Well, Tom, perhaps someone might not like the term "circulatory system." After
all, like "bourgeois state," the thing it describes could easily be called
something else, like "the precious fluid transport system." Or the "state
controlled by private owners of really important property and processes," etc.
Objecting to terminology can sometimes gt us somewhere and sometimes it is
pointless objection, or objection masking something else, such as a political
difference.
It appears that you may object to Marx's insights and stances, and by extention
to those of Marxists, or scientific socialists, as well.
Embarkadero wrote:
> > Tom your tireless anti-marxism is in fact becoming tiresome
> > because it is becoming an obvious obsession with you that
> > ignores that there are a lot of interesting things going on
> > on this list.
>
> Yes, Tahir, I quite agree. Yet I am stuck with disagreeing with marxist
> positions. I can capitulate and cease to post, I can outline my position and
> simply not respond to objections to it, or I can attempt to give back as
> good as was/is given to me. The latter tactic seeming no longer to be
> fruitful, I will try to clean up my act. <---------- serious statement, not
> sarcastic, please accept it in good faith.
>
> Further points below this:
> >
> [Tom]> I as yet have seen no comprehension in the marxist
> > positions of the role
> > of nature as arbiter ...........
>
> {Tahir] Why don't you back this up by reading the following that I
> > posted to this list some time ago and tell me how it
> > supports your above point (please be specific):
>
> Having never seen this before, I am forced at the outset to eat my words.
> You indeed spoke to the issue. Why has no one responded lately with this
> side of the issue? I knew it was there, but it seems so heavily discounted
> and ignored by marxists on the list that I am justified in holding their
> feet to the fire this last few days. Allow that nothing of this level of
> posts regarding the environmental issue has appeared on Crashlist since I
> joined, and that the archives were unavailable to me. You will have to
> admit, however, that even *this* post of yours is but tangential to the
> discussion of the roll of nature as arbiter.
>
> Is it okay to bypass the "petulant" comment and the words to hallyx?
>
> Okay, onward:
>
> > Now Tom, just get used to the fact that marxism is not going
> > to go away.
>
> hee hee, this is an article of faith Tahir, not scientific. We ALL might go
> away, and despite Mark's assertion "My Fate is not theirs", in the next
> 50-100 years all these ideologies may be replaced. Our fates are entwined.
> But I realize for solidarity and to put me in my place, you must say what
> you have said.
>
> One of the reasons is that it does tell us some
> > of the things we need to do if we are going to save the
> > world from the current insanity. This is a political
> > project, one which you are SILENT about. Come out clearly
> > Tom, where do you stand on the bourgeois state?
>
> 1) I was silent. Mostly I was concentrating on the threads pertaining to
> bio-issues. I also am silent on much of the Serbian issue, even though I
> have life-long friends there.
>
> 2) I reject the terminology "bourgeois state" because I think that it is
> over-simplistic and presents a kind of dichotomy which does not exist in
> reality. There is so much baggage associated with so many marxist AND
> capitalist/ "bourgeois" terms that it makes it a practical impossibility for
> a non-marxist to enter such a discussion with marxists without invoking
> screams of hostility from both sides. I tire too much of the deliberate
> witholding of acceptation by marxist posters that I have not stated a
> position. However:
>
> 3) As Hallyx stated: "the destruction of capitalism ... is assured without
> you're having to lift a finger."
>
> 4) The issue at hand is not stopping the crash, that is impossible. But
> rather the issue is limiting the response of our culture -- capitalist,
> marxist, fascist and non-aligned -- to destructive overreaction to the
> sudden perception of the abyss.
>
> > Do you think it can solve our problems or not? You know how many times
> > I've raised this, so I don't need to repeat all the details
> > of the question. Why don't you just answer it?
> > Tahir
>
> Sorry Tahir, I in fact DON'T know how many time you have raised this issue
> before your post the other day. Either by ignoring a thread where you may
> have said it, or you having said it in a way that I misunderstood, I have
> not seen this issue discussed by you..
>
> I in fact have spoken to the "bourgeois state" issue more than once on
> Crashlist, but for the record, here goes again:
>
> 1) It matters VERY LITTLE which methodology you choose, it is the *attitude*
> that matters. One may drive the Cadillac of capitalism toward a good end, or
> the (Is it Moskva? that big Russian limo?) big russian limo of marxism on
> toward a bad goal. It is the direction and the skill in driving that counts.
> Yes, I understand that Marx would disagree. Where do I stand? He is wrong.
> (I hope this doesn't surprise you <g>) Think about the implications of :
> "What is non-capitalist industry, science and technology? We have never
> experienced these, just as none of us has ever lived outside of capitalism
> in any other way."
>
> 2) The "bourgeois state" has some things to offer in solving our problems.
> As long as one looks at capitalism as a single monolithic evil -- much as
> Reagan saw the" evil empire" -- one cannot perceive any positive worth that
> might lie within. Capitalism is not the same as global imperialist
> capitalism, nor is republican democracy the same as state democracy or
> fascism. The "bourgeois state" seems to be better skilled at developing and
> implementing technology, than either socialist-marxist states or
> totalitarian ones. If you assert that technology and science can assist in
> "saving us" you should examine this aspect. There are other things within
> what you perceive as the monolith of capitalism that are positive; but,
> please Tahir, do NOT assume that by my saying so I am defending the status
> quo nor 100% of the capitalist culture 100% of the time.
>
> Forgive me for misunderstanding the ettiquette of this list, I thought there
> was more separation between threads and that attacking marxists for
> environmental denial and avoidance of any deeper discussion of bio-issues
> than uninformed hostility was permitted. Just as I admonish you to look
> beyond a monolithic viewpoint of capitalism, I do in fact try to look at the
> positive aspects of marxism. I am learning more every day.
>
> So
>
> What can marixsm do to help mitigate the destructive reaction of all
> govenrnments to the sudden perception of the abyss?
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
