Message 04526 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 22/46 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Denial Re: [ox-en] Labor contradictions

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Raoul wrote:

On 4 dic 07, Stefan Meretz wrote:

As stated before: I see not much options, not at the current level of workers fights. (...) Maybe, but this is only a guess, a thinking beyond the capitalist logic can develop during very intense strikes, when there is some time to think beyond the daily work and self-valualisation logic. However, I find it more likely, that single individual persons -- workers in a broad sense -- support free developments in their free time, as we already see it.

Ok. But both realities do not exclude each other. To strike is the most "primitive" step of workers fights.

[i wrote:] i remember hearing "luddism" as being phenomenally the first resistive reaction, "unionisation" as the second, and "workers councils" as the third -- the person putting this to me, did so in a manner that suggested an almost logically progression to the three steps, in that as folk failed to achieve their desired aims by carrying out their forms of association, they necessarily adopted, or changed in to a new, more conscious form

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:53:53 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] (GMT) Raoul wrote:

It is always hazardous to rewrite history ...

Whoops. I was thinking in the semantic heterogeneity of a Bordiga scholar, and denying "parliamentarianism" after what happened in 1914, when the German Social-Democrat deputies in the Reichstag voted for the war credits.

There's been other ways though. In Churchill's essay "The Mother of Parliments", Churchill notes that when Simon de Montford championed "the Community of the Bachelors of England" amongst others:

* It is ungratefully asserted that he had no real conception of the ultimate meaning of his actions, and

* Certainly he builded better than he knew.

Kenneth Mackenzie sets the scene like this in his essay "A Court becomes a Parliament":

 The climax of outrage was reached in 1237, when Henry summoned the
 barons to a great council, at which they were only asked to grant aid
 and no great business was put before them. 'Are we not among the number
 of the king's friends?' it was asked. What we want, they seem to have
 said, is a full discussion of the affairs of the realm -- in fact a
 *colloquium*, and this is the word which Matthew Paris, the
 contemporary chronicler, begins to use in this year to describe the
 assemblies of barons.

 The year before, *parliamentum*, a more popular and less formal
 equivalent of *colloquium*, appears in an official document to describe
 a great council to which the king summoned prelates, earls and barons
 to discuss various kinds of business, including the settlement of
 judicial matters.

 By 1258 parliament has evidently begun to acquire a special meaning.
 The assembly at Oxford in 1258, itself miscalled the Mad Parliament,
 to which the barons came armed, brought forward a long list of demands,
 of which one of the most important was for three parliaments a year
 'to treat of the business of the king and the kingdom'.

 From 1258 onwards it is possible to establish with more or less
 certainty the list of true parliaments. For parliaments were summoned
 by a special kind of writ which distinguished them from other kinds of
 national assembly. A parliamentary writ invited the recipient to
 discuss not merely with the king but with the other magnates, and the
 business discussed was not merely the king's business but the business
 of the king and the kingdom. In other words, the appearance of the
 word 'parliament' indicated a recognition of the right of feudal
 counsellors not merely to tender individual advice to the king but to
 discuss with each other.

 Inevitably, the effect was to crystallize that duality which, we have
 suggested, is the essence of parliamentary government. The magnates
 were still only advisers summoned at royal discretion, but the
 invitation to discuss with each other evidently conceded to them a
 degree of corporate existence which could not fail in the long run to
 encourage their development as the critics of, rather than the
 participators in, government.


I read, some days past, that the man who ordered the erection of the almost infinite wall of China was the first Emperor, Shih Huang Ti, who also decreed that all books prior to him be burned. That these two vast operations -- the five to six hundred leagues of stone opposing the barbarians, the rigorous abolition of history, that is, the past -- should originate in one person and be in some way his attributes inexplicably satisfied and, at the same time, disturbed me. To investigate the reason for that emotion is the purpose of this note.

The Wall and the Books : Borges
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 22/46 L6 [In index]
Message 04526 [Homepage] [Navigation]