On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:46:44 -0500 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes: I think that many people are puzzled by Jim Heartfield and his relationships with the LM line. LM seems to have abandoned Marxism to veer off into a libertarianism not too different from what one might find in say _Reason_ , yet both here and on Lou Proyect's list Jim H. takes up and defends classical Marxist positions. It is no wonder that people are puzzled. If Jim H. was say pursuing an attempt to synthesize libertarian and Marxist thought along the lines of what Professor Chris Sciabarra is attempting to do there would be less of a mystery but so far there seems to be little indication that is what Jim H is up to but of course I could be wrong.
Jim Farmelant
>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.
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]