SV: SV: [OPE] Marta Harnecker's Ideas

No disagreement about that - my point was that depending on the topic - one might need to more or less engage directly with the theories/texts of M&E, Connely less, Rosdolsky intensively. The nature of MH "Ideas" needs IMO that she relates to existing left wing theories and experiences.

Regards
Anders

> From: david@danyaf.plus.com
> Sent: 2009-12-08 23:05:31 MET
> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list [ope@lists.csuchico.edu]
> Subject: Re: SV: [OPE] Marta Harnecker's Ideas
>
> Anders,
>
> The important point is surely the significance of their standpoint for
> understanding the development of Marxist thought on the issue of
> imperialism and national liberation etc. In that sense their standpoint is
> of enormous political significance for the future divisions in the
> international working class movement.
>
> David Yaffe
>
>
>
> At 09:38 08/12/2009 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi David,
> >
> >I was aware that Marx and Engels had written a lot on Ireland, so it is a
> >question if you would call Marx a *major* theoretician on Irland.
> >
> >Take a look at
> >http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/ireland/index.htm
> >
> >and jugde for your self. No major work on Ireland I would say.
> >
> >That M&E influence Lenin - for sure.
> >
> >And I can easily pick other examples of excellent books that do not refer
> >that much to Marx. Mandel's "Marxist Economic Theory" is original research
> >- not exegesis.
> >
> >Roman Rosdolsky's book on "Engels and the question of non-Historic
> >peoples" on the other hand deals in detail with Marx' and Engels' writings
> >since it is an analysing of their ideas.
> >
> >When Connoly and Mandel writes - seeing their work as a deepening, a
> >elaboration of Marxist (and Marx') methods and principles there is not
> >such a need for a detailed placing of their work in the
> >political/theoretical landscape.
> >
> >But MHs case is much more like Rosdolsky - she is arguing against
> >practices/theories/conventional wisdom in a highly theoreticallycontested
> >domain were the words - in contrast to Connoly's and Mandel's research -
> >do not have a fairly obvious meaning. I mean - you cannot write sensibly
> >about democracy (or democratic centralism) without clarifying what you
> >mean be refernce to more concrete examples. Of course you can - MH dave
> >done it - but my and Jurriaan's opinion is that it is not very usefull.
> >
> >Regards
> >Anders
> >
> > > From: david@danyaf.plus.com
> > > Sent: 2009-12-07 23:02:27 CET
> > > To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list [ope@lists.csuchico.edu]
> > > Subject: Re: [OPE] Marta Harnecker's Ideas
> > >
> > > Anders,
> > >
> > > You are wrong about Marx and Engels on Ireland. Their work in the First
> > > International on the Irish question was an important influence on Lenin's
> > > writing on national liberation, on the issue of the peasantry in the
> > > Russian revolution and Lenin's understanding of the essence of imperialism
> > > viz the division of the world between oppressor and oppressed nations, and
> > > the question of opportunism in the labour movement. For an assessment of
> > > the importance of Marx and Engel's and Lenin's writings for
> > > understanding the Irish revolution see Ireland the key to the British
> > > revolution by David Reed. This is also a detailed account of the struggle
> > > of the Irish people for self-determination in the 20th century. This was
> > > published by Larkin Publications in 1984. It is out of print but there are
> > > copies to be had through Amazon.
> > >
> > > David Yaffe
> > >
> > > At 23:41 06/12/2009 +0100, you wrote:
> > > >Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > >I think MH needs to refer to historical events, to theories, so that we
> > > >really - at least better can understand what she means. To write about
> > the
> > > >need for a party, for democratic centralism without clear empirical and
> > > >theoretical reference points is to be consciously vague, open to all kind
> > > >of interpretations.
> > > >
> > > >When Connoly writes about Labour in Irish History - as the intro on
> > > >Marxist.org/archive points out; Connoly "based his argument on a detailed
> > > >historical account of Ireland?s struggle for freedom ­ an account
> > bettered
> > > >by few, if any, books since" - so why should he refer much to Marx, since
> > > >Marx had not been a major theoretician on the Irish struggle for
> > > >independence, probably Connoly saw his book as an application of hits.mat.
> > > >
> > > >But MH - has neither a detailed discussion of concrete historical events,
> > > >nor a discussion of previous theories or organising for struggle. Each
> > and
> > > >every paragraph raises more questions than it answers.
> > > >
> > > >PB: "Isn't your view very 'academic' and 'professionally' introspective?"
> > > >Nope, on the contrary - MH writes in a typically ivory tower - or desktop
> > > >way - far away from realities - probably since she has not to "offend"
> > > >Castro and/or Chavez - so the critique is mild, soft and general, and
> > > >consequently of little use.
> > > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >Anders E
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 13:27 06.12.2009, you wrote:
> > > >>Anders,
> > > >>
> > > >>why do you think that 'theoreticians' need to be referred to when
> > writing
> > > >>a book/article on contempoarry issues? If we look at eg Connolly's
> > Labour
> > > >>in Irish History there is a single passing reference to Marx. Yet it
> > is a
> > > >>book widely read after its publication, important for the Irish anti
> > > >>colonial/imperialist movement, and a valuable short text for any modern
> > > >>reader. If a work is written as a political polemic then there will be
> > > >>targets and allies, but for a wider audience should we really worry
> > about
> > > >>geneology?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Paul Bullock
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Ekeland" <aekeland@online.no>
> > > >>To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> > > >>Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:54 PM
> > > >>Subject: SV: [OPE] Marta Harnecker's Ideas
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Hi Jerry,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>- MH probably have written extensively on Cuba, Nicargua and
> > Venezuela -
> > > >>>but it does not show in her principles, Cuba is just mentioned once,
> > > >>>Lenin, Trotsky, Martov, Dunajevskaja, Pannekoek or Bahro, Uhl,
> > > >>>Belocerkovski... I have still not read it properly - but
> > > >>>no theoretician of marxist organisation that I know of seems to be
> > even
> > > >>>mentioned. Strange - very strange.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>- And as Alejandro points out - what she writes and her postions on
> > > >>>Cuba, Venezuela etc. are "poles apart" (I do not know her position) but
> > > >>>it does not suprise me if that is the case.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>- And why write about the SWPs, the FI? I agree that these were small,
> > > >>>but was there anything concious, Marxist, cadre organisations thatt
> > were
> > > >>>bigger? Is not the real difficulty that rev. org. in the mature
> > > >>>capitalist countries a) are small b) easily split up? IMHO any kind of
> > > >>>"Ideas for the Struggle" must adress these challenges.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>- ASFAICS - is the only organisation that MH mentiones by name is
> > Frente
> > > >>>Amplio - but that is a rather particular case focussed on "popular
> > > >>>consultations"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>- MH to me looks like a very soft critique of the authoritarian aspects
> > > >>>of certain Lat.Am leaders/regimes. But since is is so soft, no names
> > > >>>mentioned, no concrete affair used as an illustration - it is
> > useless for me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>So the question that is interesting is - why do Links promote these
> > > >>>"truisms" (leaders should listen to the masses etc. etc.) - why do
> > Jerry
> > > >>>forward it?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Can you throw any light on that issue Jerry?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Regards
> > > >>>Anders
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>From: Gerald Levy [jerry_levy@verizon.net]
> > > >>>>Sent: 2009-12-04 13:37:00 MET
> > > >>>>To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list [ope@lists.csuchico.edu]
> > > >>>>Subject: Re: [OPE] Marta Harnecker's Ideas
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > If MH had been an OPE member I would have challenged her on that >
> > > >>>> point -
> > > >>>> > what is your analysis of Lenin, of Trotsky of the organisational
> > > >>>> praxis > of
> > > >>>> > SWP (US), SWP (UK), The FI (United. Secr) - the > Sandinistas,
> > the >
> > > >>>> Cuban
> > > >>>> > Communist Party, Chavez etc. etc.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Hi Anders:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I believe she has written about the last three - all subjects worthy of
> > > >>>>discussion because of
> > > >>>>their historical importance. Why do you think that a critical
> > > >>>>evaluation of
> > > >>>>the
> > > >>>>organizational praxis of the first three are of great
> > significance? The
> > > >>>>SWPs in both nations
> > > >>>>were never mass political formations [at its high watermark in the
> > early
> > > >>>>1970s, the SWP (US) had
> > > >>>>close to 2,000 members]; most of the parties affiliated with the FI
> > (USec)
> > > >>>>are *extremely*
> > > >>>>small and relatively insignificant in the political life of their
> > nations.
> > > >>>>(It sometimes amuses me to
> > > >>>>see all of the discussion about the SWP-US, primarily by former
> > members.
> > > >>>>They even have
> > > >>>>a yahoo group - made up of _former_ members and for years the
> > US-centric
> > > >>>>'marxmail'
> > > >>>>list -- ruled over Stalin-like by former SWP membder, Louis N.
> > Proyect --
> > > >>>>was obsessed with a
> > > >>>>discussion of that group. It reminds me of former members of
> > Scientology or
> > > >>>>some other cult
> > > >>>>getting together to discuss their cult: the difference is that many
> > of the
> > > >>>>former SWPers haven't
> > > >>>>really broken with the praxis of that group and look whimsically
> > back on
> > > >>>>better days - often
> > > >>>>meaning the time just before they were purged.)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>In solidarity, Jerry
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>ope mailing list
> > > >>>>ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> > > >>>>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>ope mailing list
> > > >>ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> > > >>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >ope mailing list
> > > >ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> > > >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Dec 9 03:37:11 2009