[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/internationale.html The Internationale Words by Eugene Pottier (Paris 1871) Music by Pierre Degeyter (1888) Arise ye workers from your slumbers Arise ye prisoners of want For reason in revolt now thunders And at last ends the age of cant. Away with all your superstitions Servile masses arise, arise We'll change henceforth the old tradition And spurn the dust to win the prize. So comrades, come rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale unites the human race. So comrades, come rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale unites the human race. No more deluded by reaction On tyrants only we'll make war The soldiers too will take strike action They'll break ranks and fight no more And if those cannibals keep trying To sacrifice us to their pride They soon shall hear the bullets flying We'll shoot the generals on our own side. No saviour from on high delivers No faith have we in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear E'er the thieves will out with their booty And give to all a happier lot. Each at the forge must do their duty And we'll strike while the iron is hot. The Internationale was written to celebrate the Paris Commune of March-May 1871: the first time workers took state power into their own hands. They established in the Commune a form of government more democratic than ever seen before. Representatives were mandated on policy questions by their electors, they were recallable at any time and were paid wages that reflected those of their constituents. The Commune was a working body, not a talk shop. The distinction between legislative and executive arms of government was abolished. Marx's Civil War in France is a suberb account of the history and significance of the Commune. The Commune was drowned in blood by the conservative French government in Versailles, cheered on by the ruling classes of the world. Workers have adopted a similar pattern of organisation whenever they have challenged the capitalist class for state power: in the form of the Soviets in Russia in 1917; collectives in Spain in 1937; the Workers Council of Greater Budapest in Hungary in 1956; the cordones in Chile in 1973; and, in many respects, Solidarity in Poland in 1980. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
The Internationale [variant words in square brackets] http://www.uv.es/~pla/red.net/intaoter.html Arise ye workers [starvelings] from your slumbers Arise ye prisoners of want For reason in revolt now thunders And at last ends the age of cant. Away with all your superstitions Servile masses arise, arise We'll change henceforth [forthwith] the old tradition [conditions] And spurn the dust to win the prize. So comrades, come rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale unites the human race. So comrades, come rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale unites the human race. No more deluded by reaction On tyrants only we'll make war The soldiers too will take strike action They'll break ranks and fight no more And if those cannibals keep trying To sacrifice us to their pride They soon shall hear the bullets flying We'll shoot the generals on our own side. No saviour from on high delivers No faith have we in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear E'er the thieves will out with their booty [give up their booty] And give to all a happier lot. Each [those] at the forge must do their duty And we'll strike while the iron is hot. L'Internationale Debout les damnés de la terre Debout les forçats de la faim La raison tonne en son cratère C'est l'éruption de la fin Du passe faisons table rase Foules, esclaves, debout, debout Le monde va changer de base Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain (bis) L'Internationale Sera le genre humain Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes Décrétons le salut commun Pour que le voleur rende gorge Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge Battons le fer quand il est chaud L'état comprime et la loi triche L'impôt saigne le malheureux Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux C'est assez, languir en tutelle L'égalité veut d'autres lois Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits Hideux dans leur apothéose Les rois de la mine et du rail Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose Que dévaliser le travail Dans les coffres-forts de la bande Ce qu'il a crée s'est fondu En décrétant qu'on le lui rende Le peuple ne veut que son dû. Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans Appliquons la grève aux armées Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales A faire de nous des héros Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles Sont pour nos propres généraux Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes Le grand parti des travailleurs La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes L'oisif ira loger ailleurs Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours Un de ces matins disparaissent Le soleil brillera toujours. Die Internationale Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde, die stets man noch zum Hungern zwingt! Das Recht wie Glut im Kraterherde nun mit Macht zum Durchbruch dringt. Reinen Tisch macht mit dem Bedranger! Heer der Sklaven, wache auf! Ein nichts zu sein, tragt es nicht langer Alles zu werden, stromt zuhauf! Volker, hort die Signale! Auf, zum letzten Gefecht! Die Internationale Erkampft das Menschenrecht Es rettet uns kein hoh'res Wesen kein Gott, kein Kaiser, noch Tribun Uns aus dem Elend zu erlosen konnen wir nur selber tun! Leeres Wort: des armen Rechte, Leeres Wort: des Reichen Pflicht! Unmundigt nennt man uns Knechte, duldet die Schmach langer nicht! In Stadt und Land, ihr Arbeitsleute, wir sind die starkste Partei'n Die Mussigganger schiebt beiseite! Diese Welt muss unser sein; Unser Blut sei nicht mehr der Raben und der machtigen Geier Frass! Erst wenn wir sie vertrieben haben dann scheint die Sonn' ohn' Unterlass! (The English version most commonly sung in South Africa. ) The Internationale Arise ye prisoners of starvation Arise ye toilers of the earth For reason thunders new creation `Tis a better world in birth. Never more traditions' chains shall bind us Arise ye toilers no more in thrall The earth shall rise on new foundations We are naught but we shall be all. Then comrades, come rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale Unites the human race. (Zulu) i-Internationale n'zigqila zezwe lonke Vukan'ejokwen'lobugqili Sizokwakh'umhlaba kabusha Siqed'indlala nobumpofu. lamasik'okusibopha Asilwise yonk'incindezelo Manj'umhlab'unesakhiw'esisha Asisodwa Kulomkhankaso Maqaban'wozan'sihlanganeni Sibhekene nempi yamanqamu I-Internationale Ibumb'uluntu lonke This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
Back to Modern History SourceBook Modern History Sourcebook: The Internationale The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a woodworker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter. The Internationale referred to is the International Working Men's Association, the so-called First International (1864-76), part of which had supported the Commune. It hac been used across the world as a song of resistence to oppression. Perhaps its most dramatic use in recent years was its repeated singing by the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 - although, curiously, the western press did not comment on this. Click here for a Midi file of The Internationale [Music only] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [Music only] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [sung in Chinese] [Note: Although real audio files are capable of being streamed over the net, that is not possible from the server I am using on this page (that may change). But even as downloadables, they are much smaller than AU and WAV files. You will need a Real Audio player installed to play them. It is from from the Real Audio Website. ] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [sung in Turkish] [This one will stream, but is set to a disco beat!] The Internationale: English Version Arise ye starvelings [or workers] from your slumbers Arise ye criminals of want For reason in revolt now thunders and at last ends the age of cant. Now away with all your superstitions Servile masses arise, arise! We'll change forthwith [or henceforth] the old conditions And spurn the dust to win the prize. CHORUS Then come comrades rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale Unites the human race. (repeat). We peasants, artisans and others, Enrolled amongst the sons of toil Let's claim the earth henceforth for brothers Drive the indolent from the soil. On our flesh for too long has fed the raven We've too long been the vultures prey. But now farewell to spirit craven The dawn brings in a brighter day. CHORUS No saviour from on high delivers No trust we have in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear. Ere the thieves will out with their booty And to all give a happier lot. Each at his forge must do his duty And strike the iron while its hot. CHORUS L'Internationale [French Original] Debout les damnés de la terre Debout les forçats de la faim La raison tonne en son cratère C'est l'éruption de la fin Du passe faisons table rase Foules, esclaves, debout, debout Le monde va changer de base Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain (bis) L'Internationale Sera le genre humain Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes Décrétons le salut commun Pour que le voleur rende gorge Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge Battons le fer quand il est chaud L'état comprime et la loi triche L'impôt saigne le malheureux Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux C'est assez, languir en tutelle L'égalité veut d'autres lois Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits Hideux dans leur apothéose Les rois de la mine et du rail Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose Que dévaliser le travail Dans les coffres-forts de la bande Ce qu'il a crée s'est fondu En décrétant qu'on le lui rende Le peuple ne veut que son dû. Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans Appliquons la grève aux armées Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales A faire de nous des héros Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles Sont pour nos propres généraux Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes Le grand parti des travailleurs La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes L'oisif ira loger ailleurs Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours Un de ces matins disparaissent Le soleil brillera toujours. Die Internationale [German Version] Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde, die stets man noch zum Hungern zwingt! Das Recht wie Glut im Kraterherde nun mit Macht zum Durchbruch dringt. Reinen Tisch macht mit dem Bedranger! Heer der Sklaven, wache auf! Ein nichts zu sein, tragt es nicht langer Alles zu werden, stromt zuhauf! Volker, hort die Signale! Auf, zum letzten Gefecht! Die Internationale Erkampft das Menschenrecht Es rettet uns kein hoh'res Wesen kein Gott, kein Kaiser, noch Tribun Uns aus dem Elend zu erlosen konnen wir nur selber tun! Leeres Wort: des armen Rechte, Leeres Wort: des Reichen Pflicht! Unmundigt nennt man uns Knechte, duldet die Schmach langer nicht! In Stadt und Land, ihr Arbeitsleute, wir sind die starkste Partei'n Die Mussigganger schiebt
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
Modern History Sourcebook: The Internationale http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/internat.html The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a woodworker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter. The Internationale referred to is the International Working Men's Association, the so-called First International (1864-76), part of which had supported the Commune. It hac been used across the world as a song of resistence to oppression. Perhaps its most dramatic use in recent years was its repeated singing by the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 - although, curiously, the western press did not comment on this. Click here for a Midi file of The Internationale [Music only] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [Music only] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [sung in Chinese] [Note: Although real audio files are capable of being streamed over the net, that is not possible from the server I am using on this page (that may change). But even as downloadables, they are much smaller than AU and WAV files. You will need a Real Audio player installed to play them. It is from from the Real Audio Website. ] Click here for a Real Audio file of The Internationale [sung in Turkish] [This one will stream, but is set to a disco beat!] The Internationale: English Version Arise ye starvelings [or workers] from your slumbers Arise ye criminals of want For reason in revolt now thunders and at last ends the age of cant. Now away with all your superstitions Servile masses arise, arise! We'll change forthwith [or henceforth] the old conditions And spurn the dust to win the prize. CHORUS Then come comrades rally And the last fight let us face The Internationale Unites the human race. (repeat). We peasants, artisans and others, Enrolled amongst the sons of toil Let's claim the earth henceforth for brothers Drive the indolent from the soil. On our flesh for too long has fed the raven We've too long been the vultures prey. But now farewell to spirit craven The dawn brings in a brighter day. CHORUS No saviour from on high delivers No trust we have in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear. Ere the thieves will out with their booty And to all give a happier lot. Each at his forge must do his duty And strike the iron while its hot. CHORUS L'Internationale [French Original] Debout les damnés de la terre Debout les forçats de la faim La raison tonne en son cratère C'est l'éruption de la fin Du passe faisons table rase Foules, esclaves, debout, debout Le monde va changer de base Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain (bis) L'Internationale Sera le genre humain Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes Décrétons le salut commun Pour que le voleur rende gorge Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge Battons le fer quand il est chaud L'état comprime et la loi triche L'impôt saigne le malheureux Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux C'est assez, languir en tutelle L'égalité veut d'autres lois Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits Hideux dans leur apothéose Les rois de la mine et du rail Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose Que dévaliser le travail Dans les coffres-forts de la bande Ce qu'il a crée s'est fondu En décrétant qu'on le lui rende Le peuple ne veut que son dû. Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans Appliquons la grève aux armées Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales A faire de nous des héros Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles Sont pour nos propres généraux Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes Le grand parti des travailleurs La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes L'oisif ira loger ailleurs Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours Un de ces matins disparaissent Le soleil brillera toujours. Die Internationale [German Version] Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde, die stets man noch zum Hungern zwingt! Das Recht wie Glut im Kraterherde nun mit Macht zum Durchbruch dringt. Reinen Tisch macht mit dem Bedranger! Heer der Sklaven, wache auf! Ein nichts zu sein, tragt es nicht langer Alles zu werden, stromt zuhauf! Volker, hort die Signale! Auf, zum letzten Gefecht! Die Internationale Erkampft das Menschenrecht Es rettet uns kein hoh'res Wesen kein Gott, kein Kaiser, noch Tribun Uns aus dem Elend zu erlosen konnen wir nur selber tun! Leeres Wort: des armen Rechte, Leeres Wort: des Reichen Pflicht! Unmundigt nennt man uns Knechte, duldet die Schmach langer nicht! In Stadt und Land, ihr Arbeitsleute, wir sind die starkste Partei'n Die
[Marxism-Thaxis] Trans-historical class struggle as based drive or instinct
Charles: Again, all human complex behavior has a significant learning component, i.e. experiential. Some of it is entirely learned or experiential. But different HISTORICAL epochs have different experiences. So, for something under the ancient slave mode to be the same thing- class struggle - as in the capitalist mode there must be something else common besides EXPERIENCE, because by definiition the experiences are different. What is common is the drive to own and consume the fruits of one's own labor. As to workers not understanding that they are exploited, that's the shell game I was referring too. The exploitation is not open and obvious, so the drive doesn't kick in. Again the class awareness is not instinctive or a drive. That is learned and combines with the individual displeasure at being ripped off. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of development of the material power of production property relations appear. Anti-thesis: property. At yet another future stage of development of production, property relations in all its forms is overcome or sublated: synthesis. Or the classless society of primitive communism; then the emergence of classes (with the property relations within) and finally the dissolution of classes. Is this gigantic process to be understood as the negation of the negation? Or has this model become increasingly antiquated? Negation can be applied at any mentally isolated space-time coordinate (point) or growth (stage, phase,) in any process at any point. One can declare that any point in time is by definition a negation of a previous preceding point and sequence of/in time. When capitalism negated feudalism, there is a point in this process of sublation (new quality formulation and its quantitative growth), where society cannot be return to feudalism. That is, a qualitative determination emerges where society cannot be returned to the period of manufacture and industrialization re-negated or proletarians de-evolved back into serfs. If negation, rather than sublation, blocks the return of the quality called capitalism to the quality called feudalism, what allowed socialism in the USSR to be returned to capitalism? The same inquiry can be made into the concept of contradiction, quantity and quality - (as concepts of self movement), mutual penetration of opposites and so on. The below example of the passing of quantity into quality quotes Marx as stating: The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the maaximum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the middle ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his Logic), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm) Does this prove, with reasonable sensibility (information provided to form a working hypothesis) that quantity passes into quality? The quote above, by itself tells no one anything about the social process whereby a certain accumulation of money become capital and then this capital becomes personified as capitalists. Without the preceding three sentences how is one to know that Marx describes real changes in the environment of this money making it possible to leap into a new quality called full capitalist. Money does not get bigger and on the basis of bigness becomes a new quality. Adding money to money, no matter what the resulting magnitude, cannot make one a capitalist without a complex of preexisting specific conditions. Arbitrarily breaking into a process at any point in the process movement (logic), can be used to prove virtually any result. Here is a presentation of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. It is well known that Marx held a dim view of metaphysical Hegelian reasoning, exhibited in his late and early work (such as THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY). One quote from Marx about a dialectical law taken out of context does not make Marx a purveyor of dialectical materialism as we know it, as your presentation effectively shows. Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. -Original Message- From: waistli...@aol.com Sent: Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form) Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of development of the material power of production property relations appear. Anti-thesis: property. At yet another future stage of development of production, property relations in all its forms is overcome or sublated: synthesis. Or the classless society of primitive communism; then the emergence of classes (with the property relations within) and finally the dissolution of classes. Is this gigantic process to be understood as the negation of the negation? Or has this model become increasingly antiquated? Negation can be applied at any mentally isolated space-time coordinate (point) or growth (stage, phase,) in any process at any point. One can declare that any point in time is by definition a negation of a previous preceding point and sequence of/in time. When capitalism negated feudalism, there is a point in this process of sublation (new quality formulation and its quantitative growth), where society cannot be return to feudalism. That is, a qualitative determination emerges where society cannot be returned to the period of manufacture and industrialization re-negated or proletarians de-evolved back into serfs. If negation, rather than sublation, blocks the return of the quality called capitalism to the quality called feudalism, what allowed socialism
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. Reply Seems to me we are on the same page, same paragraph and same sentence. I am not sure if there was a different way to try and teach Marx approach in 1930s Soviet Union - 1939. A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy (1939) is extremely political and contains a number of historical limitations. Yet, it introduced millions to Marx method. The result was dogmatism. Dogmatism or a lack of creativity is pretty much the inevitable consequence of trying to teach science - any science, to a mass of more than less illiterate folks. The Soviets face this really tough task. With assimilation of more knowledge one does not have to remain dogmatic. The harm of Textbook in the hands of anyone today is taking this exposition to be the final word on method. The Hegelian form of dialectics - as I understand things, and Engels exposition based on this form, is old hat. But, Engels desire was to teach the workers and create the legacy of Marx. I of course claim no new form of presentation, although every time I hear quantity becomes quality or quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, as an explanation for anything, I now-a-days, cringe. There are some pretty complex problems concerning the principles of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. The tendency to make struggle absolute and rising and falling as dominating in the formula unity and struggle of opposites; and then . . . THEN, make unity conditional or to conceive struggle as flow and unity as stability or relative is fraught with controversy. And contrary to modes of non-European thinking and conceptualization, where a political and social environment demanding conformity, approaches unity different. I agree that exploration of the properties of emergence - raised to a level of generalizations, is useful and in urgent need. This will in turn create its own problems. I have convinced myself a long time ago that all philosophy is by definition a form of insanity; an extreme breach between knowing and doing or alienation. Who but an insane man, horribly alienated from nature, can conceive the impossible like, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it create a sound? I think therefore I am. What insanity. WL. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Superimperialism
[Marxism-Thaxis] Superimperialism , Empire, Americofourthreich Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 11 09:11:20 MST 2001 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] An old chestnut Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Taliban screwed it up Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Hugh- I think it's time Charles dipped into Trotsky's work on the Permanent Revolution. The essential book is the work of that name written in Trotsky's first place of foreign exile, the island of Prinkipo near Istanbul, but it should be read together with Results and Prospects, an amazing work written in 1904-06 before and after Trotsky led the first Russian Revolution of 1905. Both books are available at the Marx/Engels Internet Archive at http://www.marx.org/Trotsky/Archive/1931-TPV/ Chas.- Yes. I will look at this. By the way, on figures you claim I owe when I said go to the books on the working class as the major fraction of consumers of means of consumption, the books I was talking about going to were Capital and Marx and Engels' writings, the same one you introduced in support of what you said. If you produce some figures maybe I will. But I think there are some clear logical arguments within Marx's system. A big one I already gave you: means of production, by definition, are not an end product commodity; AND all of the value added to the means of production when they were worked on by labor is paid for in full down the exchange chain until the purchaser of the means of consumption commodity pays for all of the values back up the line. So, the consumer of the car (mostly workers) pays for all of the steel , wages of steelworkers and profit of steel capitalist. Generalize this and your means of production argument falls. But I will look at the exact wording of Marx on these issues. Chas.- Also, what do you think of the idea that the metropolitan imperialist nation structure from the Leninist imperialism model has evolved to superimperialism, meaning that rather than several national centers , there is more of one transnatioanl center ? So, that in fighting strikes like that in Australia now, and in overall strategy, we must think of the enemy as having that structure. Hugh- Never confuse the world market, which was one and undivided already in Marx's day, with the national states that act as guard-dogs for multinational capital. Chas.- The stage of imperialism impacted the configuration of the world market of Marx's day. Monopolization and the shift to finance capital as the topdogs meant greater centralization of the capitalist dictatorships within the imperialist national centers, WITH FIERCE INTERIMPERIALIST RIVALRY BETWEEN THE CENTERS, including of course world war. The paleo-colonial system reached it's highest level of development and crisis.. There was a shift from exporting goods to exporting capital. Hugh- There are still several national centres, but the strains arising from the contradictions are becoming very noticeable. The subordination of formerly relatively autonomous nations (like Sweden) is becoming clearer now. But the utopianism of thinking that having the imperialist nations England, France and Germany all in the same sack will make them act as one is ridiculous. As long as it suits their purposes they'll gang up together against the US or Japan, but as soon as it doesn't, they shoot off on their own again. Chas.- There are more national centers now, but there is a center or maybe centers above the level of nation. The TRANSNATIONAL corporation is a qualitatively new phenomenon from Lenin's day and two levels from Marx's day. Transnational is a better term than multinational, because the latter implies having a foot in several national centers. The former gives the sense of flying over the top of several and less controlled. The state-monopolization process Lenin tagged in Imperialism is further along than then. Thus, the direct use of the nation states by the biggest bourgeoisie is greater. But more a U.S. transnational uses the Korean state and really the Japanese state (e.g. Chrysler/Mitsubisi and Ford/?); and these states are not as hostile. Or Honda uses the U.S. state. The interimperialist rivalries are not especially along national lines as in the era of imperialism. A new contradiction in capital is between national and transnationals. This was reflected in Perot (national) screwing up the Presidential election by running against Clinton and Bush (both transnational). Hugh- As for fighting strikes, the economic tentacles of the enemy reach everywhere, so we can bang 'em hard in a lot of different places. The political set up is much less unified. In the current docks dispute in Oz, it seems no foreign capital is involved directly, and it's a home-grown operation, both economically and politically (although obviously there's
[Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin’s Five-Point Definition of Imperialism
2. Lenin’s Five-Point Definition of Imperialism However, Lenin went well beyond this fundamental proposition, that modern imperialism is “the monopoly stage of capitalism”.6 He gave a more elaborate 5-point definition of capitalist imperialism as follows: And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: 1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.7 What can we say about these five points? Have there been changes in imperialism since http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/LeninOnImperialism.pdf This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Rehearsal of the Fundamentals of Marxism
Materialism, Necessity and Freedom: Rehearsal of the Fundamentals of Marxism A three act play with beginning, middle and end, and non-dogmatic improvisation. Several vulgar parts Double materialist determination; there are two levels of determination, in materialism attitude toward the relationship between thought and being: 1)economics and 2) physics. 1)economics While society remains in the Realm of Necessity , ruling classes control masses by conditioning fulfillment of the _material_ needs of the exploited classes on the exploited classes ' producing surpluses for the ruling , exploiting classes. The materialism (determinism by the material) at this level derives from the coercive use of conditional provision of material needs. 2) physics In all societies, including those in the Realm of Freedom ( socialist, communist future and ancient) , all people must , of course, obey the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, objective reality etc. physics, in the general sense. The first level above is based in the specific biological necessities of the second level. There is a third level of materialist determination in the Marxist thesis. It is also economic. Marx and Engels (Engels and Marx) claim that history is a history of class struggles. The answer to the question Why is history a history of class struggles ? is the philosophy of historical materialism. Why is it that economic material relationship of exploiting and exploited classes causes the changes which are called history ? The alternatives at the time Marx wrote the thesis were especially Great Men in state and economic power and Big Ideas as in Philosophies of Great Men. Marx in wanting to take a scientific approach to the question, looked to necessity upon the theory that science details necessary connections between things. There is no necessity as strict in the realms of ideas or Great Men as the necessity of biology, and by extension the area of economics of material production of minimal life sustaining necessities or Being or Existence There still must be made an argument as to why and what changes by class struggle determination in the sense that history is a history of class struggles. What changes through the course of history ? If it were the structure of the relationship between classes, then what about tautology ? So, Big Ideas (or Consciousness) and Great Men _types_ change as the change that is history. However, Being determines consciousness intermittently, rarely in terms of the total time of the many generations of people. Most generations don't experience a fundamental or revolutionary change. And so on the rare, intermittent determinism of the structure of ideas by the Realm proper of Necessity: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-March/007351.html Although biology only limits us human beings because we have culture (super-natures and natures ) this contradiction between biology and culture is still where it is at in generating universals or big generals. Being determines consciousness is still a focal rule of thumb (guide to action) for building a universal, real common interests among huge numbers of people, the masses. My first post-Marx development of species-being is to derive women's liberation organically from historical materialism's premises, as Marx and Engels derive workers' liberation from those species-being historical premises. It is a correction of classical Marxism, but based on Marxsim's own premises. In ways its too vulgar for pomos and fancy marxists. However, the pomos and their old cousins, Frankfurt school, Gramsci, exitentialists, et al. all the fancy marxists have taught us something: being determines consciousness discontinuously, intermittmently, rarely. Through most of the actual time of history ( day-to-day life; quotidien), consciousness and being are reciprocally determining. Only rarely, in revolutions, primarily and ultimately does being utterly determine consciousness. Today, that means that the direct naked appeal to the working class' class self-interest is inadequate in itself-necessary but not sufficient in the formal logical sense -to inspire revolution. That appeal cannot be dropped - the vast majority are working class, wage laborers - but must be complemented with appeals to other consciousness, other consciousness = determined by being (gender, for example) and consciousness that is determined more by consciousness. Overall one wants to change the world based on interpreting it, changing it through practical-critical activity, a unity of theory and practice still. (to be continued) ^ A vulgar marxist here Charles Brown charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Mar 17 14:27:56 MST 1998 Previous message: M-TH: This is a test. I'm trouble getting the right address Next message: M-TH: Re: M-I: Re:
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist materialism
I am interpreting Marxist materialism with respect to the Realm of Necessity or class divided to society to mean that biology determines society in this area _indirectly_. By that I mean, the provision of physiological/biological _necessities_ - food, water, shelter, sleep, air, protection from predators - is used to coerce exploited classes into producing surpluses for the exploiting classes by means of the coercive state power (special repressive apparatus; see Engels _The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the State_). Provision of biological necessities to ruled classes is conditional upon their following the ruling classes' rules. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Necessary condition in logic
This is very helpful in specifying the non-Marxist point of view on this point. Marx's position is the opposite of this. Science is based in discovering necessary connections. Here necessary is exactly as in the logical _modus ponens_ or if-then, if p, then q, q is a necessary condition of p. In the Realm of Necessity, ( Marx and Engels used the term necessity here precisely to make the point I am making here) there is a science of human conduct based on the things that human must do. As Marx and Engels had to explain to the Germans in _The German Ideology_, humans have physiological necessities. In meeting these, there arise scientifically discernable patterns in their behavior ( See the theses on materialism I just posted to the list yesterday. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Materialism
Frederick Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Part 2: Materialism http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being. From the very early times when men, still completely ignorant of the structure of their own bodies, under the stimulus of dream apparitions (1) came to believe that their thinking and sensation were not activities of their bodies, but of a distinct soul which inhabits the body and leaves it at death - from this time men have been driven to reflect about the relation between this soul and the outside world. If, upon death, it took leave of the body and lived on, there was no occasion to invent yet another distinct death for it. Thus arose the idea of immortality, which at that stage of development appeared not at all as a consolation but as a fate against which it was no use fighting, and often enough, as among the Greeks, as a positive misfortune. The quandry arising from the common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted, after the death of the body, and not religious desire for consolation, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality. In an exactly similar manner, the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces. And these gods in the further development of religions assumed more and more extramundane form, until finally by a process of abstraction, I might almost say of distillation, occurring naturally in the course of man’s intellectual development, out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive God of the monotheistic religions. Thus the question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of the spirit to nature - the paramount question of the whole of philosophy - has, no less than all religion, its roots in the narrow-minded and ignorant notions of savagery. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Third level of materialist determination
Third level of materialism Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri May 30 08:00:16 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] Materialism, idealism, theory, practice, etc. Next message: [lbo-talk] The Nation does CNA-SEIU Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort On Materialism ( speaking of Mao), there are two levels of the relationship between thought and being: economics and physics. While society remains in the Realm of Necessity , ruling classes control masses by conditioning fulfillment of the _material_needs of the exploited classes on the exploited classes ' producing surpluses for the ruling , exploiting classes. The materialism (determinism by the material) at this level derives from the coercive use of conditional provision of material needs. In all societies, including those in the Realm of Freedom ( socialist, communist future and ancient) , all people must , of course, obey the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, objective reality etc. physics, in the general sense. How do Foucault, Butler, and other Post-moderns differ with these materialist principles ? ^^^ Let me suggest a third level of materialist determination, derived from the dialectic between the Marxists and the structuralists/post-moderns, et. al. The superstructure is _determined_ when it is changed. It is changed only rarely, in revolutions. Revolutions are rare, by definition; in punctuations. Most of the time of history, society is in convention or equilibrium, not revolution. In conventional times, it is the superstructure of ideas that determines individual peoples' conduct. There is determination by ideas, ideology. Thought determines the actions by beings. Only when practice of ideas comes into such crisis as to create a system changing contradiction in the system of ideas ( the cultural grammar in Levi-Straussian structural anthropology) does a revolution arise. This system and convention changing crisis and contradiction between practice and ideas is what Marx describes in his famous passage below. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Anton Wilhelm Amo, philosopher, from Ghana to Germany
Completely unrelated to the Martin Luther King holiday and the Second Coming of Barack Obama, I have been immersed in black intellectual history for the past few days. I've learned some things about the early history of academic African-American philosophy as well as the history of street scholars I didn't know before. But now about Africa. I just came across some more information about Anton Wilhelm Amo, a Ghanaian who became a German philosopher in the 18th century. You can find the basic information in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Wilhelm_Amo And Amo has been mentioned in several histories of African and general philosophy. Here's some more stuff of interest: Bemile, Sebastian K. Anton Wilhelm Amo, From a Ghanaian Slave-Child to a German Professor and Philosopher”. September 2002. 16 pp. http://www.afrst.uiuc.edu/events/archive/objects/pdfs/sem-bemile-2002.pdf McClendon, John H. Introduction to Drs. Anton Wilhelm Amo and Charles Leander Hill, APA Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience, vol. 2. no. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 42-44. http://www.apaonline.org/documents/publications/v02n2_BlackExperience.pdf Hill, Charles Leander. William Ladd, the Black Philosopher from Guinea: A Critical Analysis of His Dissertation on Apathy, APA Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience, vol. 2. no. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 44-50. http://www.apaonline.org/documents/publications/v02n2_BlackExperience.pdf Heckmann, Hannelore. Anton Wilhelm Amo (ca. 1707 - ca. 1756): On the Reception of a Black Philosopher, Lessing Yearbook XXIII, 1991, pp. 149-158. http://books.google.com/books?id=8nGnmxwEQuYCpg=PA149dq=anton+wilhelm+amosource=gbs_toc_rcad=0_0 ___ 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] Second Thesis on Feuerbach as Mother wit
The second Thesis on Feuerbach - the test of theory is practice - is pretty much the Mother witicism : the proof of the pudding is in the eating; or, even better. the proof of the recipe ( theory ) is in the cooking and eating. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] natural scientific like theory in social science
This quote alone contradicts your subject heading. Only the economic conditions can be ascertained with the precision of natural science, and Marx insists on a distinction between those and superstructural institutional and ideological conditions. He also says in this preface that societies, like people, should never be taken at their own valuation. However, if only objective economic conditions are precisely measurable, how does this translate into the other aspects of society, and moreover into praxis, or active intervention to change the conditions of society? How can this be ascertained with natural scientific precision? -Original Message- From: Charles Brown charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sent: Jan 19, 2009 3:18 PM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] natural scientific like theory in social science Marx directly addresses the issue of natural scientific like theory in social science in the following: Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis 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] Natural scientists must have political consciousness
shag oh. of course they ignored it. part of the deal is that they also argued science itself was imperialist, racist, sexist, etc. In other words, the antidote to ideologically driven science was not more science but questioning the claims about science being the answer at all. people would have guffawed if i'd countered with scientific socialism as the antidote. ^ CB: Of course. I'm kidding a little bit. I know how most non-Marxist-Leninist leftists think of Marxism-Leninism: It's ooh hh ! Stalinism ! ( scream at the top of your longs ! The Boogie man.) But you know having been through thinking about what they say for about 25 years ( actually, in terms of the Marshall Sahlins 'anthropolgical structuralist critique, I go back to 1972; following Sahlins, I was a Levi-Straussian structuralist before I was a Marxist. in other words, I was one) I conclude there's more of value in Marxism-Leninism than non-M-L leftists allow. M-L is anti-positivist. Actually, I gave in one of my recent posts my one general thesis on the principle that might come out of the struggle between Leninism and structuralism/postmodernism. I'll send it again , if you want. Anyway, after all that, I really think it's a mistake when they conclude that science may not be the answer at all. THE FOCUS ON THE WORKING CLASS DERIVES FROM MARX AND ENGELS' SELF-DECLARED SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, THEIR FOCUS ON NECESSARY CONNECTIONS, THE COERCIVE USE OF PROVISION 0F NECESSARIES BY RULING CLASSES DOWN THROUGH THE AGES. More like we gotta go with the science for the people approach. Gotta fight fire with fire sometimes. Prometheus for the people vs Prometheus for the bosses. Turn things-in-themselves into things-for-us instead of things-for-them bosses. But the bosses aren't going to give up using science and it gives them a big advantage. It's like I thought when I worked on land recovery for the Yurok Indians (sort of practicing anthropology for the indigenous people), and wrote Indigenous Knowledge in Aboriginal Land Recovery : It's obvious that the best thing for the human race would be to move back to a mode of production more _like_ ( not identical to) hunters /gatherers/gardeners, give up much of this technology that is ending up like the brooms in the Sorcerers' Apprentice tale. But the bourgeoisie ain't going to give hi tech up unless we make them. And I don 't see how you make them without getting science ourselves. Maybe Jaggar has a plan for that - making the bourgeoisie give it up without us getting science ourselves. Now that would be some potent feminism. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Voyou
Voyou I doubt anyone who studies political theory or literary theory would disagree with your contention that economics, politics, history, law, literature, are humanistic endeavors and are not ready, and may never be ready, for scientific theory making. CB: Of course, many who study political theory would disagree with this . Pretending like Marxism doesn't exist ( as bourgeois intellectuals did with Marx himself) won't make it go away. There is already a vast body of scientific theory and scientifically based practice of economics , politics , history , law , even literature. Marxism has a full critique of positivism. By the way, the area of human activity that even anti-science types have a clue can be understood scientifically is language through linguistics. Chomsky is not the only linguist in the world. Literature can be understood scientifically through linguistics. Furthermore, modern Western science itself models itself on jurisprudence as can be seen by its use of the term scientific or natural _laws_. Laws, in the original sense, are rules of human conduct, as is custom or culture. ( Laws are state enforced customs) Human conduct follows lawful patterns, though of course laws are broken. These lawful patterns of conduct are the basis for a science of that conduct, obviously fitting the fundamental scientific notion of a law. It doesn't matter that these laws are not as absolute as in physics. We can still refer to this knowledge as scientific. This ought rebuff all discussion on this thread that human activity is not subject to scientifc study or knowledge. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Natural laws in _Capital_
Natural laws in _Capital_ Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jun 5 08:12:19 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] _Capital_ as science Next message: [lbo-talk] Incredible vintage Bo Diddley clip Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle-class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working-class. In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent. There it will take a form more brutal or more humane, according to the degree of development of the working-class itself. Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most important interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce the ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances to the free development of the working-class. For this reason, as well as others, I have given so large a space in this volume to the history, the details, and the results of English factory legislation. One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society — it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Third level of materialism
Third level of materialism Let me suggest a third level of materialist determination, derived from the struggle between the Marxists and the structuralists/post-moderns, et. al. The superstructure is _determined_ when it is changed. It is changed only rarely, in revolutions. Revolutions are rare, by definition; in punctuations. Most of the time of history, society is in convention or equilibrium, not revolution. In conventional times, it is the superstructure of ideas that determines individual peoples' conduct. There is determination by ideas, ideology. Thought determines the actions by beings. Only when practice of ideas comes into such crisis as to create a system changing contradiction in the system of ideas ( the cultural grammar in Levi-Straussian structural anthropology) does a revolution arise. This system and convention changing crisis and contradiction between practice and ideas is what Marx describes in his famous passage below. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Materialism and sexuality
Butler Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jun 5 13:48:15 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] Neocons' last throw? Next message: [lbo-talk] Butler Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort Doug Henwood wrote: A thirst thought can only be abated by the _material_ impact of water in the digestive and circulatory systems. Symbols meaning water won't do the trick. No kidding. Do you think Judith Butler is a moron or a psychotic? ^^^ Butler seems to be critically and especially a theoretician for the lesbian and gay liberation movement; politics and knowledge in the politics of sexuality. The central use of the claim of no _significant_ determination by heterosexual biological instinct is to establish the principle of anti-essentialism. This gives theoretical underpinning to the rhetorical term heterosexism or concept of heter-sexists as an oppressor group. Significant is a pun here, in the signifying structuralist tradition. There is no significant determination or biology doesn't affirmatively determine the cultural rules of American ( European ? Culture X ?) sexuality or sexual roles. The precise general structuralist concept is that biological facts only make determination of cultural structures or rules or ideas by limiting them, not by determining them affirmatively ( See _Culture and Practical Reason_ , by Sahlins, for example http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/2094.ctl ) I'm arguing that biological heterosexuality does make some affirmative determination of the symbolic structure of sexuality in American culture. This would make it an unique exception to the general rule of only negative or limiting determination of culture by nature. As Marx seems to say, sex is a special exception . That would be because sexuality and sexual instinct is a natural sociality, unlike appetite for food , for example. Natural appetite relates a human being and a natural object. Natural sexuality relates two humans, i.e. is a natural sociality. See passage from Marx here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm ...In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature - his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence - the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need - the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being. The first positive annulment of private property - crude communism - is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system. Charles This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Naturally organized sociality and symbolically organized sociality
[lbo-talk] Naturally organized sociality and symbolically organized sociality Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jun 5 14:14:56 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] Butler Next message: [lbo-talk] Naturally organized sociality and symbolically organized sociality Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort As sexual instinct is an instinct that shapes a _social_ relationship it is different than some other instincts. Since culture or symbolic systems or social structures or_social_ construction by symbol systems constitute socialities or social relations, the social feature of biological sexuality impinges on that social structure in a way that other instincts like thirst or hunger do not. Thirst and hunger relate body and object. Sex relates body and body, i.e. is social. This why sexual instinct impinges on _social _structure in a way that other instincts do not. It is directly and immediately social. As humans are a uniquely social species, the social , and therefore the cultural (which is essentially social; the symbolic is founded in sociality) has much more pervasive importance in our lives than it does in other species. This is the underlying truth of the cultural anthropology schools like Levi-Straussian structuralism. It is this principle that Butler is correctly championing. Ironically, the exception to this principle in her area of emphasis, sexuality. On sex uniting the natural and the social, see quote from Marx from Econ and Philosophic Manuscripts of 18844 previously posted. Br'er Rabbit This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Secondly, I am _agreeing_ with Butler. My statement pronounces the same principle that she seems to make in her statement. I am agreeing with her long sentence. She seems to be descri
Secondly, I am _agreeing_ with Butler. My statement pronounces the same principle that she seems to make in her statement. I am agreeing with her long sentence. She seems to be describing how a structure changes - a dialecticians response to structuralism, perhaps the first post-structural principle. Structures change when practice based on the ideas of the structure comes into conflict with objective reality . Practice is the test of theory, a la the Second Thesis on Feuerbach. Necessity is the mother of invention. Special Contradiction between structure and event is the way that the structure can change. Structures are not self-changing because they are formal or symbolic logics for which non-contradiction is the first principle. It is the dialectical logic (with first principle is contradiction , the relationship between theory and practice, practical-critical or revolutionary activity ( see First Thesis on Feuerbach) that changes the structure. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Symbolic
Does this mean you are defending the concept that the social is built upon the exchange of women amongst men? robert wood CB: No . This passage from Marx is not on that topic. By and large this is referring to a one-on-one, an intimate one-on-one. ( As an aside, on that topic, note that in one-to-one correspondence between women and men , isomorphism/ group theory algebra _Les Structure Elementaire de la Parente ; between the groups, from one angle the men might be seen as exchange the women, from another angle the women might be seen as exchanging the men, peu t'etre; but I'm not talking about that here.) The vast human social is mainly built out of the symbolic, language, culture. It's critical use and uniqueness in origin was the exchange of messages between dead and living generations ( although of course there is a lot of symbolic exchange within the living generation. ). This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] (no subject)
[lbo-talk] Butler Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jun 6 08:17:23 PDT 2008 Previous message: [lbo-talk] Butler Next message: [lbo-talk] Chinese defense minister thanks U.S. for quake aid Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort Next, Chris in the discussion below, Chris should have asked as to whether a generalized, non-specifically hetero-sexual urge or instinct might be preserved genetically by a recessive gene process, like many other recessive gene traits. Seems to me prima facie , the answer to this question is yes. Have to think it out a bit more. Charles Chris Doss I have never read Butler, but intuitively a specifically heterosexual urge is not needed for procreation; all you need is for the sexual urge, if you want to call it that, to result in at least some amount of heterosexual sexual activity. ^^^ CB: I sort of agree with you. I hear ya. I have had this thought. But here's what I usually think next. OK. We are talking about biology and a trait that was selected for way back when. So, take two individuals. Make them females so as to get rid of the confusion about the notion of heterosexual urge being some kind of male supremacist thingy. They are primates from a species ancestral to ours or even old mammals. One has a specifically heterosexual urge, built in biologically, in her genes. The other has a generalized sexual urge like you explain, also in her genes. She just wants to have sex , hetero, homo, or just with another creature or masturbate. Seems to me that the first female is much more likely to get pregnant. The other non-heterosexual activities would distract the one from the critical - from a selection standpoint - type of sex. There will be differential fertility between them, and the one with the specifically heterosexual urge will be selected for. Differential fertility is the key thing in giving adaptive advantage. That's the finding of the latest evolutionary biological theory. A difference in fertility as would arise between the two hypothetical beings above would cause the female with the heterosexual urge to be selected for and the one with the generalized sexual urge to be selected against. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Sex is doubly social
Voyou said: I think Marx makes this point somewhere in the 1844 Manuscripts, but I can't find the exact reference right now. ^^^ Here's where Marx makes the point about sex being doubly social, both naturally and culturally(socially) social. ^^^ In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature - his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. ( how's that for essentialism ? -CB) From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself;_ the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being_ (emphasis added , CB: it is th most natural social relation). It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence - the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need - the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Second Thesis on Feuerbach as Mother wit
Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org 01/19/2009 6:31 PM This is silly. Motherwit is just uncritical peasant common sense. It has its virtues, but is inherently limited and superstitious. Secondly, lifting undigested phrases from Engels, or Marx, proves nothing. Here Engels' point is not to validate commonsense, but to negate the aprioristic assumptions of traditional philosophy, of skepticism as well as of speculative metaphysics. ^^^ CB: Of course some of it is. Some of it is materialist thinking from these same peasants or others down through history. Working classes down through the ages discovered lots of materialist and scientific principles. All of their thinking was not superstitious. This happens to be the discovery of the basic principle of materialist epistemology or theory of knowledge, as I said as captured in Marx's Second Thesis on F. Believe me, I've digested what I write about here very well. How well have you digested it one wonders. Another fundamental of Marxism, the principle of historical materialism is captured in the saying Necessity is the mother of invention. Here the very term that Marx and Engels use - Necessity is also used. -Original Message- From: Charles Brown charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sent: Jan 19, 2009 3:20 PM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Second Thesis on Feuerbach as Mother wit The second Thesis on Feuerbach - the test of theory is practice - is pretty much the Mother witicism : the proof of the pudding is in the eating; or, even better. the proof of the recipe ( theory ) is in the cooking and eating. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis 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] natural scientific like theory in socialscience
Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org 01/19/2009 6:27 PM This quote alone contradicts your subject heading. Only the economic conditions can be ascertained with the precision of natural science, ^^ CB: Wrong. Economic conditions are social conditions, thus their science is a social science. ^ and Marx insists on a distinction between those and superstructural institutional and ideological conditions. He also says in this preface that societies, like people, should never be taken at their own valuation. However, if only objective economic conditions are precisely measurable, how does this translate into the other aspects of society, and moreover into praxis, or active intervention to change the conditions of society? How can this be ascertained with natural scientific precision? ^^^ CB: Political economy is a social science. There is _almost_ natural scientific precision in political economy. Later generations discovered natural scientific precision in areas of linguistics. -Original Message- From: Charles Brown charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sent: Jan 19, 2009 3:18 PM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] natural scientific like theory in social science Marx directly addresses the issue of natural scientific like theory in social science in the following: Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis 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] Marx refers to a dialectical law(Hegelian form)
Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org 01/19/2009 12:15 PM It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. ^^^ CB: This is a tired claim that I have refuted with argument often. Science has rigor, which anti-communists purposely confuse with theology all the time. This is stupid, worn out, long disproven nonsense ^ ^^ It is well known that Marx held a dim view of metaphysical Hegelian reasoning, exhibited in his late and early work (such as THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY). ^^ CB: Which he wrote with Engels, so of course Engels had a dim view of metaphysical reasoning. So, the nonsense below about Engels being confused about philosophy just means you are confused, not Engels..as usual around here. ^^^ One quote from Marx about a dialectical law taken out of context does not make Marx a purveyor of dialectical materialism as we know it, as your presentation effectively shows. ^^^ CB: Yes it does. One such quote is sufficient. You are wrong about that. In clear language and sufficiently to establish the large point, Marx shows you dead wrong. Anyway, there are lots of quotes from Marx and Engels showing that Marx invented dialectical materialism ^^^ Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. ^^^ CB: Horse shit. ^^^ This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. ^^ CB: The fact that you don't realize that Engels is not confused, and is articulating the same ideas as Marx demonstrates that you do not understand Marx, fundamentally. ^^^ Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, ^^ CB: Lenin established precedents we thank him for and do not regret in the least, unless we are confused about what Marxism, as per Marx , is. was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. ^^^ CB: No they did a whole lot of good. You're the one doing harm , if any is being done, by making false statements about the quality of Soviet philosphy texts. -Original Message- From: waistli...@aol.com Sent: Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form) Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law(Hegelian form)
It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. ^^^ CB: This is a tired claim that I have refuted with argument often. Science has rigor, which anti-communists purposely confuse with theology all the time. This is stupid, worn out, long disproven nonsense Reply I see. Comrades are anti-communist by implication. Is Ralph anti-communist? I do not consider myself anti-communist, although apparently you do. Anyone that declares themselves a Marxists is basically within the trend of Marxism. What Marxism - not Marx method, has in common with Theology is the quoting of scripture (Marx writings) to prove a conclusion rather than presenting a convincing argument, with perhaps data and information. The problem is not codification of dialectics, but the application as the saying goes. There are actual real problems - some historical, that arose the moment Marx name was christened with an ism. There is of course the Hegelian form itself. Simply because one believes that quantitative change leads to qualitative change, as some frozen absolute category does not make it true no matter how many times it is quoted as a refutation. Thanks for the convincing discourse. WL. **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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] Obama’s inauguration
Obama’s inauguration has generated and revealed profound emotions of mass support for his presidency unlike anything I have ever experience. I actually feel good about him being sworn into office tomorrow. Obama as president is the damnest thing to happen in my life, and none of the power of all the dialecticians predicted him winning the election eight - twelve months out of voting day. Comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan feels like a brutal mental and emotional violation to me. Reagan was a rat playing to not only the racist aspects of our history, but an ingrained anti-communism used to break unions and cover up imperialist intrigue. Reagan proclaimed his self a counterrevolutionary (contra) in a world where revolutionary wars had been waged for a running two hundred years in attempts to escape imperialist exploitation. Reagan was a uniter in the meaning of uniting a more than less reactionary mass of Americans seeking to restore America to its immediate post WW II standing. It is easy to forget that the 1980s under Reagan was a period of Japan bashing and China hatred backed up by Star War militarism. Obama is nothing like Reagan in his expressed political and social posture. Obama brings a new level of openness and real faith in the ability of the individual to make change happen in concert with others. Reagan brought greed and selfishness to the White House and ultimately help shape the greed and more money symbolism of many rap videos and the reality of Wall Street greed. Obama has pledged to end the war in Iraq and political pressuring is building in the ideological realm to withdraw from Afghanistan. The armed forces under Reagan invaded one of the smallest nation/states in the world, the island of Grenada; overthrew its government and murdered its President, Maurice Bishop. No matter what the future holds Obama is already a historical figure in Americas history. People - individuals, are funny creatures and often turn out to be different from what most folks think of them. King turned out to not be the man the ruling class thought he was, although I did not know this at the time of his murder. I have reason to believe we are on the threshold of a major shift in foreign policy. Not less imperialism, just different. After all, there are literally trillions to be made from infrastructure development across continental Africa. Plus, Middle East policy is in need of a shift away from knee jerk support of Israel. Millions of Americans are in motion. I shall take part in this celebration. WL. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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] Feitshization -things vs relations
BodyS writes: Fetishizing, it seems to me, is the transformation of the thing into a social entity. (end) The problem is that Marx's view is the exact opposite. For him, fetishization is the transformation of a social relation of power into a thing -- for instance, the car is assigned the status that comes with the power over others expressed by the owner's ability to dispose over social value, or money is seen as a source of wealth rather than an expression of power over the labour of others embodied in a product of labour. Cheers, Hugh Comment Things as relations seem more appropriate to a title of Feitshization. I am of the opinion that Marx concept of the fetish that attaches itself to commodity production, (THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF) is much richer than status seeking or the assignment of status over product(s) or raw consumerism or ideas concerning why an individual prefers a Cadillac over a Jeep. One can imaginably develop a fetish (idol worship) or lust over anything, but this is not Marx meaning. Industrial production is by definition social production because of the concrete configuration of the instruments, tools, machines and energy source driving production. Because of the society division of labor, people must cooperate a certain way - even against their will, in order for society reproduction to take place. Capitalism is an interlocking system of buying and selling - commodities, and selling and buying, with the means of production owned/run or made operational on the basis of capitalist private property principles. In a society where all products acquire the form/function, of a commodity; social relations between (of) people, appear and is expressed, assert themselves, as a material relations between things. The material act of buying and selling or exchanging everything (commodities) is how bourgeois production relations express the unity of production. The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary system? To it gold and silver, when serving as money, did not represent a social relation between producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. SECTION 4 : THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4) A commodity is not merely a product created by labor. When individuals in a society creates products for their own immediate consumption, these products do not acquire a commodity form. Products acquire a commodity form when they are produced for their exchange value. A table is a table whether produced in antiquity or today. However, the King of antiquity table does not acquire the form of a commodity. It is only at a certain stage in the growth and development of production and exchange that the social relations between people appear as and express a real existing material relations between items being exchanged - things. Only through exchange is that one common ingredient to all products - value, expressed, revealed or made manifest. However, it is not just exchange of values that create the fetish attached to commodities. Money hides the social (production) relations of producers. 1). The characters that stamp products as commodities, 2). and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, 3). have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. 4). Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities 5). that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money 6). that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. 7). It is, however, just this ultimate money form of
