The new Left

[BybLos]

Originally Posted by liberte_toujours

Byblos,

The proletaria doesn't exist anymore. It's nothing but an illusion today. And u should know, that the debate of the classes has been nothing but a complete failure in the history of mankind. Learn history, and learn that the only way to erase the classes, is for everyone to work as hard as everyone else, to get to a better life, to get educated more and to get the same salaries as others. Nowadays, education is practically free in the LU, the level of studying is very high and one can make a difference in his life when he studies and gets a good job. So why stay in the proletaria when u can get better in life?

All the leftist parties and theories is a result for marxism
and for ur info , lenin was the first who classified the society 2 prolitaria and " borjwazya " dun know the name in english
and there is no other group so as leftists we cant say tht no prolitaria
about gettin new life , its easy 2 say , but without any organizin 4 the society by studied wconomical steps no any betta life exists
we can take many exapmles of socialism , new socialsim like in UK for example , ur speech will work about gettin new life , but ppl there r ready 2 accept those kinds of systmes
here ppl r late due 2 many reason and we all know tht , for exampla fedralsim is aa great job , but ppl here r late and cant b into those kinds of systems
bas in general the left , considers the economical problem is the main problem
bro bassam consider this an explanasion plz

[BybLos]

Originally Posted by thh00

Liberte,
Byblos is not a leftist and he has no rights to talk in the name of the left.
.

A real Leftist doen say this statement .

[liberte_toujours]

Byblos, you are out of the subject, plz bring new elements into the conversation, or else, spare us your comments. thank u.

[thh00]

Byblos,
I said do not talk in the name of the left, and appear as you are a leftist when you know nothing about it.
For you information, the description of the capitalist society as the society where the two main classes in contradiction are Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, this was Marx job and not Lenin. It is because you lack knowledge as basic as that, that I had to say you are not leftist.

[thh00]

Liberte,

The way you described a society is based on income, the description of Marx was based on the role in the production. Marx was analyzing the capitalist society and he mentioned many classes; however for him the two classes that make the bulk of the production, in the 19th century, are the bourgeois and the porletariat. i.e. the people who provide the capital and the people who provide the labor. Marx also mentioned the peasants, the petty-bourgeois (petites bourgeoisie), the lumpen proletariat and the aristocratie. The petty-bourgeois are those who work for themselves: they emply the capital and they are the labor; the lumpen-proletariat is the class of non-productive people living on the side of society, small traders, beggars, soldiers, etc...
The merit of Marx's description is that it explains who is doing what work.
However, as you said he is short on many issues. In a classical sense of Marxism, a CEO who works for a company is a proletariat although he might make million of dollars a year. Neo-marxist explain that although a CEO sells his labor to the company, he is the representative of the capital in the company and he lives off the capital and therefore is on the side of the capital in the class struggle.
Marx was also short-sighted when he predicted the pauperization of the petty-bourgeois and his prophecy that they will soon join "the ranks of the proletariat". He predicted that big business will drive small business into bankrupcy. Although this quite often happens, capitalism has shown that there is plenty of room for entrepreneurs and small businesses to survive by switching their business aside from competing with big businesses to providing them services.
A third problem of Marx was that he believed that the contradictions of capitalism will cause its catastrophic collapse. Once again, capital has shown great flexibility, instead of driving the world to collapse by confronting the labor all the way, it prefered to concede to the workers and other classes, many benefits. The workers have won many rights, like the universal suffrage, the right to form unions, the right to participate in governments through parties that represent them, decentralization, etc...
Therefore, I still think that Marx understanding of politics as the reflection of class struggle was very well placed; Marx analysis of capitalism functioning was also great. However, Marx prophecies are not.
The task of the left is to analyze the new society the same way Marx did, to fight for workers and people rights, and part of this struggle is to explain to them what their rights are, to constantly capitalize on social gains in order to establish a fairer society through evolution and not revolution. Bernestein said: "The movement is everything and the goal of socialism is nothing." He meant that it is the movement of the left that is getting the gains, while the form of what socialism sould be in 100 years is not relevant.

P.S: I am impressed by your mentioning Samir Amine who did a great job in analyzing the dependency of nations, and in criticizing the soviet union since the 60s.

[thh00]

YAD (Al-Yassar Al-dimoqrati) has had its constitutional assembly,

http://www.beirutletter.com/press/press1407.html

[liberte_toujours]

It would be interesting here thh00 to try and explain how Samir Amine's thaughts also differ from the neo-neo marxists, or the neo-dependantists.

In fact, Amine says that in order of the 3rd world to come out of the dependance, it should cut all the links with the center (europe, USA and japan). And only a real block of the relations will make the difference, since the center will not be able to have the necessary ressourves in order to survive... He also believes that in order to break the center, Europe should turn to the Left, heik Europe will help the 3rd world, and everyone will let the USA and imperialism fall...

Sometimes I find Samir Amine so caught up in his own world, and even if he's based on real statistics that show the dependance between the center and the 3rd world, it would be so far fetched to think that all 3rd world countries will cut their links with the center, and more far fetched to think that Europe would turn to socialism... It would be like putting Paris in Moscou's place, chou 3emil ya3ne, arrab the capital? This is what i didn't get from his analyse...

Anyway, I would like to ask Thh00 if the new lebanese left would be closer to which thoughts? Samir Amine or the newer generation of dependentists?

[thh00]

Well, Yad's internal structure is more like the French Socialist party. It allows for currents inside it. Those currents are based on different lectures of history, politics and philosophy. Thus, I cannot say that there is a mainstream ideology by which everyone should abide. It is one of the major differences that Yad wants to create with the old-school of left.
Another reason why I cannot answer the question directly is that Yad is not marxist in the sense where marxism is taken as an ideology. Yad agrees with the marxian methodology of analysis, and believes that Marx is a major contributor to the left ideology but refuses to consider Marxism as the only scientic socialism as Marx claimed that he was.

When it comes to Samir Amin, I think that Amin has a very interesting perspective and saw right that there is a relation of dependency between the center and the peripherals (3rd world.) Amin also grasped what he called statism (al-dawlana) in the soviet union as a dominant mode of production. He said that the communist countries had three contradictory tendencies: capitalist remainders, socialist dreams and statist factual. He had the guts to criticize the soviet union from a leftist perspecitive and has had a contribution to the arab left and the world left. I think that Amin has made good points in the above mentioned; however, when it comes to the solution of breaking the dependency (fak al-ertibat as he calls it) I disagree with him totally. Amin himself rejected later this theory. I also disagree with Amin's latest publications where he claims that the military tendency of the US is a sign of weakness and the beginning of its dawn. I think that he has been lately caught up in his illusions.
One last comment is that I tend to agree more with people like Mehdi Amel in his analysis of the dependency or the (neo-colonialist modes of production) than with Amin's analysis
Hope this clarifies
P.S: the part about Samir Amin is my own stance

[liberte_toujours]

I also disagree with Amin's latest publications where he claims that the military tendency of the US is a sign of weakness and the beginning of its dawn

I read some articles about it, mouhemm he also says that USA's neo-liberalism is like hiterlism and stuff.... totally dillusional!!! But the part that u should read about, is the "L'Europe sera de gauche, ou ne sera pas"...

He came to USJ last year, to political sc. and he talked a lot... We argued ;) but hey, he's free to have his own opinion abt the subject, and I personnally don't agree with his theories... like thh00 said, Amine doesn't even agree with his own theories!! :)

[LebanesePride]

I dont see how so-called communists can be so and support Marx, Lenin and such, and then attack Israel.
Communism and Marx were one of the biggest zionist inventions of all time.

And i dont see why people here asked them if they supported the israeli right to exist. Support it, be against it, who cares. What matters to me is noone uses lebanon to implement his view on israel.