From: Michael Eldred (artefact@T-ONLINE.DE)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 16:06:04 EDT
Cologne 23-May-2003 Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK> schrieb Fri, 23 May 2003 15:29:43 +0100: > 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. If it is a matter of the sheer survival of a kind of social set-up and regime, then any considerations of socialism as a purportedly better way of living are irrelevant. In wartime, individual freedoms get short shrift, and civil rights such as freedom of the press go by the board. But then I return to my unanswered question: Why is socialism ALWAYS in the position of apologizing for its repression? > 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. That is the kind of argument: Look! It is an even worse situation elsewhere. Be grateful for what you have. > The level of working class discussion and participation in politics in Cuba > is far greater than in the imperialist countries... In what does, say, the German empire consist? > 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 Cuban people would prefer a private housing market? > Perhaps the right to argue for a stock exchange where > rights to exploit your 'own' labour force could be sold to other 'free' > persons? Perhaps they would prefer capitalist enterprise in order to live better? > 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. The US and any bourgeois-capitalist tendencies seem to figure on this list as the a priori villain. Perhaps there are Cubans who would prefer a social-democratic capitalist set-up of society? This forum, in any case, has no jurisdiction on such an issue. > Well I do really hope that that 'freedom' continues to be > denied, Nicky. That seems to be a political conviction based on a kind of Marxist Manichaeism which has posited a priori what is an evil conception of freedom and what is a good conception of freedom. To put such an a priori world interpretation into question there remain ontological questions -- and I have recently posed quite a number in this forum to which there has been no response. The LTV remains the touchstone. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact@webcom.com _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > 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 : Wed May 28 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT