From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 10:29:43 EDT
Nicola, Since you ask, I read Koestler when I was 16 as a matter of fact.... and the yellowed copy is still on my shelf....... quite a while ago. It created a sense of concen in me that lead me to read much in the area, continuously, up and through Solzhenitsyn, and even Oleg Gordievsy's 'faction' ... so don't worry about all that... my 'morality' awareness level is very high... not at all the vulgar or blood thirsty cynic. What I am avers to is your promotion of abstract moral principal in the face of actual practical danger. You might wish to die rather than kill your attacker for example... I would not. Cruel no doubt, but in war ( and the US establishment has openly said that it is now waging the fourth world war), matters are not so easily morally cut and dried. One might try to take prisoners, but, this has to depend on circumstances. Once again, I think it striking that you refuse to think that the Cuban government has as much 'conscience' as you do...For my part I am sure it has it has a striking level of moral sensibility compared to the regions other states, however, it has huge responsibilities that you do not. Indeed your notes seem to me to imply that the Cuban Government is morally lacking, which I consider, if you will excuse me, arrogant, if unwittingly so.... The facts, as the recent illustrations in OPE-L from Amnesty on both Cuba and neighbouring countries show, provide a 'coherent' (and brilliantly illustrated ) moral comparison in favour of Cuban justice. The level of working class discussion and participation in politics in Cuba is far greater than in the imperialist countries... your references to 'freedom' elsewhere are entirely devoid of any concrete sense, or awareness of issues of social class. Marx was quite correct in refering to the need for a 'holding down' of bourgeoise trends and demands once the working people were building their own state. Before the dollar was introduced into the legal system in Cuba there wqas a mass discussion in work places, schools, etc in the process of evolving policy. Of course in Cuba the 'freedom' to speculate in property is denied, perhaps you would like the 'freedom' to argue for the re-establishment of private property in the housing market Nicky? Perhaps the right to argue for a stock exchange where rights to exploit your 'own' labour force could be sold to other 'free' persons? After all the tolerance of new bourgeoise parties, funded by the criminal US State and Miami investors eager to 'improve' the economy, ie line their own pockets at the expense of society, would demand such rights immedaitely. Well I do really hope that that 'freedom' continues to be denied, Nicky. Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicola Taylor" <19518173@STUDENT.MURDOCH.EDU.AU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:19 AM Subject: Re: (OPE-L) dreams and nightmares > Paul, > > have you read Koestler's book? It is relevant to the debate not as a > 'metaphore' but because the book develops a coherent (and brilliantly > argued) moral position on the old revolutionary question of ends and means. > It is with Koestler's moral position ON THIS QUESTION that Riccardo, Simon > and I explicitly agree. I suggest to you that the 'study of the facts' in > the case of Cuba's recent actions (summary trial and execution, justified by > reference to external threat) is not separable from this moral debate. So, > any 'serious exchange' must at least acknowledge (not necessarily agree > with) our concerns. > > Nicky > > > Riccardo > > > > I didn't reply to your concern that in asking Nicky why she prefered to > > refer to Koestler's fictional writing rather than fact of his acts, I was > > likely to be censoring the thoughts of writers because of their deeds. > This > > was NOT the point of my question. The point was to underline the need to > > study facts and not draw a metaphor from a fiction for use in a very > serious > > exchange. > > > > > > Paul Bullock > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk> > > To: "OPE-L" <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:08 PM > > Subject: Re: (OPE-L) dreams and nightmares > > > > > > > Jerry: > > > > > > Concerning such 'political' discussions. Firstly ALL the theory > discussed > > on > > > this site has political implications as far as I am concerned. Secondly, > I > > > am quite astonished that given the appalling crimes committed by the > rich > > > and powerful to maintain their positions in the world, and the extremely > > > aggressive and violent positions being carried forward against the > > > democratic rights of millions by these same interest, that the recent > > > limited reapplication of the death penalty in Cuba has seized the main > > > attention of some members of the list. What sense of proportion do we > see > > > in these remarks? If Nicky wishes to appeal to our better instincts why > > > doesn't she choose to condemn the fact of Koestler's rape of Mrs Foot, > > > rather than his fiction? Why have the protests against the death penalty > > not > > > been seen before on this site by the same correspondents, when applied > > > against the oppressed in the USA? > > > > > > If a discussion of imperialist violence and counteractions by > oppressed > > > countries has to be discussed, it must be done in public. This was the > > > classic way to identify the real political positions of priests and > > other > > > ideologists who concealed self interest and reaction in moral > lamentation > > > and 'heavenly' appeals. It is not suprising that Castro is quoted on > this > > > site recently as attacking certain Marxists. > > > > > > Paul Bullock > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Riccardo Bellofiore" <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT> > > > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:33 PM > > > Subject: Re: (OPE-L) dreams and nightmares > > > > > > > > > > I think Chris is right on openness. May I ask Jerry if it is possible > > > > to open for these kind of discussions a parallel closed site? > > > > > > > > r > > > > > > > > At 13:02 +0100 17-05-2003, Christopher Arthur wrote: > > > > >And I say I agree with Riccardo. (And also Fred) > > > > >But this illustrates also why I was, and remain, opposed to a public > > > > >archive. I would like to hear a discussion and particpate but I do > not > > > want > > > > >to word things as carefully as I would in a letter to the press. > > > > >Chris A > > > > > > > > > >>At 11:22 -0600 16-05-2003, Hans Ehrbar wrote: > > > > >>>In the times of imperialist attack on Cuba I consider it the > > > > >>>duty of every progressive either to support Cuba or, if you > > > > >>>feel you cannot do this, to stay silent, because everything > > > > >>>critical you say at this moment will be used as further > > > > >>>pretext for the attacks on Cuba. The actions by the Cubans > > > > >>>which you object to were undertaken as a defense against US > > > > >>>attacks. We have to try to stop the imperialists, instead > > > > >>>of second-guessing the actions Cuba is undertaking to defend > > > > >>>itself. This seems so obvious to me that I am embarrassed > > > > >>>to send it to this list. I am only saying it for the record > > > > >>>so that people perusing the archives will not get a false > > > > >>>impression. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Hans. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>hans, four (no, five) things: > > > > >> > > > > >>(i) we decided to 'open' the list, so we decided to make debates > > > > >>openly. if we don't want that, we should close the list. or Jerry > > > > >>should open some parallel, closed site to discuss openly among > > > > >>comrades this kind of stuff. > > > > >> > > > > >>(ii) 'to stay silent'? I don't know why, but I have heard this kind > > > > >>of things many many times. I don't like the expression: neither the > > > > >>form nor the substance. > > > > >> > > > > >>(iii) I strongly support Cuba against US attacks. I repeat: > strongly. > > > > >>And I condemn any 'pretext' to attack Cuba. But I do not justify the > > > > >>actions undertaken by Cuba, as you do. By the way, they are giving > > > > >>USA more 'pretexts'. There is a dissent among us on this. You cannot > > > > >>take your opinion as granted. I respect it, but mine is very > > > > >>different. > > > > >> > > > > >>(iv) in my mind (and unfortunately I can think only with my mind, > and > > > > >>speak accordingly) what I said in prior mail is exactly the most > > > > >>friendly approach to Cuba, it' s the only way I see to support Cuba: > > > > >>avoid (or insist in) serious and dramatic errors. there is no > > > > >>second-guessing. those actions are patently wrong, are against what > > > > >>communism (at least, libertarian communism) is and should be, as end > > > > >>and as means. > > > > >> > > > > >>(v) should I say that those who do not understand this are really > > > > >>working against Cuba, and should then stay silent? it's not my > > > > >>attitude, frankly. I am interested in listening their opinions and > > > > >>arguments. > > > > >> > > > > >>r > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Riccardo Bellofiore > > > > Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche > > > > "Hyman P. Minsky" > > > > Via dei Caniana 2 > > > > I-24127 Bergamo, Italy > > > > e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it > > > > direct +39-035-2052545 > > > > secretary +39-035 2052501 > > > > fax: +39 035 2052549 > > > > homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm > > > > > > > > Al signor K chiesero cosa stesse facendo. > > > > Il signor K rispose: "Sto lavorando duro > > > > per preparare il mio prossimo errore" > > > > > > > > What are you working on, Herr K was asked. > > > > Herr K replied: "I am working hard, > > > > I am carefully preparing my next error" > > > > > > > > Bertolt Brecht > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT