Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Milton Rogovin, Working Class Artist and Activist, Presente!
I remember seeing his exhibits in Buffalo decades ago. Glad he made it past 100. I hope Manny Fried beats his record. On 1/20/2011 10:11 AM, c b wrote: Milton Rogovin, Working Class Artist and Activist, Presente! 1. Milton Rogovin, Photographer, Dies at 101 New York Times, January 18, 2010 2. The Working-Class Eye of Milton Rogovin New exhibition - Roosevelt University, Chicago January 20 - June 30, 2011 == Milton Rogovin, Photographer, Dies at 101 by Benjamin Genocchio New York Times January 18, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/arts/design/19rogovin.html Milton Rogovin, an optometrist and persecuted leftist who took up photography as a way to champion the underprivileged and went on to become one of America's most dedicated social documentarians, died on Tuesday at his home in Buffalo. He was 101. ___ 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] Universal Races Congress 1911
This July will mark the centennial of the Universal Races Congress? Does anyone know of any scholarly commemorations in the works? ___ 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] Fundamental difference
This is, however, a superficial analysis of what this is all about. There is, as far as I can tell, a qualitative difference between a quasi-existentialist position like the Biblical narrative of Job and the existentialist sensibility we find from the 19th century on. I imagine one could find comparable pre-modern alternatives in other civilizations. China's Juan Chi, for example, is not far removed from Diogenes. But let's begin with the 19th century and delve into the more distant past another time. A reminder, though, that Existentialism is both a philosophical doctrine and a sensibility. The average person, thank goodness, was usually innocent of the conceptual structure of the doctrine, and absorbed the obviously resonant dimension of existentialism through literature rather than philosophy. The first time I heard this nonsense about essence preceding existence, I thought someone was pulling my leg. But as a teenager I had an existentialist sensibility, which I think is quite suitable for teenagers. The acute consciousness of the individual stripped of traditional supports is progress. But no-one lives in a vacuum. The role of the existential sensibility in one's overall world view and trajectory is vital to understand, as well as the appropriation of the metaphysical/epistemological baggage to support one's projects. The modern period, which of course witnesses the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, the rebellion against feudal authority, clericalism, and metaphysics, and the emergence of the bourgeoisie, also sees the emergence of the individual as a self-conscious entity. This is real progress, which has yet to conquer the whole world as it should. This consciousness of the individual, however, is configured in different ways and has differential relations to the political and to tradition. Both the Enlightenment and Romanticism are witnesses to the emergence of the notion of the autonomous individual. Romanticism (confining my scope to Britain and Germany for the moment) itself embodies contradictory tendencies towards progress and reaction. Dissatisfaction with the social order and the state of humanity goes back to the beginning of all civilization. There is an idealist, utopian dimension to all metaphysics and religion, however reactionary: it prescribes an ideal of what should be while reinforcing what is. As the progress of modernity strips away traditional metaphysical supports, the dissatisfied individual, disillusioned by the corruption of society or the ineluctable prospect of mortality, finds himself alone, acutely conscious of his own condition and alienated from the collective existence of his society. What is new is that the metaphysical and mystical resources of the past no longer provide an outlet valve in a disenchanted cosmos. The conservatively bent, socially privileged intellectual, warring against the hypocrisy and emptiness of official society, needs someplace to go, and when it takes a religious bent, as it did in Kierkegaard, the irrational retreat into the otherworldliness of Christianity is predicated on the thisworldliness of material privilege. Disillusioned conservatives make great literary people and cultural critics up to a point, but their imaginative conceptual constructs are predicated on the same social assumptions of the society whose bounds they need to escape. The smug empiricism of David Hume is quite a different animal, forward looking, in terms of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie from feudal obscurantism, but it's not the Radical Enlightenment. And empiricism had its reactionary incarnation in Berkeley. Already by mid-19th century, one sees the dualism of bourgeois thought encapsulated in the dichotomy of positivism and irrationalism, or if you will, scientism and Romanticism, and by the late 19th century, the dynamic is in full force. It is most clearly revealed in German thought and in the appropriation of German thought elsewhere. Romantic right-wing anti-bourgeois ideology is a virulent form of bourgeois ideology that becomes prominent in the 19th century, but which bears features that make it amenable to the (mostly humanistic, i.e. non-technocratic) left bourgeois intelligentsia. Philosophers, of course, appropriating German thought (and in some cases the Dane Kierkegaard, who is also a product of German thought), also appropriate the metaphysical/epistemic apparatus of existentialism to varying extents and in varying combinations with other intellectual traditions. In the person of Heidegger, existentialism overlaps phenomenology, and both may be taken together or separately. I won't repeat what I wrote about Marcuse and Sartre. The pop existentialism of the postwar period is a mixture, as I have said, of an actual philosophy and as a sensibility loosely tied at best to the conceptual structures even of the popular Sartre. We also know that Sartre, recognizing the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Existentialism, European LIbertarianism
I don't think the analogy between existentialism and libertarianism holds up. I should also point out that there is a strain of left libertarianism that has nothing in common with American libertarianism as we know it. I think of British Solidarity and Noam Chomsky as examples. But our libertarianism is of the Ayn Rand stripe. European existentialism has its left right wing tributaries. The cross-breeding and mutual criticisms of these variants need to be examined. For example, both Marcuse and Sartre drew on Heidegger, but Marcuse was the superior philosopher and quite aptly criticized Sartre in 1948: Existentialism: Remarks on Jean-Paul Sartre's L'Etre et le Neant, /Philosophy and Phenomenological Research/, vol. 8, no. 3 (March 1948), pp. 309-336. http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/40spubs/48hmsartre.pdf?sici=0002-8762%28194904%2954%3A3%3C557%3AEOFAP%3E2.0.CO;2-F Marcuse was hardly guilty of the same fundamental errors of Sartre, who grafted Heideggerian thought onto a Cartesian base. Marcuse's neo-Romantic strain comes from other German philosophers as well as Heidegger. Of course, Marcuse was not an existentialist, but Existentialism itself draws on various sources, and gets transmuted into different orientations in different national configurations and in different tendencies within national contexts. This is true in the USA, where Kierkegaard was appropriated by reactionaries in the 1940s, but there was Richard Wright at the opposite end of the spectrum. And there was mainly a Sartre/Camus influence afterward, which also had a relationship to the civil rights movement. Here the methodological individualism of Sartre--if one wants to call it that--was not a major factor, but the notion of individual responsibility for the social good. But then popular existentialism was never technical philosophical existentialism, which in my view is asinine. On 1/4/2011 12:04 PM, c b wrote: I'm now thinking the Existentialism is European Libertarianism (Or Libertarianism is American Existentialism) They share Individualism as their essential quality. They apothesis The Individual. They fetishize uniqueness. They emphasize our differences rather than our commonalities and unities. Thus, they are , obviously, modern bourgeois philo, resonating with the great mass of alienated individuals; and importantly from the point of view of the ruling class, they theoretically affirm the atomization, division and spintering into a thousand ( a billion) points of light the Working Class. However, Libertarians have the logical sense to be anti-philosophical, and avoid Kierkegard's criticism. As hinted at in Kierkegard's statement, the assertion The Individual is logically contradictory. There is no typical individual, by definition of individual. There is no General Individual. Nietszche is a real piece of work. He is the champion of the ruling classes of all times ( See Geneology of Morals). He criticizes slaves for resenting their masters. I kid you not. Nietszche is a kind of anti-Marx, as I say, championing oppressor classes over oppressed classses _all down through history_. Ubermensch/Supermen are his imagined new master class. Those who Will to Power rule and should rule. Hitler had the right one when he posed with Nietszche's bust, as much as Nietszche fans try to play it that Hitler didn't understand him or whatever. Game knows game. Nietszche , philosopher of _all_ ruling classes in general. Yukko ! An individual person, for Kierkegaard, is a particular that no abstract formula or definition can ever capture. Including the individual in “the public” (or “the crowd” or “the herd”) or subsuming a human being as simply a member of a species is a reduction of the true meaning of life for individuals. What philosophy or politics try to do is to categorize and pigeonhole individuals by group characteristics instead of individual differences. For Kierkegaard, those differences are what make us who we are. Kierkegaard’s critique of the modern age, therefore, is about the loss of what it means to be an individual. Modern society contributes to this dissolution of what it means to be an individual. Through its production of the false idol of “the public”, it diverts attention away from individuals to a mass public that loses itself in abstractions, communal dreams, and fantasies. It is helped in this task by the media and the mass production of products to keep it distracted. Although Kierkegaard attacked “the public”, he is supportive of communities: “In community, the individual is, crucial as the prior condition for forming a community. … Every individual in the community guarantees the community; the public is a chimera, numerality is everything…” – Søren Kierkegaard, Journals ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options
[Marxism-Thaxis] Plekhanov: materialism vs Neo-Kantianism etc. (3)
Plekhanov, Georgi. Materialism or Kantianism http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW2PP/Materialism.or.Kantianism-I, in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 398-414. __. Materialism Yet Again http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW2PP/Materialism.Yet.Again, in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 415-420. Who started this fight, I do not know. Curious so much energy was devoted to generic philosophical issues. Presumably I would have to read more widely to see exactly how this relates to a debate over historical materialism. One can see a precedent for Lenin's later polemics, concerning (1) the battle against phenomenalism, (2) political accusations connected with these philosophical debates. Certainly, the partisans of historical materialism held ground--I don't know else who would have done this at the time--against phenomenalists and dualists, and that is to be applauded. Beyond that, there's the question of what Plekhanov and others may have botched at the same time. __. On Mr. H. Rickert's Book http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW3PP/Rickert [review of: H. Rickert, /Sciences of Nature and Sciences of Culture/] (1911), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. III (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 481-486. Here one sees Plekhanov attacking Rickert's treatment, as well as the dichotomy, of the /Naturwissenschaften/ and the /Geisteswissenschaften/. Plekhanov refutes the reduction of historical materialism to natural-scientific materialism and to economism. He also engages in an argument about Condorcet. Apparently, even Tonnies couldn't take Rickert's distortions. However, after blasting Rickert and his sympathizers, Plekhanove still hasn't specified the exact relationship between the natural and social sciences. Obviously, he sees both a unity and distinction--which was the superior perspective of Marxism--but there remains a question of what the lawfulness of social science consists of. __. On W. Windelband's Book http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW3PP/Windelband [review of Wilhelm Windelband, /Philosophy in the Spiritual Life of Nineteenth-Century Germany/] (1910), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. III (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 419-423. Windelband has recognized that philosophy is a reflection of the state of culture or society, and that the masses have entered history. But . . . Contemporary social life in Western Europe has, in fact, been given a completely new cast as a result of the masses moving forward. But the //author forgot that this onward movement of the popular masses has encountered, and continues to encounter, strong resistance from the upper classes. Once having forgotten this, naturally he also lost sight of the fact that the resistance of the upper classes to the onward movement of the masses was bound to find its reflection in the whole course of Europe's intellectual development, and especially in the history of literature, art and philosophy. Consequently, he has given a quite incorrect interpretation of that preaching of individualism which brought fame to the name of Friedrich Nietzsche. Windelband says: Thus, we are undergoing a levelling down of historical distinctions, and the establishment of a uniformity of life, about which not one of the previous ages in human history had the faintest notion. But from this there now emerges the grave danger that we shall thereby lose what is most valuable, that which, strictly speaking, first constitutes and at all times constituted culture and history, viz.: the life of personality. The sense of this danger pervades deep down the whole spiritual life of the last decades, and bursts out from time to time with passionate energy. Alongside this outwardly magnificently developing material culture there is growing a fervent need for one's own inner life, and together with the democratising and socialising life of the masses there is springing up an ardent opposition of individuals, their upstriving against suppression by the mass, their primitive striving to disburden their own personality (pp. 142--43). The question arises: how can individuals be suppressed by the mass who themselves are suppressed in class-divided capitalist society? It would be a waste of time searching in the book under review for the answer to this inevitable question. Windelband does not want to understand that in so far as modern individualism, which found its most brilliant representative in the person of Friedrich Nietzsche, is a protest against the forward movement of the /mass/, it voices not fear for the rights of /personality/, but fear for /class privileges./ These of course are only snapshots of the ideological tenor of the time. Anyone who wishes
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
This is a commonplace analysis of Descartes critique of the whole epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its rope, what does? Now I'm reminded that I need to take a look at Plekhanov see if he's as bad as I'm told he is. On 12/30/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote: That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge, demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account. There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons were historical rather than philosophical and came from the individualistic model of humanity that played such a pivotal role in the era's project of eliminating feudalism's remnants in thought and social institutions, and the project of justifying the conceptions and arrangements that were replacing them. That story needs to be elaborated, and will get some elaboration in the next chapter. What is important here is that those demands have been accepted since without serious critique or examination of alternatives. The first of the demands, describable as a democratic or individualistic' one, was that a method be found that was available to each separated individual to apply privately and severally in the search for knowledge. The second, relating to the knowledge thus found, was that the method would lead all who conscientiously applied it to the same, objective and timeless true view of things. ^^ CB: This point on individualistic method is a good one. This is how I define positivism. ___ 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] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
I was thinking of the philosophical backwardness prevalent in the Second International. I do like this quote from Plekhanov, however: Strictly speaking, /partisan science/ is impossible, but, regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of /scientists who are imbued with the spirit of parties and with class selfishness/. When Marxists speak of bourgeois science with contempt, it is scientists of that brand that they have in view. It is to such scientists that the gentlemen Herr Bernstein has learnt so much from belong, /viz./ J. Wolf, Schulze-Gävernitz, and many others. Even if nine-tenths of scientific socialism has been taken from the writings of bourgeois economists, it has not been taken in the way in which Herr Bernstein has borrowed from the Brentanoists and other apologists of capitalism the material he uses to revise Marxism. Marx and Engels were able to take a /critical/ attitude towards bourgeois scientists, something that Herr Bernstein has been unable or unwilling to do. When he learns from them, he simply places himself under their influence and, without noticing the fact, adopts their apologetics. Georgi Plekhanov, *Cant Against Kant, or Herr Bernstein's Will and Testament* (August 1901) http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1901/xx/cant.htm There must be a transcription error here: so much from *belong*: doesn't make sense. On 12/30/2010 10:49 AM, c b wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: This is a commonplace analysis of Descartes critique of the whole epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its rope, what does? Now I'm reminded that I need to take a look at Plekhanov see if he's as bad as I'm told he is. ^^^ CB: Well, Plekhanov opposed the 1917 October insurrection. That's pretty stupid sectarian. On 12/30/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote: That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge, demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account. There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons were historical rather than philosophical and came from the individualistic model of humanity that played such a pivotal role in the era's project of eliminating feudalism's remnants in thought and social institutions, and the project of justifying the conceptions and arrangements that were replacing them. That story needs to be elaborated, and will get some elaboration in the next chapter. What is important here is that those demands have been accepted since without serious critique or examination of alternatives. The first of the demands, describable as a democratic or individualistic' one, was that a method be found that was available to each separated individual to apply privately and severally in the search for knowledge. The second, relating to the knowledge thus found, was that the method would lead all who conscientiously applied it to the same, objective and timeless true view of things. ^^ CB: This point on individualistic method is a good one. This is how I define positivism. ___ 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] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
I tried checking the text at leninist.biz, but I found the Plekhanov volume impossible to navigate. I wish someone would make this correction for me, because I would like to use this quote. It looks like I already did some preliminary spadework, viz. . . . Neo-Kantianism, Its History, Influence, and Relation to Socialism: Selected Secondary Bibliography http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/neokantianism_biblio_1.html There I link to 6 articles by Plekhanov on Kantianism. That entire period in philosophy, and for decades to come in continental European philosophy, was dominated by the Neo-Kantian influence. These debates are a small part of the overall picture. On 12/30/2010 11:14 AM, Ralph Dumain wrote: I was thinking of the philosophical backwardness prevalent in the Second International. I do like this quote from Plekhanov, however: Strictly speaking, /partisan science/ is impossible, but, regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of /scientists who are imbued with the spirit of parties and with class selfishness/. When Marxists speak of bourgeois science with contempt, it is scientists of that brand that they have in view. It is to such scientists that the gentlemen Herr Bernstein has learnt so much from belong, /viz./ J. Wolf, Schulze-Gävernitz, and many others. Even if nine-tenths of scientific socialism has been taken from the writings of bourgeois economists, it has not been taken in the way in which Herr Bernstein has borrowed from the Brentanoists and other apologists of capitalism the material he uses to revise Marxism. Marx and Engels were able to take a /critical/ attitude towards bourgeois scientists, something that Herr Bernstein has been unable or unwilling to do. When he learns from them, he simply places himself under their influence and, without noticing the fact, adopts their apologetics. Georgi Plekhanov, *Cant Against Kant, or Herr Bernstein's Will and Testament* (August 1901) http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1901/xx/cant.htm There must be a transcription error here: so much from *belong*: doesn't make sense. On 12/30/2010 10:49 AM, c b wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: This is a commonplace analysis of Descartes critique of the whole epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its rope, what does? Now I'm reminded that I need to take a look at Plekhanov see if he's as bad as I'm told he is. ^^^ CB: Well, Plekhanov opposed the 1917 October insurrection. That's pretty stupid sectarian. On 12/30/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote: That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge, demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account. There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons were historical rather than philosophical and came from the individualistic model of humanity that played such a pivotal role in the era's project of eliminating feudalism's remnants in thought and social institutions, and the project of justifying the conceptions and arrangements that were replacing them. That story needs to be elaborated, and will get some elaboration in the next chapter. What is important here is that those demands have been accepted since without serious critique or examination of alternatives. The first of the demands, describable as a democratic or individualistic' one, was that a method be found that was available to each separated individual to apply privately and severally in the search for knowledge. The second, relating to the knowledge thus found, was that the method would lead all who conscientiously applied it to the same, objective and timeless true view of things. ^^ CB: This point on individualistic method is a good one. This is how I define positivism. ___ 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] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
Hasn't the British SWP been an advocate of Islamism? Furthermore, being caught in a struggle between inept arguments pro con diamat--doesn't this drag us back to the 19th century? What progress is there is this? On 12/30/2010 11:30 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:22:14 -0500 Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: Itsworth contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its rope, what does? Well, Rosa is a supporter of the British SWP which is still officially committed towards dialectical materialism as the philosophical basis for Marxism. However, she is supported by Richard Seymour who is very much a rising star within that party and the far generally in the UK. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math ___ 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] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
What's interesting about Plekhanov's Cant Against Kant is that in the process of refuting Bernstein's scapegoating of the dialectic, Plekhanov falters at the very moment he first cites/Engels/. If there were a philosophical root of the confusion, here's where it would be. It begins with the merging of the dialectics of nature, society, and thought as one and the same, but this ontologolization of dialectics is a mass of logical confusion. With Plekhanov this also goes by the name of monism. But to lay Plekhanov's error as one of beginning with the wrong philosophy would be to duplicate his own mistake, for there's more to it. Plekhanov makes his first mistake by bypassing Marxism--I mean Marx's approach to analyzing society and the ideological phenomena within it--in favor of analyzing the putative philosophical preconditions or foundation of Marxism--dialectical materialism. This is pure nonsense. Is this where the Soviets got this bad habit from? Another of his blunders is his crude analysis of a probably correct assertion of the petty-bourgeois basis of Neo-Kantianism, which however asserts nothing meaningful unless one proceeds beyond propaganda to explain the connection. Plekhanov combats Bernstein's empirical assertions with his own. He combats metaphysics with metaphysics, empiricism with empiricism. These two elements interplay in an entirely confused fashion. On 12/30/2010 11:29 AM, Ralph Dumain wrote: I tried checking the text at leninist.biz, but I found the Plekhanov volume impossible to navigate. I wish someone would make this correction for me, because I would like to use this quote. It looks like I already did some preliminary spadework, viz. . . . Neo-Kantianism, Its History, Influence, and Relation to Socialism: Selected Secondary Bibliography http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/neokantianism_biblio_1.html There I link to 6 articles by Plekhanov on Kantianism. That entire period in philosophy, and for decades to come in continental European philosophy, was dominated by the Neo-Kantian influence. These debates are a small part of the overall picture. On 12/30/2010 11:14 AM, Ralph Dumain wrote: I was thinking of the philosophical backwardness prevalent in the Second International. I do like this quote from Plekhanov, however: Strictly speaking, /partisan science/ is impossible, but, regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of /scientists who are imbued with the spirit of parties and with class selfishness/. When Marxists speak of bourgeois science with contempt, it is scientists of that brand that they have in view. It is to such scientists that the gentlemen Herr Bernstein has learnt so much from belong, /viz./ J. Wolf, Schulze-Gävernitz, and many others. Even if nine-tenths of scientific socialism has been taken from the writings of bourgeois economists, it has not been taken in the way in which Herr Bernstein has borrowed from the Brentanoists and other apologists of capitalism the material he uses to revise Marxism. Marx and Engels were able to take a /critical/ attitude towards bourgeois scientists, something that Herr Bernstein has been unable or unwilling to do. When he learns from them, he simply places himself under their influence and, without noticing the fact, adopts their apologetics. Georgi Plekhanov, *Cant Against Kant, or Herr Bernstein's Will and Testament* (August 1901) http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1901/xx/cant.htm There must be a transcription error here: so much from *belong*: doesn't make sense. On 12/30/2010 10:49 AM, c b wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.orgwrote: This is a commonplace analysis of Descartescritique of the whole epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its rope, what does? Now I'm reminded that I need to take a look at Plekhanovsee if he's as bad as I'm told he is. ^^^ CB: Well, Plekhanov opposed the 1917 October insurrection. That's pretty stupid sectarian. On 12/30/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote: That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge, demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account. There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons were historical rather than philosophical and came from the individualistic model of humanity that played such a pivotal role
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Guy Robinson on Thomas Kuhn
It amazes me that this rubbish is considered the cornerstone of 20th century philosophy. From formalism to the censorship of thought. Ultrasophisticated juvenalia. I can see what Rosa--is Rosa really a she or really a Rosa or Lichtenstein?--sees in this. It prevents the self-reflection of a Brittrot sectarian. On 12/30/2010 12:18 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:40:33 -0500 c bcb31...@gmail.com writes: Rosa, Marxist philosophy without theses ? Without theory ? I think that claim has to be understood within the context of Wittgensteinian philosophy. For Wittgenstein the only genuine propositions are those about the external world since those are the only kinds of statements that can be confirmed or disconfirmed. Therefore, statements in mathematics and logic did not qualify as genuine propositions in Wittgenstein's view since they can be analyzed as being either tautologies if true, or contradictions if false. As Wittenstein put it in the Tractatus: - 6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies. 6.2 Mathematics is a logical method. The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo-propositions. 6.3 Logical research means the investigation of all regularity. And outside logic all is accident. 6.4 All propositions are of equal value. 6.5 For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. Later on, Wittgenstein writes: The propositions of logic therefore say nothing. (They are the analytical propositions.) 6.12 The fact that the propositions of logic are tautologies shows the formal -- logical -- properties of language, of the world. That its constituent parts connected together in this way give a tautology characterizes the logic of its constituent parts. In order that propositions connected together in a definite way may give a tautology they must have definite properties of structure. That they give a tautology when so connected shows therefore that they possess these properties of structure. 6.13 Logic is not a theory but a reflexion of the world. Logic is transcendental. Later on also: 6.113 It is the characteristic mark of logical propositions that one can perceive in the symbol alone that they are true; and this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of logic. And so also it is one of the most important facts that the truth or falsehood of non-logical propositions can not be recognized from the propositions alone. And eventually: 6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method. 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. -- For Wittgenstein, propositions of philosophy are pseudo-propositions. At worst they nonsensical like the propositions of traditional metaphysics. At best, they turn out to be propositions of logical analysis which are still a species of pseudopropositions. Hence, that's why for Wittgenstein there cannot be theses or theories in philosophy. CB http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.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] Plekhanov: materialism vs Neo-Kantianism etc. (2)
Plekhanov, Georgi. Bernstein and Materialism http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/07/bernsteinmat.html (July 1898), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 325-339. I am not versed in the relations among Spinoza, LaMettrie, the Encyclopedists, the 19th century German materialists, and Feuerbach. This part of the essay at least is not identical with the subsequent Cant Against Kant. It's quite interesting, but a few off-the-cuff remarks: (1) This has nothing to do with political debates except insofar as Plekhanov's antagonists themselves inject this silly stuff into them. (2) Plekhanov's exposition breaks off at the very point where it starts to get interesting. (3) Neither Plekhanov nor any of the people he discusses have any sense of the difference between empirical knowledge and philosophy's attempts to fill in the gaps, or how advances in the former alter what should be /provisional/ categorial structures of the latter. And, noting the footnotes, where Plekhanov describes a meeting with Engels and Engels' confirmation of Plekhanov's view of Spinoza--Plekhanov is content with finality rather than further exploration. He merely engages a contest of doctrines, but not thinking any new thoughts. (4) I know little about F.A. Lange, but one thing I know is that he wrestled with the mind-body problem and found materialism unsatisfactory. This was when biology had barely advanced to the point of addressing the question of sensation and apperception. The problem remains a problem 150 years later but in a drastically altered condition. Philosophy at best is a guidepost to how to interpret, or better, to avoid misinterpreting, our knowledge in our general categorial framework of world-meaning. (This should be opposed to Wittgenstein's retrograde cure, but that's another harangue.) (5) A key correlative logical fudge of Engels is the ambiguous, and implicitly self-contradictory, statement, that he believes only in empirical knowledge and disavows metaphysics, only to remain content with a formulation of dialectical laws and their universal application retrospective to the attainment of adequate empirical knowledge. But in actuality, this dominant strain of Marxist orthodoxy remained stagnant at the level of formulaic indoctrination, and once institutionalized, proceeded rapidly downhill. OK, I'll look at the other 4 Plekhanov essays another time. Must get on with other things. ___ 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] Terry Eagleton on The death of universities
Historically, radicals have come from the ranks of the scientific-technical intelligentsia as well, as arch-reactionaries from the humanities. When I was in elementary school and high school, English and history teachers were the worst reactionaries. I hated these subjects, loved math and science. Who knew I would turn out occupied with the former rather than the latter? Thanks for nothing, schoolteachers! However, the business model that has overtaken universities, coupled I'm guessing with financial retrenchment, is gutting various programs, notably philosophy, I think in Britain, but also look out for the USA. Howard University plans to ax its philosophy department, which is pretty small as is. In my view, there's too much Africana crap in it, but Howard is conservative enough without having to eliminate one of the few outlets for critical thinking in it. On 12/19/2010 8:45 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/death-universities-ma laise-tuition-fees The Guardian 17 December 2010 *The death of universities Academia has become a servant of the status quo. Its malaise runs so much deeper than tuition fees* Terry Eagleton Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one. Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such. When they first emerged in their present shape around the turn of the 18th century, the so-called humane disciplines had a crucial social role. It was to foster and protect the kind of values for which a philistine social order had precious little time. The modern humanities and industrial capitalism were more or less twinned at birth. To preserve a set of values and ideas under siege, you needed among other things institutions known as universities set somewhat apart from everyday social life. This remoteness meant that humane study could be lamentably ineffectual. But it also allowed the humanities to launch a critique of conventional wisdom. From time to time, as in the late 1960s and in these last few weeks in Britain, that critique would take to the streets, confronting how we actually live with how we might live. What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. We will not change this simply by increasing state funding of the humanities as opposed to slashing it to nothing. We will change it by insisting that a critical reflection on human values and principles should be central to everything that goes on in universities, not just to the study of Rembrandt or Rimbaud. In the end, the humanities can only be defended by stressing how indispensable they are; and this means insisting on their vital role in the whole business of academic learning, rather than protesting that, like some poor relation, they don't cost much to be housed. How can this be achieved in practice? Financially speaking, it can't be. Governments are intent on shrinking the humanities, not expanding them. Might not too much investment in teaching Shelley mean falling behind our economic competitors? But there is no university without humane inquiry, which means that universities and advanced capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. And the political implications of that run far deeper than the question of student fees. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math How to Stay
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ramblin' Tommy Scott-She'll Be Coming Around The Mountain
Here's another version, since you asked for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mwWYeOF6Ww On 12/9/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghd-xL5gAjc ___ 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] Charles Brown: Merry Christmas Baby Please Come Home For Christmas
I used to hear all these songs regularly. My favorite is still Back Door Santa. On 12/1/2010 10:08 AM, c b wrote: Charles Brown: Merry Christmas Baby Please http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMfGPZI59Zw ___ 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] Charles Brown: Merry Christmas Baby Please Come Home For Christmas
I used to have to wait to catch this on my local blues program every December: sometimes I'd hear it, some years I'd miss it. But thanks to YouTube, it can be Xmas every day. (I detest Xmas, though.) The key to the song is in this verse: i ain't like the old saint nick, he don't come but once a year . . . When I used to sing it, the punchline would be . . . I'm back door Santa, I come every time you're here. On 12/1/2010 10:57 AM, c b wrote: Back Door Santa they call me the back door santa i make my runs about the break of day they call me the back door santa i make my runs about the break of day i make all the little girls happy, while the boys are out to play i ain't like the old saint nick, he don't come but once a year i ain't like the old saint nick, he don't come but once a year i come runnin with my presents, every time they call me dear i keep some change in my pocket i chase the children home i give them a few pennies so we could be alone ileave the back door open so if anybody smells the mouse and wouldn't old santa be in trouble if there ain't n chimney in the house they call me the back door santa i make my runs about the break of day i make all the little girls happy, while all the boys are out to play they call me back door santa yeah that's what they call me they call me the back door santa yeah that's what they call me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfhaGNoSfw http://s0.ilike.com/play#Clarence+Carter:Back+Door+Santa:304369:s294531.8098589.6215.0.1.23%2Cstd_689a559ce25e70e991a8379f22fe1a15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMj4Q6EVOW0 Back Door Santa is a song written by Clarence Carter in collaboration with Marcus Daniel, and originally performed by Carter. It was released on a compilation album Soul Christmas in 1968. The track is in a 12-bar blues format. The lyrics are sexually suggestive, not having much to do with Christmas as a holiday. Run-D.M.C. sampled the song for Christmas in Hollis. In late December 2005, The Black Crowes released a free download version of this song, complete with a horn section. This track can be heard in the film Mission: Impossible III. The Australian band Jet has also covered this song. It is available on their Japanese-only Rare Tracks compilation album. It was also performed by Bon Jovi and released on the A Very Special Christmas compilation album produced to benefit the Special Olympics. For unknown reasons, Back Door Santa was replaced on later pressings of the first A Very Special Christmas with the song I Wish Every Day Could Be Like Christmas also performed by Bon Jovi. Bon Jovi later released the track along with two other Christmas themed songs on the single for Please Come Home for Christmas In 2008, Elliott Yamin included a cover of the song in his Christmas album My Kind of Hoiday The song also appeared on the CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother. Season 2 Episode 11: How Lily Stole Christmas Stub icon This blues song-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Door_Santa; On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: I used to hear all these songs regularly. My favorite is still Back Door Santa. On 12/1/2010 10:08 AM, c b wrote: Charles Brown: Merry Christmas BabyPlease http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMfGPZI59Zw ___ 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] Stoop down, baby
This is the funniest thing I remember you writing. I'm trying to figure out though which one is the proletariat. I would hate to associate the capitalist class with All That Ass. On 12/1/2010 12:40 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/1/2010 10:02:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuYdZMoqD7U_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuYdZMoqD7U) Comment This is my understanding of the proletarian REVOLUTION. WL. Stoop down, baby Let your daddy see Stoop down, baby Let your daddy see You've got something down there, baby Worryin' the hell out of me ___ 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] Stoop down, baby
I didn't know this was a problem. The only thing I can think of to do is to eliminate the reply-to field altogether, unless there is something else I can do using Thunderbird. On 12/1/2010 1:02 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/1/2010 12:46:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, __rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:_rdum...@autodidactproject.org) _ (_mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org) )writes: This is the funniest thing I remember you writing. I'm trying to figure out though which one is the proletariat. I would hate to associate the capitalist class with All That Ass. Comment Somewhere, I have a copy of Merry Christmas Baby by Ollie, former lead singer of the Temptations. One of the greats is on the guitar but I forget their name at the moment. The real proletariat is the one stooping down. OK. Me. . . . man, I have always enjoyed looking up to see bottom. I guess this is beneath the underclass. My cash flow was cool but my mind has always been in poverty and on the bottom brother. Hey . . . I hit 10.5 on the glossary and yes, it is a propaganda tract. I am not an original thinker or writer. Merry Christmas Baby. I always loved the way baby can be non gender and/or gender depending on the specific context and tonal quality of the voice. Victory to the proletariat on the bottom, top, and beneath the underclass. :-) Wl. PS. Ralph has his thang set when you respond to his writing it goes to him as an individual instead of the list. To me that is fucked up. Change your thang brother. ___ 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] Revolutionary literature
This is just another example of what a pretentious ass Eagleton is. What is genuine revolutionary art but a posturing notion? Furthermore, the vitriol directed at liberalism is the language of the right. There is insight among the disillusioned conservatives, to be sure, but this is hardly a perceptive analysis. Better you should read Raymond Williams' THE POLITICS OF MODERNISM than this crap. On 11/29/2010 6:56 AM, M.F. Kalfat wrote: In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled Base and Superstructure in chapter one, Literature and History with this: Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’ (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had truck with fascism. Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant literature. [emphasis added] Is it a case of total absence? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society? Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical purposes, let's stick to modern literature. ___ 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] Revolutionary literature
I believe that John Strachey cited Lawrence as an exemplar of the fascist unconscious, which I think is correct. In any case, Eagleton's futile exercise reminds me of how CLR James' ridiculed Sartre's conception of engaged literature in the late '40s / early '50s. Inter alia, James wrote that he didn't care about what political party an author belonged to; what mattered was the tacit assumptions embodied in the work itself. Of course, he was opposed to Popular Front historiography and Popular Front cultural criticism. On 11/29/2010 7:14 PM, Mason Akhnaten wrote: What does one want to focus on...the absence of genuinely revolutionary art, or that only radical conservatism could produce the most significant literature... Words like genuinely complicate the matter to no end. So perhaps concentrate on the most significant literature--and I think there are plenty of works of worldwide significance that certainly are not produced by radical conservatism. Yes, Brecht of course... I think Louis mentioned the surrealists and their milieu. I would think Lorca is agreed upon as one of the preeminent dramatists of 20th century Spain, and it would be improper to call him a conservative. It actually looks like many of the significant figures in 20th century theatre were not politically conservative--I would hope GB Shaw's image hasn't suffered in the academy, and then you have Harold Pinter more recently. It isn't that these playwrights must be 'genuinely revolutionary', the fact they are not conservative weakens Eagleton's claim. You can't really throw Upton Sinclair in there...seems doubtful than anyone would agree upon the man as one of the most significant in literature. If you do, may as well throw in Richard Wright or any number of second-rate literary figures. Obviously Orwell and Huxley do not have the same stature as Lawrence or Joyce, but their works are widely read and their works are often listed among the best of the century--and no one would call either of these men politically conservative. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be look at one of those critics list of most significant authors and look at trends between academic popularity and political attitude. So, there may be some exceptions to Eagleton's sweeping statement, but a couple that have been named (Brecht and Lorca) are notable for the historical circumstances surrounding their development as authors. So perhaps a look at notable exceptions--and if there are trends amongst these exceptions--would be fruitful. [also, some of Pound's poetic works celebrate fascism- The Pisan Cantos, for example. it is not simply restricted to some speeches on Mussolini] On 11/29/10, c bcb31...@gmail.com wrote: M.F. Kalfat mf at kalfat.net In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled Base and Superstructure in chapter one, Literature and History with this: Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’ (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had truck with fascism. Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant literature. [emphasis added] Is it a case of total absence? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society? Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical purposes, let's stick to modern literature. -- محمد فتحي كلفت Mahammad Fathy Kalfat ^^ CB: It would seem that genuinely revolutionary art might be hard to purvey very widely in capitalist society. You know the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes and all that. Anyway Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht ? The Jungle - Upton Sinclair ? ___ 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] Margaret Burroughs: Co-founder of DuSable Museum and prominent artist
I love this stuff. I'm not so knowledgeable about museums, but there's many a story about black bibliophiles. Check this one out: Blockson, Charles L. /Damn Rare: The Memoirs of an African-American Bibliophile/. Tracy, CA: Quantum Leap Publisher, Inc., 1998. On 11/23/2010 10:40 AM, c b wrote: Margaret Burroughs: Co-founder of DuSable Museum and prominent artist She started Chicago's renowned African American history museum in her living room nearly 50 years ago By Kristen Schorsch Chicago Tribune November 21, 2010 http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/obituaries/ct-met-burroughs-obit-1122-20101121,0,7991807.story Margaret Burroughs, an artist, teacher and longtime Chicago Park District commissioner, started the nationally recognized DuSable Museum of African American History in the living room of her South Side home almost 50 years ago. Mrs. Burroughs helped shape some of Chicago's most lasting institutions. She and her husband, the late Charles Burroughs, co-founded the DuSable Museum in 1961, and she was one of several artists and art supporters who 70 years ago started the South Side Community Art Center. To me, she's a model for dreaming big. She's a model for doing the work that it takes to do those dreams, said Cheryl Blackwell Bryson, chairwoman of the DuSable Museum's board of trustees. Not everybody can build an institution that becomes a road map for other ethnic groups around the world to emulate, an institution that is designed to impact lives. Mrs. Burroughs died Sunday, Nov. 21, in her home in the city's Bronzeville neighborhood, surrounded by family, according to the museum. Relatives said she was 95. Other records indicate she was 93. In a statement, President Barack Obama praised Mrs. Burroughs' generosity and commitment. Michelle and I are saddened by the passing of Dr. Margaret Burroughs, who was widely admired for her contributions to American culture as an esteemed artist, historian, educator and mentor, Obama said in a statement. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Dr. Burroughs' family and loved ones. Her legacy will live on in Chicago and around the world. Born in St. Rose, La., Mrs. Burroughs moved to Chicago as a child. She attended the Chicago Teachers College and received bachelor's and master's degrees from the Art Institute of Chicago. She later received several honorary degrees and was well known as Dr. Burroughs. Her long resume includes teaching for more than 20 years at DuSable High School. She also taught at Kennedy-King College. Mayor Richard Daley said: Through her artistic talent and wide breadth of knowledge, she gave us a cultural gem, the DuSable Museum of African American History. But she herself was a cultural institution. Mrs. Burroughs immersed herself in art at a young age. In her early 20s, she joined several others in starting the South Side Community Art Center. Executive director Faheem Majeed said Mrs. Burroughs, who lived across the street from the Bronzeville center, remained active in the organization and recently was campaigning to help the center buy an adjacent vacant lot. Dr. Burroughs was a titan, Majeed said. She had a great influence as an institution builder and a role model, but the amazing thing was how accessible she was. She still rode the bus to go grocery shopping. She set up a legendary salon in Bronzeville, which attracted the likes of sociologist W.E.B. DuBois and writer James Baldwin. Unhappy that there were few places for black artists to showcase their work, she helped launch an art fair in the late 1950s at a shopping center at 35th Street and King Drive. A few years later, hoping to bring black history to the forefront in Chicago, she and her husband planted the seeds for what would become a thriving museum with about 100 items in their living room. They called their creation the Ebony Museum of Negro History and Art. It would become the DuSable Museum, which today boasts a collection of more than 100,000 pieces in its Washington Park building, with plans to expand. Mrs. Burroughs also helped start the National Conference of African-American Artists. She taught art and poetry to prison inmates, according to the Chicago Park District. For the last 35 years, she and the Rev. Jesse Jackson spent Christmas Day at the Cook County Jail. Dr. Burroughs was a pillar of strength and character in our community, Jackson said in a statement. Dr. Margaret Burroughs radiated hope. Mrs. Burroughs bowled and took up roller-skating in her 80s. In 1989, she was inducted into the Chicago Women's Hall of Fame. President Jimmy Carter appointed her a member of the National Commission on African-American History and Culture. Mrs. Burroughs has won the Paul Robeson Award, named for the black singer and actor known for his political activism. Most recently, Mrs. Burroughs received the Legacy Award from the Art Institute of Chicago.
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Review: The Scottsboro Boys @ The Guthrie Theater
I hate musicals to begin with. And opera too. I can't stand any of them. OK, I did like the movie CABARET. But otherwise I think Mel Brooks summed it all up in Springtime for Hitler . . . until he turned his movie into a musical (which I saw and admittedly enjoyed, with stubborn reservations). The conclusion that not much has changed since the '30s is off base, but it's true that mainstream liberalism is honest about the past as long as it's the distant past and not the present. This frames most of its documentary efforts (Ken Burns and others'). I don't trust reviewers as a rule, but as I am prejudiced against musicals, my initial reaction is: (1) WTF! (2) I'm amazed that anyone would do anything with the Scottsboro Boys now, and a musical, no less. I think though that someone should do a musical about the Tea Party. Camptown crackers have a ball . . . doo dah, doo dah . . . On 9/14/2010 10:29 AM, c b wrote: Review: The Scottsboro Boys @ The Guthrie Theater By Tad Simons August 8, 2010 Mpls.St.Paul Magazine http://blogs.mspmag.com/themorningafter/2010/08/review-the-scottsboro-boys-the.html Is The Scottsboro Boys-the final musical from the legendary writing team of John Kander and Fred Ebb (Ebb died in 2004), who gave us Chicago, Cabaret, and Kiss of the Spider Woman-Broadway's next big hit? Or, is it a shamelessly racist piece of claptrap that traffics in every imaginable negative stereotype for the sole purpose of entertaining rooms full of wealthy white people? Or, is it the most outrageously subversive play ever to hit a Guthrie stage: a shocking, viciously satirical, brutally honest flaying of American culture that-in the long tradition of jesters who use humor to tell the truth to the king-lambastes, lampoons, and blasphemes in order to reveal deeper, more disgraceful truths that Americans might otherwise ignore? Or is it all of these things? And then some? These are the sorts of questions likely to be spinning around in your head after sitting through The Scottsboro Boys, an unlikely musical built around the tragic true story of nine black men from Alabama in 1931who were wrongly accused of rape and spent years in jail waiting for the legal system to exonerate them. The Scottsboro saga is rightly regarded as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of American jurisprudence, though it is also viewed by some as an evolutionary leap for the American justice system, if only because the men weren't immediately lynched. Depending on how one looks at it, what happened to the Scottsboro boys was either a travesty of justice or evidence of the relative fairness, however imperfect, of the American legal system. (After many years, most of the charges were dropped and the men paroled, but their lives were ruined.) As the kids like to say, it's complicated. Complicating things much further is the musical itself, which chooses to present this unfortunate episode in history as a minstrel show, the pre-vaudevillian art form that died out because of its inherent racism. You can't rinse a minstrel show clean of racism, but you can use it as a prism to explore certain aspects of race-and, though it's tremendously risky (and not entirely successful), that's what The Scottsboro Boys attempts to do. The show wears its heresies like a badge. It comes complete with black actors in blackface, black actors portraying white people, and disconcertingly jaunty tunes about such entertaining topics as frying in an electric chair and the homey comforts of slave life. White people are vilified. Black people are skewered. Jews are mocked. Southern people are slandered. On the surface, this may be a shiny, polished musical with upbeat tunes and lots of unexpected humor, but burbling beneath that surface charm is an angry, disturbing energy that's difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. It's as if the writers set out to turn every cultural taboo about race on its head, spin it around a few times, and spit it back in your face with a vengeance. The Scottsboro Boys isn't created merely to entertain; it is engineered to send you out into the night full of ambivalence and conflicted feelings about what you just saw. In any given scene, you might be thinking, as I did, Oh, here are bunch of black guys in blackface singing a happy song. But wait, I'm supposed to be disgusted by the very thought of black entertainers acting this way. But strangely, I'm not as disgusted as I should be, because it's just part of the show, and the actors know what they're doing. None of them is being forced to act like that. Then again, if these guys wanted to be in this show and get paid, dressing and acting like that had to be a prerequisite for the job. But if this really is as crazily racist as it looks, why would any self-respecting actor even participate in it? In this and many other ways, The Scottsboro Boys is a show that smiles at you
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
It would be interesting to know what he has to say about Hugo Chavez and his former Eastern bloc patrons in this respect. On 9/9/2010 1:00 PM, c b wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/fidel-castro-blasts-ahmad_n_708592.html Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic WILL WEISSERT | 09/ 7/10 09:01 PM | AP ___ 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] Fwd: Roy Haynes, Jazz Drummer...
Wow. I haven't seen him for close to 30 years. He did indeed play with Trane. I'm from the LP era, so I don't know about CDs, but I believe Haynes was the drummer on my favorite version of My Favorite Things ever (1963), on the /Selflessness/ album. (Dammit, I don't have this on CD!) I think he also played with Sarah Vaughan, along with everyone else. On 9/8/2010 8:30 AM, c b wrote: PB: ...who performed on Monday at Hart Plaza at the jazz festival in Detroit, is 85 years old! I had thought that he had played with John Coltrane on a live record featuring My Favorite Things. But I can't seem to find it. However, during his life he did play with Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, and just about everybody who was or is anybody in Jazz! ___ 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] Peace, Freedom and McCarthyism - Anticommunism and the African American Freedom Movement
This is great stuff, except for the attack on CLR James. But I guess all publicity can be considered good publicity. Incidentally, when someone once brought up Malcolm X at one of James's talks, he responded that the person who really counts is Paul Robeson. I don't know anyone other than me who has ever said anything like this. I think it's important to recognize that the vacuum left by McCarthyism fostered a climate for people who dissented from mainstream liberalism to gravitate to Elijah Muhammed's fascist cult. Historical amnesia rules the roost to this day. On 8/25/2010 11:29 AM, c b wrote: Peace, Freedom and McCarthyism - Anticommunism and the African American Freedom Movement Book Review Anticommunism and the African American Freedom Movement: Another Side of the Story edited by Robbie Lieberman and Clarence Lang Palgrave Macmillan. 251 pages, $85.00 Reviewed by Mark Solomon ___ 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] my new bibliographies: Second International, Neo-Kantianism, et al
Here is my latest bibliography: Second International Marxism, German Social Democracy, Austro-Marxism: Selected Secondary Bibliography http://autodidactproject.org/bib/second_international_biblio_1.html . . . which complements this one: Neo-Kantianism, Its History, Influence, and Relation to Socialism: Selected Secondary Bibliography http://autodidactproject.org/bib/neokantianism_biblio_1.html Both have their idiosyncracies, as indicated by the notes therein. This one does not cover Marxism at all, but it is useful nonetheless: Historical Surveys of Atheism, Freethought, Rationalism, Skepticism, and Materialism: Selected Works http://autodidactproject.org/bib/freethought_history_bib.html ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] A play about Stalin
Yet another document demonstrating how little confidence can be placed in a revolution of peasants. The crude, shrewd and ruthless pragmatism of Stalin marks why he came out on top, just what you would expect in the situation. Stalin is one tough piece of shit. So far it's a compelling drama. The one thing I find jarring is the series of captions between scene 21 and 22. Too much history compacted into these captions. What does it mean that Stalin is held hostage to the Politburo, as Truman says? And what's this: Eighth Extraordinary Congress of Soviets on December 5, 1936 approves the new Constitution. But Stalin's plans are thwarted by the NKVD. It is not clear from the structure of the play what the engineering of the Soviet Constitution, other than for propaganda purposes, was about. Also, it would be useful to know why Stalin was so unprepared for the German invasion. Also, what is behind Malenkov's proposal in scene 42, other than rhetoric, that is? A curious statement by dying Stalin to the dead Kamenev near the end: I was trying to push through a new, more democratic constitution, but the NKVD claimed to have discovered new bogeymen under every bed. They hi-jacked the congress, when my report on the constitution was to have been the main item on the agenda. You were a hostage to fortune. You had to be sacrificed. The new constitution was more important than the fate of any of the so-called Old Bolsheviks, you, or my daughter's godfather, or even me. But I had to survive, or the constitution would have fallen. As it was, most of my democratic proposals were removed. What is this all about? Curious Stalin's attitude toward his fellow mass-murderers Yezhov and Yagoda. What's this about the USA having a hand in Trotsky's assassination? Trotsky's big mistake was being the intellectual's intellectual, not to mention a Jew, now recognizing how impossible it is to be such an intellectual in a country full of violent, ignorant little shits. Then, the Palestinians, the Greeks, the Jews come to accuse Stalin. And finally Stalin pleads that he was at the mercy of the NKVD. What a shame the play ends with Paul Robeson singing that dumbass Soviet national anthem. Not one of his better moments. Congrats on a compelling play. It filled me with even more disgust for the USSR than I already had. On 7/16/2010 3:35 AM, Karl Dallas wrote: I have just completed the first draft of a play about Stalin, the result of over 12 years of research. Though some scenes have been imagined, as far as possible I have gone to published sources for reports of what happened or what was said at the time. At present it is far too long for theatrical performance, but my purpose in mentioning it here is to encourage criticism, however hostile (since I imagine it will provoke hostility, since it does not portray its subject as the devil incarnate; nevertheless I have tried to paint him warts and all). The script can be read at http://www.karldallas.com/stalinplay.pdf. --- Go well. Karl Dallas Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/karldallas Want to help the people of Palestine? Then follow http://www.twitter.com/bradfordvp and http://www.twitter.com/dpalestine ___ 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] Scope and Limits of Theory: Provisional Draft
If we are talking about Lou Proyect, which I'm sure we are, then any
word uttered or action taken by this character should not catch anyone
by surprise. You're bound to come up with fleas.
Trotsky's inflexible dogmatism has been noted by many. One interesting
example is Jean van Heijenoort's memoir, /With Trotsky in Exile/.
Lenin seems to have been aware of his compromise with practicality, esp.
in trying to run a shabby fledgling state. A revealing portrait of the
tension he felt in doing this can be found, curiously enough, in this
article:
Lilge, Frederic. Lenin and the Politics of Education, /Slavic Review/,
vol. 27, no. 2, June 1968, pp. 230-257.
I don't think the word theory should be limited to scientific theory,
but I do think the distinction should be made between strict scientific
theory and a broader theoretical project. Note also that the word
science in English tends to be applied fairly strictly, whereas in
other languages the cognate term is broader, approaching the scope of
our word (scholarly) discipline.
As to revolutionary theory, I don't believe in it, but I can certainly
understand the attempt to mediate theory (i.e. theoretical understanding
of the state of affairs) and political practice. What else could
revolutionary theory be if it's not merely an ideology.
The Black Panthers was a many-faceted phenomenon. Breakfast programs
yes, community organizing yes, sporting quasi-military quasi-uniforms,
stupid, putting Eldridge Cleaver in a leadership position, not smart . . . .
You are aware of course of the Trot fetish for Malcolm X, and presumably
the theory behind the fondness for black nationalism. Those who
support this perspective have not had another original thought about it
since 1965.
I'm not sure where you're going with this draft. Hopefully, you're not
going to waste your time converting washed-up sectarians.
On 7/7/2010 9:19 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
There was a thread on marxism, ending today, which I started with a post
on theory. At first the response it got was to an incidentally remark
on the Panthers. Then Angelus Novus reopened it, and then at someplace
Lou went ape-shit and it got wilder and wilder, at least from him, and
it ended with him unsubbing Angelus and someone who had defended
anarchism (mildly).
My initial post was labelled a draft, and I indicated it was to be
continued. I'm sending it here to see how it fares on this list.
{Applogy: Becaus of my fucking eyes I can't even find this book on the
shelf, let alone quote exactly from it. Later I will look up the exact
words and post them.}
In Revolutionary silhouettes, Lunacharsky makes an interesting
comparison of Lenin Trotsky. Lenin, he says, was more opportunist
in a special sense, while Trotssky was the more orthodox Marxist. By
opportunism he he means readiness to seize the opportunty as one shows
itself, without letting doctrine get in the way. An incident from WW 2
may illustrate the distinction being made here. When the German
Engineers failed to completely destry the bridge at Remagen (w?) an
opportunity opened up for crossing the Rhine, which ahd to be seized at
once because the damaged bridge might collapse at any time. But this
involved a radical change of plans, including major shifting arund of
troops, etc., and that change in carefully laid plans, some of
Eistenhower's generals believed, would cause too much trouble. They
favored proceeding with original plans to avoid too much confusion.
Other generals said _seize_ the opportunity, which is what Eisenhower
chose, with a result that very possibly shortened the war and definitely
decreased casualties. This is not a bad illustration of theory versus
concrete analysis of concrete situations.
As a matter of fact, in the past Lou has criticised Trotsky for sending
messages from Mexico dictating daily tactics to his followers in Spain.
But Trotsky was merely being a good orthodox Marxist: he believed there
was a Marxist revolutionary theory and that that theory could dictate
the correct tactics regardless of special local circumstances. Similarly
the 'orthodox' U.S. generals who opposed using the bridge had a
long-established military theory as to the correct way to make an
assault over a river, and their plans had been drawn up accordingly.
Another way of putting this, is that they assumed there to be a direct
relationship between theory and praactice: abstract theory could dictate
detailed tactics in all situatios. (Assuming a direct relation of theory
to practice is, I think, the most useful definition of dogmatism.)
That is probably true in the more rigorous physical sciences. It is true
for _some_ cooking_: There are many items for which you can go to the
cookbook (theory) and followiing it directly will come out with the same
results everytime. But this is not true, for example, in kneading bread:
there is no way theory (a manual) can dictate to you this
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] American Jews Who Reject Zionism Say Events Aid Cause - NY Times
An interesting factual account, but one is loathe to draw definitive conclusions from it. Coincidentally, a Pakistani Facebook friend recently posted a video called Judaism vs Zionism, featuring someone with an English accent contrasting Jewish ethics with the Zionist state. Such simple-minded reasoning clarifies little, and in fact promotes irrationalism rather than dispels it. There's a three-way conflation here between ethnicity, religion, and nationalism, and four-way when one adds biology to the mix. There is also the argument of Shlomo Sand, that the concept of Jewry is a modern concept, that the Exile never happened, that there were mass conversions involved in the formation of the Jews in Europe (and elsewhere), and therefore that the actual ties of European Jews to ancient Judaea are spurious. Thus the founding Zionist myth is . . . a myth. To argue for anything on any of these bases, against Zionism as well as for, defies logic. Additionally, there is an assumption that religious justifications and myths of origin played the decisive role in the formation of Zionism in the 19th century and a constant, unvarying role throughout its history, which, as the Stalinists and partisans of /other/ nationalisms would have it, was always and unvaryingly fueled by racialism and a master plan to drive out the Arab inhabitants of the region. Counter-myths are not necessarily more illuminating than myths. There is not a single point that was not already debated by Zionists themselves in the pre-Herzl period, not to mention anti-Zionists, more often on a secular than on a religious basis. And the rational and irrational components of pro-Zionist arguments have to be calibrated along a sliding scale, which can be done when we see what those arguments were, especially as Palestine was by no means a target of universal consensus in the early period. We will learn more if we examine the conditions of 19th century Europe, esp. Eastern Europe, but also Central Europe, and look at what nation-building meant across the board among nationalities under the yoke of empires, in a world almost completely subject to empires and that by the end of the century would be completely subjugated, with nothing but empire in sight. We could also compare fantasies and schemes of colonization and resettlement among various peoples. One could, for example, examine 19th century black nationalism and compare it to Zionism before Zionism got anywhere so that it could be imitated or opposed. Taking all this as a base, we can better understand the variations on the theme, and to what extent nationalist projects actually were underwritten by irrationalist ideologies like religion, racial theories, metaphysical idealism (German Romanticism), Social Darwinism, etc., and how much weight these ideologies had, among secular and religious components of the population. What it takes to convince people of anything depends heavily on circumstances and options as well as ideologies, and sometimes it doesn't take much of a push to convince people of something. Which is why secularists and even people with little taste for nationalism (like Einstein) would turn to Zionism. Another factor is that those far removed from a concrete situation may not even have the facts with which to justify the policies they are being sold. Religion, shmeligion, ancient homeland, shlomeland, between 1945 and 1967 the Holocaust was the only argument anyone needed to hear, and for American Jews at least the other elements played rationalizing supporting roles at best, at least as I remember the atmosphere of the early '60s. (Remember the theme song to the film Exodus? I was accustomed to hearing only Ferrante and Teicher's piano rendition. When I got hold of the sheet music, I learned that the theme had lyrics, and when I saw the verse This land is mine, God gave this land to me, I was appalled: I had never heard such a thing before, and had accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a product of the Holocaust without any crap about God in the mix. I don't recall any American Jews ever saying anything about God, though they were nominally religious.) On 6/26/2010 8:44 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/26religion.html American Jews Who Reject Zionism Say Events Aid Cause By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN One day nearly 20 years ago, Stephen Naman was preparing to help the rabbi of his Reform Jewish temple in South Carolina move the congregation into a new building. Mr. Naman had just one request: Could the rabbi stop placing the flag of Israel on the altar? We don't go to synagogue to pray to a flag, Mr. Naman, 63, recalled having said in a recent telephone interview. That rabbi acceded to the request. So, after being transferred to North Carolina and joining a temple there six or seven years later, Mr. Naman asked its rabbi to remove the Israeli flag. This time, the reaction was more
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
I can't say I keep up with Zionist arguments since 1967. There have been a number of arguments for over a century to bolster the obviously shaky arguments for the colonization of a patch of desert that had no live connection with the European Jews of the 19th century. How much weight those arguments were given depended heavily on the actual situation of European Jews, and of course there were weighty counter-arguments as well. Now if there were no connection whatever between contemporaneous Jews of a century ago and ancient Judaea, meaning that ancient Judaea never existed, or that there was no component of its inhabitants that made its way to Europe ever, then I suppose the argument for Palestine as opposed to Uganda, Argentina, or Nevada may have never gotten anywhere, though you never know. There were those like Zamenhof who thought the actual direct lineage was rather threadbare, not to mention that any actual connection was effectively meaningless. However, for the sake of argument, suppose that modern day Jews could be connected to the ancient Israelites, and assume also that a huge percentage of moder Jews got that way via conversion rather than a bloodline to ancient Israel. So what difference does that make? I remember from 45-50 years the argument that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, but I never heard even once any argument for racial or ethnic purity and I can't see what damned difference it would make one way or the other, any more than I ever heard any arguments based on the Bible or the notion of the chosen people. Of course, people may well have harbored those ideas and I missed the memo. The point remains, the only argument I ever heard, at least one I can remember that stuck in my head, was the argument from the history of anti-semitism all over the world, and the argument from the Holocaust. As far as I know, these were the only arguments anyone cared about, but apparently I was wrong. Actually, it all seems pretty ridiculous now. I suppose Einstein's version of Zionism was reasonable and endorseable, but in retrospect it seems completely unrealistic. I guess you had to be a European Jew tired enough of humiliation and exclusion to entertain the notion. This rather than an ur-racism and lust for conquest--a Stalinist lie of long-standing, explains a lot, at least for those removed from the scene where the dirty work that was done. That's my argument, which is not an endorsement for Zionism, just in case anyone is tempted yet again to accuse me of being an agent of AIPAC. A Jewish friend of mine who just treated me to a birthday movie, dinner, and inebriation told me just a few hours ago he thinks Zionism in the end is bad for the Jews, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, except to say that examining the historical time line with some care, while not necessarily arguing the plausibility of an alternate time line, would at least grant a more convincing perspective than the simple-minded propaganda of Stalinists and third world nationalists, which turns out to be a less effective ideological tool in combatting Israel's actions than they fancy. On 6/26/2010 11:27 PM, CeJ wrote: RD:There is also the argument of Shlomo Sand, that the concept of Jewry is a modern concept, that the Exile never happened, that there were mass conversions involved in the formation of the Jews in Europe (and elsewhere), and therefore that the actual ties of European Jews to ancient Judaea are spurious. Thus the founding Zionist myth is . . . a myth. To argue for anything on any of these bases, against Zionism as well as for, defies logic. As I understand it, the now infamous Koestler 13th Tribe thesis was really an attempt of a non-religious Zionist to show that the Jews of Europe largely had a European ethnogenesis, in order to counter European anti-semitism. I haven't read the book, but I have seen how its arguments and evidence have been only of selective use to serious scholars of the topic. Now the sad sick joke is that the work is attacked as anti-semitic and is cited constantly by the Zionists so as to obscure the very real scholarship that is showing that the standard accounts of the ethnogenesis of European Jewry (W. European Jews moved to C. and E. Europe to escape Christian persecution) has far too many missing parts and implausiblities. Wexler has done considerable work on showing how Ladino-speaking Sephardim are of N. African origin and how C. and E. European Ashkenazim are of basically Turko-Slavic origin. Even those who have tried to dimss his discussions haven't, as far as I can see, shown them to be implausible (whereas one very large implausibility is E. Europe getting a very large Jewish population because of the migration of a few ten thousand Jews from what is now France--before foods like potatoes, European populations in most parts didn't increase rapidly). CJ ___
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Martin Gardner - RIP
I slightly expanded my initial reaction into a blog entry: Martin Gardner Dead at 95 http://reasonsociety.blogspot.com/2010/06/martin-gardner-dead-at-95.html On 5/24/2010 7:49 AM, farmela...@juno.com wrote: Another great one passes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24gardner.html?hpw Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ___ 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] Neo-Taylorism
Didn't Hitler drive a VW? On 06/07/2010 02:14 PM, c b wrote: VW plant trains 'industrial athletes' Chattanooga workers prepared to 'perform at the highest level' Bill Poovey / Associated Press Chattanooga, Tenn. -- Volkswagen is requiring production workers hired for its new U.S. assembly plant to go through a fitness program on top of the usual job training, aiming to forge an industrial athlete who can lift, grip, bend and push without flagging ___ 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] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
The issue is not coherence in the semantic sense, but syntactic intelligibility. The early phase of TG grammar did a remarkable job of explaining how certain transformations were possible and others not, in this case, in the English language. In this *sentence, what is the direct object of sold. On 06/10/2010 08:54 AM, c b wrote: On 6/9/10, c bcb31...@gmail.com wrote: Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are not present in the input, indicated as such. This absence of negative evidence—that is, absence of evidence that an expression is part of a class of the ungrammatical sentences in one's language—is the core of the poverty of stimulus argument. For example, in English one cannot relate a question word like 'what' to a predicate within a relative clause (1): (1) *What did John meet a man who sold? ^^^ CB: Aside from the learning acquisition issues, what, (speaking of what) does the above sentence mean ? It is semantically as well as syntactically problematic. A child language learner might not use it because it doesn't express a coherent thought . Why did John meet a man who sold ? When did John meet a man who sold ? How did John meet a man who sold ? Where did John meet a man who sold ? Did John meet a man who sold ? What did John meet a man who sold for ? = Why did John... ___ 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] Pierre Bourdieu and Erich Fromm
Here are some Fromm links: Socialist Humanism: An International Symposium edited by Erich Fromm http://autodidactproject.org/other/socialist-humanism.html Internationale Erich-Fromm-Gesellschaft e.V. (English version) http://www.erich-fromm.de/e/index.htm Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the Emergence of Critical Theory by Neil McLaughlin http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Ecjscopy/articles/mclaughlin.html On the 100th anniversary of his birth: Erich Fromm's Marxist dimension by Kevin Anderson http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2000/Aug-Sept/8.00_essay.htm Note esp. the essay by Neil McLaughlin, which deals with the disputes between Fromm and the others. On 06/02/2010 05:46 PM, Ralph Dumain wrote: Lenin is a separate question from the Fromm vs Marcuse controversy. I will have to make another thorough study of Lenin's MAEC one day. My take on it is that Lenin's critique of positivism's phenomenalism is basically sound. Whether he missed something important about positivism I won't venture to say at this point. Lenin's critique of Bogdanov's theory of perception and Lenin's general theory of reflection have come in for criticism; these seem to be his weakest points. It is important to understand that Lenin's intervention into the philosophy of science (antural sciences0 needs to be distinguished from his or others' views of historical materialism; pace Lenin, these are not all of a piece. It seems that Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Adorno treated Fromm quite badly. In his turn, he disdained their philosophizing. Fromm and the others were two very different sorts of people. Fromm did not understand their brand of philosophy. His idealism is of the order of moral idealism (also influenced by his youthful immersion in Judaism); he seems to be overly idealistic in his assessments of others, for example. Politically he seems rather light, though his critiques of American politics and pathology were quite influential and important. One can see why Marcuse and the others were irritated by him, but their dismissal of his psychoanalytic work and their own rather dogmatic appropriations of Freud can be faulted. There are some articles on Marcuse vs Fromm online. I'll look for the links. The author's name eludes me at the moment, but it will come to me. On 06/02/2010 09:53 AM, Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh wrote: Stephen, sorry I don't speak German very well at all, certainly not sufficient to read any of this material in German. But thanks anyway. CB, I think you misinterpreted me - perhaps it's my own inadequate self-expression - I think Bourdieu's approach is fundamentally marxist - it does not negate marxism. On the other hand I think that he adds some additional thoughts coherent with marxism. He has the advantage of expressing himself very carefully and precisely. Here's a good piece by him which covers a lot of ground: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu.htm I think Fromm approached the same issue from a slightly different perspective using psychoanalytic methods. Again, I see Fromm took great care to maintain the decisive but not finally determinate role of the (productive) material base but I think it is valid to see how fundamentally human (animal) drives are repressed by dominant material (social) conditions can influence ideology through the subconscious. In both cases, I was wondering if comrades here had come across arguments which might run counter to these. The issue at stake is the accusation of 'idealism' a la Lenin or from Marcuse. In regard to the latter, I think I would tend to agree with Fromm who reversed the accusation to point to Marcuse's philosophy being based on a disconnect with psychoanalytic research (and the dogmaticism of Freudian concepts). In regard to Lenin's assault on idealism, that's another question - perhaps comrades would be able to give their opinions on it? There would appear to be some consensus that it was misplaced although Timpanaro appears to stand over the bulk of his remarks pointing to their context as opposed to their expressed content. I do not know enough on this to really have a set opinion so would value any thoughts. Yours, Domhnall _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 ___ 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] Fromm and Bourdieu
I do not see Fromm's psychoanalysis as idealist at all, no matter what Marcuse says. However, Fromm's specific assessments of people and ideas, e.g. Pope John XXIII or D.T. Suzuki, smack of a lack of groundedness. Marcuse, Horkheimer, and Adorno spent the 1930s turning idealism on its head, but that doesn't mean their avowed materialism was always materialist. Marcuse seems the most influenced by Romantic thought. But none of these classifications can be applied in a hard and fast manner. On 06/02/2010 06:22 PM, Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh wrote: Thanks everyone for all the help. cb - I take your point. I ventured somewhere with the Lenin stuff that I did not want to. I obviously have misunderstood the little I've read...more reading there remains. Ralph - thanks for your summary it helped a lot. Am looking forward to those links. One question is how you see Fromm as idealist. At least as far as I understand him he doesn't seem idealist to me - he is always at pains to identify the determining medium of repression (which conditions ideology) to the social reality in which humans live. So the roots for this feedback loop are material. But I know that Marcuse accused him of being idealist in Eros and Civilization. However, I think that his attack on Marcuse is more substantial as all the Hegelians certainly appear to have a weakness when it comes to grounding their dialectics in empirical fact - it seems to me as if Marcuse earned the accusation of idealism much easier than Fromm. Obviously Fromm's Marxism was certainly early period stuff focussing on the concepts of the Philosophical notebooks era but I still don't see that as leading inexorably to idealism. One way in which idealism could creep back is perhaps that by seeing repression as reflecting inherent perhaps platonic 'human' drives that cannot find expression in concrete society. But I think he would reply by saying that they are objective, scientifically verifiable drives having their own roots in material reality - albeit the reality inherent in the human condition. So at base both drives and the cause of their repression are material and that these constitute factors which provide a mechanism for the development of an ideological superstructure corresponding to any given base. Perhaps you can shed light on this as this is pretty much the issue I was wanting some insight on. It's actually a similar question in regard to Bourdieu's approach. _ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 ___ 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] Chris Hedges: the USA needs a few good communists
Chris Hedges spent too much time at the Harvard Divinity School. And I don't care for his characterization of Marx. On 05/31/2010 09:47 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: This Country Needs a Few Good Communists http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_country_needs_a_few_good_communi sts_20100531/ Posted on May 31, 2010 By Chris Hedges The witch hunts against communists in the United States were used to silence socialists, anarchists, pacifists and all those who defied the abuses of capitalism. Those “anti-Red” actions were devastating blows to the political health of the country. The communists spoke the language of class war. They understood that Wall Street, along with corporations such as British Petroleum, is the enemy. They offered a broad social vision which allowed even the non-communist left to employ a vocabulary that made sense of the destructive impulses of capitalism. But once the Communist Party, along with other radical movements, was eradicated as a social and political force, once the liberal class took government-imposed loyalty oaths and collaborated in the witch hunts for phantom communist agents, we were robbed of the ability to make sense of our struggle. We became fearful, timid and ineffectual. We lost our voice and became part of the corporate structure we should have been dismantling. Hope in this age of bankrupt capitalism will come with the return of the language of class conflict. It does not mean we have to agree with Karl Marx, who advocated violence and whose worship of the state as a utopian mechanism led to another form of enslavement of the working class, but we have to speak in the vocabulary Marx employed. We have to grasp, as Marx did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars to make profits, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, loot the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship only money and power. And, as Marx knew, unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself. The nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico is the perfect metaphor for the corporate state. It is the same nightmare seen in postindustrial pockets from the old mill towns in New England to the abandoned steel mills in Ohio. It is a nightmare that Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghans, mourning their dead, live each day. Capitalism was once viewed in America as a system that had to be fought. But capitalism is no longer challenged. And so, even as Wall Street steals billions of taxpayer dollars and the Gulf of Mexico is turned into a toxic swamp, we do not know what to do or say. We decry the excesses of capitalism without demanding a dismantling of the corporate state. The liberal class has a misguided loyalty, illustrated by environmental groups that have refused to excoriate the Obama White House over the ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. Liberals bow before a Democratic Party that ignores them and does the bidding of corporations. The reflexive deference to the Democrats by the liberal class is the result of cowardice and fear. It is also the result of an infantile understanding of the mechanisms of power. The divide is not between Republican and Democrat. It is a divide between the corporate state and the citizen. It is a divide between capitalists and workers. And, for all the failings of the communists, they got it. Unions, organizations formerly steeped in the doctrine of class warfare and filled with those who sought broad social and political rights for the working class, have been transformed into domesticated partners of the capitalist class. They have been reduced to simple bartering tools. The social demands of unions early in the 20th century that gave the working class weekends off, the right to strike, the eight-hour day and Social Security have been abandoned. Universities, especially in political science and economics departments, parrot the discredited ideology of unregulated capitalism and have no new ideas. Artistic expression, along with most religious worship, is largely self-absorbed narcissism. The Democratic Party and the press have become corporate servants. The loss of radicals within the labor movement, the Democratic Party, the arts, the church and the universities has obliterated one of the most important counterweights to the corporate state. And the purging of those radicals has left us unable to make sense of what is happening to us. The fear of communism, like the fear of Islamic terrorism, has resulted in the steady suspension of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, habeas corpus and the right to
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Martin Gardner - RIP
Say it ain't so. I discovered Martin Gardner in the *Mathematical Games* column of /Scientific American/, having innocently bought it off the newsstand because of my boyhood interest in science. I think the issue I bought was June or July 1967. And then I was hooked. I also read some of his other stuff, most memorably /Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science/. My name was published in one issue for my solution of some problem involving Baker's Solitaire. Names were omitted though, when said article was reprinted in one of Gardner's anthologies. On 05/24/2010 07:49 AM, farmela...@juno.com wrote: Another great one passes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24gardner.html?hpw Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ___ 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] highest stage of white supremacy
I don't know whether I mentioned this book years ago; just came across it while re-organizing my books: ? Cell, John W. /The Highest Stage of White Supremacy: The Origins of Segregation in South Africa and the American South/. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Sample text http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/82004312.html Publisher description http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam032/82004312.html Table of contents http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam032/82004312.html If Waistline or others are familiar with this book, I'd be interested in some feedback. Haven't read it myself. ___ 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] Praxis interpreters of Marxism
But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. -- Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right To have one basis for life and another for science is apriori a lie. -- Private Property and Communism from the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of Karl Marx (1844) At 09:20 AM 4/15/2010, c b wrote: I certainly quote all those often. Charles On 4/14/10, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: I'm in a rush right now, but the main inspirations for my perspective come from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htmIntroduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844. Thesis 3 of http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htmTheses on Feuerbach, 1845 http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.htmlPrivate Property and Communism from the Economic-Philosophical Manuscriptshttp://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.html of Karl Marx (1844) Marx of course made key statements on praxis from the doctoral dissertation Epicurean notebooks of 1841 through The German Ideology and Theses on Feuerbach (1945). ___ 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] Guy Robinson: blog (4)
There is at least one surviving blog by Guy Robinson: Guy's Philosophical Nuggets http://dalkeyguy.blogspot.com/ Among other things, his correspondence with Thomas Kuhn can be found here. As is usual for all reactionary philosophies, Robinson's bugbear is Descartes and the Enlightenment. For an advocate of dialectics, there is no dialectical thinking here. See Robinson's first post: http://dalkeyguy.blogspot.com/2007/11/questioning-questions-1-we-need-to-ask.htmlQuestioning the Qestions Now look at this: http://dalkeyguy.blogspot.com/2007/12/reconstructing-science.htmlReconstructing Science Here, in lukewarm support for Meera Nanda's hardcore anti-pomo anti-subjectivist approach to science, Robinson reveals his philosophical bankruptcy. Yet at the same time we can find deeply problematic Galileo's image of 'The Book of Nature' in which the sciences are already 'written in mathematical symbols'. Equally problematic is the picture of scientific progress as the approach to some ultimate and final truth. That view of a truth standing above and outside of all of humanity, human interests, human practices and human languages has a pretty clearly theological character that ought to ring some alarm bells amongst Marxists. It is not that we have to find some via media between the 'realist' and the 'anti-realist'. We have to see that both positions are incoherent and unintelligible. Wrong! It is neither Marxist nor helpful to picture scientific progress in the way Meera Nanda wants to, as 'increase in truthfulness', that is, as an approach to to some (presumably unattainable) ideal, an 'ultimate truth'. I have criticized this 'approach' model of progress elsewhere (also in Philosophy and Mystification - ch.11, 'On Misunderstanding Science'). Here I will say only that it is both undialectical and un-Marxist, and that we can make sense neither of the ideal nor of the notion of approaching it. (It has its political counterpart in the utopian socialisms that were roundly and rightly criticized by Marx and Engels.) Drivel! You can read the rest of Robinson's amalgam of sense and nonsense for yourself. But this can serve as evidence of the worthlessness of Wittgensteinian Marxism. Scientific Realism and the correspondence theory of truth are correct; their opposites are wrong. ___ 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] Guy Robinson essay
If you actually look at the Magee book, you will see his claims go far beyond citing Hegel as an idealist. For him, Hegel is a magus, which is good news for some, bad news for others, and a load of crap for me. Now on to Guy Robinson: Making Materialism Historical By Guy Robinson http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/making_materialism_historical.htm Robinson rightly singles out this neglected passage from The German Ideology: The history of nature, so-called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts to either to a distorted interpretation of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history. Other than this, Robinson's arguments are entirely familiar ones. Some of this essay is good if a retrod of familiar ground. Robinson writes as if he's discovering something new. The paragraph beginning with a rejection of the correspondence theory of truth is a mess. His dislike of noptions of objective reality, citing the Theses on Feuerbach, is familiar BS. The rest of this first essay is crap. At 10:23 AM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: Ralph Dumain wrote: I think Magee is full of crap. Rosa undoubtedly likes this because Magee creates a mystical Hegel that evokes revulsion in any materialist. There are Marxists who like Magee for the same reason, to validate their own perspective, e.g. Cyril Smith. It's easy to demolish diamat, but this does not approach anything that really matters for dialectical thinking. ^ CB: U think someone is full of crap ? how unusual ! It's a,b,c of dialectical materialism that Hegel was an idealist, not a materialist. So, any mature materialist already considers Hegel a mystifier. For God's sake (smile) , Marx and Engels specifically say that they extract the rational kernel from Hegel's _mystical_ shell. What a dog-bites-man story is Rosa L.'s and Magee's report that Hegel was a mystifier. At 09:44 AM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: farmelantj : Rosa Lichtenstein has just published a third essay of Guy Robinson's at her website. All three essays can be accessed at: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/other_material.htm Scroll to the foot of the page. ^^^ CB: There, Rosa L says: [1] Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, by Glen Magee This book was published by Cornell University Press in 2001; here I reproduce the Introduction to this work, copied from the Marxist Internet Archive. The thesis of Magee's book is central to the aims of Essay Fourteen (summary here), where I show that dialecticians have imported into Marxism a set of ancient mystical and Hermetic theses, which ideas can be found represented throughout the work of countless ruling-class theorists, right across the globe, and in all known Modes of Production. ^^^ CB: Some known modes of production don't have ruling classes. And said modes without antagonistic classes have dialectics , too ! See Levi-Straussian structural analysis of Native American myths in _Mythologique_ , for example. ___ 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] Guy Robinson essay
Essay 2 is a mixed bag: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Robinson_Essay_Two_Introduction.htm Some of this is on the right track--plowing familiar ground--and some intellectually messed up. http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Robinson_Essay_Three_The_Concept_Of_Nature.htmEssay Three: The Concept of Nature, Its Mystification and Demystification It's a shame that Robinson's work is so amateurish and badly though out. He acts as if the philosophy of praxis is an entirely new discovery, but his argument is sloppy. The notion of a material reality independent of the existence of humans is noxious to him, but as far as we can determine, there has been over 4 billion years of the existence of the material universe as we know it independent of our own. Yes, the minute our own praxis enters the picture, we have to advance intellectually beyond the Enlightenment to the 19th century to conceptualize at least abstractly the totality of this process. Robinson does not take the trouble to introduce clarity and discrimination into his argument, preferring to make grand generalizations about the theologization of nature without taking care to specify whether he is talking about a concept of natural determinism applying to society, or the deistical supplantation of feudal religion--rather Robinson makes blanket general statements which subvert the rational content of his thesis. General statements about mechanistic science are BS. Robinson loves Aristotle and Wittgenstein. Probably the latter is why Rosa is entertaining Robinson's work, in spite of his limited endorsement of a dialectical perspective. One can only cringe if the rest of the book is like this: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mystification-Guy-Robinson/dp/0823222918/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1271258375sr=1-1 At 07:45 AM 4/9/2010, farmela...@juno.com wrote: Rosa Lichtenstein has just published a third essay of Guy Robinson's at her website. All three essays can be accessed at: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/other_material.htm Scroll to the foot of the page. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ___ 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] Guy Robinson: Philosophy and Mystification (3)
'I think, therefore I am,' said Descartes, and the world rejoiced at the perspective of the expansion of individual personality and human powers through the liberation of the intellect. -- Facing Reality, by C.L.R. James, Grace C. Lee, Pierre Chaulieu [pseudonym of Cornelius Castoriadis] (Detroit: Bewick/Ed, 1974, orig. 1958), pp. 67-68. http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/clrdiv2.html Google books offers a limited preview of Robinson' book: http://books.google.com/books?id=WA2Db17p4HICprintsec=frontcoverdq=guy+robinson+%22philosophy+and+mystification%22source=blots=vWYBmv2UBbsig=hx4qHZTuHtH26ZrsI6paktWU3YUhl=enei=J9_FS5nKIsOC8gaIp9iuDwsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false The final chapter--14: Coda: philosophy and history--addresses the problem of defining modernity, and whether the notion of postmodernity is acceptably acceptable in indicating a postulated historical shift. Robinson also addresses the nature of feudalism and its transition to capitalism. His philosophical bugbear is Descartes and attendant individualism. There is no dialectical appreciation of Descartes to be found here. Chapter 13--Newton, Euclid, and the Foundation of Geometry--addresses a complex of historical intellectual problems: empiricism, rationalism, and Kantianism, in relation to Euclidean geometry, logicism and formalism in the foundations of mathematics, social contract theory . . . Robinson's big obsession is that philosophers allegedly neglected practices as the basis of mathematical concepts. For this he praises Newton as opposed to Locke. Chapter 11--On Misunderstanding Science. Robinson begins with trepidation over the notion of Scientific Realism. He begins with an appreciation of Kuhn, and again decries Descartes and the tradition of modern epistemology. And one expects this from a confirmed Wittgensteinian. Robinson makes a big deal out of incommensurability, which presumably is usable by someone who thinks that the notion of forms of life is worthwhile. Robinson also sees merit in Popper's notion of versimilitude, as a way of conceptualizing scientific progress. Robinson likes the word objective as long as it is not identified with the real. At this point I am sickened. Sadly, Robinson identifies foundationalism with realism, and so he feels the necessity of taking the latter down with the former, as well as embracing Wittgensteinian irrationalism, which he denies being such. All of this presumably is congruent with Marx's philosophy of praxis, but in its subjectivist interpretation, and is perceived to be fleshing out Marx's cryptic remark that the one science is the science of history. PS: The praxis interpreters of Marxism were repeatedly slandered as subjectivists by Stalinists worldwide. One home-grown example is John Hoffman's Marxism and the Theory of Praxis: A Critique of Some New Versions of Old Fallacies (1975). However, the Praxis philosophers such as Markovic were never subjectivists, just to pinpoint an example or two. Others do indeed trade on philosophical ambiguities as does Robinson. ___ 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] Praxis interpreters of Marxism
I'm in a rush right now, but the main inspirations for my perspective come from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htmIntroduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844. Thesis 3 of http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htmTheses on Feuerbach, 1845 http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.htmlPrivate Property and Communism from the Economic-Philosophical Manuscriptshttp://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.html of Karl Marx (1844) Marx of course made key statements on praxis from the doctoral dissertation Epicurean notebooks of 1841 through The German Ideology and Theses on Feuerbach (1945). At 01:57 PM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: On 4/14/10, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: Syntactic ambiguity or ineptitude on my part. I meant: . . . nor is attempting to deny Marx's materialism necessary in order to develop the concept of praxis. ^^^ CB: Yes. Do you derive praxis from Marx's phrase practical-critical activity in the first Thesis on Feuerbach ? 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 or 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 The Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of revolutionary, of practical-critical, activity. ^^^ At 01:40 PM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: It's not necessary to develop the concept of praxis ? On 4/14/10, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: Here is where I would agree with Hillel-Rubin as against Robinson, Dunayevskaya, and many others. Trying to play off Marx's advocacy of naturalism as a transcendence of both idealism and materialism is the bogus ploy here. But note please that praxis philosophers do not all go for this gambit, nor is it necessary to develop the concept of praxis. See also my review: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/ruben-dh-2.htmlReview of David-Hillel Rubin, http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/ruben-dh-2.htmlMarxism and Materialism: A Study in Marxist Theory of Knowledge ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] University of California Press e-books
University of California Press has made a whole collection of e-books available online, many of them in their entirety for free. I'm oting just a few such books on Marxism ( a few realated topics) of interest: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/miller-humanexistence.htmlReview of James Miller, http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/miller-humanexistence.htmlHistory and Human Existence: From Marx to Merleau-Ponty by R. Dumain book available at: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft2489n82k;query=marxism;brand=ucpress Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3n39n8x3;query=marxism;brand=ucpressAlthusser and the renewal of Marxist social theory online access is available to everyone Author: Resch, Robert Paul Published: University of California Press, 1992 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1489n6wq;query=marxism;brand=ucpressRevolution and history: the origins of Marxist historiography in China, 1919-1937 online access is available to everyone Author: Dirlik, Arif Published: University of California Press, 1989 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0489n683;query=marxism;brand=ucpressHigh culture fever: politics, aesthetics, and ideology in Deng's China online access is available to everyone Author: Wang, Jing 1950- Published: University of California Press, 1996 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6p3007r2;query=marxism;brand=ucpressFifteen jugglers, five believers: literary politics and the poetics of American social movements online access is available to everyone Author: Reed, T. V. (Thomas Vernon) Published: University of California Press, 1992 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9w1009t9;query=marxism;brand=ucpressCritical crossings: the New York intellectuals in postwar America online access is available to everyone Author: Jumonville, Neil Published: University of California Press, 1990 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft538nb2x9;query=marxism;brand=ucpressRomain Rolland and the politics of intellectual engagement online access is available to everyone Author: Fisher, David James Published: University of California Press, 1988 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt7f59q5ms;query=marxism;brand=ucpressLetters and autobiographical writings online access is available to everyone Author: Mills, C. Wright (Charles Wright) 1916-1962 Published: University of California Press, 2000 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8779p24p;query=marxism;brand=ucpressAn unmastered past: the autobiographical reflections of Leo Lowenthal online access is available to everyone Author: Lowenthal, Leo Published: University of California Press, 1987 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5290063h;query=marxism;brand=ucpressDarwin in Russian thought online access is available to everyone Author: Vucinich, Alexander 1914- Published: University of California Press, 1989 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3q2nb26r;query=marxism;brand=ucpressNothing but history: reconstruction and extremity after metaphysics online access is available to everyone Author: Roberts, David D 1943- Published: University of California Press, 1995 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6q2nb3wh;query=marxism;brand=ucpressOn Heidegger's Nazism and philosophy online access is available to everyone Author: Rockmore, Tom 1942- Published: University of California Press, 1991 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9j49p370;query=marxism;brand=ucpressSoviet perceptions of the United States online access is available to everyone Author: Schwartz, Morton Published: University of California Press, 1980 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8g5008n9;query=marxism;brand=ucpressThe fabrication of labor: Germany and Britain, 1640-1914 online access is available to everyone Author: Biernacki, Richard 1956- Published: University of California Press, 1997 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft009nb0bb;query=marxism;brand=ucpressWhen the Soviet Union entered world politics online access is available to everyone Author: Jacobson, Jon 1938- Published: University of California Press, 1994 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5h4nb34h;query=marxism;brand=ucpressWorkers against work: labor in Paris and Barcelona during the popular fronts online access is available to everyone Author: Seidman, Michael (Michael M.) Published: University of California Press, 1990 Title: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1m3nb0zw;query=marxism;brand=ucpressA little corner of freedom: Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbache v online access is available to everyone Author: Weiner, Douglas R
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Free Ebook Service Of Interest (Was U of C Ebooks)
This is news to me. I see that one has to register to use this site? Is this advisable? At 07:37 PM 4/10/2010, Bill Quimby wrote: Have you looked at http://a.rg.org There is a strong focus on postmodernist heroes, but a fruitful supply of materials on Marxism, Frankfurt School authors, etc. There is no search mechanism, but you can click on Library and then search alphabetically by author. You can sign up for a daily new additions newsletter. I think that rg.org is not a producer per se but an aggregator, as well as an indicator to others willing to laboriously scan a work. I've noted that items requested often show up a few days later! To date, only Verso has issued a formal cease and desist request. - Bill Ralph Dumain wrote: University of California Press has made a whole collection of e-books available online, many of them in their entirety for free. I'm oting just a few such books on Marxism ( a few realated topics) of interest: ___ 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] Lewontin letter on Lamarckian issue (was Re-evaluating Lysenko)
Aside: I recall _Goedel, Escher and Bach_ as a load of New Age crap. As for Lamarckism and cultural evolution, I'm wary of such metaphorical thinking. Lewontin's response is unclear. More on this later. Another aside: In 1975, I attended a guest lecture by Lewontic on heritability, as part of a course on scientific racism. At 02:51 PM 3/29/2010, c b wrote: I finally found my letter exchange with Lewontin as reported to this list in December 2005. Will look for the articles discussed. Charles http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-December/019560.html Marxism-Thaxis] Response from Lewontin Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Mon Dec 12 14:54:34 MST 2005 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Logical Empiricism (reformatted) Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Back in October I sent a fax ( my email didn't get through to him) to Richard Lewontin with interjection comments on his article New York Review . He sent me a letter back. I called him and asked him if I could send his letter to the list. He said ok. I'll copy my original note to him below. Dear Mr. Brown: Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments on the recent article in The New York Review. I was particularly struck by your point that culture, if modeled on an evolutionary process, definitely has a Lamarckian inheritance. What is not always appreciated by scientists is that once one has a Lamarckian form of inheritance, the strictness of Mendel's Laws no longer applies, of course, and almost anything is possible. A very interesting book showing the implications of forms of passage from one individual to another without any particular fixed rule of inheritance is the book on cultural inheritance by Feldman and Cavalli. What they show is that the moment you get away form strict genetic segregation and allow an arbitrary probability of the passage of a trait from one individual to another, the whole question of selection fades. Let us say, a trait can spread not because it is selected but because the rule of transmission strongly favors it. If everybody who ever heard a particular word that had been invented now used it ,it would spread very rapidly through the population, even though it could not be said to have some particular selective advantage. In a sense, the distinction between the rules of inheritance and the rules of selection disappear once one allows a free possibility for transmission rate. I am delighted that you read the article so critically and that you saw one of the most important points about cultural inheritance. Thanks again for having written me. Yours sincerely, R.C. Lewontin ___ 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] Soviet Cybernetics
http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=488 Language, Mathematics, and Ideology SIAM NEWS November 7, 2002 Book Review Philip J. Davis From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics. By Slava Gerovitch, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002, 369 pages (54 of which are notes and references; illustrated with numerous photos of Soviet personalities) When I first learned of this book and read the first reviews several years ago, I immediately book this book on my want list. Never got hold of it, though. Now I'm reminded of the thick oppressive abusive fog of ideological language that strangled the Soviet mind throughout nearly all of its existence. Something to keep in mind when dealing with the undead. ___ 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] Benjamin Button
Interesting. But I thought the message of Forrest Gump is that being white and a retard is a formula for bliss. At 11:06 AM 3/28/2010, Paddy Hackett wrote: I watched the video version of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button some weeks ago. As a movie it was moderately entertaining and visually impressive but certainly not encaptivating. It was of excessively long duration. However much of it, even allowing for poetic licence, was implausible. Essentially the film is about time. Its key theme is the ageing process and the way this process is a real concrete influence on the lives of people. The film draws our attention to age and the relationship between the different generations. In this way it somewhat challenges our minds concerning the matter of age and even ageism. Notwithstanding the ageism that exists in today's world the film brings out the hard fact that age does, in a sense, get in the way. It does this by showing how Benjamin's physical evolution from a man into a boy and later a baby cannot be a proper father to his child -nor proper lover to his female partner. Again his birth in the form of an old man in the form of a new born baby obstructs his relationships with his peer group. The reversal of the aging process in Benjamin seriously and inevitably influences his relationships with other people. This is a fact that would obtain under all social conditions. Indeed there may be an evolutionary aspect to this matter involving natural selection. And this is because age matters in the relationship between individuals from different generations whether under capitalism or communism. However under capitalism the age question is more pronounced. And ageism under capitalism is a real and oppressive issue. Other than that there is little more that I can say about this film. Perhaps the short story, on which the movie is loosely based, which I have not read is more comprehensive and interesting. Surprisingly I discovered that at least one film critic suggested that this movie resembles the Forest Gump movie --because, while watching it, I had drawn a similar conclusion. Paddy Hackett http://paddy-hackett.blogspot.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 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] Descartes Marxism: Selected Bibliography
OK, here's my work in progress: Descartes Marxism: Selected Bibliography http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/descartes-marx.html Passing references to Descartes are legion, but substantive additions are needed and welcome. ___ 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] Descartes, Smith and the Theory of Subject
I just came across this old email. I'm compiling a bibliography on Marxism and Descartes, and it looks like this might fit in. I'd also like to read the paper itself. Is it available online? At 01:27 PM 10/11/2008, dogangoec...@aol.com wrote: Dear All, please find below the abstract of my paper on Descartes, Smith and the theory of subject. The paper will appear in the 3rd issue of BAYKUS - a Turkish journal of philosophy. You may think it is not dealing with the contemporary crisis. Sure it does not. But it deals with a fundamental contradiction of capitalism in regard to the question what is the situation of individuals in capitalit markets and production and of how to establish a society in which all individuals might be emancipated and regard one another as their second selves. Cheers, Dogan - Â This paper aims to present Smithâs theory of subject in his intellectual context and in relation to some con temporary approaches. The issue will be, first, dealt with in relation to Descartes from a philosophical and social historical point of view and this will be related to Smithâs philosophy of subject. After having referred to Smithâs Scottish background as a philosopher, there will be presented Smithâs two dimensional (general and historical) philosophy of subject as a critique of Cartesian philosophy of subject. In that connection there will be pointed to two traditions in the philosophy of subject: cogito and mirror. As will be seen below, Smith defines himself in mirror tradition. This will lead to presentation of Smithâs methodological revolution in the theory of subject and of his use of some of his major concepts such as situation, sympathy, impartiality a nd the division of labour. After having worked out Smithâs investigation into the contradiction between general and historical aspects of the philosophy of subject there will be pointed out that Smith uses a social theoretical perspective which might bring about the emancipation of subject. ___ 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] Re-evaluating Lysenko
There are other things to look at in addition to recycling this crackpot horseshit. For example: (1) The misuse by vulgar ignoramuses of the well-intentioned but logically muddled notions of Engels, who habitually confused subjective with objective dialectics, conflated empirical laws and logical constructs, and created an ambiguous structure to be abused by lesser intellects who acted as if empirical matters could be decided by a priori metaphysics. (2) The crude instrumentalism of Stalin, but also the naive conceptions of scientific labor promulgated by Bukharin (cf. Polanyi), resulting in the crushing of autonomous scientific work in favor of a vulgar pragmatism in which all intellectual activity--science, philosophy, literature, the promulgation of atheism, etc.-- was subordinated to the master task of building socialism--which of course was not socialism at all, but crash industrialization. (3) The very irrationality of a despotic state structure mimicking the worst features of Czarism in which the subjective wish fulfillment of an egomaniacal absolute dictator surrounds himself with boot-licking yes-men incapable of providing accountability or any objective check in an overpoliticized ideological environment. (4) What is really involved in addressing gaps in scientific knowledge at a given point in time, and who is worth taking seriously, on what basis. Reading the posts over the past few days makes me want to vomit, and reminds me why I resigned from so many Marxist lists at the end of the '90s. At 09:56 PM 3/25/2010, CeJ wrote: JF:Shouldn't we also take a look at the life and career of the Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, who was the leading Mendelian geneticist in the Soviet Union of his time and who suffered imprisonment, where he died, because of his opposition to Lysenkoism? Good point. I think it was Vavilov who helped Lysenko rise to the top. The accomplishments of Michurin probably meant more than the work of Lysenko or Vavilov in terms of crop production and diversification in the SU. But Vavilov appears to have been on the way towards a 'green revolution' himself had he not been so vitiated and ruined by the system. I would also point out, however, that the figure held up as the father of the green revolution, the American Borlaug, DID NOT make use of an Mendelian understanding of the genetics of wheat. Rather, he used intuitive and 'seat of the pants' judgements about what to hybridize in order to adapt wheat to Mexico (such as bringing in strains of wheat that were hardy in Kenya). The very sort of thing Burbank, Michurin and Lysenko would have approved of. There is something, at least until the research of the 1950s and onwards, about Lysenko's dismissiveness about the pea and fruit fly counters--they weren't improving agriculture. In retrospect, I think it is fairly easy to see that (even without reverting to simplified ideas of dialectics), Soviet biology, genetics and agronomy would have benefited from a much more open debate between the the two dogmas. Back to my original point, with a bit more detail: I think it is unfair to blame Lynsenko for the failures of Soviet agricultural policy. And the US was hardly the model for agricultural improvement at the time of the Dust Bowl. The Soviet Union suffered from a lack of its own scientific communities in understanding the climates they had to deal with (that the farmers had to deal with), and issues in transport and storage probably hampered agricultural production more than anything Lysenko did. 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 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] Global Class War
The Global Class War : How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win it Back by Jeff Faux Why, in 1993, did the newly elected Bill Clinton pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pro-business measure invented by his political adversaries and opposed by his allies in labor and the environment? The answer, according to Faux, is that Clinton was less devoted to his base than to his fellow elites, rewarding their donations to the Democratic Party with access to Mexico's cheap labor and lax environmental standards. With a fluid grasp of both history and economics, Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, critiques both Democrats and Republicans for protecting transnational corporations while abandoning the rest of us to an unregulated, and therefore brutal and merciless, global market. Faux describes how free trade and globalization have encouraged businesses to become nationless enterprises detached from the economic well-being of any single country, to the detriment of all but transnational elites. He details the genesis of NAFTA and the failure of the agreement to deliver on its promises to workers, predicting a severe American recession as its legacy. But Faux sees hope for North America in the model of the European Union, a pie-in-the-sky conclusion to this incisive, rancorous book. http://www.amazon.com/Global-Class-War-Americas-Bipartisan/dp/0470098287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1269435567sr=1-1 ___ 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?
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? At 08:36 PM 3/22/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/22/2010 4:56:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: And when we see what this phony health care reform amounts to, there's going to be a much bigger clash than what occurred on Capitol Hill this weekend. Which reminds me, I have to make time to read Waistline's Marxist glossary. Comment Stop . . . . don't read the glossary. It at 6.5 with rewrites that makes 6.0 obsolete. I need seven days. Should be at 8.0 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] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .
In a hurry, as I must meet with someone soon. In order to process this paragraph I had to copy it into a Word file and break it up into paragraphs. Printing it out, will look it over with care later. Will work on dialectical materialism--needs a complete overhaul, keeping in mind this is not for an academic audience. Check google books--I don't think you will get much of Bottomore there, but maybe some snippets or an article. I will check my web site: I have some old pedagogical materials there, of historical if not current value. Dictionary should seek to explain, varying points of view if necessary, not preach. Marxists Internet Archive has some pedagogical introductions, from Trot standpoint, which is a derivation of Marxist-Leninism, but I don't like their approach. Various people from various tendencies have been thinking recently of how to popularize their ideas, for example, on the web. So a common problem is being recognized. More later . At 09:03 AM 3/20/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: I have not looked at Bottomore's dictionary since giving it away in 2004. I will run to the bookstore and locate a copy and look at it. Anyone that publishes a Marxist glossary enters into extreme controversy with every single segment of the Marxist current. The most difficult aspect of the project is staying on focus. The focus is a real audience and creating an organizing tool that is educational. There are comrades better equipped for many reasons to take the lead on this project and all have refused. The reason is a desire to produce a glossary that sounds like how the American proletariat think things out in real time. For instance the American proletariat does not react to the word âmediateâ or âinterpenetration.â Trade Unions mediate relations between their members and their employers. Trade Unions were initially organized to protect the wages and conditions of labor from pressure of their members employers for profits. Because of the lost ground of union over the past 30 years âmediateâ becomes a concept meaning union enhance wages and this experience has not been true for almost twenty years. The need for the glossary arose in the course of holding classes - educationals, with first a group of young people and recruiting a few older - retired workers, pushed into action over health care. Let me give a real time example of the conceptual problem of the American mind. Here is the agreed upon basic description of dialectical materialism: Dialectal materialism: Dialectal materialism is an approach and method to the study of a real world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the real material world. The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws develops - evolves, from a lower to a higher level. Society contains laws of development moving society from a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on development of the productive forces and social relations of production. The constant changes and interaction between productive forces and social relations prevents us from knowing everything at any particular moment. But that is no excuse for not accepting and learning about what is real. On the contrary, it inspires a serious Marxist to constantly study. The materialist approach is combined with the dialectical method, treating all phenomena in nature and society as dialectical. The basic laws of materialist dialectics are: This had to be rewritten The reaction to the term dialectical materialism was fascinating and mind boggling. Everyone would demand to know its meaning and treated the term with hostility. We reversed the words and all the hostile reactions disappeared. The second line was changed and the terms âreal material worldâ was reduced to âmaterial world.â The reason is that people reacted to real material world with the ideology âwhat is real to you might not be real to me,â meaning experience. Ralph, I was fucked up because â real worldâ was meant to deliver a concept of a world existing outside the individual human body, mind and sense perception. People already understand the world is real, but experienced individually. Soon as the formulation was changed a different the concept of dialectical materialism was better understood. Here is the rewrite: Dialectal materialism: (materialist dialectics) Materialist dialectics is an approach and method to the study of a real world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the material world. The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws grows from a lower to a higher level. Society is knowable, containing economic laws moving society from a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on development of the productive forces. Its constant change prevents us from knowing everything at any particular moment. But that is no
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .
Old stuff: * http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtothink.htmlHow to Think (Sojourner Truth Organization) * http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtostudy.htmlHow to Study: A Guide for Studentshttp://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtostudy.html (Jefferson School of Social Science) See also my Marxism web guide: http://www.autodidactproject.org/guidmarx.htmlMarx and Marxism Web Guide Note that I have some old crap as well as more technically sophisticated stuff. For example, I have one volume of the Cornforth trilogy. I'm going to have someone digitize the other two volumes because others have been nagging me for them. But I strongly dislike all the old diamat/histomat textbooks. They're awful. But anyone interested in this kind of stuff can find some of it on my web site as well as on other Marxist web sites. I am going to be late, so I must sign off now. At 10:47 AM 3/20/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: In a hurry, as I must meet with someone soon. In order to process this paragraph I had to copy it into a Word file and break it up into paragraphs. Printing it out, will look it over with care later. Will work on dialectical materialism--needs a complete overhaul, keeping in mind this is not for an academic audience. Check google books--I don't think you will get much of Bottomore there, but maybe some snippets or an article. I will check my web site: I have some old pedagogical materials there, of historical if not current value. Dictionary should seek to explain, varying points of view if necessary, not preach. Marxists Internet Archive has some pedagogical introductions, from Trot standpoint, which is a derivation of Marxist-Leninism, but I don't like their approach. Various people from various tendencies have been thinking recently of how to popularize their ideas, for example, on the web. So a common problem is being recognized. More later . At 09:03 AM 3/20/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: I have not looked at Bottomore's dictionary since giving it away in 2004. I will run to the bookstore and locate a copy and look at it. Anyone that publishes a Marxist glossary enters into extreme controversy with every single segment of the Marxist current. The most difficult aspect of the project is staying on focus. The focus is a real audience and creating an organizing tool that is educational. There are comrades better equipped for many reasons to take the lead on this project and all have refused. The reason is a desire to produce a glossary that sounds like how the American proletariat think things out in real time. For instance the American proletariat does not react to the word âmediateâ or âinterpenetration.â Trade Unions mediate relations between their members and their employers. Trade Unions were initially organized to protect the wages and conditions of labor from pressure of their members employers for profits. Because of the lost ground of union over the past 30 years âmediateâ becomes a concept meaning union enhance wages and this experience has not been true for almost twenty years. The need for the glossary arose in the course of holding classes - educationals, with first a group of young people and recruiting a few older - retired workers, pushed into action over health care. Let me give a real time example of the conceptual problem of the American mind. Here is the agreed upon basic description of dialectical materialism: Dialectal materialism: Dialectal materialism is an approach and method to the study of a real world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the real material world. The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws develops - evolves, from a lower to a higher level. Society contains laws of development moving society from a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on development of the productive forces and social relations of production. The constant changes and interaction between productive forces and social relations prevents us from knowing everything at any particular moment. But that is no excuse for not accepting and learning about what is real. On the contrary, it inspires a serious Marxist to constantly study. The materialist approach is combined with the dialectical method, treating all phenomena in nature and society as dialectical. The basic laws of materialist dialectics are: This had to be rewritten The reaction to the term dialectical materialism was fascinating and mind boggling. Everyone would demand to know its meaning and treated the term with hostility. We reversed the words and all the hostile reactions disappeared. The second line was changed and the terms âreal material worldâ was reduced to âmaterial world.â The reason is that people reacted to real material world with the ideology âwhat is real to you might not be real to me,â meaning experience. Ralph, I
[Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism : Dialectics (1) [fwd]
Yesterday I mentioned the Berliner Instituts für kritische Theorie (InkriT) . . . http://www.inkrit.de/ and its project the Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism (HCDM), particularly its . . . http://www.inkrit.de/hkwm-int/index-EN.htmSection in English and various free downloadable articles. Now I wish to call your attention to one article: http://www.inkrit.de/hkwm-int/aritcles/Dialectics.pdfDialectics (Wolfgang Fritz Haug) This article reveals this reference source to take a definite point of view rather than remain neutral, i.e. to reclaim Marxism from the Soviet debacle, in theory as well as in practice. Whether this particular effort is Germanocentric, in spite of its citation of literature from a panoply of languages and nations, I can't be sure, but there are East and West German authors cited that probably weigh more heavily in Haug's neck of the woods than they do in the English-speaking world, even among Communist parties. But this is not a complaint, it's a question of how various authors orient themselves in struggling with their intellectual heritage. I draw some inferences in what I take historical-critical to be in practice. Haug the evolution of a key concept, its different interpretations and mutual criticism of authors, and draws his own conclusions. I consider this legitimate as far as it goes, but I am not entirely happy with the result of such a detailed presentation, because in the end it, aside from lack of comprehensiveness in covering such an enormous topic, the underlying logical issues behind both the standard dialectical materialist formulations from Engels on and all the different approaches to dialectics remain underanalyzed. While the difficulties in extracting Marx's approach to dialectics from his scattered cryptic statements are explored, both Marx's epistemology and the dialectics of the critique of political economy remain under-discussed. By contrast, Roy Bhaskar's tripartite classification of dialectics in the first edition of A Dictionary of Marxist Thought at least delineates a typology of dialectic to be dissected. Haug's conclusion is a case in point of my issue: Dialectics would therefore be relevant for an orientation which combines agility and wisdom; although it does not give up its secrets in a methodological formulation, it would nevertheless be relevant as method in an elementary sense, understood as heuristics [Findekunst]. Both functions are connected to a conception of the world which allows a contradictory, moving context to be thought. Perhaps it is not too bold, in a Brechtian sense, to define the Sage as the quintessential location in which such dialectics may be observed (Benjamin, qtd in Ruoff 1976, 39). The ability to practise dialectics is, finally, an art. Being a dialectician means having the wind of history in ones sails. The sails are the concepts. It is not enough, however, to have sails at ones disposal. What is decisive is knowing the art of setting them (Benjamin, 473). This is much too vague, even as a characterization of a heuristic. I could construct a typology of dialectic on the fly, and also provide a capsule description of the fundamental logical lapses in Engels' formulations, which I do not see in this article. (TO BE CONTINUED) _ ___ 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] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .
Quickly. The first edition of A Dictionary of Marxist thought ed. by T. B. Bottomore is partially accessible via Google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=q4QwNP_K1pYCprintsec=frontcoverdq=dictionary+of+marxist+thoughtcd=1#v=onepageq=dialecticf=false These entries can be viewed in full: dialectical materialism (Roy Edgley): p. 142-3 dialectics (Roy Bhaskar): 143-150 dialectics of nature (Robert M. Young): 150-151 I haven't read this stuff in a long time. This is far more professional than the usual garbage, but I won't vouch for it being definitive. Curiously, I never see this topic covered comprehensively and comprehensibly. At 10:55 AM 3/20/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: Old stuff: * http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtothink.htmlHow to Think (Sojourner Truth Organization) * http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtostudy.htmlHow to Study: A Guide for Studentshttp://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtostudy.html (Jefferson School of Social Science) See also my Marxism web guide: http://www.autodidactproject.org/guidmarx.htmlMarx and Marxism Web Guide Note that I have some old crap as well as more technically sophisticated stuff. For example, I have one volume of the Cornforth trilogy. I'm going to have someone digitize the other two volumes because others have been nagging me for them. But I strongly dislike all the old diamat/histomat textbooks. They're awful. But anyone interested in this kind of stuff can find some of it on my web site as well as on other Marxist web sites. I am going to be late, so I must sign off now. At 10:47 AM 3/20/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: In a hurry, as I must meet with someone soon. In order to process this paragraph I had to copy it into a Word file and break it up into paragraphs. Printing it out, will look it over with care later. Will work on dialectical materialism--needs a complete overhaul, keeping in mind this is not for an academic audience. Check google books--I don't think you will get much of Bottomore there, but maybe some snippets or an article. I will check my web site: I have some old pedagogical materials there, of historical if not current value. Dictionary should seek to explain, varying points of view if necessary, not preach. Marxists Internet Archive has some pedagogical introductions, from Trot standpoint, which is a derivation of Marxist-Leninism, but I don't like their approach. Various people from various tendencies have been thinking recently of how to popularize their ideas, for example, on the web. So a common problem is being recognized. More later . At 09:03 AM 3/20/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: I have not looked at Bottomore's dictionary since giving it away in 2004. I will run to the bookstore and locate a copy and look at it. Anyone that publishes a Marxist glossary enters into extreme controversy with every single segment of the Marxist current. The most difficult aspect of the project is staying on focus. The focus is a real audience and creating an organizing tool that is educational. There are comrades better equipped for many reasons to take the lead on this project and all have refused. The reason is a desire to produce a glossary that sounds like how the American proletariat think things out in real time. For instance the American proletariat does not react to the word âmediateâ or âinterpenetration.â Trade Unions mediate relations between their members and their employers. Trade Unions were initially organized to protect the wages and conditions of labor from pressure of their members employers for profits. Because of the lost ground of union over the past 30 years âmediateâ becomes a concept meaning union enhance wages and this experience has not been true for almost twenty years. The need for the glossary arose in the course of holding classes - educationals, with first a group of young people and recruiting a few older - retired workers, pushed into action over health care. Let me give a real time example of the conceptual problem of the American mind. Here is the agreed upon basic description of dialectical materialism: Dialectal materialism: Dialectal materialism is an approach and method to the study of a real world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the real material world. The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws develops - evolves, from a lower to a higher level. Society contains laws of development moving society from a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on development of the productive forces and social relations of production. The constant changes and interaction between productive forces and social relations prevents us from knowing everything at any particular moment. But that is no excuse for not accepting and learning about what is real. On the contrary
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Historical-Critical Dictionary of Ma...
I post all these references not because I believe in them but because they are historical examples of reference and pedagogical material that one can either use or discard in whole or in part. I'm not thrilled to death with any of it. And most of this stuff about quality and quantity and the rest of it is a waste of time, or positively harmful. It's a mess. I can't be sure what the purpose of your glossary is, whether to teach useful concepts independently of their history or to provide a guide to deciphering writings from the past, explaining how specialized terms have been used. But for purposes of people not invested in engaging scholarship or the intellectual history of Marxism, a good deal of this stuff is going to be absolutely useless. I also have to repeat that for a scholarly work such as this Historical-Critical Dictionary, it's surprisingly anemic for all the detail it does give. At 07:51 PM 3/20/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: Quality and Quantity and Contradiction. Stalin argues that qualitative changes occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.11 We should note that this is only one aspect of this category of dialectical logic. It is the more commonsensical side of the problem. The more difficult question is how, concretely, do different quantities of the same thing change the quality of it, or why is it that a phenomenon is something other than its constituent parts taken separately. For instance, a thousand soldiers fighting together on a battlefield constitute qualitatively something different from a thousand fighting separately. Common sense tells us it is concentration that makes the difference. Yet a thousand soldiers fighting separately, scattered throughout the countryside, can sometimes be more effective than a thousand in concentration. As we can see, it is an aspect of dialectics that is not only complex, but forces us to recognize the unity of the two sides. Yet in Stalin the quality quantity process becomes more one of causality. Small incremental changes in abstract quantity create large qualitative leaps. There is no room for how these new qualities affect the quantity. There is no appreciation of the reciprocal relation of the philosophy of praxis (Marxism ed.) quality is also connectedd to quantity and this connection is perhaps its most fertile contribution. Comment I am in overdrive conditioned to do 12 hours work with a couple of break and a lunch period. The above is why I hate and remain anti-philosophy. We are not going to hide behind philosophic concepts and mumbo jumbo.. Allow me to get the heart of the issue of Quality and Quantity and Contradiction. Here is the question posed by the author: The more difficult question is how, concretely, do different quantities of the same thing change the quality of it, or why is it that a phenomenon is something other than its constituent parts taken separately. In this authors critique of Stalinâs Dialectical and Historical Materialism he adopts the exact same underlying thinking of Stalin and presents the same conclusion in different words. The question how concretely do different quantities of the same thing change the quality of it, means you have not solved the equation. This is the wrong question. Here is the equation: the introduction of a new quality, - incrementally or quantitatively, into an existing process (quality/quantity), begins the quantitatively change - alteration, of the old quality. At a certain stage in the accumulation of the new quality, the old process or old quality begins the process of breaking down, and is forces to leap to a new qualitative definition. How this takes place is pretty easy for the workers to grasp. Once you introduce a new quality into a process and it begins quantitative expansion or receives more inputs or additions of the new quality, the process halts development and expansion on the old basis. This is so because the process now evolves and develops with the new quality within it. In society, specifically a historically distinct social system (mode of production), more of the same or a quantitative increase of the same thing cannot produce a qualitative leap or compel society to change qualitatively. The industrial revolution, inaugurated by the steam engine, was a new quality that brought the expansion of manufacturing to an end as it grew quantitatively on the old basis of the old technology. Not all at what time, but all the related clusters of technology associated with the underlying principles of the steam engine came into play quantitatively.. Now the process of quantitative injection of a new quality - the steam engine and related cluster of technology ( the mechanical flywheel, and electro-mechanical transfer bars and levers that Marx spends
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .
I think we should all discuss this publicly, pooling our knowledge and abilities. I doubt I have a unique ability lacking in others here. But you are most welcome to send me a copy of the whole text and I'll give whatever useful feedback I can. Have you found the first or second edition of Bottomore's Dictionary of Marxist Thought useful for some of your source material? At 09:23 AM 3/19/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: Comrade Ralph: A new Marxist glossary is being prepared. The last Marxist Glossary receiving large distribution in America was L. Harry Gouldâs 1943 Glossary of Marxist Terms. A larger second edition was published in 1946 called Marxist Glossary and reprinted in the 1970âs by Proletarian Publishers. Us. Things are heating up and small circles are forming everywhere. Most of the younger people and older workers are 100% unfamiliar with Marxism or any Marxist concepts. A new glossary is needed. I vowed to do such a glossary ten years ago in a discussion on Marxism list. The problem was being unable to find an audience. Since Obama's election things have heated up dramatically and the material from ten years ago, and most certainly that of the old Soviet era is totally inadequate. I have taken the lead on writing a Marxist glossary but it is part of a collective effort amongst a core of comrades. However an outside view is needed. By this I mean outside our meetings in Detroit. A fundamental draft will be prepared by the March 30, 2010 deadline. I would love to send you the entire glossary no later than March 30, and or discuss terms on line in the open. I do wish to send you the entire glossary off line through. Why? Because of your uncompromising critical and informed point of view. Ralph we might not find this in our lifetime but I assure you no one is rolling over or going out like a bunch of mutherfucking suckers. Right or wrong (and we already know what are going to be historically in error) we are dedicated to opening the new era of proletarian onslaught in the flesh. The bourgeoisie is not going to take everything away from us and we stand around like simpletons talking about where are the people. The people been in motion and this is the kind of shit we live for. Victory of death. Proletarian 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] Agamben - Coming Community vs. Negri Hardt - (Coming?) Commonwealth
As trivial as I find all this stuff, I find that sometimes Zizek hits the mark, though his specific insights never add up to a comprehensive picture. The only thing I really dislike in this extract is his charitable remarks about Islam. He is, though, quite correct about this: With the dynamics of contemporary capitalism, the opposition between rigid State control and carnivalesque liberation is no longer functional. -Original Message- From: CeJ jann...@gmail.com Sent: Mar 15, 2010 6:03 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Agamben - Coming Community vs. Negri Hardt - (Coming?) Commonwealth And Zizek is in the midst of all this too. I don't think the Z man answers the question about 'deterritorialization', but it seems to me to be a concept borrowed from Deleuze and Guattari. I do agree with him on some points, and then find him maddeningly reactionary on others. But the dude is popular, and in this postmo post-cap world of winners and losers, we adore the celebrity of the winners. http://www.softtargetsjournal.com/web/zizek.php ST: But when Negri and Hardt use the term deterritorialization, don’t they mean something very specific, namely that the difference between productive and unproductive labor has become increasingly unclear, and therefore that the site of exploitation is no longer localized, but disseminated across the social surface—the entire space of society is politicized, and no longer simply the factory? Let’s start with Negri and Hardt. Somewhere in the middle of Multitude, there is an intermezzo on Bakhtin and carnival. I violently disagree with this carnivalesque vision of liberation. Carnival is a very ambiguous term, more often than not used by reactionaries. My God, if you need a carnival, today’s capitalism is a carnival. A KKK lynching is a carnival. A cultural critic, a friend of mine, Boris Groys, told me that he did some research on Bakhtin and that it became clear that when Bakhtin was producing his theory of carnival in the 1930s, it was the Stalinist purges that were his model: today you are on the Central Committee, tomorrow . . . With the dynamics of contemporary capitalism, the opposition between rigid State control and carnivalesque liberation is no longer functional. Here I agree with what Badiou said in the recent interview with you published in Il Manifesto: those who have nothing have only their discipline. This is why I like to mockingly designate myself Left-fascist or whatever! Today, the language of transgression is the ruling ideology. We have to reappropriate the language of discipline, of mass discipline, even the spirit of sacrifice, and so on. We have to do away with the liberal fear of discipline, which they characterize—without knowing what they’re talking about—as proto-fascist. But back to Negri. You know, the Left produces a new model every ten years or so. Why was Ernesto Laclau’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy so popular twenty years ago? It suited a moment when the priority of class struggle gave way to the linking of particular struggles (feminist, etc.) in a chain of struggles. Now, Laclau is trying to dust off the theory to fit the new Latin American populism of Chavez, Morales and so on. Negri, I’m afraid, did capture a certain moment, that of Porto Alegre and the antiglobalization movement—that was, de facto, his base. But what is problematic for me is his theory that if today the very object of production is the production of social relations themselves, then the way is open to what he calls absolute democracy. I totally reject this logic. It is pure, ideological dreaming. In the final twenty pages of Multitude, the position is more or less theological—the tropes of ligne de fuite and resistance and so on are all founded on the fantasy of a collapse of Empire. In a way, it is the optimistic mirror image of the model you find in someone like Agamben, who presents not so much a pessimism but a negative teleology, in which the entire Western tradition is approaching its own disastrous end, the only solution to which is to await some divine violence. But what is Benjamin talking about? Revolution—that is, a moment when you take the sovereign (this is Benjamin’s word) responsibility for killing someone. What does violence mean for Agamben? He responds with playing with the law and so on. Forgive me for being a vulgar empiricist, but I don’t know what that means in the concrete sense. ST: You mentioned liberated territories—isn’t the first example that comes to mind the southern zone of Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut? Isn’t it possible to conceive of a phenomenon like Hezbollah not simply as a theologico-political form of communitarian organization but as a phenomenon of resistance irreducible to its theological support? Isn’t this the theoretical task for us, rather than characterizing this phenomenon, as is common on both the Left and the Right, as simply obscurantist? This is
[Marxism-Thaxis] Merab Mamardashvili: Bibliography Web Links
Here is my latest bibliography (always 'in progress'): Merab Mamardashvili: Selected Bibliography Web Links (with Annotations) http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/mamardashvili.html Here we have another example of the relation between self and social environment and the problem of self-development and intellectual wakefulness, under conditions of repression, but in a culture quite different from what we experience in western democracies. I have my doubts we would feel compelled to create a space for 'philosophizing' in exactly the same manner with a comparable perspective. Our experience of repression and censorship is rather different. The USSR never overcame the authoritarianism and deadness of peasant society and feudal autocracy in the process of modernization. The handful of creative intellects among the leading Bolsheviks, though certainly knowing desperation, never fully grasped the depth of what it meant to enlighten peasant society that never knew the experience of individual freedom. They grasped the tiger by the tail, and the tiger swallowed them. A Western Marxist, however untouched by or liberated from the deadening influence of Soviet Marxism, can barely apprehend the weight of the strangulating atmosphere of Soviet mental life as Mamardashvili characterizes it. Not that Americans have never experienced it, or continue to experience it, but the relationship of the individual to the universe of knowledge comprised by a diverse publishing industry--even at the worst periods of repression--such that the problem is the relationship of the isolated or suppressed individual to the zones of freer thought that exist. To take an example: Richard Wright as a young black man in the South 80 years ago was not allowed to borrow books from the public library, and had to engage in trickery to check books out. His discovery of the possibility of an intellectual life under conditions of extreme repression--the American South being the first fascist state--had to do with restrictions imposed upon his social environment, but not upon the publishing industry and the universities in the nation at large in the way that state censorship and monopolization of publishing and distribution of information with one official ideology imposed upon all of intellectual life would institute. These are my preliminary thoughts, anyway. They do, in any case, invite comparisons among all kinds of social environments and situations. ___ 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] Merab Mamardašvili online
You can listen to M.'s lectures in Russian on YouTube, but in English here's what you get, for starters. Merab Mamardashvili - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merab_Mamardashvili THE CIVIL SOCIETY: An Interview With Merab Mamardashvili, /The Civic Arts Review/, Vol. 2, no. 3, Summer 1989. http://car.owu.edu/pdfs/1989-2-3.pdf ISFP Gallery of Russian Thinkers: Merab Mamardashvili http://www.isfp.co.uk/russian_thinkers/merab_mamardashvili.html Uldis Tirons, I come to you from my solitude, Eurozine, 2006-06-22 http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-06-22-tirons-en.html Andrew Padgett, DASEIN AND THE PHILOSOPHER: RESPONSIBILITY IN HEIDEGGER AND MAMARDASHVILI, FACTA UNIVERSITATIS: Series: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology Vol. 6, No1, 2007, pp. 1 - 21. http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/pas/pas2007/pas2007-01.pdf Foreword: In Memory of Merab Mamardashvili by Bakar Berekashvili, /A Different View/, no. 21, March 2008, p. 4-5. http://iapss.org/downloads/ADV/A_Different_View_March_2008.pdf Deyanov, Deyan. Foucault and Mamardashvili: The Critique of Modernity and the Heritage of the Enlightenment (Towards a Sociology of the 21st Century), Sociological Problems (XXXIV/2002), pp. 32-40. Abstract: http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=b2873705-8ee1-11d6-a01b-0020eda6408darticleId=b2873709-8ee1-11d6-a01b-0020eda6408d http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=b2873705-8ee1-11d6-a01b-0020eda6408darticleId=b2873709-8ee1-11d6-a01b-0020eda6408d ___ 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] Mamardašvili Soviet philo sophical culture
Evert van der Zweerde, “Philosophy in the Act: The Socio-Political Relevance of Mamardašvili’s Philosophizing,” /Studies in East European Thought/ (2006) 58: 179–203. ‘. . . Loneliness is my profession . . .’ — Merab Konstantinovic( Mamardašvili (1930–1990) ‘Loneliness is my profession,’ is the title of an interview the Latvian philosopher Uldis Tirons conducted with Mamardas?vili in 1990. 35 In this interview, Mamardašvili pointed out that his loneliness was of a personal character – ‘‘I am a chronic specialist in loneliness since early childhood’’ – as well as of a professional nature: ‘‘And then, loneliness is my profession ... (OMP, p. 69)’’36 Leaving the first form to biographers, we can, I think, distinguish two senses of this professional loneliness of the philosopher, one structural, the other contextual. In the first sense, intended by Mamardas?vili himself, philosophy is a ‘lonely activity’ in any case, as some of his definitions of philosophy make clear: ‘‘Philosophy is just a fragment of the smashed mirror of universal harmony that has fallen into an eye or a soul (OMP, p. 64).’’ And: ‘‘... philosophy is a reaction of the dignity of life in the face of anti-life. That’s it. And if there is a pathos of life, then man cannot be a non-philosopher (OMP, p. 67).’’ In a second sense, his was a lonely position because, unlike most of his colleagues, he did not actively deal with the problem of Marxist–Leninist dogmatics or with Marxism as the official ideology in the Soviet Union. Mamardašvili declared that he was not a Marxist, but he also said he was not an anti-Marxist either. Van der Zwerde endeavors to explain the unique position of this philosopher within Soviet philosophical culture. Van der Zwerde is the author of an important study, /Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: Istoriko-filosofskaja Nauka http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-7923-4832-X/ (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997 [Sovietica; v. 57]), which I reviewed in 2003: Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: Review Essay http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/sovphilhist.html I wrote more about Soviet philosophical culture in my diary of December 2003 - January 2004: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/diary0401a.html#soviet Van der Zwerde sets out to explain two things: the philosophical culture in which M. was active, and his central concepts--form, thought, and culture. First, he demystifies Western presuppositions about Soviet philosophy, and he provides a biographical summary of M., who indeed became a hero of Soviet intellectuals seeking autonomy and integrity. M. himself commented on the changing role of the intelligentsia, drawing on Gramsci, while rejecting the conceit of the intelligentsia as arbiters of enlightenment. M. also selectively engaged Marx, in a non-trivial fashion. For M., the role of the intellectual in society was to was to claim a presence for /thought /in culture and society. There must be conditions for thought to be able to take place--a public space. M. criticized Russian culture for a neglect of form, for example of the formal character of legal systems and of democracy, though his position did not devolve into a pure formalism. M.'s second preoccupation is the process of thinking--when thinking becomes alive and a presence in the world, not just closed up in itself. Engaging the past of philosophy is to make its thoughts come alive again, not that past philosophies are absolutes in themselves, but that they create spaces in which thinking beings 'reconstitutes' itself. Descartes is a prime example. Russian philosophy has systematically degraded Descartes and Kant. (190-1). But, taking a cue from Hegel, M.. rejected Robinsonades. M.'s third central concept is 'culture', and here the cosmopolitan notion of 'transculture' (not 'multiculturalism'!) becomes important. In the 1980s M. took on the issue of 'civil society', which became a big theme in late Soviet society. M., criticically discussing Hegel in 1968, had already broached this subject. Once again, M. is concerned with the live act of thought and its conditions of possibility. In his conclusion Van der Zweerde cautions against romanticizing dissenting heroes or demonizing the philosophical culture of the Soviet system, given that any social system tends toward rigidity and requires independent criticism. M. has been characterized as the Georgian Socrates, interestingly, since M. in his youth was lucky enough to circumvent the proscription of Socrates demonized at the hands of Stalinism. ___ 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] Re: Mamardavili Soviet philosophical culture
A couple of interesting references from the footnotes: 20 For a recent, somewhat impressionistic rendering of Russian anti-Cartesianism, see Lesley Chamberlain, Motherland; A Philosophical History of Russia (London: Atlantic Books, 2004), ch. 8, Rejecting the View from Descartes. Mamardas^vili, Merab K. Analysis of Consciousness in the Works of Marx in Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 32, 1986, pp. 101120. Berry, Ellen E., and Epstein Mikhail. Transcultural Experiments; Russian and American Models of Creative Communication, St. Martins Press, New York, 1999. At 08:05 PM 3/6/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: Evert van der Zweerde, Philosophy in the Act: The Socio-Political Relevance of Mamardavilis Philosophizing, Studies in East European Thought (2006) 58: 179203. ___ 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] Speaking of the disaffected...
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! This guy reminds me of the Unabomber, also what it means that Americans are totally lacking in political and social consciousness. While other people are just as fucked up in their own ways, white people of this type have a peculiarly apolitical view of their own victimization. They can't see their situation as anything more than an individual problem, as lone individuals being abused by the system, as individuals who can only act alone, and who are victimized by bad people running a system that is supposed to work but who have betrayed something they thought they were part of and was supposed to be functioning properly. This kind of recklessless is also very middle class. It's what was wrong with Thelma and Louise, which didn't have a thing to do with feminism: it was all about class, class, and nothing but class, and serves as a very bad example of the recklessness and irresponsibility that ensues when middle class people become rebellious. At 04:43 PM 2/19/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: .. Comment I asked myself, why would a human being work a 100 hour week voluntarily? Seven days 12 hours a day is only 72 hours. Add another 28 hours and one has no family life and ultimately no wife or children one can maintain a relationship with. Here is a man that earnestly believed that capitalism could work for him and it did work pretty good in the post WW II period. Things stated going to hell a very long time ago for the proletariat majority. New layers of American society is being ruined. The real proletariat in America thinks out things very different, and their spontaneous drift to the right barely leads to terrorist acts on this level. Massive economic ruin does generate an initial response of increased family abuse, bouts of rage and individual suicide. Then depending on the ability of communist to impact the movement with a sense of purpose, the implosive subsides and becomes an outer explosion of activity. I feel no sympathy for this man who drives an airplane into a building because he is angry with the system. Did he own the plane? This angry man thought thinks out as a little capitalist, rather than proletarians still clinging to bourgeois views. ___ 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] Piaget revisited
As this subject was brought up some time ago, I figured I would stick in another two cents here. Also, I need a favor. First, a fairly crappy article from the standpoint of dialectical materialism, mentioned before: Piaget and Marxist Philosophy by A. J. Durak http://marxistphilosophy.org/PiagetDurak.pdf Nontheless, Durak highlights some problems with Piaget that are better dissected in an article by an Objectivist (disciple of the loathsome Ayn Rand, believe it or not): http://hubcap.clemson.edu/%7Ecampber/piaget.htmlJean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology: Appreciation and Critique by Robert Campbell (2006) Favor: In re: Jean Piaget (1968), Structuralism and Dialectic, in The Essential Piaget, in H.E. Gruber J.J Vonèche, eds. (The Essential Piaget: An Interpretive Reference and Guide (New York: Basic Books, 1977), pp. 775-779. I'm missing the first page--p. 775--and I need someone to scan it for me, either as a raw image or as an OCR'd file (in RTF format, with no mistakes). If this can be conveniently done, please let me know. ___ 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] [marxistphilosophy] Piaget dialectic (1)
Parts of this book can be read on google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=YGo9IAAJprintsec=frontcoverdq=chomsky+piagetsource=blots=PtCM75V5KHsig=0gj-qLNzFXTFTGCLgSeNid6AJt4hl=enei=Ifl7S-3KEZGd8Aac5vi6BQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=3ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepageq=f=false I addition, there are a number of interesting secondary sources, several on the web, e.g.: KENJI HAKUTA, Book Reviews: LANGUAGE AND LEARNING: THE DEBATE BETWEEN JEAN PIAGET AND NOAM CHOMSKY edited by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/%281980%29%20-%20LANGUAGE%20AND%20LEARNING%20THE%20DEBATE%20BETWEEN%20JEAN%20PLAGE.pdf . . . and even better: A classic non-debate http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/1999/j.w.de.graaf/c2.pdf . . . which is a chapter of: Graaf, Jan Willem de. Relating new to old: a classic controversy in developmental psychology (dissertation, University of Groningen, 1999). http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/ppsw/1999/j.w.de.graaf/ The central question in this thesis is whether or not developmental psychology is in principle able to describe and explain the emergence of new forms (novelty) on the ontogenetic timescale - the time-scale of individual development. This analysis is fascinating, and at first glance, convincing. This is the sort of critique I've been looking for. At the very least, it shows up the bulk of marxist linguistics as well as poststructuralist notions of language as utterly worthless, while at the same time revealing the fault lines of radical nativism. At 02:34 AM 2/17/2010, Tahir Wood wrote: For anyone who may be interested there is a very good Routledge book called Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, edited by Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini (1983). It is actually a set of verbatim debates and also includes contributions from the floor and postscripts by a range of others including Fodor, Sperber, Putnam, Thom, Petitot and more. Tahir Ralph Dumain mailto:rdumain%40autodidactproject.orgrdum...@autodidactproject.org 02/17/10 8:09 AM First, a fairly crappy article from the standpoint of dialectical materialism: Piaget and Marxist Philosophy by A. J. Durak http://marxistphilosophy.org/PiagetDurak.pdfhttp://marxistphilosophy.org/PiagetDurak.pdf Nontheless, Durak highlights some problems with Piaget that are better dissected in an article by an Objectivist (disciple of the loathsome Ayn Rand), believe it or not: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/%7Ecampber/piaget.htmlhttp://hubcap.clemson.edu/%7Ecampber/piaget.htmlJean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology: Appreciation and Critique by Robert Campbell (2006) __._,_.___ mailto:tw...@uwc.ac.za?subject=re: [marxistphilosophy] Piaget dialectic (1)Reply to sender | mailto:marxistphiloso...@yahoogroups.com?subject=re: [marxistphilosophy] Piaget dialectic (1)Reply to group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxistphilosophy/message/6153;_ylc=X3oDMTM0c3U3aTEzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1OTkzOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE2MDYxBG1zZ0lkAzYxNTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY2MzkyMTA0BHRwY0lkAzYxNTM-Messages in this topic (2) Recent Activity: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxistphilosophy;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3ExMXUxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1OTkzOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE2MDYxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2NjM5MjEwNA--Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxistphilosophy/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZWUyNXRvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1OTkzOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE2MDYxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2NjM5MjEwNA--Start a New Topic http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdWZudjY0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1OTkzOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE2MDYxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2MzkyMTA0 Yahoo! Groups Switch to: mailto:marxistphilosophy-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change Delivery Format: TraditionalText-Only, mailto:marxistphilosophy-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email Delivery: DigestDaily Digest mailto:marxistphilosophy-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribeUnsubscribe http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Terms of Use . __,_._,___ Content-Type: text/plain; All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal ___ 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] African-American History Month Program (4 5)
Like your presentation, but as usual, I wonder about your projections for the future: The destitute proletariat will tackle questions for itself when it learns it has no other recourse. Where are the signs that this is happening? I see fascist mass movements as a likelier outcome. At 01:16 PM 2/17/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: V. I want to try to be clear to avoid misunderstanding about what legal segregation actually meant. For 50 years - between 1920 and 1970, Detroit had an extra legal curfew imposed on the black where they had to be off the streets at sun down or risk being jailed and shot. It was extra legal because no laws existed on the books but the âcurfew law existed in factâ and was enforced by the police and understood by every level of local government. Exceptions were made for workers on the night shift and weekends when traveling to entertainment events. Literally, if you stood on the corner talking, the police would drive up, roll down the window and say, âgive me that corner.â This was a warning to disperse or be âbeat down.â An elaborate system of communications developed where you were informed the police were 2 blocks away and closing in fast, allowing one to take to the alley ways. Black power is what it was, as the demand for entry into the political system. In this sense the struggle of the blacks was no different than the struggle of the Irish, Italian or any other ânational groupâ that becomes large enough in a jurisdiction to take control of the âmachine.â The color factor complicated the struggle of the blacks, meaning all the various groupings dominating the âcity machineâ had to be fought because their unity was based on the isolation and exclusion of the blacks. Black Power meant black political power or the politics of combating, inheriting and taking over the âcity machineâ in the North and the local political jurisdictions in the South enforcing fascist segregation. Thus, the path of the fight could only take place on the basis of the post legal Jim Crow segregated voting market, because white voters as a general rule could not and would not elect a black. The refusal of whites to elect blacks during this period cannot be causally spoken of as âjustâ racism without qualification. Beneath the color factor is âthe city machine factor,â or the system of spoils and payoffs in every American city. Jobs in the police force and all levels of governments and city services are at stake. Awarding contracts for city services involves more than the actual workers hired and require the system of lawyers, accountants and land speculators every time a new road is built or a new housing development is proposed. This system evolved before blacks entered the industrial class and is based on nationality or the immigrant status of waves of European immigrants. The Irish had to built up their mass in a jurisdiction as did the Italian and Polish to grab hold of the city machine. Pretty much the same with the blacks + the color factor. The demand for black police officers was an exceptionally brutal and violent struggle in Detroit and Cleveland. This was a period of desegregation that birthed the âBlack Guardiansâ within police departments in the major cities. The Black Guardian were black police officers literally forced to fight the semi-fascist polices of their local police departments. More often than not, the Black Guardians played an exemplar role in protecting the social movement from fascist attacks by segments of the police department. This was certainly the case in Detroit. The point is that at a certain stage in the change process the structures of control become paralyzed and at odds with itself. An example of this I experienced was the case of protesting at Cooly High school in Detroit and not the one in Chicago named after the movie. In the process of the demonstration a police care literally ran into a mass of people injuring many. The police pull out their guns to shoot us. The Black Guardian on the scene pulled out their gun and aimed them at the heads of the other officers and told them if they fired one shot they would shoot them. This happened because our struggle was just. Then there was the tip off to many of us that the police were in the process of preparing to raid the Black Panther office and kill them. This tip off allowed people to go to the Panthers office along with the press to halt the attack. We are poised to experience a new form of the social movement and need to be mindful of how things happen. At the end of the day the majority of the people of our country are going to line up with the proletarian revolution because it is just. Control of the police force also involves management of crime and drugs and who gets paid. The city machine and police get
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wiki Lenin
Some oddities. Seems to be a largely pro-Lenin narrative, rather than anti-, or neutral as mandated. I do not know who the traditional Marxists are that think Lenin deviated from Marxism. I'd like to know why Lenin's gramophone recording against anti-Semitism was suppressed. Given what Russia was, I'm guessing few copies would be sold. There is remarkable objectivity about the Red Terror, an object of controversy in the discussion of this entry. Oddly, though, there is less controversy over the article than I would have expected, from either those who hate Lenin or those whol still feel the need to lie on behalf of the USSR. At 08:52 AM 2/16/2010, c b wrote: When I made corrections in the Coleman Young article, they put back in what was up before my corrections. When I wrote to the person who seemed to be one of the moderators for that particular wiki-biography, I never heard back. The corrections I made to the Victor Perlo site were deleted and previous distortions reiterated. I can imagine what would happen if one tried to correct Lenin's site. smile Wiki might not quite be as advertised , but i'm not exactly surprised. Smile On 2/16/10, farmela...@juno.com farmela...@juno.com wrote: Well, feel free to make corrections in that article. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant -- Original Message -- From: c b cb31...@gmail.com To: a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu, Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wiki Lenin Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:38:08 -0500 I wonder if wikipedia distorts Lenin biography. CB ___ 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] Leibniz Ideology (3): Bibliography
I'm aware of Deleuze's and Negri's books on Spinoza. I found The Savage Anomaly unreadable. But folks can judge for themselves: http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpnegri17.htmhttp://www.generation-online.org/p/fpnegri17.htm I'm not aware of these authors' takes on Leibniz. Please point me to the appropriate writings. Any comments on Negri's book on Descartes? Antonio Negri Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project Translated and introduced by Matteo Mandarini and Alberto Toscano Verso, January 2007. Radical Thinkers 2 344 pages http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/nopq-titles/negri_a_political_decartes_RT2.shtml See also this review: Reasonable ideology? Negri's Descartes Issue: 114 International Socialism Posted: 10 April 07 Dan Swain Antonio Negri, Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project (Verso 2007), £6.99 http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=319issue=114 At 10:42 AM 2/7/2010, CeJ wrote: Leibniz Ideology (3): Bibliography I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion is here, but if you are interested in modern philosophers who work with Leibniz's and Spinoza's philosophy, Deleuze and Negri make much of Spinoza and Leibniz. Deleuze's work had quite an impact on Negri apparently (notable because Negri is usually dismissive of most 'post-mo' stuff). A few years back I was delving into Machiavelli and Hobbes as a 'side project' and that led to taking another look at Leibniz and Spinoza, among others. I doubt if most Americans are used to thinking of Deleuze as an academic philosopher--nor Negri for that matter. Leibniz Ideology (3): Bibliography Deleuze (1968) Spinoza et le problème de l'expression (Paris: Minuit); tr. as Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, by Martin Joughin (New York: Zone Books, 1990). (1981 [1970]) Spinoza: Philosophie pratique; (Paris: PUF); tr. as Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, by Robert Hurley (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1988). (1988) Le Pli: Leibniz et le Baroque (Paris: Minuit); tr. as The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, by Tom Conley (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993) Negri Antonio Negri, Subversive Spinoza: (Un)Contemporary Variations, edited by Timothy S. Murphy, translated by Timothy S. Murphy, Michael Hardt, Ted Stolze, and Charles T. Wolfe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Online stuff of Deleuze http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/liste_texte.php?groupe=Leibniz http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/liste_texte.php?groupe=Spinoza A wiki piece about that one term that often comes up in modern/post-mo discourse about discourse--'multitude'. The wiki piece doesn't seem too well written, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude Multitude is a political term first used by Machiavelli and reiterated by Spinoza. Recently the term has returned to prominence because of its conceptualization as a new model for organization of resistance against the global capitalist system as described by political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their international best-seller Empire (2000) and expanded upon in their recent Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (2004). Other theorists which have recently used the term include political thinkers associated with Autonomist Marxism and its sequelae, including Sylvère Lotringer, Paolo Virno, and thinkers connected with the eponymous review Multitudes. Contents [hide] * 1 History * 2 Reiteration by Negri and Hardt * 3 See also * 4 External links [edit] History The concept originates in Machiavellis Discorsi. It is, however, with Hobbes's recasting of the concept as the war-disposed, disolute pole of the opposition between a Multitude and a People in De Cive, that Spinozas conceptualization seems, according to Negri, contrasted (See: The Savage Anomaly pp. 109, 140). The multitude is used as a term and implied as a concept throughout Spinoza's work. In the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, for instance, he acknowledges that the (fear of the) power (potentia) of the multitude is the limit of sovereign power (potestas): Every ruler has more to fear from his own citizens [ ] than from any foreign enemy, and it is this fear of the masses [ that is] the principal brake on the power of the sovereign or state. The explication of this tacit concept, however, only comes in Spinoza's last and unfinished work known as the Political Treatise: It must next be observed, that in laying foundations it is very necessary to study the human passions: and it is not enough to have shown, what ought to be done, but it ought, above all, to be shown how it can be effected, that men, whether led by passion or reason, should yet keep the laws firm and unbroken. For if the constitution of the dominion, or the public liberty depends only on the weak assistance of the laws, not only will the citizens have no security for its maintenance [ ], but it will even turn to their ruin. [ ] And, therefore, it would be far
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Leibniz Ideology (3): Bibliography
OK, I see your links viz. Leibniz Deleuze. I don't see a reference to Negri's writing on Leibniz, however. At 10:55 AM 2/7/2010, CeJ wrote: I don't know if the little bit of info. Amazon offers will give any clue as to the value of these works. There is no info. about the Negri book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816636702/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk http://www.amazon.com/Spinoza-Practical-Philosophy-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0872862186/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b http://www.amazon.com/Expressionism-Philosophy-Spinoza-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0942299515/ref=pd_sim_b_1 From Library Journal In this intricately argued work, Deleuze claims that expression is a key to understanding Spinoza's philosophy: If A expresses B, then A perfectly reproduces all of B's essential characteristics. Nature, for instance, expresses God's essence. Deleuze thinks that Spinoza's use of expression revolutionizes philosophy; God is no longer seen as the world's creator but is identical with it. Furthermore, expression characterizes not only the nature of reality but also the manner in which Spinoza presents his philosophy, for the order in which Spinoza presents his conclusions is supposed to copy the movement of reality. Deleuze maintains that Leibniz shared Spinoza's revolutionary stress on expression. By their use of this idea, they founded modern philosophy. In Deleuze's view, Descartes counts as pre-modern, since he did not use the notion of expression. While Deleuze's grasp of Spinoza's thought is penetrating, his study is suitable only for scholars. - David Gordon, Bowling Green State Univ., Ohio Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Product Description Expressionism in Philosophy is both a pivotal reading of Spinoza's work and also a crucial text within the development of Deleuze's own thought. It was the culmination of a series of monographic studies by Deleuze (on Hume, Bergson, Nietzsche, Proust, Kant, and Sacher-Masoch), and it prepared the transition from these abstract treatments of historical schemes of experience to the nomadology of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. In this extraordinary work, Deleuze reflects on one of the thinkers of the past who most influenced his own sweeping reconfiguration of the tasks of philosophy. For Deleuze, Spinoza, along with Nietzsche and Lucretius, conceived of philosophy as an enterprise of liberation and radical demystification. Gilles Deleuze is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Paris VIII, Vincennes/Saint Denis. ___ 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] Political Biography of the Young Leibniz
This appears to be a Marxist work. It also appears that the author
himself made an appearance on marxism-thaxis in 2006. I'll have to
check into the archive and see what became of this thread. I also
have to put this book on my want list.
The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy
By William Drischler
BookSurge, LLC, 2005
ISBN141961844X, 9781419618444
Length 84 pages
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Biography-Leibniz-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/141961844X
A political biography of the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz. Covers the Young Leibniz (1667-1676), the middle of Hanover
Leibniz (1676-1694)and the late or Russo-Leibniz (1694-1716).
The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in
The Age of Secret Diplomacy
Early Modern State Formation, 17th-Century Political
Discourse and Modern Political Biography Reconsidered
William Fr. Drischler
ISBN No. 1-4196-1844-X
CONTENTS
Praefatio
ABSTRACT
Part I. Introduction. Topicality of Leibniz Biography as a Whole
Revolution A: The Old Political Biography
Leibniz as de facto Head of State: Pinnacle-Level
Diplomatic Interventionism in the Sir Roland Gwynne
Affair in London
Leibniz as East-West Influence Broker: The Net Inflow/
Net Outflow Problem in the Relation of Russo-Asia
to the West
Leibniz as Unsullied Revolutionary Modernist:
The Destruction of European Cultural Autonomy
as a Revolutionary Act
Revolution B: Early Modern State Formation
Revolution C: The Denouement of
17th-CenturyPolitical Theory. Leibniz' Dethronement of Hobbes
Part II. An Overview of the Three Stages
of Leibniz' Political Biography
Stage III - The Russo-Leibniz: Russification of Europe,
Eurasianization of the World. The Consolidation of the
Ango-Russian Secret Diplomacy State, 1694-1716
Stage II - The Middle Leibniz: Constructing the Hanover
Pivot, 1676-1694
Stage I - The Young Leibniz. The Intrepid Rheinbundler
Slowly Wise, 1667-1676
Part III. Some Conclusions on the Political Biography
of the Young Leibniz, 1667-1676
Appendix: Schema of Leibniz' Political Biography
Appendix: Early Modern State Formation without Witsen
and Secret Diplomacy? A Comment on Phillip S. Gorski's
'The Disciplinary Revolution'
=
BACK COVER COPY
William Fr. Drischler's 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the
Age of Secret Diplomacy' attempts significant revisions in three areas of
political analysis at once. In political biography the conventional wisdom
(common to Leibniz specialists and diplomatic historians alike) that the
gout-ridden philosopher was strictly subordinate to heads of state such
as George I of Hanover comes in for criticism; the little-known G.W. v.
Schuetz affair of 1714 - wherein Leibniz went over the head of the
incoming King of England and entered into an alliance with the
Electoress Mother of Hanover and Junto Whig Lords Somers and
Wharton to intervene in succession deliberations at the London
Court of Queen Anne - reveals Leibniz interacting with heads of
state as a virtual peer.
Also ripe for revolution is the field of Early Modern State Formation,
dominated by the French paradigm of a culturally autonomous
West, the indivisibly sovereign nation-state, and the balance of
power concept of international relations. Building on the recent
path-breaking work of Benno Teschke ('The Myth of 1648: Class,
Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations'),
Drischler argues that Leibniz Co. finished off the French paradigm
by 1715 and that the actual foundation of modern international
relations was the Anglo-Russian secret diplomacy state based on
Eurasian cultural melding with Muscovy, promiscuous federalism and
secret hegemony of the federated nation of Russo-England. Not
merely is the claim made that the concept of the sovereign Western
state is a myth; 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the
Age of Secret Diplomacy' contends the concept is an ideological
concoction of the Anglo-Russian victors in the Great Northern War,
1700-1721, expressly designed to disguise their deoccidentalizing
regime. However - and appropriately for a work based largely on
Marx's 'Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century' -
'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret
Diplomacy' provides no comfort for contemporary neo-conservative
federalist thought either, since the core assertion of contemporary
federalists - namely that federalism represents a novel and real
alternative to
[Marxism-Thaxis] Political Biography of the Young Leibniz (2)
and the Russifying Maritime Powers (England and the Netherlands) were self-consciously studying and promoting German Protestant particularism and that the special expertise concerning the German constitutional structure Leibniz displayed in his political magnum opus of 1677 (exerpted in Riley, 'Leibniz. Political Writings' [Cambridge Press]) played a role in the philosopher's ascendancy in the secret diplomacy network. The best confirmation one could hope for is from a source that does not necessarily share all of one's ideological predispositions. On to your specific queries. 1) Marx's Leibniz Museum After the move to Hampstead Heath, Marx set up a Leibniz museum and - for a fee - displayed and lectured on the Leibniz memorabilia he had privately collected. The security structure Old Moor set up was most interesting. Everyone in the world who could pay the fee was welcome - except Germans (!). Visitors from the old country had to provide identification which Marx scrutinized before admitting them. Marx had been so often harassed by Prussian spies - especially after he turned down flat Bismarck's offer for him to join the government - that Germans made up a separate category. Even visitors from Marx's 'most hated nation' - Mother Russia - didn't have to put up with an identification check. As one might expect, there was a touch of the cultic about the late Marx's Leibniz ruminations. The Red Prussian stressed that Leibniz' intellect was broader than anyone's from the beginning of the Christian Era to the 17th century. 2) Hans Heinz Holz and Leibniz Holz' standard work on Leibniz is his 'Leibniz' of 1958 (several later editions). It stresses metaphysics and takes issue with British Empiricist/Anglo-American interpretations of Leibniz such as those developed by Bertrand Russell. Holz also edited several volumes of Leibniz' philosophical writings. There is little political in any of them. Holz' chief political treatment of Leibniz is his intro to the volume 'Leibniz. Politische Schriften' (in two volumes). There is much of value in the intro, but - like a good Bolshevist-Stalinist - Holz systematically evades Leibniz' relation to Russia and the Russo- Asiatic mode of production. Holz' editorial selections in the two volumes are something else again: quite unacceptable. He included nothing from Leibniz' magnum opus of 1677 and one might garner the impression from the collection Leibniz had never met Peter the Great. Since Leibniz' political influence increased steadily with time, the better approach is to stress his writings from 1677 on - but Holz does just the opposite. The Patrick Riley English-language collection of Leibniz' political writings is highly preferable to that of Holz. 3) Jon Elster on Leibniz Elster's volume on Leibniz is 'Leibniz et al formation de l'Espirit de Capitaliste'. I think there is an English translation. Elster writes next to nothing on Leibniz and Russia, so I have little use for it. Patrick Riley thought it was no great shakes either. 4) Adorno volumes Recent Adorno volumes dealing with the individual and philosophy include the 'Vorlesung ueber negative Dialektik' (Vol. 16 of Adorno's posthumous publications) and the 'Zur Lehre von der Geschichte u. von der Freiheit ' (2006). Both run to nearly 500 pp. and there's no reason to expect an English translation soon. I will work up a list of specific references to Leibniz on Adorno's part (and on the part of Horkheimer as well). But I am above all looking forward to next month's paper on Leibniz and Adorno at the World Leibniz Conference in Hanover. I realize this is quite summary of course, but I hope it was of some use to you. Sincerely, Wm. Fr. Drischler At 10:38 AM 2/6/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: This appears to be a Marxist work. It also appears that the author himself made an appearance on marxism-thaxis in 2006. I'll have to check into the archive and see what became of this thread. I also have to put this book on my want list. The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy By William Drischler BookSurge, LLC, 2005 ISBN141961844X, 9781419618444 Length 84 pages http://www.amazon.com/Political-Biography-Leibniz-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/141961844X A political biography of the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Covers the Young Leibniz (1667-1676), the middle of Hanover Leibniz (1676-1694)and the late or Russo-Leibniz (1694-1716). The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in The Age of Secret Diplomacy Early Modern State Formation, 17th-Century Political Discourse and Modern Political Biography Reconsidered William Fr. Drischler ISBN No. 1-4196-1844-X
[Marxism-Thaxis] Leibniz Ideology (3): Bibliography
Here's a new bibliography as an inroad to the subject of Leibniz's biography, political activity, political and legal ideas, metaphysics, theology, and logic as an object for ideological analysis and insight into the contradictions of the Enlightenment and modernity: http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/leibniz-ideology.htmlLeibniz Ideology: Selected Bibliography The best popular introduction to Leibniz as a social actor, in contrast to a very different sort of social actor, is: Stewart, Matthew. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0516/2005019962.htmlThe Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World. New York: Norton, 2006. This is an exceptionally good specimen of the recent genre of popular philosophical biography, and provides good insight into the ideological illusions under which Leibniz operated. For stray comments on this and on some of Leibniz's writings, see my: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/blog-culture-0609.html#e10Leibniz blog entry Again, for what promises to be a major historiographical revision: Drischler, William Fr. http://www.amazon.com/Political-Biography-Leibniz-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/141961844XThe Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing, 2005. ___ 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] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
I refuse to use self-checkouts under any circumstances. Well, I've done it on Amtrak, but not in supermarkets or drug stores. Hopefully, live cashiers will not be eliminated completely. At 12:12 PM 2/2/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: Robots like these will come into our lives much more quickly than we imagine -- self-service checkout systems are the first primitive signs of the trend. Here is one view from the future to show you where we are headed: Automated retail systems like ATMs, kiosks and self-service checkout lines marked the beginning of the robotic revolution. Over the course of fifteen years starting in 2001, these systems proliferated and evolved until nearly every retail transaction could be handled in an automated way. Five million jobs in the retail sector were lost as a result of these systems (_http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm_ (http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.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] Setting the record straight
Looks like the real story to me. Notice the entry ends with Gerald Ford. Social liberalism was killed off during the Carter administration. The secret of all mysteries lies in the '70s. At 05:39 AM 1/26/2010, CeJ wrote: Sometimes in the American political lexicon, a 'liberal' is someone who espouses a very weak form of 'social democracy' European style. Classical liberals, an understanding most Americans know nothing of, have ended up over amongst the libertarians I suspect. I suspect the contradiction that lies within Barrage Obushwa is warpigism vs. social internventionist liberalism. A religious belief in America and its right to dominate the world is always the glue that keeps such incoherence going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States History of modern liberalism in the United States ... _ If you don't know the '70s, you don't know shit! ___ 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] Setting the record straight
The CPUSA wore itself out licking Brezhnev's balls for decades while operating social-democratically in American politics. I'm surprised it still exists after everyone left but Gus Hall, his chaffeur, and his dog. It is however just one variant of the intellectual collapse of the left. All of the old tendencies lie exposed as bankrupt, as whatever sustained their fragile existence has been pulled out from under them, and what is left are hollow gestures. Or perhaps someone thinks Chavez's Fifth International is something other than unintentional parody? Another note on Obamaism: it pays to take a closer look at the logic of the interplay between the Dems and Republicans and how big capital wins either way, or perhaps with both being indispensable: i.e. the dynamics of the struggle between the moderate right (culturally more liberal) and the far right. The collapse of the American political system is becoming evident, way beyond the confines of the left, but how discontent is being channeled points to fascism. At 04:42 AM 1/26/2010, CeJ wrote: Can anyone figure out what the CPUSA gets in return for its apparently unrecquited love for Obama and the DP? Jim F. That might assume a coherent agenda, something I didn't get from reading that drivel. However, perhaps by being less contentious on the issues than a Kucinich for Congress rally, they avoid FBI wire taps and harassment? Maybe they even get CIA funding like some SPs and CPs in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. CJ People have so manipulated the concept of freedom that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they still have. -- Theodor W. Adorno ___ 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] Setting the record straight
Brain-dead. Delusional. Cretinous Party USA on its deathbed. At 09:34 AM 1/24/2010, c b wrote: Setting the record straight by: Sam Webb January 20 2010 tags: Obama, elections, strategy and tactics, communists ___ 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] Setting the record straight
This sort of politics worked during the New Deal, which was the CPs heyday. And that was partially because the nebulous long-term vision of socialism could be seen as the logical conclusion of short-term reform efforts and the growth in power of labor organizations, and because using the state to reform the capitalism system could be seen to involve using the state or gaining control of the state to take social democracy to its logical conclusion. And because the CPUSA could be seen as a viable, effective organization that could achieve tangible goals. NONE of these conditions are present now. This means that Webb is enacting a form of ritual cleansing and bonding, the same sort of nonsense I used to hear at Blowhard Bondan's Socialist Scholars Conferences--preaching to the faithful, admonishing them for their faults, and cathartically reasserting their fundamental values. This is a ritual performance for the faithful and a reinfiorcement of the delusion that the CPUSA and American democracy have a future. At 10:35 AM 1/24/2010, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:52:04 -0500 Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: Brain-dead. Delusional. Cretinous Party USA on its deathbed. Can anyone figure out what the CPUSA gets in return for its apparently unrecquited love for Obama and the DP? Jim F. At 09:34 AM 1/24/2010, c b wrote: Setting the record straight by: Sam Webb January 20 2010 tags: Obama, elections, strategy and tactics, communists ___ 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] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
About 30 years ago, Lyndon La Rouche's disciples were actively recruiting orthodox Jews. Any idea why that might be? At 05:53 AM 1/11/2010, CeJ wrote: JF Maybe this angle on AR explains her appeal to Orthodox types? Some of the discussion there looked like it was going towards anti-semitism, so I've waded in and got the one quote I would consider. OTOH, if you go to that page you will see cited her racist rants against the Arabs and her call for near-unconditional support of Israel from the US. Libertarians who hate Rand (because she is Jewish). People who hate Arabs, like Rand. These people really deserve each other http://www.toqonline.com/2009/12/ayn-rand-on-race/ ___ 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] Could God die again ?
It was Weitling or another major exile that was involved in the American abolitionist movement and organized a German-speaking regiment in the Union army. I need to check my book on the Ohio Hegelians. . . . Oh, the individual in question is August Willich. At 08:48 AM 1/6/2010, c b wrote: From there he got the chance in 1849[11] to emigrate to the United States (as one of the Forty-Eighters). ^ CB: I wonder if he fought in the US Civil War. I don't see Weitling mentioned in this section from Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature the critique of other communist tendencies below from the Communist Manifesto. ___ 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] Re: COMMUNISTS EFFECT ON A MERICA
Amazing. Is this one and the same ideological complex to be found in the current red-baiting of Obama? It seems so. At 11:31 AM 1/6/2010, c b wrote: Ironically, it is the neo-Confederate rightwingers who are , I guess, trying to bring back slavery in the South, who chronicle the enormous contributions of German Communists to the military cause of the North in the Civil War CB COMMUNISTS' EFFECT ON AMERICA http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=122 ___ 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] Could God die again ?
Wilson is another reactionary ignoramus, certainly not a new atheist, any more than his pal Dawkins is new. At 01:43 PM 1/6/2010, c b wrote: Another biologist on religion. Wilson is a main sociobiologist. CB http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-November/019411.html Wilson: science and religion are incompatible Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Thu Nov 17 13:52:26 MST 2005 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] OBSERVORMAN: the 'contemplative attitude' student rebellion Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wilson: science and religion are incompatible Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [Marxism] Wilson: science and religion are incompatible acpollack2 at juno.com acpollack2 at juno.com mailto:marxism%40lists.econ.utah.edu?Subject=%5BMarxism%5D%20Wilson%3A%20sc ience%20and%20religion%20are%20incompatibleIn-Reply-To= Mon Nov 14 11:38:34 MST 2005 Check out http://www.harvardmagazine.com/lib/05nd/pdf/1105-29.pdf (found at aldaily.com), which is E.O. Wilson's intro to the new combined edition of Darwin's books. In it he quotes Darwin attacking Christianity as a damnable doctrine and wonders why anyone would want to believe in it. This in the course of Wilson arguing AGAINST recent and increasing attempts to claim science and religion can and should be reconciled. He also takes a swipe at Marxism-Leninism for its alleged theory of humanity as a blank slate. His arguments, while themselves one- sided, are worth engaging with. A more nuanced version of what he calls scientific humanism, i.e. the notion that people are products of both nature and nurture, is of course fully compatible with a mature Marxist analysis. ___ ___ 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] Why Did Engels Write Anti-Dühri ng ?
Hopefully, the next installment will be better than this. This one is devoid of serious content and repeats unexamined cliches. Of far greater importance than Engels' nebulously conceived dialectics of nature is his criticism of Duhring's metaphysical approach. In this respect, Engels' work does have something in common with Marx's THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY. The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved not by a few juggled phrases, but by a long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural science. -- F. Engels At 02:36 PM 1/4/2010, c b wrote: Why Did Engels Write Anti-Dühring? Thomas Riggins http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-did-engels-write-anti-duhring.html ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ?
The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality. --- Karl Marx Terry Eagleton is a disgrace. As for Schneider, the content of his article belles its bullshit title. There's no connection between the Death of God movement and the new atheism, or the old. So here are my bullet points. 1. 'Death of God' theology can be criticized in the same manner as Marx criticized Young Hegelians like Bauer and Feuerbach---the discussion remains entirely within the boundaries of ideology--in this case mythology--and simply juggles mythical concepts cut off from the realities that generate them. Only the higher criticism of the early 19th century made something progress, whereas the Death of God movement simply rationalized a dying (for the intelligentsia) religion. Altizer is an interesting character, but it's all nothing more than the retooling of mythology within mythology. 2. The lack of sophistication of Dawkins, Harris, Shermer and others in or out of the official grouping of the new atheists, is another matter entirely. They don't have to be familiar with the intricacies of theology and prove their competence thereto in order to engage in debate about the falsehood of religious belief. All this liberal religion is very much a subterfuge in any case, playing a shady game of as if while being very cagey about what one actually commits oneself to--a game played by intellectuals who are too smart to believe what the ordinary person purports to believe but not honest enough to cut oneself loose from it. One finds this among liberal Jewish, Christian, and presumably other religionists. What Dawkins et al are deficient in is far more serious. First, they are philosophically naive or inept. They don't understand the interplay between the realms of philosophy and empirical science (cum scientific theory), and they don't understand how philosophy works. So when they make the leap to philosophical statements, they think they are still engaging in straightforward scientific propositions. But it's much worse than this. Dawkins et al don't know, AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, anything about history or society or politics. (Hitchens knows something, but doesn't want to know it anymore, except for name-dropping self-promotion.) They want to read society, culture, and history directly off of biological evolution or cognitive psychology, unmediated by any engagement with real history or sociology. At 02:39 PM 1/5/2010, c b wrote: Could God die again? Death of God theology was a 1960s phenomenon that casts light on the narrowness of the current debate Nathan Schneider guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 October 2009 09.00 BST ___ 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] How Atheists Can Use Christianity
This is a disgusting reactionary fraud down to its subatomic particles. Next comes another revival of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. At 02:13 PM 1/5/2010, c b wrote: How Atheists Can Use Christianity By Nathan Schneider, The Guardian Posted on January 5, 2010, Printed on January 5, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/144931/ James Wood, a writer who himself has lived between the tugs of belief and unbelief, made an eloquent call in the New Yorker last August for a theologically engaged atheism. Concluding a review of Terry Eagleton's recent attack on Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, he imagines something only a semitone from faith [which] could give a brother's account of belief, rather than treat it as some unwanted impoverished relative. At the American Academy of Religion meeting in Montreal last year, he may have gotten his wish, or something resembling it. Following an apocalyptic sermon from death of God theologian Thomas J.J. Altizer, to the podium came the ruffled Slovenian philosopher Slavoj iek, a self-described atheist and materiaalist through and through, before an audience of religion scholars, theologians, and costumed adherents. He spoke of truths Christianity alone possesses and how Christ's death reveals that the only universality is the universality of struggle. Atheism, he explained, is true Christianity, and one can only be a real atheist by passing through Christianity. In this sense, I am unconditionally a Christian, said iek. He is one of several leading thhinkers in recent years who, though coming out of a deeply secular and often-Marxist bent, have made a turn toward theology. In 1997, Alain Badiou published a study of the apostle Paul, whom he took as an exemplar of his own influential philosophy of the event. Three years later, Giorgio Agamben responded in Italian with The Time That Remains, a painstaking exegesis of the first ten words of Paul's Letter to the Romans. The purpose of both was not a more enlightened piety, but an inquiry into the texture of revolution. Paul is significant to them because he ushered in, and in the process described, a genuinely transformational social movement. These atheist theologians speak from a sensation of political atrophy; they're assembling a barricade against the onslaught of global capitalism and the tireless inanity of jingoistic violence. But don't expect to find them wafting into church on Sunday morning. Although elievers have welcomed literary theorist Terry Eagleton's critique of Dawkins and Hitchens, at a talk in New York this September, he declared he has nothing to say about prayer and is presently distant from the institutional dimension of religion, even if falling short of outright atheism. When I asked him, in a subsequent interview, what he wants of his readers, he replied, I'm certainly not urging them to go to church. I'm urging them, I suppose, to read the Bible because it's very relevant to radical political concerns. Yet some real theologians are starting to follow this phenomenon with interest, seeing in it an opportunity to rejuvenate their own enterprise. The Anglican John Milbank, in a recent book he wrote with iek called The Monstrosity of Christ, saidd of his co-author, In an important sense, he bears a theological witness. Searching for political answers, i¾ek and the others have unearthed some of the forgotten radicalism of earliest Christianity, and they insist on its relevance today. Yet they also represent a threat to the religious status quo. What does it mean, after all, if atheists are doing theology better than believers? i¾ek's work is hazardous to the health of cardboard theology and the church on which it rests, says Creston Davis of Rollins College in Florida, who edited and orchestrated The Monstrosity of Christ. It is time we took theology back out of the hands of business-class freeloaders. There is in this theological turn, also, a dangerous desire. Nobody seems willing to die for a secular philosophy any more, yet in today's post secular religion, blood sacrifice abounds. The suicide bombers and abortion-doctor killers whom we all decry seem able to tap into a well of deep conviction like what brought Paul and other early Christians to be martyred for their faith. A politics capable of organizing people to resist the intrusions of capital and ideology would certainly require that kind of commitment. Theology, perhaps, provides a point of access to these ambivalent powers in human nature and the chance to carefully, thoughtfully mobilize them anew. It is clear that liberalism has run out of ideas, adds Creston Davis. Philosophy's turn to theology, he believes, is a step in the right direction toward taking care of the poor and struggling for a better future for the world. Nathan Schneider lives in New York City and writes about religion. He blogs at The Row Boat. ©
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ?
Yes, but I'm not using the artificial grouping of new atheists created by the news media. There are prominent atheists of different stripes. I'm addressing only the non-philosophers--the scientists or quasi-scientists--who engage in philosophical arguments. Dawkins is no philosopher, and neither is Harris. Michael Shermer, who is I guess an old or at least not new atheist, is the worse of the lot--well, maybe Harris is--as Shermer is peddling a load of fertilizer called evolutionary economics and whose major inspiration is Ayn Rand. I'm not so familiar with Dennett, but the last presentation I remember he did in DC was so godawful, I'm inclined to dismiss him, too. Philosophy in the USA is pretty damn narrow as well. At 04:34 PM 1/5/2010, c b wrote: Ralph Dumain wrote: What Dawkins et al are deficient in is far more serious. First, they are philosophically naive or inept. They don't understand the interplay between the realms of philosophy and empirical science (cum scientific theory), and they don't understand how philosophy works. So when they make the leap to philosophical statements, they think they are still engaging in straightforward scientific propositions. ^ CB: Not defending anybody, but isn't Dennett a philosopher or philo pro ? ^ But it's much worse than this. Dawkins et al don't know, AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, anything about history or society or politics. (Hitchens knows something, but doesn't want to know it anymore, except for name-dropping self-promotion.) They want to read society, culture, and history directly off of biological evolution or cognitive psychology, unmediated by any engagement with real history or sociology. CB: Biologist Dawkins , like Jared Diamond, seems to become a species of Social Darwinists/Vulgar materialists, not surprisingly. They reduce human history to natural 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 ___ 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] Bundist Counterculture in Interwar Poland
The new book on the Bund I alluded to in my previous post is: Jacobs, Jack. Bundist Counterculture in Interwar Poland. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, in cooperation with the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 2009. xii, 185 p. Here is the description from amazon.com: In the years between the two world wars, the Jewish community of Poland--the largest in Europe--was the cultural heart of the Jewish diaspora. The Jewish Workers' Bund, which had a socialist, secularist, Yiddishist, and anti-Zionist orientation, won a series of important electoral battles in Poland on the eve of the Second World War and became a major political party. While many earlier works on the politics of Polish Jewry have suggested that Bundist victories were not of lasting significance or attributable to outside forces, Jack Jacobs argues convincingly that the electoral success of the Bund was linked to the work of the constellation of cultural and other organizations revolving around the party. The Bund offered its constituents innovative, highly attractive, programs and a more enlightened perspective: from new sexual mores to sporting organizations and educational institutions. Drawing on meticulously researched archival materials, Jacobs shows how the growth of these successful programs translated into a stronger, more robust party. At the same time, he suggests the Bund's limitations, highlighting its failed women's movement. Jacobs provides a fascinating account of this countercultural movement and a thoughtful revision to the accepted view. Note Jacobs' other work: Jacobs, Jack. On Socialists and The Jewish Question after Marx. New York: New York University Press, 1992. (Reappraisals in Jewish Social and Intellectual History) . . . which includes his essay: Jacobs, Jack. Karl Kautsy: Between Baden and Luxemburg, in: Essential Papers on Jews and the Left, edited by Ezra Mendelsohn (New York: New York University Press, 1997), pp. 483-528. The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao is not Jewish. -- David M. Bader, Zen Judaism: For You, A Little Enlightenment ___ 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 Jewish Question in 19th-20th Century Eastern Europe: 3 bibliographies
Time for an update on my bibliographies. I've learned, not much to my surprise though indeed to my disgust, that I can't bring up the subject of Jews in any context without being immediately assaulted by bigots. These additional bibliographies reveal more of the extent of my interests. I've already mentioned the first bibliography I publicized: Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/jews-marxism.html This material is testing ground for a number of projects. Not only in terms of overt politics, but conceptually, how was historical materialism sufficiently evolved or not at any given stage or within any given tendency to explain exactly what bound the Jewish people--specifically of Europe (and more specifically of Eastern Europe, where conditions were worst)--as a people. Could historical materialism adequately encompass culture, and conversely, what did the culturalists leave out in their conceptualization of their situation? On the plane of overt politics, one will find an emphasis here on the conceptions and policies of the Bolsheviks as compared to the Jewish Bundists (on which there is a thought-provoking new book out--more on this later). This is, however, only a portion of the elements needed for a full analysis. The late 19th century and early 20th century were filled with schemes of religious, cultural, linguistic, and political reform and radicalism. There were currents not only of socialism and Marxism, but of assimilationism, Zionism, cultural autonomism, liberalism, Haskalah (the Jewish Enlightenment)--formulated and argued by Jewish intellectuals, all involving different conceptions of the nature of the past and contemporaneous communities of European Jews and prospects and programs for their future. I attempted to cover as many of these currents as I could in my second bibliography: http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/jews-19thcent.htmlL. L. Zamenhof the Cultural, Religious, Professional Political Context of 19th-20th Century Eastern European Jewish Intellectuals: Selected Bibliography Juxtaposing these two bibliographies suggests the extensiveness and complexity of the ideological ferment of the time, a topic which stands on its own, though the intellectually vacuous, ideologically degenerate, and juvenile politics of the present would gain some perspective from a study of this past. Finally, all of this is related to a specific project. December 15 will mark the 150th birthday of the creator of the Esperanto language, L. L. Zamenhof, a product of this ferment. This weekend I will have the opportunity to meet Zamenhof's great-granddaughter, itself a remarkable occasion, all the more amazing because all of Zamenhof's children were murdered by the Nazis, and his grandson, a child at the time, escaped their clutches twice by a hairsbreadth (once under the protection of a Catholic priest), to eventually produce two daughters. Though Zamenhof is most known for the creation of Esperanto, underlying that project was a more general program of cultural and religious reform, all stemming from Zamenhof's preoccupation with the Jewish question. Traumatized by the pogroms of 1881, Zamenhof, still a medical student, joined the early Zionist movement and embroiled itself in its debates. At the time various options--all utopian--were considered. Zamenhof opposed establishing settlements in the territory that is now Israel, and favored settlement in America. Ultimately he rejected Zionism altogether, and argued vigorously for years afterward that the project of settling in the Middle East would be either impracticable or disastrous. Another project involved the reform and standardization of Yiddish. (Zamenhof was born in the same year as Sholem Aleichem.) He gave up on that as well. In 1887 he published his first book outlining the basics of Esperanto. As the Esperanto movement took off internationally, he published two treatises in Russian under a pseudonym, in 1901, outlining a program for religious reform and a doctrine called Hilelismo, inspired by Rabbi Hillel's famous aphorism concerning the golden rule as the essence of religion. Here the influence of Enlightenment thought (Haskalah) is evident, as Zamenhof rejects ancient superstitions and outmoded practices. However, Zamenhof's arguments were even more trenchant. Not only does he demolish the case for Zionism in every way possible, but he engages in a merciless demystification of the Jewish people, questioning the continuity that allegedly connects the Jewish people of today with their ancient homeland, and even questions the basis of their commonality across different nations and regions in the present. Zamenhof enquires as to what binds peoples together in general, and in the case of Jews in particular. He settles on language and religion as the two shaping principles of peoplehood. This is the very obverse of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography
Thanks. I got some main ideas out of a cursory scan of this article, but I'm confused at other points. Also, I didn't follow the historical exposition too closely. If I could read this is a bone fide English translation I'd do better. I'll just note the points that leapt out at me. 1. The author counterposes pseudo-materialist interpretations to idealist-culturalist conceptions, suggesting that both must be transcended. On the face of it I agree. I am uncertain about what his final view is, though. 2. He singles out Abram Leon as having the most sophisticated historical explanation, dissenting however from the notion of a people-class. 3. The quotation from Rosa Luxemburg reveals an underdeveloped aspect of Marxism, not only on the Jewish question, but on national questions generally. Without unpacking Luxemburg's meaning, it seems incredibly obtuse. 4. The author correctly points out that Marx's article on the Jewish Question is not entirely Marxist but marks a turning point in the break from Hegelianism. Furthermore, he claims: Après Marx, les marxistes, à quelques exceptions près (dont Trotsky durant les années 30), n'ont pas analysé de façon exhaustive et profonde cette base séculière réelle. [After Marx, the Marxists, with few exceptions (including Trotsky during the 30s) have not exhaustively analyzed this deep and genuine secular basis.] And of course he goes on to elaborate on this secular basis. But I want to point out something about Marx's essay. It is purely schematic in its contrast and positing of the relationship between the Sabbath and secular Jew, because in actuality, aside from not taking the trouble to describe the secular Jew in other than generalized stereotypical terms, Marx simply states that the Sabbath Jew is an illusory self-image of the Jew, contrasted with the real Jew, but without actually relating the material basis of Jewish existence to the form of consciousness known as Judaism, so as such fails to account at all for this religious illusion in the past or in the present, and most importantly its persistence from one epoch to a radically different ones. 5. The author does at some point relate the Old Testament as a form of consciousness to the material existence of the Jews in antiquity, and later, I think, but I do not understand this exposition. At 04:08 PM 11/16/2009, yves coleman wrote: http://www.mondialisme.org/spip.php?article1315 Here you will find many texts about the socalled Jewish question but in French, translated from English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Specifically about your subject maybe you will find of interest the text of Savas Michael-Matsas a Greek marxist (trotskyist) which has an original point of view, even if I strongly disagree with his political views on Israel today. You also have a book of Arlene Clemesha (a Brazilian Marxist) but in portuguese ___ 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] Baraka on Barack
Baraka is and has always been a first class political asshole. How ironic that an erstwhile petty bourgeois bohemian turned anti-Semitic black nationalist turned Maoist jackass--i.e. a lifelong romantic pseudo-revolutionary--should now turn on people just like him and engage in all kinds of slander in support of Obama. I think many leftist positions are empty gestures. Cynthia McKinney's candidacy was more a waste of time even than Nader's--and mentally retarded with her vice presidential running mate--and being a refusenik regarding Obama is also an empty gesture. However, one does not have to lie in order to vote for Obama as one's best option in unfavorable circumstances. But the dishonesty and self-delusion surrounding the support of Obama was and remains over the top. I am not scandalized because a bourgeois politician is a bourgeois politician, as that is to be expected. To get huffy over that alone is a waste of time. It's the specific duplicity embedded in our historical moment and Obama's rhetoric which was dishonest from the beginning, and vacuous compared to the cold war liberals of the past who actually intended to deliver for the labor movement and even civil rights all the while reinforcing the power of capital and empire. That anyone could actually take Obama seriously is an indicator of how right-wing this country actually has become, that it has lost all political perspective. Baraka's position as such is irrelevant. Anyone could argue against various futile gestures of the left. The essential thing is to recognize how worthless Baraka is and has always been. At 10:54 AM 9/9/2008, yves coleman wrote: I think people can vote for whoever they want...but I don't want to hear their complains about the negative results of their votes afterwards ! Are Realpolitik and pushing Party X or Mr Y to do something they will never do, are these tactics worth the trial ? The problem as usual is the impotence, small size and small influence of the Revolutionary Left everywhere. Some people think there are shortcuts and they have THE solution. They are wiser and they will fool the capitalist class. Well let's see the historical results of their shortcuts. These shortcuts have been practiced for more than a century with no results whatsover anywhere. The idea that if we dont chose the lesser evil the worse evil may win is not new on the political field. It's the argument the Stalinists and Social democrats use at every election in France. It's an eternal problem for any revolutionary party or group who is not big enough on the electoral ground to make any difference. With this kind of reasoning, I should have voted Mitterrand against Giscard in 1981, and for the SP candidate in the following elections, and Chirac against Le Pen. Or to take a more dramatic example I shoud have voted for the German Communist Party against Hitler as Baraka likes to use antifascist metaphors. Or I should have entered the French CP dominated resistance and help them have a strike-breaking policy after defeating fascism with the major help of American imperialism. And if I was in Venezuela I would today support Chavez against its most reactionary opponents. In Cuba I would support Castro, etc. And in imperialist Israel I would support the Hamas. If an individual wants to make these choices, I can only tell him don't complain about the results and stop presenting your indivual choice as the most sophisticated revolutionary tactics. You dont think it's worth fighting for revolutionary politics, that's fine. But dont accuse me to be an agent of imperialism, fascism, racism, etc. if I choose another option. If a political group who claims to have an original and specific view about history, class struggle, imperialism, socialism, etc. supports actively this kind of position, I can only say this group should enter the party it is supporting: enter the Socialist party in France, the Venezuelan party in Venezuela, the Hamas in Palestine, the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Baas in Irak, the CCP Party in Cuba, the Democratic Party in the USA, the Talibans in Afghanistan, etc. Actually that's what many leftists have done in the past and are doing or supporting. Have they ever succeeded to pushthese parties or movements to the Left ? Not until now. Can one can dream they will succeed this time ? I have strong doubts about it. Real Politik has a heavy price both in international politics and in domestic politics. The interesting question for me is rather : why is Baraka so desperate to pay this price ? That's a more interesting question than debating about if one should vote or not for Obama (1). Generally when political people make these choices, they have a whole reasoning in mind, hidden practical ambitions, or illusions the situation may radically change, etc. That's at least what I have always seen in discussions inside the Left from the leftists who supported the NLF or the Cultural Revolution and
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Re: Baraka on Barack
My apologies. I responded to a post over a year old, and so my response has no current relevance. I should have paid attention to the date. I don't think much of Baraka, though, as a poet or as a radical. Sometimes he hits the mark, but mostly he is a fool. I've seen him many times over the years in several cities. He's at his worst when engaging people in conversation, if that's what you want to call his interactions with others. He seems to be incapable of listening. And he is as politically irresponsible as anyone on the ultraleft. I remember one particularly disgusting debate with Paul Robeson Jr. in New York, which also involved black audience members insulting Robeson in the crassest possible manner. Now I think that both of them are sad cases, Robeson the more tragic one. Of all the times I saw Robeson discussing current events, I was embarrassed for him each time, since he never uttered anything but rubbish. He is exactly the opposite of the ultraleftist, constantly debasing himself as a booster of the flavor of the day, be it Jesse Jackson, David Dinkins, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton . . . it's sad and sickening. I also remember Robeson Jr. sharply criticizing Baraka's irresponsible posturing. So as I said, what a turnaround for Baraka to lecture the left for not supporting Obama. ___ 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] Baraka on Barack ( old post and topic)
When I responded to your recent posts, I found this old post sitting right next to it in alphabetical order in my in box. I should have been more attentive, but this is what sleep deprivation does to a person: you just keep going on semiautomatic pilot. The Obama presidency is already dead in the water, and I'm not so much interested in debating the Middle East. My interest in the Jewish question, for example, is mostly historical, but I find it remains such a hot issue that I can't say anything at all about the Jews in any capacity without others immediately connecting it to Israel and denouncing me as a Zionist, though I've never written a single word in support of Israel of any of its policies, and I'm generally interested in questions unconnected to the Middle East. I'm not so much interested in making a political intervention as cleaning up the polluted rhetoric that effectively detracts from clarification and intelligent intervention, and I'm only interested in doing that because of the filth I'm constantly exposed to on the Internet even while minding my own business. However, as I've insisted, the politics of desperation and spectatorship are symptomatic of the moribund state of the left, if not everywhere in the world, anywhere I've had contact with people. And there's another point I made some time ago that didn't get noticed. It's quite one thing for people in the region to take extreme positions out of desperation, or to confront the problem concretely without taking on a more sophisticated perspective. It's quite another for spectators a half world away with no particular connection to the Middle East acting like rabid dogs. On the contrary, it's just because of the distance that political spectators--who may also double as useless activists--from the scene of the carnage, need to be exercise greater clarity in their grasp of the historical logic of the situation and in their agitprop. But just the opposite is happening. Secondly, there's the question of the corruption of young minds being recruited into radicalism by sectarian organizations. I'm not proud of what I was thinking as a teenager, and I see 20-year olds now, gung ho fresh converts to radicalism, adopting the most awful sound bite approaches to political problems, worst of all the impossible politics of the Middle East, without any background of historical depth or personal life experience. It's all the politics of empty gesture. What does it in fact mean to support anyone long distance? What is the significance of taking a position? It's child's play who decide to be against, but who is there there to be for? The degeneration of politics, including oppositional politics, makes it increasingly impossible to simply take a position backing any particularly political player? If there's anything worse than secular nationalism, it's religious nationalism. If there's anything worse than bourgeois politics with a democratic face, it's outright fascist politics. Who then is there to back, especially from thousands of miles away? I don't trust the left to do anything competently. Pointless floundering is its stock-in-trade. At 08:54 AM 11/17/2009, yves coleman wrote: I dont know why this old post comes up now, a year later after it was posted ! To answer your questions. I dont know what I would do if I was an isolated individual who wanted to do something in an unfavorable situation both for me and for the working class historically. The decision would depend on many specific factors I cant list here and which would be more related to fiction than to reality. If I was in a position to form a group or to join a group defending class positions I would not loose my time in Stalinist (German CP) or nationalist-antisemtic (Hamas) or third wordist groups (Chavez party). As regards the Hamas, I would not even try because they would probably kill me given my opposition both to religion, clerical fascism and antisemitism. And if I was living in Venezuela today (which I did many years ago) I would knock on the door of El Libertario and see if their acts correspond to their nice words... And then decide. ___ 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] Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography
I've added some further references to my bibliography in progress, and I'm too worn out to go looking for more material, but here's a good start: Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography compiled by Ralph Dumain http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/jews-marxism.html There are some idiosyncratic inclusions, but there are a variety of angles presented here so as to get a good view of the issues and the various applications of these concepts. As I've mentioned, with but a few exceptions I've deflected attention from Marx's On the Jewish Question, which is a whole topic by itself regarding in-depth investigation. I could not find any noteworthy work by Engels on this subject. Most of his remarks consist of reportage of specific events and situations or very specific comments. Of more general interest, the only thing I could find was a commentary about the politics of the anti-Semitic peasantry. I have never been able to find a bibliographic reference for the oft-quoted but never-sourced remark by August Bebel: Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools. It doesn't matter all that much, but maybe someday . . . My bibliography aims at an analytical, theoretical perspective, and is not so much concerned about the specifics of the problem except insofar as the issue is tied into larger struggles over the national question, as per the Bolsheviks vs. the Jewish Labor Bund, which features prominently. Similarly, Zionism plays an ancillary role here, though it is an integral historical component. My explanatory note at the end states my principles of composition. My initial motivation for doing this comes from research into the late 19th-century Eastern European Jewish intelligentsia, without concern for contemporary controversies. However, sad to say, I find this excursion into the past all too relevant to the political degeneracy of the present historical moment. The Internet is a magnificent tool for disseminating poison, and detecting its presence globally. I find that when I have absolutely no intention of getting involved in debates over the Middle East, and even when I'm researching topics having no direct connection with either the past or the present politics of the region or anywhere, I'm bumping constantly into the most vile bigotry as well as the more subtle kind. Such are the fruits not only of the resurgence of the right and neo-nazism, but of the poison tree of Stalinism, ultraleftism, leftist thirdworldism, and third world nationalism, finally dumbed down to the retarded trinity of vulgar anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism, which has been labeled the anti-globalism of fools. (Excuse all the mixed metaphors, but I'm in a hurry.) In this regard, see: Postone, Moishe. http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=16article_id=69History and Helplessness: Mass Mobilization and Contemporary Forms of Anticapitalism, Engage, Issue 5, September 2007. I am unfamiliar with the political situation in the UK, but I find the group Engage of interest: http://engageonline.wordpress.com/ I actually am more interested in pursuing my original research project, but given the number of assholes I encounter each day, I find myself deflected from my original mission. ___ Scholars of Wisdom have no rest in this world or in the world to come. -- Talmud ___ 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] latest Soviet philosophy books online
. . . from the defunct Progress Publishers, that is. I limit myself to books of philosophical interest. Bogomolov, A. S. http://leninist.biz/en/1985/HAP349/History of Ancient Philosophy: Greece and Rome; translated by Vladimir Stankevich. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985. 349 pp. (Guides to the Social Sciences) See also: Nersesyants, V.S. [Vladik Sumbatovich] http://leninist.biz/en/1986/PTAG210/Political thought of ancient Greece; translated from the Russian by Vladimir Stankevich. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986. Omelyanovsky, M. E. [Omel'ianovs'kyi, M. E. (Mykhailo Erazmovych)]. http://leninist.biz/en/1979/DMP383/Dialectics in modern physicshttp://leninist.biz/en/1979/DMP383/. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979. These books can be found on the extensive online repository of Soviet books: http://leninist.biz/ This project, the creation of the intrepid Robert Cymbala, may not be able to go any further due to lack of financial support. ___ 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] latest Soviet philosophy books online
The best source for Russian books was the Victor Kamkin bookstore, which I used to frequent in Rockville, MD. There was a major crisis when the store was shut down some years ago, but much of the inventory was salvaged and moved elsewhere. Now it looks like everything has been destroyed: http://uncivilsociety.org/2008/05/40-books-destroyed-at-vict.html At 09:25 AM 11/3/2009, farmela...@juno.com wrote: That reminds me of the days of Imported Publications, Inc. of Chicago, who were the official distributors in the US for Progress Publishers and MIR as well as other eastern European publishing houses. That company seems to have disappeared with the Soviet Union. In addition to works of philosophical interest, they also had classical Russian literature and lots of science and mathematics books which were available for a fraction of the price for comparable works from US or UK publishers. Also, if you were interested in that sort of thing, you could get the collected speeches of various top Soviet leaders. Jim F. -- Original Message -- From: Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org To: marxist philosophy marxistphiloso...@yahoogroups.com Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest Soviet philosophy books online Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:35:28 -0500 . . . from the defunct Progress Publishers, that is. I limit myself to books of philosophical interest. Bogomolov, A. S. http://leninist.biz/en/1985/HAP349/History of Ancient Philosophy: Greece and Rome; translated by Vladimir Stankevich. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985. 349 pp. (Guides to the Social Sciences) See also: Nersesyants, V.S. [Vladik Sumbatovich] http://leninist.biz/en/1986/PTAG210/Political thought of ancient Greece; translated from the Russian by Vladimir Stankevich. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986. Omelyanovsky, M. E. [Omel'ianovs'kyi, M. E. (Mykhailo Erazmovych)]. http://leninist.biz/en/1979/DMP383/Dialectics in modern physicshttp://leninist.biz/en/1979/DMP383/. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979. These books can be found on the extensive online repository of Soviet books: http://leninist.biz/ This project, the creation of the intrepid Robert Cymbala, may not be able to go any further due to lack of financial support. ___ 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] Soviet inventory at Wonder Books
Some of the Soviet inventory mentioned with regard to Kamkin Books can be found at: Wonder Books http://www.wonderbk.com/ A good percentage of these books are ridiculously expensive. Here are some bargains of possible interest, though: Standard Domestic Shipping $3.99 - each additional ships free. Generalisation and Cognition By Dmitry Gorsky Moscow: Progress Publishers (Paperback - 1987) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=4683908Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $5.10) Psychology (Student's library) By A. V. Petrovsky Progress Publishers (Paperback - 1989) ISBN: 501001100X http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=I501001100XBuy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $5.59) Lenin on Literature and Art By V.I. Lenin Progress Publishers (HardCover - 1905) ISBN: B000K1WHT6 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=IB000K1WHT6Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $6.00) History and politics: American historiography on Soviet society (Theories and critical studies) By B. I Marushkin Progress Publishers (Unknown - 1975) ISBN: B0006CQVK0 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=IB0006CQVK0Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $7.60) Russia and the West: 19th century (Man through the ages) By Natalia Mikhailovna Pirumova Progress Publishers (Paperback - 1990) ISBN: 5010020114 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=I5010020114Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $5.40) Selected writings and letters (The Library of Russian and Soviet literary journalism) By Boris Leonidovich Pasternak Progress Publishers (Paperback - 1990) ISBN: 5010019752 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=I5010019752Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $2.39) Marx the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte By Karl; Preface By F. Engel Marx Progress Publishers (Paperback - 1905) ISBN: B000I1S4SQ http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=IB000I1S4SQBuy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $5.60) Social Partnership Or Class Struggle? Theory, Legislation, Practice By V. Usenin Progress Publishers (HardCover - 1973) ISBN: 0714705640 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=I0714705640Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $11.70) [] SOCIAL SCIENCE MARXIST-LENINIST THEORY By Progress Publishers Moscow (HardCover - 1977) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=4562329Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $8.44) The problem of India, By R. Palme Dutt Progress Books (Unknown - 1943) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=3700649Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $3.19) The Scientific Management of Society By V. G. Afanasyev Progress Publishers (HardCover - 1905) ISBN: 0714704040 http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=I0714704040Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $4.00) ___ 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] Soviet inventory at Wonder Books (2)
The first list I sent was of Progress Publishers books. But there are other Soviet imprints as well. Raduga Books: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/advSearch_h_fulltext.asp?idSupplier=10bookType=productstitle=keyWord=Description=authors=priceUntil=9Submit.y=16Publisher=radugaorder=0Submit.x=86ISBN=dj_condition=0bookCondition=0customfield=0bindingCondition=0priceFrom=0resultCnt=20Submit=Search; Searching for USSR as publisher yields meager results: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/advSearch_h_fulltext.asp?idSupplier=10bookType=productstitle=keyWord=Description=authors=priceUntil=9Submit.y=15Publisher=USSRorder=0Submit.x=61ISBN=dj_condition=0bookCondition=0customfield=0bindingCondition=0priceFrom=0resultCnt=20Submit=Search; The Novosti imprint yields some interesting results: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/advSearch_h_fulltext.asp?idSupplier=10bookType=productstitle=keyWord=Description=authors=priceUntil=9Submit.y=15Publisher=novostiorder=0Submit.x=69ISBN=dj_condition=0bookCondition=0customfield=0bindingCondition=0priceFrom=0resultCnt=20Submit=Search; On the national question and proletarian internationalism By Vladimir Ilich Lenin Novosti Press Agency (Unknown - 1969) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=3743601Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $7.96) William Du Bois;: Scholar, humanitarian, freedom fighter Novosti Press (Paperback - 1971) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=3761535Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $5.20) There is also the Foreign Languages Publishing House: Given typographical errors, you should search the publisher field for foreign languages, foreign language, or just foreign, You will also see some publications from China. If you want to read Khrushchev or other dreadful old stuff, you can find it here. Here are a few samples: Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism: Manual By c dutt Foreign Language Pub. House (HardCover - 1931) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=4532151Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $9.14) Lenin on War Peace Three Articles By V I Lenin FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS (Paperback - ) ISBN: http://www.wonderbk.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?mode=wbidproduct=3632359Buy Wonder Copy(Found 1 as low as $3.20) ___ 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
