Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Motown turns 50
Detroit should be a music Mecca, and Martha Reeves efforts towards this end is simply wonderful. Music and the arts should be the biggest industry in Detroit. To hell with the auto industry. That day in the sun is long passed. Detroit was once a wonderful Jazz center, rooted in the old Black Bottom. Who has not had enough of monuments and statues to solider's and generals. Who remembers their names? Generations will know of a James Brown and perhaps after the revolution, history will be recorded in a way for generations to know of Bill Smokey Robinson. And Stevie Wonder. Motown gets cheated of and out of history and some of this is our own fault meaning folks in Detroit. Did not Motown invent eight track recording and then revolutionized music by recording the guitar separately and in front of the music? David Ruffin conceived of the four headed microphone. Gordy's production teams was based on collectivity and his conception of assembly line production. Song writers had to write. Singers sung. Producers produced. Prince changed all of that. Or rather the revolution in musical production and instruments was the basis for Prince changing all that. After the revolution and its confirmation, we are going to allocate the equivalent of One Trillion Dollars to rebuild Detroit into a cultural center with music as its centerpiece. Outside the Detroit Institute of Arts where the stature of the Thinker was once displayed will be a stature of Stevie Wonder, arms and hands stretched out to the heavens. David Ruffin will be restored to the greatest he rightfully earned and deserves. A statue of Smokey outside the Public Library, with pen in one hand and note pad in the other, will proclaim his genius and the power of the written word. Smokey is a wordsmith. . Crusin shall live forever. In addition to Motown there was Golden World/Ric Tic records, both with the same sound. Back then it was called the Detroit Sound. Berry won in the business arena and ended up buying Golden World/Ric Tic records and turning their facilities in the Motown's studio B. The Dramatics got their first break with Golden World, owned by the late Ed Wingate. Also the Fantastic Four, Edwin Star (War What Is It Good For) and believe it or not the Parliaments, who later became George Clinton's Funkadelics. The sound of these companies was identical because Gordy - as the story goes, would not pay union scale and Ed Wingate always paid union scale and more. Motown's studio band would moon light at Ed's joint, along with his regulars. There are times when I dream of what would have happened if Mr. Wingate won the business battle. His boundless generosity remains legendary amongst those who knew him. But, Gordy saw the Big picture. Wasn't Donald Bryd a graduate of Cass Technical High School in Detroit? A statue for this Byrd is in order. And the late Alia. Detroit as the premier world musical center would be great in a capitalist America and outstanding in a communist America. On another note the Supreme's was not my favorite all time Motown girl group, although I love a few of their cuts. I got him Back In My Arms Again is clever. How can Mary tell me what to do. When she lost her love so true. And Flo, She don't know, That the boy she loves is a Romeee o. I lost his once through my friends advice And its not going to happen twice. All advice has every gotten me, Was long and sleepless nights. I got him back in my arms again. Damn. Baby Love with Diana cooing and brooding (Baby don't leave me, all by my self sent chills done my spine. The Marvelettes was bad. Please Mr. Postman, Playboy, Anytime the Hunter gets captured by the Game, My Baby must be a magician (cause he sho got the magic touch) and Don't Mess with Bill, stand up today. Mary Wells written and produced by Smokey was also great. What is interesting is their mastery of English as a song. Their pronunciation and enunciation is a revolution in English on to itself. Everyone immediately understood what they were singing, unlike James Brown. Detroit is still blackballed it seems and perhaps in need of a profound change in the political regime, short of revolution. Freaking Casino's should have been forced to fund Detroit's transformation into a cultural Mecca. Millions of people throughout the world fell in love with the Motown Sound and Martha is left begging for $3 million. Tragic. Sorry to hear about that. WL. In a message dated 1/13/2009 9:52:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) writes: December 22, 2008 _http://www.freep.com/article/20081222/NEWS01/812220380/1039/Ent04_ (http://www.freep.com/article/20081222/NEWS01/812220380/1039/Ent04) Make Motown greats art, Reeves says Singing legend raising funds to erect life-size
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Motown turns 50
Got me thinking about the new movie about Chess Records. I didn't like the casting; the music or the characterization of Chess. Beyonce's good looks was not enough to carry the movie. Her portrayal of Etta James border on the criminal. She did not understood the mood of that period of history. On a scale of 1 to 10, the movie does not even deserve rating. But then what do I know? OK . . . . 3 WL **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Motown turns 50
OK . . . something got to be done for Lionel Richie. Easy is tearing me up. Then we have to have statues of the Commodores. Why in the world would anybody put chains on me. Everything Commodores and Lionel is alright. Yall think Detroit is big enough to hold all the music? If we convert Detroit into the Music Mecca, we have to cross the city limits and get Bob Seger and his Silver Bullet Band. That Night Moves album deserves its own display. Down on Main Street damn near changed my life. MM and then Kid Rock are not going to let themselves be cut out of all this excitement. Who was those guys that pioneered industrial techno in Detroit? We might become involved in wars of annexation. No, this is not imperialism. The land mass is not big enough for the music. Is the equivalent of a trillion dollar really enough for a post revolutionary Detroit? Wait a minute. The Dramatics have a legitimate claim for inclusion. Not just because Golden World gave them their first break. After they left Stax, their 3rd album - Dramatic Jackpot, on ABC records has all the music done by Earl Van Dyke of legendary Motown fame. That Jackpot was unreal. Their next album, Drama Five is also Earl Van Dyke. And sound expressing the Temptations form and method of singing carried to an entirely new level. Listen to Just Shoppin (not buying anything). Drama Five should be part museum and a huge nightclub. With L.J Reynolds big ass mouth lighting up the joint. The other guys will have to make their own revolutionary transformation. Let the boyz in Philadelphia (WSOP) take care of Philadelphia. midnight shift about over. time for some night moves. WL **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Motown turns 50
Not to take anything away from Motown, but I often wondered why James Brown (one of the true, true, true geniuses of American popular music and culture) stayed away from them. So I did a bit of reading and learned a lot (for me anyway, since I knew so little when I started) about the music business of the 50s and 60s in the process. Motown was great, but the music industry has turned into total shit now (not that it was ever all good or anything but it's so bad now it makes me long for the 70s and disco even). Interestingly, Brown is early on associated with hillbilly/country labels in Cincinnati owned by Syd Nathan. http://revcom.us/a/076/jamesbrown-en.html James Brown and Motown Berry Gordy, who was the owner of Motown, wanted James Brown to join his label. James was playing for a smaller label and could have gotten more exposure and probably made more money by signing with Motown. But he refused because, as he said, Gordy's …acts were a little too soft for me: too much pop, not enough soul. I was way too raw for the kind of polished music they were willing to do. For instance, they had their choreography, which was great, but it was too rehearsed, down to the last toe-step. Mine was different, spontaneous, and no two nights the same. Mine didn't come from a rehearsal hall—it came from my heart and soul, and there was no way I was ever going to change that, for Motown or anywhere else. Another thing that did not sit well with James was that Gordy took the bass out of all of his singles. …To me, the bass was like the heartbeat, the essence of the rhythm, the place where the flow of any song comes from… I could never be part of what they were in to. Under Mr. Gordy's strict, hands on direction, the Motown show and catalogue were shaped around pop, and their acts were made like minstrels. They were like the caviar of Black music, while I, on the other hand, was strictly soul food. (Quotes from James Brown in this article are from I Feel Good: A Memoir of a Life of Soul, by James Brown with an introduction by Marc Eliot.) This is what he was aiming for. To make everybody to take it as it really is…funky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syd_Nathan Syd Nathan (27 April 1904 – 5 March 1968) was an American hillbilly, country western and rhythm and blues record producer. He was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. He started the Queen record label in 1943. In 1947 it was renamed King Records. James Brown's first single Please, Please, Please was released on their subsidiary label Federal in 1956. Nathan was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in the non-performer category, in 1997. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stone In 1948, Stone settled in Miami, Florida, setting up his own distribution company, Seminole, and shortly afterwards the Crystal recording studio. In 1951 he recorded Ray Charles' St. Pete Florida Blues, among others. In 1952 he started two record labels with Andy Razaf [1], Rockin' (for blues) with artists including Earl Hooker, and Glory (for gospel), and soon had success in both styles. In association with King Records, Stone then set up the DeLuxe label, releasing The Charms' Hearts of Stone, which became an RB chart #1 hit in 1954. He was also instrumental in signing James Brown to King, and in recording Brown's first hit Please, Please, Please. In 1955, he established his own independent publishing companies and several record labels, including Chart and Dade, mainly recording local blues artists. In 1960, Stone cut (Do The) Mashed Potatoes by Nat Kendrick and the Swans – actually James Brown's backing band - for the Dade label. He also set up Tone Distribution (originally Tru-Tone), which became one of the most successful record distribution companies, working with Atlantic, Motown, Stax and many more independent labels. Stone's distribution expertise was instrumental in spreading the music produced by those labels around the world. http://www.celebrityaccess.com/news/profile.html?id=255 Dabbling in production, Henry was one of the first to record Ray Charles, James Brown, Wilbert Harrison, Sam Dave and Hank Ballard and The Midnighters. Hank Ballard and The Midnighters scored with The Twist. In 1954 Henry entered into a deal with King Records as a 50% owner of the Deluxe Label. His first million-selling hit was The Charms' Hearts of Stone in 1955. Other records from that era include Otis Williams and the Charms on Rockin' Records with Ling, Ting, Tong, Bazoom (I Need Your Lovin') and Two Hearts Two Kisses; and Nat Kendrick and The Swans (James Brown's Band) on Dade with (Do The) Mashed Potatoes. Henry soon launched a dozen more Miami based record labels such as Dade, Glades, Marlin and Scott in the '50s. He also founded Tone Distributors in that same year. Tone became one of the most successful independent record distribution companies, working with Atlantic Records, Motown Records, MGM, and Warner Brothers. Regarded as brilliant at discovering and nurturing new talent,
[Marxism-Thaxis] Stanford prison experiment
Stanford prison experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities, in order to obtain a representative sample. Roles were assigned based on a coin toss.[1] Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. After a graduate student (prisoner #819) broke down from the inhumane conditions in the prison,[2] and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days. Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former college friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.[3] Contents [hide] 1 Goals and methods 2 Results 3 Conclusions 4 Criticism of the experiment 5 Haslam and Reicher 6 Comparisons to Abu Ghraib 7 Similar incidents 8 In multimedia 9 See also 10 Footnotes 11 References 12 External links [edit] Goals and methods Zimbardo and his team set out to test the idea that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards were key to understanding abusive prison situations. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. Of the 70 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class. The prison itself was in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergraduate research assistant was the warden and Zimbardo the superintendent. Zimbardo set up a number of specific conditions on the participants which he hoped would promote disorientation, depersonalization and deindividuation. The researchers provided weapons -- wooden batons -- and clothing that simulated that of a prison guard -- khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store. They were also given mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Prisoners wore ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps. Guards called prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name. A chain around their ankles reminded them of their roles as prisoners. The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they were told that they could not physically harm the prisoners. In The Stanford Prison Study video, quoted in Haslam Reicher, 2003, Zimbardo is seen telling the guards, You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy… We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none. The participants who had been chosen to play the part of prisoners were arrested at their homes and charged with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting and taking mug shots. At the prison, they were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched and given their new identities. [edit] Results The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered - and accepted - sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances. After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire
[Marxism-Thaxis] /panafricannews
http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] .feralscholah
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2009/01/09/the-infernal-machine/ The Infernal Machine -clip- In keeping with the duties of any good Kassandra, let me say that we are far, far, far worse off than in 1930; so Keynesian pump-priming isn’t going to work. Moreover, there is no World War II Redux in the wings to act as the US deux ex machina to build us up on the corpses of 60 million people… yet. In 1930, there were just over 2 billion souls aboard the planet; now we approach 7 billion. In 1930, the majority of those inhabitants were rural, with some access to direct subsistence; at some point last year — by many estimates — the world became more urban than rural, even as arable land is being destroyed by commercial large-scale agriculture used to feed this burgeoning city population. In 1930, there was no atomic bomb; now nine nations have nuclear weapons, one of which is the expansionist rogue state of Israel engaged now in the racialized slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, and two states (Pakistan and India) who are rivals sharing a border. The latter two are being destabilized internally and externally, Pakistanin particular by US military machinations in Southwest Asia. Let’s not discount Muslim resentment for the US supporting Israel’s serial savageries, that plays out in Pakistan, therfore in the South Asian nuclear rivalry. In 1930, the US wasn’t spending more on weapons production and military logistics than the rest of the world combined. ( and didn't then have more nukes than anybody; and hadn't used them, but now it has) In 1930, the US was not propped up economically by a combinatoin of “securities” scams and dollar hegemony. In 1930, the world was not faced with the accelerating approach of climate destabilization and rapid rises in sea levels. You can go down this list indefinitely… This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] The Infernal Machine
The Infernal Machine 9th January 2009, 07:01 am by Stan Two years ago, those of us who saw the inevitability of a collapse in the structure of fictional value were dismissed. One year ago, the great unease began. Six months ago, we started seeing what happens when a house is built on the sand. Three months ago, people were still talking about the “bottom,” when the recession — a heretofore contested word — would dissipate and we could start back in on the cornucopia. Now the media are speaking daily of 1930, and the new administration will be spending a trillion to “prime the pump” in a semi-Keynesian rescue effort run by exactly the same people who oversaw the whole debacle for eight years — the Clinton presidency’s veterans, who almost crashed the system when they injected the “flu” into Asia in an attempt to enforce neoliberalism, and when they inflated the last big gasbag of fictional value — the dotcom boom. Let’s stay honest. Bush built up the war; but Clinton built up the economic crisis — a process that took off in the Reagan years. People who say, “Let’s not point fingers now, we have to do something,” are telling us to ignore the etiology of the disease. In keeping with the duties of any good Kassandra, let me say that we are far, far, far worse off than in 1930; so Keynesian pump-priming isn’t going to work. Moreover, there is no World War II Redux in the wings to act as the US deux ex machina to build us up on the corpses of 60 million people… yet. In 1930, there were just over 2 billion souls aboard the planet; now we approach 7 billion. In 1930, the majority of those inhabitants were rural, with some access to direct subsistence; at some point last year — by many estimates — the world became more urban than rural, even as arable land is being destroyed by commercial large-scale agriculture used to feed this burgeoning city population. In 1930, there was no atomic bomb; now nine nations have nuclear weapons, one of which is the expansionist rogue state of Israel engaged now in the racialized slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, and two states (Pakistan and India) who are rivals sharing a border. The latter two are being destabilized internally and externally, Pakistanin particular by US military machinations in Southwest Asia. Let’s not discount Muslim resentment for the US supporting Israel’s serial savageries, that plays out in Pakistan, therfore in the South Asian nuclear rivalry. In 1930, the US wasn’t spending more on weapons production and military logistics than the rest of the world combined. In 1930, the US was not propped up economically by a combinatoin of “securities” scams and dollar hegemony. In 1930, the world was not faced with the accelerating approach of climate destabilization and rapid rises in sea levels. You can go down this list indefinitely… But here is a big intangible: In 1930, the majority of the population in the US was not as utterly dependent and helpless as it is now. Consumerism has created a nation of cyborgs who will go mad when the grid begins to shut down. They are epistemologically disabled; and they are psychologically fragile. They are self-centered and avaricious, with extremely low frustration tolerance levels. Now, with this crisis in mind, how do we think about something as nessesary by one measure and insane by another as propping up the automobile industry? Automobiles are essential to support our existence such as it is… halt them today, and many will literally die. But they are also a key part of our problem with greenhouse gases, habitat destruction for roads and the attendant sprawl, transportation of food, etc. etc. At the same time, they will stop one day, as sure as the sun rises. Cars are (1) dirty, (2) dangerous, and (3) expensive. A brief Wiki clip: In the United States the average passenger car emits 11,450 lbs (5 tonnes) of carbon dioxide, along with smaller amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen. Residents of low-density, residential-only sprawling communities are also more likely to die in car collisions, which kill 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number. Sprawl is more broadly a factor in inactivity and obesity, which in turn can lead to increased risk of a variety of diseases. You can — with very little imagination — continue listing the sequelae encylopedically. Very short of time this morning, but there are the outlines on the topic of “the infernal machine.” I think the preparatory context is necessary to see how deep the crisis is that contextualizes the anecdotal fact of a “bailout for the auto industry,” because it tells us something important about how silly we look to any eye-in-the-sky with our policy prescriptions, electioneering, and self-limited “democratic” imagination. If there is any solution (a real question), it will not come with any initiative from above. Re-design and re-localization… from below. To hell with ideologies, and to hell with
[Marxism-Thaxis] Employee Free Choice Act/New Blog Post
Pen-l] Employee Free Choice Act/New Blog Post To: pen-l pe...@xx Subject: [Pen-l] Employee Free Choice Act/New Blog Post From: MICHAEL YATES mikedjya...@xxx Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:42:52 -0800 Note: Parts of this are taken from the new edition of my book, Why Unions Matter, which will be published by Monthly Review Press next month. Labor unions have been on the ropes in the United States for many years. In 2007, union density (the share of employed workers in unions) was around 12 percent; density has been declining since the mid-1950s, when it was more than 30 percent, and especially since 1980, when it was about 20 percent. There are fewer union members today than there were in 1995. The private sector has so hemorrhaged union members that union density there is now about 7.5 percent, below what it was before the Great Depression. A few unions, most notably the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have grown, but, in the case of SEIU, there is considerable controversy over the manner in which the union has gained new members, with critics arguing that its often top-down growth has not strengthened the labor movement. To be successful, unions must not only organize workplaces; they must also have a strong political voice. Organized labor in the United States has never had the formidable political presence workers’ organizations have in other parts of the world. However, there have been times when labor wielded some political clout, such as the period from the mid-1930s to the early 1970s. Over the past thirty-five years, however, labor has been politically voiceless. The AFL-CIO and its member unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get sympathetic politicians elected to office, and with some success. Yet this has not translated into legislation that empowers working men and women. Except for a couple of badly needed increases in the minimum wage, quite the opposite has occurred. Whether the President has been Democrat or Republican, labor has gotten the short end of the stick: free trade agreements, an end to most federal aid to the poor, worsening health care, more working class people in prison, the refusal to enforce the nation’s labor laws, and endless wars that have drained public coffers of funds that might have been used to enhance the lives of ordinary folks. And as critic of the labor movement Kim Moody points out, there is a direct correspondence between the increase in the amounts of money and effort labor has expended politically and the decline in organizing efforts. That is, during every political season organized labor goes into high gear for the Democrats, pouring money into political coffers and its own more generic pro-Democrat campaigns and devoting tens fo thousands of volunteer hours to phone banking, leafleting, and house visits. But while unions are doing these things, organizing campaigns are put on hold or never begun, so that the one thing that would make politicians heed labor’s desires, namely mass organization of workplaces, does not occur. This time around, the two union federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win (CTW), pulled out all the stops to help elect Barrack Obama. The AFL-CIO, the CTW, and member unions together poured more than one hundred million dollars into the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and millions more into efforts to get Democratic Senators and Representatives elected. One important reason for this support is that Obama and many Democratic politicians are on record in favor of passage by Congress of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Full essay at http://blog.cheapmotelsandahotplate.org Comments encourged! This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Erwin Marquit
Erwin Marquit Professor Emeritus Current Research I have been interested in the scientific methodology on the basis of which fundamental concepts in physics are formed. This has led me into the interface between philosophy and physics, which I attempt to approach with a dialectical-materialist scientific methodology. In the course of this effort, I have found that the dialectical-materialist methodology has been inadequately developed in a number of areas. Since the methodology has been more fully developed in the social sphere I have interested myself in its application to both society and nature (Marxist studies). My research therefore extends over a wide range of areas. Education Doctor of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Warsaw, 1963. Master of Physics, University of Warsaw, 1957. Bachelor of Electrical Engineering, City College of New York, 1948. http://www.physics.umn.edu/people/marquit.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Bill Easing Unionizing Is Under Heavy Attack by Right
NY Times, January 9, 2009 Bill Easing Unionizing Is Under Heavy Attack By STEVEN GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON — Intent on blocking organized labor’s top legislative goal, corporations are quietly contributing to lobbying groups with appealing names like the Workforce Fairness Institute and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. These groups are planning a multimillion-dollar campaign in the hope of killing legislation that would give unions the right to win recognition at a workplace once a majority of employees sign cards saying they want a union. Business groups fear the bill will enable unions to quickly add millions of workers and drive up labor costs. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a federation of 500 business groups, ran a full-page advertisement on Wednesday that sought to discredit the legislation, called the Employee Free Choice Act. The advertisement said that if secret ballots were good enough to elect Barack Obama then they should be good enough for union members, too. Richard Berman, a Washington lobbyist, has created a business-backed group, the Center for Union Facts, that is planning to run millions of dollars’ worth of television spots over the next few months to pressure moderate Democrats to oppose the bill. During last fall’s presidential campaign, groups opposing the legislation spent more than $20 million on television commercials in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and other states in an effort to defeat Democratic Senate candidates who backed the bill. At a confirmation hearing set for Friday, Republican senators are expected to challenge Representative Hilda L. Solis of California, President-elect Obama’s choice for labor secretary, over her support for the legislation. Business leaders denounce the bill because it would largely eliminate secret-ballot elections to determine whether workers want a union. (The union win rate has traditionally been far higher through majority signups than elections.) “If you know anything about politics, it is a game changer,” said Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada. “It is a total game changer for the next 40 to 50 years if the Democrats are able to get this legislation that eliminates the right to a secret ballot. We are fighting it hard.” Senate Democrats have not decided when to bring up the measure. Given its divisiveness, it will not be one of the first bills they bring to the floor. But the legislation has the strong backing of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who is expected to bring it up once Democrats are confident they can overcome any filibuster. In 2007, the House passed a similar bill, but it failed in the Senate on a procedural vote. Republican leaders and business lobbyists say the Democrats do not have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. But union leaders voice optimism, noting that Mr. Obama has endorsed the bill and that Democrats have close to 60 seats in the Senate, though two remain in dispute. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who once was a co-sponsor of the bill, has not decided whether he would support it this time, an aide said. Whether it is Wal-Mart or the National Restaurant Association, many companies and corporate groups financing the opposition fear that their companies and industries will be among labor’s earliest organizing targets should the bill become law. Labor leaders say they are setting their sights on several industries, like banks and big-box retailers like Wal-Mart or Target, where unions have had virtually no success. “We’re going to organize in the basic industries of our unions: construction, hospitality, health care, retail, food production and manufacturing,” said Tom Woodruff, director of strategic organizing for Change to Win, a federation of seven unions that includes the Service Employees International Union, the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers. “Those are jobs that are going to stay in the country. The question is whether those jobs are going to be decent middle-class jobs.” Mark McKinnon, a media adviser to the presidential campaigns of John McCain and George W. Bush, is a spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute. Mr. McKinnon said the institute was focusing on drumming up grass-roots support from business. He would not say which companies are financing the institute, founded by several longtime Republican operatives. “This issue has really become very high on the radar screen,” he said. “Businesses are hearing about it, and they are ready to riot in the street about it.” The measure “is the most radical rewrite of labor legislation since the 1930s,” Mr. McKinnon said. “It is a political nightmare and a public policy disaster.” Opponents fear that the legislation will enable labor to become a wealthier and more powerful political force. Union leaders see the bill as crucial for reversing labor’s long decline — unions represent just 7.5 percent of
[Marxism-Thaxis] Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa extolls Cuban Revolution
GRANMA INTERNATIONAL Havana. January 9, 2009 http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/enero/vier9/Speech-Rafael-Correa.html SPANISH ORIGINAL: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2009/01/09/nacional/artic10.html This marvelous people, the Cuban people, a heroic people, has taught the world that Revolution has a destiny Speech by His Excellency Mr. Rafael Correa Delgado, president of the Republic of Ecuador, at the commemoration event for the 50th anniversary of the entry of Commander in Chief Fidel Castro into Havana, at Ciudad Libertad, January 8, 2009 Dear Comandante, President Raúl Castro Ruz, I expect that compañero Fidel is watching us and so an immense Latin American and solidarity-filled embrace for him (Applause) Dear commanders, combatants of this heroic gesture: the Cuban Revolution, the liberation of Cuba, the most significant milestone in the history of Latin America in the 20th century and an example for the entire world; Dear officials of the Cuban government; Ministers and officials from the Ecuadorian government who are accompanying me on this visit; Representatives of the media; Dear sisters and brothers from Cuba, Ecuador, Latin America and the rest of the world, for each and every one of you, a warm embrace (Applause): Today, January 8, 2009, when - at the invitation of the Cuban Revolution - we are here representing the Ecuadorian people and their Citizen’s Revolution, it is worth asking the question: When did the Cuban Revolution begin? Perhaps on July 26, 1953, when Fidel, leading the Centenary Generation, etched the name of the Moncada Garrison into history? Maybe it was on November 25, 1956 when the Granma set sail from Veracruz carrying 82 guerrillas? Or perhaps it was long before that, in the early hours of April 11, 1895, when José Martí and his group of compatriots disembarked at Playitas de Cajobabo in order to begin the Necessary War and bring the yoke of Spanish colonialism to an end? Perhaps it would be better to think that this Revolution, the hope and fate of Our America, began in the struggles against colonialism, alongside the major reference of our emancipatory vocation, symbolized by the Liberator Simón Bolívar. Because Manuela Sáenz and Antonio José de Sucre; José Martí and Emiliano Zapata; Eloy Alfaro and Augusto César Sandino; Manuel Rodríguez and José Carlos Mariátegui; Antonio Maceo and Máximo Gómez, and all the compatriots of the continent devoted their lives to the liberation of our Great Homeland harbored by the image and flag of Bolívar. We should acknowledge then, that the Revolution began when Fidel Raúl, Che, Haydée, Camilo, and the Cuban revolutionaries followed the path and the profound footprints of a historic struggle. Following in these footprints meant and continues to mean, at whatever moment in time, being honest, being transparent and always telling the truth, just as the Liberator did when he said: Blessed is he who, running between the obstacles of war, politics and public misfortunes, preserves his honor intact. Fifty years ago, in this very same place, Fidel said: I believe that this is a decisive moment in our history: the dictatorship has been defeated. The joy is immense. But there is still much to be done. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that everything will be much easier from now on; the future will perhaps be much more difficult. Telling the truth is the first duty of every revolutionary, stated Fidel. Deceiving the people, stirring up deceptive illusions will always bring the worst consequences, and I believe that we have to warn people against excessive optimism. How did the Rebel Army win the war? By speaking the truth. How did the dictatorship lose it? By lying to the soldiers. ( ) And for this reason, I want to begin - or rather, continue - with the same system: always telling the truth to the people, stated Fidel, in this very same place, exactly fifty years ago. This ethical torch, and the greatest devotion to the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of Cuba and Latin America has permitted this Revolution to remain in force, with pride and dignity, in the defense of the most prized assets pursued by the people: freedom and sovereignty. This marvelous people, the Cuban people, a heroic people, has taught the world that Revolution has a destiny. That it is a process of the spirit, that it is forged by human spirit and that, once underway, there is no power that is capable of stopping it, however powerful it believes itself to be. Today, fifty years later, that distant January 1, 1959, or that January 8 half a century ago, are already glorious dates for every revolutionary movement around the world. But they would not be if the movement that culminated in it had been conceived simply as the climax of the insurrection against injustice, despotism and corruption. The fight against that injustice, that despotism and against corruption is an eternal one, and will never end. It is for this reason that the
[Marxism-Thaxis] UN human rights chief accuses Israel of war crimes
UN human rights chief accuses Israel of war crimes Official calls for investigation into Zeitoun shelling that killed up to 30 in one house as Israelis dismiss 'unworkable' ceasefire * Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem * The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2009 The United Nations' most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire. Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, has called for credible, independent and transparent investigations into possible violations of humanitarian law, and singled out an incident this week in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City, where up to 30 Palestinians in one house were killed by Israeli shelling. Pillay, a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident appears to have all the elements of war crimes. The accusation came as Israel kept up its two-week-old air and ground offensive in Gaza and dismissed as unworkable the UN security council resolution which had called for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire. Protests against the offensive were held across the world yesterday just as diplomacy to halt the conflict appeared to falter. With the Palestinian casualty toll rising to around 800 dead, including 265 children, and more than 3,000 injured, fresh evidence emerged yesterday of the killings in Zeitoun. It was one of the gravest incidents since Israel's offensive began two weeks ago, the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs said yesterday. There is an international obligation on the part of soldiers in their position to protect civilians, not to kill civilians indiscriminately in the first place, and when they do, to make sure that they help the wounded, Pillay told Reuters. In this particular case these children were helpless and the soldiers were close by, she added. An Israeli military spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, said the incident was still being examined. We don't warn people to go to other buildings, this is not something we do, she said. We don't know this case, we don't know that we attacked it. Despite the intense bombardment, militants in Gaza fired at least 30 rockets into southern Israel yesterday. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, told al-Jazeera TV: This resolution doesn't mean that the war is over. We call on Palestinian fighters to mobilise and be ready to face the offensive, and we urge the Arab masses to carry on with their angry protests. Israeli officials said they could not be expected to halt their military operation while the rockets continued and said they first wanted an end to the rocket fire and a mechanism to prevent Hamas rearming in future. The whole idea that Israel will unilaterally stop protecting our people when Hamas is sending rockets into our cities to kill our people is not a reasonable request of Israel, said Mark Regev, spokesman for prime minister Ehud Olmert. Israel wanted security for its people in southern Israel, he said, and dismissed suggestions his military might seek to topple Hamas, saying they were not in the regime-change business. Israeli public opinion still strongly favours the war. One poll of Jewish Israelis yesterday, by the War and Peace Index, said 90% of the population supported continuing the operation until Israel achieved all its goals. Olmert held a meeting of his security cabinet, and on the agenda was discussion about whether to intensify the offensive by launching a fresh stage of attacks in which Israeli troops would invade the major urban areas of Gaza as more reservists were called up. There was no word on the outcome. So far 13 Israelis have been killed in this conflict, of whom three were civilians. Another 23 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military yesterday. Seven from one family, including an infant, died when Israeli jets bombed a five-storey building in Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza. There was heavy aerial bombing and artillery fire across the territory. More than 20,000 Gazans have fled their homes in the north of the strip and thousands more in the south. In some cases Israeli troops have told them to leave, or dropped leaflets warning them to evacuate their homes. Some are even dividing their families between different addresses for fear of losing them all in a single air strike. Many people are leaving their homes and moving to the centre of the cities, said Abdel Karim Ashour, 53, who works with a local aid agency, the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee. He, his wife and their four children fled their house on the coastal road in northern Gaza on the third day of the conflict. He sent the four children to stay with his brother while he and his wife are staying at a friend's house. We were in an area of
[Marxism-Thaxis] Monopoly Capital
Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy Asked if he liked his job, one of John Updike’s characters replied, Hell, it wouldn’t be a job if I liked it. All but a tiny minority of specially lucky or privileged workers would undoubtedly agree. There is nothing inherently interesting about most of the narrowly sub-divided tasks which workers are obliged to perform; and with the purpose of the job at best obscure and at worst humanly degrading, the worker can find no satisfaction in what his efforts accomplish. As far as he is concerned, the one justification is the paycheck. The paycheck is the key to whatever gratifications are allowed to working people in this society: such self-respect, status, and recognition by one’s fellows as can be achieved depend primarily on the possession of material objects. The worker’s house, the model of his automobile, his wife’s clothes—all assume major significance as indexes of success or failure. And yet within the existing social framework these objects of consumption increasingly lose their capacity to satisfy. Forces similar to those which destroy the worker’s identification with his work lead to the erosion of his self-identification as a consumer. With goods being sought for their status- bearing qualities, the drive to substitute the newer and more expensive for the older and cheaper ceases to be related to the serviceability of the goods and becomes a means of climbing up a rung on the social ladder. Monopoly Capital This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Activist Materialism and the End of Philosophy
Activist Materialism and the End of Philosophy(1992) Most in the Committees of Correspondence want to initiate an effective activist organization. This desire is from the finest of the tradition of U.S. activism and Marxism. Marxism is often referred to as dialectical and historical materialism. I would like to emphasize here how Marxism is as importantly activist materialism, but how philosophy is critical for activism. The First Theses on Feuerbach , by Karl Marx is as follows: The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the OBJECT OF CONTEMPLATION, but not as SENSUOUS HUMAN ACTIVITY, PRACTICE, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the ACTIVE side was developed abstractly by idealism ---which , of course,does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as OBJECTIVE activity. Hence, in DAS WASEN des CHRISTENTHUMS, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is coneived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical (sic) manifestation. Hence, he does not grasp the significance of revolutionary,of practical-critical , activity. (end quote). We can see that Marx distinguished his materialism from all previous materialisms by treating the subject (the human individual) as materially active; not ideally active as in idealisms; and not only contemplative of the material world as with the previous materialisms. Marx's is an activist materialism, very much in the sense of the modern term political activist. As the well known 11th Thesis on Feuerbach says, for Marxists the point is to change the world; change the world through activism , practical-critical activity in the material world. On the other hand, in recent times many Marxist activists and militants have acted as if with Marx, Engels and Lenin, we had reached the end of philosophy.This reminds of the recent bourgeois book on the end of history. Both the end of history and the end of philosophy are foolish notions for activist materialists to hold. For, in the First Thesis above it is the philosophical subject with self-determination and power that is the key and only actor, the only changer of the world. The error of leaving philosophy dormant seems to be that in focussing o the activism of Marx's materialism, in focussing on changing the world, it is assumed that PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation and contemplation of the world are to be dropped or that very little time should be spent in them by activists. This may derive from the 11th Thesis which says 'Philosophers have interpreted the world in a number of ways; the thing is to change it. Yet, this does not say stop interpreting the world and try to change it. And the First Thesis' active subject (objects are not actors) key for change , only source of change, is only understood as a philosophical subject. Thus, for revolutionary activity , we still need philosophical consciousness and especially in activists and militants, professional revolutionaries. So for all who emphasize doing , not sitting around talking, acting , action, technical philosophy is more important than is usually thought. PART II: THE ERRORS OF PRAGMATISM So there is an paradox in that the common sense idea that philosophy, especially academic philosophy is a hindrance to ACTION is the opposite of the truth. Philosophy is important for comprehending the active subject , the only potential revolutionary actor.(or actor period). I know that most Americans, including most Marxists, socialists, progressives, C of C'ers, will object and reject the notion of raising actual, technical philosophical terminology and concepts with ourselves and masses of people. They'call it elitist, academic, sectarian, sitting around b.s.'ing, intellectual, eggheaded and on and on. The well founded fear is that this will turn most Americans off and isolate us in yet another way. After all, its bad enough that we already use too many economic technical terms such as exploitation, means of production, accumulation, etc. These concerns must not be ignored. But it's time for Americans, including Marxists, to grow-up intellectually. No, we cannot lead, inspire, organize and win effective revolutionary ACTION based on the concepts and words now in the average American's vocabulary. Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach corrected the then predominant error of materialism which was the failure to treat the subject (the acting individual person) as active. Today, in America, we have all attention to action, activism, but have fallen into the error of a certain folk Pragmatism, that is action, action, action without extensive simultaneous philosophical interpretation and contemplation. We should not drop the
[Marxism-Thaxis] ialectical materialism/activist materialism
M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism Charles Brown Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:47 -0700 Just to follow up , the error of the claims that Engels and Lenin , etc. deviate from Marx's own method into ideology is the exact error that Marx criticizes in the Theses on Feuerbach. What is being termed ideology is actually the activist component , the PRACTICAL-critical ACTIVITY that Marx makes clear is HIS method as distinguished from other materialists. The historical materialism that the some others on this thread are describing is contemplative and passive like Feuerbach's materialism which Marx differentiates himself from on precisely this point. This is scholastic materialism as Marx mentions in the Second Thesis. Marx's historical materialism unites theory and practice. More specifically, Marxist epistemology demands that we come to know by practice (Second Thesis). A scholastic approach sees this in Engels and Lenin and labels it ideology, however it overlooks that Marx himself states it more sharply than Engels or Lenin in the Second Thesis on Feuerbach! ! : The question whether objective truth can be attrributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a _practical question_. Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely _scholastic_ question. Had Engels or Lenin written this, anti-diamats ( and bourgeois academics) would be calling it ideology and not-objective. Charles Brown . Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/06/99 From the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx says that the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism, Feuerbach included, is that it is contemplative and not active. Feuerbach critiqued Hegel's idealism and theism, placing objective reality as primary to subjective reality, but he treats the process of gaining knowledge about that objective reality as if it comes mainly through passive contemplation and not practical-critical activity. History is made by active classes, so this contemplative materialism fails to deal with history, the process by which things change, or objective reality is changed. Feuerbachian and the other materialisms are errors of mechanical or vulgar materialism, treating history like a giant clock that mechanically unwinds without human agency. This materialism just observes this unwinding without integrating theory and practice, or activism. I have a paper on Activist Materialism on this point. Marx's is an activist materialism. Charles: This point connects directly to Engels and Lenin's discussion of the epistemology of practice ( _Anti-Duhring_ and _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism) and Marx's main theme of practical-critical activity and practice as the test of theory in the Theses on Feuerbach. Engels says exactly that knowing something in nature is to change it from a thing-in-itself to a thing-for-us. This is the Marxist ( and Hegelian) solution to the Kantian problem of the unknowable thing-in-itself. Engels says we know something when we can make it. The famous example is when coal tar is turned into alizar. We prove the this sideedness ( for-us) of something, Marx says, in practice. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] dialectical materialism/activist materialism
Re: M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism Chris Burford Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:27:44 -0700 At 09:09 13/08/99 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:41:21 GMT J.WALKER, ILL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should we, as socialists or Marxists, adopt such a perspective? In what way does it contribute to the struggle for socialism? Lew Lew, The importance of dialectical materialism to the struggle for socialism is in my opinion twofold. Although Jim F's comments are, as always, reasoned, he places the burden of proof on dialectical materialism. This is odd when conventional science has been unable to produce a unified field theory, to know where 90% of the matter is in the universe, and, according to a recent article in New Scientist, has just begun to question whether the speed of light really has always been constant. But a pitfall in these debate is that those of us who see no reason why the burden of proof should be on dialectical materialism, may be misrepresented as dogmatic and reductionist in how dialectical materialism is applied. Many of Jim F's individual points I can agree with. Jim F to John Walker: It sounds like you are saying that a science of society or history cannot be credible unless it is somehow also a science or philosophy of the natural world. But I would think that it should be sufficient that a putative science of society be able to provide cogent explanations of social phenomena in order to be credible. The first business of a credible social science ought to be the explanation of phenomena like the rise and fall of modes of production, the courses of class struggles, the importance of ideologies like religion or nationalism, the functions of law etc. It is not in any sense mandataory that such a science should also explain the phenomena of subatomic particles or provide us with an account of the origins and destiny of the universe. In practice this is true. We do not demand of ourselves or of others that ideas must fit perfectly together before we take action. The socialist movement pre-dates the marxist movement. But - the over-arching connection is that just as marxists see social processes, class conflict, change, revolution in terms of the working out of whole systems, so there is a link with such a systems approach to the non-human and the inanimate world. Marx wrote of men as a variety of animals. Humanity is not an isolated idealised separate category in marxism. Nor does a marxist approach assume that Life is such an idealised category separate from inanimate forms of organisation. I agree that simplistic reductionist analogies from inaminate science do not prove the historical inevitability of socialism. (eg the fact that Soviet Science put a human in space before the US, does not prove that the Soviet economy would outperform the US in the production of commodities). However the defence of the basic scientific-ness of marxism has been a core feature of marxism. It accounts for much of the pungency of the writings of Marx and Engels. And I would argue that a feature of science is the ability to integrate each reasonable scientific advance with the previous body of reasonable scientific advances. (Even though that sometimes requires a paradigm shift.) Therefore it is not trivial, nor is it reductionist, nor is it dogmatic, to argue that in the great body of the inanimate sciences, advances are occuring that require science to look at things as systems, composed of inter-related and often contrasting forces, which shift and change and are interconnected with one another. A systems approach would be the simplest way of expressing this. It includes advances in the mathematics of chaos theory that demonstrate how simple systems may produce patterns apparently roughly regular most of the time, which may flip into a phase of quite different patterns, or become continuously turbulent. Complexity theory has modelled the processes whereby emergent properties may appear from out of the interaction of numerous less complex systems such that the whole is indeed greater than the parts. Jim F: It seems to me that you are trying to collapse historical materialism into dialectical materialism. Well as we say in the States, that dog won't hunt. I am not sure what the implications of collapse are here, but certainly in philosophical terms historical materialism is a subset of dialectical materialism. It is not necessary to believe in the wider set in order to believe in the subset. But it is surprising if there has to be a block about this. It also suggests that one's approach to the subset may not be truly dialectical. One may for example not see also the temporary unity between the bourgeoisies and the proletariat under the capitalist mode of production, but only see the opposition, thereby adopting the position of a radical utopian socialist, ready to slip into cynicism and despair about the disappointing qualities of the
[Marxism-Thaxis] Realm of Necessity
On Materialism ( speaking of Mao), there are two levels of the relationship between thought and being: economics and physics. While society remains in the Realm of Necessity , ruling classes control masses by conditioning fulfillment of the _material_needs of the exploited classes on the exploited classes ' producing surpluses for the ruling , exploiting classes. The materialism (determinism by the material) at this level derives from the coercive use of conditional provision of material needs. In all societies, including those in the Realm of Freedom ( socialist, communist future and ancient) , all people must , of course, obey the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, objective reality etc. physics, in the general sense. How do Foucault, Butler, and other Post-moderns differ with these materialist principles ? Charles This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Materialism
With all due respect to auto mechanics, the vast majority do not discuss this issue _as_ auto mechanics. Some auto mechanics might have an interest in philosophy as a hobby, pretty much unrelated to their day job, and then might discuss it , have an opinion on it. At any rate, it would be acting as an intellectual of some sort that the mechanic would discuss materialism or have an opinion on materialism, not as an engineer-physicist-mechanic. Questions of materialism vs idealism don't arise in dealing with the problems of fixing a car. Also, the choice of the category auto-mechanic in contrast with intellectual probably derives from a notion that physicists-engineers-mechanics are more likely to hold materialist and not idealist positions on the issue. But, lots of famous physicists have been philosophical idealists. Newton was a believer in God ( Belief in God is an idealist position; see Engels's discussion of this in _Socialism: Utopian or Scientific). Mach was an idealist, a neo-Kantian. Heisenberg of uncertainty principle fame was an philosophical idealist, and his uncertainty principle was put forth as an underpinning to that idealist position. Einstein seems to have been a materialist, explicitly disagreeing with Mach that atoms were just thought-structures or some such. The original review that gave rise to this thread, seems to be from a neo-phyte rightwinger dipping into a time warp for threadbare anti-left material; and the article is pretty much a mishmash, conflating liberal with Marxist , and some other things. But I bet there is really very, very little Marxism taught in the US schools, so this article might stir up more interest in Marxism than is already there. As to the anthology... might be worth critiquing. Charles This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Materialist determinism
[lbo-talk] hetersexuality ? Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jun 11 14:44:47 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] Soviet Pop Music Next message: [lbo-talk] hetersexuality ? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort (Chuck Grimes) Depends on what you mean by biological basis. If by basis you mean something like explanation or theory, well then it is obviously there in evolution. Heterosexuality is part of the mechanism for reproduction.. Tahir -- That was Charles Brown's question. Something along the lines, is hetersexuality innate? ^ CB: I just want to emphasize I am saying it is innate for _some_ ( many, but not all) people. And that I still agree with Miles Jackson and others who emphasize social determination, that even for those who have an innate instinct it is also reinforced by social construction. My hypothesis is that sexual orientation, unlike just about everything else, has an especially large component of biological determination compared to other individual characteristics. I am a social or cultural determinist like Miles on almost all human characteristics. Just to reiterate another very fundamental issue on these threads. I am interpreting Marxist materialism with respect to the Realm of Necessity or class divided to society to mean that biology determines society in this area _indirectly_. By that I mean, the provision of physiological/biological _necessities_ - food, water, shelter, sleep, air, protection from predators - is used to coerce exploited classes into producing surpluses for the exploiting classes by means of the coercive state power (special repressive apparatus; see Engels _The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the State_). Provision of biological necessities to ruled classes is conditional upon their following the ruling classes' rules. From the science point of view, I don't think we know, and trying to think like a biologist, I not sure that's the right question to ask. I say that because it sets the path of thought toward genetics and the gene expression system for the underlying physiology. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Marxist epistemology
[lbo-talk] Science Marches On Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Mon Nov 21 13:24:08 PST 2005 Previous message: [lbo-talk] US export restrictions on books Next message: [lbo-talk] Re: Instinct Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort But how do you know that your perception of the data from your external environment reflects what actually exists in the external environment? --Epistemological regress here. (Nietzschean knots!) Miles ^^^ Before that it was a Berkeleyian, Humean and Kantian knot- the dilemma of Humean beings. Either Marx and Engels' solution is satisfactory to one or (k)not: 2nd Thesis on Feuerbach The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question. - 11th Thesis Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Part 2: Materialism Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being. From the very early times when men, still completely ignorant of the structure of their own bodies, under the stimulus of dream apparitions (1) came to believe that their thinking and sensation were not activities of their bodies, but of a distinct soul which inhabits the body and leaves it at death - from this time men have been driven to reflect about the relation between this soul and the outside world. If, upon death, it took leave of the body and lived on, there was no occassion to invent yet another distinct death for it. Thus arose the idea of immortality, which at that stage of development appeared not at all as a consolation but as a fate against which it was no use fighting, and often enough, as among the Greeks, as a positive misfortune. The quandry arising from the common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted, after the death of the body, and not religious desire for consolation, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality. In an exactly similar manner, the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces. And these gods in the further development of religions assumed more and more extramundane form, until finally by a process of abstraction, I might almost say of distillation, occurring naturally in the course of man's intellectual development, out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive God of the monotheistic religions. Thus the question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of the spirit to nature - the paramount question of the whole of philosophy - has, no less than all religion, its roots in the narrow-minded and ignorant notions of savagery. But this question could for the first time be put forward in its whole acuteness, could achieve its full significance, only after humanity in Europe had awakened from the long hibernation of the Christian Middle Ages. The question of the position of thinking in relation to being, a question which, by the way, had played a great part also in the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, the question: which is primary, spirit or nature - that question, in relation to the church, was sharpened into this: Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally? The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other - and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity - comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism. These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense. What confusion arises when some other meaning is put to them will be seen below. But the question of the relation of thinking and being had yet another side: in what relation do our thoughts about the world surrounding us
[Marxism-Thaxis] QUIZ TIME
QUIZ TIME Thomas Riggins Lets see what Marxists think about the two following (and very famous) propositions. Are they true or false and what are the consequences if they are true? If they are false? Can you have one without the other? Proposition One:” Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.” True or False Proposition Two: “In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than he will be forced to be free.” True or False We might also wonder if these ideas are compatible with Marxism or not. That is should Marxists say “yikes!” that’s not what we are about? Or should they say. “Right On!” you are not a Marxist if you don’t agree with this? We often complain that we don’t have a lot of theoretical clarity, so lets see if we can be clear about this? I hope we don’t get a flood of ideological toxic sludge. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ 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] Marxist epistemology
See also my compilation of quotes: http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marx-skeptic.htmlMarx Engels on Skepticism Praxis At 05:47 PM 1/14/2009, Charles Brown wrote: [lbo-talk] Science Marches On Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Mon Nov 21 13:24:08 PST 2005 Previous message: [lbo-talk] US export restrictions on books Next message: [lbo-talk] Re: Instinct Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort But how do you know that your perception of the data from your external environment reflects what actually exists in the external environment? --Epistemological regress here. (Nietzschean knots!) Miles ^^^ Before that it was a Berkeleyian, Humean and Kantian knot- the dilemma of Humean beings. Either Marx and Engels' solution is satisfactory to one or (k)not: 2nd Thesis on Feuerbach The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question. - 11th Thesis Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Part 2: Materialism Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being. From the very early times when men, still completely ignorant of the structure of their own bodies, under the stimulus of dream apparitions (1) came to believe that their thinking and sensation were not activities of their bodies, but of a distinct soul which inhabits the body and leaves it at death - from this time men have been driven to reflect about the relation between this soul and the outside world. If, upon death, it took leave of the body and lived on, there was no occassion to invent yet another distinct death for it. Thus arose the idea of immortality, which at that stage of development appeared not at all as a consolation but as a fate against which it was no use fighting, and often enough, as among the Greeks, as a positive misfortune. The quandry arising from the common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted, after the death of the body, and not religious desire for consolation, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality. In an exactly similar manner, the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces. And these gods in the further development of religions assumed more and more extramundane form, until finally by a process of abstraction, I might almost say of distillation, occurring naturally in the course of man's intellectual development, out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive God of the monotheistic religions. Thus the question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of the spirit to nature - the paramount question of the whole of philosophy - has, no less than all religion, its roots in the narrow-minded and ignorant notions of savagery. But this question could for the first time be put forward in its whole acuteness, could achieve its full significance, only after humanity in Europe had awakened from the long hibernation of the Christian Middle Ages. The question of the position of thinking in relation to being, a question which, by the way, had played a great part also in the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, the question: which is primary, spirit or nature - that question, in relation to the church, was sharpened into this: Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally? The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other - and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity - comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism. These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense. What confusion arises when some other meaning is put to them will be
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] ialectical materialism/activist materialism
Not recalling this old debate, I can't make much sense of this argument. I'm guessing this is part of the old Engels-(and Lenin)-betrayed-Marx debate, which is as absurd as the Marx-Engels-joined-at-the-hip nonsense such that Marx was the creator of dialectical materialism, which was certainly not the case, nor did he ever scold Engels for his work. Any competent scholar will recognize the divergences among these thinkers without fetishizing them or drawing foolish conclusions from them. In any case, it is one thing to cite what are taken as the classics, and another to actually do some real thinking with one's philosophical resources. Unfortunately, the Soviet tradition, spread throughout the world, did a lot of harm in terms of promoting ill-digested formulaic thinking, which interfered even with otherwise fine minds, and squelched Marxism's and the USSR's greatest talents. At 05:27 PM 1/14/2009, Charles Brown wrote: M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism Charles Brown Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:47 -0700 Just to follow up , the error of the claims that Engels and Lenin , etc. deviate from Marx's own method into ideology is the exact error that Marx criticizes in the Theses on Feuerbach. What is being termed ideology is actually the activist component , the PRACTICAL-critical ACTIVITY that Marx makes clear is HIS method as distinguished from other materialists. The historical materialism that the some others on this thread are describing is contemplative and passive like Feuerbach's materialism which Marx differentiates himself from on precisely this point. This is scholastic materialism as Marx mentions in the Second Thesis. Marx's historical materialism unites theory and practice. More specifically, Marxist epistemology demands that we come to know by practice (Second Thesis). A scholastic approach sees this in Engels and Lenin and labels it ideology, however it overlooks that Marx himself states it more sharply than Engels or Lenin in the Second Thesis on Feuerbach! ! : The question whether objective truth can be attrributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a _practical question_. Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely _scholastic_ question. Had Engels or Lenin written this, anti-diamats ( and bourgeois academics) would be calling it ideology and not-objective. Charles Brown . Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/06/99 From the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx says that the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism, Feuerbach included, is that it is contemplative and not active. Feuerbach critiqued Hegel's idealism and theism, placing objective reality as primary to subjective reality, but he treats the process of gaining knowledge about that objective reality as if it comes mainly through passive contemplation and not practical-critical activity. History is made by active classes, so this contemplative materialism fails to deal with history, the process by which things change, or objective reality is changed. Feuerbachian and the other materialisms are errors of mechanical or vulgar materialism, treating history like a giant clock that mechanically unwinds without human agency. This materialism just observes this unwinding without integrating theory and practice, or activism. I have a paper on Activist Materialism on this point. Marx's is an activist materialism. Charles: This point connects directly to Engels and Lenin's discussion of the epistemology of practice ( _Anti-Duhring_ and _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism) and Marx's main theme of practical-critical activity and practice as the test of theory in the Theses on Feuerbach. Engels says exactly that knowing something in nature is to change it from a thing-in-itself to a thing-for-us. This is the Marxist ( and Hegelian) solution to the Kantian problem of the unknowable thing-in-itself. Engels says we know something when we can make it. The famous example is when coal tar is turned into alizar. We prove the this sideedness ( for-us) of something, Marx says, in practice. ___ 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
