(By professional revolutionaries Lenin did NOT mean fulltime
revolutionaries. He meant ordinary people who were working for a living
but in what time they had for politics they trained themselves as well
as possible.)
I think Carrol is basically correct, but:
(1) She does not distinguish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/04 10:19 AM
(By professional revolutionaries Lenin did NOT mean fulltime
revolutionaries. He meant ordinary people who were working for a
living
but in what time they had for politics they trained themselves as well
as possible.)
I think Carrol is basically correct
CC: 4. If a real fascist (or some new kind authoritarian populism) were to arise in
the U.S. it could not be defeated by DP politicians. It could
only be defeated by the unity of a _real_ social democratic party _and_ the 21st c.
equivalent of a communist movement. But those urging us to
support
Carrol wrote:
the concept of stealing a girlfriend turns the girlfriend into portable
property.
The same applies to men. Indeed, these days a problem for some busy men is
how you can get other men to screw the women under their care. But the
concept of stealing is ill-defined, as shown
Devine, James wrote:
However, arguing about definitions is a waste of time. Instead of saying my
definition is the true one people should say this is what I mean my this term and
this is why this definition is useful.
This is correct, my intervention in this thread should have been
modified
there are at least two definitions of original accumulation:
1) the forcible creation of capital as a social relationship between capitalists and
the direct producers, where the latter are separated from direct access to the means
of production and subsistence and so must submit to the former's
profitable and lucrative area. I have mentioned this before: the
person who can make others do what he wants is at a premium, and an
important person is a person who can make the most people do what he wants.
Carrol says:
No one has the remotest idea of creating capital or capitalism. No one
anyplace
Hi Joanne:
I agree with what I take to be your drift - the term American uttered
in some circles with a hatred, can be mis-used to 'blame all Americans,
for what the USA system has done. Point taken.
Agreed!
Hi Carrol:
I am not sure why you ask such a pointed question of a simple
statement. I know
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Louis Proyect wrote: I don't know whether Lysenko's reputation revolved
around quick,
technical solutions. I was under the impression that he was infamous
for quackery
> under pressure from Stalin.
-reply from Carrol Cox:
Lou, you've referred off and on to Levins Lewon
Re: Carrol:
by Rakesh Bhandari
16 January 2002
^^^
Rakesh, this post kind of undercuts your claim to understand Marx's
theory and ideas more deeply than others here. Marx's theory of the
business cycle was not a particularly important expression of either
1), or 3) that you list above
Carrol:
What is the political importance of understanding the economics of a
particular recession (or boom)?
Marx's concern with crises, as with other features of capitalism, was
primarily, it seems to me, focused on the question of whether capitalism
was a natural or historical system
.
Carrol
)
,but is not its only aspect.
Charles, did I say the business cycle was its only or main aspect?
And did I say that I understand Marx more deeply than Fred Moseley?
No, I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox.
rb
__
This reduction of historical materialism to a silly
Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
OK. Carrol is not only wrong but egregiously wrong that Marx's
accomplishment is best understood as the denaturalization or
historicization of both categories of political economy and the
bourgeois economy itself.
Rakesh
All you have to say is, my interpretation is ... Others can decide for
themselves who is correct.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:53:53PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
OK. Carrol is not only wrong but egregiously wrong that Marx's
Does that apply to Carrol, too? He said Rakesh was not interesting.
Rakesh, is always interesting.
Even handedness in the disciplining of list ecology, plz.
Michael Pugliese
--- Original Message ---
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1/15/02 5:52:31 PM
I missed that. Obviously, I should have noted it.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:32:53PM -0800, michael pugliese wrote:
Does that apply to Carrol, too? He said Rakesh was not interesting.
Rakesh, is always interesting.
Even handedness in the disciplining of list ecology, plz.
Michael
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 2:09 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:20795] Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Yes I agree the house is on fire. So what do we do?
stop discussing rock music, waterfalls and brand imagery.
Mark
Carrol Cox wrote:
you and Mark, so far as I can tell, have actually persuaded
just one person -- Me! You haven't had the tiniest effect on anyone else
as far as I can see. So what are you going to do with your one single
solitary convert -- you are going to swear at him for saying, let's see
.
This is wholly arbitrary. Until the working class is in motion, the
intelligentsia in any numbers simply do not even recognize the existence
of marxists, so you can hardly be having much influence on an audience
consisting of empty chairs.
Carrol
Short of mass working-class movements, the way to go
Doug wrote:
What
I'm not clear on is what exactly this socialist revolution would mean
for industrial and agricultural practice, energy sources, the
transformation of the built environment, living arrangements, etc.
This is exactly the issue. The point is not to be original, the point is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 02:06PM
Carrol Cox wrote:
You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost
deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark
really seriously can only conclude that further political
theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over.
Forget
Carrol Cox wrote:
You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost
deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark
really seriously can only conclude that further political
theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over.
Forget it. Let's go to the movies.
That's
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
the Japanese working class rise up
make a socialist revolution (of some kind). ... The US...
The Japs would bomb NY with MIRV'ed Citizen watches and other precision
objects until the Yanks gave up, surely, which is more or less what's
happening anyway.
The question
Dennis R Redmond wrote:
An embargo which is lifted approximately one millisecond after Japan
threatens to call in the 150 billion euros of the US current account
deficit it's been funding for well over a decade, thus pulling the plug on
the Wall Street Bubble.
How do you propose Japan would
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Socialism will collapse in a few years, or else, in an even more
unlikely event of the Japanese victory, the battered socialist
government will have to build everything back up from scratch
amidst ruins, _who knows how_.
And this if America doesn't bomb Red Japan back
Think it won't happen?
It will. It is.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
While I'm not against thinking about the future, I think it
inadvisable for socialists to portray an emergency in the future
tense. To paraphrase Walter Benjamin, "The tradition of the
oppressed teaches
Tolerated disagreement would have to be within narrow bounds. I went outside them in
academia, and was cast out. I am now a lawyer. My experience is that intellectuals do
not enjoy disagreement on fundamentals. Chomsky is right that they are herd animals.
--jks
Short of mass working-class
to bring marxists to recognize that the house was burning.
Carrol
Actually, this is what I wrote in reply, but apparently it didn't register
on you.
Neither you nor Lou has made the tiniest gesture towards working out
how this makes the least practical difference in the work of the socialist
movement
o encounter frustration.
This is wholly arbitrary. Until the working class is in motion, the
intelligentsia
in any numbers simply do not even recognize the existence of marxists, so
you can hardly be having much influence on an audience consisting of empty
chairs.
Carrol
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Carrol:
This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish" in my pen-l post. The
problem posed by the four alleged "schools of thought" is not theoretical but
practical, and your belief that any such theoretical work can be or needs to
be carried out is as silly as Do
Louis Proyect wrote:
THIS IS WRONG, CARROL. IT IS NOT "PRACTICAL". IT IS "THEORETICAL". LET ME
REPEAT IT WITH EMPHASIS: IT IS A THEORETICAL QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH
Lou, I followed with great interest the debate you and Mark had with
Jim Heartfield some years ago
33 matches
Mail list logo
