Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
isolation is not quite as severe as you are expressing it at the moment? You may not be aware of this to the full, but your idea-disseminating efforts have done much to break down dogmatism within Marxism. Of course there is loads to be done to build up a debate culture and dogmatism is a constant incubus on all our backs. Philosophy should teach us that good debate is not really about winning the debate (I'm serious) but about giving people more options than they currently have. You are probably more of a scientific Marxist, Ralph. But many moons ago you went beyond the narrow horizons of the Leninist groups in order to give people tools to think with. It cannot be a total coincidence that the Leninist groups have lost so much influence in this time. This is wholly positive and in the interests of the American (and international) working class. OK, frustration at the media culture is entirely warranted, and even worse in USA than in UK. But let's hold onto the truth that the working class loves ideas when it comes into contact with them. And what's more don't you have some first-rate intellectuals in the USA? Fredric Jameson, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Robert Wallace, David Harvey, Bertell Ollman, to name a few. Can I just say that I think Paul Gilroy's now revised position (he used to be a black nationalist) that the way forward for black people is to forget the race question and adopt universal humanism is very important and very smart. That doesn't make him a Marxist of course but we Marxists can learn things from people who haven't learnt the Marx lesson. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 01 October 2007 21:59 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress As I said, it's not in our nature to give up however severely the odds stack up against us. Those of us who operate mentally as well as materially outside of media and celebrity culture find ourselves effectively bound and gagged. We can of course have and have had a small impact, but lacking a substantive societal basis for public discourse beyond the superficial, we can't make a dent in the media freak show which effectively saturates virtually all minds within our society, and which can mesmerize us when we let down our guard. The contradiction between the possibilities opened up by recent advances in communications and computer technology and the increasing pulverization and stupefaction of collective social existence is an especially acute one. The cleavage between radical intellectuals and activists in what the (loosely designated) left itself is as serious. There are, of course, academics who function in both roles, and there may be a crossover effect to a limited degree, but I think very limited, as I don't see the infrastructure or the ideological institutionalization of a coherent culture of profound radical critique. The left in a nation such as the USA itself is contaminated with both excessive subculturalism and celebrity media culture, and a fragmented consciousness as well as existence. I can and will give several relevant examples. At 02:27 PM 10/1/2007, Phil Walden wrote: Thanks for the reply. Haven't got much time so this is very short. It is possible to don an illusory consciousness whilst not being fooled into really believing that it is true. I'd suggest more people are doing this than you are allowing. Also, as an auto-didact you know the great interest that ideas, and debate about ideas, can have. The authoritarian left has tried to destroy that. But thanks to you and others it still exists. If we can build up a genuine debate culture that will take us forward over the next period, despite all the problems you rightly point to. Don't forget to google Democratic Socialist Alliance. (UK). Regards, Phil ___ 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] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
Ralph, Yes I am interested in your examples. Anyway you and the USA guys are in the belly of the beast and we in the UK regard you humbly with great respect. But, forgive me, is it possible that your isolation is not quite as severe as you are expressing it at the moment? You may not be aware of this to the full, but your idea-disseminating efforts have done much to break down dogmatism within Marxism. Of course there is loads to be done to build up a debate culture and dogmatism is a constant incubus on all our backs. Philosophy should teach us that good debate is not really about winning the debate (I'm serious) but about giving people more options than they currently have. You are probably more of a scientific Marxist, Ralph. But many moons ago you went beyond the narrow horizons of the Leninist groups in order to give people tools to think with. It cannot be a total coincidence that the Leninist groups have lost so much influence in this time. This is wholly positive and in the interests of the American (and international) working class. OK, frustration at the media culture is entirely warranted, and even worse in USA than in UK. But let's hold onto the truth that the working class loves ideas when it comes into contact with them. And what's more don't you have some first-rate intellectuals in the USA? Fredric Jameson, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Robert Wallace, David Harvey, Bertell Ollman, to name a few. Can I just say that I think Paul Gilroy's now revised position (he used to be a black nationalist) that the way forward for black people is to forget the race question and adopt universal humanism is very important and very smart. That doesn't make him a Marxist of course but we Marxists can learn things from people who haven't learnt the Marx lesson. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 01 October 2007 21:59 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress As I said, it's not in our nature to give up however severely the odds stack up against us. Those of us who operate mentally as well as materially outside of media and celebrity culture find ourselves effectively bound and gagged. We can of course have and have had a small impact, but lacking a substantive societal basis for public discourse beyond the superficial, we can't make a dent in the media freak show which effectively saturates virtually all minds within our society, and which can mesmerize us when we let down our guard. The contradiction between the possibilities opened up by recent advances in communications and computer technology and the increasing pulverization and stupefaction of collective social existence is an especially acute one. The cleavage between radical intellectuals and activists in what the (loosely designated) left itself is as serious. There are, of course, academics who function in both roles, and there may be a crossover effect to a limited degree, but I think very limited, as I don't see the infrastructure or the ideological institutionalization of a coherent culture of profound radical critique. The left in a nation such as the USA itself is contaminated with both excessive subculturalism and celebrity media culture, and a fragmented consciousness as well as existence. I can and will give several relevant examples. At 02:27 PM 10/1/2007, Phil Walden wrote: Thanks for the reply. Haven't got much time so this is very short. It is possible to don an illusory consciousness whilst not being fooled into really believing that it is true. I'd suggest more people are doing this than you are allowing. Also, as an auto-didact you know the great interest that ideas, and debate about ideas, can have. The authoritarian left has tried to destroy that. But thanks to you and others it still exists. If we can build up a genuine debate culture that will take us forward over the next period, despite all the problems you rightly point to. Don't forget to google Democratic Socialist Alliance. (UK). Regards, Phil ___ 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] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
One would think from reading a certain sort of Marxist literature that these people live in a closed subculture, which means a metaphysical and ideological mental universe cloistered from the actual world it constantly beats its head against. I don't think it is in human nature to give up even when facing impossible odds, and I doubt many of us will slit our wrists just because we have as much chance of achieving our goals as winning the million-dollar lottery. I also see no value in dumbing ourselves down to the level of the society in which we live, a la post-Marxism, postmodernism, etc. It is possible to know much more than we can act upon, though if the gap is too wide, we may be deprived of the degree of illusory consciousness necessary to be visible and viable agents in the ideologically driven social world in which we live. I think all we can do is attain the most profound theoretical consciousness of our situation, and act on what is possible within circumstantial limitations. Hence we need to see as far into the social order as we possibly can, and act according to our outer possibilities. But there are no guarantees, and we can't make false promises, least of all to ourselves, about what can be done. A cursory glance at the world situation, or I should say parts of the world situation, suggests that we will remain limited to damage control for some time, however much time we have left. If American business and government doesn't succeed in destroying the world, then the Chinese will, and there is always Islamic terrorism as a precipitating force. There are serious prospects for irreversible environmental disaster as well as world war, and the forces arrayed against these prospectives are too weak and fragmented. I don't see the organized left or the working masses in a position to take on this global situation and correct it. There is, of course, damage control, and relatively local forces in play, and they will do what they can. People won't give up and they can make a difference. But the notion of communist consciousness is merely a form of ideological masturbation without connection to reality, and is therefore to be condemned. Ultimately, any perspective remotely approaching a communist one can be effected only by a combination of workers and intellectuals, and this does not seem to be on the horizon anywhere, certainly not globally. The USA is hopeless, and the USA can destroy the world. If something good is happening in Venezuela or Brazil or some other place I don't know about, how is it really going to affect the organization of the masses on a global scale, and just as importantly, their consciousness of what they are doing and of the nature of the world they live in? At 07:54 PM 9/30/2007, Phil Walden wrote: Ralph, Why are you saying all this stuff about humanity is doomed and there will never be communism? It contradicts the efforts you have made as an auto-didact and to make liberatory material available to other people. True if we want to get from where we are now to communism we will need a well-debated and intelligent programme for communism. For the beginnings of this try googling the Democratic Socialist Alliance and reading the pieces by Phil Sharpe. Cheer up doom may never happen, Phil Walden ___ 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] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
Thanks for the reply. Haven't got much time so this is very short. It is possible to don an illusory consciousness whilst not being fooled into really believing that it is true. I'd suggest more people are doing this than you are allowing. Also, as an auto-didact you know the great interest that ideas, and debate about ideas, can have. The authoritarian left has tried to destroy that. But thanks to you and others it still exists. If we can build up a genuine debate culture that will take us forward over the next period, despite all the problems you rightly point to. Don't forget to google Democratic Socialist Alliance. (UK). Regards, Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 01 October 2007 18:58 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress One would think from reading a certain sort of Marxist literature that these people live in a closed subculture, which means a metaphysical and ideological mental universe cloistered from the actual world it constantly beats its head against. I don't think it is in human nature to give up even when facing impossible odds, and I doubt many of us will slit our wrists just because we have as much chance of achieving our goals as winning the million-dollar lottery. I also see no value in dumbing ourselves down to the level of the society in which we live, a la post-Marxism, postmodernism, etc. It is possible to know much more than we can act upon, though if the gap is too wide, we may be deprived of the degree of illusory consciousness necessary to be visible and viable agents in the ideologically driven social world in which we live. I think all we can do is attain the most profound theoretical consciousness of our situation, and act on what is possible within circumstantial limitations. Hence we need to see as far into the social order as we possibly can, and act according to our outer possibilities. But there are no guarantees, and we can't make false promises, least of all to ourselves, about what can be done. A cursory glance at the world situation, or I should say parts of the world situation, suggests that we will remain limited to damage control for some time, however much time we have left. If American business and government doesn't succeed in destroying the world, then the Chinese will, and there is always Islamic terrorism as a precipitating force. There are serious prospects for irreversible environmental disaster as well as world war, and the forces arrayed against these prospectives are too weak and fragmented. I don't see the organized left or the working masses in a position to take on this global situation and correct it. There is, of course, damage control, and relatively local forces in play, and they will do what they can. People won't give up and they can make a difference. But the notion of communist consciousness is merely a form of ideological masturbation without connection to reality, and is therefore to be condemned. Ultimately, any perspective remotely approaching a communist one can be effected only by a combination of workers and intellectuals, and this does not seem to be on the horizon anywhere, certainly not globally. The USA is hopeless, and the USA can destroy the world. If something good is happening in Venezuela or Brazil or some other place I don't know about, how is it really going to affect the organization of the masses on a global scale, and just as importantly, their consciousness of what they are doing and of the nature of the world they live in? At 07:54 PM 9/30/2007, Phil Walden wrote: Ralph, Why are you saying all this stuff about humanity is doomed and there will never be communism? It contradicts the efforts you have made as an auto-didact and to make liberatory material available to other people. True if we want to get from where we are now to communism we will need a well-debated and intelligent programme for communism. For the beginnings of this try googling the Democratic Socialist Alliance and reading the pieces by Phil Sharpe. Cheer up doom may never happen, Phil Walden ___ 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] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
As I said, it's not in our nature to give up however severely the odds stack up against us. Those of us who operate mentally as well as materially outside of media and celebrity culture find ourselves effectively bound and gagged. We can of course have and have had a small impact, but lacking a substantive societal basis for public discourse beyond the superficial, we can't make a dent in the media freak show which effectively saturates virtually all minds within our society, and which can mesmerize us when we let down our guard. The contradiction between the possibilities opened up by recent advances in communications and computer technology and the increasing pulverization and stupefaction of collective social existence is an especially acute one. The cleavage between radical intellectuals and activists in what the (loosely designated) left itself is as serious. There are, of course, academics who function in both roles, and there may be a crossover effect to a limited degree, but I think very limited, as I don't see the infrastructure or the ideological institutionalization of a coherent culture of profound radical critique. The left in a nation such as the USA itself is contaminated with both excessive subculturalism and celebrity media culture, and a fragmented consciousness as well as existence. I can and will give several relevant examples. At 02:27 PM 10/1/2007, Phil Walden wrote: Thanks for the reply. Haven't got much time so this is very short. It is possible to don an illusory consciousness whilst not being fooled into really believing that it is true. I'd suggest more people are doing this than you are allowing. Also, as an auto-didact you know the great interest that ideas, and debate about ideas, can have. The authoritarian left has tried to destroy that. But thanks to you and others it still exists. If we can build up a genuine debate culture that will take us forward over the next period, despite all the problems you rightly point to. Don't forget to google Democratic Socialist Alliance. (UK). Regards, Phil ___ 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] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
Ralph, Why are you saying all this stuff about humanity is doomed and there will never be communism? It contradicts the efforts you have made as an auto-didact and to make liberatory material available to other people. True if we want to get from where we are now to communism we will need a well-debated and intelligent programme for communism. For the beginnings of this try googling the Democratic Socialist Alliance and reading the pieces by Phil Sharpe. Cheer up doom may never happen, Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 29 September 2007 08:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: *** SPAM *** Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress Re: Scientific method: logical representation vis à vis dialectical reproduction (i.e., the consciousness dominated by alienation for believing itself an abstractly free one vis à vis the consciousness that advances in its freedom by being aware of its alienation) I have never been able to understand Juan's views over the past decade or more. For the moment I'll just point out passages that puzzle me. Capitals needs concerning scientific cognition face a contradiction. To increase relative surplus value by means of the system of machinery, capital is compelled to submit all production and consumption to science. Nevertheless, insofar as scientific cognition is simply a concrete form of the production of surplus value, science must reproduce the alienation of human consciousness in capital. At the same time it has to be an objective consciousness, it needs to be a consciousness that looks upon itself in a non-objective way by accepting the appearance of being an abstractly free consciousness. For this reason, it is about a science that needs to appear as if the foundations of its objectivity were rooted outside itself This foundation must appear to arise from a pure abstractly free subjectivity, . . . I think I do understand thus far (could be a critique of Popper, Dawkins, et al), but: as if it were based on philosophy, and more specifically, on a philosophy based on the appearance of free individuality inherent in the circulation of commodities. I don't understand how science is based on philosophy, or that it is commonly held by scientists that science is based on philosophy. Scientific theory, namely logical representation, is this contradiction resolved. Scientific theory represents real concatenations by taking the forms where the necessity has been already realized needs have already been fulfilled -which is to say, the concrete forms- as if they were not, at the same time, forms that carry within themselves a necessity to be realized -which is to say, abstract forms. It thus defines real forms as unable to move by themselves. From this point of view, they can only be linked by an external relationship. It is here that logic comes into play. Placed as incapable of moving by themselves, real forms are represented as forms that affirm themselves through the appearance of being abstract immediate affirmations. Consequently, consciousness could be affirmed as a free one or it could be affirmed as an alienated one. However, it is logically impossible for alienated consciousness to affirm itself through its own negation under the concrete form of free consciousness. I can't make a bit of sense out of this. In fact, the appearance of being an immediate abstract affirmation corresponds to the actual quantitative determination considered in itself. Scientific theory subscribes to the logic that is genuinely necessary for mathematical cognition and represents it as the objective necessity that relates qualitatively the abstract immediate affirmations to which all real forms have been previously reduced. Mathematical logic is thus represented as formal logic. Based on this premise, scientific theory represents the real abstract determinations by the relationships of measure between their concrete forms. This representation allows the subject to govern actions upon real forms consciously: although the real necessity at stake is not truly known, it is nevertheless possible to act upon the magnitude of the real forms, thus transforming their quantity until this corresponds to that of a qualitatively different form. Its quality itself has thus been transformed.4 I don't understand this either. Are we talking about physics envy here? A purely quantitative notion of scientific theory? How does mathematical logic relate to theories in physics? Scientific theory revolutionizes once and again human control on natural forces, based on transforming quantitative differences into qualitative differences with objective knowledge. Its development seems to have no limit other than the conscious control over all the processes that concern human life. Therefore
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress
Re: Scientific method: logical representation vis à vis dialectical reproduction (i.e., the consciousness dominated by alienation for believing itself an abstractly free one vis à vis the consciousness that advances in its freedom by being aware of its alienation) I have never been able to understand Juan's views over the past decade or more. For the moment I'll just point out passages that puzzle me. Capitals needs concerning scientific cognition face a contradiction. To increase relative surplus value by means of the system of machinery, capital is compelled to submit all production and consumption to science. Nevertheless, insofar as scientific cognition is simply a concrete form of the production of surplus value, science must reproduce the alienation of human consciousness in capital. At the same time it has to be an objective consciousness, it needs to be a consciousness that looks upon itself in a non-objective way by accepting the appearance of being an abstractly free consciousness. For this reason, it is about a science that needs to appear as if the foundations of its objectivity were rooted outside itself This foundation must appear to arise from a pure abstractly free subjectivity, . . . I think I do understand thus far (could be a critique of Popper, Dawkins, et al), but: as if it were based on philosophy, and more specifically, on a philosophy based on the appearance of free individuality inherent in the circulation of commodities. I don't understand how science is based on philosophy, or that it is commonly held by scientists that science is based on philosophy. Scientific theory, namely logical representation, is this contradiction resolved. Scientific theory represents real concatenations by taking the forms where the necessity has been already realized needs have already been fulfilled -which is to say, the concrete forms- as if they were not, at the same time, forms that carry within themselves a necessity to be realized -which is to say, abstract forms. It thus defines real forms as unable to move by themselves. From this point of view, they can only be linked by an external relationship. It is here that logic comes into play. Placed as incapable of moving by themselves, real forms are represented as forms that affirm themselves through the appearance of being abstract immediate affirmations. Consequently, consciousness could be affirmed as a free one or it could be affirmed as an alienated one. However, it is logically impossible for alienated consciousness to affirm itself through its own negation under the concrete form of free consciousness. I can't make a bit of sense out of this. In fact, the appearance of being an immediate abstract affirmation corresponds to the actual quantitative determination considered in itself. Scientific theory subscribes to the logic that is genuinely necessary for mathematical cognition and represents it as the objective necessity that relates qualitatively the abstract immediate affirmations to which all real forms have been previously reduced. Mathematical logic is thus represented as formal logic. Based on this premise, scientific theory represents the real abstract determinations by the relationships of measure between their concrete forms. This representation allows the subject to govern actions upon real forms consciously: although the real necessity at stake is not truly known, it is nevertheless possible to act upon the magnitude of the real forms, thus transforming their quantity until this corresponds to that of a qualitatively different form. Its quality itself has thus been transformed.4 I don't understand this either. Are we talking about physics envy here? A purely quantitative notion of scientific theory? How does mathematical logic relate to theories in physics? Scientific theory revolutionizes once and again human control on natural forces, based on transforming quantitative differences into qualitative differences with objective knowledge. Its development seems to have no limit other than the conscious control over all the processes that concern human life. Therefore, scientific theory would appear to be the necessary form taken by the conscious organization of the human process of social metabolism. Yet, scientific theory itself has already discovered that this is like trying to walk through quicksand. As its initial premise is to represent real concrete forms as abstract immediate affirmations, the real necessity that determines them can only go into logical representation by being reduced to the greater or lesser degree that the repetition of the existence of the real concrete form in question could present.6 Can't make sense out of this either. Therefore, however the hypothetically postulated determination has been verified by comparing the foreseen results with the real ones in all the cases of similar appearance taken into consideration, this fact does not allow
