From owner-marxism-international  Sat Apr 19 17:57:18 1997
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:56:21 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford@gn.apc.org>
Message-Id: <199704192156.VAA14302@gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Complaint about cross posting Ebert thread

Complaint about cross post

I am impressed that Robert has offered even a 
"sort of" apology to Louis Proyect. Full but
precise apologies are of course better, if they 
can be made sincerely

But I suppose if Doug has defended Robert on a particular
point, it is my turn (and I have defended him at times
in the past) to criticise him on a particular point. 

I am making this complaint public on the marxism-international
list because it is a particularly bad example of cross-
posting and yet it has been so common that the moderators may
not wish to make an issue of it unless they feel that 
the great majority of the list understands the reasons for 
doing so.

I ask Robert to demonstrate that he had 
the permission of Louis Proyect or Yoshie to take their 
material to marxism-general. It violates
the purpose of both m-general and m-international to 
promote discussion, as can be seen by the fact that
the thread title "The Teresa Ebert Thread" refers to a 
thread title in existence only on m-international, so to
transport it cold to m-general is a violation of the 
aims of promoting serious engaged argument.

I have a related criticism about the language
used, that Teresa Ebert's published works are best used as 
toilet paper. This unacceptably uncomradely language full
of macho posturing is not the sort of challenge that can
be answered seriously. It illustrates that Robert's purpose
in cross posting to m-general is an act of bravado, unlikely
to lead to a serious discussion of the issues. 

But the key complaint I want to focus on here is the 
cross posting of this thread to marxism-general. I copy it
as it appeared on marxism-general.

One technical point in the information lines that I do not understand
is that nowhere does it say that the post was copied to go 
to m-general. Perhaps more electronically literate people than 
myself will say whether this indicates that Robert is using an 
automatic cross mailing programme.

So I am asking

a) Robert to apologise to the subscribers to m-international
for this cross post
and to pursue his political criticisms on m-international
in political language.

b) That unless a significant number of subscribers speak up in
defence of Robert's cross posting of this piece of mail
to m-general, the moderators feel free to impose sanctions
against such behaviour which they have already warned about.

When these matters are cleared up, I am prepared to answer Robert's
political criticisms contained in the post, politically.

Chris Burford
London.
_________________________________________



>From owner-marxism-general  Fri Apr 18 08:53:11 1997
Return-Path: owner-marxism-general
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.6/8.6.6) id
IAA75189 for marxism-general-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:52:49 -0400
Received: from smtp.algonet.se (angel.algonet.se [194.213.74.112]) by
jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.6/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA38568 for <marxism-
general@jefferson.village.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:52:43 -0400
Received: (qmail 29647 invoked from network); 18 Apr 1997 12:49:06 -0000
Received: from du209-4.ppp.algonet.se (HELO malecki) (195.100.4.209)
  by angel.algonet.se with SMTP; 18 Apr 1997 12:49:06 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970418070305.0068660c@mail.algonet.se>
X-Sender: malecki@mail.algonet.se (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:51:44 +0200
To: marxism-international@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
From: Robert Malecki <malecki@algonet.se>
Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: The Teresa Ebert thread
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-marxism-general@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: marxism-general@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

At 21:44 1997-04-17 -0500, you wrote:
>Louis wrote:
>>What's interesting is that they have appropriated the political culture of
>>"Marxism-Leninism" but grafted it onto the style and discourse of academic
>>Marxism. Lenin is invoked to support a body of ideas that demands
>>familiarity with a range of thinkers who are inaccessible to the average
>>person.
>
>Exactly! It is this strange admixture that made them look so ridiculous as
>to become beyond, or beneath, serious critique.
>
>>What is sad is that Teresa Ebert deserves the widest audience. She has a lot
>>to say, even if her prose is filled with jargon and neologisms. Yet her
>>acolytes are giving people the impression that there must be something fishy
>>going on in the narrow academic circles of upstate New York. When people
>>start to associate the names of people like Steven Tumino with Teresa Ebert,
>>the unfortunate reaction might be the grating of teeth and raising of the
>>hair on the back of the neck. She deserves better.
>
>I agree that Ebert should be read. But I have some objections to her
>reliance on people like Masao Miyoshi in her critique of what she calls
>"globalism," "transnational bourgeoisie," "global civil society," etc. I
>think she made a fatal short-cut by not thinking through the current
>conjuncture on her own.
>
>Her call for workers' internationalism is good, but she doesn't have much
>to say about how it can be squared with her criticisms of what she calls
>anti-statism. I am not saying that they are necessarily contradictory. (As
>your commentary on her article indicates, they don't have to be.) But she
>needs to theorize the relationship between the two. In her book, I got a
>distinct impression that she was too busy fighting postmodernism to
>articulate a marxist theory of her own that truly confronts the
>complexities, difficulties, dangers, and possibilities in the current
>situation.
>
>Yoshie Furuhashi

Well Yoshie,

I must admit I never even heard of her until Louis gave his presentation
and how he was attracted to her. Unfortunately I think you are being to
kind to both Louis and her.

I say this in the first place because I think Louis is using her to justify
anti-imperialist popular front politics and tail ending just about any kind
of "Nationalist" movement confronting us either today or in the future.
Although he does not actually come out and say it openly
that is why he is soft on this woman.

On the other hand Leninisn/Trotskyism which poses the question more
correctly in their ideas under the header "The State and Revolution" which
I think rightfully counterposes all this kind of crap which only leads
towards a *real* political practice of Stalinism and Menshevism.

In the final analisis it is only by the state being wripped out of the
hands of the bougeoisie's by and independent proletariat led by the party
of World revolution and the proletarian vanguard which sets up the
dictatorship of the proletariat which can show the way forward.

If you want to go back to the nation state as something progressive. Then
you have to read Marx on the question and how he describes this struggle
which played a posivitive role perhaps in the 18th century.

But Lenin's "The higest Stage of capitalism, Imperialism" was written quite
a long time ago and was valid then and even more so today.

So if Louis or yourself want to take on the task of defending this women
then link her analisis to a program of tactics and program that can fight
in the interests of Proletarian rule. I see NO way that this is possible.

Because from beginning to end she obviously is defending the bougeois
state, states in regards to being something progressive in regards to
globalism. This kind of stuff is wrong and completely anti-marxist and
specifically anti-Leninist as I see Lenin's work on this subject as a
direct continuation on Marx's work.

I think Lenin's state and revolution and Trotsky's Permanent revolution
directly are counterposed to this women's ideas. She wants to find an angle
which will justify popular front politics and certain national states
(national bougeois states and bougeoisies) as being progressive.

In fact to me her theory's (presented by Louis) seem to be a rather slick
form of classical maoist and to a certain extent Stalinist politics.

Perhaps what we are seeing is the bougeois followers of the preceding
Stalinist era in history are now trying to find and expression for this
kind of shit without a Stalinist state power to back them up on as being
some sort of liberals who must find a new way to play what they have always
thought as a proggressive (tea party liberal progressive role).
However I think a quite utopian pipedream. With the disappearance of the
deformed and degenerated workers states Ebert is trying to find something
to replace them with.

So yes by all means read her. Then read Lenin and Trotsky on the subject
and then take Eberts book and use it for something which I think would be
far better then believing any of this stuff she is expousing and take the
leafs of paper and wipe you ass with it the next time you take a shit. Then
and unfortunately then I am afraid one can find a good use for her theory.

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-general@lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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