dialectic
my handy-dandy philosophical dictionary on dialectic: From the Greek _dialektos_ (discourse, debate). The art or science of dialectic begins in the drawing of rigorous distinctions. The procedure brings to light contradictions, and other types of opposition not sensed before. ... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: the dialectic of struggle and imagination...
yes absurd is the word. And the awareness of this is growing year by year, as the sophistication of modern information systems means that all economic and political information is always analysed in context. The necessary step of imagination is becoming smaller and smaller. The step of struggle, is more complicated because of the post-modernist blurring of polarised class differences. But not impossible, especially if we can make explicit the implict message that Marx says here, lies behind all economics. At 04/11/02 22:31 -0800, Ian wrote: From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition. [Marx, 1894, Ch. 46] Chris Burford
the dialectic of struggle and imagination...
From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition. [Marx, 1894, Ch. 46]
the dialectic of draconianism and terrorism
[the Independent] Stand firm against this tide of intolerance and resist the clamour for draconian laws 21 September 2001 These are dangerous times. The danger comes not only from terrorism or from the risks of military action, although the latter are real enough and more frightening than in conflicts - from Kosovo to Sierra Leone - in which British forces have lately been engaged. The historical precedents for any land war in Afghanistan are discouraging, and the consequences for the nuclear-armed rivalry between Pakistan and India remain unforeseeable. However, other - more insidious - dangers lurk, which need to be guarded against. The ravening fury of public opinion after terrorist outrages has all too often prompted legislators to make bad laws. Internment without trial, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the legislation rushed through after the Omagh bomb in 1998: all proved at best irrelevant, at worst counter-productive in the fight against terrorism. Many parts of the conservative press in Britain are engaged in the systematic and irresponsible distortion of public opinion in order to put pressure on the Home Secretary to rush through authoritarian legislation. Of course, there is a new willingness to fight terrorism by all available means, but the response to the attack on the World Trade Centre has provided an excuse for many to exercise their illiberal prejudices. Civil liberties - and the Human Rights Act in particular - have especially been focused upon; while even more reprehensibly in evidence in some outpourings of the right-wing press is outright xenophobia. Human rights and xenophobia are linked by the theme of being soft on unfounded claims for refugee status. A picture is painted of Britain, in its generous liberalism, foolishly providing a sanctuary for extremists, West-haters and terrorist supporters. This is a travesty, and leads some to the illogical position of complaining about refugees from Afghanistan as if they were potential terrorists, when these are people fleeing the Taliban theocracy which is harbouring the prime terror suspect, Osama bin Laden. Oliver Letwin, making a disappointing start as shadow Home Secretary, seems to think that respecting the human rights of asylum-seekers compromises national security because it makes it difficult to deport those suspected of involvement with terrorism. This is illogical as well as illiberal. If there is any evidence of terrorist activity, deportation is the wrong response; it simply shifts the problem elsewhere. Meanwhile, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to his credit, is showing himself well aware of the dangers of responses driven by hot emotion rather than cool thought. At the meeting of European interior ministers yesterday, he repeatedly emphasised respect for human rights law. Apart from his pledge to consider identity cards (he should consider the idea and reject it), he seemed to recognise that the need is not for new laws but for speedier enforcement of existing ones. Chris Patten, the European commissioner, should also be commended for his pre-emptive strike against the inevitable American pressure for the extradition of terrorist suspects. The European Union should maintain its principled opposition to the death penalty. Whatever their crime, people should not be extradited to be executed. None of this is to argue for a purist or impossible defence of civil liberties. It may be necessary to limit some of the freedoms which people would hope to enjoy in an ideal world. In particular, effective defence against terrorism requires some restriction on freedom of movement and intrusive searching of persons and luggage. Equally, freedom of speech is not absolute. Some of the more ridiculous pronouncements teased out of various London-based political extremists of a self-styled Islamic ideology cross the boundary of incitements to violence or racial hatred. Mr Blunkett is right to say that prosecution should be considered. The only issue is whether it is better to ignore such insignificant figures or to offer them more credibility through imprisonment. So far, despite their belligerent rhetoric, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have acted with restraint. Tony Blair has been careful to insist that Islam as a religion is not responsible for terrorism, while Mr Blunkett is robust on human rights. But dangerous signs of ignorance and intolerance are feeding a backlash against Muslims around the country, just as they are on a greater scale in the United States. For anyone complacent about the depth of ignorance in the US, where Sikhs have been mistaken for Muslims, we should recall that in this country a mob has mistaken a paediatrician for a paedophile. The pressure, artificially inflated by a right-wing press, for draconian laws that would allow anyone suspected of complicity in terrorism without evidence to be locked up, must be resisted. Giving in will not help to fight terrorism. Giving in will facilitate
[PEN-L:408] Dialectic Immaterialism
On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, James Devine wrote: I don't know how substantial this issue is, but as far as I can tell, there are 5 different meanings of "dialectics": It was very important for someone here to at least try to put such complex, mind-bending confusion into some kind of order, no matter how crude (it's a joke, Jim!) IMO. I think discussion here, and on the Marxism List (where this thread really belongs) would do well to make a note of these `5 meanings' and refer back to them when issues around Dialectics get confusing... Perhaps they can be a nucleus for a definition of Dialectics in the (hopefully) future Marxism FAQ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 -- Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[PEN-L:67] Re: red/green dialectic
Louis Proyect: Thanks for the kind remarks. I think you're absolutely right about the changing conditions in Western Europe. It would be an interesting line of investigation to figure out how Le Pen, the American Militias, etc. reflect the emerging contradiction between society and nature in the "first world". On Sat, 29 Jul 1995, Marianne Bruen wrote: Many of Louis Proyect's recent contributions have been exceedingly encouraging and helpful to me, and I go o armed with many a quote and reference from him to a a conference on "Building a Secure and Sustainable World" in Helsinki in 2 days. On one point I would like too up-date him, and I think quite a few others on pen-l. Part of a sentence of his reads "when people have jobs, homes, savings, etc. as they in Western Europe". This image of Western Europe just doesn't hold anymore, nor does the notion that over-population is not something of concern to people here. Germany has approx. 1 million homeless and between 3.5 and 4 million unemployed. Things are certainly not better in most other Western European countries. The subject of over-population is the focus of many talk shows are well as serious articles. And while Germany's famous "social net" is probably still one of the best, it is being trimmed fast and furiously. It is amazing to me how many benefits that were long taken for granted here, have disappeared during the 7 years I've been here. While I won't speak for Liechtenstein and Monaco, even Switzerland has been cutting back at an increased pace during the last couple of years. There are even a number of people you declare in public, and without shame, that the various wars, as well as aids, are probably good or at least necessary: "After all we've got to deal with over-population some how". (On the ote other hand, they would like to bomb at least the war in Bosnia off the evening news). Marianne Brun ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[PEN-L:61] Re: red/green dialectic
Many of Louis Proyect's recent contributions have been exceedingly encouraging and helpful to me, and I go o armed with many a quote and reference from him to a a conference on "Building a Secure and Sustainable World" in Helsinki in 2 days. On one point I would like too up-date him, and I think quite a few others on pen-l. Part of a sentence of his reads "when people have jobs, homes, savings, etc. as they in Western Europe". This image of Western Europe just doesn't hold anymore, nor does the notion that over-population is not something of concern to people here. Germany has approx. 1 million homeless and between 3.5 and 4 million unemployed. Things are certainly not better in most other Western European countries. The subject of over-population is the focus of many talk shows are well as serious articles. And while Germany's famous "social net" is probably still one of the best, it is being trimmed fast and furiously. It is amazing to me how many benefits that were long taken for granted here, have disappeared during the 7 years I've been here. While I won't speak for Liechtenstein and Monaco, even Switzerland has been cutting back at an increased pace during the last couple of years. There are even a number of people you declare in public, and without shame, that the various wars, as well as aids, are probably good or at least necessary: "After all we've got to deal with over-population some how". (On the ote other hand, they would like to bomb at least the war in Bosnia off the evening news). Marianne Brun ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[PEN-L:19] Re: red/green dialectic
A crass commercial announcement: people interested in Louis' comment may want to see Jesse Vorst, Ross Dobson, and Ron Fletcher, 1993. RED ON GREEN: EVOLVING ECOLOGICAL SOCIALISM. Winnepeg/Halifax, Canada: Society for Socialist Studies/Fernwood Publishing. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:18] red/green dialectic
Louis Proyect: 1. *Industrialization does not cause environmental degradation* The greens are wrong in their belief that industrialization causes environmental degradation. Neither do "anti-Gaia" values such as Judeo-Christianity, patriarchy, greed, etc. The root cause is the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism uproots rural populations in order to facilitate industrial development in urban centers. There is also a need to increase capital growth in the countryside to finance new industrial growth. This causes agriculture to become revolutionized technologically at the expense of environmental balance. By creating urban centers to house the poisonous, murderous factories and wreaking havoc across the plains and forests to finance their creation, the capitalist class creates the conditions for its own existence. Capitalism can flirt with environmental responsibility, but the tendency for capitalism to expand and devour non-capitalist sectors means that "green" capitalism will be an anomaly, like rain in the Sahara desert which actually does occur every so often. For every concession to clean air in an advanced capitalist country like the United States or Germany, we get the displacement of environmental destruction into places like Mexico and Hungary. The imperialist bourgeoisie doesnot lose sleep over increased cancer rates in the maquiladora zone. Capitalism is not a static system. It defies rational planning and rational growth. Its growth is the growth of metastasizing tumors. Desire for consumption is created through advertising. Production heats up to accommodate consumption. This is a treadmill, not a rational system. We end up with whatever Madison Avenue and Wall Street can make money off of. We end up with 20 brands of cigarettes, $125 running shoes and soft drink wars while the conditions of social living continue to degrade. Public transportation, health and education suffer while the alienated population looks for its next consumer fix at the shopping mall. 2. *Why existing socialism has not been green* The green anarchists believe that bad values lead to bad social conditions. The capitalist values of the Wealth of Nations led to environmental destruction in the capitalist world. Marx's enthusiasm for growth and industry, as reflected in the more breathlessly ebullient sections of the Communist Manifesto, explains the polluted rivers and poisonous air of the former Soviet bloc. The greens believe that by returning to a value system like that of the American Indian, balance with nature will be restored. In their eyes, industrialization of either the capitalist or socialist variety is the enemy. Small, self-sufficient communities are the way forward. In order to highlight socialism's problems, they draw on the ample evidence of Soviet history. This history can not be denied, but as anything else that has transpired in history, it was not inevitable. The Soviet people had an alternative in the development approach represented by Peter Palchinsky, a civil engineer who joined the Communist Party shortly after the 1917 revolution. Palchinsky was enthusiastic about planning. He believed that the Soviet Union opened up possibilities for the planning of industry that were impossible under Tsarism. He thought that engineers could play a major role in the growth of socialism. Palchinsky argued against the type of gigantic enterprises that were beginning to capture Stalin's rather limited imagination. He noted that middle-sized and small enterprises often have advantages over large ones. For one thing, workers at smaller factories are usually able to grasp the final goals more easily. He believed that the single most important factor in engineering decisions was human beings themselves. Successful industrialization and high productivity were not possible without highly trained workers and adequate provision for their social and economic needs. His differences with Stalin's pyramid-building approach erupted over the Great Dneiper Dam project, one of the most fabled 5-year plan projects. Palchinsky made the following critiques. The project didn't take into account the huge distances between the dam and the targeted sites. As a consequence, there would be huge transmission costs and declines in efficiency. Also, the project didn't take into account the damage resulting floods would cause to surrounding farms situated in lowlands. Some 10,000 villagers had to flee their homes. As the project fell behind schedule and overran costs, the workers' needs were more and more neglected. The workers suffered under freezing conditions, living in cramped tents and barracks without adequate sanitary facilities. TB, typhus, and smallpox spread throughout the worker's quarters. Palchinsky argued forcefully against projects such as these and offered a more rational, humane and less ideologically driven approach. In other words, he stressed
