The legacy of Marxism Today

[Divisive Cotton]

There is a long article entitled Marxism Today: the forgotten visionaries whose ideas could save Labour written by John Harris

Harris, being such a political lightweight, is the last journalist you would want to investigate the theoretical legacy of Marxism Today

I know that in the past contributors here, particularly Butchers, have been scathing of the whole project, but have delivered a criticism from outside the old Party reformist/traditionalist nexuses

But two genuine questions: What did they get right? && What did they get wrong?

 

[Pickman's model]

them stopping was right

 

[danny la rouge]

Magazines are easy to fold.

 

[nino_savatte]

The entire back catalogue of Marxism Today has been archived here.
marxism today

 

[likesfish]

werent they the wankers that claimed the serbian concentration camps pics were faked?

 

[Pickman's model]

werent they the wankers that claimed the serbian concentration camps pics were faked?

you are thinking of living marxism which is obviously easily confused with marxism today. i imagine you get similarly confused between bbc1, bbc2, bbc3 and bbc4 - not to mention radio 1,2,3,4,5 etc

 

[stethoscope]

werent they the wankers that claimed the serbian concentration camps pics were faked?

No, that was Living Marxism/RCP.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

No, that was Living Marxism/RCP.

Who now also claim that global warming is a hoax.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who now also claim that global warming is a hoax.

the auld institute of ideas

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Batshit contrarian cult ...

Not same as Marxism Today anyhow.

 

[Wilf]

Haven't got time to read the piece at the moment, but Marxism Today was important, in identifying trends in the world economy and highlighting ways in which old style Labourism wasn't cutting it. Trouble is, it reached the wrong conclusions and was one of the players in the birth of new Labour (indirectly). Seems a bit harsh to pin the sins of Blairism on the likes of Hall, Hobsbawm, Jacques etc, , but they certainly added to the idea that everything was up for 'reassessment'. New Times and all that.

 

[likesfish]

sorry but living marxism were the only marxists I regularly ran into hardly a very common species

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Haven't got time to read the piece at the moment, but Marxism Today was important, in identifying trends in the world economy and highlighting ways in which old style Labourism wasn't cutting it. Trouble is, it reached the wrong conclusions and was one of the players in the birth of new Labour (indirectly). Seems a bit harsh to pin the sins of Blairism on the likes of Hall, Hobsbawm, Jacques etc, , but they certainly added to the idea that everything was up for 'reassessment'. New Times and all that.

I wouldn't put Jacques in the same frame as Hall and Hobsbawm. I can't see what there is to respect in the work of Jacques; the same isn't true of Hall or Hobsbawm.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Wilf]

I wouldn't put Jacques in the same frame as Hall and Hobsbawm. I can't see what there is to respect in the work of Jacques; the same isn't true of Hall or Hobsbawm.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

No, indeed. I included him as Editor of the journal. Not sure if this is correct, but I always assumed he did a lot of the networking that brought MT thinkers into contact with the various 'soft left' figures such as Robin Cook.

 

[nino_savatte]

sorry but living marxism were the only marxists I regularly ran into hardly a very common species

They were pretend Marxists.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wouldn't put Jacques in the same frame as Hall and Hobsbawm. I can't see what there is to respect in the work of Jacques; the same isn't true of Hall or Hobsbawm.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice.

I seem to recall the Swappies coming over all self-righteous when Jacques married, on account of colonialist imperialism.