> My argument on the existence or non-existence of
> "The Left" was in response to that widespread habit
> (on this list and elsewhere) of voicing what are
> merely personal prejudices as criticism of "The
> Left." Even when such prejudices are also accurate
> assessments of this or that current of the left or
> this or that political principle, they are still merely
> personal whines because the lack of any coherent
> context within which they could effect either practice
> or thought. The phrase, "no wonder the left is so weak"
> is a more widespread (and empty) slogan of the present
> than was any bit of jargon in the Third International.
> Whenever that phrase (or equivalent) appears, you
> know the speaker or writer has nothing to say and
> merely enjoys the sound of his/her own voice. It is
> particularly fatuous when used by anyone who is also
> in the habit of complaining about jargon or sectarianism.
The Third International. Again, the hint of a "hammers and sickles" definition of the Left. Which goes back to the first part of my original post:
> Actually, I think Justin was closest to the mark when
> he said Marxism as a movement is dead
> <http://pulpculture.org/MarxAfterMarxism.html>.
> That's not to say that Marx or a myriad of 20th
> century Marxists are now wholly irrelevant.
>
> Of course by the measure of hammers and sickles
> on the horizon, the left doesn't exist and isn't likely
> to be reincarnated, although undead
> embarrassments like the WWP march on.
Nostalgia is no less an incoherent context for either theory or practice.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!