>That's what this list should be about, helping people gain a better
>understanding of just how capitalism has destroyed natural wealth.
>And helping UPDATE marxist theory. Nature IS wealth. Let's not
>keep marxists being the only people on the planet still blind to this
>elemental truth.
>
>Tony
Well said, sir.
In that spirit:
[Tony]
>>That's ONE GREAT reason we seek to end capitalism, not reform it.
So, Tom, don't be so hot to trot every time one of us marxists spout
some sort of line.
Nah. I am only as "hot" to respond as are the attacks mounted against me.
(Zhukov)
[Tony]
>I know. I feel the same way when Christians
come around. But some of them really are OK in their beliefs.
Yes, and both X-tians and Marxists have many sects, it seems. (Of course us
neo-malthusians have sole possession of the single truth. ...)
[Carrol]
>>I apoligize for my loss of temper, but it seems that marxists must
(in contexts where other participants pretend to a certain level of
sophistication) forever debate ghosts. <<
So must green doomers, Carrol. I appreciate you extending your remarks, I
know it takes time and effort. It gives me hope as well of achieving a
genuine level of sophistication rather than pretense to one.
[Carrol]
>>A note on political activity. .. the conviction that there exists
some policy which, if activists adopt it, will enable them to force the
movement of history� can have various repercussions, but one
of them is a tendency to endless hand wringing over "what should
we do, *now*, to make things moves. � I am not arguing for
mere passivity; there is usually a good number of things to do� But I am
arguing
that the occasions on which history *moves*, and on which our
actions (and our ideas) can make a tremendous difference, are few
and far between, occur behind our back and in utterly unpredictable
ways, and cannot be forced, no matter how anguished our attempts
to force them.<<
I certainly agree with this.
[Carrol]>>
>>This exhibits what I call dogmatism �but your post seems to imply
>>that"economics" has to be of use, and that since Marx is not, at least
in your or Martin Feldstein's sense of the word, an economist, he
and marxists can be of little use. � but I urge you to
at least keep in the back of your mind the possibility that economics
is of no use to those who want to change the world. This isn't true,
but it ontly ceases to be false after you have granted its truth to
begin with. If you begin with hope in economics, you sill spin
futilely in one spot forever. Are you so utterly uninterested in
humans and their activity that you believe that an understanding
of how, under given historical conditions, that activity is shaped
can be of no use to anyone?)<< [all 'snips" for brevity only]
[Tom]
I am too disconcerted for words that this is the image of my views that you
perceive. I would be angry at such a fellow as I appear to you. Hell, I AM
pissed off at me merely on the strength of your characterization of me! Damn
me! I am speechless at the prospect of trying to unwind the
misunderstandings, I will not try. Perhaps over the next weeks you will get
to know me a bit better and perhaps discover that I do not entertain those
beliefs projected onto me.
[Carrol]
>>You don't know what Political Economy is -- and you don't know what
a Critique is.
Apparently not. I am returning to the bursar�s office to ask for the money
back I paid for my MS in Political Science.
[Carrol]
>>Incidentally, I don't know what you know about Amiri Baraka, but
I suggest you don't let differences of rhetoric or other preconceptions
blind you. He may or may not be right on specific points at specific
times, but any progressive who ignores Baraka is a fool.<<
Anyone who attempts to verbally abuse others on the list in that particular
way the chomsky posters did is a fool, as well.
[Carrol] to Tony in the Garden of Eden:
>>But assuming the sense I have been assuming, would you
please explain to me how fish in the sea can become food in my stomach
(or articles for sale in my meat counter) unless human hands affect them
somehow along the line?
Or, approaching it from the other hand, how would any amount of human
activity place food in my stomach unless it had something (ultimately from
nature: fish, peas, etc.)<<
The answer to that is the point we are trying to teach you after your 70
years, Carrol, and I hope your receiver is still operating, not just your
transmitter, regardless of your alloted decade to impart a little more
wisdom:
Anthropocentrism and the �Man is the measure of all things� argument holds
for VERY many scenarios, but reorganizing the nature of reality is not one
of them. All the systems under discussion here in relation to the crash � be
they capitalist, marxist or Roman Catholic � start from one common, flawed
assumption: that the �theory� in question can avoid the consequences of the
rape of the planet -- that somehow a political, social or economic scheme
can mitigate the actions of 6 billion people all failing to realize that
control ultimately rests within the rules of the biosphere we must exist
within. If Marxisim recognizes this, then I will continue to carry my party
card when Tony faxes it.
But Ricardo, Adam Smith, Marx, Lenin, Greenspan, Bill Gates, Jesus nor you
and I can redefine or change those natural rules in such a way as to render
them ineffective. Any one who lulls himself into believing otherwise is �
[insert pejorative of choice.]
Thanks,
Tom
"We are stardust. We are golden. We are billion-year-old carbon. And we've
gotto get ourselves back to the Garden."---Joni Mitchell
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
