Sartesian: The central issue for me in the previous round of discussions is those notions that: somehow "dialectic" means that there is "positive" and "negative" in everything; Reply: Correct. Well done. Finally you get it. Sartesian: somehow the transformation of a thing into its opposite is based on "external" circumstances and not the manifestation of its inherent qualities, its "essence," its "notion" made evident by its development in the real world; that somehow there is "progress" a "higher rationality" that steadily marches on through history
Reply: Actually, it's both. Evolution, as you mention later in your latest missive, is precisely the adaptation of nature to external factors - e.g. changes in climate, the availability of food, etc. Those species and categories of flora and fauna which have and do adapt successfully is obviously due to their inherent potential to do so. There is nothing rational or irrational about the process involved. It is blind, driven by nothing more than a constant process of coming into being and passing away. The imputation of rationality is subjectivism. There is, however, rationality and irrationality in everything of and within human society, reflective of man's self conscious nature. Sartesian: Evolution has nothing to do with "progress," with positive and negative, with "improvement" etc. It has to do with adaptability, survivability, but nothing in that requires "progress." Reply: Well, this is the first time I heard it said that survivability - adaptability - isn't progressiv. I rather think that by an objective rendering of the facts that the evolution of homosapiens from apes marks a progressive development in terms of the ability of the species to survive and master its environment. It kinda strikes me as the difference between a horse and carriage and a Range Rover. But, of course, with every positive comes a negative, especially as those four wheel drives are a bastard when it comes to carbon emissions. Sartesian. There is nothing "progressive" in itself about the bourgeoisie's construction of an auto plant, a steel plant, a cement plant, a road, a dam as the construction of those things like the production Reply: Of course there is. What absolute nonsense you write. The ability to build automobiles, the invention of cement, etc., are progressive developments, clearly, unless of course you hark back to the days of cottage industries and spinning wheels. Maybe you do, I don't know. Perhaps you should delve into the Communist Manifesto. As Marx himself wrote: ''The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.' Was he lying? Sartesian: Regarding the political disputes: This WTFAW? [Who the f..k are we} to criticize, to not endorse without exception any organization confronting imperialism, has proven itself a failure in the struggle against global or world or international capitalism or imperialism or whatever you want to call it. Reply: And here we return to the objective behind Sartesian's mish-mash of a theory - an attempt to erect an argument in support of his desire to withhold solidarity from oppressed peoples and nations lying in the crosshairs of our respective ruling classes in the West. Why? As far as I can see, because in his estimation they fail to pass his checklist of approval - namely, the fact they do not subscribe to his notion of a pure, secular, socialist, and clean resistance. Another name for this condition is 'buckling under the pressure of our own bourgeoisie'. Yes, Sartesian, I feel your pain. It's hard to argue support for those recalcitrant Palestinians of Gaza with our liberal friends and work colleagues. Poor us. Poor, poor us. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
