Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
CB: Shouldn't this be termed "The Negro PETIT Bourgeois Democratic National Movement ?" Comment I am not sure. "Negro Bourgeois Democratic National Movement" in the pre-October era defines the political aspiration of an "all class movement." ^^^^ CB: There are subjective and objective aspects. I'm thinking that "petit bourgeois" more accurately describes the objective status of the Negro entrepreneurs of this time period, as well as the realistic status that those with these aspirations could hope to attain in this period. There were no Black capitalists in the U.S. in 1900. When Carter G. Woodson essays the miseducation of the Negro, one must take into account that even if all Negro business people had been educated into entrepreneurial geniuses like Madame C.J. Walker, they would not have been Morgans or Rockefellers because of racism. As a matter of fact, all white entrepreneurs couldn't be monopolists by the definition of monopoly capital. In one sense, race wasn't anything special for Big Biz. Black entrepreneurs were just particular small business"men", whose throats were cut like any small businesses in monopoly competition. Racism was a reliable way to out compete them. At any rate, the ruling class was and is an exclusive club based on race, _the_ question of the 20th Century and so far bigtime in the 21st. So, in the case of Negroes, not only not all ,but _none_ of them could be monopoly capitalists, i.e. bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, the aspirations to be bourgeois, whether wishful or not, did have historical signficance as a form of class consciousness, as you discuss. ^^^^^ I do believe we are in for an over haul and update of our history. About a year ago C-Span did a program on the Georgia Historical Society that was informative and exciting. During one part of the program one of the speakers described the slogan and flags carried by deep South young men marching off to World War I. "For Dixie and Uncle Sam." This Southern identity and within this the shape of the evolution of the African American Liberation Movement, and then the shape of the African American Liberation Movement apart from the Southern Question probably needs to be looked at with fresh eyes. All of us to one degree or another (let me speak for myself) - me, have been under the discipline and political impact of Leninism for a very long time, despite my advocacy for the overthrow of the Leninist form. ^^^^^^^ CB: Well, yea. The Leninist form is rather historically specific. The Leninist _substance_ is much more historically general and applicable today. ^^^^ Peace Waistline ******************************** Wow! The source and location of Mark Jones writings are vast. Sorry . . . but I cannot do justice to a summary of the issue of over consumption, the carrying capacity of the earth and the laws of thermo dynamics spanning several years. I do believe that the issue of the origin of human needs and its evolution under the impact of property and historical ignorance contains the solution. People in America buy automobiles so that they can go to work in order to pay for the automobile they purchased. Hence, these automobiles embody the bourgeois property relations and its historically specific shape as an industrial artifact of the epoch of the bourgeoisie. The answer is not a "socialist automobile" or an automobile based on socialist principles, but a communist reorganization of society and strictly regulated the production and use of the automobile to correspond to a different set of human needs. Why do we drink milk as a society and eat cheese? ^^^^^^ CB: Mark Jones' point in this area is that communist revolution is a necessary condition to avoid catastrophic dieoff due to pollution in the form of ozone layer damage, global warming or depletion of fossil fuels which are strategic to the current technological regime. It is possible that the bourgeoisie may get us so strung out on the current technological regime, such that even communist revolution may not be _sufficient_ to avoid catastrophic hardship in shifting to a different technological regime that optimizes use of resources, means of production. Sartesian's refusal to acknowledge that Mark's approach assumes the absolute necessity of socialist revolution as a premise to avoid ecological disaster makes his argumentation irrationally contentious in the form of arguing with a strawman. It is dishonest. Then to go into all that namecalling about "Malthusianism" is arrogantly stupid ,given the refusal to acknowledge that the Jonesian approach _does_ pose socialist revolution as an absolute necessity, precondition to dealing with the resource and pollution problems, but courageously examines whether socialist revolution may become insufficient THOUGH OF COURSE STILL NECESSARY ! to avoid some big problems. Runaway global warming might be solved eventually by socialist scientists fully supported by society and economy, but that may not be before some suffering because capitalism lasts too long. Socialist revolution might come in time to save us, but not in time to save us from some suffering. To start and _continue_ namecalling Mark a "Malthusian" because he pronounced out loud this possibility is anti-Marxist and anti-Communist and stupid. And I will tell you it really pisses me off. Mark was always a staunch Marxist and Leninist on the issue of our still needing to overthrow capitalism to have any hope of avoiding ecological catastrophe. Period. Sartesian whole schtick against Mark Jones falls on that point. Once I put that in front of Sartesian several times, and he still kept talking that ying-yang to me, my thing to Sartesian is get the fuck out of my face, because you are just in love with your own mind because you found some empirically nifty stuff on oil capital. So what ? Show me some smarts on _this_ issue in front of us. And don't keep coming back to me like a parrot repeating "Malthusianism ! Squawk , Malthusianism !. I already explained to him eight times why it is not Malthusian error. If he won't get it by now, get the fuck away from me. Again, it is dishonest for Sartesian to persistently argue as if Marx Jones was assuming or allowing for permanent capitalism in his strategy for dealing with the the limits Jones analyzed. To lump Mark Jones with the bourgeois analysts on this is extremely dishonest, dangerously dishonest as a matter of fact, and that's why I myself am ruthless ( in the substantive Leninist sense) in countering Sartesian's demogogic argumentation on these issues. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
