Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
And then among the non-Marxists, who proved more influential on such issues: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brentano/#Psychology Brentano has often been described as an extraordinarily charismatic teacher. Throughout his life he influenced a great number of students, many of who became important philosophers and psychologists in their own rights, such as Edmund Husserl, Alexius Meinong, Christian von Ehrenfels, Anton Marty, Carl Stumpf, Kasimir Twardowski, as well as Sigmund Freud. Many of his students became professors all over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Marty and Ehrenfels in Prague, Meinong in Graz, and Twardowski in Lvov, and so spread Brentanianism over the whole Austro-Hungarian Empire. Another of Brentano's students, Tomas Masaryk, was to become founder and first President (from 1918 to 1935) of the Republic of Czechoslovakia, where he created ideal conditions for the study of Brentano's philosophy. These factors explain the central role of Brentano in the philosophical development in central Europe, especially in what was later called the Austrian Tradition in philosophy. . When Brentano's students took up his notion of intentionality to develop more systematic accounts, they often criticized it for its unclarity regarding the ontological status of the intentional object: if the intentional object is part of the act, it was argued, we are faced with a duplication of the object. Next to the real, physical object, which is perceived, remembered, thought of, etc., we have a mental, intentional object, towards which the act is actually directed. Thus, when I think about the city of Paris, I am actually thinking of a mental object that is part of my act of thinking, and not about the actual city. This view leads to obvious difficulties, the most disastrous of which is that two persons can never be directed towards one and the same object. If we try to resolve the problem by taking the intentional object to be identical with the real object, on the other hand, we face the difficulty of explaining how we can have mental phenomena that are directed towards non-existing objects such as Hamlet, the golden mountain, or a round square. Like my thinking about the city of Paris, all these acts are intentionally directed towards an object, with the difference, however, that their objects do not really exist. Brentano's initial formulation of the intentionality-thesis does not address these problems concerning the ontological status of the intentional object. The first attempt of Brentano's students to overcome these difficulties was made by Twardowski, who distinguished between content and object of the act, the former of which is immanent to the act, the latter not. This distinction strongly influenced other members of the Brentano School, mainly the two students for who the notion of intentionality had the most central place, Meinong and Husserl. Meinong's theory of objects can best be understood as a reaction to the ontological difficulties in Brentano's account. Rather than accepting the notion of an immanent content, Meinong argues that the intentional relation is always a relation between the mental act and an object. In some cases the intentional object does not exist, but even in these cases there is an object external to the mental act towards which we are directed. According to Meinong, even non-existent objects are in some sense real. Since we can be intentionally directed towards them, they must subsist (bestehen). Not all subsisting objects exist; some of them cannot even exist for they are logically impossible, such as round squares. The notion of intentionality played a central role also in Husserlian phenomenology. Applying his method of the phenomenological reduction, however, Husserl addresses the problem of directedness by introducing the notion of ‘noema,’ which plays a role similar to Frege's notion of ‘sense.’ Brentano was not very fond of his students' attempts to resolve these difficulties, mainly because he rejected their underlying ontological assumptions. He was quick to point out that he never intended the intentional object to be immanent to the act. Brentano thought that this interpretation of his position was obviously absurd, for it would be “paradoxical to the extreme to say that a man promises to marry an ens rationis and fulfills his promise by marrying a real person” (Psychology, 385). In later texts, he therefore suggested to see intentionality as an exceptional form of relation. A mental act does not stand in an ordinary relation to an object, but in a quasi-relation (Relativliches). For a relation to exist, both relata have to exist. A person a is taller than another person b, for example, only if both a and b exist (and a is, in fact, taller than b). This does not hold for the intentional quasi-relation, Brentano suggests. A mental phenomenon can stand in a quasi-relation to an object independent of whether it exists or not. Mental acts, thus, can stand in
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
http://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/works/lektorsky/essay_77.htm Having understood reflection as active reflection, having understood cognitive operations as practical actions that have undergone special change (this idea is being increasingly recognised both in the methodology of science and the modern psychology of thought - suffice it to mention the works of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget or the studies by such Soviet psychologists as L. Vygotsky and A. Leontyev and others) Marxist philosophy makes it possible, on the one hand, to show the active role of the subject in the ideal reproduction of the object, the part played in this process by ideal constructions, the devising of patterns, models, abstract objects, etc., and, on the other hand, to understand theory itself as a pattern of potential means of operating With the object. This is not to say that any theoretical operation may be interpreted as a possible form of practical activity because the majority of theoretical operations have no immediate practical significance (their objects-ideal, abstract, etc.-can be presented only in symbolic form). Theory provides possible means of practical activity to the extent to which the ideal operations used in creating it can be linked with direct practical operations, such as operations of experimentation and measurement, which are particularly important for the theories of natural science and endow theoretical concepts with concrete meaning. These practical operations are a special form of practice, a special way of testing and understanding theoretical scientific hypotheses. For modern works on the methodology of the natural sciences it is axiomatic that the evaluation of theoretical concepts presupposes the establishing of certain empirical dependencies by means of situations reproduced by practical experiment and also by the empirically established results of these situations (this was expressed, although in a distorted, subjectivistic form, by operationalism). It is a notable fact that this dialectic of subject and object, though characteristic of modern natural science, is not always given an adequate philosophical interpretation by scientists themselves and sometimes leads to subjectivist interpretations. http://www.marxists.org/archive/mikhailov/works/riddle/riddle2c.htm Consequently the mind is certainly not what happens inside me and to me under the influence of external stimuli, but without them as such. Without them, that is, without correlation at every instant of my life-activity with the objectively existing world, my “inner world” cannot exist. That which happens inside me but has no objective representation outside me is not the mind. It is physiology, biochemistry, anything you like, but not my inner mental world! My “mental world” is above all the world of culture in which I live and act; it is the real existence of nature assimilated by man, every detail of which signifies for me that which it objectively represents. In other words, my mental world is, in fact, the being, the existence of which I am aware. And now let us return to the difficulty that Bertrand Russell experienced in finding a criterion for distinguishing dream from reality. -- Those who even today believe that the riddle of the Self can be solved by treating man as a machine that receives and processes information want simply to feed endless streams of information about the world into the ready-made body of the brain. In these pages I have tried to show that both in the theory and practice of the formation of the human personality things are far more complex. No, it is not a matter of feeding some electronic device complicated enough to resemble the human brain (or the brain itself) with a sufficient quantity of information which is then processed according to the most complex programmes. What has to be done is to guide the body that already possesses such a “device” into real intercourse and activity. This is the road to the making of the human Self, the Ego, all its attributes and particularly its intellect. For intellect is determined by the content of historically developing human culture and not the rapidity of the algorithmised computing of the possible answers to a pre-formulated problem. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
>>Objective & Subjective (object and subject):: object refers to everything outside the human mind or the subject as human. Reality, say a tree, an automobile or the sun has an objective existence outside the human mind or the life of the human mind, not requiring or owning its existence to the mind. Marxism contends that social system - capitalism, and things existing outside the mind have an objective existence and contains objective laws of operations. << 1. So what then does the 'mind' contain? 2. What is the basis of the existence or subsistence of the mind and its contents? 3. Aren't you missing out here on the Marxist tradition's insistence on the 'relationship' between subject-object? 4. What is the basis of the existence or subsistence of such a 'relationship'? 5. What is the basis of our knowing all this to hold? Marx seems to combine a form of realism and a form of pragmatism in his rejection of idealism, but at this point in my life I'm not sure I remember a very satisfactory working out of the issues in anything Marx wrote. It seems more likely my understanding comes from Engels and from Lenin (which makes me think 'deja vu' since we seem to discuss a lot of the same philosophical issues over and over again). Final point, for now anyway, about that feeling of going around and around. Some of us go around in order to secure a better or at least re-newed understanding of source material like Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. This leads to arguments over interpretation of their texts. This also leads into arguments and discussions about how this or that stream of Marxism was led astray and led others astray in its errancy from said source texts. On the other hand, some of us like such issues because not only do we want to show our knowledge (or lack of , or lapses in memory of) of source texts, we want to work out in some original or at least underappreciated way fresh philosophical insights about the issues. If we can't go as far backward or as far forward (depending on your perspective) as Althusser on something like 'objective vs. subjective', aren't we going to be a bit stale -- if not obtuse and ignorant? Or did the fact that Althusser suffered from depression and even psychosis and murdered his wife-- and then also said things like when he was doing his peak work he was actually just bullshitting and stealing ideas from his students--does that negate the potential of discussing his work? Or is it absurd to say that the reason we should take statements like that seriously is because we never could take anything he ever said or wrote seriously in the first place? Sometimes the sentiments and goals get all mixed together and confused. I feel a new insight about Althusser's misreading of Lenin's misreading of Marx's misreading of Hegelcoming on. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Health care reform law and 'states' rights'
I saw that no sooner had they finished one of the votes in the House that commentary on TV was turning to state AG's challenging the so-called reform on the basis of states' rights--such as the AG of Utah. I don't see how it violates states' rights (unless the law of the land is that only states can violate individual rights and not the federal government--such as slavery, Jim Crow South, union-busting/right to work states). But the interesting aspect to the new law is that it seems to require individuals (as defined under the law, including small businesses and corporations) to purchase health care coverage from for-profit non-government providers. I have been trying to think of a precedent for this and can't. It would be similar to the Republican-Democratic initiative to re-make social security into individual retirement accounts that have to be invested into 'markets' through for-profit funds. But that hasn't taken place yet. OTOH, if the health care mandate succeeds, I suppose it could be used to push forward with 'market reform' of social security. As bullshit as this health care reform is, it seems to have created a potential constitutional crisis. Of course as for expanding federal aid to those who can't afford to buy health cover, the Republican tactic will be to take back Congress and pass new laws. They will no doubt increase subsidies to for-profit providers and big pharmaceuticals while cutting 'entitlements' to individuals. As for what the new law does, if it survives and if the Democrats control Congress and the WH for awhile, all it does it keep the for-profit health care bubble going for another 5 years. Let's see, as for keeping bubbles going: 1. real estate--still going through all that 'liqudity' and the federal government owning Freddie and Fannie 2. post-secondary education--still going through all that 'liquidity' and the ability of the 'system' to exploit the labor of graduate assistants, part-timers and adjunct faculty 3. stocks and bonds--still going through all that 'liqudity' and all that debt being peddled as bonds 4. so add 'health care' to the list of Obamaccompishments About the only way the changes in health care could result in something 'progressive' would be for a big health care provider, despite all that government subsidy, to go bust and have to be taken over the way so many other things have been taken over by the federal government in the past 2 years. Then the federal government could run the federally owned health care provider with the same sort of practical mandate as it does Freddie and Fannie. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] WL's glossary--a suggestion
Why don't we put up the latest version of this at googledocs and collaborate, 'wiki-style', on it? Then it could be published as a blog or wiki. Might prove after all that has been said that this list's regulars can work together on something? Discussing it over an old-fashioned list like this probably won't get very far. 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] To Socialism! How?
RD: >>It seems everybody these days, however, is engaged in attempts to characterize the capitalist system today and a perspective to struggle beyond it. << It seems to me though that everybody is doing so in order to admonish capitalists and their managers to do better capitalism, etc. blah blah. Meanwhile we have 'socialists' telling us its our duty to collaborate with still yet another warpig bullshit artist politician (this time because his of his skin color--Obama transcends Gore and Kerry because he is 'black'). A good point about the 'post-modernist horseshit' might be that no matter how rooted in real-world struggles and communicative interchange this stuff was in 1960-1980 (or in the elite education of these 'thinkers' that took place in the 1940s and 1950s), it comes off as obscurantist bullshit because we don't really know the people who wrote this stuff, the people and texts they were constantly referring to, or the political struggles of France and Italy at the time. Can we, for example, really know how seriously Guattari took Lacan or how dismissive Deleuze was of Lacan and why? Or why Negri thinks post-modernism is horseshit while you think Negri is a post-modernist horse turd, etc.? The same could be said for using 'Soviet' terms to characterize mostly marginal struggles in American left-wing politics of the 1920-1930s. The same could be said for the Russian Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union. The same, in fact, could be said for Marx-Engels. It's horseshit if we can't understand it. 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
In a message dated 3/23/2010 2:11:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: Dave Moore: "Carry on" Reply Yep, that the flavor. You know more than you think. We simply have a different place in a division of labor. The things I cannot do I go on line and ask for help. What is needed is a federation of revolutionaries. No one has to surrender their particular ideological and theory bent. Fuck calling things a "Popular Front" or a "united Front." If you do not do work in the electoral arena, then shut the fuck up. Accept the reports of comrade who are involved in this work and then form an opinion. In Detroit we have always discovered the means and ways to flow together and this includes the Trotskyist crew. I never hated on Debs Hall or the SWP work. I do have a very strong opinion, but it is not relevant in real work. Adhere to your group. So what! That is the point of a federation. We take Lenin the wrong way, although he has been dead for a very long time. And yes, Dave Moore is part of a production line of literature in progress. WL. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
> > CB: My buddy, Bob King. > > Comment > > > Bob's cool and at this point see himself as a one time president. He has > invited all and anyone to come forth with new proposition on what to do in > the fight for the life of the trade union movement. This includes the Reds > and especially the Reds because no one else is in motion. > > Life is funny. Life is funny and the connections are historical for the > working class. Bob King did his apprenticeship under my dad. Yep. We have > watched his career from day one. Brother retired with 40 years seniority and > 15 > as an International Representative of the UAW, so as a collective you and > I know everyone. CB: You definitely know the UAW better than I. From my limited knowledge, I'd say King has the potential for moving the union to more of a struggle position, especially in these objective conditions. ^ > > The inexorable loop of life asserts itself. it is our time, right now. And > our fight for the unity of a real class in real time is going to rewrite > our history. > > This shits more exiting than a one man band. > > The fear of Bob King is this: "Will he be to intellectual to lead the union > along another path." CB: Yeah, He's a lawyer (smile). He sure was at a lot of demonstrations in the past. That's how he got to know me. ^^^ > > This is a real fear not to be belittled. The only reason the historically > reactionary mutherfuckers - "I don't reason books but know everyone in my > district and what they want and need" can be defeated is the depths of the > economic crisis at this defining moment - as Obama puts things. ^^^ CB: Yeah, the objective conditions might push King to the left , and his relatively left background might mean he doesn't resist the push. He's from Detroit. The past couple of Presidents were from Grand Rapids and somewhere else, no ? ^ > > We are roughly at 1920 at a higher lever. What is different is that the > communists forces are not predominately foreign born as was the case in 1919. > This is in the context of 343,000 auto workers of whom 70 - 75% were > native born. Yet, by 1923 the first auto workers union had been formed. > > What did they do and how did they do this? This was under conditions of the > Palmer Raids ad witch hunts. Phil Raymond, Party organizer in Detroit in the 20's. Carl Winter organizer of the Ford Hunger March THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE AUTO WORKERS UNIONS. By Roger Keeran ...by W Licht - 1981 Communist influence in the automobile industry, 1920-1933: Paving the way for an industrial union http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a794722520&db=all ^^^ > > I reject the specific Leninist form and not political Leninism. ^^^ CB: I don't know (Rather Ralph doesn't know;smile) Seems to me democratic centralism is common sense. What sense does it make to say nobody has to abide by the decisions of the majority ? Why make any decisions ? How can anything be done without that unity in action ? You might as well not all be in the same party . Bourgeois parties operate on democratic centralism. The US Dems and Reps have democratic centralism. Russia didn't have or just got political parties at the time Lenin wrote WITBD, because it was an _absolute_ monarchy. All Lenin was doing was teaching the Russian working class the rudiments of a party in a democracy. The characterization of his democratic centralism as something unique to the Bolsheviks is not accurate. What specifically do you reject in the Leninist form.? ^^^ > > Now is the time to be bold. > > Let us march on til victory is won > > > Proletarians Unite. > > WL > ^^^ CB: Dave Moore: "Carry on" > ___ 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] Role of the individual in history:
Role of the individual in history: Individuals have roles in life big and small. The concept of the “role of the individual” defines the place of the individual within the objective, material processes going on in the world, a country, their community and identifies his or her active role in the change process. The individuals whose particular character offers what is required of a given stage or moment of history, or in a particular situation, moves the situation and history forward, influences the form it takes, and offers the context for the masses to play their part more fully in making history. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject):: correction
In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:44:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, waistli...@aol.com writes: Let us march on til victory is won Proletarians Unite. Correction Let us march on til victory is one! Proletarians Unite. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:28:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: My buddy, Bob King. Comment Bob's cool and at this point see himself as a one time president. He has invited all and anyone to come forth with new proposition on what to do in the fight for the life of the trade union movement. This includes the Reds and especially the Reds because no one else is in motion. Life is funny. Life is funny and the connections are historical for the working class. Bob King did his apprenticeship under my dad. Yep. We have watched his career from day one. Brother retired with 40 years seniority and 15 as an International Representative of the UAW, so as a collective you and I know everyone. The inexorable loop of life asserts itself. it is our time, right now. And our fight for the unity of a real class in real time is going to rewrite our history. This shits more exiting than a one man band. The fear of Bob King is this: "Will he be to intellectual to lead the union along another path." This is a real fear not to be belittled. The only reason the historically reactionary mutherfuckers - "I don't reason books but know everyone in my district and what they want and need" can be defeated is the depths of the economic crisis at this defining moment - as Obama puts things. We are roughly at 1920 at a higher lever. What is different is that the communists forces are not predominately foreign born as was the case in 1919. This is in the context of 343,000 auto workers of whom 70 - 75% were native born. Yet, by 1923 the first auto workers union had been formed. What did they do and how did they do this? This was under conditions of the Palmer Raids ad witch hunts. I reject the specific Leninist form and not political Leninism. Now is the time to be bold. Let us march on til victory is won Proletarians Unite. WL ___ 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] To Socialism! How?
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:36:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > cb31...@gmail.com writes: > > CB; What are more of the specifics of Stalin's approach ? > > Reply > > Check out his articles in the 1920's on strategy and tactic of Russian > communist and Concerning the question of strategy and tactics. ^ CB: Just give me a brief summary. What are the main concepts ? > > I think strategy and tactics will be left alone and opt out for the concept > of "line of march." The fear is that in 3 to five years we will be beyond > this is the real life process. > > WL. CB: Well, lets plan away. We all know that the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. No harm is taking a chance on planning. But one human difference is that we plan. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
> > CB: Lenin defines materialism as the belief in the existence of > objective reality, objective reality being defined as you do above. > > Reply > > This mans go. ^ CB: I don't understand these words (smile) ^^^ > > This glossary is being produced under the name Retried Workers Educational > Forum, but this could change based solely on what is marketable. > Everyone's contribution is going to be noted without question. > > Have not touched base with you since coming back in October because I have > been on jam. Looks like Mack I and Mack Ii engine plant will be closed. > :Less than 200 workers in both plants. Expansion at Jefferson planned. > Sterling Assembly got a new lease on life. Ford is of course making money. > The > Ford workers rejected their contract and things are to come. UAW > Constitutional Convention in June. New President to be elected. CBTU > Convention coming > up. Not for me but my brother will attend. Maybe some new life can be > breathed into TULC; they just remodeled the joint. Lots of thangs happening > including closing 44 schools in Detroit! ^^^ No" to a financial dictator on the City by Shields Green The unelected emergency financial manager at the Detroit Public Schools system has demonstrated dictatorial characteristics. We must preempt the threat of a financial dictator over the City of Detroit. A financial manager usurps the powers of democratically elected officials, in order to give priority to financial and Wall street interests over the interests of city workers and citizens' city services. But are city officials to blame for Detroit's financial and economic crisis, such that their powers should be handed to a financial dictator who represents private power ? We live in a private enterprise system. This means that private business leaders, not public officials, make the decisions that determine the ups and downs of our economy. Detroit's financial crisis is rooted in the problems of the city's auto-dependent economy. The news media ignores this fact. Most recently, it has successfully promoted a big lie in much of the public's minds: that City Council members' alleged dishonesty and incompetence are the cause of the city's deficit. This finally had a significant effect in this November's election. The canard that the City Council is or was largely unfit caught on with more voters than in the past. The result was five new Council members, and a new mayor. But they are facing exactly the same problem as their predecessors. And so will any "financial manager." Where should the money come from to fix Detroit's deficit? The federal government. I say that without any hesitation. If Wall Street could be bailed out to the tune of $11 trillion (as reported by the Financial Times several months ago; the amount is probably more than that by now), Detroit can be bailed out for $300 million or $400 million, or more. Let me see if I can get the math precisely; check my decimal points. I get that $400 million is around one 20,000th of $11 trillion. Uh, can you spare one 20,000th of what you gave the rich bankers? And you gave it to them, so we want it as a gift, not a loan. Bail out Detroit as Wall Street was bailed out! Notice that the biggest boys in the private sector were more broke than Detroit, and they were bailed out by the mythically inefficient public sector, Big Gov'ment. Some of that federal money (that they gave the Wall Street banks) is our tax money, money from the people of Detroit. On another aspect of this mess, the main adverse effect of an emergency financial manager in Detroit will be mass firing and wage and benefit reductions for Detroit city workers. If I might be allowed a little poetic license I'd channel former Mayor Coleman A. Young: Bump that! If they can give the motherscratchers who bankrupted Wall Street mega-bonuses, they can continue to pay basic wages and benefits to Detroit workers, who provide average Americans with services at least as important as financial services. City worker jobs, government jobs, public jobs are real jobs. Detroiters need jobs especially right now, decent jobs with good benefits. Detroit workers losing jobs will add to the city's deficit because of lost taxes from income and property. It will, of course, put more Detroiters into economic dire straights. The Reaganite story that "government is big and bad, and free enterprise is lean and mean" has been exposed as a big lie by the bankruptcy of the private sector's largest corporations in the last years. The "system threatening" bankruptcies of Wall Street and General Motors should put an end to the notion of private enterprise's superiority to public enterprise. The trouble is that the Press (oh ye, of Bill of Rights fame) is privatized. Speaking of "privatized," a big portion of the City of Detroit's work is done in privatized contracts, a whole other can of worms by which a larger percentage of taxpayers' money goes to private pro
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:01:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > cb31...@gmail.com writes: > > CB: Lenin defines materialism as the belief in the existence of > objective reality, objective reality being defined as you do above. > > Reply > > This mans go. > > This glossary is being produced under the name Retried Workers Educational > Forum, but this could change based solely on what is marketable. > Everyone's contribution is going to be noted without question. > > Have not touched base with you since coming back in October because I have > been on jam. Looks like Mack I and Mack Ii engine plant will be closed. > :Less than 200 workers in both plants. Expansion at Jefferson planned. > Sterling Assembly got a new lease on life. Ford is of course making money. > The > Ford workers rejected their contract and things are to come. UAW > Constitutional Convention in June. New President to be elected. ^^^ CB: My buddy, Bob King. ^ CBTU Convention coming > up. Not for me but my brother will attend. Maybe some new life can be > breathed into TULC; they just remodeled the joint. ^^^ CB: Yeah. I went to a Christmas Party Lots of thangs happening > including closing 44 schools in Detroit! CB: Emergency financial manager, financial dictator. Bing wants to "shrink" the City services, abandon sections. No emergency financial manager for Detroit ^^^ > > 27,000 energy cut off. New deaths every week. A new section of workers > entering the struggle. We have to tell the truth and something more than black > and white unite and fight. ^^^ CB: See Danny Rubin on strategy and tactics (smile) Read the Michigan Citizen ^ We are class brothers ands sisters. > > I love this shit. > > WL. > ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
Ralph Dumain wrote: > More to the point about the nature of capitalism: > not only private property, but the separation of > the worker from implements of production, control > of labor process, and ultimately from knowledge > and skills. Role of technological deployment in > reducing worker to appendage of machines, etc. CB: Oh, yeah, Engels doesn't understand any of that > > I'll have to see what else has been written on > negation of negation that is usable. Engels' use > of concept in dialectics of nature is total confusion and nonsense. ^^^ CB; It's so funny how Ralph always makes know-it-all, conclusory assertions like this, but never, and I mean _never_ bothers to make arguments for his conclusions. Ralph :"uhhh, take my word for it. I know".Right. Engels is confused and Ralph is clearheaded (laugh). ^ > > I believe that Stalin omitted negation of > negation and others approved of this. > > > At 01:22 PM 3/23/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 3/23/2010 10:40:21 A.M. > >Pacific Daylight Time, _cb31...@gmail.com_ > >(mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: CB: He says > >"capitalist production... begets its own > >negation. WL: Correct. What is capitalist > >production if not bourgeois private property? I > >am aware of the sharp differences within Marxism > >on this issue. Marxism of all stripes contend > >that the negation capitalist production begets > >is the proletariat. What is the proletariat? A > >property relation expressed as the workers > >owning their labor ability in a world of private > >ownership of means of production. On this basis > >I contend that Marx is speaking fundamentally of > >a property form being negated. Her is also > >speaking of a quantitative aspect of > >property development wherein one capitalist > >negates - kills many. Monopoly negates - kills, > >“less many.†> CB: What is the > >qualitative change in means of production > >that Marx mentions in the quote ? WL: You got > >me there my friend. None. However you have > >quoted this passage enough to know its this > >segment of Marx is 1294 words including > >footnotes. Marx is speaking of a new mode of > >production taking root based on a > >qualitative change in the means of production > >and corresponding change in property. A > >new reader will not know this from this passage > >but there is an index called “industrial > >revolution.†My fear is writing something > >that only “us †old heads will make sense > >or nonsense out of. X Negation of > >the > negation signifies the preservation of the > >specific quality of the > contradiction > >pinpointed as the point of departure - > >the starting point of a > motion. CB: Elaborate > >this thought. WL. This is fully elaborated in > >the example of advanced communist society based > >on a post industrial development and > >“withering away of the state†will express > >a negation of the negation as a return to the > >quality called primitive communism - non > >property in means of production. This is not to > >say the draft is internally cohesion enough with > >the proper flow. The problem is that form is > >not separated from quality in reality. > >* Negation of the negation is > not > >a universal law of dialectics but rather an > >expression of the > dialectic of change. (see > >Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic > >element.) ^^^ CB: What dialectic is not a > >"dialectic of change" ? WL: I am still fighting > >with Gould’s Marxist Glossary which list > >“negation of the negation†as one of the > >“laws†of dialectics. When I put down my > >boxing gloves the above sentence is not needed > >at all. > >___ > >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 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 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:01:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: Lenin defines materialism as the belief in the existence of objective reality, objective reality being defined as you do above. Reply This mans go. This glossary is being produced under the name Retried Workers Educational Forum, but this could change based solely on what is marketable. Everyone's contribution is going to be noted without question. Have not touched base with you since coming back in October because I have been on jam. Looks like Mack I and Mack Ii engine plant will be closed. :Less than 200 workers in both plants. Expansion at Jefferson planned. Sterling Assembly got a new lease on life. Ford is of course making money. The Ford workers rejected their contract and things are to come. UAW Constitutional Convention in June. New President to be elected. CBTU Convention coming up. Not for me but my brother will attend. Maybe some new life can be breathed into TULC; they just remodeled the joint. Lots of thangs happening including closing 44 schools in Detroit! 27,000 energy cut off. New deaths every week. A new section of workers entering the struggle. We have to tell the truth and something more than black and white unite and fight. We are class brothers ands sisters. I love this shit. WL. ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > Objective & Subjective (object and subject):: > > object refers to everything outside the human mind or the subject as human. > Reality, say a tree, an automobile or the sun has an objective existence > outside the human mind or the life of the human mind, not requiring or > owning its existence to the mind. Marxism contends that social system - > capitalism, and things existing outside the mind have an objective existence > and > contains objective laws of operations. > > Things exist in reality as objects unto themselves, interwoven into the > fabric of reality, but independent of the ‘observer’ or subject and their > subjective understanding at a given moment. In recognition of the inherent > subjective limitations of the individual human mind, we say "keep an open > mind." None of this is meant to imply we do not react upon things in our > environment as they in turn react upon us. ^^^ CB: Lenin defines materialism as the belief in the existence of objective reality, objective reality being defined as you do above. > > This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from > _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ > (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.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 > ___ 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] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
Objective & Subjective (object and subject):: object refers to everything outside the human mind or the subject as human. Reality, say a tree, an automobile or the sun has an objective existence outside the human mind or the life of the human mind, not requiring or owning its existence to the mind. Marxism contends that social system - capitalism, and things existing outside the mind have an objective existence and contains objective laws of operations. Things exist in reality as objects unto themselves, interwoven into the fabric of reality, but independent of the ‘observer’ or subject and their subjective understanding at a given moment. In recognition of the inherent subjective limitations of the individual human mind, we say "keep an open mind." None of this is meant to imply we do not react upon things in our environment as they in turn react upon us. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.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] To Socialism! How?
In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:36:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB; What are more of the specifics of Stalin's approach ? Reply Check out his articles in the 1920's on strategy and tactic of Russian communist and Concerning the question of strategy and tactics. I think strategy and tactics will be left alone and opt out for the concept of "line of march." The fear is that in 3 to five years we will be beyond this is the real life process. WL. ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:30:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: I'll have to see what else has been written on negation of negation that is usable. Engels' use of concept in dialectics of nature is total confusion and nonsense. I believe that Stalin omitted negation of negation and others approved of this. Reply The Soviet Textbook of Marxist Philosophy devotes an entire chapter to this called : The Law of the Negation of the Negation. In this is quoted almost all of the "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation." "negation emerges as a moment in the conflict of oppositions . . ." blah blah Don't get me wrong I think the text is alright for 1937 and as what happens to most writings on dialectics, beam outdated the moment it was read. Negation of negation was included for to reasons: Marx and Engels presents this proposition and there is going to be a dozen source notes to their writings. Two, I got scared it would become a source of a needless ass kicking. No matter how good or bad the end product, no one that has matured in the Marxist movement is going to like it. 5,000 proletarians, predominately white, who are going to be introduced to Marxism are going to be fucking blown away. Why else would a Marxist glossary begin with abolition and then precede to the American Revolution? If it was easy there would be scores of Marxist glossaries in America. WL. ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/23/2010 10:40:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: > > CB: He says "capitalist production... begets its own negation. > > WL: Correct. What is capitalist production if not bourgeois private > property? CB: Good question. Have to think about that. Yes, I'd say bourgeois private property = wagelabor/capital relations of production. Property is a form of relations of production. So, anyway , if bourgeois private property is capitalist production, then Marx's statement above is synomymous with " bourgeois private property ...begets its own negation." ^ I am aware of the sharp differences within Marxism on this issue. > Marxism of all stripes contend that the negation capitalist production begets > is > the proletariat. What is the proletariat? A property relation expressed as > the workers owning their labor ability in a world of private ownership of > means of production. ^ CB: In the passage you quote, the first negation is of individual private property, i.e. of the peasant, as in the socalled primitive accumulation. "This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor." It results in capitalist production or bourgeois private property. The "second" negation, or negation of negation , is a negation of bourgeois private property. But that "results" in the proletariat , wagelaborers as wagelabor in relations to capital. So, I'd say the proletariat results from the first negation, not the negation of negation, not the negation of capitalist production. ^ > > On this basis I contend that Marx is speaking fundamentally of a property > form being negated. Her is also speaking of a quantitative aspect of > property development wherein one capitalist negates - kills many. Monopoly > negates > - kills, “less many.” CB: Agree. Interesting your pointing to the "many and the few" as quantity. Yes, nice idea. Lenin notes in _Imperialism_ that monopoly is a preparation for socialism ^^^ > > > > > > CB: What is the qualitative change in means of production that Marx > mentions in the quote ? > > WL: You got me there my friend. None. However you have quoted this passage > enough to know its this segment of Marx is 1294 words including footnotes. > Marx is speaking of a new mode of production taking root based on a > qualitative change in the means of production and corresponding change in > property. A new reader will not know this from this passage but there is an > index > called “industrial revolution.” My fear is writing something that only “us > ” old heads will make sense or nonsense out of. ^ CB: How about a qualitative change in the relations of production, the property relation, a negation of the wagelabor/capital relationship. > > > X > > Negation of the > > negation signifies the preservation of the specific quality of the > > contradiction pinpointed as the point of departure - the starting point > of a > > motion. > > CB: Elaborate this thought. > > > WL. This is fully elaborated in the example of advanced communist society > based on a post industrial development and “withering away of the state” > will express a negation of the negation as a return to the quality called > primitive communism - non property in means of production. ^ CB: Well, an old head might get this, but elaborate it for a new head. Make it plain ! By the way, Marx, in your quote refers to "socialized property" not "non-property". "The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into _socialized property_ (emphasis added -CB). In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2]" _Production_ is already extremely socialized by capitalism as compared with all previous modes of production. Ownership is private (private property). The main contradiction of capitalism is that production is social but ownership is private. This is the contradiction that moves , causes the change to socialism or socialized property. It is the motive for the negation of the negation. It is the dialectic of the change to socialism MAYBE (smile) ^ > > This is not to say the draft is internally cohesion enough with the proper > flow. The problem is that form is not separated from quality in reality. > > * > > Negation of the negation is > > not a universal law of dialectics but rather an expression of the > > dialectic of change. (see Dialectics, quantity, quality, the > antagonistic element.)
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] To Socialism! How?
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:03:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > cb31...@gmail.com writes: > CB; Strategy deals with the "wide", the biggest context, the "general". > > Strategy > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy > > Comment > > I prefer Stalin's definition and both articles on Strategy and hold he > defines its field of operations. > Really. Probably will use his definition with some tweeks if there is an > index called strategy and tactics. > > WL. CB; What are more of the specifics of Stalin's approach ? > > ___ > 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 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
More to the point about the nature of capitalism: not only private property, but the separation of the worker from implements of production, control of labor process, and ultimately from knowledge and skills. Role of technological deployment in reducing worker to appendage of machines, etc. I'll have to see what else has been written on negation of negation that is usable. Engels' use of concept in dialectics of nature is total confusion and nonsense. I believe that Stalin omitted negation of negation and others approved of this. At 01:22 PM 3/23/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/23/2010 10:40:21 A.M. >Pacific Daylight Time, _cb31...@gmail.com_ >(mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: CB: He says >"capitalist production... begets its own >negation. WL: Correct. What is capitalist >production if not bourgeois private property? I >am aware of the sharp differences within Marxism >on this issue. Marxism of all stripes contend >that the negation capitalist production begets >is the proletariat. What is the proletariat? A >property relation expressed as the workers >owning their labor ability in a world of private >ownership of means of production. On this basis >I contend that Marx is speaking fundamentally of >a property form being negated. Her is also >speaking of a quantitative aspect of >property development wherein one capitalist >negates - kills many. Monopoly negates - kills, >âless many.â > CB: What is the >qualitative change in means of production >that Marx mentions in the quote ? WL: You got >me there my friend. None. However you have >quoted this passage enough to know its this >segment of Marx is 1294 words including >footnotes. Marx is speaking of a new mode of >production taking root based on a >qualitative change in the means of production >and corresponding change in property. A >new reader will not know this from this passage >but there is an index called âindustrial >revolution.â My fear is writing something >that only âus â old heads will make sense >or nonsense out of. X Negation of >the > negation signifies the preservation of the >specific quality of the > contradiction >pinpointed as the point of departure - >the starting point of a > motion. CB: Elaborate >this thought. WL. This is fully elaborated in >the example of advanced communist society based >on a post industrial development and >âwithering away of the stateâ will express >a negation of the negation as a return to the >quality called primitive communism - non >property in means of production. This is not to >say the draft is internally cohesion enough with >the proper flow. The problem is that form is >not separated from quality in reality. >* Negation of the negation is > not >a universal law of dialectics but rather an >expression of the > dialectic of change. (see >Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic >element.) ^^^ CB: What dialectic is not a >"dialectic of change" ? WL: I am still fighting >with Gouldâs Marxist Glossary which list >ânegation of the negationâ as one of the >âlawsâ of dialectics. When I put down my >boxing gloves the above sentence is not needed >at all. >___ >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 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] To Socialism! How?
In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:03:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB; Strategy deals with the "wide", the biggest context, the "general". Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy Comment I prefer Stalin's definition and both articles on Strategy and hold he defines its field of operations. Really. Probably will use his definition with some tweeks if there is an index called strategy and tactics. WL. ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
In a message dated 3/23/2010 10:40:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: CB: He says "capitalist production... begets its own negation. WL: Correct. What is capitalist production if not bourgeois private property? I am aware of the sharp differences within Marxism on this issue. Marxism of all stripes contend that the negation capitalist production begets is the proletariat. What is the proletariat? A property relation expressed as the workers owning their labor ability in a world of private ownership of means of production. On this basis I contend that Marx is speaking fundamentally of a property form being negated. Her is also speaking of a quantitative aspect of property development wherein one capitalist negates - kills many. Monopoly negates - kills, “less many.” > CB: What is the qualitative change in means of production that Marx mentions in the quote ? WL: You got me there my friend. None. However you have quoted this passage enough to know its this segment of Marx is 1294 words including footnotes. Marx is speaking of a new mode of production taking root based on a qualitative change in the means of production and corresponding change in property. A new reader will not know this from this passage but there is an index called “industrial revolution.” My fear is writing something that only “us ” old heads will make sense or nonsense out of. X Negation of the > negation signifies the preservation of the specific quality of the > contradiction pinpointed as the point of departure - the starting point of a > motion. CB: Elaborate this thought. WL. This is fully elaborated in the example of advanced communist society based on a post industrial development and “withering away of the state” will express a negation of the negation as a return to the quality called primitive communism - non property in means of production. This is not to say the draft is internally cohesion enough with the proper flow. The problem is that form is not separated from quality in reality. * Negation of the negation is > not a universal law of dialectics but rather an expression of the > dialectic of change. (see Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic element.) ^^^ CB: What dialectic is not a "dialectic of change" ? WL: I am still fighting with Gould’s Marxist Glossary which list “negation of the negation” as one of the “laws” of dialectics. When I put down my boxing gloves the above sentence is not needed at all. ___ 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] To Socialism! How?
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/23/2010 8:28:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > waistli...@aol.com writes: > > "Here a definition of strategy I will not be using." > > CB: Because ? > > > Reply > > WL. It defines the context of strategy as how to get to socialism, rather > than > a line of march to pursue given one historically specific boundary. ^^^ CB: I like "how to get to socialism" better. ^^^ > > Comment > > That is I have absolutely no clue as to how to achieve the first stage of > economic communism in America -socialism. The path and form of our > proletarian revolution has not presented itself - at least in my mind, yet. > During > the Obama campaign I did not the emergence of OAR's - open air rallies, > involving 60,000 - 80,000 people, which was off the scale and outside any of > my > experience. > > I do have a line of march along the path articulating the demands of the > working class from the standpoint if its most poverty stricken sector. > Consider: 60% of our working class makes $14 an hour and less. Before taxes > $560 > a week or $29,120 pre tax earning. Line of march means engaging this > section of the working class and bringing it into all kinds of organization > including organizations of revolutionaries. Not Leninist organizations. > Strategy > within this line of march deals with determining where one is going to > throw their main blow or concentrate their forces "doing what." > > Fighting for socialism as a context is to wide for me. CB; Strategy deals with the "wide", the biggest context, the "general". Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word is of military origin, deriving from the Greek word strategos, which roughly translates as general.[1] In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics. > > Fighting for a communist gravity well is pretty easy. A communist gravity > well means the actual demands this designated section of the workers are > spontaneously raising. A communist gravity well or fighting for a communist > polarity does not mean fighting for Marxism or to abolish private property > in the here and now, which is the same as saying "fighting for socialism," or > the "road to socialism." CB: The strategy now is how to achieve socialism, the widest goal. Tactics deal with stages leadign to the wider goal. > > I admire anyone that sees the path and or road to socialism from right now > March 23, 2010 America. ^^^ CB: Well, "strategy for winning socialism. ^^^ > > An important aspect of communist strategy within line of march is > propaganda. Propaganda comes first and foremost along with a sustain fight to > build > up a class ideology. One for all and all for one kind of thing. By that is > meant developing and distributing ones party press and literature, written > to exactly match the moment. Yes, I have a strategy but not a strategy as > the author in question conceives the road to socialism. ^^^ CB: What's your strategy ? > > Plus, how you gonna have a real strategy within a shift load of social > forces in contention and within ones organization, allowing one to make an > assessment of the contending forces? . > > WL. > > > ___ > 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 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] To Socialism! How?
In a message dated 3/23/2010 8:28:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, waistli...@aol.com writes: "Here a definition of strategy I will not be using." CB: Because ? Reply WL. It defines the context of strategy as how to get to socialism, rather than a line of march to pursue given one historically specific boundary. Comment That is I have absolutely no clue as to how to achieve the first stage of economic communism in America -socialism. The path and form of our proletarian revolution has not presented itself - at least in my mind, yet. During the Obama campaign I did not the emergence of OAR's - open air rallies, involving 60,000 - 80,000 people, which was off the scale and outside any of my experience. I do have a line of march along the path articulating the demands of the working class from the standpoint if its most poverty stricken sector. Consider: 60% of our working class makes $14 an hour and less. Before taxes $560 a week or $29,120 pre tax earning. Line of march means engaging this section of the working class and bringing it into all kinds of organization including organizations of revolutionaries. Not Leninist organizations. Strategy within this line of march deals with determining where one is going to throw their main blow or concentrate their forces "doing what." Fighting for socialism as a context is to wide for me. Fighting for a communist gravity well is pretty easy. A communist gravity well means the actual demands this designated section of the workers are spontaneously raising. A communist gravity well or fighting for a communist polarity does not mean fighting for Marxism or to abolish private property in the here and now, which is the same as saying "fighting for socialism," or the "road to socialism." I admire anyone that sees the path and or road to socialism from right now March 23, 2010 America. An important aspect of communist strategy within line of march is propaganda. Propaganda comes first and foremost along with a sustain fight to build up a class ideology. One for all and all for one kind of thing. By that is meant developing and distributing ones party press and literature, written to exactly match the moment. Yes, I have a strategy but not a strategy as the author in question conceives the road to socialism. Plus, how you gonna have a real strategy within a shift load of social forces in contention and within ones organization, allowing one to make an assessment of the contending forces? . WL. ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > Negation of Negation: > > A concept describing the shape and motion of change, wherein one stage of > development replaces a previous stage and preserves the form of its > predecessor. Negation of the negation is a wide concept of the shape and > motion of > quantitative and qualitative change in nature and society. Marx presents > the equation as thus: > > "The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of > production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first > negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the > proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a > law of > Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. ^ CB: Excellent example. I presented this in argument with Rosa L, when she claimed that Marx didn't use any dialectics. ^^^ This does not > re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual > property > based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and > the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. > > The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual > labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, > incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the > transformation of > capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized > production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the > expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we > have the > expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2] > > _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm_ > (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm) > > In Marx description above, private property does not negate or abolish > private property. ^ CB: He says "capitalist production... begets its own negation. ^^^ Rather, the form of private property is negated in > correspondence with qualitative changes in the means of production. ^ CB: What is the qualitative change in means of production that Marx mentions in the quote ? ^ Negation of the > negation signifies the preservation of the specific quality of the > contradiction pinpointed as the point of departure - the starting point of a > motion. CB: Elaborate this thought. ^ > > One can make anything the negation and negation of the negation of another > thing. For instance, one mode of production negation the previously > existing mode of production. The new displacing mode of production contains > within itself its unique quality begetting its own negation. Likewise, one > quantitative stage negates the stage from which it arises in an endless > series > of negations. > > Since life is specific, it is best to be specific and define the process in > question and how one quality leaps to another qualitative reformation. > > In the wide sense of the motion - direction of society, primitive communism > is our starting point. Private property negates the primitive public > property relations. Private property passing through all its stages > quantitative > stages of development and qualitative stages of modes of production, > founded on private property. > > Economic communism, founded on qualitatively new means of production, is > called "primitive communism" at a higher level or the negation of the > negation or a description of the motion of a gigantic historical process, > resulting in the reestablishment of public property. CB: This is a big thought in Marx and Engels idea. It doesn't get mentioned much. ^^^ Negation of the negation is > not a universal law of dialectics but rather an expression of the > dialectic of change. (see Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic > element.) ^^^ CB: What dialectic is not a "dialectic of change" ? > ___ 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] Negation of the negation: let try this out
Negation of Negation: A concept describing the shape and motion of change, wherein one stage of development replaces a previous stage and preserves the form of its predecessor. Negation of the negation is a wide concept of the shape and motion of quantitative and qualitative change in nature and society. Marx presents the equation as thus: "The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2] _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm) In Marx description above, private property does not negate or abolish private property. Rather, the form of private property is negated in correspondence with qualitative changes in the means of production. Negation of the negation signifies the preservation of the specific quality of the contradiction pinpointed as the point of departure - the starting point of a motion. One can make anything the negation and negation of the negation of another thing. For instance, one mode of production negation the previously existing mode of production. The new displacing mode of production contains within itself its unique quality begetting its own negation. Likewise, one quantitative stage negates the stage from which it arises in an endless series of negations. Since life is specific, it is best to be specific and define the process in question and how one quality leaps to another qualitative reformation. In the wide sense of the motion - direction of society, primitive communism is our starting point. Private property negates the primitive public property relations. Private property passing through all its stages quantitative stages of development and qualitative stages of modes of production, founded on private property. Economic communism, founded on qualitatively new means of production, is called "primitive communism" at a higher level or the negation of the negation or a description of the motion of a gigantic historical process, resulting in the reestablishment of public property. Negation of the negation is not a universal law of dialectics but rather an expression of the dialectic of change. (see Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic element.) This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.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] To Socialism! How?
In a message dated 3/23/2010 4:58:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: Here a definition of strategy I will not be using. > > WL. ^ CB: Because ? Reply It defines the context of strategy as how to get to socialism, rather than a line of march to pursue given one historically specific boundary. WL. ___ 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] To Socialism! How?
Duly noted. WL. In a message dated 3/22/2010 9:37:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: I'll offer a few suggestions nevertheless: ABOLITION: wage slavery is a metaphor. Do you really want to include this under this heading? AMERICAN REVOLUTION; Why do you say that the conclusion of the Vietnam War is the end of the epoch of national liberation? POPULISM: Some more relevant historical info is in order. For example, what happened to populism at the end of the 19th century (Tom Watson). ANARCHISM needs to be fleshed out. ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM: Too abstract & prescriptive. ANTAGONISM needs to be re-done. ANTI-IMPERIALISM: Conclusion about Vietnam War needs to be justified. Also, the periodization 1776-1976 fails to account for what happened in between. For example, the 19th century was still a century of colonial conquest. National liberation movements of central and Eastern Europe were the result of different factors from those in the 20th century colonized world. As the world was ruled by empires, much political thinking was based on that reality. Base (economic) and superstructure: (political): a construct not to be taken literally. Bourgeoisie: . . . To "act bourgeoisie" : I can guess the audience for this colloquialism, but I caution against allowing this to pass uncritically. Chauvinism applies to more than just nations. Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic : Meaning of the term "dialectic" is not clear, nor is it clear why such reference is even needed here. COMMUNIST REVOLUTION: Given the experience of Russia, China, et al, communism must mean more than the abolition of private property. Contradiction: Needs to be revamped. Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic element. Awful. Dialectal materialism: (materialist dialectics) : Godawful. Doctrine and Science: awful. I'll stop here ands await the next draft. This document reads too much like Marxist-Leninist agitprop to me, continuing the bad habits of the past. One must think of the purposes to which this glossary will be put: is it to decipher a restricted set of musty tomes of the past, or to actively and critically engage both past concepts and current perspectives? ___ 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] To Socialism! How?
On 3/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/22/2010 8:13:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: > > Strategy deals with the qualitative turns in the balance of forces that it > is necessary to seek and the class and social forces and political trends > and social movements that can be won for that qualitative turn, and the main > opponent in relation to that turn. Tactics deals with the most useful > issues, demands, forms of struggle and forms of organization to achieve the > alignment of class and social forces, in the first place, necessary to win > the > strategic objective or qualitative turn in the balance of forces. > > > Comment > > Here a definition of strategy I will not be using. > > WL. ^ CB: Because ? > > > > ___ > 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 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] To Socialism! How?
On 3/22/10, Ralph Dumain wrote: > I don't know ^ CB: You would have made an accurate statement if you ended it here. (smile) ___ 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
