[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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)

2009-01-19 Thread Waistline2
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)

2009-01-19 Thread Ralph Dumain
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)

2009-01-19 Thread Waistline2
 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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
[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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
 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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
 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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
 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

2009-01-19 Thread Ralph Dumain
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown


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

2009-01-19 Thread Ralph Dumain
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
 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_

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown


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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
[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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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)

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
  




[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 unmediately social

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
Voyou 

This was Rousseau's argument in Essay on the Origin of Language, but I'm not 
sure it's true. If I understand you right, you are arguing that the sexual 
instinct is fundamentally social because the instinctive sexual urge requires 
other human beings to satisfy it. But humans always acquire the means to 
satisfy our hunger or thirst through social production, that is, hunger and 
thirst require others for their satisfaction too; so wouldn't these instincts 
be just as social? 

^^^ CB: Sex is unmediatedly or immediately , i.e. directly social, in the 
bodily sense. The satisfaction of thirst or hunger is mediatedly , not 
directly, social . And the social relations in social production are the means 
not the end. In sex , the social relation _is_ the end or purpose, not the 
means. In social production, the human producers relate socially as a means to 
the purpose of making some object to satisfy thirst or hunger, put an object in 
or on a body. In sex, the two people put their bodies on each other, and that 
itself is _social_, Sex is doubly social. It is unlike putting an object on or 
in a body. It is socially/symbolically putting a body on a body, body on body 
being a second level of sociality, a natural sociality. 

Human Sex _is_ a symbolically constituted practice. I am saying that all along. 
Most discussing don't notice that I am saying human sex is partly symbolically 
constituted, like all human activity. I have two degrees in ethnology or 
cultural anthropology , for chrsts sake. Butler and you all are getting that 
from our discipline. Butler's main insight she gets from cultural anthropology. 
I understood the principle she is standing on way back in 1972, because it was 
the main thing Marshall Sahlins taught us in my senior ethnology theory seminar 
( year long) The pervasiveness of the symbolic, of culture, in determining 
human conduct and affairs. But I am saying that uniquely of all cultural 
domains, human sex has a heavy signified determination. Compared to most 
cultural domains the influence of the signified is much greater and more equal 
to the influence of the signifier, the representer, 

I think Marx makes this point somewhere in the 1844 Manuscripts, but I can't 
find the exact reference right now 

^^^ CB: Yes, 1844 manuscript. I thought I just sent to the list the quote from 
the 1844 Econ and Philos Manuscript on this. I got the idea of what I am saying 
here from Marx right there. My translation of the quote from Marx ( which I 
will send to list again)as follows: Sex is a unique combination of the social 
and natural, in which the natural has more of an equal role with the cultural 
than in most human endeavors. 




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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown
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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown


 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

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown


 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)

2009-01-19 Thread Charles Brown


 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)

2009-01-19 Thread Waistline2
 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

2009-01-19 Thread Waistline2
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

2009-01-19 Thread Waistline2
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