I agree completely with Jurriaan that MHs ideas was way to abstract, lacked originality The FI-document on The Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy from the late seventies is at the same level - more concrete if I am not mistaken.
But to write such obviously (tautological) correct "principles" without - as far as I could see - I just browsed it quickly - no references to real historical problems - NOW - Anno Domini 2009 - it does not impress me at all. On the contrary - I just take a quick look and let it pass in silence.
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.
Without a real discussion of real experiences - so that we know what kind of PRAXIS such well-intended principles encourages - no use for them.
MH should have written like Debreu - that ""allegiance to rigor dictates the axiomatic form of the analysis where the theory, in the strict sense, is logically entirely disconnected from its interpretations"
Regrettably it is the interpretations that are important for our lives, for our political praxis etc.
My two cents
ope mailing list
Received on Fri Dec 4 03:10:50 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EST