From: Michael Eldred (artefact@T-ONLINE.DE)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 11:50:05 EDT
Cologne 28-May-2003 Paul, You write inter alia: >Are you >not allowing us to confront the daily , and entirely casuistical and >hypocritical attacks of the millionaire press? Not at all. Dialogue and dispute must always be allowed. I don't agree that money must lie nor that criticism by the rich has to be disingenuous. >What would you prefer... to be >poor in Colombia or a Cuban citizen? I don't know. It does not seem to be much of an attractive choice. If you offered Chile, then I might take that country. >You have made the point that you don't accept the concept of imperialism >before. I may accept some (modified) concept of imperialism, but I want to know what the concept says. Cf. my other e-mails. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact@webcom.com _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK> schrieb Sun, 25 May 2003 12:32:42 +0100: > 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