From owner-marxism-international  Sat Apr 19 02:15:39 1997
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970419081356.00686554@mail.algonet.se>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:14:05 +0200
From: Robert Malecki <malecki@algonet.se>
Subject: Re: M-I: PANIC LEFT - 12

At 23:12 1997-04-18 -0400, you wrote:
>
>  The practice of non-reading, of course, is not limited to Hugh Rodwell
>-- although he has turned it into an art. Robert Malecki's rantings
>prevent him from even pausing to consider the issues at stake. It is quite
>clear that he has NOT read Ebert's article (and has no idea of her
>theoretical analysis in her book) he has not even read the summary of her
>essay on this list. As Proyect has pointed out: hers is a conjunctural
>analysis of the state: she is responding to the views on the state that
>are put forth (e.g. in a recent issue of SOCIAL TEXT on the question of
>the "withering away of the civil society"). Her point is that there is a
>fundamental difference between the "withering away of the state" (the
>classical Marxist theory) and the systematic commodification of the state
>by transnational capitalism: the privatization of schools,... The latter
>is a systematic attempt by transnational capitalism to remove all
>resistance from the complete commodification of life... in this space (and
>only in this conjuncture) it might be necessary to defend such functions
>of the state as affirmative action, welfare, Medicare... even though these

Well now ! Here at least is something our one can relate to that the
"Marxists" from Buffalo have written. Yes,  I honestly said that "I had
never heard of Ebert" before Louis brought it up on the list. 

And if you people are defending this women then we had better take a closer
look at what you claim she is saying. 

You are saying that Eberts point is;

>the "withering away of the civil society"). Her point is that there is a
>fundamental difference between the "withering away of the state" (the
>classical Marxist theory) and the systematic commodification of the state
>by transnational capitalism: the privatization of schools,... The latter
>is a systematic attempt by transnational capitalism to remove all
>resistance from the complete commodification of life... in this space (and
>only in this conjuncture) it might be necessary to defend such functions
>of the state as affirmative action, welfare, Medicare... even though these

Well, I unfortunately do not see anthing earth shaking in this stuff. In
the first place Communists I think on principle would defend most all of
the reforms mentioned above that are under attack by the bougeois state.
So what is so fucking profound about Ebert?

It appears by your description that she is using a lot of intellectual
mumbo jumbo to link these struggles around defending this stuff just to the
bougeois state! Why? Why all the "trans national" rhetoric? Why the
"globalism" rhetoric? Why the "complete commodification of life" rhetoric.

Honestly I think all of this is leading towards popular front politics
anti "globalist" struggle of some sort. I think in your defense of Ebert
you are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people!

And saying that it only "might be neccessary" to defend reforms like AA,
Welfare, Medicare? What do you mean by that. Communists would naturally
defend these systems against attacks by the bougeois state whether it be
cuts or privatization. But the real point is that we would do it through
the mass organisations of the poor and working class people. Unions, tenant
associations, etc. What does Ebert say about this?


>are in and of themselves, as Joao Paulo Monteiro has said, not
>incompatible with capitalism. The alternative -- given the existing
>situation -- is to throw children and women out on the street.  Ebert's
>text is not a defense of the state, it is a resistance against
>the commodification of the social sphere by global capital... 

It remains to be proved! "resistance against
"the commodification of the social sphere by global capital..." Could
really mean that Ebert is into all kinds of popular front politics and
defending for example "progressive" bougeois welfare states. In fact Ebert
just might be the American version of the Social Democratic traditionalist
but an American liberal variant who is arguing defense of the status quo in
America.. Another fake left cover in this case to defend post war "new
deal" politics against the horrors she sees coming.

All this shit about globalisation and all the rest in fact was described
very well in Lenin's works on Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism.
And now when once again the possibillities of this bankrupt system no
longer can expand and conquer new markets along with growing
Inter-imperialist rivilry and in fact and open declaration of war on most
of the bougeoisie's *own* working classes (mind you none of this stuff will
stop us from a new war or wars) and Ebert is talking about defending
reforms that she thinks the bougeois state is responsible for! Wow I am
really not impressed at all. In fact any worker in this country (Sweden) at
least understands the whys of defending these reforms and appear to have a
much better way of expressing it then Ebert.

>  Rather than thinking about issues raised, Malecki in his own unique
>brand of philosophical anti-intellectualism advises people to tear apart
>Ebert's book (as all fascists have done) and use it for wiping their shit.

Well! Hand on my heart! I actually wrote that to see what you people would
do. You reacted exactly as I expected you would. Are you Lutherans?

Perhaps not. I think their is a real possibility that these characters
represent some sort of bizaar kind of middle class petty bougeois hysteria
on the left who realize that the real possibilities of *real* fascist
solutions to the present crisis might just be on the horizon and by
screaming "fascist" fascist" at everybody show how unstable these elements
really can be. It would not surprise me that these kind of petty bougeois
intellectuals who are abusing these characterizations could wind up with
positions in a future Nazi goverment somewhere. Basically because they can
not tell the difference between the left on Internet and real Nazi's.

But it could allso go the other way and then these kind of petty bougeois
intellectuals could become the stanch supporters of a new Bonapartist
Stalinist solution. They are very unstable and need a strong leader who
they can follow. As to which side they are on it obviously makes no
difference for them because they can not even tell the difference between a
real fascism and "left" fascism. 

You know something the more you people rave on the more you make me realize
how unstable and dangerous you (the petty bougeois) are to poor and working
class people! Because people like you can really wind up anywhere including
real fascist organisations or future Stalinist bureaucrats with your
ideology.. 

By the way. Fascists forbid people to read books and burn them.(They allso
burn people) Malecki's position is quite the opposite. I said read Ebert's
book and then do something useful with it. I suggested wiping your ass.
However here up in the north one could use it to start a fire in the wood
stove too. 

>Here is a rigorous MARXIST thinker for you! 

Finally you will have to do much better then this to convince me not to use
her book as toilet papper or to start a fire in the wood stove. Such
earthshaking words and formulations just to come to some fairly simple
conclusions about defending a few reforms by Ebert can really not be the
thrust of her politics.  

There is more to come from the stew that this woman is mixing! Let us see
what the ingredients of her stew are and where they are leading. But as I
said if Lou P and know you people are defending her. Well then she is in
deep shit without a paddle!

But you are right about one thing. It was wrong of me to take Proyect's or
your word about Ebert! So in reality I should have said that one should use
the stuff you send to  to the list as toalett paper if you need to take a
shit. But I hardly would waste the time printing out your remarkable
struggles on Internet on good papper.

Can anybody give a reliable description of what this woman really stands
for by the way? 

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check Out My HomePage where you can,

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people

and now starting the "Never Ending Story"...

http://www.algonet.se/~malecki

Back issues of Cockroach and my book at 
http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

--------------------------------------------------------






  


     --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---