[Marxism-Thaxis] an·tag·o·nist
Taking on the insights of psycho-phenomenlogical work as well as political philosophy, while going back to Spinoza (not Descartes) for philosophical precedents, post-strucuralists like Deleuze came up with something a bit more to the point about our current situation. That is, how to explain the continued, near unchallenged dominance of capitalism, but also the key role of capitalist governments (under the labels of 'liberal democracy' and 'republic'). If you look back at what I earlier posted, this excerpt. Other than short pieces quoted on internet discussion lists like this, I haven't read Naomi Klein's stuff on 'crisis capitalism', but I think this is where this comes from--of course it might just come from Michael Moore, who apparently got it from a British old school socialist in the Labour Party, who seemed to base it on his understanding of how Nazis and Fascists came to power but also as well how the Tories upended the Labour Party of the 1970s (please note I edited this for clarity as it appears to have been written in unidiomatic English and had misspellings): http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2010-March/025433.html In his preface to the French publication of Negri 1992, Deleuze called this tradition a "juridicism" which Spinoza opposed as himself. This implies four things: 1) that forces have an individual or private origin, 2) that they must be socialized, 3) that there is a mediation of Power (potestas ) and 4) that being is inseparable from a crisis, a war or antagonism for which Power is presented as the solution, but an "antagonistic solution" (like in Hobbes’ contract), that never will be abolished if its conditions (of capital) are not. --- I think it's a pretty good way of dealing with the European complaint about working class Americans and how they seem to be acting against their own good. Up until recently, it was Republican party figures who seemed to be the best antagonistic 'solution' to the America that white working class Americans were living in. They would rather live in the antagonistic discipline of the Republican Party (patriotism, militarism, low taxes for small businesses, fundamentalist nationalism that dares to call itself that, religious fundamentalism that is tied up with this, etc.) and its governments than face the US that people like Mondale, Gore or Kerry envision. I'm sure I'm pushing it too far, but if we can't ground this what people are experiencing now, then I would rather throw bricks or something. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The People versus the Financial Monopolies
The Banks and Wall Street are making the plans and pulling the strings! Detroit Mayor Bing and Emergency Financial Dictator Robert Bobb are their tools DON'T LET THEM DESTROY DETROIT and Detroiters DEBTORS OF AMERICA , UNITE Behind Mayor Bing and Robert Bobb stand the big banks and corporate firms - sometimes working through "non-profits" like the Skillman and Kresge foundations. They have launched a wholesale attack against the people of Detroit, our democratically elected bodies (School Board and Pension Fund Trustees), our unions, our homes and schools - our very right to live. We already gave these banks trillions of dollars in tax money bailouts. Now they are back for more. WE CAN FIGHT THEM ONLY IF WE ALL UNITE Come to a community SPEAK OUT and raise your issues. Then let's plan how to create a UNITED FRONT to stop them in their tracks! SATURDAY - MARCH 27, 2010 - 1 P.M. Central United Methodist Church - 2nd Floor We _shall_ overcome When antagonism goes over to rapture. Sponsored by: Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions & Utility Shutoffs Up and out of poverty , now 313-680-5508 moratorium-mi.org Power to the Workers' Councils ___ 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] an·tag·o·nist Sorry Charlie , Just nailed it down
7.5 Antagonism: Antagonism is the basis of destruction and a form of transition to a new mode of production. It is a form of resolution of relations of production that have entered into collision with qualitatively changing productive forces. (see productive forces) In class society, the collision between qualitatively new productive forces and old relations of production, cannot be resolved based on the struggle between the two classes constituting the old relations of production. Resolution takes place outside - external, the contradiction that is the two classes constituting old relations of production. The external agent is the new classes connected to the new means of production. Resolution is negation by destruction of the two old classes and their property form.. "The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.(Marx). (see Dialectics: quantity, quality, the antagonistic element.) ___ 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] an·tag·o·nist
In a message dated 3/24/2010 9:34:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: Well, a contradiction is sort of ripe to be superceded (sorry Althusser) when it is an antagonism. So, in this sense it is more _ready_ for resolution than a non-antagonistic contradiction. But in its state of antagonism it is not resolved, it is still in contradiction, sharp contradiction. Another problem with this is that it is using "antagonism" in contradiction (ha) with the its standard, let alone Marxist, dictionary definition. Comment The presumption is that non-antagonistic and antagonistic contradiction is a misunderstanding of society transition form one mode of production to another; a historical error. Sorry Soviet Textbook. Sorry Chairman Mao. Sorry old school Marxists. Contradiction or rather contradiction in internal to a process - quality, is just that, no more no less. Each stage in the development of contradiction, prepares the basis for its further development and resolution. The problem is that the bourgeoisie evolve as a contradiction and are birthed in antagonism with the feudal order and its underlying contradictions. Fpr CB Antagonism: 7.0 Antagonism is the basis of destruction and a form of transition to a new mode of production. It is a form of resolution of relations of production property as these relations enters into collision with qualitatively changing productive forces. That is to say the conflict between qualitatively new productive forces and old relations of production in a class society, cannot be resolved based on the struggle between the two classes constituting the old relations of production. Resolution takes place outside - external, the contradiction of the two classes constituting old relations of production. Resolution is negation by destruction of the two old classes and their property form.. "The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.(Marx). (see Dialectics: quantity, quality, the antagonistic element.) This email was cleaned by emailStripper. I believe the above is much more accurate, but who can understand it except those studied in Marxism. Which defeats the purpose of a glossary and converts it into a dictionary of Marxist Thought. ___ 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] 7.0 - correction
Antagonism as a form of resolution means it is not a form of resolution of contradiction. It is a form of resolution of property as this property form enters into contradiction with qualitatively changing productive forces. That is to say the contradiction is between productive forces and relations of production, in a class society. Resolution of this contradiction is negation by destruction of the previous existing relations of production and property forms. This form of resolution is not simply sublating. correction Antagonism as a form of resolution means it is not a form of resolution of contradiction, as the basic classes underlying a mode of production. It is a form of resolution of property as this property form enters into contradiction with qualitatively changing productive forces. That is to say the contradiction is between productive forces and relations of production, in a class society. Resolution of this contradiction is negation by destruction of the previous existing relations of production and property forms. This form of resolution is not simply sublating. ___ 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] 7.0
Th definitions used in discussion with CB are from 7.0. Completed final draft is 9.0 Ralph suggestions were implemented. Specifically. Anarcho -syndicalism was taken out and placed in Section 2. Might need to be eliminated all together as an old battle not worthy of raising. National Liberation as an epochal movement is taken up under: National Liberation. In turn the word epoch needs to be defined as it is used. Chauvinism says: (see national chauvinism and white chauvinism). Under white chauvinism is an explanation of white supremacy which becomes white chauvinism on the basis of the rise of financial imperialism. Male supremacy displaces the concept "male chauvinism." Contradiction is to be slightly rewritten. base and superstructure were rewritten as a concept of the interplay between the political superstructure - rather than the ideological sphere and the material activity of people producing - with the property relations within the act of production. Not satisfied but: base (economic) and superstructure: (political) The base of society is the way people relate to one another in the reproduction of their lives and their means of life; in other words, the productive relations. Classes are an aspect of these productive relations. People do not relate on just any basis. They relate to one another through their mutual relation to property. This in turn defines the society. A state, a legal system, social institutions and ideas are reformed and recast, corresponding with cabbages in the base of society. These elements of the system - state, legal system, political and cultural institutions, make up what we call the superstructure. The superstructure reflects, protects, organizes and strengthens the base. Materialist dialectics to be reworked, probably to no avail. On the question of Soviet socialism it is defined under the indexes Soviet I and Soviet II, rather than being given mention under communism. Antagonism is being reconsidered for clarity but I believe old Marxist with their conception of its meaning cannot agree with antagonism as a form of resolution. Antagonism as a form of resolution means it is not a form of resolution of contradiction. It is a form of resolution of property as this property form enters into contradiction with qualitatively changing productive forces. That is to say the contradiction is between productive forces and relations of production, in a class society. Resolution of this contradiction is negation by destruction of the previous existing relations of production and property forms. This form of resolution is not simply sublating. Oh well. Racing to March 31. WL. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Reform to revolution Industrial Revolution
In a message dated 3/24/2010 9:51:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: Would you say that these changes that don't change the system's essential quality are quantitative changes ? WL. Yes. These quantitative changes are quantitative in relationship to a distinct quality. What is the quality? The quality indicated is industrial configuration of means of production. The example given is Ford Motors introduction of assembly line production. * >> If so, how is it that the bourgeoisie are constantly "revolutionizing" the instruments of production ? A "revolution" implies qualitative change.<<< Because the industrial revolution began with the steam engine. The qualitative change in question is the individual revolution.. John Case did an excellent article for Political Affairs outlining the technology advance that is the industrial revolution. Means of production are always developed - in the case of the bourgeoisie - further revolutionized, as the long history of the progressive accumulation of productive forces. That is to say the means of production can be further developed - revolutionized, upon the basis of an existing configuration, without changing the essential quality of the system. Industrial Revolution: The industrial revolution was the motive force underlying transition from agrarian society - feudalism to industrial capitalist society. The industrial revolution ushered in a whole new stage of development off means of production; a universal society system of wage labor and primary wealth in capital (mode of production). However, it was the class struggle and the different outcomes of various political revolutions of that epoch of revolution that determined whether society would industrialize in favor of the masses of people or the capitalists. "The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spreading throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way." The introduction of steam power fuelled primarily by coal, wider utilization of water wheels and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity.[3] The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world, a process that continues as industrialization. The impact of this change on society was enormous.[4] The first Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) ___ 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] Class antagonism as class struggle (Money)
In a message dated 3/24/2010 9:26:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: CB: There has been commodity production and exchange, production for exchange not use by the producer, since the first master/slave societies. The term "proletariat" is from Rome, so presumably there were proletarians, wage-laborers in Rome. The Roman army was paid with money. Anyway, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are not entirely new in feudalism. Comment The proletariat in the glossary is defined as "modern proletariat" of the the industrial revolution, although it makes its first appearance as free - wage laborer in the 15th century; under feudalism.. The question was posed: what is the meaning of contradiction? What is the nature of class society and on what basis does qualitative change in a system occur? Does the bourgeoisie and proletariat, evolve in contradiction with the nobility? Contradiction is not treated as the external colliding of quality - qualities. Contradiction as class is treated as the unity and strife of the basic classes constituting a mode of production. The basic classes - say the serf and nobility are fused together - (today the term would be interactive unity and strife) as the logic, defining quality, of production or the production relations making feudal society . . . . well, feudal. That is they are a contradiction. Their unity is made manifest and expressed in the distinct property form or the landed property relation. This does not mean there is no scattered production by the serf. It means the scattered production of the serf is production by serf and serf describe a property relations. Money is not capital. Money under capitalism is actually money/capital. Money: money has a larger meaning than currency or federal reserve notes. Under the capitalist mode of production money is money/capital because its use and circulation reproduces capital and capitalist relations of production. Money is "the universal representation of material wealth" (Marx). Different commodities can and have function as money, or as it is said, become "good as gold." . The particular commodity that functions as a measure of value and as the medium of circulation defines money. Money came into use in history spontaneously and not by plan or agreement. At first various commodities (furs, cattle, rum, tobacco, etc.) functioned temporally as money. "The particular kind of commodity to which it (the money form of value) sticks is at first a matter of accident" (Marx). With the further development of exchange, one commodity becomes separated from all others to serve as a universal equivalent of value; the historical process of the development of exchange ends with the money form of value when gold becomes this particular commodity. Money is the "highest product of the development of exchange and of commodity production." (Lenin). Money, whether cattle or the precious metals, is a commodity like all other commodities because it expresses the embodiment of labor; it possess a use value and value (exchange value). Money functioned as: (a) a measure of value and standard of price; (b) The medium of circulation. (in this function, full value money - gold, can be replaced by its substitutes or symbols of itself, such as bank notes, paper currency with convertibility into gold, silver, and gold, silver and copper coins). c) a means of accumulating or hoarding and own transferring into ownership of means of production. (d) Universal money, i.e., for adjusting trade between different countries . . . . ."it functions as a means of payment in the settling of international balances is its chief one" (Marx) II. Paper money or currency once was once convertible into gold or silver. As long as such money is convertible into a species, it can be treated as and viewed as a commodity. Money today - federal reserve notes, cannot be converted into gold or silver or any species. Money can purchase gold products and certificates (more paper) ownership of gold shares, but is not convertible into gold upon demand. Convertibility is not the same as purchase. Thus, federal reserve notes are fiat money or "what I say it is worth" money. Yet, fiat money operates as if it was real money. This fiat money is printed at will by governments, expresses the value relations, but contains no real value. Modern currency is a means of circulation and maintaining the power of capital. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reform to revolution:
Reform to revolution: As the productive forces in a system develops, changes take place in the system without changing its essential quality. The quality defining capitalism is bourgeois private property. ^ CB: Would you say that these changes that don't change the system's essential quality are quantitative changes ? If so, how is it that the bourgeoisie are constantly "revolutionizing" the instruments of production ? A "revolution" implies qualitative change. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reform to revolution
Reform to revolution: As the productive forces in a system develops, changes take place in the system without changing its essential quality. The quality defining capitalism is bourgeois private property. ^ CB: Would you say that these changes that don't change the system's essential quality are quantitative changes ? ___ 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] an·tag·o·nist
Contradiction does not become antagonistic due to a mysterious quantitative increase of the very properties that constitute the contradiction. Contradiction and antagonism are not the same. Antagonism is a form of resolution, rather than a form of contradiction. ^ CB: Well, a contradiction is sort of ripe to be superceded (sorry Althusser) when it is an antagonism. So, in this sense it is more _ready_ for resolution than a non-antagonistic contradiction. But in its state of antagonism it is not resolved, it is still in contradiction, sharp contradiction. Another problem with this is that it is using "antagonism" in contradiction (ha) with the its standard, let alone Marxist, dictionary definition. Antagonism in non-Marxist parlance means something _not_ resolved. Antagonists are in conflict. Antagonistic means in conflict with each other. You are not only using it as the opposite of traditional Marxist usage, but as the opposite of common usage. Why do that ? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antagonistic an·tag·o·nist (n-tg-nst) n. 1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary. 2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama. 3. Physiology A muscle that counteracts the action of another muscle, the agonist. 4. Biochemistry A chemical substance that interferes with the physiological action of another, especially by combining with and blocking its nerve receptor. an·tago·nistic adj. an·tago·nisti·cal·ly adv. ___ 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] Reform to Revolution
Reform to revolution: As the productive forces in a system develops, changes take place in the system without changing its essential quality. The quality defining capitalism is bourgeois private property. Assembly line production at the Ford Motor company expressed a quantitative growth of the means of production. Such change is the definition of reform. In the political sphere passage of the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act and desegregation were reform of the system. Reform or Revolution is a mistaken presentation of the issue of revolutionary change in society. One cannot opt for revolution in a period when revolutionary change is not possible. Reform to Revolution is a process. I. The basis of the productive relations of capitalism is that the working class has to sell its labor power to the capitalist class in order to live. The relationships among the workers, among the capitalists, and between the workers and capitalists are all part of definite indispensable relations that shape not simply the society but the individual. This part of the system of capitalism cannot be reform and capitalism remains capitalism. II. An exploited class cannot overthrow the exploiting class it is connected to as the process of production because together they constitute the unity of a social system. Their unrelenting struggle - class struggle, is over the division of the social product and for greater political liberties. With the growth and development of the system a struggle unfolds to reform the system in accord with the quantitative changes in the means of production. Only the relations between and within class can be reformed in accord with quantitative changes in the means of production. This struggle for reform occurs in all class societies. III. Capitalism's basic law of private appropriation of socially produced commodities needs to be reformed so that the proletariat can acquire necessities of life. The property relations of capitalism cannot be reformed qualitatively, only overthrown. In turn, a property relations cannot be overthrown until it enters into antagonism with qualitatively new means of production. This is so because as a property form it plays a role in history development. When this role is in conflict with new means of production change must take place. IV. The use of advanced robotics, advanced computerized production and distribution system - a new quality of means of production - are incompatible with capitalist property relations. Expansion of the system of production on the old basis is halted and begins evolution on a new basis. Once expansion of the system on the old basis is halted the ability to reform it comes to an end. . Under the impact of qualitatively new means of production, qualitative change - revolution, or a leap to a new mode of production becomes possible. During such periods of time the old institutions, ideas and relationships that once organized society and gave meaning to society are disrupted and torn from their moorings. New ideas of class can grip society. When reform ends, an epoch of social revolution begins. II. Relations of production: (social relations of production, production relations) : Marx's use of the concept of relations of production: "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) Relations of production refer to the relations within and between classes at a given stage of development of productive forces. In real life relations of production are interactive with productive forces, one becoming the environment of operations for the other. Capitalist relations of production consist of a labor force with no means of support other than their ability to work, and capitalists who own land, raw materials, tools, or the condition of labor as their private property. The capitalist class buys labor power and owns what is produced for sale. Relations of production are the laws defining the relationship of people to property in the process of production. A modern use of relations of production and productive forces in a writing: "Society is formed on the basis of the unity of productive forces and production relations. Productive relations are the laws defining property and the relationship of people to property (class) in the process of production. The constant, spontaneous development of the productive forces eventually disrupts this unity An epoch of social revolution begins to creates new relations of production that reflect the level of, and are compatible with, the newly developed productive forces." This email was cleaned
[Marxism-Thaxis] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic
The problem is that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are not birthed in contradiction with the serf and nobility but rather emerge - are birthed, as a new quality within an existing system process. Somewhere, somehow a new quality has to be introduced into a process - quantitatively, to begin the process of qualitative change CB: There has been commodity production and exchange, production for exchange not use by the producer, since the first master/slave societies. The term "proletariat" is from Rome, so presumably there were proletarians, wage-laborers in Rome. The Roman army was paid with money. Anyway, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are not entirely new in feudalism. Shane Mage has a whole theory that there was a potential bourgeois revolution thwarted at the assassination of Julius Caesar, I think. See Michael Hudson on the ancient history of finance capitalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) In 1984, Hudson joined Harvard’s archaeology faculty at the Peabody Museum as a research fellow in Babylonian economics. A decade later, he was a founding member of ISCANEE (International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies), an international group of Assyriologists and archaeologists that has published a series of colloquia analyzing the economic origins of civilization. This group has become the successor to Karl Polanyi’s anthropological and historical group of a half-century ago. Four volumes co-edited by Hudson have appeared so far, dealing with privatization, urbanization and land use, the origins of money, accounting, debt, and clean slates in the Ancient Near East (a fifth volume, on the evolution of free labor, is in progress). This new direction in research is now known as the New Economic Archaeology. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective reform to revolution
In a message dated 3/24/2010 8:53:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: Tell 'em Dave Moore was a Marxist-Leninist. CB Reply The Dave Moore interviews in Political Affairs are magnificent. No one has really told the real story of the organization of Ford. Moore was a communist of a different mode. He is the man Reuther could not defeat. A new generation will want to hear and gladly listen to our version of history. Basically, there is no one else left. The old ideological groups have faded with not even a remote connection to anything living within the proletariat. The dogmatic M-L's of the 60's, 70's and 80's, have been run over and passed by history. The various Trotskyist ideological groups and thinker long ago went through their evolution and are revealed for what they always was: a grouping of white middle class intellectuals, content to spew hate upon the world. This is not to condemn any individual. It is what the fuck it is. As long as we do what is in front of us, we are going to make out very well and achieve a principled unity concerning every important action of the proletariat. Movements are never driven by theory, but rather by ideas and ideology. These old groups of the past possess ideology absolutely hostile to the proletariat and they cannot merge with any sector of the class. Honestly. On another list one of the M-L's wrote an article about health care and posed the issue "fight for universal health care or against capitalism. Reform or revolution." How in God's name can one fight against capitalism or the capitalist system? On that note the next installment is called Reform to Revolution. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows To: Subject: Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows From: "Charles Brown" Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:12:12 -0400 Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows by Louis Proyect 21 May 2002 19:40 UTC >Lou, you've referred off and on to Levins & Lewontin, _The Dialectical >Biologist_. They don't treat Lysenko at all like this. See Chapter 7, >"The Problem of Lysenkoism." There were many elements involved, and it >was no matter of mere quackery. > >Carrol Yes, of course. There is another side to Lysenko. In fact Stephen Jay Gould treats him with considerable respect in one of his essays although I can't remember the technical details. ^^^ CB: As I understand it, Lysenko's theory ran afoul, somewhat, of the fundamental biological dogma against the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Theories of inheritance of acquired characteristics are sometimes termed LaMarckian. Cloning as a method of breeding an individual organism with particularly desirable characteristics is not LaMarckian, as long as the characteristics that one seeks to reproduce in the clones are inherited and were not acquired during the life time of the organism which is the "stud". ^^^ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Dialectical biology In The Dialectical Biologist (Harvard U.P. 1985 ISBN 0-674-20281-3), Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin sketch a dialectical approach to biology. They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answers. ^ CB: There is a chapter in _The Dialectical Biologist_ on Lysenko. It is less critical than many. Lysenko's LaMarckianism is a seeking of an "epistemological break" (in Althusser's terminology) with the biological Dogma (law) in modern genetics that there is no inheritance of acquired characteristics. Ironically, Stalin and Lysenko were sort of postmodernists on this issue. Postmodernists don't usually think of themselves as Stalinists (smile) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
>>I feel a new insight about Althusser's misreading of Lenin's misreading of Marx's misreading of Hegelcoming on. CJ CB: Lets have it.<< It never amounted to more than a feeling--I couldn't recover the trace. Sorry. Some things work better as feelings anyway. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
I feel a new insight about Althusser's misreading of Lenin's misreading of Marx's misreading of Hegelcoming on. CJ CB: Lets have it. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] WL's glossary--a suggestion
Why don't we put up the latest version of this at googledocs and collaborate, 'wiki-style', on it? Then it could be published as a blog or wiki. Might prove after all that has been said that this list's regulars can work together on something? Discussing it over an old-fashioned list like this probably won't get very far. CJ ^^^ CB: Good idea,CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)::
And yes, Dave Moore is part of a production line of literature in progress. WL. ^^ Tell 'em Dave Moore was a Marxist-Leninist. CB Celebrating a Lifetime of Achievement A Tribute to David William Moore Whereas, David W. Moore has been a fighter for freedom, equality, peace, human rights and economic justice for more than four score years; and Whereas, Citizen Moore from his youth in South Carolina, Ohio and Detroit, through his 95 years to the present has been an icon of the working class rank and file, Black, Brown and White, a leader of the laboring masses who create all the wealth of society, a champion of revolutionary struggle; and Whereas, In the Depression of the 1930’s , Mr. Moore was active in the Unemployed Councils, endured the Ford Hunger March, worked in the Civilian Conservation Corps, ; and Whereas, Brother David W. Moore was a leader in securing representation rights for the UAW-CIO at Ford Motor Company, where Black and White unity was key; Mr. Moore is credited with five other workers who pulled one of a series of switches in the Axel Plant on April 2, 1941, triggering the strike that ended in Ford signing a contract with UAW-CIO on June 30, 1941; and Whereas, David W. Moore advanced organizing efforts at Ford Motor company with the Elder Charles Diggs, Reverend Charles Hill, Pastor of Hartford Avenue Baptist Church, and President of the Detroit NAACP among others and he convinced the leadership of the CIO to bring Paul Robeson to Detroit to speak before Ford workers , which he did three times, including on May 19,1941 when Robeson appeared before upwards of 100,000 workers and union supporters in Cadillac Square on the eve of that signal contract victory at Ford; In later years, David Moore , with Coleman A. Young organized security details for Paul Robeson’s visits to Detroit, and said meetings also include Erma L. Henderson; and Whereas, Brother Moore , in 1941, was elected a District Committeeman in the old Gear and Axle Plant of Ford Rouge by a workforce of 5,600 that was overwhelmingly white in its majority; he was reelected for twelve successive years and for many years was elected to an array of offices in UAW Local 600; he served as a member of the Bargaining Committee and Vice-President of the Gear and Axle Plant; he also served as Bargaining Committeeman and Vice-President of the Dearborn Engine Plant of Local 600 and Whereas, David W. Moore served as Vice-President of the Detroit Chapter of the National Negro Labor Council, along with Coleman A. Young as National Secretary; the National Negro Labor Council , (NNLC), was an organization dedicated to winning first class citizenship for every Black man, woman and child in America in unity with that democratic minded workers of all backgrounds who recognized in the struggle for Negro rights prerequisites of their own aspirations for a full life; Whereas, Brother Moore endured the undemocratic onslaught of McCarthyism and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee; he was targeted with four others at Local 600; barred from running for union office in the very union where he had played such an important role to establish; the National Negro Labor Council was a target of the anti-Red , anti-Communist false accusations ; and Whereas, After 12 years Brother Moore and his four fellow Local 600 officers were reinstated and overwhelmingly reelected. Later he and the Black Caucus at Local 600 decided that he should accept a position as an International representative for the UAW in the grievance procedure; seasoned from the trials and tribulations of the McCarthy Era, armed with his bachelor’s degree in the School of Hard Knocks and his advanced degree from the University Hastings Street, having studied the public use of the courts with Peoples’ lawyers Maurice Sugar, George Crockett, Lebron Simmons, Ernie Goodman and Cla
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] glossary--a suggestion
In a message dated 3/24/2010 7:58:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: Saw Marsha at Bert's and said " I bet you know Waistline". She said definitely. Comment Check this out: _http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/_ (http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/) Marsha is extremely articulate and a genuine autodidactic. She was the first women President of the Bakers Union a proletarian to the core.. Her family history is profound. She was also a founding member of the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers and my first girl friend in life. We joined the movement together, with her being all of 14 and I had just turned 16, meeting her in High School. This was like, 42 years ago. At age 15 she was garmented a full ride at several universities including one in England. Instead she joined the movement. Check out her page. And yes, she writes about 4000% better than I. Literally, together we know "everyone" in Detroit, given the actual history and logic of the working class movement there. Together, if circumstances allow it, we could write or outline a living history of an important sector of the communist movement since 1919. No one else in basically America, can write about the core of the history of the American industrial proletariat - at least from say 1950, with much living history outside the crew in Detroit. Such a history is urgently needed. The problem is that we are being over run by real events and real activity. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] WL's glossary--a suggestion
>>Prior to this latest flurry of posts, I thought CeJ was an intelligent man. I didn't realize how mistaken I was. I can see this Wiki will be like a stable, except that we won't be able to shovel the shit fast enough.<< My Ralph you are mercurial, aren't you? Coming from a guy who posts a blurb about a book that says the class war started under Bill Clinton and that globalization started to fail once Clinton signed NAFTA, I must say, I have to take your admission of error in judgement as the highest sort of compliment. Thanks my opinon of you went up a notch. And here I was feeling somewhat sorry for you after the Faux post--I'll bet you could sense that and got all nasty again. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] glossary--a suggestion
Saw Marsha at Bert's and said " I bet you know Waistline". She said definitely. ___ 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] glossary--a suggestion
OK Ralph, you hit the nail on the head exactly. n the purpose of holding classes on revolutionary history and experience if you will, a need for basic definitions of terms arose. This class was filled with people between 15 years old and 30. Three of us older comrades anchored the educational with internally cohesive presentations due to having worked together for 30 years and more. Then another group of mostly older workers came together to study the current situation and what to do about things in and out of the union. This group could no advance without discussing history. Half of the group was familiar with Marx the other half never heard of him. Then another group of workers started meeting around the health care issue. This group jumped from 5 - 9 people to any average low of 30 people. All these different groups are devoid of any history about anything. Zero, nothing. For instance no one in any group possess any understanding of the Soviet Union or what it was other than a hazy concept of taking from one person and giving to the other, and this is amongst the older workers only. Here is why I felt no impulse to explain communism from the Soviet experience. Why? There is no incentive to wade through various interpretations of Soviet history. All of these group come together to fight and resist the system as opposed to a perception of injustice against "someone else." My tendency was to totally exclude "historical arguments." For instance there is not index called "permanent revolution." There is an outline of the Soviet Union, but nothing on the Stalin period because it serves no purpose. I am under no illusion about this project. I agree one cannot explain a concept like dialectics in a glossary. What is being fought for is ideology rather than theory. That is the . . ., well, contradiction. No one can advance without an understanding of general aspects of American history. The fascist are cloaking themselves in the ideology of the Constitution and concepts of political democracy exactly as the Slave oligarchy did. We - us boyz and girls in Detroit who have been together a very long time, have no intention of desire to "fight the right." Rather, we our fighting or ass off to organize and then win a section of the proletariat in motion to an ideological stance and general vision of society we are calling a "Marxist lens." Hence the agi-prop character and heavy ideology of concepts. We have to do something. WL. In a message dated 3/24/2010 6:49:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org) writes: It's really essential to define the purpose of this project, its audience, and the degree of erudition that it should exhibit. If it is to exhibit the perspective of a specific tendency, then perhaps a textbook or handbook might be a better format than a glossary. I could be wrong, but "glossary" to me sounds more abbreviated than "dictionary", which is more abbreviated than an "encyclopedia". You can't explain concepts like dialectic in a glossary. At most, you could list a number of possible definitions. And depending on what you think your audience needs to know, applied to what texts or analyses, why do you think certain terms belong or not in your glossary. But ultimately, the why of all this must be nailed down first. And then there's the question of the Internet. Young people who won't go to the library to read books, which here are being purged from branch libraries in favor of computers, but they'll go to surf the net. They would rather cruise dating sites and watch movies than educate themselves, but if anyone maintains the curiosity to look at your glossary, they could go to the Internet, click on designated URLs to learn more. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic
In a message dated 3/24/2010 1:10:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/althusser/index.htm Contradiction (Althusser) A term for the articulation of a practice into the complex whole of the social formation. Contradictions may be antagonistic or non-antagonistic according to whether their state of overdetermination is one of fusion or condensation, or one of displacement. Comment The above is basically the Soviet Textbook presentation of contradiction and antagonism. in Chapter III, "Mutual Penetration of Opposites." I have in mind page 174. When I started on this list - recruited by CB, I embraced this conception of two kinds of contradiction. Some of the older comrades, responsible for reprinting the Soviet Textbook in the 1970's and Gould's "Marxist Glossary" had rejected this presentation of the question of change in the mind 1980's and in 1989 presented a new conception of qualitative change. The approach in the new glossary stands in opposition to every trend in post WWII Marxism. On this list the issue has been raised as "emergence theory," and the inner meaning of quantitative change leading to qualitative change. The tradition presentation of the issue is to use Lenin's parable about heating water where an increase in temperature causes qualitative change cause water to cross a nodal point - nodal line, and become steam. The question is thus: water becomes steam by introducing a new quality into the framework. Heat. Quantity does not lead to quality without specific definition. The quantitative addition or introduction, of a new quality into an existing process causes - is the basis, for qualitative change. If this is marginally more correct than the old view, then what is the quality that makes one kind of contradiction antagonistic and the other non-antagonistic? The Soviet answer was: quote "An antagonistic contradiction does not pass beyond the stages of its partial resolution." Thus the periodic crisis of capital repeats itself growing in intensity until the system collapsed or is overthrown. The problem is that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are not birthed in contradiction with the serf and nobility but rather emerge - are birthed, as a new quality within an existing system process. Somewhere, somehow a new quality has to be introduced into a process - quantitatively, to begin the process of qualitative change. Contradiction does not become antagonistic due to a mysterious quantitative increase of the very properties that constitute the contradiction. Contradiction and antagonism are not the same. Antagonism is a form of resolution, rather than a form of contradiction. This proposition demolishes 70 years of class struggle theory about workers and bosses or capitalist and proletarians. And I am going to take a mugging on this issue, which is why it is being taken directly to the proletariat. WL. . ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] WL's glossary--a suggestion
Prior to this latest flurry of posts, I thought CeJ was an intelligent man. I didn't realize how mistaken I was. I can see this Wiki will be like a stable, except that we won't be able to shovel the shit fast enough. It's really essential to define the purpose of this project, its audience, and the degree of erudition that it should exhibit. If it is to exhibit the perspective of a specific tendency, then perhaps a textbook or handbook might be a better format than a glossary. I could be wrong, but "glossary" to me sounds more abbreviated than "dictionary", which is more abbreviated than an "encyclopedia". You can't explain concepts like dialectic in a glossary. At most, you could list a number of possible definitions. And depending on what you think your audience needs to know, applied to what texts or analyses, why do you think certain terms belong or not in your glossary. But ultimately, the why of all this must be nailed down first. And then there's the question of the Internet. Young people who won't go to the library to read books, which here are being purged from branch libraries in favor of computers, but they'll go to surf the net. They would rather cruise dating sites and watch movies than educate themselves, but if anyone maintains the curiosity to look at your glossary, they could go to the Internet, click on designated URLs to learn more. At 07:44 AM 3/24/2010, waistli...@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/23/2010 7:36:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >jann...@gmail.com writes: > >Why don't we put up the latest version of this at googledocs and >collaborate, 'wiki-style', on it? Then it could be published as a blog >or wiki. > >Might prove after all that has been said that this list's regulars can >work together on something? > >Discussing it over an old-fashioned list like this probably won't get very >far. > >CJ > > >Reply > >I can agree with this but on March 31. I jumped the gun badly.. > >WL. > >___ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Great Irish Famine Was Genocide.
>
> The Great Irish Famine Was Genocide.
>
> Read the article at
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18156
>
>
> Some controversy has surrounded the use of the word "genocide" with
> regard to the Great Irish Famine of 160 years ago. But this controversy
> has
> its source in an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of genocide. No,
> the British government did not inflict on the Irish the abject horrors of
> the Nazi Holocaust. But the definition of "genocide" reaches beyond such
> ghastly behavior to encompass other reprehensible acts designed to destroy
> a
> people.
>
>
> As demonstrated by the following legal analysis, the Famine was
> genocide within the meaning of both United States and International law.
>
>
> The United States Government is party to the 1948 Convention On The
> Prevention And Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("Genocide
> Convention").
> As a Treaty of the United States , the Genocide Convention is therefore
> "the
> Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The
> U.S.
> Government has also passed implementing legislation which substantially
> adopts the Genocide Convention and makes any violation of the Convention
> punishable under federal law. 18 U.S.C. ? 1901.
>
> Article II of the Genocide Convention provides:
>
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
> committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
> ethnical,
> racial or religious group as such:
>
> (a) Killing members of the group;
>
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
> calculated
> to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;
>
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
>
> (emphasis supplied)
>
> From 1845-50, The British government pursued a policy of mass
> starvation in Ireland with the intent to destroy in substantial part the
> national, ethnical and racial group known as the Irish People. This
> British
> policy caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Irish People within
> the
> meaning of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This British policy also
> deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated
> to
> bring about their physical destruction within the meaning of Article II(c)
> of the Convention. Therefore, from 1845-50 the British government
> knowingly
> pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland which constituted acts of
> Genocide against the Irish People within the meaning of Article II(b) and
> (c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
>
> While there are many legitimate subjects of debate surrounding the
> Famine, there is no doubt that the British Government committed genocide
> against the Irish People. This particular "debate" should therefore come
> to
> an end.
>
>
> (See Irish Echo, Feb.26-March 4, 1997 at page 7 for the list of 125
> distinguished signatories)
>
>
> Francis Boyle is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
> Research Articles by Francis Boyle
>
>
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
It is also interesting to re-visit the 'Lysenko' controversy. I don't think the problem was Lysenko but rather Stalin and Stalinism. For a start, Burbank the wildly famous American was more Lamarkian than either Michurin or Lysenko. M and L were trying to push agronomy (much of it collected folk wisdom) forward into the realm of experimental science to help relieve the SU's desperate food problems. Borlaug, the Nobel-winning 'father of the green revolution' used a time-tested method of hybridizing wheat that Lysenko would have approved of! (And Borlaug, ever enmeshed in the US side of Cold War politics, always referred to Lysenko as the charlatan). That doesn't mean that M and L were right about everything, or that what they were right about they were necessarily right about for the best, most nuanced of reasons-- but that the idea that somehow they irrationally destroyed the 'correct' neoMendelian science of the era in the Soviet Union is just sterile. Skilled artful agronomy is what pushed crop yields up and extended crop range into previously unviable territory, not neoMendealian 'genetic science'. I know it might make me sound like a Stalinist, but Lysenko does not deserve the dismissal and ridicule he gets. Nor was he an ignorant fool as he is always depicted. http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/jan2010/lysenko.html Lysenko has been dismissed and ridiculed in the West and eventually even in the Soviet Union for going against the orthodox theories of evolution and genetics of Weisman and Morgan. But rather than giving proof of the correctness of Weisman and Morgan, as many have tried to maintain, developments in the understanding of the complex biochemistry of living organisms, seem to be moving in a direction of supporting Lysenko. The essence is, to emphasise it yet again, that the environment and changes brought about by the environment, can, in appropriate circumstances, influence the heredity of the organism. Lysenko quoted Michurin�s motto as: �we cannot wait for favours from nature; we must wrest them from her� (ibid. p.34) - Conclusion Lysenko is opposed, or mostly ignored, by many eminent scientists. Yet in spite of this, the more this whole matter is looked at, the more his theories appear to be consistent with reality. New research, while apparently causing confusion because it raises questions about orthodox genetics, the genetics of Morgan, seems to be laying the ground for a better understanding of what Lysenko was saying, and a better understanding of heredity in living organisms. Lysenko has not been proved wrong. However, in the theories of the opponents of Lysenko there is much that is inconsistent, is unsubstantiated, and does not accord with reality. Lysenko�s work, which was very important in the development of Soviet agriculture, in the building of socialism, cannot easily be dismissed, and promises to reassert itself. We will leave the last word, or two words, to Michurin, who was the inspiration for Lysenko. Michurin had worked for many years under very difficult conditions and by 1914, at the age of 60 he wrote the following, which is an extract from a brief autobiographical note. �Throughout the many years of labour devoted to improving varieties of fruit plants in Central Russia, I never received any subsidies or grants from the state, let alone thousand rouble salaries. I worked the best I could on the means that I obtained by my own labour. Throughout the past period I constantly struggled against poverty and endured all kinds of hardship silently. I never asked for assistance from the government so that I might more extensively develop this work so highly useful and so very necessary to Russian agriculture. On the advice of eminent horticulturalists, I submitted several memoranda to our department of agriculture in which I tried to explain the vast importance and necessity of improving and increasing native varieties of fruit bearing plants by raising local varieties from seeds. Nothing came of these memoranda. And now, at last, it is too late - the years have gone by and my strength is exhausted. For my part, I have done what I could; it is time to rest and take care of myself, especially since I constantly feel the effects of failing health and diminishing strength. �It is very painful, of course, to have laboured for so many years for the common good with no recompense and then to be deprived of security in old age. The consequences are that I shall have to go on with my arduous work to the end - an unenviable prospect.� (I.V.Michurin Selected Works Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1949, p 2 - first published in 1914 in Sadovod, No 6) That is what Michurin wrote in 1914. Lenin recognised the importance of Michurin�s work, and after the revolution in 1917 he was put in charge of a horticultural station and that developed so that his work was used throughout the Soviet Union. When he was 80, Stalin sent him a telegram to m
[Marxism-Thaxis] Global Class War
The Global Class War : How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win it Back by Jeff Faux "Why, in 1993, did the newly elected Bill Clinton pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pro-business measure invented by his political adversaries and opposed by his allies in labor and the environment? The answer, according to Faux, is that Clinton was less devoted to his base than to his fellow elites, rewarding their donations to the Democratic Party with access to Mexico's cheap labor and lax environmental standards. With a fluid grasp of both history and economics, Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, critiques both Democrats and Republicans for protecting transnational corporations "while abandoning the rest of us to an unregulated, and therefore brutal and merciless, global market." Faux describes how free trade and globalization have encouraged businesses to become nationless enterprises detached from the economic well-being of any single country, to the detriment of all but transnational elites. He details the genesis of NAFTA and the failure of the agreement to deliver on its promises to workers, predicting a severe American recession as its legacy. But Faux sees hope for North America in the model of the European Union, a pie-in-the-sky conclusion to this incisive, rancorous book." http://www.amazon.com/Global-Class-War-Americas-Bipartisan/dp/0470098287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269435567&sr=1-1 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] WL's glossary--a suggestion
In a message dated 3/23/2010 7:36:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: Why don't we put up the latest version of this at googledocs and collaborate, 'wiki-style', on it? Then it could be published as a blog or wiki. Might prove after all that has been said that this list's regulars can work together on something? Discussing it over an old-fashioned list like this probably won't get very far. CJ Reply I can agree with this but on March 31. I jumped the gun badly.. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Engels as philosopher of science
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold. Species of grain change extremely slowly, and so the barley of today is almost the same as it-was a century ago. But if we take a plastic ornamental plant, for example a dahlia or an orchid, and treat the seed and the plant which grows from it according to the gardener's art, we get as a result of this negation of the negation not only more seeds, but also qualitatively improved seeds, which produce more beautiful flowers, and each repetition of this process, each fresh negation of the negation, enhances this process of perfection. We are not concerned at the moment with the fact that with other plants and animals the process does not take such a simple form, that before they die they produce seeds, eggs or offspring not once but many times; our purpose here is only to show that the negation of the negation really does take place in both kingdoms of the organic world. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/dialectic/dialectical-biology.html Dialectical biology In The Dialectical Biologist (Harvard U.P. 1985 ISBN 0-674-20281-3), Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin sketch a dialectical approach to biology. They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answers. They focus on the (dialectical) relationship between the "whole" (or totality) and the "parts." "Part makes whole, and whole makes part" (p. 272). That is, a biological system of some kind consists of a collection of heterogeneous parts. All of these contribute to the character of the whole, as in reductionist thinking. On the other hand, the whole has an existence independent of the parts and feeds back to affect and determine the nature of the parts. This back-and-forth (dialectic) of causation implies a dynamic process. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ For example, Darwinian evolution points to the competition of a variety of species, each with heterogeneous members, within a given environment. This leads to changing species and even to new species arising. A dialectical biologist would not reject this picture as much as look for ways in which the competing creatures lead to changes in the environment, as when the action of microbes encourages the erosion of rocks. Further, each species is part of the "environment" of all of the others. http://www.marxist.com/preface-engels-nature-wellred.htmIn the field of biology, Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin have championed the dialectical approach. In fact their book, The Dialectical Biologist, published in 1985, was specifically dedicated to the memory of Fredrick Engels. Although Engels was limited by the material at his disposal at the time, recent science has confirmed his outlook in so far as "opposing forces lie at the base of the evolving physical and biological world." (20). "The dialectical view insists that persistence and equilibrium are not the natural state of things but require explanation, which must be sought in the actions of the opposing forces", state Levin and Lewontin. "The conditions under which the opposing forces balance and the system as a whole is in stable equilibrium are quite special. They require the simultaneous satisfaction of as many mathematical relations as there are variables in the system, usually expressed as inequalities among the parameters of that system. "If these parameters remain within the prescribed limits, then external events producing small shifts among the variables will be erased by the self-regulating processes of stable systems. Thus in humans the level of blood sugar is regulated by the rate at which sugar is released into the blood by the digestion of carbohydrates, the rate at which stored glycogen, fat, or protein is converted into sugar, and the rate at which sugar is removed and utilised. Normally, if the blood sugar level rises, then the rate of utilisation is increased by release of more insulin from the pancreas. If the level of blood sugar falls, more sugar is released into the blood, or the person gets hungry and eats some source of sugar. The result is that the blood sugar level is kept not constant but within tolerable limits. So far we are dealing with the familiar patterns of homeost
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/althusser/index.htm Contradiction (Althusser) A term for the articulation of a practice into the complex whole of the social formation. Contradictions may be antagonistic or non-antagonistic according to whether their state of overdetermination is one of fusion or condensation, or one of displacement. Overdetermination (Althusser) Freud used this term to describe (among other things) the representation of the dream-thoughts in images privileged by their condensation of a number of thoughts in a single image (condensation/Verdichtung), or by the transference of psychic energy from a particularly potent thought to apparently trivial images (displacement/Verschiebung-Verstellung). Althusser uses the same term to describe the effects of the contradictions in each practice constituting the social formation on the social formation as a whole, and hence back on each practice and each contradiction, defining the pattern of dominance and subordination, antagonism and non-antagonism of the contradictions in the structure in dominance at any given historical moment. More precisely, the overdetermination of a contradiction is the reflection in it of its conditions of existence within the complex whole, that is, of the other contradictions in the complex whole, in other words its uneven development. Supersession (Althusser) A Hegelian concept popular among Marxist-humanists, it denotes the process of historical development by the destruction and retention at a higher level of an old historically determined situation in a new historically determined situation – e.g. socialism is the supersession of capitalism, Marxism a supersession of Hegelianism. Althusser asserts that it is an ideological concept, and he substitutes for it that of the historical transition, or, in the development of a science, by the epistemological break. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Objective & Subjective (object and subject)
One interesting thing to note is that people later took up the idea of natural dialectics, so , as I always say, never count Engels out. Interestingly, perhaps by ingenious intuition and sheer luck, Hegel hit upon an image as metaphor for 'negation of negation' that later resounded in biology--the helix. I traced this concept of negation of negation, or positive negation or assertive negation up until I hit the golden 'horse manure' pile. Hey, horse shit, I think you can eat it even. It makes grass digestible even if you only have one stomach. If you accept a logic with content that is empirically and pragmatically grounded, you find the whole dialectic imagistically, metaphorically, logically enlightening. The way a Christian might hope to see the face of God. If you reject such a logic, the dialectic will always be nonsense. Or did I over-generalize? At any rate, 1. Engels, including the 'nonsense'. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm But what role does the negation of the negation play in Marx? On page 791 and the following pages he sets out the final conclusions which he draws from the preceding fifty pages of economic and historical investigation into the so-called primitive accumulation of capital. [62] Before the capitalist era, petty industry existed, at least in England, on the basis o/ the private property of the labourer in his means of production. The so-called primitive accumulation of capital consisted there in the expropriation of these immediate producers, that is, in the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner. This became possible because the petty industry referred to above is compatible only with narrow and primitive bounds of production and society and at a certain stage brings forth the material agencies for its own annihilation. This annihilation, the transformation of the individual and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, forms the prehistory of capital. As soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their conditions of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, the further socialisation of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production, and therefore the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. "That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the concentration of capitals. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this concentration, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever extending scale, the co-operative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical collective cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the jointly owned means of production of combined, socialised labour. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. Capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Concentration of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated." And now I ask the reader: where are the dialectical frills and mazes and conceptual arabesques; where the mixed and misconceived ideas according to which everything is all one and the same thing in the end; where the dialectical miracles for his faithful followers; where the mysterious dialectical rubbish and the maze in accordance with the Hegelian Logos doctrine, without which Marx, according to Herr Dühring, is unable to put his exposition into shape? Marx merely shows from history, and here states in a summarised form, that just as formerly petty industry by its very development necessarily created the conditions of its own annihilation, i.e., of the expropriation of the small proprietors, so now the capitalist mode of production has likewise itself created the material conditions from which it must perish. The process is a historical one, and if it is at the same time a dialectical process, this is not Marx's fault, however annoying it may be to Herr Dühring. It is only at this point, after Marx has co
