Yeah, I know, those old cars are fragile. I would never let a horse fall on mine. --jks
At 10:43 AM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
if a horse falls against a 1959 Cadillac, it can die.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine wrote: In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
capitalist competition.
Mine writes:
Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
circumstances. He was also
Brad raises an important question about the cultural development
of Soviet-style socialism. It has been noted that there are
parallels between "socialist realism" and the sort of art
promoted under Nazism. This suggests that there is something in
the way totalitarian, or would-be
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/00 03:18PM
Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
anti-communist political aim ?
that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
__
CB: I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for anti-communist
CB wrote:
Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
anti-communist political aim ?
I replied:
that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
CB now replies:
I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for
anti-communist purposes, "good or bad".
So,
ser
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19327] Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/00 03:18PM
Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoti
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/00 03:52PM
So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
___
CB: More than you deserve to be tweaked by art ?
At 04:26 PM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/00 03:52PM
So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
___
CB: More than you deserve to be tweaked by
I would add one more thing.Weber's definition of state is quite
misleading. If state is defined in terms of monopolization of power,I
don't think this is unique to capitalist state. If you carefully read
Weber's _Sociology of Ancient Civilizations_, where he analyzes
pre-capitalist states, you
Brad De Long wrote:
So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that "One
need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical composition,
to recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares at us
In The Closing of the American Mind, of course. ;) --jks
In a message dated Thu, 18 May 2000 12:16:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brad De Long wrote:
So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
was the world afflicted with, say,
At 12:25 PM 5/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow
from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to be
free. But one
Justin writes:
I would add to this analysis that I think the democratic Marx was a lot
more popular until the rise of the USSR; you see this in people like Rosa
Luxemburg ... But the Soviet Unuion claimed the mantle of Marx and
squelched democracy, So in the shadow of its prestige, the
Barkley wrote:
BTW, in his personal political dealings Marx was not known for democratic
tolerance. When Bakunin and the anarchists threatened to take control of
the First International, Marx closed it, shut down the shop, took his
marbles and went home and pouted.
this a partial picture.
Brad writes:
Or, in other words: "Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy! We
directly express the general will!"
That's the perspective of many utopian socialists, Stalinists, and the IMF,
which sees its policies as Good For Humanity in the Long Run, so that it
doesn't matter if
Barkley wrote:
In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of the most
"realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German
social democratic movement.
2000 1:16 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19221] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Barkley wrote:
In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of the most
"real
In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities
and
In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities and
Barkley Rosser:
The utopianism came
in when he actually discussed what socialism would
be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
away of the state and "from each according to his
ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice,
but also very utopian, especially the
Jim Devine wrote:.
This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property
ownership.
in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism of Hobbes in
_On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what is social
(property) onto human nature, to say that
Not only that, but she came to Chico to visit Ivan Svitak. A lot happens up here in
the big city.
Charles Brown wrote:
Yes, indeedy. Raya D. lived in Detroit for a while, and there is a Marxist-Humanist
chapter here. I attended a number of their meetings a few years ago, and read a
number
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
Bakunin
and his allies had come to control a majority of the
national groups that were in the First International.
At that point, when they demanded to take control of it,
Marx shut it down.
Actually, he moved it to the U.S., where Sorge shut it down, I
I met her several times in the 1960s. Detroit being not so far from here. (I used to
visit Fredy Perlman as well, another Detroit character). She was a wonderful woman,
but totally obsessive on Hegel. She liked Lenin, but primarily the Philosophical
Notebooks.
Rod
Michael Perelman wrote:
I wrote:
This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize"
property ownership.
Mine writes: in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism
of Hobbes in _On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what
is social (property) onto human nature, to say
-L:19239] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
(fwd)
Barkley Rosser:
The utopianism came
in when he actually discussed what socialism would
be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
away of the state and "from each according to his
ability to each acco
Jim Devine wrote: In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
capitalist competition.
Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
circumstances. He was also *normatively* endorsing
Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
Brad De Long wrote:
yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
democratic and the
Brad writes:
... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of
each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the
people have one single general will that the dictatorship of the
proletariat expresses...
There are clearly two traditions in
I think Brad is right that Marx didn't think much about political sociology from the
perspective of institutional design, or about how group dynamics might work in a
postrevolutionary society. I do not think that supportds the "two Marx" thesis, one
democratic and one dictatorisl. Marx was
Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
Brad De Long wrote:
yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
democratic and the
Jim,
Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
slightly. I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
one in most of his writings, the one for free development of
people. But he did at certain points issue some rather
In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
But he did at certain points issue some rather
sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourgeois
democracy and also painted a not so nice picture of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as well in
In a message dated 5/17/00 10:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
Yes, Marx was distrustful of the ideas of utopians, who laid out plans
for the future. He thought that people should organize such things on
their own when the time came.
Brad De Long wrote:
I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
how systems of self-rule and
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
might decide things that he could not imagine.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
I
In a message dated 5/17/00 11:28:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class
: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19168] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
Jim,
Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
slightly. I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
one in most of his writings
TED]
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19169] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
But he did at certain points issue some rather
sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourge
39 matches
Mail list logo
