Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle ettc.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:36:44 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting! Are there available any English copies of The Scientific Conception of the World? Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, 1929. English translation The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle in Sarkar, Sahotra, ed., The Emergence of Logical Empiricism: from 1900 to the Vienna Circle, New York : Garland Publishing, 1996, pp. 321340. Also can be found: Hahn, Hans, Rudolph Carnap, and Otto Neurath. The Scientific Conception of the World: the Vienna Circle. in Neurath, Otto. Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1973. 299-318. Also in Analytic Philosophy. Ed. Jordan J. Lindberg. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000. 147-158. - Original Message - From: Jim Farmelant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:25 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle ettc. On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:22:21 -0400 Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: rasherrs rasherrs - --- The argument between the Vienna Circle and Karl Popper on the matter of the verification principle. Popper susbtituted the falsficaion principle for the verification principle. I believe that this and related issues have been at best neglected by marxism. Yet is a matter of signifcance. The problem of the entire relationship between the physical sciences, the human sciences and what is known as everyday common sense is one that needs badly to be solved. Without a solution to it communism stands on weak and unconvincing ground. Perhaps it should be recalled that the Vienna Circle contained socialists and was not a right wing intellectual circle. Even Popper had been associated with marxism in his youth. He was later to become a liberal. These people as marxism often suggests were not extreme right wing ideologues. Bertrand Russell exercised an enormous influence on the Vienna Circle and on Popper. Yet it cannot be said that he was politically reactionary. ^ CB: Yea, Russell was a liberal. Jim F. can tell you who was a Marxist and who not in the Vienna Circle , and among the logical positivists. The name of the Marxist among them will come to me in a minute. ___ Among the Vienna Circle, Otto Neurath was an avowed Marxist. He was by training a mathematician, an economist and a sociologist. At the time of the 1919 revolution in Germany, he was appointed by the Social Democratic government in Bavaria to run a commission for overseeing the socialization of the economy. Not long after that, the Social Democrats were displaced by a radical left government comprised of Communists, left Social Democrats and anarchists. They kept Neurath in his post. Later after the 1919 revolution was suppressed, Neurath was arrested and put on trial for treason. The treason charges against him were eventually dropped after protests from the Austrian government and the intercession of prominent academics in Germany, including his old teacher Max Weber. After that, he returned to his native Austria, where he remained active in the Austrian SPD and became very much involved in worker education. As an admirer of Ernst Mach, Neurath fell in with a loosely knit group of scientifically minded philosophers and philosophically minded scientists who were concerned with updating Mach's philosophy in light of then recent developments in science and mathematical logic. This group became known as the Vienna Circle and although Moritz Schlick was its titular head. Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap were its dominant figures. It was Neurath and Carnap who drew up the group's manifesto, The Scientific Conception of the World; The Vienna Circle. In that document, Neurath and Carnap emphasized the broader concerns of the circle which extended beyond logic and the philosophy of science to encompass issues in culture, education and politics. They made clear their orientation to socialism and they included Karl Marx in their list of thinkers who considered to be progenitors of the scientific conception of the world. Politically, most of the Vienna Circle were left social democrats. However, there were a few members like Schlick, and Richard von Mises (the brother of economist Ludwig von Mises) who were not all socialists or social democrats but were liberals in the continental European senses (that is they were they were free marketeers). ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle ettc.
I'm not sure why you think this is such a crucial issue at this point. I don't know what ground communism stands on at this point but it cannot stand on a pure logical relationship or a notion of inevitability in a highly contingent world. Much of the vagary in institutional Marxism--particularly Marxism-Leninism of any variety--is that it was partly ideological (in the pejorative senses of the term) and developmentally stunted, so as to inhibit fundamental criticism and refinement. This problem, however, was not purely an intellectual problem, or the lack of falsifiability, but the ideological and institutional culture in which Marxism was formalized. Popper's idealist view of society renders criticism of this aspect of any institutionalized philosophy impotent. There are many on the left who have been favorably disposed towards Popper in some respect, though not for his political and social views and feeble attempt to discredit Marxism as an approach to understanding and transforming society. As for Popperians, the ones I have know are all rather limited people, ranging from liberatarian free marketeers to social democrats. For people who espouse critical thinking and freedom from institutional restraint, they all betray their own constrained mentality and social being rather conspicuously. Popperianism functions like liberal ideology in general--it's a great idea in the abstract but it's never practiced as it's preached. See my: http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/vienna1.htmlVienna Circle, Karl Popper, Frankfurt School, Marxism, McCarthyism American Philosophy: Selected Bibliography At 01:04 PM 3/31/2008, rasherrs wrote: The argument between the Vienna Circle and Karl Popper on the matter of the verification principle. Popper susbtituted the falsficaion principle for the verification principle. I believe that this and related issues have been at best neglected by marxism. Yet is a matter of signifcance. The problem of the entire relationship between the physical sciences, the human sciences and what is known as everyday common sense is one that needs badly to be solved. Without a solution to it communism stands on weak and unconvincing ground. Perhaps it should be recalled that the Vienna Circle contained socialists and was not a right wing intellectual circle. Even Popper had been associated with marxism in his youth. He was later to become a liberal. These people as marxism often suggests were not extreme right wing ideologues. Bertrand Russell exercised an enormous influence on the Vienna Circle and on Popper. Yet it cannot be said that he was politically reactionary. Paddy Hackett ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Me on Popper (was Re: Vienna Circle ettc.)
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w00/msg7.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w00/msg00027.htm http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-May/017655.html Also see Ralph's Emergence Blog http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog-03.html _ Click for free information on obtaining a second mortgage. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m32hNU44UUShLMDfXKfnrq9SnCmzrNCBbCUHocvfkJCybRH/ ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama ’s Path
O's mother A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama’s Path By JANNY SCOTT In the capsule version of the Barack Obama story, his mother is simply the white woman from Kansas. The phrase comes coupled alliteratively to its counterpart, the black father from Kenya. On the campaign trail, he has called her his “single mom.” But neither description begins to capture the unconventional life of Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, the parent who most shaped Mr. Obama. Kansas was merely a way station in her childhood, wheeling westward in the slipstream of her furniture-salesman father. In Hawaii, she married an African student at age 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work and helped bring microcredit to the world’s poor. She had high expectations for her children. In Indonesia, she would wake her son at 4 a.m. for correspondence courses in English before school; she brought home recordings of Mahalia Jackson, speeches by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And when Mr. Obama asked to stay in Hawaii for high school rather than return to Asia, she accepted living apart — a decision her daughter says was one of the hardest in Ms. Soetoro’s life. “She felt that somehow, wandering through uncharted territory, we might stumble upon something that will, in an instant, seem to represent who we are at the core,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s half-sister. “That was very much her philosophy of life — to not be limited by fear or narrow definitions, to not build walls around ourselves and to do our best to find kinship and beauty in unexpected places.” Ms. Soetoro, who died of ovarian cancer in 1995, was the parent who raised Mr. Obama, the Illinois senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He barely saw his father after the age of 2. Though it is impossible to pinpoint the imprint of a parent on the life of a grown child, people who knew Ms. Soetoro well say they see her influence unmistakably in Mr. Obama. They were close, her friends and his half-sister say, though they spent much of their lives with oceans or continents between them. He would not be where he is today, he has said, had it not been for her. Yet he has also made some different choices — marrying into a tightly knit African-American family rooted in the South Side of Chicago, becoming a churchgoing Christian, publicly recounting his search for his identity as a black man. Some of what he has said about his mother seems tinged with a mix of love and regret. He has said his biggest mistake was not being at her bedside when she died. And when The Associated Press asked the candidates about “prized keepsakes” — others mentioned signed baseballs, a pocket watch, a “trophy wife” — Mr. Obama said his was a photograph of the cliffs of the South Shore of Oahu in Hawaii where his mother’s ashes were scattered. “I think sometimes that had I known she would not survive her illness, I might have written a different book — less a meditation on the absent parent, more a celebration of the one who was the single constant in my life,” he wrote in the preface to his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” He added, “I know that she was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and that what is best in me I owe to her.” In a campaign in which Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has made liberal use of his globe-trotting 96-year-old mother to answer suspicions that he might be an antique at 71, Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, invokes his mother’s memory sparingly. In one television advertisement, she appears fleetingly — porcelain-skinned, raven-haired and holding her toddler son. “My mother died of cancer at 53,” he says in the ad, which focuses on health care. “In those last painful months, she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.” ‘A Very, Very Big Thinker’ He has described her as a teenage mother, a single mother, a mother who worked, went to school and raised children at the same time. He has credited her with giving him a great education and confidence in his ability to do the right thing. But, in interviews, friends and colleagues of Ms. Soetoro shed light on a side of her that is less well known. “She was a very, very big thinker,” said Nancy Barry, a former president of Women’s World Banking, an international network of microfinance providers, where Ms. Soetoro worked in New York City in the early 1990s. “I think she was not at all personally ambitious, I think she cared about the core issues, and I think she was not afraid to speak truth to power.” Her parents were from Kansas — her mother from Augusta, her father from El Dorado, a place Mr. Obama first visited in a campaign stop in January. Stanley Ann (her father wanted a boy so he gave her
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle ettc.
I don't think it's in Ayer's book. I don't think it's available online in English, although I have seen it online in German and in Hebrew. Jim F. -- Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't find an English translation on the web. But I could have sworn I've seen it in print somewhere else. Could it be in Ayer's anthology LOGICAL POSITIVISM? At 08:56 PM 3/31/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:36:44 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting! Are there available any English copies of The Scientific Conception of the World? Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, 1929. English translation The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle in Sarkar, Sahotra, ed., The Emergence of Logical Empiricism: from 1900 to the Vienna Circle, New York : Garland Publishing, 1996, pp. 321�340. Also can be found: Hahn, Hans, Rudolph Carnap, and Otto Neurath. The Scientific Conception of the World: the Vienna Circle. in Neurath, Otto. Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1973. 299-318. Also in Analytic Philosophy. Ed. Jordan J. Lindberg. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000. 147-158. People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say. ___ 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 _ Best Commodity Trading Platforms. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mJoKSLtkDqhUaSt9dE4ePzlcXkkaAYo8c4OyCqHZ6a5Vut7/ ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Doug Henwood on Barack Obama
Joaquin B comments http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/026153.html Doug Henwood on Barack Obama Joaquin Bustelo Quite interesting to read this Left Business Observer article about Obama that Louis pointed to. As a progressive/radical critique it is fairly standard, and has the merit of mostly not being strident and denunciatory in tone, unlike many other works of its genre. On the other hand, it suggests to me that it's a good thing Doug Henwood chooses to mostly focus on business and economics, rather than political analysis. I'm not going to go through point by point, just take a few scattered potshots. First, on the composition of Obama's supporters. His original base consisted of blacks and upper-status whites. This is factually incorrect. It's clear that Obama has been groomed and supported by a significant collection of people in top Democratic Party circles, by definition upper status whites, but his original mass base in this campaign was, overwhelmingly, young people. That's how he won the Iowa caucuses and virtually every other caucus: he can out-organize Hillary thanks to the thousand of young people he has inspired to become volunteers. The black support is out of racial pride, Henwood observes. This line, lifted from countless primary gabfests on the cable networks, is idiotic. First, because Mrs. Clinton until shortly before Iowa had a huge lead over Obama in the Black community. It was only when the press started taking Obama seriously that this began to change, but the Black community did not shift massively to the Obama column until Iowa, when he showed he could get substantial support from white folks. Second, because it is not racial pride but rather a historic fight for the right to political representation and equality by an oppressed people that is involved. Blacks in the South were still being lynched for trying to register to vote a half century ago, when Henwood was growing up. That is why it wasn't until Obama became a plausible potential nominee that the Black community rallied to him, and also why they rallied so strongly once he became viable in their eyes. Henwood has swallowed hook, line and sinker the media narrative that Obama's white support is from the latte liberals, whereas the white workers rally to Hillary. This based on exit poll results, using education and income levels as proxies for class. But the difference in support for Clinton and Obama in those categories are a few percent. For example, in the combined 16-state democratic exit poll for super Tuesday, 46% of those with household incomes of $100,000 or more a year voted for Clinton, 50% for Obama, a 4-point advantage. Contrast that with the difference in generational support. In that same survey, Obama has a 14 percentage point lead over Clinton among people under 40. Clinton has a 2-point lead among those in their 40's, an 8-point lead among those in their 50's and early 60's, and a whopping 24-point lead over Obama among those 65 and over. Among white people in that survey, Obama carried those under 30 by 17 percentage points; whereas Clinton had a 28-point lead among white people over 60. This last group (whites 60+) weighs heavily in the poll; they were 21% of the respondents. This swing of 45 percentage points between the youngest white demographic and the oldest impacts the use of education levels and income as proxies for social status or class, because what are being read as class differences are in reality NOT that, but GENERATIONAL. For example, relatively few people graduated from College in the 50's or earlier; education levels are much, much higher among more recent generational cohorts. Also, incomes of retiree households tend to be significantly lower that of those very same people when they were still in the working population. And a retiree may not consider as income regular withdrawals from savings. Henwood extends his error of accepting cable TV conventional wisdom about WHY all those rich white folks were supposedly going for Obama. [T]he initial white support was driven by his post-partisan, post-racial appeal, Henwood says. Well-off whites love to hear a black man say that racism has largely receded as a toxic force, though it’s really hard to figure out what the hell he’s talking about in a world where black households earn about 60% as much as whites, and where black men are incarcerated at more than six times the rate of white men. Even before his speech on race, I think it was clear that what Henwood says here was drawn from tendentious misrepresentations of Obama's statements along the lines that race shouldn't divide us and that race shouldn't matter, not from paying attention to what Obama himself was saying. And as I've noted repeatedly on this list, the actual content of such a statement is entirely different when it is said by a white politician than when it is said by a Black politician who identifies with and is part of his community.
[Marxism-Thaxis] Doug Henwood on Barack Obama
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] More O debate
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/026094.html my obsessive opposition to Obama Dbachmozart Joaquin Bustelo writes - What makes Dbachmozart include in a comment about the speech, Somebody writes a clever bit of cliched rhetoric for him, without spending 5 minutes googling to see if there is any reporting on whether Obama or a ghost writer wrote that speech. Given the nature of the speech, it was obviously relevant, which is WHY Dbachmozart found it worth asserting that it was written for him and not by him. OK, in Dbachmozart's individual case we can speculate it is his obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician. But the same meme is all over the internet and with no foundation at all, which is where Dbachmozart picked it up reply - Re: my obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician - as if Obama is the only bourgeois politician that I and other comrades oppose! On a Marxism list, I wouldn't expect much time to be devoted to debunking the promises of a McCain or Clinton or even a Kucinich - I don't sense any illusions about their campaign rhetoric from comrades. But there are some obvious flirtations being made here towards Obama, and if they can't be criticized on THIS list without the demagogic accusation of white supremacy being used as a cudgel to stifle that criticism, then the political situation in the US is even worse than I thought . I could understand and even partially sympathize with such a flirtation if Obama's campaign had HALF the clear left wing thrust that Jackson's Rainbow campaigns certainly did, but someone who articulates nothing more than the mealy-mouthed centrist drivel of there is no Black America/ giving Bush every penny he's asked for to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan/ blank check support to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Israel wants to do to the Palestinians/ excesses of the 60s and 70s praise for the Reagan years - program of the DLC - Democrats for the Leisure Class - THAT'S the candidate that we should stifle our critique of to appease those in the Black community who will settle for nothing more than a Black face in a high place?? This isn't leadership, it's tailism - opportunism, dressed up as being sensitive to the hopes and dreams of a cruelly oppressed people. It is a reflection of a pessimistic view of Black America as being hopelessly naive and politically unsophisticated. And what happens if and when he's elected and does everything we know he'll do to protect the Empire's interests, what do we tell people who've listened and followed our advice to support him - even if critically? We'd be in the same boat that a discredited Hillary is in today as she tries in vain to explain to anti war Democrats why she supported the war in 2002 - I didn't really support actually going to war. There are those on the left who are supporting Obama with the expectation that once he gets into office and starts carrying out the DLC program, his supporters, invigorated by the promises and hopes of his campaign, will turn against him and create a powerful opposition from the left and if we don't antagonize them with our criticisms, we can be part of a new mass radicalization! The reality is that mass movements just don't spring up overnight. An Obama candidacy would de-mobilize the left as the Kerry candidacy did to the anti war movement in '04, and his DLC program would more likely demoralize rather than energize the forces that are so enthusiastically supporting him today. Where would that leave Black America and the left? Maybe comrade Bustelo feels that ALL critics of Obama are contaminated by white supremacy? And the Black critics from Black Agenda Report and The Black Commentary - AND MALCOLM X IF HE WAS STILL WITH US!! - must be ultra left self-hating Blacks! It seems that comrade Bustelo may have been contaminated by the demonizing tactics employed by Zionists against their critics. I have found myself in agreement with the valuable insights that this comrade has contributed here with respect to the struggle against all forms of white privilege including when it raises its head within the left, as well as with party building and the nationalist aspect of the combined revolution in South America. I also agree with him that if Obama does get the nomination, the non Democratic Party left must take a certain approach that we wouldn't have with a white candidate, something like I hear where you're coming from and we both want the same thing, but there's something to the sayings show me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are and he who pays the piper picks the tune. However, I feel that comrade Bustelo and a few other people on this list are dangerously close to going over the line by actually supporting
[Marxism-Thaxis] O discussion
obsessive opposition to Obama Fred Feldman Walter quotes the Militant: A March 18 speech on race relations by Barack Obama helped convince a broader layer of the U.S. ruling class that he is competent to be president for the next four years. It also opened a discussion on racism in the United States in the big-business media, on factory floors, and college campuses. In the days following the talk, the Democratic Party leadership quickened its process of lining up behind Obama. The Florida and Michigan parties ruled out the possibility of redoing the primaries in those states, a maneuver that could have helped rival Hillary Clinton. Fred replies: I think this is wrongly presented as an example of obsessive opposition to Obama. The statements are factual. In the end, THE WRIGHT STUFF HAS NOT BROKEN THE BASIC MOMENTUM OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, which is reviving with the resilience it has shown from the beginning. Obama's speech did wun him more support than he had had before in the ruling class, I estimate. Clearly the Democratic Party is more and more, not less and less, accepting that he will be their nominee. The break of a dedicated anti-abortion Clintonite, Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania, and the latter's descriptions of the support he finds among his family members, indicate clearly that Obama is gaining, not losing, traction in Pennsylvania right now. The general tone of the Militant article is not obsessive about Obama. They do not treat him as the main candidate who must be fought tooth and nail because of the illusions he can create. They do not treat him, as Black Agenda does, as the greater evil who can single-handedly destroy the Black liberation struggle and suppress all discussion of Black oppression. (Has his candidacy really done that. As the Militant suggests, not really at all.) There is real obsessive opposition in the article. Not about Obama but Rev. Wright. Newton writes: Obama presented Wright as someone marred by the anger and bitterness of those years of legal segregation in this country. Obama's explanation belittled not only Wright but other demagogues like him who have built their careers on race-baiting and conspiracy theories. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, Obama said, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away Newton seems to be suggesting that Wright must be regarded not as someone motivated by anti-racism in any way, shape, or form, but, at least in an incipiently incipient way, an incipient fascism. His denunciation of Zionism and the oppression of Palestinians is place in this context, suggesting without proof that he is really an anti-Semite. Around the time of the discussions over the neoconservative trend, the Militant argued that criticism of them was Jew hatred. And to demonstrate this beyond the possibility of denial, the Militant explained that all -- every last one -- middle-class liberals and middle class radicals were Jew haters by nature. Yes, that includes the thousands and even millions of Jews who fall into these designations. Obviously if they are all Jew haters, Wright must be a virtual Hitler. It is a fact that Hilary Clinton is still losing ground. It is a fact that John McCain is a candidate who stands on the record of the Bush administration, blames homeowners (but not banks) for their reckless investments, and promises to stay in Iraq for 100 years. And why not 1,000, by God! And this at a time when the United States may be unusually isolated in Iraq, as the only force fighting the Mahdi movement headed by Sadr. The economy has experienced a crash like 1929. The big question is whether the combination of the fed and the government, printing money like there was no tomorrow can prevent a 1931. And nobody knows the answer. The war in Iraq is stalemated at best. None of the original goals have been achieved. None of the substitute goals have been achieved either. The Iraq policy has failed. The Cuba policy has failed. The administration is too weak to take effective advantage of China's vulnerability on the Tibet issue. The Cuba policy is in shreds, with the successful transition from Fidel to Raul Castro. In addition to all his other survivals, Obama has survived the most devastating blow of all: Comrade Ruthless C.O.A.T. Exists' proclamation that Obama is toast because of his association with Rev. Wright. In all these circumstances, both the rulers and the masses have good reason to grope for something new. I think we are headed for an Obama presidency. Enjoy your trip, Walter. ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Essay on the change of the nature of imperialist
Joaquin addresses some fundamentals in the second half of this essay. Charles What's behind the heated exchanges on the cost of being Black? Joaquin Bustelo http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/026012.html Mark Lause writes: A discussion of the white skin privilege and whiteness doesn't just have to do with a recognition of race, but with the prescription for change that comes with this very specific theory. That is, that change requires white people to repudiate their whiteness. Frankly, I think this is a dodge. I never said a damn thing about white folks repudiating their whiteness, whatever THAT might mean. I cited a column about an interesting study showing how white people in this country haven't got a clue about the depth, breadth and amount of their privileged situation in comparison to Blacks, with this one group involved in the study assigning a Net Present Value at birth to white privilege of $5000. (They were asked to imagine if right before birth, they were given the choice of being born Black instead of white, how much they would require to choose to be Black. $5000 was the average.) Mark says that as a materialist he doesn't see 'white skin privilege' as residing in attitudes but in institutions and channels of power. That is, as a materialist Mark doesn't see white supremacist ATTITUDES despite institutions and channels of power being IN FACT white supremacist. So as a materialist, he believes that the consciousness of (at least) white people is INDEPENDENT of their social existence. It seems to me this materialism is not even skin deep. My understanding of materialism leads me to conclude that this society is both structurally (institutions and channels of power) and ideologically (attitudes) white supremacist. And a big part of the ideology is that white/American is an unchallengeable norm by which everyone/everything else is judged. Unchallengeable because it isn't even recognized as a norm. It is a profoundly ingrained part of U.S. white supremacist attitudes. Take, for example, Carrol's comment: If someone is beating the hell out of you, you do not explain it by saying that people not being beaten are privileged. Downward deviation from the social and economic status of white in the U.S. is here presented as someone is beating the hell out of you, whereas as whiteness is simply normalcy, the absence of the action of any external influences, things in their natural, neutral state. Concepts like white, male and imperialist country privilege are important precisely because they combat the unstated, unrecognized, unconscious assumption that whiteness as it is lived and experienced in the United States simply is normal. It highlights that race, national and gender relations are hierarchical social constructs in which there are those who win and those who lose, those with power and those without. As Malcolm X explained, in the United States white means boss. * * * I was, frankly, surprised and taken aback by both Carrol and Mark's reactions to what I posted. What follows is perhaps speculative, but is my attempt at understanding this very sharp reaction to what I viewed as an innocuous posting. I will confess that, from time to time, I've quite consciously written some things to provoke a sharp exchange. But this wasn't one of those times. I think what this has to do with is a broader discussion of questions like do white workers benefit from racism and do U.S. workers benefit from imperialism, and Marx and Engels's theory that the privileged status of British workers in the second half of the 1800's explained their lack of class consciousness and especially class political organization, and contemporary analysis that seeks to base itself on this kind of reasoning. And to be strictly factual about it, at different times Marx and Engels in the brief comments they make on this in letters and a couple of more formal writings seem to present two slightly different theories: One, that (in England's case at the peak of the Victorian era) a significant (but nevertheless minority) labor aristocracy had been constituted by bribing some workers with relatively better wages and conditions which the British ruling class could afford thanks to their manufacturing monopoly, dominance in international trade, extensive colonial holdings and so on. And two, that taken as a whole pretty much the entire English working class had been so bribed. I actually don't think these are two different theories, but rather, two different emphasis at different points in time when analyzing the class dynamics involved. For it is true, I think, that, taken as a whole, the English working class of those years was relatively privileged in comparison with the working classes of other countries, and most of all in comparison to Britain's colonial subjects. But it was also true that within the
[Marxism-Thaxis] More debate on O
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/026157.html The relentless and obsessive opposition to Mike Friedman This idea that Obama is coopting the left is totally meaningless. And the idea that “program” – at least as a laundry list of issues -- will forever be the dividing line, I find to be fetishistic. Even at other historic moments, we would argue that the Democratic Party, not this or that particular candidate is coopting the left. Moreover, it isn't that they coopted the left, but that sections of that left (ephemeral term) were grafting themselves to the Democrats and constituting a pole of attraction for the “masses” (although surely not the 60% of African Americans that preferred to say “no thanks”). Supposedly, we denounced the Democratic Party program as a way of disabusing the masses of their illusions in the DP. A sectarian few (well, the entire left is few, to be honest...) carried out this knee-jerk condemnation of DP program just to hear themselves and to assure their place in Sparticist (or whatever) heaven. But this, as Joaquin, Walter, and others, with whom I have not always agreed, is not other moments and the Obama campaign is not another DP campaign. To clarify, Obama is another DLC Democrat (as per the NYT article I posted yesterday). His program falls squarely within the ruling class consensus. His stated policy would continue to support Israeli apartheid, troops in Iraq, etc., etc. The DP hasn't changed its stripes. What has changed is the concrete context we are living. As I've argued before, the bourgeoisie faces a crisis of legitimacy on a scale not seen since the great depression and Black candidate has opened discussion of the race question in one of the major bourgeois parties, in a way that hasn’t been seen since the Civil War. The former has engendered a nascent movement which has found expression for the moment in the campaign of the latter. I would say those salient facts point to a new context and, potentially, a new historic moment. And the controversy shouldn’t be reduced to whether or not to vote for Obama. In passing, I just want to point out that the fetishism of issues can itself become a reformist trap. Under our form of bourgeois democracy, NO politician -- not Obama, not McCain, not Clinton, not Nader or McKinney -- would be able to implement the kinds of policies we want. We've long recognized that the president doesn't make policy: ruling class foundations, think tanks, corporate bodies do. We know that the only way such policies would be implemented is if there exists a mass movement to demand them and fight for them. If you’ll notice, none of the historic revolutionary leaders made shibboleths of programmatic issues when it came to engaging with the masses. If you look at Malcolm, Chavez, Carlos Fonseca, Fidel, none of these leaders pulled out their program as a dividing line between the righteous and the sinners. Yes, program was important, particular issues at particular times could be important. But the key, strategic goal was building a mass, politically independent, movement of the oppressed and exploited. The key medial strategy was, to use Mao’s analogy, to be among the masses as fish in the sea. To put it another way, you don’t “win the masses” to a better program: you are either part of the movement , as a way of engaging people in discussion around issues, which can possibly, maybe, then be posed as program by a mass movement, or you are a sectarian. Even the paradigmatic (for many) Bolsheviks did this, in practice. That’s what the discussions around the April Theses were about: an adjustment to the animus of the mass base. Given the altered context and the motion around the Obama campaign and what he represents in the context of our society, we need to ask ourselves, is labeling Obama “a Cintonite with a Black face” the best way to do this? In the context of the racist under (and over) tones of the campaign against Obama, how would this sound to millions of people desirous of change and expressing this through the Obama campaign? Is dismissing the movement currently focused on Obama as “coopted” the best way to do this? I’m not convinced this business-as-usual approach is anything more than self-flagellation. I would suggest that folks read Cynthia McKinney’s speech following Obama’s talk as, perhaps, indicative of a more productive way of approaching the campaign. I would also suggest reading the majority of the commentaries that appeared in the same issue of the Black Commentator as the piece Dennis cited. Message: 13 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:27:30 EDT From: Dbachmozart at aol.com Subject: Re: [Marxism] The relentless and obsessive opposition to Obama So to criticize Obama and his Clintonesque program is ultra left? Obamaism, not McCain or Hillary Clinton is co-opting the left, that is why we oppose it, as we have with every Democrat lesser evil. Was Walter relentless and obsessive when he
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path
Well Obama's up from the ashes story just never sat very well with me. Sure, it's a typical pattern of single moms of all races that they end up working for the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. Geraldine Ferraro got it so wrong. Obama is where he is because his mother was white and of fairly privileged background. His humble pie myth isn't even as convincing as Bill Clinton's. But I don't think all that background will keep him from being a categorically different president. So far though his relations with the Democratic Party elite are not indicating much good. If McCain could coax Colin Powell out of his shame-faced retirement from politics, the Dems are in big trouble. Would the Dems call him out for being guilty of what most of what they themselves are guilty of? That is, of going along with the 'WMD lies' and related intel apparatus misinformation in order to create future deniability. CJ ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Popper at one time had wanted to join the Circle and was evidently very envious of the admiration Wittgenstein received from them (though by most accounts, Wittgenstein did not see himself as engaged in their scientific world view and did not encourage their acclaim of him). Here is a nice summing up of Popper, especially if you follow it up with a bit of Lakatos and Feyerabend. : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Popper's final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossible to discriminate science from non-science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific statements alone; he recognizes that scientific theories are predictive, and consequently prohibitive, only when taken in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses, and he also recognizes that readjustment or modification of the latter is an integral part of scientific practice. Hence his final concern is to outline conditions which indicate when such modification is genuinely scientific, and when it is merely ad hoc. This is itself clearly a major alteration in his position, and arguably represents a substantial retraction on his part: Marxism can no longer be dismissed as 'unscientific' simply because its advocates preserved the theory from falsification by modifying it (for in general terms, such a procedure, it now transpires, is perfectly respectable scientific practice). It is now condemned as unscientific by Popper because the only rationale for the modifications which were made to the original theory was to ensure that it evaded falsification, and so such modifications were ad hoc, rather than scientific. This contention-- though not at all implausible--has, to hostile eyes, a somewhat contrived air about it, and is unlikely to worry the convinced Marxist. On the other hand, the shift in Popper's own basic position is taken by some critics as an indicator that falsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in the final analysis than verificationism. CJ ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:19:46 +0900 CeJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Popper at one time had wanted to join the Circle and was evidently very envious of the admiration Wittgenstein received from them (though by most accounts, Wittgenstein did not see himself as engaged in their scientific world view and did not encourage their acclaim of him). Here is a nice summing up of Popper, especially if you follow it up with a bit of Lakatos and Feyerabend. : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ ] Me on Richard W. Miller and Popper http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w52/msg00209.htm Also, my discussion of Alex Callinocos's usages of Popper can be found at: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w48/msg00247.htm ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
The VC didn't include Husserl in their manifesto, but I think he represents an important alternative in this discussion, if we want to reconcile 'human' and natural sciences. See, for example, http://pos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/328 Husserl, Weber, Freud, and the Method of the Human Sciences Donald McIntosh In the debate between the natural science and the phenomenological or herme neutical approaches in the human sciences, a third alternative described by Husserl has been widely ignored. Contrary to frequent assumptions, Husserl believed that a purely phenomenological method is not generally the appropri ate approach for the empirical human sciences. Rather, he held that although they can and should make important use of phenomenological analysis, such sciences should take their basic stance in the natural attitude, the ordinary commonsense lifeworld mode of understanding which cuts across the divergent abstractive specializations of natural science and phenomenology Human sci ence in the natural attitude, shorn of its naivete by phenomenological insight, would be the field of descriptive concrete sociocultural sciences capable of taking a truly explanatory approach to their subject matter, persons and personal formations. In practice, both Weber and Freud exemplify the method recom mended by Husserl. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Doug Henwood on Barack Obama
I agree with this assessment. When I talked to Obamamaniacs, all of whom were white, ranging from dippy Unitarians to independentd and moderate Republicans, I couldn't find any rational basis for their support of Obama. The most rational response I got was from a white female independent who actually compared the health care proposals of Clinton and Obama, but otherwise had nothing to offer except a hostility to Hillary. The die is cast now, so there's no point in crying over spilt illusions, but I always thought Obamamania was dangerous and that the bubble would burst. That doesn't mean I expect a bourgeois politician to be anything other than that or that I am unwilling to support the most palatable of alternatives open to me, but I prefer to do it with my eyes open. At 01:15 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Doug Henwood on Barack Obama
I'm not impressed. (1) OK, so if the demographics indicate that the Obamamania is mostly generational (though the Obamamaniacs I know are not spring chickens), does this speak well for the kids? (2) What Obama means racially according to Joaquin is unconvincing and propagandistic. I don't buy it. Interestingly, I was as cold towards Obama as I could be till he made the speech on race, which itself is an ideological construct admirable in its construction if not its total world view, and I became pro-Obama to the limited degree that I am only on the Monday following his speech, partly because of my alarm at the racially tinged situation, and because the Clintons are even more toxic than I originally thought. But yeah, I'm willing to settle for the excitement of maybe by the skin of our teeth seeing a black president in my lifetime even if nothing else comes of it. There is a certain wild-card factor to what one can expect of Obama, which is not much, but perhaps more than nothing in comparison to Hillary, and perhaps of his clueless supporters seeking an ill-defined change. Hard to tell where that will lead, but OK, I'll go along for the ride, without excessive expectations. At 01:18 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: Joaquin B comments http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/026153.html Doug Henwood on Barack Obama Joaquin Bustelo Quite interesting to read this Left Business Observer article about Obama that Louis pointed to. As a progressive/radical critique it is fairly standard, and has the merit of mostly not being strident and denunciatory in tone, unlike many other works of its genre. On the other hand, it suggests to me that it's a good thing Doug Henwood chooses to mostly focus on business and economics, rather than political analysis. I'm not going to go through point by point, just take a few scattered potshots. First, on the composition of Obama's supporters. His original base consisted of blacks and upper-status whites. This is factually incorrect. It's clear that Obama has been groomed and supported by a significant collection of people in top Democratic Party circles, by definition upper status whites, but his original mass base in this campaign was, overwhelmingly, young people. That's how he won the Iowa caucuses and virtually every other caucus: he can out-organize Hillary thanks to the thousand of young people he has inspired to become volunteers. The black support is out of racial pride, Henwood observes. This line, lifted from countless primary gabfests on the cable networks, is idiotic. First, because Mrs. Clinton until shortly before Iowa had a huge lead over Obama in the Black community. It was only when the press started taking Obama seriously that this began to change, but the Black community did not shift massively to the Obama column until Iowa, when he showed he could get substantial support from white folks. Second, because it is not racial pride but rather a historic fight for the right to political representation and equality by an oppressed people that is involved. Blacks in the South were still being lynched for trying to register to vote a half century ago, when Henwood was growing up. That is why it wasn't until Obama became a plausible potential nominee that the Black community rallied to him, and also why they rallied so strongly once he became viable in their eyes. Henwood has swallowed hook, line and sinker the media narrative that Obama's white support is from the latte liberals, whereas the white workers rally to Hillary. This based on exit poll results, using education and income levels as proxies for class. But the difference in support for Clinton and Obama in those categories are a few percent. For example, in the combined 16-state democratic exit poll for super Tuesday, 46% of those with household incomes of $100,000 or more a year voted for Clinton, 50% for Obama, a 4-point advantage. Contrast that with the difference in generational support. In that same survey, Obama has a 14 percentage point lead over Clinton among people under 40. Clinton has a 2-point lead among those in their 40's, an 8-point lead among those in their 50's and early 60's, and a whopping 24-point lead over Obama among those 65 and over. Among white people in that survey, Obama carried those under 30 by 17 percentage points; whereas Clinton had a 28-point lead among white people over 60. This last group (whites 60+) weighs heavily in the poll; they were 21% of the respondents. This swing of 45 percentage points between the youngest white demographic and the oldest impacts the use of education levels and income as proxies for social status or class, because what are being read as class differences are in reality NOT that, but GENERATIONAL. For example, relatively few people graduated from College in the 50's or earlier; education levels are much, much higher among
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Also worth of consideration are Piaget's discussions on the philosophy of science (especially its turn to 'sociology of knowledge' post-Kuhn). This article (which I managed to get online for free somewhere, but I can now only find the abstract for) has been influential in pushing forward a consideration of Piaget in philosophy of science, under the sub-topic of epistemology and more specifically 'constructivist epistemology'. Apparently Piaget had extensive correspondence with Kuhn (I certainly never learned this when Kuhn was taught to me in philosophy of science back in the 80s), and some late positions of Popper's (after the interaction with Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend) resulted in work that is remarkably parallel to Piaget's. But in the philosophy of science, later Popper is mostly ignored. One last aside here, Feyerabend would have been the most politically left of these prominent academic philosophers of science (Piaget wasn't a professional philosopher in an American sense), and his approach to philosophy of science is often seen as having gone off the deep end towards irrational skepticism. I don't think so, but inductive Big Science and academic philosophy of science are conservative establishment endeavours, and few people as individuals can escape the demands of sponsorship. http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/203 Genetic Epistemology and Piaget's Philosophy of Science Piaget vs. Kuhn on Scientific Progress Jonathan Y. Tsou University of Chicago This paper concerns Jean Piaget's (1896–1980) philosophy of science and, in particular, the picture of scientific development suggested by his theory of genetic epistemology. The aims of the paper are threefold: (1) to examine genetic epistemology as a theory concerning the growth of knowledge both in the individual and in science; (2) to explicate Piaget's view of 'scientific progress', which is grounded in his theory of equilibration; and (3) to juxtapose Piaget's notion of progress with Thomas Kuhn's (1922–1996). Issues of scientific continuity, scientific realism and scientific rationality are discussed. It is argued that Piaget's view highlights weaknesses in Kuhn's 'discontinuous' picture of scientific change. Key Words: evolutionary epistemology • Kuhn • philosophy of science • Piaget • scientific progress • structural realism ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] More debate on O
These leftist debates look like subcultural masturbation to me. Excessive inbreeding is another way to put it. It's important not to be fooled but it's not so important to always have to prove that you're not being fooled. At 04:04 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/026157.html The relentless and obsessive opposition to Mike Friedman This idea that Obama is coopting the left is totally meaningless. And the idea that âprogramâ â at least as a laundry list of issues -- will forever be the dividing line, I find to be fetishistic. Even at other historic moments, we would argue that the Democratic Party, not this or that particular candidate is coopting the left. Moreover, it isn't that they coopted the left, but that sections of that left (ephemeral term) were grafting themselves to the Democrats and constituting a pole of attraction for the âmassesâ (although surely not the 60% of African Americans that preferred to say âno thanksâ). Supposedly, we denounced the Democratic Party program as a way of disabusing the masses of their illusions in the DP. A sectarian few (well, the entire left is few, to be honest...) carried out this knee-jerk condemnation of DP program just to hear themselves and to assure their place in Sparticist (or whatever) heaven. But this, as Joaquin, Walter, and others, with whom I have not always agreed, is not other moments and the Obama campaign is not another DP campaign. To clarify, Obama is another DLC Democrat (as per the NYT article I posted yesterday). His program falls squarely within the ruling class consensus. His stated policy would continue to support Israeli apartheid, troops in Iraq, etc., etc. The DP hasn't changed its stripes. What has changed is the concrete context we are living. As I've argued before, the bourgeoisie faces a crisis of legitimacy on a scale not seen since the great depression and Black candidate has opened discussion of the race question in one of the major bourgeois parties, in a way that hasnât been seen since the Civil War. The former has engendered a nascent movement which has found expression for the moment in the campaign of the latter. I would say those salient facts point to a new context and, potentially, a new historic moment. And the controversy shouldnât be reduced to whether or not to vote for Obama. In passing, I just want to point out that the fetishism of issues can itself become a reformist trap. Under our form of bourgeois democracy, NO politician -- not Obama, not McCain, not Clinton, not Nader or McKinney -- would be able to implement the kinds of policies we want. We've long recognized that the president doesn't make policy: ruling class foundations, think tanks, corporate bodies do. We know that the only way such policies would be implemented is if there exists a mass movement to demand them and fight for them. If youâll notice, none of the historic revolutionary leaders made shibboleths of programmatic issues when it came to engaging with the masses. If you look at Malcolm, Chavez, Carlos Fonseca, Fidel, none of these leaders pulled out their program as a dividing line between the righteous and the sinners. Yes, program was important, particular issues at particular times could be important. But the key, strategic goal was building a mass, politically independent, movement of the oppressed and exploited. The key medial strategy was, to use Maoâs analogy, to be among the masses as fish in the sea. To put it another way, you donât âwin the massesâ to a better program: you are either part of the movement , as a way of engaging people in discussion around issues, which can possibly, maybe, then be posed as program by a mass movement, or you are a sectarian. Even the paradigmatic (for many) Bolsheviks did this, in practice. Thatâs what the discussions around the April Theses were about: an adjustment to the animus of the mass base. Given the altered context and the motion around the Obama campaign and what he represents in the context of our society, we need to ask ourselves, is labeling Obama âa Cintonite with a Black faceâ the best way to do this? In the context of the racist under (and over) tones of the campaign against Obama, how would this sound to millions of people desirous of change and expressing this through the Obama campaign? Is dismissing the movement currently focused on Obama as âcooptedâ the best way to do this? Iâm not convinced this business-as-usual approach is anything more than self-flagellation. I would suggest that folks read Cynthia McKinneyâs speech following Obamaâs talk as, perhaps, indicative of a more productive way of approaching the campaign. I would also suggest reading the majority of the commentaries that appeared in the same issue of the Black Commentator as the piece Dennis cited.
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path
Obama's exotic life story did not prevent him from gaining the respect and support of significant members of the elite. How this happened is worthy of study. People are only now reminded of Obama's deviant status due to the Rev. Wright flap, but neither Obama's supporters nor his detractors have to my knowledge put this scenario together with Obama's mainstream status. Two transitions are worthy of study: (1) the transition from Obama's upbringing to his decision to join a fire-and-brimstone activist black church, itself significant in addition to rejecting his mother's secular humanist perspective and becoming a Christian (yechhh!)--whether sincere or itself a political move (if there is any significant distinction), I wouldn't know; (2) the transition from community activist to political office. It is probably the case that regardless of the possible ways in which (2) contradicts (1), they could be regarded as two facets of one common bourgeois orientation, which I say for the sake of analysis not necessarily for condemnation. It is also interesting that transition (1) made Obama black and (2) whitened him up, metaphorically speaking. Obama's backers among the elite were apparently not troubled by (1), and it doesn't seem to have been an issue until the Wright video mysteriously appeared at just the crucial moment. At 06:29 PM 4/1/2008, CeJ wrote: Well Obama's up from the ashes story just never sat very well with me. Sure, it's a typical pattern of single moms of all races that they end up working for the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. Geraldine Ferraro got it so wrong. Obama is where he is because his mother was white and of fairly privileged background. His humble pie myth isn't even as convincing as Bill Clinton's. But I don't think all that background will keep him from being a categorically different president. So far though his relations with the Democratic Party elite are not indicating much good. If McCain could coax Colin Powell out of his shame-faced retirement from politics, the Dems are in big trouble. Would the Dems call him out for being guilty of what most of what they themselves are guilty of? That is, of going along with the 'WMD lies' and related intel apparatus misinformation in order to create future deniability. CJ ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] More O debate
This inbred and rather unintelligent leftist breastbeating reminds me why I have quit so many groups. I wouldn't dignify this drivel with the notion of debate. At 01:47 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/026094.html my obsessive opposition to Obama Dbachmozart Joaquin Bustelo writes - What makes Dbachmozart include in a comment about the speech, Somebody writes a clever bit of cliched rhetoric for him, without spending 5 minutes googling to see if there is any reporting on whether Obama or a ghost writer wrote that speech. Given the nature of the speech, it was obviously relevant, which is WHY Dbachmozart found it worth asserting that it was written for him and not by him. OK, in Dbachmozart's individual case we can speculate it is his obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician. But the same meme is all over the internet and with no foundation at all, which is where Dbachmozart picked it up reply - Re: my obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician - as if Obama is the only bourgeois politician that I and other comrades oppose! On a Marxism list, I wouldn't expect much time to be devoted to debunking the promises of a McCain or Clinton or even a Kucinich - I don't sense any illusions about their campaign rhetoric from comrades. But there are some obvious flirtations being made here towards Obama, and if they can't be criticized on THIS list without the demagogic accusation of white supremacy being used as a cudgel to stifle that criticism, then the political situation in the US is even worse than I thought . I could understand and even partially sympathize with such a flirtation if Obama's campaign had HALF the clear left wing thrust that Jackson's Rainbow campaigns certainly did, but someone who articulates nothing more than the mealy-mouthed centrist drivel of there is no Black America/ giving Bush every penny he's asked for to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan/ blank check support to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Israel wants to do to the Palestinians/ excesses of the 60s and 70s praise for the Reagan years - program of the DLC - Democrats for the Leisure Class - THAT'S the candidate that we should stifle our critique of to appease those in the Black community who will settle for nothing more than a Black face in a high place?? This isn't leadership, it's tailism - opportunism, dressed up as being sensitive to the hopes and dreams of a cruelly oppressed people. It is a reflection of a pessimistic view of Black America as being hopelessly naive and politically unsophisticated. And what happens if and when he's elected and does everything we know he'll do to protect the Empire's interests, what do we tell people who've listened and followed our advice to support him - even if critically? We'd be in the same boat that a discredited Hillary is in today as she tries in vain to explain to anti war Democrats why she supported the war in 2002 - I didn't really support actually going to war. There are those on the left who are supporting Obama with the expectation that once he gets into office and starts carrying out the DLC program, his supporters, invigorated by the promises and hopes of his campaign, will turn against him and create a powerful opposition from the left and if we don't antagonize them with our criticisms, we can be part of a new mass radicalization! The reality is that mass movements just don't spring up overnight. An Obama candidacy would de-mobilize the left as the Kerry candidacy did to the anti war movement in '04, and his DLC program would more likely demoralize rather than energize the forces that are so enthusiastically supporting him today. Where would that leave Black America and the left? Maybe comrade Bustelo feels that ALL critics of Obama are contaminated by white supremacy? And the Black critics from Black Agenda Report and The Black Commentary - AND MALCOLM X IF HE WAS STILL WITH US!! - must be ultra left self-hating Blacks! It seems that comrade Bustelo may have been contaminated by the demonizing tactics employed by Zionists against their critics. I have found myself in agreement with the valuable insights that this comrade has contributed here with respect to the struggle against all forms of white privilege including when it raises its head within the left, as well as with party building and the nationalist aspect of the combined revolution in South America. I also agree with him that if Obama does get the nomination, the non Democratic Party left must take a certain approach that we wouldn't have with a white candidate, something like I hear where you're coming from and we both want the same thing, but there's something to the sayings show me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are and he who pays the piper picks the tune. However, I
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alice Walker on Obama and Clinton
Perhaps it is too harsh to ridicule someone who comes from a troubled background, but to be honest, I think Alice Walker is more than a little bit of an airhead. I've read plenty of crap from her just like this. Much of what she writes is this sort of bathos undergirded with New Agey vacuity. I can't stand reading this woman any more. At 04:09 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: Lest We Forget: An open letter to my sisters who are brave. By Alice Walker http://www.theroot.com/id/45469 Some excerpts: When I joined the freedom movement in Mississippi in my early twenties it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who had been thrown off the land they'd always known, the plantations, because they attempted to exercise their democratic right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a lot better than the men did, but I cannot I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him. Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans -black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me [T]his does not mean I agree with everything Obama stands for I want a grown-up attitude toward Cuba, for instance, a country and a people I love I want an end to the on-going war immediately I want the Israeli government to be made accountable for its behavior towards the Palestinians But most of all I want someone with the self-confidence to talk to anyone, enemy or friend, and this Obama has shown he can do It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to use her own name) referred to as a woman while Barack Obama is always referred to as a black man. One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial inheritance We have come a long way, Sisters, and we are up to the challenges of our time. One of which is to build alliances based not on race, ethnicity, color, nationality, sexual preference or gender, but on Truth. Celebrate our journey. Enjoy the miracle we are witnessing. Do not stress over its outcome. Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may well be beyond his power to lead us toward rehabilitation. If he is elected however, we must, individually and collectively, as citizens of the planet, insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us. It is a blessing that our mothers taught us not to fear hard work. Know, as the Hopi elders declare: The river has its destination. And remember, as poet June Jordan and Sweet Honey in the Rock never tired of telling us: We are the ones we have been waiting for. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Interesting. I wonder if I should put this or similar items into my bibliography. This is a Marxist advocating the Popperian approach as a way of circumventing doctrinal rigidification. Can you think of other Marxists who have taken this road? At 07:41 PM 4/1/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:19:46 +0900 CeJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Popper at one time had wanted to join the Circle and was evidently very envious of the admiration Wittgenstein received from them (though by most accounts, Wittgenstein did not see himself as engaged in their scientific world view and did not encourage their acclaim of him). Here is a nice summing up of Popper, especially if you follow it up with a bit of Lakatos and Feyerabend. : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ ] Me on Richard W. Miller and Popper http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w52/msg00209.htm Also, my discussion of Alex Callinocos's usages of Popper can be found at: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w48/msg00247.htm ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
This must be the document I downloaded earlier today. It was linked from the Wikipedia article on the Vienna Circle, if I recall correctly. It is rather confusing in its structure. Someone should check the print source to see if the whole manifesto is here included. I always remember this quote, which reveals to me the fundamental bankruptcy of this school's presuppositions: In science there are no 'depths'; there is surface everywhere . . . At 07:42 PM 4/1/2008, CeJ wrote: 1. Logical positivists/logical empiricists, like scientific realists, tend to reject Marxist approaches to social sciences because they largely reject social sciences Having said that, let me back up and say that the translation of The Scientific Conception of the World that I have now just referred to doesn't say this. It is quite 'ecumenical' and cites Marx twice and Marxist theory once in a positive way (which doesn't surprise me, given what has been posted about the VC on this list and what I read at online sources like marxists.org.) According to the authors of this (naively) scientistic manifesto, Marx in sociology and political economy is in keeping with anti-metaphysics and proper scientific (i.e., empirical but not necessarily experimental) attitude (but so are Feuerbach, Smith, Ricardo, JS Mill, James and myriad others). Nor are they hostile to psychological phenomenology (indeed, Brentano and Meinong get more specific praise than Marx!). On the other hand, although the document is noteworthy for its inclusiveness, it isn't very specific about why this or that approach in the social sciences is scientific according to these philosophical and scientific sages. If a proponent of whatever declared he hated metaphysics and embraced science, if he had a post at top university or institute, it looks like he could have got listed. It reads more like a who's who of European and North American academia (not including metaphysicians and theologians) of the era. And it really sets up scientism (positivist, realist, etc.) and rationalism for a hard fall come WW II. http://gnadav.googlepages.com/TheScientificConceptionoftheWorldeng.doc I think this is the entire document, though I had a hard time seeing where the preface segued into the main text. If you are interested in the history of science and the history of philosophy, it is a fascinating document to read through. ___ 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
