions, etc. will be with those who agree and will depend on the way they agree amongst themselves. For those who agree with the spirit of the proposition, we will ask then to spread it and to give us details (if possible with their address) of groups which have received this convocation. Uruguay, February 1986 2. Invariance of our international activity: some practical elements to concretize this proposal (I.C.G.)Comrades, As you know (1), since the very beginning of our group's existence, in spite of our weak forces, we've always tried to structure, coordinate and centralise the forces of the international proletariat in its struggle against worldwide Capital. For us, this has always been vital and a central objective; a decisive task that can not be postponed. We need hardly point out the complete lack of coordination between the most advanced sections of our class who are fighting against capital today. Being aware of this, and understanding the isolation, the lack of general perspectives and the lack of coherence of each revolutionary group, (all of which results from decades of counterrevolutionary domination). We recognise that internationalism is a practical and essential task for revolutionaries. All this was the very starting-point of contacts between us, of our (still too limited) activities in common, and of all the meetings that were to give birth in February 1986, to the meeting in Montevideo and to the "International Proposition" (2). Already in 1980, when our group had existed for less than two years, we launched an international proposition to 'set up a coordination' of revolutionary groups and militants, and to 'organise and centralise internationally the unity of proletarian action'. (see: "Towards the international organisation of the proletariat", in Le Communiste No 7 and Comunismo No 4). This proposition was launched during the so-called "International Conference of groups of the Communist Left". Far from being an approval of the programme and methods of such conferences, our proposition was an overall critique of their conception as well as a clearly alternative position. Already the first conferences had shown their real nature: they were nothing else but academic parliaments where each competing group had the possibility to expose its theorisations (which, as we said at the time, wasn't necessary since to know these positions one could simply read the different publications of each group). That's why we put forward a conception of the centralisation of the proletariat that was completely antagonistic to these conferences. The Conferences took, consciously or not, the evolution of the IInd International as a model, and, just like this "international", they turned their back to struggles. For some (mainly the ICC) the objective of the Conferences was to make a set of principled statements on the international situation; for others (ICP - Battaglia) the point was to formalise a set of mutual agreements between national "parties". But one way or another, these organisations conceived themselves as groups of intellectuals, having to bring consciousness to workers in struggle. We're basing ourselves on the real history of our class, on the experiences (even though they're limited) of the different attempts at international centralisation that were initiated by the Ist and IIIrd Internationals, and especially on the action of the Communist League, most militants of which were in exile, to state that the centralisations that serve and which will serve proletarian revolution, have nothing to do with conferences by intellectuals where each group exposes its conceptions on how the world would have to be. On the contrary, the centralisations that serve the proletarian revolution are and will be centralisations that co-ordinate, that structure and organise the real community of existing struggles against Capital. Through these historical facts that made up a certain level - even if it was limited - of the formation of the Party of the prooletariat during its history, the starting point was, already, the community of existing struggle (not yet structured, not yet formalised) that determined the organisation of mutual help and solidarity, the organisation in the face of repression, simply in the face of competition between workers, the constitution of international forces against scabs... as an absolute necessity. It was on this basis that the section of the class who were really taking on perspectives of the movement, who were objectively preparing the direction of the international proletarian revolution, had to structure themselves. (We won't examine here the programmatical limits of these attempts). These two conceptions correspond to two completely different vision as to the nature and composition of what might become the embryo of a proletarian international: First - according to the conception of the conferences (and if we insist on this subject, it's because we're convinced that today they continue to have a very baleful influence!) the criterion of membership consists in the formal agreement to a set of principles; Second - according to our conception, since the problem is not to invent nor to "create" a party ("the party rises up spontaneously from the soil of modern society" - Marx), but to structure, to formalise and to direct the real and existing force that is developing though clashes with capital. Our own voluntary and conscious activity is a product of this struggle. The main thing is not to elaborate some "formal platform", but to really co-ordinate action. We affirm that formal agreement with a series of principles gives no guarantees - as can be seen throughout the whole of history. For instance the 21 conditions for admission to the IIIrd International were formulated against reactionaries but were eventually used against the KAPD. We oppose to all this the practical verification of the community in struggle. That's the reason why our international proposition of 1980, as well as the proposition we're launching today together with Workers Emancipation and Revolutionary Classist Militancy requires a militant engagement as well as a consistent practice. It puts forward a whole set of tasks to be taken up. These propositions do not constitute a set of formal principles, they are intended for those who develop a real and daily practice in the struggle for revolution. This corresponds to the chapter "A proposition for Whom?" of the international Proposition, and to the different points of militant engagement that we mentioned in our proposition of 1980. In 1980 we also stressed the fact that our proposition was not exclusively intended for the participants of the conference, but above all was intended for all comrades all over the world that really are at the vanguard of the struggles of the proletariat and that as such make up a real community of struggle, even if this aspect was not yet being completely assumed (due to a lack of consciousness on this state of things, due to a lack of co-ordination, of directives, of a clear direction,...). We therefore considered that our proposition was not at all our own property and we were ready to associate ourselves actively to any other serious proposition of this kind (regardless of different formulations it may have taken) and to associate ourselves so as to assume the corresponding organisational activities. For instance, in one of the introducing paragraphs to our proposition, we stated clearly that:- "...our positions which we are putting forward are not specific to these Conferences, nor are they exclusively addressed to their participants. We say again that our proposition is not based on 'how we would like things to be' but is based on the material conditions of the development of class antagonisms. The coordination of class forces which are acting today without any overall viewpoint is an absolute social necessity. We do not consider ourselves as the owners of this proposition, nor do we defend any particular form for the setting up of a coordination of working class forces all over the world. We are ready to actively participate in all the efforts of our class which head in this direction... (as we do already wherever we can). We are convinced that such efforts cannot be in contradiction with the general sense of our proposition. We've taken the initiative of this proposal because we know it corresponds to a general necessity. Many of the efforts of our class throughout the world are already converging towards this necessity. Our organised and organising activities should not lag behind the movement but should try and direct the necessities that derive spontaneously from the movement towards the most essential and general objectives. That is, the centralisation of class forces towards the dictatorship of the proletariat for the abolition of wage labour."(3) It's in this sense that we've acted for the last few years even if the results are still very limited and partial: we're still in a situation of sect-like organisations. This is characterised by the existence of international contacts between groups and by a certain level of mutual acquaintance without the existence of a permanent and real co-ordination that aims at the organisation of a single international centralisation and at the real assumption of the program of the proletariat: its constitution into a one and only world wide force. Of course there are some exceptions when a common practice and common positions are being developed between different organisations on a base of concrete fact (4). We never had any illusion about the possibility of receiving many favourable responses to such a proposition, nor of giving a concrete form to such an essential task. It seems important to stress this once more so that we might, in spite of the difficulties, preserve the enthusiasm of the comrades from Workers Emancipation, Revolutionary Class Militant and all other militants and groups ready to assume with us the tasks that derive from this new proposition. Since the general conditions have not changed, we can repeat here what we already said on the subject in 1980:- "We don't have many illusions about the possibility of getting many favourable responses to our proposition in this current state of dispersion and disorganisation of revolutionary forces and the domination of the ideology of counter-revolution. But we work with a sense of unity in action on a rigorous class basis, and we'll continue to do so because the only force that opposes itself to the bourgeois current towards imperialist war, is the world wide proletariat fighting for its historical class interests. The co-ordination we propose may adopt all the points we've mentioned or it might add more; it might take a concrete form in the short term or not; but whatever happens, such coordination will be built up because it corresponds to a vital social necessity that has to be formalised on the highest possible international level." (5) We remain in complete coherence with everything we've defended when we voluntarily give our full adherence to this new proposition. This is why we participated in the meeting at Montevideo, why we distribute texts by W.E. and R.C.M. and Union Proletarienne, why we shall contribute towards the international circulation of the proposition and towards the discussions which shall stimulate the concretisation of such a coordination. Just as in 1980 we insist on the necessity of interpreting this proposition in a militant way that must not leave any room for any kind of formalism, and, as it say in the proposition itself, there can be no list of principles that can guarantee us against any kind of opportunists or centrists (6). What is being proposed is the coordination (talking about centralisation would already be too much to expect) of a common practice and of the new tasks that derive from such a practice. We say to "all revolutionary groups and militants... that there's no point trying to find material for some "Theoretical-like" disagreements on this or that question or in the way things have been formulated. We've only tried to formalise through this concrete proposition the tasks which are indispensable if an international coordination of activity which interests the whole of our class is to be realised. We're not going to defend this proposition to the letter; what really matters is its general sense, and that is what we're defending." (7) "We do not consider this proposition to be "our property" (neither do the comrades of WE or RGM) but we consider it to be a formalisation of vital necessity for the proletariat, that we will always defend, and that will sooner or later have to take a concrete form. This is true even if the form that such a coordination takes is different from the one we're proposing today (8). The participants of the meeting in Montevideo took on a number of tasks with regard to the international distribution of the "Propuesta". Unfortunately there have been a lot of difficulties of contact between Rio de la Plata and Europe. We lost contact because of the repression our group had to face (particularly in France and Belgium) and consequently the application of the agreement we had reached was very much delayed. We only had a rough copy of the 'Propuesta' and didn't receive the finished one or the additional note of explanation until some months after the Buenos Aires meeting (at the end of August). By this time many groups in Europe were already circulating and responding to the proposition. In September 1986 we still didn't know if Workers Emancipation had the entirety of the material we had sent them in the interest of accelerating the application of the proposition... for instance a list of contacts and the addresses of groups in Europe. Before we go further, we want to emphasise that we have been fully satisfied by the fact that the comrades from Rio de la Plata have assumed on their own the international circulation of the proposition. It reinforces the confidence we have in them about the seriousness of their militancy. And in spite of our disagreement about the note of explanation added later on (March 1986) in Argentina, we reaffirm that all this was correct. Today we learn from Workers Emancipation that all contact with RCM has been lost. W.E. supposes the group could have had problems or dissolved. We for our part, have lost contact with RCM since the beginning of '86. Facing this, we reaffirm our support to all those who continue to uphold the project. We want to recall here a general principle: these tasks of the international and internationalist proletariat must never, on any account, be subordinated to the problems militants and/or formal groups who've initiated these tasks might be having. And we must build up the bases that will allow us to act in spite of the repressive and disorganisative forces deployed against us by our historical enemy. We decided that the circulation of the finished text was a priority as soon as we received it. It was therefore sent to all the working class militants that we know and published in our Central Review in Spanish and, to the best of our abilities, in other languages as well. Of course we've also sent the proposition to all our contacts and we'll send to Argentina the addresses of all the proletarian groups we know of, in order to facilitate contact. Where and where not to beginThe international proposition specifies seven specific points that concern the important tasks to assume. When we need to act practically, we must necessarily establish some order of priority. This cannot be determined by the free will of the participants but will be determined by existing necessities and possibilities. Relating to this, it seems obvious that some points can be concretised straight away whereas others will only follow from these previous points having been concretised. This means that certain activities can only be started when others have been completed. This will allow us to appraise the forces that exist for accomplishing these activities more specifically. For instance, neither the creation of "internal" polemics (point 7), nor an international review (point 5), nor point 6 would make sense without a common practice to respond to the attacks of capital being made a reality. The proposition stresses very clearly, that these kind of tasks can only be realised by those who really converge through common practice and who consciously act to co-ordinate all this:- "For those who not only agree on a whole series of points but are in agreement on praxis, and who put forward all the points of this proposition, in particular point 1 (common action), it is vital to organise discussion. It is for these people alone that we propose... the international organisation of correspondence,... and international review..." We say this because the proposition has already been interpreted by some as a "proposition of international polemics" or as the "elaboration of an international review". As we already stated on many other occasions and as we'll continue to point out in our press (up to the point of getting tired of it):- polemics only make sense within the framework of common practice. Neither the other comrades who contributed to the elaboration of the proposition, nor ourselves, are inclined to create a review or any kind of "internal" polemics with those who are not united by a real community of struggle... i.e. those with whom we could not give a practically "coordinated response to the attacks by Capital". And even if the text of the proposition doesn't put this clearly we consider the following to be implicit in the "general sense" of the proposition that we defend. Militant solidarity in the face of repression, mutual aid, the struggle to free imprisoned comrades, the response to state terrorism and the welcoming and protection of persecuted militants... Of course this doesn't imply that those groups and militants for whom such common practice already exists (alongside a process of awakening of the existing community of struggle) should wait for the others to reach the same level of "coordination" before assuming tasks like "internal polemics". As far as we're concerned, we'll continue to go forward with them in that direction. Therefore we think that the proposition can only take a concrete form for those for whom there already exists a community of struggle, and this on the basis of the first point:- "A coordinated response in the face of certain attacks of capital (e.g. on the question of the British miners, class struggle in South Africa, Iran Iraq etc.) in the form of joint leaflets and campaigns, political information, moments of practical relations and orientations affecting the world proletariat." We want to propose some axis of common activity and of information against capitalist ideologies and its representatives, as well as the minimal basis to be established so as to respond efficiently to particular circumstances with, for instance, joint leaflets. We make the following concrete proposition:- To start as soon as possible an international campaign against capitalist war. The creation of some minimal structure, some limited committee of coordination whose task will be to structure this campaign and to organise, in the different concrete situations, our common responses in a quick and unified manner. Here are some more explanations about this:- There's no need to dwell on the general tendency of capital towards war as far as the comrades that agree on the proposition are concerned. Nor need we dwell on the significance of State terrorism or on the need for the proletariat to uphold the flag of revolutionary defeatism as the answer to these. Fundamentally we consider that this campaign will have to be centered on:- a/ The coordination of common action that opposes the interests of the proletariat to those of the whole war economy and which denounces capital for being responsible for all inter-imperialist and inter-bourgeois wars. b/ The coordination and the organisation of specific actions of information, of propaganda and of agitation about wars actually going on. And we consider it to be particularly important to organise a specific campaign against the Iran Iraq war. c/ The coordination of common action against international state terrorism, generally based on the ideology of anti-terrorism. The campaign against the Iran-Iraq war, not according to the axis just mentioned, will be a good example of concretisation of the proposition. This campaign will allow us to check, in practice, the ability of the different groups of militants who have shown an interest in the proposition, to converge in action. Besides that it will also allow for a decantation on the basis of practice instead of formal and platonic adhesions. Concretely and according to the axis we already defended in the manifesto against this war, published and broadcasted in 1982 (See Communism No 1: 'War and Peace against the Proletariat'). We intend to prepare texts and to improve our contacts with these sectors of the proletariat that are being directly attacked through this war. We will also try to set up a meeting of coordination that will be a direct concretisation of the proposition even if this meeting is to be organised in a country, or in a language that might not be accessible to all those who took the initiative of the proposition. Such a meeting will be a real concretisation of the proposition and all those who practically agree with it, will be present, even if they cannot themselves attend the meeting for reasons of financial, language, or any other inconveniences. Such a meeting which has been proposed as a necessity by comrades of that region, will try to coordinate different aspects of the proletariat's revolutionary defeatist actions in Iran and well as in Iraq. It will contribute to the development of a large network for the exchange of information still unknown in the west; it will also contribute to the coordination of a good deal of practical tasks on concrete problems and finally it will allow for the checking, on practical grounds, of the different engagements that are being made, and of the necessary demarcations (9). For us the constitution of a minimal organising structure is an absolute necessity. This would be a committee of coordination capable of taking urgent decisions, and drawing up particular leaflets, both of which would have to be assumed by all the participants to the Proposition. As a matter of fact, without such a structure we would not be able to respond efficiently (as we propose in point 1) to the attacks of capital. For instance a flexible structure of decision will be necessary when it comes to drawing up joint leaflets with comrades that agree on the proposition and with whom a community of struggle really exists. When pretending to proceed democratically, with unanimous approval, we fear that these leaflets would be out of date once printed. To prevent this sort of thing happening, we really insist on the essential need for building up a small committee that will be able, when required by the circumstances, to take initiatives very quickly and to decide on the necessity of such centralisation. For us it is clear that if in crucial moments such a coordination would be unable to adopt a single position with a single signature that would mark the continuity of our common action, then we would also be incapable of assuming the other points of the proposition and consequently the so called "coordinated answers" would become a lie to ourselves and to our class. In other words, if at the very moment when it is most necessary to act as a single body, in an efficient and urgent way, if at that moment instead of a quick decision by a small committee, each group and each militant goes on with their own business and publish their own leaflets, if that happens then we'll still be at the starting point of the proposition, i.e. at today's terrible state of things that we're trying to fight against. Maybe some comrades also imagine that the committee must be constituted by a number of representatives, proportional to the importance of their respective groups. Besides the fundamental deviation that is being expressed through such democratic pretentions, this kind of organisation is an absolute practical impossibility for the same reasons as the ones raised in the proposition; i.e. difficulties of travel, the regularity of correspondence, etc. It seems to be quite difficult for the coordination committee to be inter-continental (because it would take months to take any decision) and thus the criteria of representivity cannot be accepted. Whether we like it or not, this committee is indispensable on the one hand, but on the other it cannot be based on any criteria such as proportional or unanimous representivity. This does not scare us because if a rea1 community of struggle does exist (and the coordination committee will only be the formal expression of such a community) then this committee will be based on mutual trust, arising from the common practice..., it can always be checked. In the beginning we think it would be more adequate if the comrades from Workers' Emancipation themselves would be in charge of this kind of committee, which they already do and which will take a clear form when this group will answer to all letters officially in the name of the Proposition. We already said when we met in Uruguay that it would be nonsense to write four different answers (one from WE, one from ROM, one from ourselves and another one by still another comrade who does not belong to any of these groups) to all groups who show a real interest in the Proposition. Consequently we think that the comrades from WE will assume these tasks and we think they ought to do so with the full understanding what this really implies, is they must be aware that they'll answer as a secretariat, as a committee of coordination of the Proposition, not as the Workers' Emancipation group. Of course, taking into account the information, the political adequacy and the speed with which the committee assures the contacts, we don't rule out the possibility of later transferring it somewhere else (in Europe...) or to other comrades. Neither do we exclude the fact that once the criteria of decision making have been clearly established, there could be 2 or 3 coordination committees, or even one of them on each continent. But this implies that it would be clear to all participants that it is up to them to decide in which circumstances and according to which (predefined) methods the competencies of each such committee would be decided (relating to the geographical or linguistical criteria on which certain information would depend for instance). Neither the concrete modes of operation that will have to be assumed by this indispensable coordination structure (about which we are ready to discuss of course), nor the care about the formal representivity as far as it comes to taking decisions, really matter. Above all it is the real ability to become operational that is important for this coordination. Only this will allow for the structure to transform the convergence of action and of common positions into a real community of organised action, that would be able to act as an organic body and not as the dissimilar addition of scattered groups or individuals. If someone asks us what guarantee we can possibly offer that this structure will function (since it doesn't take into account the criteria of representivity) we answer clearly that this kind of guarantee never exists, not even in the most representative structures, and that the only guarantee resides in our common interests against our historical enemy and in the practice that derives from this. No formal guarantee can preserve us from the danger of deviation or removal from our historical interests. In this case an objective rupture in the community of action would inevitably occur and all coordination or formal committees would lose their original meaning. This would mean that it's time to clarify, to break away from, to set up some new kind of structure that would still be the result of common practice and of mutual trust. So we stress once more that a real committee of coordination corresponds to a vital need so as to give birth to the other fundamental tasks that are mentioned in the proposition. This is true with regard to the organisation of international correspondence, the organised distribution of information or the perspectives of an international review. 3. Explanatory note (Workers' Emancipation)During discussions after this meeting, some of the comrades who had initiated and worked out these ideas decided to clarify point 5 of the proposition in order to avoid confusion. As we have already briefly mentioned, we do not see this review as a collection of various distinct political positions under a common cover: this would neither contribute anything nor help us to overcome the present situation. Moreover, making the various political positions known would only require that the text of each group are circulated. Put we do not see this review as something amorphous, anodine, full of "generalities" on which all would agree simply because they are just generalities. That's why we describe it in a richer, more complex way, made up of three parts: one part common to all the groups involved, worked out by common consent, and that would clarify and/or reject the fundamentals of shared positions. a second part for which the theme would be chosen by common consent but with individual stand points. and a third part for which each participant could freely chose a theme, where they can bring up subjects that they regard as important and not sufficiently taken into consideration by the others; or a new subject, or a different argument. We think it is essential to include these three parts in the international proposition. The first one, because it would make no sense to work and publish in common if we cannot come to an agreement on some points. Hopefully this will be a trend that we are to develop and reinforce. This will help us to establish new bases to come to grips with today's weakness and isolation. The second part, because on some subjects (South Africa, Bolivia, the English miners,...) we'll have to a certain extend, common positions and arguments (more or less substantial) but also different arguments, especially as far as practical proposals are concerned. Agreements on one subject would be published in the first part; disagreements on the same subject, in the second part. Therein will lie the possibility of discussing publicly the other positions on which there is no agreement; the possibility to know them and to make them known, the possibility to thrash out differences and smooth the way towards new syntheses. Therein will also lie the possibility to discuss any other subject, already "open" today, which we would have to face together. For us it would be wrong to have a review restricted to the first two parts. The third part is essential: it is indispensable if we want to prevent in every case struggle between us over polemical issues from being held back bureaucratically. This part, along with the two previous ones, will contribute to the "necessary public debate over vital question, related to the tasks of the moments...". In the two previous parts there was a general agreement upon subject, chosen by common consent; this means that if there is no agreement upon the political evaluation of certain subjects, if we didn't have the third part, discussion of these subjects could not be published. Such questions as appear in this last part are the exclusive responsibility of the group which chose them. The only restriction that can be made is: these questions must respect the agreement on the criteria agreed upon and must not exceed a certain space (e.g. two or three pages). We have agreements, but also disagreements not only in the way we look at some subjects, but also on their scale of importance. We would gain nothing by denying or ignoring this or by using bureaucratic pressure to prevent publication of these differences. On the contrary, we must stimulate straightforward analyses and debate in a respectful and non-sectarian way -AN ACTIVITY THAT MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN COMMON AND PUBLICLY: THOSE WHO WORK PUBLICLY TOGETHER CAN AND MUST DISCUSS PUBLICLY TOGETHER. That is the way to strengthen international collective work. Some might want a review whose content would be entirely shared by each participant and which would express a high degree of homogeneity. But it would take years before a review like that could appear and even if it did, it would probably be of little use, since it would be completely out of date. The fact is that a review is not only a model, it is a relation that of necessity cannot invent a reality with a degree of development and centralisation of the class struggle which does not today exist, a reality of which we are part. Of course, it is possible to produce a more homogeneous review if your international activity (which is not the sane thing as internationalism) remains restricted to yourselves and to some groups (or "sections" with which work is already being done), but all this would not help to improve the situation as described in this proposition. We also think it necessary to make clear our ideas on censorship, since some will surely propose setting limitations to the "free" part of the review, that is censorship. There will probably be some who will make their participation conditional on their ability to control and censor the articles published in this part: that's the way things are today! We think it is totally wrong to put things that way. As we said in the proposition, we are starting on a basis: a political and practical agreement bringing forth a coordinated response to certain attacks by capital, work in common, times of real connection and planning as an answer to concrete and serious questions that affect the world proletariat. To talk of the review without considering what has been said before would make no sense at all: therefore it is proposed that the review come from those who actually are united in practice and who support all the points of the proposition, especially point 1. That is precisely why we reject censorship of any article written by those who agree with the established criteria, and with whom we are working by common consent. Of course we are not talking about articles that would go against our common principles: in that case the group itself would be "censored". What we are saying is: to come to an agreement on the criteria of demarcation (allowing for any changes and developments that may be made) does not mean that we can ignore the thousands of differences on or distinct evaluations of very important questions. Hiding or ignoring them would be foolish. We would be nationalistic if we believed that we could solve these questions in isolation rather than by developing shared international work. To conclude, we repeat what we said earlier: we are not going to defend our every last dot and comma - it is the overall sense of the proposition that we are fighting to achieve. That's why we insist upon the following: the propositions is a whole, we put it forward as such, and it is on this basis that we see relations developing between various groups or individuals throughout the world who have as their fundamental objective: THE WORLDWIDE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. Argentina, March 1996 4. Some remarks about the additional explanatory note (I.C.G.)The explanatory note added to the Proposition, contains some problems which we would like to sort out. We're particularly worried that the fifth point (the setting up of an international review, which remains for us a very valuable perspective) might be interpreted as being more important than or even independent from all the other points. This would contradict all that has been stated before. So we think it important to stress what is clearly stated both in this explanatory note and throughout the whole proposition:- "... a political practical agreement that gives a coordinated response to certain attacks by capital, an activity in common, the setting up of real links and orientations, as an answer to the difficult and concrete problems that the world proletariat is facing. To talk about the review, without having in mind all what we just mentioned, would be senseless; so the review is being proposed to all those who practically work together and who support all the different points of the proposition and above all, point 1." (10) If we completely agree on this, then why have some additional explanatory note on the fifth point and on how it will be implemented in the future? Why not an additional note to all the other points of the proposition? Why insist on this new "free" heading with "no censure" that was never mentioned before in the Proposition? On the contrary, the proposition stated very clearly that we would have "open" debate both on crucial questions related to the tasks of the moment and proposed activities, and also on "open" themes that by common agreement were considered necessary. Why have this explanatory note where the criteria of common agreement is denied and replaced by a heading "the theme of discussion can be chosen freely by each participant"? We see two reasons for this which have not been made explicit: the first is a tendency (that already existed at the meeting in Montevideo) to make the fifth point independent of is proposition, even if this isn't clearly stated..., i.e. to consider publishing such a review in the short term, without sufficient guarantee that there is a common practice as far as the other points are concerned. This despite a clear denial of such a perspective throughout the whole Proposition. We completely disagree with such a perspective, which as far as we see would go totally against all that we've been developing up till now. The result of this initiative would be a hotch potch review, a kind of tribune of ideas about what the proletariat should do. We know enough historical examples of this kind, to completely reject such a perspective. For instance, this is what happened with the International Conferences organised by the ICC and Battaglia which ended up with the opposing ideas of the participants as expressed in and for the conferences being circulated (in several languages). The whole emphasis was on the circulation of these ideas whilst the participants were never united in any community of action. Of course we do not identify the positions of WE with this position of setting up a kind of "tribune" review with people who have no common practice. We believe that the explanatory note does sufficiently insist on the necessity of common practice as a condition for producing a review. However this tendency does exist: it showed itself as early as Montevideo when certain comrades concluded that such an internationally review could be set up right away (11). Today it shows itself again when we read this Note about a specific point which can only take a concrete form when the other points have also been put into practice. It would have been very useful to examine how the whole of the proposition could be put into practice, for instance by adding a note of explanation about the first point, which we think is necessary if not indispensable. The second reason, which goes deeper and is more serious, is that Workers' Emancipation is finding it difficult to accept the fact that a coordination like the Proposition requires organs for decision making and centralisation and that this is not just one option amongst many others, but is a necessity. This is reflected in the lack of precision as to which activities will be decided upon and how they will be chosen also with regard to which mechanism will be used to "realise shared campaigns and leaflets". This last point we have tried to clarify in the paragraph Where and Where not to Begin. It is also reflected in the fact that Workers' Emancipation has considered it necessary to produce an explanatory note only for the fifth point when the other points need one just as much. Finally it is reflected in the question of anti-censure, of the freedom of expression for each of the participants, and the freedom for each one to decide what theme is important. We can understand completely the proletarian reasons which have caused Workers' Emancipation to have this gut hatred of editorial committees, sub-editors and so on... because we're suspicious of them ourselves and fear bureaucratisation more than anything. But we feel it would be totally irresponsible not to point out the necessity for editing and centralisation. It would also be a lie, since it's a fact that even in structures where you want to guarantee free or unanimous decision making, in reality there are always those who make decisions and those who don't. Or even worse there are those organisations which insist the most on democratic decision making and on unanimity - on the absence of leaders and the fact that everyone decides everything - which are actually the most bureaucratic and which there clearly exist leaders who decide and others who follow. And don't let Workers' Emancipation turn to us and say that in their organisation everyone does decide everything and that in their publications anything at all is printed from any comrade whoever they are! Democratic discourse and democracy as such, always produce dictatorships in practice. And also, even if censorship and lack of freedom have been weapons of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, individual freedom (which is nothing but the expression of the freedom of commerce, the freedom to buy and sell in bourgeois society, in which the individual is itself a product of commodity relation) and debates on freedom of expression (or on any subject whatsoever) make up an integral part of the mechanisms of repression which have been used against the proletariat throughout its history. You just have to remember how the Stalinists and the Syndicalists (and the Peronists) used freedom of speech to destroy workers' assemblies, making sixteen hour speeches which couldn't be cut short because of 'freedom of expression':- in this way they succeeded in disheartening the workers and leaving them isolated when the time came to make decision. You just have to remember that throughout the history of the international workers' movement, savage repression has been carried out against fractions of the proletarian vanguard in the name of the great principles of democracy, free elections etc. Once again comrades, we stress the fact that the terrain of the proletariat, its constitution as a class and so as a party, has nothing at all to do with individual freedom and democracy, in which it is always the ideas of the dominant class which hold sway, including among the workers. The terrain of the proletariat is on the contrary organically constituted and based on the collective interests of the class. This breaks away from free choice from the very start and destroys the individual, the citizen of bourgeois society. In practice for us it doesn't seem important to worry about how the third part of point 5 of the proposition will eventually be applied (the clarifications seems to us out of place - they don't answer the necessities and responsibilities which must first be taken on, and they are based on a false conception) because it will only appear in a concrete form as a consequence of the other points being applied. On the other hand what does seem essential to us is how we can operate so as to make shared activity a reality, and also what mechanisms will be created to enable production of shared texts and campaigns. On this matter we have already proposed certain criteria. What concerns us right now is knowing how the various replies to the proposition will be dealt with. With all this talk about free anti-censorship, free tribunes and the promise to "guarantee that all those who write to us will get a copy of every reply we have received". We're quite rightly concerned whether this applies to trotskyist and peronist groups. Workers Emancipation tell us that they will publish the replies and at some time inform us of any letters they have received from notorious counter-revolutionary groups like, for example, the OCI who "accuse us of neglecting the revolutionary bourgeoisie by simplifying everything to the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat". We are convinced that Workers Emancipations' aversion to censorship will not lead them to publish that kind of groups stimulating replies and so spread the ideas of our historic enemy. If they were to act like that they clearly couldn't count on us. We agree completely with having polemics, and that these must be public within the class and directed towards the class. We also agree that a review like the one we need would not particularly have a content that was entirely shared by or common to every participant (it would take a vile trick to interpret our positions as saying the opposite). But we cannot agree to play our enemies democratic game, nor will we countenance making propaganda for bourgeois organisations and bourgeois ideas. As far as we are concerned, this is what is always imposed in the name of freedom and anti-censorship and it constitutes a form of repression of proletarian positions. We await clarification of these points from Workers Emancipation, but we look forward even more keenly to: the elements of the proposition being put in a concrete form; the reply to our proposals for concrete campaigns; the structures which will allow us in the particular situations which will inevitably arise, to reply as a single force. Notes1. We address ourselves more precisely to the comrades that participated in the meeting in Uruguay and particularly to the comrades from Workers' Emancipation and Revolutionary Classist Militancy to whom we're sending this letter, but also - through the publication of this letter in our review -we're addressing ourselves to all groups and militant that are interested in the perspectives that we're trying to give a concrete form through this "International Proposition". 2. See the introduction to the proposition. 3. See Le Communiste No 7 and Comunismo No 4. 4. This acquaintance is still very limited. In these years all over the world a strong decomposition of the bourgeois left and of the so called revolutionary milieu was taking place. In certain cases this led to the birth of a myriad of small groups, most cases without their own publication and without any organisational structure, but already trying to build a classist and revolutionary alternative in opposition to all social-democratic excrements. In these cases the many difficulties of international contacts (permanently sabotaged by police repression in all countries), the lack of organic and theoretical links with communist fractions from the past (often due to a tragic ignorance), the sectarian and localist attitudes that often prevailed, all this explains the state of mutual ignorance and often pure indifference that until now has largely dominated the relations between groups. 5. See Le Communiste No 7 and Comunismo No 4. 6. See the chapter "On Certain Accusations" of the Proposition. 7. See the chapter "Some Final Clarifications". 8. See Le Communiste No 7 and Comunismo No 4. 9. It must be stated that this particular campaign related to the general campaign we proposed, does not exclude at all the realisation of other concrete actions. Any proposition on this account will be welcome. For instance there is a proposition from a group of comrades in England to organise in Argentina and in England a campaign on the occasion of the fifth "anniversary" of the Falklands' war. Such initiatives can only have real perspectives in a much more global framework of coordination of common action like the one we want to build through the proposition. Understanding that such initiatives must be part of a general framework, the comrades from England will discuss all this and contact directly the comrades from Rio de la Plata. 10. Last page of the 'Explanatory Note'. 11. This was a position taken up by certain comrades of Workers' Emancipation, but not shared by others. From jannuzi at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 04:13:23 2009 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:13:23 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama says US may reach out to Taliban Message-ID: What should we expect. He even reaches out to Republicans and keeps people like Gates around. He's a reacher! http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2009-March/date.html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2009-March/024185.html >>CB: Iraq and Afghanistan are not identical in that the 9/11 attackers were based in the latter. Although Bush distorted and exaggerated the response in the response to Afghanistan, that aspect is not a nothing. Obama has expressed a sense that is a basis for paring down Bush's overreaction to that legitimate aspect.<< Not so simple. The 9/11 perps based on the evidence we have been allowed to see were based in US, Canada and Europe, and out of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Also, the war on Iraq was sold in part on the idea that nudge nudge wink wink everybody, Saddam Hussein was so evil, he just had to have something to do with that horrible unprecedented huge evil 9/11 against the US, poor victims. More than newly advocating what 'the west' sees as oppressive social practices, the Taliban usually managed to assert power in Afghanistan and Pakistan by acting as 'enforcers' of already entrenched social practices. They didn't invent such a harsh version of sharia. But like many puritanical forms of a a relatively old religion, they are actually a rather new development. In this case 'Deobandi', from India. -- Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ From rasherrs at eircom.net Sat Apr 18 04:32:41 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:32:41 +0100 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Irish deficit and Crises In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601c9c011$012a0d80$037e2880$@net> The Irish budget deficit has rapidly grown to an enormous size. The growing budget deficit is a symptom of the deepening global economic crisis. It is not the cause of it. The crisis can only be solved by eliminating its cause. But a budget deficit, in itself, is not necessarily a problem for a particular capitalist economy. It largely depends on the economic circumstances embedding it. It is not unthinkable for a relatively strong and vibrant economy to have a budget deficit. There is no absolute prescription engraved in stone dictating that the state must, as promptly as is possible, eliminate its economy's deficit on the shoulders of the working class. There have been two policies advanced as to how to deal with the growing Irish deficit. Both policies are advocated as ways to solve the problems of capitalism. Ultimately both policies serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie. The first policy seeks to rapidly balance the budget through a mixture of severe tax increases and spending cuts. The other argues that the best policy is to reduce taxes and spend more. It suggests that the deficit can be compensated for by increased borrowing. This policy suggests that the outstanding national debt can be largely cleaned up when recovery gets under way. The first policy is being pursued by the Fianna Fail dominated government. In the short term it will inflict considerable pain on the working class and may even lead to an even bigger hole in the state finances. It may even lead to increased civil conflict. Demand may fall as a result of increased taxation and spending cuts. This reduced demand may lead to greater unemployment. This in turn may increase the size of the deficit. Therefore the policy of balancing the budget does not necessarily solve problems. The growing Irish budget deficit is a manifestation of an acute global profitability crisis. It is only when this crisis is solved can budget deficits such as the Irish one be eliminated (not that this necessarily needs to be done). To think that the Irish budget deficit can be solved by balancing the budget is to promote a forced separation between the world depression and specific problems of the Irish economy. Specific economic problems are a product of contradictions within the world capitalist economic system. Generally speaking they are not a product of subjective factors such as what the government did or did not do. The budget deficit and many other economic problems are not independent of each other. The deficit in the Irish finances will only be "solved" as a result of ongoing world economic recovery. This is because it is inseparably connected with the current world wide depression. The present strategy of the Fianna Fail led government is inflicting great pain on the Irish working class. It is a strategy not intended to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is the pretext for reducing the living standards of the working class and generally worsening its conditions of work. This, it is hoped, will make for a leaner and meaner capital that is more profitable. If Mr Cowan succeeds in achieving this he will have been a very successful Taoiseach (prime minister). The second policy is advocated by elements within the Irish Left. It suggests that reducing taxes may tend to increase demand thereby partly compensating for the falling demand due to depression itself. It calls for increased spending, public works, as a means of providing a stimulus to the economy in a time of contraction. It claims that the resulting deficit can be made up for by borrowing from, say, the European Union. It also claims that in the period of recovery the deficit will tend to shrink and can more easily be paid out of state revenues. Despite its plausible nature this policy is no more a solution than the previous one. In the short term it will tend to lessen the intensity of suffering inflicted on the working class. However it may tend to prolong the pain by lengthening the time over which the deficit is to be, supposedly, paid for by the working class. But there is a limit to borrowing. If this were not the case there would never be any need to be concerned over deficits. They could grow at any rate and to any size because borrowing can adequately compensate for both rate and size. The same understanding can apply to spending. Under these conditions there need never be depressions because money or credit can be flushed into economies to prevent the crisis from occurring. Such an economic ideology fetishises money and credit. It falsely suggests that the quantity of money or credit is the panacea for economic evils. Money then is presented as the determinant of economic expansion. Production is mistakenly presented as the derivative of money -not the reverse. This is to mistake the appearance of capital for its essence. The valorisation process, the production of surplus value, is the source of economic expansion --not money and credit. This policy represents a more disguised way of increasing the oppression of the working class since borrowing and the interest on it is a form of future taxation. This means that the working class will be forced to yield more revenue in the form of taxation than straightforward taxation that is, say, independent of borrowing. There are only two solutions to the economic crisis: The capitalist solution which is at the expense of the working class or the communist one which is at the expense of the capitalist class. There is no in between solution just as there is no such woman as a half-pregnant woman. The abolition of capital through social revolution is the only way in which the present economic depression can be solved that is not at the expense of the working class. Such revolution cannot be realised if confined to Ireland. It must have an international dimension. From jannuzi at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 21:12:02 2009 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:12:02 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama says US may reach out to Taliban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >>CB:If I was Obama , I'd say to the Taliban "look bros, obviously, you are some bad motherfuckers because even Alexander couldn't conquer y'all, or was it that Alexander was the only one who conquered y'all.<< For a second there, I thought you were talking to some rap stars. This is another myth about 'Afghanistan'. The place has been overrun and conquered numerous times by various cultural groups--Persians, Indo-Persians, Turks, Mongols, etc. etc., and was itself a center of power for asserting control over what are now Pakistan and N. India. What isn't possible is controlling S. Pakistan without the Pashtun doing it (interestingly one of the myths the Pashtun hold about themselves is that they are a lost tribe of Israel that found Islam but whose leaders descend from Alexander's generals). It's about the same as the post-British Empire Muslim Indians trying to control the so-called 'frontiers' of Pakistan without the cooperation of Pashtun and Baluchis, except in the case of Afghanistan the Pashtun form the single largest minority. However, these areas of Pakistan are only 'frontier' in the sense of them being adjacent the borders. Historically speaking they are the center of political control in Afghanistan and what is now Pakistan. From jannuzi at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 21:12:57 2009 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:12:57 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama says US may reach out to Taliban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >>What isn't possible is controlling S. Pakistan without the Pashtun doing it (interestingly one of the myths the Pashtun hold about themselves is that they are a lost tribe of Israel that found Islam but whose leaders descend from Alexander's generals). << OOPS. I meant S. Afghanistan! From skoost at skoost.com Sun Apr 19 05:00:06 2009 From: skoost at skoost.com (Juan Ramon) Date: 19 Apr 2009 11:00:06 +0000 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A little gift - Juan Message-ID: <20090419105906.62177AC9BE@skoismta07.skoost.com> Juan Ramon belongs to Skoost and sent you a little gift. Click below to collect your gift: http://www.skoost.com/fun?marxism%2Dthaxis%40lists%2Eecon%2Eutah%2Eedu/13944189/2 P.S. This is a safe and innocent gift that Juan Ramon sent from Skoost, the free goodies website. This e-mail was sent to marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu on 4/19/2009 11:55:03 AM on behalf of Juan Ramon (ballistanc at yahoo.com) From skoost at skoost.com Sun Apr 19 07:21:18 2009 From: skoost at skoost.com (Forum For The Discussion Of Theoretical Issues Rai) Date: 19 Apr 2009 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A little gift - Forum Message-ID: <20090419132018.08788C010D@skoismta08.skoost.com> Forum For The Discussion Of Theoretical Issues Rai belongs to Skoost and sent you a little gift. Click below to collect your gift: http://www.skoost.com/fun?marxism%2Dthaxis%40lists%2Eecon%2Eutah%2Eedu/13946479/2 P.S. This is a safe and innocent gift that Forum For The Discussion Of Theoretical Issues Rai sent from Skoost, the free goodies website. This e-mail was sent to marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu on 4/19/2009 1:47:10 PM on behalf of Forum For The Discussion Of Theoretical Issues Rai (ballistanc at yahoo.com) From karldallas at f2s.com Mon Apr 20 02:54:45 2009 From: karldallas at f2s.com (Karl Dallas) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:54:45 +0100 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 66, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <6189088.1240164261006.JavaMail.root@m05> References: <6189088.1240164261006.JavaMail.root@m05> Message-ID: Re: Skoost > Message: 3 > Date: 19 Apr 2009 11:00:06 +0000 > From: "Juan Ramon" > Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A little gift - Juan > To: "marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu" > > Message-ID: <20090419105906.62177AC9BE at skoismta07.skoost.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Juan Ramon belongs to Skoost and sent you a little gift. > > Click below to collect your gift: > > http://www.skoost.com/fun?marxism%2Dthaxis%40lists%2Eecon%2Eutah%2Eedu/13944189/2 > > P.S. This is a safe and innocent gift that Juan Ramon > sent from Skoost, the free goodies website. > > This e-mail was sent to marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu on 4/19/2009 > 11:55:03 AM > on behalf of Juan Ramon (ballistanc at yahoo.com) According to the Skoost website: What's Skoost *Skoost is 'quick, easy and fun - a surprise every day' *This is Skoost, in the words of one of our members. Skoost is also 100% free and anyone can join. In some countries, *1 in 3 women are doing Skoost*, which should say something. *How does it work?* Skoost sends you an e-mail containing 3 boxes each morning. Inside 1 box is a surprise goody. Pick the box you think contains a goody and the goody is yours ;) *Skoost is good for you* Besides all that fun, we follow the EU Directive on Privacy Protection, so will NOT supply, sell, share, rent, lend, discuss, donate, display or flash your e-mail address or any personal identifiable information to any 3rd parties or 'partners'. My comment: I don't think it's appropriate for people to use this list to promote such websites, however innocent they might be. I don't know if the list is moderated to remove irrelevant postings, but if then I think it should be. Please Juan, don't do this again. From skoost at skoost.com Mon Apr 20 04:47:59 2009 From: skoost at skoost.com (Juan Ramon) Date: 20 Apr 2009 10:47:59 +0000 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A little gift - Juan Message-ID: <20090420104657.BCA31F8C5E@skoismta09.skoost.com> Juan Ramon belongs to Skoost and sent you a little gift. Click below to collect your gift: http://www.skoost.com/fun?marxism%2Dthaxis%40lists%2Eecon%2Eutah%2Eedu/13998068/2 P.S. This is a safe and innocent gift that Juan Ramon sent from Skoost, the free goodies website. This e-mail was sent to marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu on 4/20/2009 11:35:52 AM on behalf of Juan Ramon (ballistanc at yahoo.com) From farmelantj at juno.com Mon Apr 20 05:22:10 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:22:10 GMT Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Moderator's note (was Re: Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 66, Issue 5) Message-ID: <20090420.072210.2698.1@webmail23.vgs.untd.com> I am going to have Hans look into this issue. This Skoost character or entity is not, as far as I can tell, a subscriber to the list, but appears to be, perhaps, piggybacking off of someone who is a legitimate subscriber. Jim Farmelant Thaxis -Moderator ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Karl Dallas To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 66, Issue 5 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:54:45 +0100 Re: Skoost > Message: 3 > Date: 19 Apr 2009 11:00:06 +0000 > From: "Juan Ramon" > Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A little gift - Juan > To: "marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu" > > Message-ID: <20090419105906.62177AC9BE at skoismta07.skoost.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Juan Ramon belongs to Skoost and sent you a little gift. > > ____________________________________________________________ Getting the lowest homeowner insurance rate? Click here to compare quotes from top companies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIoQEL5s15oQzgAw3bmRyar1Aa54SDxmzMl7cnW7VV1BJk9DheIko/ From farmelantj at juno.com Sat Apr 25 06:48:21 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:48:21 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tristram Hunt on Engels Message-ID: <20090425.084821.5200.1.farmelantj@juno.com> http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=33301&amid=30279138 ____________________________________________________________ Click to find information on your credit score and your credit report. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIkRqIZYeommE5NteyWaTmYA3qbHPenp9TiQ9omAEUydaG10pexDi/