To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Living Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Living Marxism was a British magazine originally launched in 1988 as the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). The magazine attracted attention for denying both the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide. Rebranded as LM in 1992, it ceased publication in March 2000 following a successful libel lawsuit brought by ITN over Living Marxism's criticism of ITN's coverage of the Bosnian war.[1][2] It was promptly resurrected as Spiked, an Internet magazine.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    3 332 730
    86 483
    8 085
  • POLITICAL THEORY - Karl Marx
  • Spiked Magazine Panel - "Is Political Correctness Why Trump Won?”
  • Hegel & Marx - Peter Singer & Bryan Magee

Transcription

Most people agree that we need to improve our economic system somehow. Yet we’re also often keen to dismiss the ideas of capitalism’s most famous and ambitious critic, Karl Marx. This isn’t very surprising. In practice, his political and economic ideas have been used to design disastrously planned economies and nasty dictatorships. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t reject Marx too quickly. We ought to see him as a guide whose diagnosis of Capitalism’s ills helps us navigate towards a more promising future. Capitalism is going to have be reformed - and Marx’s analyse are going to be part of any answer. Marx was born in 1818 in Trier, Germany. Soon he became involved with the Communist party, a tiny group of intellectuals advocating for the overthrow of the class system and the abolition of private property. He worked as a journalist and had to flee Germany, eventually settling in London. Marx wrote an enormous number of books and articles, sometimes with his friend Friedrich Engels Mostly, Marx wrote about Capitalism, the type of economy that dominates the western world. It was, in his day, still getting going, and Marx was one of its most intelligent and perceptive critics. These were some of the problems he identified with it: Modern work is “alienated” One of Marx’s greatest insights is that work can be one of the sources of our greatest joys. But in order to be fulfilled at work, Marx wrote that workers need ‘to see themselves in the objects they have created’. Think of the person who built this chair: it is straightforward, strong, honest and elegant It’s an example of how, at its best, labour offers us a chance to externalise what’s good inside us. But this is increasingly rare in the modern world. Part of the problem is that modern work is incredibly specialised. Specialised jobs make the modern economy highly efficient, but they also mean that it is seldom possible for any one worker to derive a sense of the genuine contribution they might be making to the real needs of humanity. Marx argued that modern work leads to alienation = Entfremdung in other words, a feeling of disconnection between what you do all day and who you feel you really are and would ideally be able to contribute to existence. Modern work is insecure Capitalism makes the human being utterly expendable; just one factor among others in the forces of production that can ruthlessly be let go the minute that costs rise or savings can be made through technology. And yet, as Marx knew, deep inside of us, we don’t want to be arbitrarily let go, we are terrified of being abandoned. Communism isn’t just an economic theory. Understood emotionally, it expresses a deep-seated longing that we always have a place in the world’s heart, that we will not be cast out. Workers get paid little while capitalists get rich This is perhaps the most obvious qualm Marx had with Capitalism. In particular, he believed that capitalists shrunk the wages of the labourers as much as possible in order to skim off a wide profit margin. He called this primitive accumulation = ursprüngliche Akkumulation Whereas capitalists see profit as a reward for ingenuity and technological talent, Marx was far more damning. Profit is simply theft, and what you are stealing is the talent and hard work of your work force. However much one dresses up the fundamentals, Marx insists that at its crudest, capitalism means paying a worker one price for doing something that can be sold for another, much higher one. Profit is a fancy term for exploitation. Capitalism is very unstable Marx proposed that capitalist systems are characterised by series of crises. Every crisis is dressed up by capitalists as being somehow freakish and rare and soon to be the last one. Far from it, argued Marx, crises are endemic to capitalism - and they’re caused by something very odd. The fact that we’re able to produce too much - far more than anyone needs to consume. Capitalist crises are crises of abundance, rather than - as in the past - crises of shortage. Our factories and systems are so efficient, we could give everyone on this planet a car, a house, access to a decent school and hospital. That’s what so enraged Marx and made him hopeful too. Few of us need to work, because the modern economy is so productive. But rather than seeing this need not to work as the freedom it is, we complain about it masochistically and describe it by a pejorative word “unemployment.” We should call it freedom. There’s so much unemployment for a good and deeply admirable reason: because we’re so good at making things efficiently. We’re not all needed at the coal face. But in that case, we should - thought Marx - make leisure admirable. We should redistribute the wealth of the massive corporations that make so much surplus money and give it to everyone. This is, in its own way, as beautiful a dream as Jesus’s promise of heaven; but a good deal more realistic sounding. Capitalism is bad for capitalists Marx did not think capitalists were evil. For example, he was acutely aware of the sorrows and secret agonies that lay behind bourgeois marriage. Marx argued that marriage was actually an extension of business, and that the bourgeois family was fraught with tension, oppression, and resentment, with people staying together not for love but for financial reasons. Marx believed that the capitalist system forces everyone to put economic interests at the heart of their lives, so that they can no longer know deep, honest relationships. He called this psychological tendency commodity fetishism = Warenfetischismus because it makes us value things that have no objective value. He wanted people to be freed from financial constraint so that they could - at last - start to make sensible, healthy choices in their relationships. The 20th century feminist answer to the oppression of women has been to argue that women should be able to go out to work. Marx’s answer was more subtle. This feminist insistence merely perpetuates human slavery. The point isn’t that women should imitate the sufferings of their male colleagues,it’s that men and women should have the permanent option to enjoy leisure. Why don’t we all think a bit more like marx? An important aspect of Marx’s work is that he proposes that there is an insidious, subtle way in which the economic system colours the sort of ideas that we ending up having. The economy generates what Marx termed an “ideology”. A capitalist society is one where most people, rich and poor, believe all sorts of things that are really just value judgements that relate back to the economic system: that a person who doesn’t work is worthless, that leisure (beyond a few weeks a year) is sinful, that more belongings will make us happier and that worthwhile things (and people) will invariably make money. In short, one of the biggest evils of Capitalism is not that there are corrupt people at the top—this is true in any human hierarchy—but that capitalist ideas teach all of us to be anxious, competitive, conformist, and politically complacent. Marx didn’t only outline what was wrong capitalism: we also get glimpses of what Marx wanted the ideal utopian future to be like. In his Communist Manifesto he describes a world without private property or inherited wealth, with a steeply graduated income tax, centralised control of the banking, communication, and transport industries, and free public education. Marx also expected that communist society would allow people to develop lots of different sides of their natures: “in communist society…it is possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” After Marx moved to London he was supported by his friend and intellectual partner Friedrich Engels, a wealthy man whose father owned a cotton plant in Manchester. Engels covered Marx’s debts and made sure his works were published. Capitalism paid for Communism. The two men even wrote each other adoring poetry. Marx was not a well-regarded or popular intellectual in his day. Respectable, conventional people of Marx’s day would have laughed at the idea that his ideas could remake the world. Yet just a few decades later they did: his writings became the keystone for some of the most important ideological movements of the 20th century. But Marx was like a brilliant doctor in the early days of medicine. He could recognise the nature of the disease, although he had no idea how to go about curing it. At this point in history, we should all be Marxists in the sense of agreeing with his diagnosis of our troubles. But we need to go out and find the cures that will really work. As Marx himself declared, and we deeply agree: Philosophers until now have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

History

It was published by Junius Publications Ltd until 1997, and then by Informinc Ltd.[3] Its editor, Mick Hume, an American Studies graduate from Manchester University then aged 29, said: "Our readers are young, angry, thinking people."[3] At its peak in the 1990s, it had a circulation of between 10,000 and 15,000.[4]

Aims

Living Marxism's introduction summarised its outlook as follows:

We live in an age of caution and conformism, when critical opinions can be outlawed as 'extremism' and anything new can be rubbished as 'too risky'. Ours is an age of low expectations, when we are always being told what is bad for us, and life seems limited on all sides by restrictions, guidelines and regulations. The spirit of LM is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people.[5]

Views

Views expounded with regularity in LM included "fear culture", for example by questioning the then media coverage of AIDS as a predominantly homosexual disease in the West. Its critique covered media coverage in Africa and the developing world in the context of Western intervention, underdevelopment and poverty. It debated environmentalist claims that limiting consumption was a progressive view.[citation needed]

LM writers criticised the media portrayal of the civil wars in Rwanda and Bosnia and disputed that either Serb or Hutu forces committed genocide during those conflicts. In 1993, LM published an exhibition titled "Genocide against the Serbs" which juxtaposed images of Serbs killed in World War II-era crimes with Serbian soldiers killed in battle during the Yugoslav Wars.[6][7] In 1995, LM published an article by Fiona Fox arguing that:[8][9][10]

The lesson I would draw from my visit is that we must reject the term ‘genocide’ in Rwanda. It has been used inside and outside Rwanda to criminalise the majority of ordinary Rwandan people, to justify outside interference in the country’s affairs, and to lend legitimacy to a minority military government imposed on Rwanda by Western powers.

Historian Marko Attila Hoare criticised their genocide denial in relation to both the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides.[6]

It has been suggested by environmentalists such as George Monbiot[11] and Peter Melchett that the group of writers associated with LM continue to constitute an LM network pursuing an ideologically motivated anti-environmentalist agenda under the guise of promoting humanism.[12][13] Writers who used to write for Living Marxism reject this as a "McCarthyite conspiracy theory".[14]

ITN vs. LM

In February 1997, editor Mick Hume published an article by German journalist Thomas Deichmann which claimed that ITN had misrepresented the Bosnian war in its coverage in 1992. The publishers of LM, Informinc (LM) Ltd., were sued for libel by ITN. The case initially caused international condemnation of ITN as one of LM's critics, the journalist George Monbiot, who wrote in Prospect magazine:

Some of the world's leading liberals leapt to the magazine's defence: Harold Evans, Doris Lessing, Paul Theroux, Fay Weldon and many others condemned ITN's "deplorable attack on press freedom". The Institute of Contemporary Arts, bulwark of progressive liberalism, enhanced LM's heroic profile by co-hosting a three-day conference with the magazine, called "Free Speech Wars". With the blessing of the liberal world, this puny iconoclastic David will go to war with the clanking orthodoxies of the multinational Goliath.[15]

However, Monbiot continued:

This, at least, is how LM would like its struggle to be seen. But there is more to this David than first meets the eye. His may be less of the great liberal cause that his supporters would like to believe. For the closer one looks at LM, the weaker its link to the oppressed appears, and the stronger its links to the oppressor. It has, in other words, less in common with the left than with the fanatical right.[15]

The article "The picture that fooled the world" argued that ITN's footage in which an emaciated Bosnian Muslim man stood behind a barbed wire fence was designed to portray a Nazi-style extermination camp while Deichmann claimed: "It was not a prison, and certainly not a 'concentration camp', but a collection centre for refugees, many of whom went there seeking safety and could leave again if they wished".[16] However, an examination of the substance of this case by a professor of cultural and political geography at Durham University argues that the key claims made by Deichmann and LM are "erroneous and flawed".[17]

The libel case went against LM and in March 2000 the magazine was forced to close.[18] Reporters Penny Marshall and Ian Williams were each awarded £150,000 over the LM story and the magazine was ordered to pay £75,000 for libelling ITN in a February 1997 article.[1]

Looking back Hume commented in The Times:

Would I do it again? We could have got out of the case by apologising, which seems to be the fashionable thing to do. But I believe in the unfashionable freedom to state what you understand to be true, even if it causes offence. I would do almost anything to avoid ever again setting foot in Court 14. But some things really are more important than a mortgage.[19]

In contrast, Professor Campbell of Durham University summarised his study of the case as follows:

[A]s strange as existing British libel law is, it had an important and surprisingly beneficial effect in the case of ITN vs LM. The LM defendants and Thomas Deichmann were properly represented at the trial and were able to lay out all the details of their claim that the ITN reporters had "deliberately misrepresented" the situation at Trnopolje. Having charged 'deliberate misrepresentation', they needed to prove 'deliberate misrepresentation'. To this end, the LM defendants were able to cross-examine Penny Marshall and Ian Williams, as well as every member of the ITN crews who were at the camps, along with other witnesses. (That they didn't take up the opportunity to cross-examine the Bosnian doctor imprisoned at Trnopolje, who featured in the ITN stories and was called to testify on the conditions he and others suffered, was perhaps the moment any remaining shred of credibility for LM's allegations evaporated). They were able to show the ITN reports to the court, including the rushes from which the final TV stories were edited, and conduct a forensic examination of the visuals they alleged were deceitful. And all of this took place in front of a jury of twelve citizens who they needed to convince about the truthfulness of their allegations. They failed. The jury found unanimously against LM and awarded the maximum possible damages. So it was not ITN that bankrupted LM. It was LM's lies about the ITN reports that bankrupted themselves, morally and financially. Despite their failure, those who lied about the ITN reports have had no trouble obtaining regular access to the mainstream media in Britain, where they continue to make their case as though the 2000 court verdict simply didn't exist. Their freedom of speech has thus not been permanently infringed.[20]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "ITN wins Bosnian war libel case". BBC News. 15 March 2000
  2. ^ Wells, Matt (31 March 2000). "LM closes after losing libel action". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
  3. ^ a b "Licence to rile". the Guardian. 15 May 1999. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
  4. ^ Hepworth, Jack (28 April 2022). "'The moral rearmament of imperialism': the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Northern Ireland conflict, and the new world order, 1981-1994". Contemporary British History. Informa UK Limited. 36 (4): 591–621. doi:10.1080/13619462.2022.2070479. ISSN 1361-9462.
  5. ^ Welcome to the new-look LM - the big-mouthed, broad-minded magazine that will shout what others don't dare to whisper, LM issue 97, February 1997
  6. ^ a b Hoare, Marko Attila (2003). "Genocide in the former Yugoslavia: a critique of left revisionism's denial". Journal of Genocide Research. 5 (4): 543–563. doi:10.1080/1462352032000149495. S2CID 145169670.
  7. ^ Katerji, Oz (2017). "The West's leftist 'intellectuals' who traffic in genocide denial, from Srebrenica to Syria | Opinion". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  8. ^ Foster, Fiona (December 1995). "Massacring the truth in Rwanda". Living Marxism. Archived from the original on 21 May 2001.
  9. ^ Chris McGreal, "Genocide? What genocide?", The Guardian, 20 March 2000
  10. ^ Melvern, Linda (2020). Intent to Deceive: Denying the Rwandan Genocide. Verso Books. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-78873-328-1.
  11. ^ Monbiot, George (9 December 2003). "Invasion of the entryists". The Guardian (London).
  12. ^ Melchett, Peter (19 April 2007). "Clear intentions". The Guardian (London).
  13. ^ Profiles: Martin Durkin, LobbyWatch. Retrieved 17 April 2007.
  14. ^ O'Neill, Brendan (25 April 2007). "Humanising politics—that is my only agenda". Spiked Online. Archived from the original on 28 May 2007.
  15. ^ a b Monbiot, George (1 November 1998). "Far Left or Far Right?". Prospect. London.
  16. ^ "LM 97: The picture that fooled the world". 10 November 1999. Archived from the original on 10 November 1999.
  17. ^ "Atrocity and Memory". DavidCampbell.com.
  18. ^ "Munira Mirza, revolutionary conservative". The Economist. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  19. ^ Hume, Mick (7 March 2005). "The day I faced being a £1m bankrupt". The Times. London. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
  20. ^ "Chomsky's Bosnian shame - David Campbell". 14 November 2009. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2009.

Further reading

General
Press articles
Libel action
This page was last edited on 9 October 2023, at 13:10
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.