(1997, CONTINUED)
From: khalid.ali@utoronto.ca
To: John Tennyson Lee Franz <lee@faces.ula.ve>
Subject: Re: Fed up
with the "historic role" of the
"working class"...
Hi! Franz,
Where do I begin? In your analysis you have provided some food for
thought, also "ridicule", within the ambit of Marx's vision and his theoretical
failures concerning a presumably " classless society". While you convincingly
argue, that the worker and the capitalist are inevitably linked in a relation
that makes them two sides of the same system, which reproduces itself due
to this very relation, on the other hand you say, that no worker or working
class exists. Well then, my question is: Who is a worker? What is a worker?
How do you define a worker? You have me baffled here, perhaps a little
confused, because you did not clarify, what then is supposed to be a worker.
You argue, that if we are not workers, then where does the claim
of their "historic role "come from? Then, you made a very interesting statement,
that is, in reference to the worker, "irrespective of their role, all of
them possess no means of production." Is this still a valid or effective
point of contention within our analysis, given your trepidation of who
is or is not a worker?
You also posed an intriguing question, which maybe you can elaborate
a bit more: "Why must one be the worker's vanguard, a revolutionary, a
Marxists etc.?" In other words, who is or should be one of the above mentioned,
if any at all, given the content of your analysis?
Finally, you argue, that in order to get rid of capitalism, the
"attack" has to come from another sphere or mension. I agree, but this
statement merits much more elaboration. Of course, I understand, that there
is no overnight answer.
I am not sure if I make much sense with my questions. However, I
support the crux of your analysis even though I think it leads to
some very controversial conclusions.
Thanks very much for your comments and input. I will communicate
with you tomorrow. Greetings to all of you and love from ME.
Khalid.
From: khalid.ali@utoronto.ca
To: John Tennyson Lee Franz <lee@faces.ula.ve> /
Subject: Re: One more try.
Dear Franz,
As requested here is a copy of your previous mail. Nice to hear, that I have succeeded in getting you inspired to pull up your socks and challenge the "status quo." Mind you, in today's neoconservative environment, the concept "status quo" is promoted like a dirty word, as a form of attack against the spokespersons for social movements, the poor, those on welfare, the unemployed, etc.
Anyone in North America, who speaks on behalf of this category of people, interestingly is told, -yes!, that they represent the "status quo". It's a new form of bourgeois ideological attack, that tries to make the spokespersons of the poor and unsheltered responsible for the decadence and misery that pervades society, because they purportedly defend the "old system" of a social welfare state.
They have been enormously successful in getting the people to believe,
that their poverty was an injustice committed against them by the Welfare
State, because this State became too embroiled in their social life. Because
of this "high stake" involvement, there were no incentives for them to
work and provide for their families, thus, they became dependent on taxpayer's
money to survive.
A 90% of them actually believe in what they're told. As a result,
in most states and provinces, dominant and "radical" extremist right-wing
regimes are taking over power, not by bullets, but through the ballots.
The people have all gone drunk, dumb, stupid and do not differ much
from the Venezuelans anymore. It's like an evangelical war of words, accusations
and insults to those who are feeling the pains of the cut-backs (reduction
of spending) and downsizing (its a popular concept related to workers,
that are fired daily because of restriction of their work places due to
globalization and competition). The workers are told, that they have had
it too good for too long, and now it is the time to face "some short term
pain
for short term gain."
The ideologists have succeeded in imprinting into the minds of the
workers the idea, that they have "no alternative" but to face the pain
now or never, that is, find a new job or face total ruin for the rest of
their lives.
Gramsci's "hegemony" best describes this important phase of bully
capitalism. The bourgeoisie, in other words, seeks a silent "consent"
through coercion. The people are being threatened, warned and made to feel
guilty, that because " they have had it too good for too long", the economy
is in now in danger". They now have to give up their "Goodies" for the
cascaras of tomorrow, "if they want to survive." Of course, this is nothing
strange to your ears, what is frightening is the role of the religious
right - they tell the people that they have gone astray, that is why God
has to take serious action that will no doubt inflict "pain" upon them
until one day, when they will begin to enjoy the fruits of life, like in
the past, again.
In many ways, I am totally aghast with everything that is happening
these days, not that I cannot understand the trail of events, far from
it, but, my friend, I see no hope, absolutely none, for any change. Worst
yet, never in the history of mankind has there been such a level of ignorance
and degeneration, not economic, but a morass of intellectual and academic
bankruptcy in this so-called "Age of the Technological Revolution".
Thanks for allowing me to vent a little,
As always,
your friend,
Khalid.