From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 07:32:42 EDT
> Cologne 23-May-2003 Michael, You say > 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 the case of Cuba survival is indeed the key isn't it... how many times has the US tried to kill Castro, irrespective of all the other dirty 'tricks'? Perhaps you should be asking how it is that so very much consideration has been given to constructing socialism under these circumstances. You say: 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? Apologising? Are you saying that we should abandon self criticism? Are you not allowing us to confront the daily , and entirely casuistical and hypocritical attacks of the millionaire press? Perhaps we simply can't brush off the consequences of hard decisions as the 'west' does the disastrous consequences of its own acts. You say that I have agrued as follows: > That is the kind of argument: Look! It is an even worse situation elsewhere. Be > grateful for what you have. Gratitude is not the point, achievement is. What would you prefer... to be poor in Colombia or a Cuban citizen? And remember when the Cuban Revolution took place Colombia was ... yes.. a 'democracy'.. I said > > The level of working class discussion and participation in politics in Cuba > > is far greater than in the imperialist countries... You responded > In what does, say, the German empire consist? You have made the point that you don't accept the concept of imperialism before. In replying to Nicky I said: > > 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 was 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? You replied: > 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 : Thu May 29 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT