>As Meszaros argues against the Frankfurt School they were no longer
>engaged in a critique of Capitalism, but a generic critique of
>industrial production as such. They were no longer arguing for a
>dialectical transformation of capitalist production into socialism, but
>a romantic refusal of the modern.
>
>In interpret this to mean that the New Left had as its social basis not
>the working class, and its struggle over the social product, but rather
>the middle class and its internecine struggle over the surplus product.
>That is, the old left was seeking to abolish exploitation, whereas the
>New Left took exploitation for granted (and hence were uninterested in
>industrial struggles) and were merely disputing the division of the
>spoils.
James, I agree with much of what you're saying, but how do you reconcile your position here with what you write in LM? In the latest issue, you have a lead article all about the constraints on freedom, most of which I endorse wholeheartedly, but which has little to do with the politics of production. And your editor, Mick Hume, says in an intro to the issue that the left today is the enemy of freedom (which left? the liberal-social worker-antismoking-Fabian-Hillary Clinton left? Noam Chomsky? Sid Chatterjee? Bob Malecki?). [Excerpts from both, and URLs, below.] What does this all have to do with the Old Left issues that seem to concern you here, and in your Need & Desire pamphlet?
I ask in part because I think you're a real smart guy and a fine writer and I want you on my side, but I don't understand how you relate to the LM party line.
Doug
----
<http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM115/LM115_Freedom.html> A FREE COUNTRY? James Heartfield challenges the new fear of freedom
Imagine a country that turned its back on freedom.
It would be a country with a growing number of policemen. More people would be in prison than ever before. Video cameras would track your every move in public. Thousands of those who were not in prison would be subject to non-custodial sentences, like probation, or put on special registers so that they had to report to the police on a regular basis.
Imagine a country that turned its back on freedom. Officials from public bodies would interfere in every aspect of your life, advising you on what you buy, eat and drink, what you read and the television programmes you watch. Professionals would be persuaded to spy on the people that they were supposed to be serving: teachers would inform on parents, doctors would be told to inform on their patients, health visitors would be taking notes on the way that parents raised their children.
<http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM115/LM115_Edit.html> Mick Hume Editor FORGET THE LEFT, THE ISSUE IS FREEDOM
In these circumstances, the 'left' which has come to prominence across the advanced world is one which ultimately is more afraid of other people than it is of the state. That is why it opposes individual freedom and supports intervention at every turn. It is also one reason why I would not dream of calling LM a left-wing, socialist or Marxist magazine these days.
Establishing our right and freedom to live as responsible individuals, capable of taking our own decisions and making our own mistakes, is the prerequisite for achieving anything worthwhile, from self-sufficient personal relationships to a civilised society. Which helps to explain why LM is concerned with the kind of strictly non-left questions addressed in our freedom issue this month.