[Marxism] FW: Edited message: Sow's Ear Socialism,

[mlause at cinci.rr.com]

Tom Smith asks me to forward this to the list.  It seems to be a polemic against those of us familiar with the GPUS for being skeptical about the "analysis" of those who aren't familiar with it.  Since he clearly doesn't read what other people write--or give two shits whether the position he ascribes to people is real or not--I hesitated to pass on his fantasies.  

Still, for those whose theoretical tastes run to public masturbation, I'll pass it on.

ML

---- Tom Smith <green4tom at earthlink.net> wrote: 
> There's no need for vulgarity. If you don't want to the honorable thing
> here, all you need do was say so. The fact is that you don't know a
> "fucking" thing about Marxism.
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <mlause at cinci.rr.com>
> > To: <green4tom at earthlink.net>
> > Cc: Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001 at gmail.com>
> > Date: 1/1/2008 10:29:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: FW: Edited message: Sow's Ear Socialism,
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > You've obviously not read a fucking thing I've ever written on the Greens
> or their misleadership.
> >
> > I'm just returning the favor here and leaving your request to Mike.
> >
> > ML
> >
> >
> > ---- Tom Smith <green4tom at earthlink.net> wrote: 
> > > Michael, Mark,
> > > Would one of you two guys please post the following to the Marxism list?
> > > Proyect got a Bee in his bonnet because I put Marxist in quotation
> marks:
> > > as a result, ridiculously, he's banned me from the list. I've cleaned up
> > > the post: as far as I can tell, it doesn't break any rules. Mike, I'm
> > > asking you because you've been posting this exchange to the debsian
> list;
> > > Mark, I'm asking you because it's in response to your post; you made
> some
> > > derogatory comments there about me and my "Holy Writ," and I think in
> all
> > > fairness you ought to give me equal time.
> > > 
> > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > > Originally, in response to M Lause's post, (reprinted below) I wrote
> > > the following personally to him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's no point in debating Marxists like you. Maybe you'll see
> > > the light when the real crisis hits, and the mass movement begins. 
> > > [snip!]> > >
> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > On second thought, I think his post does bear discussion, because so
> > > many Marxist individuals and groups have fallen into precisely the same
> > > trap as Lause has: the trap of what Trotsky called "opportunism." As
> > > Trotsky wrote in his book, 1905, opportunists "do not know how to wait."
> > > History moves too slow for them: so they latch on to anything out there
> > > that moves. If it's the Green Party--a party which is actually
> thoroughly
> > > reformist, pro-capitalist, ANTI-Marxist, ANTI-Socialist,and posing
> itself
> > > as a reformer of, rather than alternative to, the Democrats--then so be
> it.
> > > At least they can get cozy with a group bigger than themselves--and
> never
> > > mind that most of the Greens are not in the working class, that the
> party
> > > is not organized as a working class party.
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides the usual Orwellian demagoguery about how anyone like who
> > > criticizes this opportunism from a Marxist principled position is
> > > doctrinaire and anti-Marxist, Lause argues that there is not much of a
> > > Socialist Workers Party anymore, so we should just support the Greens:
> the
> > > next best thing, because it is at least moving.The problem is that it is
> > > precisely support among Marxists for such formations that GETS IN THE
> WAY
> > > OF BUILDING a revolutionary socialist workers party. Instead of taking
> the
> > > precious time and energy we don't have much of in order to organize it,
> we
> > > squander it on being loyal builders--silent about our socialist
> > > politics--of the Greens instead. 
> > > 
> > > You didn't catch any of the greats of Marxism--Marx and Engels
> themselves,
> > > Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky--wasting their time building parties who were
> > > anti-socialist, even though they were active at a time similar to our
> own:
> > > when socialism is very weak. The era in history when conscious
> > > revolutionary parties are strong, is extremely rare and limited: to
> create
> > > the era, requires sticking to the basic principle of BUILDING socialism
> > > rather than selling it out.
> > > 
> > > >  In writing the personal words to Lause above, I was thinking perhaps
> not
> > > just of Trotsky's 1905, but also, Randolph Bourne's WHAT IS
> EXPLOITATION.
> > > Exasperated by his fruitless discussion with his college friend, who has
> > > become an employer, about the Wobblies, he concludes that perhaps what
> his
> > > friend needs is a "general strike," which will make him feel the
> > > "Nietzschian" will to power of the working class. This is what I think
> will
> > > wake up Marxists like Lause--but hopefully this exchange will by itself
> > > wake up many of those who might otherwise still be awash in Green
> daydreams
> > > to the necessity of us all getting busy and organizing a SOCIALIST party
> > > with a SOCIALIST message.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Original Message]
> > > > > > > > From: <mlause at cinci.rr.com>
> > > > > > > > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> > > <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> > > > > > > > Cc: Tom Smith <green4tom at earthlink.net>
> > > > > > > > Date: 12/31/2007 9:40:57 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Marxism] "demo-green" paranoia and slander: in
> > > response toCraig Brozefsky
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The stretch goes all the other way.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For those to whom the facts matter (and there are clearly many
> > > for whom "the facts" are already established by Holy Writ), the 2004
> > > nominating process was not representative of the GP ranks and local
> > > leadership.  Indeed, I've written on this problem of representation in
> > > third parties repeatedly and those interested can consult the archives.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, Cobb did not take a "safe-state" strategy into the
> > > nominating process and win endorsement for it by the convention. He
> adopted
> > > this after the fact, to the great disgust of most of the Green ranks,
> which
> > > was reflected in the inability of the party to mobilize or enthuse very
> > > many people over the campaign.  Despite Cobb's misleadership, support
> for
> > > his nomination wasn't necessarily support for "safe state strategy."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And, indeed, many proponents of the "safe state strategy"
> > > believed (and still believe) that this was a pragmatic question of
> > > allocating resources rather than a backhanded support for Kerry, though
> it
> > > clearly was in the case of some of the most prominent advocates of the
> > > approach.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, people seem to want to act upon something more akin to
> > > magic theory than Marxism, an idea that somehow if you start something
> > > "right" with the "right line" that the cosmos will resonate in
> response.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I've argued, this is a question of groups and currents
> filling
> > > an environmental niche in the environment of modern American politics. 
> If
> > > you had an explicitly American socialist electoral formation--say a
> > > Socialist Workers' Party--that got several million votes in 2000, the
> > > circumstances would create the same currents and tidepools.  Of course,
> > > before this would have even begun to happen, an American socialist group
> > > would have begun their pseudo-scientific dogmatizing and expelled or
> split
> > > from anyone not adhering to "the right line."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's so much more gratifying to sit on the edges of the
> > > radicalization and bitch about how reality just doesn't conform to what
> we
> > > want.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Solidairty!
> > > > > > > > Mark L.
>