From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Tue Jul 1 14:18:51 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:18:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin's key links in the chain Message-ID: I spent some time tracking down quotes I remembered somewhat imprecisely from decades ago and having forgot their sources. I haven't always succeeded at this in recent years. I have succeeded, I think, in collating the most important quotes by Lenin I can remember on religion. Here is my blog entry: Lenin on God-concepts, liberalized religion, & political orientation In the process of comparing the From Marx to Mao site to the Marxists Internet Archive. I stumbled across another quote (there's actually two) I always wanted to track down, right at the head of the Lenin Library on From Marx to Mao: http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/Index.html ". . . the whole of political life is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding and gripping as strong as we can the link that is least likely to be torn out of our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that guarantees the possessor of a link the possession of the whole chain." What Is To Be Done? (1902) " . . . You must be able at each particular moment to find the particular link in the chain which you must grasp with all your might in order to hold the whole chain and to prepare firmly for the transition to the next link; the order of the links, their form, the manner in which they are linked together, the way they differ from each other in the historical chain of events, are not as simple and not as meaningless as those in an ordinary chain made by a smith." The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (1918) Great stuff. It's too bad, though, that it's impossible for us now to make this happen. ________________________________________________________ " .... People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say....." From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 20:58:52 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:58:52 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Issues with phoneme, with categorical perception Message-ID: Of ontological implications. It's interesting to note Quine's interest in this topic, but I can't find a copy of the chapter he wrote for a collection on structuralism and scientific linguistics. But at any rate, I'm guessing that people like the positivists (I'm thinking of Carnap here) had perhaps hoped that a concept like the phoneme showed that structuralist linguistics had reached a scientific stage--hence progress in the human sciences. They were, predictably enough, epistemologically naive. Much of Chomsky strikes me as such too, except he eschews empirical research programs. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~odden/603/phoneme.pdf Phonemes: Can't Live With 'em, Can't Live Without 'em; Mostly the former Why were phonemes invented? It all starts with the simple question how to objectively represent data from languages, e.g. in a grammar. For millenia, people would simply use whatever writing system was used for the language. Thus a grammar of Hebrew written in 1528 would use the Hebrew alphabet which looks something like [mismes lo karatti] and a grammar of Norwegian written in 1821 would look something like [har b?ndene kj?pte p?r?]. This makes it impossible to report facts about an unwritten language. Being clever people, linguists simply used the spelling system of whatever languages they knew to write down a new language that they ran into, so if you're Danish or Norwegian and you hear a language with a vowel that sounds like the one in r?d then you write [?], and if you're Finnish, Swedish, German, Turkish, or Hungarian, you write [o?]. http://mambo.ucsc.edu/pdf/icslpcat.pdf ABSTRACT Categorical perception, or the perceived equality of instances within a phoneme category, has been a central concept in the experimental and theoretical investigation of speech perception. It can be found as fact in most introductory textbooks in perception, cognition, linguistics and cognitive science. This paper analyzes the reasons for the persistent endurance of this concept. A variety of empirical and theoretical research findings are described in order to inform and hopefully to provide a more critical look at this pervasive concept. Given the demise of categorical perception, it is necessary to shift our theoretical focus to how multiple sources of continuous information are processed to support the perception of spoken language. CJ From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 21:32:13 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:32:13 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Issues with phoneme, with categorical perception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course I am no where near the first to see the weaknesses in how the concept of the phoneme has been established and put into use in linguistics, language acquisition studies, and speech perception--and recently with all the dipshit Bush administration phonics and phonemic awareness idiocy in beginning literacy (that is beginning literacy for native speakers of English). So Chomsky and Quine--in many ways opposites--both liked the idea of 'segment interchangeability' to establish phonemes as some sort of analytic bedrock for phonology. Minimal pairs, as I have already pointed out, would use lexical semantics to establish phonemes and then use phonemes to establish lexical semantics. Circular and weak. Also flounders on the indeterminacy of the most common sounds of spoken English, like glottal stops and reduced vowels (like 'schwa'). Others tried complementary distribution, and such efforts ended up saying things like -ng and h- in English are part of the same phonemic category because of their complementary distribtution (h- only appears at the beginning of syllables, -ng only closes a syllable). Hard to reconcile with the supporting idea of 'phonetic similarity'. The concept also flounders on all sorts of actual phonetic variation contradicting the established phonemic categories. So at least for a time both Chomsky and Quine liked the idea of 'interchangeability'. That is, for example, you can say the initial t- of 'top' is of the same phoneme as the final -t of 'pot' because if you sliced them off their instantiations, spliced them onto the other parts (often referred to as a 'rime' in syllable structure), native speakers would still hear the words as 'top' and 'pot' and/or still perceive the /t/ sound categorically. In other words, a word-final t (even though most likely glottalized and unaspirated) would still make 'top' sound like 'top'. Great idea in linguists' heads, but it doesn't work with actual experiments. What you get are words or non-words actually that native speakers or speakers of English can't understand. At any rate, see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD2-4F08522-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cc007c89239eb7c0fdefd2505d032aad An odd couple: Chomsky and Quine on reducing the phoneme Reese M. HeitnerE-mail The Corresponding Author Department of Philosophy, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10024, United States Accepted 22 November 2003. Available online 9 December 2004. Purchase the full-text article References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. Abstract Though typically viewed as if in diametrical opposition, W.V. Quine?arguably one of the most strident anti-mentalistic philosophers in contemporary philosophy of language?and Noam Chomsky have both explicitly defended the behavioral "paired-utterance test" as a non-semantic definition of basic phonemic equivalence. Indeed, consistent with some standard neo-Bloomfieldian reservations regarding semantics generally, and his own commitment to the autonomy of phonology, Chomsky's early rejection of a semantic-based phonology in favor of a behavioral reduction of phonemic equivalence is virtually indistinguishable from Quine's own intermittent behaviorist remarks on the phoneme. There are, of course, important philosophical, linguistic and even personal reasons for this seemingly odd convergence. Indeed, just as significant as the misleading claim to have provided a non-semantic criterion for basic phonological equivalence (given that native informants inevitably rely upon, albeit their own, semantic knowledge) is a linguistic historiography so concentrated so as to permit such a convergence between two towering figures in linguistics and the philosophy of language. The phoneme, in addition to dividing similar-minded linguists, could also unite otherwise incompatible language theorists too. Keywords: Behavioral "paired-utterance test"; Phoneme; Phonemic reductionism; Semantics Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. The linguistic legacy of logical positivism 3. Reducing the phoneme 4. Quine on reducing the phoneme 5. Chomsky on reducing the phoneme 6. Native behavior is semantically based 7. The priority of linguistic form over semantic content References ------------- CJ From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 21:46:28 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:46:28 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Symbolic logic Message-ID: This is a classic for people studying linguistics. One of the challenges in post-Chomsky linguistics has been the use of logics, since people who gravitate to linguistics might do so out of humanities, and have little or no background in logics (some philosophy departments might teach it, but many universities don't even have philosophy departments). This is 'applied logics'--applying logic as a tool for linguistic analysis. So the subject really 'takes off' instead of appearing as arcane and irrelevant. (Of course the connections between psychology and logic are extremely interesting in the history of philosophy, but I would bet that developments in logic have been most relevant in an applied sense for the programming of computers--more than any supposed importance in psychology or linguistics--as in, the analysis of natural/human languages.) Note this book is for students, marketed as a textbook, and includes exercises. Longman had a title of similar conception, but the scope was more limited--how to use symbolic logic up to predicate calculus to analyze syntax. Will look for that title. http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521291747 Logic in Linguistics Series: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Edited by Jens Allwood Lars-Gunnar Andersson Osten Dahl Add to basket Paperback (ISBN-13: 9780521291743 | ISBN-10: 0521291747) * There was also a Hardback of this title but it is no longer available * Published October 1977 In stock $37.99 (Z) An elementary introduction to formal logic, particularly intended for linguists. Discusses the relation between linguistic and logical analysis and between logic and natural language. Contents Preface; Symbols and notational conventions; 1. Logic for linguists; 2. Set theory; 3. Inference and logical analysis of sentences; 4. Propositional logic; 5. Predicate logic; 6. Deduction; 7. Modal logic; 8. Intensional logic and categorial grammar; 9. Further extensions; 10. Logic for linguists?; References; Answers to exercises; Index. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 3 11:32:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Issues with phoneme, with categorical perception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486CD4DF.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >>> CeJ < Minimal pairs, as I have already pointed out, would use lexical semantics to establish phonemes and then use phonemes to establish lexical semantics. ^^^ CB: I still don't quite understand what you mean on this. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 3 15:43:31 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:43:31 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] Message-ID: <486D0FC3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. ^^^^ CB: Are you saying said statements don't refer to things ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 3 15:49:09 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:49:09 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] structuralist linguistics plus follow up on phoneme (compendium response) Message-ID: <486D1115.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> CeJ jannuzi at gmail.com CB:>>But they changed qualitatively when they became alphabetic and no longer pictographic. There was a revolution in their "descent" when they shifted to alphabetic. They qualitatively shifted from iconic to arbitrary representation.<< I doubt if they ever were truly iconic. ^^^ CB: Check out Mixtec or Aztec picture writing. ^^^ In the shift to represent glottographic speech, the arbitrary quickly intrudes itself. ^^^^ CB: That's correct, and that's my point here. ^^^ Chinese characters are in effect as arbitrary as a syllabary or an alphabet. ^^^ CB: No not as abitrary. That's why there are so many characters in Chinese writing. ^^^^ That is not to say, though, that any of these are ENTIRELY arbitrary. For example, quite unarbitrararily, English spelling points out word length ^^^^^^^ CB: I don't understand what you mean here ^^^^ (and at least hints at syllables), word breaks, and most importantly, word relationships. Not iconic, but linguistically motivated. English spelling balances phonetic/phonological with morphemic/lexical elements, making it look a lot like French. Or, if you will, a Germanic language in terms of pronunciation, looking like a Latin language. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From jinigo at inscri.org.ar Thu Jul 3 15:41:05 2008 From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:41:05 -0300 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] [Fwd: I International Congress of Research and Political Debate] Message-ID: <486D4771.2010708@inscri.org.ar> -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: I International Congress of Research and Political Debate Fecha: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:31:10 -0300 De: Secretar?a Aced?mica - CEICS Responder-a:: secretariaacademica at ceics.org.ar A: 2^nd Call I International Congress of Research and Political Debate (VII Congress of Historical and Social Research) Working Men of All Countries, Unite! Crisis and revolution in today?s world. Analysis and perspectives October 30^th to November 1^st , 2008 Buenos Aires, Argentina Facultad de Filosof?a y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Supporting organizations: CEICS (Argentina)/ CEMARX, Universidad de Campinhas, (Brasil)/ Revista Actuel Marx (Francia) / Grupo de Investigacion LLank'aymanta (Bolivia) /Revista Memoria (M?xico) / Asociaci?n Latinoamericana de Economistas Marxistas (Venezuela) /CICSO (Argentina) / Departamento de Educaci?n del Centro Cultural de la Cooperaci?n- (Argentina) /Revista Top?a- Psicoan?lisis, sociedad y cultura (Argentina) / C?tedra Libre Ernesto Che Guevara de la Facultad de Ciencias Humanas de la UNLPam (Argentina) /C?tedra: Sociolog?a de la Guerra - Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (UBA) (Argentina) /Colectivo de trabajo humanidades en CAUCE (U. N. La plata) / JUS (Juventud Universitaria Socialista) - Conducci?n Centro de Estudiantes de Humanidades (U. N. Comahue) / Estaci?n Finlandia Producciones y Ediciones./ "Colectivo De Trabajo-FER" (U.N.Comahue) / Agrupaci?n Estudiantil Nueva Opci?n (U.N.Lujan) / Agrupaci?n estudiantil Oktubre (Trabajo Social - U.N. Luj?n) / Agrupaci?n Desde el Pie (Trabajo Social U.N. Luj?n - Regional Campana) / Insurgente - Espacio de integraci?n cultural / Docentes de Base de La Matanza en SUTEBA Matanza / Agrupaci?n Estudiantil Avanzada (UN Luj?n) / Raz?n y Revoluci?n, organizaci?n cultural Important dates: Proposals for papers: Abstracts should not exceed 200 words and should be written in 12 points, Times New Roman. Please include your name, professional affiliation/ institutional status, contact information, and chosen table or thematic area. Deadline for proposals: July 30^th , 2008 send to: jornadas at razonyrevolucion.org Paper submission: Papers must be formatted using Times New Roman font, size 12, 1.5 spacing and are not to exceed 20 pages. Deadline for papers: September 9^th , 2008 send to: jornadas at razonyrevolucion.org Book presentations. Abstracts should not exceed 400 words and should be written in 12 points, Times New Roman. Please include your name, professional affiliation/ institutional status, contact information, and send a picture of the book. Deadline for proposal of book presentations: August 30^th , 2008 send to: jornadas at razonyrevolucion.org The Congress have formal support of the Investigation Secretary and the History Department of the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) (Resoluci?n 3211 del 29 de abril de 2008 CD FFyL-UBA) and from the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion http://www.ceics.org.ar/jornadas/ List of Roundtables (ordered by thematic area) (Abstracts and Papers should be send to jornadas at razonyrevolucion.org) Bourgeois Revolution History: Learning from the enemy Roundtable 1: Bourgeois revolution and origins of capitalism (17^th -19^th centuries) Roundtable 2: Revolution, independence and development of nation-states in Latin America (1790-1880). ? Coordinator: Fabi?n Harari (CEICS) Workers Revolutions History: victories and defeats Roundtable 3: Movement, Army or Political Party. Platforms and strategies of the Left during the 70?s. ? Coordinators: Stella Grenat and Daniel De Santis. Roundtable 4: Workers? struggles and revolutionary peak in Latin America (1950-1980) ? Coordinators: H?ctor Lobbe y Luis Brunetto Roundtable 5: The military matter today. ? Coordinators: Sociology of War Seminar (FSOC-UBA) Debates over Capitalism?s development Roundtable 6: The social structure of Argentina ? Coordinator: Eduardo Sartelli (CEICS) Roundtable 7: How to measure the wealth of nations? ? Coordinator: Juan Kornblihtt (CEICS) Roundtable 8: Agrarian reform and socialism in Latin America ? Coordinators: Ph.D. Professor Claus Magno Germer, Ph. D. Professor Jos? Juliano de Carvalho Filho, Professor Jo?o Marcelo Borelli Machado Roundtable 9: Imperialism yesterday and today ? Coordinators: Mariano Schlez (CEICS) and Fabi?n Harari (CEICS) Who is the working class? Determinations and structural transformations Roundtable 10: Changes in labor process, working class structural transformations and working class struggle. ? Coordinators: Marina Kabat (CEICS) and Tania Aill?n G?mez (Cochabamba University-Bolivia) Roundtable 11: Debates about the so called Relative overpopulation ? Coordinators: Marina Kabat (CEICS) Is there or is there not a crisis going on nowadays? The capital accumulation today Roundtable 13: The american crisis and its effect over Latin America ? Coordinator: Alejandro Valle Baeza (UAM-M?xico) Roundtable 14: ?Is this the end of the economic cycle? Capital accumulation limits in Argentina ? Coordinator: Fernando Dachevsky (CEICS-UBA) Roundtable 15: Agrarian and world food price crises in Latin America and the world ? Coordinator: Osvaldo Coggiola What is the purpose of art? Roundtable 16: Art, Revolution, Temporality ? Coordinator: Catherine Perret Department of Philosophy (www.u-paris10.fr/dep_philo) Universit? Paris X ? Nanterre, France. Director of Centre de Recherches sur l?Art ? esth?tique / philosophie (Cr?art-Phi). Roundtable 17: Popular cultures and political identities ? Coordinator: Pablo Alabarces (FSOC-UBA) Roundtable 18: Latin American literature facing today?s crisis. ? Coordinators: Vicente Zito Lema y Rosana L?pez Rodr?guez Latin America in the eye of the storm Roundtable 19: Class struggle in Latin America during the 20th and 21st centuries ? Coordinator: Mariano Schlez (CEICS) Roundtable 20: Revolution and Counterrevolution in Bolivia (1952-2008) ? Coordinator: Lorgio Orellana (?cole Autes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France and CEDLA-Bolivia) Roundtable 21: Revolution at a crossroads: the case of Venezuela ? Coordinator: Manuel Sutherland (ALEM-Venezuela) Roundtable 22: The political crisis in Argentina during Kirchner?s government (2003-2008) ? Coordinator: Fabi?n Harari (CEICS) Mass political action. Analyses of the class struggle Roundtable 23. The Argentinazo: ?What happened in Argentina during December 2001? ? Coordinators: Raul Zibechi (MFAL-Uruguay) y Beba Balv? (CICSO ? Argentina) Roundtable 24: The fall of petty bourgeoisie: middle-class demonstrations and transformations in Latin America ? Coordinator: Silvina Pascucci (CEICS ? Argentina) Education and Capital Roundtable 25: Journey across education in Latin America. Outcomes and perspectives. ? Coordinators: Pablo Imen- Department of Education (Centro Cultural de la Cooperaci?n) and Professor Romina De Luca (CEICS). The importance of the Dialectic. Debates about scientific method Roundtable 26: The time of Dialectic. ? Coordinator: Alberto Bonnet Gender issues Roundtable 27: Gender and politics. ? Coordinator: Rosana L?pez Rodr?guez (CEICS) Roundtable 28: The construction of socialism and feminism: the radicalized women?s movement within MST. ? Coordinator: Mar?a Orlanda Pinassi Psychoanalysis and Revolution Roundtable 29: Standing at Freud?s left: understanding subjectiveness as determined by contradiction and struggle ? Coordinator: Alfredo Caeiro Enrique Carpintero and Alejandro Vainer Roundtable 30: The role of image in political struggle ? Coordinator: Alfredo Caeiro C?sar Hazaki y H?ctor Freire Roundtable 31: The forms of alienation nowadays: subjectiveness and class struggle ? Coordinator: C?sar Hazaki Alfredo Grande y Juan Carlos Volnovich The urge to get organized. The political Party and the International Roundtable 32: The road to the International: debates within the Left. ? Coordinators: Fabi?n Harari (CEICS) and Osvaldo Coggiola (USP-Brasil) What is Socialism? Roundtable 33: Socialism and the new man ? Coordinators: Daniel De Santis and Claudio Molina Donoso . E-mail: desantis at infovia.com.ar Roundtable 34: Debate over the so-called 21st century Socialism ___________________________________________ http://www.ceics.org.ar/jornadas/ jornadas at razonyrevolucion.org Secretar?a Acad?mica - CEICS www.ceics.org.ar From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 4 13:54:05 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] =?utf-8?b?IOKAnEltcGVyaWFsaXNt4oCdIHJlYWRzIGxp?= =?utf-8?q?ke_it_was_written_yesterday?= Message-ID: <486E479D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From Marxmail ?Imperialism? reads like it was written yesterday Louis Proyect Previous message: [Marxism] Information Re: Cuba to abandon wage caps Next message: [Marxism] Obama Gates Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When I decided to lead a reading group on the classics of Marxism, I was partly motivated to re-examine some books that I hadn't looked at in over 40 years in some cases. One of them was Lenin's "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". As somebody who has adopted a less than worshipful stance toward the Marxist classics in recent years, I was ready to encounter all sorts of indications of how wrong it was to use something written in 1914 as a guide to our current situation. Leaving aside the big question of inter-imperialist wars, which does seem to be a thing of the past on first blush, I was amazed at how many other observations jibe with articles in the business sections of the major newspapers today devoted to the ongoing financial crisis. A number of these observations appear in chapter 3 and 4 of Lenin's book and I expect to run into others as I work my way through it. For those of you who have received a proper training in ruling class ideology in freshman economics or poli sci, you will surely remember how the teacher "proved" that Karl Marx's writings were obsolete on the basis that capitalism has become so democratized that the term "ruling class" has no meaning. This democratization is primarily expressed through pension funds, mutual funds, etc. that put the means of production in the hands of ordinary working people. Back in 1958, when American capitalism enjoyed more of an ideological hegemony than perhaps at any point since WWII, economists and corporate executives spoke about a "people's capitalism" that had nothing to do with the stereotype of fat cats in top hats found in Marxist literature. Economist Marcus Nadler wrote: "The economy of the United States is rapidly assuming the character of what may be termed 'People's Capitalism,' under which the production facilities of the nation-notably manufacturing-have come to be increasingly owned by people in the middle and lower income brackets or indirectly by mutual institutions which manage their savings." Roger Blough, the chairman of U.S. Steel, wrote: ". . . the change that has occurred in the ownership of our larger enterprises. Today fewer businesses-especially our biggest businesses-are owned by a few wealthy individuals or groups, as many were back in the Nineties. They are owned by millions of people in all walks of life. In United States Steel, for example, the owners of our business outnumber the employees by a considerable margin; and no one of them holds as much as three-tenths of one per cent of the outstanding stock." General Electric, whose television show was hosted by Ronald Reagan, ran an full-page advertisement stating: "People's Capitalism: The 376,000 owners with savings invested in General Electric are typical of America, where nearly every citizen is a capitalist." In a pamphlet distributed to its employees, Standard Oil advised them that Karl Marx devised a theory in which "Ownership of the mills, as with ownership of the land, was the key to the future. Ownership should, therefore, be vested not in the hands of the few, but with something he identified as The People." But today, Karl Marx would be surprised to learn the following: "Yes, the people own the tools of production. By his own definition, Karl Marx' prophecy has been realized. . . . How odd to find that it is here, in the capitalism he reviled, that the promise of the tools has been fulfilled." full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/lenins-imperialism-reads-like-it-was-written-yesterday/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 6 21:39:10 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:39:10 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Parting of the Ways: Extensions (1) Message-ID: I've written one installment on Friedman's The Parting of the Ways, seven on reviews of Friedman's work. Still much left to do, including a review of a subsequent article by Friedman addressing the prinicipal objections to his work and recapitulating and defending his thesis. But now here's something else of interest: Waite, Geoffrey. "On Esotericism: Heidegger and/or Cassirer," Political Theory, Vol. 26, No. 5, (Oct., 1998), pp. 603-651. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191766 Capitalism today is Nietzsche's nihilism, ungrounded, relativistic . . . As opposed to the Enlightenment's valorization of truth, we have here the undermining of same via estoricism. . . . exo/esotericism renders radically problematic our ability to grasp that long history, assuming (as we mostly do) that this history consists of exoteric statements alone, that philosophers necessarily mean what they say, and that when they do not this is due only to the structural interference of the unconscious. As a form of lying, as the manipulation of other subjects' consciousness by surreptitious means, every form of exo/esotericism nonetheless points-more or less tacitly-to its systemically and systematically unstated premise, its elusive surplus: truth. Fascism, in its moments of conscious awareness, confesses its ground/lessness: In political terms, and concomitantly, we also are precariously close to the self-definition of philosophically coherent fascism. Mussolini and other fascist philosophers publicly averred that ungrounded relativism is fascism's only ground, the conceptual precondition for the realization of Nietzschean Rangordnung or order of rank (translated into Italian as gerar- chia: hierarchy). The sole thing that can decide-ultimately-between com- peting ideologies is raw power. For fascism, however, entailed is not any simple, immediate suppression of "equality" (I'ugualianza)-for that can be stupidly counterproductive.2' Fascism's argument, rather, is that order of rank "corrects" "natural inequalities" on behalf of the powerful who are equal only inter pares, who know that the truth is ungrounded and decisionistically arbitrary, and who are willing to use any means necessary-including con- trolled dosages of free debate-to maintain this truth and their own power.22 Poised to take state power in 1922, Mussolini boldly announced in his programmatic article "Relativismo e Fascismo" ("Relativism and Fascism") (1921) that "the philosophy of force" (la filosofia della forza)-on which Fascism is conceptually and institutionally grounded in explicit contrast to German national socialist (racist) essentialism-is nothing but relativist.23 For his primary authorities, Mussolini drew on Nietzsche himself and on Hans Vaihinger, the leading neo-Kantian Nietzschean and his "philosophy of the as-if." We know that relativism and fascism are ungrounded systems but we decide to act as if they were grounded, so that this very ungroundedness in effect becomes our ground. "In truth, we are relativists par excellence," Mussolini proclaimed, and "the moment relativism linked up with Nietzsche, and with his Will to Power, was when Italian Fascism became, as it still is, the most magnificent creation of an individual and a national Will to Power." And here's the trick today: If the central problem of political theory today is to produce effective opposition to capitalism, and if the only reason to study the past is to find alternatives to the present, then the overall function of exo/esotericism is to obstruct both tasks. But this obstruction is not primarily accomplished by prohibiting the possibility of opposition and alternatives. Capitalism itself encourages crises and challengers, even produces them itself, to ensure that it remains dynamic. Generally, overt prohibitions are counterproductive insofar as they are easily identifiable and contestable as such. Therefore, I argue, the most effective way of keeping complex systems in power lies neither in prohibition nor even in producing hegemonic consent through "the diffusion of ideology (through the presentation and inculcation of culture),"29 but rather in rendering radical alternatives to appear logically impossible in the first place, in our case in rendering capitalism (the) unconscious-exactly like God, ideology, and absolute truth. Such is the general function of exo/esotericism in secular modernity. There is a bit too much Lacan and Althusser in the mix. Waite warns that Marxism remains prepsychoanalytic by having ignored the esoteric dimension. The historic debate in 1929 between Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer in Davos, Switzerland (the subject of Friedman's) book, was a seminal event, signifying not only the triumph of right over left but of "Heideggerian exo/esotericism . . . over Cassirerian exotericism." 1929 was also a watershed political moment in the Weimar Republic, involving the status of Jews (e.g. Cassirer) in academia, Marxism, the currency of myth (e.g. in fascism as well as in Cassirer's philosophy) . . . It is commonly assumed that Heidegger won the debate. Waite describes the orientation that, retrospectively, Heideggerians, Straussians, and Cassirer's have to take viz. this debate. But the debate was never really a debate as those devoted to reasoned discourse--Cassirer and Cassirerians--are conditioned to believe. Obscurities remain, which Waite purports to address. This relates to a contemporary strategem to pit Cassirer against the hegemony of "Cultural Studies". But we need to dig deeper before committing ourselves to such a course. Maybe you can decipher Waite's position: I claim that Marxism and communism are exactly like Platonism, Jewish-Christian theology, nihilism, fascism, and capitalism insofar as all are logically constructivist and decisionistic; that is, they all share the aporia that they are ultimately grounded on no logic save for tautology. But Marxism and communism can also be different from those other positions in three related respects: in terms of discursive practice they are in principle exoteric; in terms of socioeconomic and ethical aim they are in principle egalitarian; and in terms of epistemology they maintain in principle an open, heuristic, and asymptotic relation to the truth.50 In this last regard, Marxism and communism relate to the philosophical tradition (en- compassing Spinoza, Kant, Marx, Lenin, Wittgenstein, Lacan, and Althusser) that continually aspires to point ('scientifically,' if you will) toward the truth. In this way, they are not logically decisionistic and constructivist, safeguard- ing as they do a certain surplus-truth-vis-a-vis the tradition against which they are in mortal combat. And, as Althusser cautions, "[T]he conflictuality of Marxist theory is constitutive of its scientificity, its objectivity"51-in other terms, its ethical performativity of the truth. However broad my claim, I will inscribe 'Davos' with a hitherto unremarked line of demarcation-the hith- erto obscure interference of exo/esotericism in the debate-in order that we might better understand the relationship (or lack thereof) between Heidegger and Cassirer and what really went wrong (or right) at Davos. For a while Waite teases us with the promise of a third position outside this debate. The steps: (1) First he addresses Heidegger's rhetorical style. Also, he addresses current moves to reconcile the positions of Cassirer and Heidegger, which he may have his own reasons for supporting. One should not underestimate Heidegger's superior grasp of the sciences and mathematics, which adds to Heidegger's cunning. Heidegger attacks the transformation of philosophy into another specialized science or branch of learning. This Heidegger derisively calls a discipline limited to mere "content."' Here begins his open assault on the bogus metaphysical desire to attain "the formal level of an absolute science."61 It is in this sense that the hegemony of modern metaphysics and science entails the victory of "content" over more radically and authentically "questioning." What Heidegger's definition of "content" here again leaves silent, however, is the stylistic and rhetorical consequence his position must have for the articulation of radical questioning insofar as it relates to what he calls "the authority" of "silent persuasion."63 Although sometimes appearing critical about his own authority in the pedagogical situation, what matters more than any stated valorization is not only that he thus hints at his awareness of the ancient tradition of silent persuasion, but also that he is logically required to make use of it to recruit the new philosophical lifeblood inasmuch as authentic questioning per definitionem can never transpire at the level of "content." At Davos, the most attentive listeners, and not only Strauss, intuited that it was Heidegger's style that helped carry the day over Cassirer's "content."64 They may even have intuited that, in a sense, in exo/esotericism (exoteric) style is (esoteric) content,[ . . . .] (2) Mythic and symbolic sources: Cassirer attempted to be all-inclusive. Waite sees a problem in this he relates to Althusser's structural causality, but I don't get it. Whatever the problem is, "Cassirer and his followers simply cannot ground an exoteric theory of symbolic form on Goethe's profoundly esoteric definition of the symbolic." Let's see if you can make anything out of what follows: Put differently, if Cassirer (consciously or unconsciously) 'silently' with- held his full insight about his sources, including Goethe, so as to conceal his own inability to ground his entire project, and hence also to conceal his lack of an ethics, or if for him this concealment was for any reason necessary for conceptual and social cohesion against opposing forces (including fascist 620 POLITICAL THEORY / October 1998 irrationalism), then we confront a quite serious irony both for him and for any cultural studies that would ground itself on him, inasmuch as it has always already given up even asking the question of intentionality. For if Cassirer was silent about the esoteric dimension of his key sources, he himself would have been accepting and even using-consciously or not-the Heideggerian double rhetoric and its antecedents. If Rosen is right, this problem is not merely neo-Kantian (as in Nietzsche and Vaihinger) but properly Kantian as well.77 And deeper still it is Platonic, as Cassirer never understood.78 Cassirer was a marvelous reader (or, if you prefer, paraphraser) of the vast Western philosophical and cultural heritage (hence, his interest for cultural studies)-but only on its exoteric plane. He simply did not grasp exo/esotericism and, thus, had no weapons with which to debate Heidegger on his own turf. What is more, Cassirer was thus ripe to become an unwitting member of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian corps/e. Waite references Lenin, Sloterdijk, and Schelling, but this is way too inside an exposition for me to follow. Heidegger, understanding something about Schelling that Cassirer did not, was able to outmaneuver Cassirer. Furthermore, Heidegger was on to Cassirer, to know how to recruit the younger generation to his cause. There is a Nietzschean subtext here, and Nietzsche is basically terra incognita, when not anathema, to Cassirer. As Heidegger would have known from reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (1886), one of the few places Nietzsche identifies the problem of esotericism by name, at the very core of great philosophy (i.e., philosophy not found in "books for all the world which are always foul-smelling books, the smell of small people clinging to them") lies the fact that the exoteric-esoteric distinc- tion has been the founding principle of every society grounded on "order of rank"-and the one entails the other. This, Nietzsche continues, has been well known to all philosophers globally, giving as examples: "Indians as well as Greeks, Persians, and Muslims, in short, wherever one believed an order of rank, not in equality and equal rights."95 Typically, Nietzsche kept silent the specific consequences for his own rhetorical practice, preferring to produce and use, not mention, them. By leaving to readers the task of comparing Cassirer's remark to Nietzsche's, Heidegger offered certain cognoscenti a tacit but effective critique of Cassirer's ignorance of esotericism, without further exposing the great transhistorical and sociohistorical principle to public scrutiny. Heideggerian "courage" and "resoluteness" (philosophically legitimated already in Being and Time) entail an irreversible decision for exo/esoteri- cism-including, in his later "turn," after World War II, their supplemental replacement by "releasement" (Gelassenheit), which, however hardly, means a turn away from exo/esotericism. All of Heidegger's utterances are contin- gent on this prior decision-which may appear courageous, modestly with- drawn, or whatever else the situation demands. As we have seen, at Davos, Heidegger's key rhetorical trope in this regard had been that Kant, followed by Cassirer, "shrinks back" or "draws back in terror" in the face of his own discovery that he had unwittingly destroyed the foundation of reason. Eloquence and silence at Davos: It would be a mistake, however, to think (in 'Cartesian' fashion) that what is here being contested by Cassirer and Heidegger is a binary opposition, division of labor, or choice between two rational systems: with the one focusing on ontological origins, the other on ontic effects. Nor (pace an otherwise salutary remark by Peter Gay at the Yale Cassirer conference) was politics' in any obvious sense at stake, either. Rather, as Cassirer himself worried, Heidegger was using or appropriating Kantian reason to undermine not merely Kantian reason, but reason tout court. Like Nietzsche, he was seeking appropriately postrational-that is, sub- and surrational-modes of speaking and writing, and any constated 'political' stand he might take is subtended by the problem of how it can be performatively transmitted and received."0 Although Heidegger's decision for exo/esotericism can be viewed as an authentically politico-ontological act, on his own definition, by the same token no specific "content" of this act can be publicly expressed. For, as Heidegger had said a year later (in 1930), the " 'doctrine' of a thinker is what is unsaid in his saying, to which man is exposed so that he might expend himself for it.""' To repeat, not 'content' but 'style'-the eloquence of silence-is ultimately operative. Heidegger yadda yadda yadda, and: The Davos audience must have gasped silently, if not aloud. For it was clear to "everyone who had eyes" that Cassirer-his person, institution, and tradition-was suddenly being accused of inauthentic, cowardly, opportunistic parasitism. The rule of academic decorum had been irrevocably broken: in Nietzschean fashion the ad homi- nem had invaded philosophical disputation. It gets even more demented: A quasi-class distinction between the two debaters was visible and palpa- ble: on the one side of the podium there was the fifty-five-year-old haute- bourgeois, cosmopolitan, eloquent, conciliatory, immaculately dressed, white-haired, and momentarily ill-disposed Cassirer. On the other side stood a forty-year-old, swarthy, hale and hearty provincial Swabian citing impec- cable Greek. This overall impression was to be recalled by all present as a mechanically reiterated trope or mantra. Cassirer, it was said, looked like "reincarnated Goethe," whereas Heidegger was perceived as the reincarna- tion of nobody known, wearing what his Marburg students had dubbed his "existential suit," the "costume of his own invention"-part forester, part peasant.' " As he had made clear before the debate, Heidegger had come to Davos not least for the superb skiing. Now, such anecdotes are not as incidental or exclusively ad hominem as they may appear. Bourdieu has shown that they are an intimate part of the habitus that informs the "philo- sophical field" (le champ philosophique) generally, including battles such as 'Davos.' 116 And, as defined superbly by Kant, "[A]n argumentum ad homi- nem is an argument that obviously is not true for everyone, but still serves to reduce someone to silence."" Cassirer, like Kant, draws back in terror. Waite quotes Bourdieu but claims he is wrong in stating that Cassirer was not fooled. Cassirer was unable to escape from the trap of relativism or maintain his assertion of a common language or ground (extoteric) on which he and Heidegger could communicate. 1929 was also a turning point for the fate of Weimar. . . . . on the Kampfplatz der Metaphysik circa 1929 in the battle being waged over the next generation of select philosophers-Heidegger had to dispute Cassirer in a certain way. But, after having staked out the grounds on which recruitment could be carried out with reasonable hope of success, Cassirer was no longer as particularly interesting for Heidegger. Which is why Heidegger refused to continue the debate at Davos, and yet also felt perfectly comfortable months later when he invited Cassirer to speak at his own Freiburg (Cassirer chose to lecture on Rousseau, of all things). On the royal road to philosophy, noblesse oblige, particularly when the major opponents have been corps/ed and when, after Davos, 'the rumor of the hidden king' (Hannah Arendt) of philosophy was a rumor no longer.138 Sooner a public secret, if not noble lie. Liberal humanism, Enlightenment, and their 'publicity' are most useful, now and then, to maintain social cohesion when the Holderlinian gods have departed, the Nietzschean night of the soul is dark. And when political ontology stands poised-imperceptibly-to smash lib- eral humanism and Enlightenment from without and from within whenever the time is ripe and whenever it sees fit. Alternatively posed as questions: Is Heideggerian political ontology a structural component of humanism and Enlightenment, developing within them immanently but, as Cassirer might argue, as such in principle suscepti- ble to exoteric critique and self-critique? Or is instead political ontology an externally imposed, radical other, that always eludes detection even as it is being incorporated through esoteric means, as Heidegger would affirm? Or, as I am suggesting in this essay, is there a third alternative that can comprehend and combat both possibilities? Cassirer's later work The Myth of the State was hardly adequate to the task of grappling with the problem of fascism, and with the underlying violence of Heidegger's philosophy. When Cassirer concluded The Myth of the State (and his life work) by admitting that "it is beyond the power of philosophy to destroy the political myths," because "a myth is in a sense invulnerable . .. impervious to rational argu- ments," and hence "cannot be refuted by syllogisms,"'" he was still confirm- ing one of Heidegger's basic arguments, was still unwilling or incapable of taking the next step and asking how myth might then work so supremely well as illocutionary act and perlocutionary effect. For his part, Heidegger's exo/esoteric intervention in the Third Reich was capable of not just producing at that time what he notoriously called "the inner truth and greatness of the Movement" (i.e., national socialism)"45 but later reproducing his brand of fascism to live to fight another day exo/esoterically long after it had succumbed politically-as is the inevitable fate of any ontic phenomenon during the long march of the transhistory of Being. As helpless as virtually any isolated individual or philosopher is in the face of historical disaster, in The Myth of the State Cassirer could add only one qualification to his admission that "it is not in the power of philosophy to destroy the political myths": "But philosophy can do us another important service. It can make us understand the adversary better. In order to fight the enemy you must know him.... We should see the adversary face to face in order to know how to combat him."'46 The uncanny problem, however, is that this enemy may be us. And it is us, if grasping the exo/esoteric dimension of modern myth is indeed impossible, "impervious to rational arguments," and without our ability fully to know how the enemy debates, thinks, writes. One thing is certain. In 1929 Davos, Ernst Cassirer had met his enemy face to face-absolutely clueless about how to combat him effectively. And today this is the Cassirerian ball that is in 'our' court, including the conceptually foundationless court of cultural studies. Post-conference cabaret: But in one important respect Heidegger did not simply 'win' the Davos debate whereas Cassirer simply 'lost' it. In terms of class struggle (not to be conflated with political ideology), Cassirer and Heidegger always say the same thing-albeit the one exoterically, the other exo/esoterically. In this sense, they both won the real debate, the one 'extimate' to all academic philosophical disputes: the debate on behalf of capitalist interests. At the very end of the Davos event, a slapstick cabaret was organized with the inevitable caricature of the main participants. Levinas played the role of Cassirer. As for alternative positions, Waite concludes: Among the audience were several young self-described Marxists: including Alfred Sohn-Rethel, later the leading Frankfurt School economist, and Herbert Marcuse, although the latter was already swimming fast toward Heidegger's undertow."5' The record shows that they were all silent. But then vulgar Marxists-here defined as all those unaware of, and hence victims of, exo/esotericism-are always reduced to silence. And justly so. I conclude. Whatever will be the 'final' outcome of the encounter between Cassirer and Heidegger (i.e., their mutual victory disguised as a 'debate' 'won' by Heidegger), and whether any academic discipline could ever find its philosophical base or ethics in Cassirer and/or Heidegger, the present essay has attempted to rectify the evident vulgar Marxist silence-not only at Davos. My argument hardly amounts to a philosophy or an ethics that constitutes an effective opponent of capitalism, fascism, Stalinism, and exo/esotericism. But, drawing one line of demarcation, this may be one exoteric start. A footnote on Marxism and Neo-Kantianism: 66. Karl Kautsky, Ethics and the Materialistic Conception of History, 4th rev. ed., trans. J. R. Askew (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, n.d.), 160. As noted by Steven Lukes, Kautsky is one of very few Marxists to address the problem of ethics in any depth. And he did so within a problematic basically established by the Marburg neo-Kantians, including Cohen, Natorp, Lange, Stammler, Staudinger, and Vorlander-all of whom attempted "to supplement Marx with Kant, whose practical philosophy, they thought, could provide the ethical justification for the pursuit of the socialist goal" (Lukes, Marxism and Morality [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], 15). On this topic, see Timothy R. Keck, "Kant and Socialism: The Marburg School in Wilhelmian Germany" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1975); and Klaus Christian Kohnke, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Universitatsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986). As Lukes also points out, other Marxists who were influenced also by Kant (including the Austro-Marxism of Adler, Bauer, and Mach) did not share Kautsky's need for ethical grounding, and still others attempted to mediate the two positions. I would add that by his neglect of ethics, Cassirer was indirectly opposing this 'ethical' moment in socialism. At least he was neglecting ethics compared to Marburg neo-Kantians-most notably Cassirer's teacher, Hermann Cohen. As Pierre Bourdieu has put it, Cohen had "proposed a Socialist interpretation of Kant, in which the categorical imperative enjoining us to treat the other person [le personne d'autrui] as ends, not means, is interpreted as the moral program of the future" (L'ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger, 2nd rev. ed. [Paris: Minuit, 1988], 55-56). This mind-fuck of an article is truly remarkable, with lessons to be learned beyond the small circle of Waite's peers. It is also too delicious, that, comparing this to Friedman's work, the utter naivete of analytical philosophy is revealed in the process, whatever there may be to criticize in Waite. That Neo-Kantianism could have so much weight to pile a battle for the fate of the world onto it--boggles the mind for those of us alien to this mental universe. I knew Heidegger was a sick manipulative bastard, but I guess I will have to admit he was an evil genius, using all this erudition for bad ends, and fooling a lot of people to this day. But the real lesson of this forensic autopsy of intellectual history--we could make it into a TV series: CSI Freiburg--is that we ideology CSIs have to dig in to get to the bottom of this shit, because the entire intellectual tradition is our suspect. From jannuzi at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 04:10:40 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:10:40 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Issues with phoneme, with categorical perception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Issues with phonemes...cont. >>> CeJ < Minimal pairs, as I have already pointed out, would use lexical semantics to establish phonemes and then use phonemes to establish lexical semantics. ------ CB: I still don't quite understand what you mean on this.<<<< If you use minimal pairs like 'pill' and 'bill' (in English) to determine that there are separate sound categories (phonemes) /p/ and /b/ (in English) and then say that such sound categories determine lexical contrasts like 'pill' and 'bill', that is circular. Hence the shift to looking at devices like complementary distribution of allophones and then on to matrices of features (Jakobson worked with Halle, and then Halle worked with Chomsky). None of these static models work for speech perception, though all display a sort of beauty if you want to reduce language to a sub-lexical unit. The problem is, if that unit is not reflected in dynamic speech production, speech acoustics and speech perception, that unit might be simply not real. The failure of such models is not surprising. Think about what the structuralist phoneme is in their rhetoric. It is, at least some of the times, a static unit based on supposed sound contrasts that are supposed to result in contrast in meaning. It would be somewhat like saying that the reason a motion picture moves continuously as you perceive it is because, if you take any three frames, A, B, C, B you perceive to be B because you perceive it to be not A and not C. The phoneme--at least one version of it--is that it is a segment and yet spoken language is not produced nor perceived in these segments, however useful breaking language down into segments might be for writing/literacy and for linguistic analysis. >>CB:>>But they changed qualitatively when they became alphabetic and no longer pictographic. There was a revolution in their "descent" when they shifted to alphabetic. They qualitatively shifted from iconic to arbitrary representation.<< I doubt if they ever were truly iconic. ^^^ CB: Check out Mixtec or Aztec picture writing.<< I've got contradictory information on the literacy practices of Meso-America, so I will return to this at a later date. In the case of ME written scripts--which give us our 'western' and S. Asian alphabets--part of the shift to what you call arbitrary was a shift to syllabic-level representation. But I fail to see how that is anymore arbitrary than a word level or a 'phoneme' level. All are artificial impositions on language, but all are motivated by the realities of spoken language. The phoneme, however, is, along with the feature, the most divorced from the usual native speaker consciousness of their own spoken language--while the word is readily agreed to, as is the syllable. ^^^ >> In the shift to represent glottographic speech, the arbitrary quickly intrudes itself. ^^^^ CB: That's correct, and that's my point here. <<< But I would also point out that various types of linguistic motivation can also be discerned. If a language were entirely arbitrary, no one could understand it and make meaning using it. Imagine speaking in Morse code. ^^^ >>Chinese characters are in effect as arbitrary as a syllabary or an alphabet. ^^^ CB: No not as abitrary. That's why there are so many characters in Chinese writing.<< I fail to follow the reasoning. Chinese writing overall isolates and analyzes language at a word or morpheme level. But the written word is as motivated but also arbitrary as the written syllable or the written 'sound segment'. Chinese characters are often (wrongly) thought of as being ideographic and/or pictographic. There is an iconic aspect to some of them and their radicals, but the characters don't stand for ideas or pictures of things but rather encode (in the usual underdetermined manner) a text which can stand for a spoken language, shared by the writer and the reader, often referred to as 'Chinese'--that is, a form of glottographic writing. >>That is not to say, though, that any of these are ENTIRELY arbitrary. For example, quite unarbitrarily, English spelling points out word length ^^^^^^^ CB: I don't understand what you mean here<< Well for example, the longer a word is to say in English, overall, the longer it is to spell. In Japanese a four syllable word might be written with four syllabic figures, which might then be replaced by just one Chinese character. (Take for example my favorite brand of beer, Ebisu. That is 5 letters romanized, three syllables if written with syllabic characters, but ONE character written with a Chinese character. Think of language as a tension between the purely motivated and the purely arbitrary. Neither end of the spectrum would work for everyday communication. Working together and with each other, they extend each other and rein each other in. CJ From jannuzi at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 04:15:21 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:15:21 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity Message-ID: >>>>The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. ^^^^ CB: Are you saying said statements don't refer to things ?<<<< If I remember correctly, at least in Leibnizian logic, it could be stated in terms of things. If A and B are the same thing, then any property you specify of A is also true of B. I remember asking in Algebra class, though, when in the real world are two things ever the SAME thing? Being an identical twin, the issue interested me greatly. CJ From jannuzi at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 04:49:03 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:49:03 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So as not to keep it an affrontery to professional logicians, let me try that again. I think I got the order inverted. If the properties are the same, then x and y are the same object. The discussion here is good: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/#Form CJ From farmelantj at juno.com Tue Jul 8 05:51:46 2008 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:51:46 GMT Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Query concerning Jean van Heijenoort Message-ID: <20080708.075146.23400.1@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> I have received the following request from Rick Kuhn concerning Jean van Heijenoort, since I am unable to answer his question, I suggested to him that I should forward his request to discussion lists where there may be people who can. With his permission, this is what I am doing. Please note that Rick Kuhn's contact information is down at the bottom of this post. Jim F. ---------------------------- Dear Jim Farmelant I have seen that you have an interest in Jean van Heijenoort and hoped that you might be able and willing to help me. My particular interest is in connections between van Heijenoort, Bernice Shoul and Henryk Grossman. Shoul was an economist and a friend of van Heijenoort starting in the 1940s. She drew on the work of Henryk Grossman in several of her publications, as did van Heijenoort in 'La dialectique du capital' Revue internationale 2 (8) September 1946 pp. 124-136. He wrote this under the pseudonym Alex Barbon. Grossman, whose on the theory of economic crisis was very controversial, lived in New York from 1938 until 1948. This research is part of a project that resulted in my Henryk Grossman and the recovery of Marxism University of Illinois Press, Chicago 2007. Any information or leads you could provide would be very much appreciated. Best regards Rick Kuhn _____________________________________________________ School of Social Sciences/Arts phone +61 (2) 612-53851 Building 24 fax +61 (2) 612-52222 ANU ACT 0200; Rick.Kuhn at anu.edu.au Australia www.anu.edu.au/polsci/rick ____________________________________________________________ Fabulous Spa Getaway! Enter for your chance to WIN great beauty prizes everyday! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7Urp5LNePOggfyVAqQ9dowVbakvjeAvFgHHilmapN0jjHQt/ From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Tue Jul 8 16:23:58 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:23:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Query concerning Jean van Heijenoort Message-ID: <5581891.1215555838469.JavaMail.root@whwamui-soar.pas.sa.earthlink.net> This is the first I've heard of any of this. I have no information, but it sounds fascinating. I wish there were a quick way for me to get hold of this article: 'La dialectique du capital' Revue internationale 2 (8) September 1946 pp. 124-136. I think van H threw in the towel on Marxism in 1948, but apparently he was still at it in 1946. I remember the Grossman book coming out. I should put it on my want list. -----Original Message----- >From: "farmelantj at juno.com" >Sent: Jul 8, 2008 7:51 AM >To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Query concerning Jean van Heijenoort > > >I have received the following request from Rick Kuhn >concerning Jean van Heijenoort, since I am unable to >answer his question, I suggested to him that I should >forward his request to discussion lists where there >may be people who can. With his permission, this is >what I am doing. Please note that Rick Kuhn's >contact information is down at the bottom of >this post. > >Jim F. > >---------------------------- > >Dear Jim Farmelant > >I have seen that you have an interest in Jean van Heijenoort and hoped >that you might be able and willing to help me. My particular interest >is in connections between van Heijenoort, Bernice Shoul and Henryk >Grossman. Shoul was an economist and a friend of van Heijenoort >starting in the 1940s. She drew on the work of Henryk Grossman in >several of her publications, as did van Heijenoort in 'La dialectique >du capital' Revue internationale 2 (8) September 1946 pp. 124-136. He >wrote this under the pseudonym Alex Barbon. Grossman, whose on the >theory of economic crisis was very controversial, lived in New York >from 1938 until 1948. > >This research is part of a project that resulted in my Henryk Grossman >and the recovery of Marxism University of Illinois Press, Chicago 2007. > >Any information or leads you could provide would be very much >appreciated. > >Best regards > >Rick Kuhn > >_____________________________________________________ >School of Social Sciences/Arts phone +61 (2) 612-53851 >Building 24 fax +61 (2) 612-52222 >ANU ACT 0200; >Rick.Kuhn at anu.edu.au >Australia >www.anu.edu.au/polsci/rick > >____________________________________________________________ >Fabulous Spa Getaway! >Enter for your chance to WIN great beauty prizes everyday! >http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7Urp5LNePOggfyVAqQ9dowVbakvjeAvFgHHilmapN0jjHQt/ > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Tue Jul 8 16:43:30 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:43:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity Message-ID: <11838049.1215557011141.JavaMail.root@whwamui-soar.pas.sa.earthlink.net> The law of identity, as far as I am concerned, is about the non-contradictoriness of statements, or more precisely, propositions. The fact that something changes from moment to moment is irrelevant; the question is whether one makes consistent sets of statements or not. The notion of the REALITIES about which statements being made being contradictory only makes sense when it is impossible to remove contradictions from one's statements about reality. Change in time or space is no longer logically contradictory in the realm of mathematics. Much of the Marxist specialist literature has long become more sophisticated about the nature of dialectical contradictions, which are really more about categories than futzing with the law of identity or the BS dialectical laws. Here's one in to the question: Graham Priest vs Erwin Marquit on Contradiction http://autodidactproject.org/my/priest-limits-3.html And: Dialectics Bout: Richard Norman vs. Sean Sayers by R. Dumain http://autodidactproject.org/my/norman-sayers.html Too bad the damage done by party literature has hit too deep to be undone. What is puzzling why people who know better still peddle the standard diamat propaganda. Contrast for example, Marquit's own articles with his republication of John Somerville's piece-of-shit intro to Marxist philosophy. The only way I can account for this is the brain damage done by the groveling and bootlicking to Moscow, Peking, or Trotsky over the decades, which invariably results in brain damage. -----Original Message----- >From: CeJ >Sent: Jul 8, 2008 6:15 AM >To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity > >>>>>The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. > >^^^^ >CB: Are you saying said statements don't refer to things ?<<<< > >If I remember correctly, at least in Leibnizian logic, it could be >stated in terms of things. If A and B are the same thing, then any >property you specify of A is also true of B. I remember asking in >Algebra class, though, when in the real world are two things ever the >SAME thing? Being an identical twin, the issue interested me greatly. > >CJ > From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Tue Jul 8 16:43:36 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:43:36 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity Message-ID: <16917542.1215557016513.JavaMail.root@whwamui-soar.pas.sa.earthlink.net> The law of identity, as far as I am concerned, is about the non-contradictoriness of statements, or more precisely, propositions. The fact that something changes from moment to moment is irrelevant; the question is whether one makes consistent sets of statements or not. The notion of the REALITIES about which statements being made being contradictory only makes sense when it is impossible to remove contradictions from one's statements about reality. Change in time or space is no longer logically contradictory in the realm of mathematics. Much of the Marxist specialist literature has long become more sophisticated about the nature of dialectical contradictions, which are really more about categories than futzing with the law of identity or the BS dialectical laws. Here's one in to the question: Graham Priest vs Erwin Marquit on Contradiction http://autodidactproject.org/my/priest-limits-3.html And: Dialectics Bout: Richard Norman vs. Sean Sayers by R. Dumain http://autodidactproject.org/my/norman-sayers.html Too bad the damage done by party literature has hit too deep to be undone. What is puzzling why people who know better still peddle the standard diamat propaganda. Contrast for example, Marquit's own articles with his republication of John Somerville's piece-of-shit intro to Marxist philosophy. The only way I can account for this is the brain damage done by the groveling and bootlicking to Moscow, Peking, or Trotsky over the decades, which invariably results in brain damage. -----Original Message----- >From: CeJ >Sent: Jul 8, 2008 6:15 AM >To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity > >>>>>The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. > >^^^^ >CB: Are you saying said statements don't refer to things ?<<<< > >If I remember correctly, at least in Leibnizian logic, it could be >stated in terms of things. If A and B are the same thing, then any >property you specify of A is also true of B. I remember asking in >Algebra class, though, when in the real world are two things ever the >SAME thing? Being an identical twin, the issue interested me greatly. > >CJ > From jannuzi at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 19:26:20 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:26:20 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Meso-American literacy Message-ID: CB: >>Check out Mixtec or Aztec picture writing.<< In their most developed forms for representing glottographic language, the scripts and texts to check out are Mayan and Zapotec. The problem I have with interpreting Mixtec writing as 'pictorial' as a way to represent a language is the much-too-much limited corpus. You could say the same thing about Aztec writing too. One thing that has helped with the decipering of Mayan glyphs is the fact that millions of people still speak languages which descend from the languages that underlie and motivate ancient Mayan writing and scripts. I'm not sure what picture writing in Mixtec or Aztec actually represented in everyday life, as the artifacts are so limited. But it is interesting to note that written Mayan evolved into a logo-syllabic system that in its mixed representational principles (word and phonological/phonetic, at a syllable level) parallels Japanese. To me that might mean that ancient Mayan itself is a language resulting from the collision and mixing of other languages (possibly not even related languages). Or it could mean that however intuitive using word-symbols is, if the language is highly inflected and multi-syllabic, a syllabic level of representation is also useful for making written language function as written communication for people who can speak or at least understand a common language (or a related group of dialects and languages). At any rate, a pictorial level (though the shift to a rebus principle is one way to extend it) is insufficient for glottographic writing, though I guess it could be agreed Mixtec and Aztec represent some interesting attempts to test the limits. http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html >>Among one of the common cultural traits found in many Mesoamerican groups is writing. In fact, Mesoamerica is the only place in the Americas where indigenous writing systems were invented and used before European colonization. While the types of writing systems in Mesoamerica range from minimalist "picture-writing" to complex logophonetic systems capable to recording speech and literature, they all share some core features that make them visually and functionally distinct from other writing systems of the world.<< >>Common Features of Mesoamerican Writing Systems The most distinguishable feature of all Mesoamerican scripts is the highly intricate and pictorial form of signs. They are often called "hieroglyphic" in analogy to Egyptian hieroglyphs since their symbols are highly pictorial. For this reason, a sign from a Mesoamerican scripts is often called a "glyph", as a short form of "hieroglyph". Visually, Mesoamerican scripts resemble each other, and share many similar glyphs. This is primarily due to the fact that many Mesoamerican glyphs bear resemblance to real objects such as animals, people, natural features, etc, albeit in a stylized fashion. Often animals and humans appear as "portraits" in that only the heads of these creatures are drawn, but in few cases "full-body" glyphs are also used. Human body parts, especially arms and legs, are also used extensively to denote action, or verbs if used as grammatical structures. Other times glyphs appear as complex geometrical shapes like circles, rectangles, cross-hatches, etc. << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_script >>The Maya script, also known as Maya hieroglyphs, was the writing system of the pre-Columbian Maya civilization of Mesoamerica, presently the only deciphered Mesoamerican writing system. The earliest inscriptions which are identifiably Maya date to the 3rd century BCE,[1] and writing was in continuous use until shortly after the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores in the 16th century CE (and even later in isolated areas such as Tayasal). Maya writing used logograms complemented by a set of syllabic glyphs, somewhat similar in function to modern Japanese writing. Maya writing was called "hieroglyphics" or "hieroglyphs" by early European explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries who did not understand it but found its general appearance reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs, to which however the Maya writing system is not at all related.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/zapotec.html >>Unlike later Mixtec and Aztec scripts, Zapotec was much more textual, possibly capable of representing sentences. Zapotec very well could be a logophonetic writing system, but likely not as extensively phonetic as epi-Olmec or Maya. For instance, the number of non-calendrical glyphs range between 80 to 90, making it possible that Zapotec contained a mixture of logograms and phonograms. Also, the way signs are joined into compounds might indicate affixes, possibly spelled out phonetically, attached to a root logogram to form a noun or verb phrase. Some tantalizing clues come from Javier Urcid, whose studies have shown that possible instances of homophonic principle, or "rebus writing", are used in naming personages. He also demonstrated that grammatical constructs (like short sentences) might be present in some monuments (which you will see below).<< >>The Zapotec system very likely was the source of the Mixtec system, which is characterized by a highly pictorial and minimal set of logograms, and by the use of the rebus principle for rough phonetic spelling of names. In fact, the Zapotec writing system started to be replaced by the early form of Mixtec script by the 10th century CE. When the Spanish conquistadores arrived in Oaxaca in the 16th century CE, the Zapotec script has long been forgotten, although the Zapotec language continues to be spoken to this date.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/mixtec.html >>Even though surrounded by more textual writing systems, the Mixtecs opted to write in a more minimalistic manner. Mixtec "writing" is really an amalgam of written signs and pictures. In particular, pictorial scenes would depict historical events such as birth, marriage, coronation, war, and death, while written glyphs would record the date of the event and identify the people and places involved.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/aztec.html >>You might find that from the above examples that the way to read place names is complicated and not straightforward to modern eyes. Signs could be polyvalent, such as the "hill" sign which can stand for both can and tepec. Glyphs in a place name are not always read in a linear fashion but could jump from one end to another. And sometimes, visual metaphors come into play, such as the position of glyphs itself representing a sound. It is true that for the most part this system did not record human speech or long texts, and it might seem to be not a true writing system. However, it does exhibit a lot of regular rules and conventions. The seemingly random reading order often can be inferred by the knowledge of language and naming convention. Signs used for phonetic values are not randomly drawn from the logograms but actually from a very predictable and minimal set. But, most of all, since the knowledge of the underlying language, Nahuatl, is essential to fully interpret the glyphs, the Aztec script most certainly classifies as a writing system.>> From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 9 14:46:57 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Patriotic Ballad Uncut and Wet Message-ID: <4874EB81.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 9 15:48:01 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:48:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] PAX ROMANA Message-ID: <4874F9D1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Reflections by comrade Fidel http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2008/ing/f050708i.html PAX ROMANA I basically drew these data from statements made by William Brownfield, US ambassador to Colombia, from that country?s press and television, from the international press, and other sources. It?s impressive the show of technology and economic resources at play. While in Colombia the senior military officers went to great pains to explain that Ingrid Betancourt?s rescue had been an entirely Colombian operation, the US authorities were saying that ?it was the result of years of intense military cooperation of the Colombian and United States? armies.? ??The truth is that we have been able to get along as we seldom have in the United States, except with our oldest allies, mostly in NATO,? said Brownfield, referring to his country?s relationships with the Colombian security forces, which have received over 4 billion USD in military assistance since the year 2000.? ??on various occasions it became necessary for the US Administration to make decisions at the top levels concerning this operation. ?The US spy satellites helped in locating the hostages during a month period starting on May 31st until the rescue action on Wednesday.? ?The Colombians installed video surveillance equipment, supplied by the United States. Operated by remote control, these can take close-ups and pan along the rivers which are the only transportation routes through thick forests, said the Colombian and US authorities.? ?US surveillance aircraft intercepted the rebels? radio and satellite phone talks and used imaging equipment that can break through the forest foliage.? ??The defector will receive a considerable sum of the close to one- hundred-million-dollars reward offered by the government?, stated the Commander General of the Colombian Army.? On Wednesday, July 1st, the London BBC reported that Cesar Mauricio Velasquez, press secretary at Casa de Nari?o (Colombian Government House) had informed that delegates from France and Switzerland had met with Alfonso Cano, chief of the FARC. According to the BBC, that would be the first contact with international delegates accepted by the new chief after the death of Manuel Marulanda. The false information of the meeting of two European envoys with Cano had been released in Bogota. The deceased leader of the FARC had been born on May 12, 1932, according to his father?s testimony. Marulanda, a poor peasant with a liberal thinking and a Gaitan follower, had started his armed resistance 60 years back. He was a guerrilla before us; he had reacted to the carnage of peasants carried out by the oligarchy. The Communist Party he later joined, the same as every other in Latin America, was under the influence of the Communist Party of the USSR and not of Cuba. They were in solidarity with our Revolution but they were not subordinated to it. It was the drug-traffickers and not the FARC that unleashed terror in that sister nation as part of their feuds over the United States market. They caused powerful bomb blasts and even blew up trucks loaded with plastic explosives destroying facilities and injuring or killing countless people. The Colombian Communist Party never contemplated the idea of conquering power through the armed struggle. The guerrilla was a resistance front and not the basic instrument to conquer revolutionary power, as it had been the case in Cuba. In 1993, at the 8th FARC Conference, they decided to break ranks with the Communist Party. Its leader, Manuel Marulanda, took over the leadership of that Party?s guerrillas which had always excelled in their narrow sectarianism when admitting combatants as well as in their strong and compartmented commanding methods. Marulanda, a man with a remarkable natural talent and a leader?s gift, did not have the opportunity to study when he was young. It is said that he had only completed the 5th grade of grammar school. He conceived a long and extended struggle; I disagreed with this point of view. But, I never had the chance to talk with him. The FARC became considerable strong with over 10 thousand combatants. Many had been born during the war and had known nothing else. Other leftist organizations rivaled the FARC in the struggle. By then the Colombian territory had become the largest source of cocaine production in the world. Then, extreme violence, kidnappings, taxes and demands from the drug producers became widespread. The paramilitary forces, armed by the oligarchy, drew basically from the great amount of men enlisted in the country?s armed forces who were discharged from duty every year without a secure job. These created in Colombia a very complex situation with only one way out: real peace, albeit remote and difficult as many other goals Humanity have set itself. This is the option that, for three decades, Cuba has advocated for that nation. While our journalists meeting in their 8th Congress debated on the new technologies of information, the principles and ethic of social communicators, I meditated on the abovementioned developments. I have expressed, very clearly, our position in favor of peace in Colombia; but, we are neither in favor of foreign military intervention nor of the policy of force that the United States intends to impose at all costs on that long-suffering and industrious people. I have honestly and strongly criticized the objectively cruel methods of kidnapping and retaining prisoners under the conditions of the jungle. But I am not suggesting that anyone laid down their arms, when everyone who did so in the last 50 years did not survive to see peace. If I dared suggest anything to the FARC guerrillas that would simply be that they declare, by any means possible to the International Red Cross, their willingness to release the hostages and prisoners they are still holding, without any precondition. I do not intend to be heard; it is simply my duty to say what I think. Anything else would only serve to reward disloyalty and treason. I will never support the pax romana that the empire tries to impose on Latin America. Fidel Castro Ruz July 5, 2008 8:12 p.m. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 9 16:11:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:11:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Elections in the US Message-ID: <4874FF36.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> GRANMA July 8, 2008 Elections in the United States Obama's Plan to Win RAMON SANCHEZ-PARODI MONTOTO* Most commentators and analysts coincide that following the process of US primary elections, Barack Obama is the candidate to beat in the November 4 elections. Signs supporting this observation are strong. John McCain will have to carry out an uphill battle if he wants to succeed George W. Bush at the White House beginning January 20, 2009. Recent events and data help demonstrate Obama's strategy for winning and the circumstances in which he should develop it. Money is the essential factor for a candidate who aspires to win the election in the United States. And we're talking about big money. According to calculations, more than one billion dollars has already been spent in the 2008 presidential elections and another billion will probably be spent over the next five months. Here, an expression attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte can be applied: "Money, money and money are the three things I need to win the war." That's the reason why, despite his promises of the opposite, Obama announced as expected on June 19 that he would reject the option of accepting the federal funds for the campaign and would resort to collecting the money through his own means. It's hardly surprising when you take into account that if he accepted the federal financing he could have only spent some 85 millions beginning September (complemented by another 85 million from his own sources), while it's calculated that, upon rejecting federal funds, his campaign could collect between 300 and 500 million dollars to be spent in the same time period. Added to that boost, is the support the campaign will receive from the two largest labor organizations in the United States, the AFL-CIO (56 trade unions with 9 million affiliates) and Change to Win (6 million affiliates). The first just decided to back Obama after remaining neutral during the primary elections, and the latter had already thrown its support to Obama. All in all, the two organizations have some 300 million dollars to spend of their own during the campaign. As an example of what this support could represent, the American Federation of County, State and Municipal Employees (AFCSME) which groups non-federal public employees, joined the liberal organization MoveOn.org and invested 543,000 dollars in one week of advertisements broadcast by CNN and MSNBC, aimed at attacking McCain's political positions, especially in the neighboring states of Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In this way, Obama will have funds to have some type of organization and presence in all fifty US states. This is an essential element to project his strategy in the 15 "red" states (that traditionally vote Republican) and "purple" swing states he hopes to win, in all of which he will maintain professional teams and invest funds in ad campaigns in the mass media. He will also have at his disposal enough money to work on the "blue" (traditionally Democratic Party) states and particularly in those he considers necessary to defend from McCain's attempts to snatch them from him. A total of 10,000 volunteers have already been sent to these states to work. In the 14 states won by Bush and that Obama hopes to capture in these elections, there are four that will receive maximum attention: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio and Nevada (All of them are "purple" swing states that together contribute 37 electoral votes). Half of the other ten are also "purple" (Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana y Georgia - 65 electoral votes) and the other five are "red" (Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Indiana and Alaska - 45 electoral votes). Obama's campaign aims at maintaining a "purple" state that was won by John Kerry in 2004: New Hampshire, with four electoral votes. That's why it wasn't by sheer chance that Obama and Clinton made their first joint appearance in the electoral campaign on June 27 in the small town of Unity, New Hampshire. It was a good opportunity for the two of them to speak during their 70 minutes of flight and 60 minutes by road between Washington DC and Unity. (Despite representing few electoral votes, it's a state where McCain has a strong base). Additionally, in Nebraska, a "red" state, Obama's objective is to win the second congressional district (the city of Omaha and its surroundings) where the Republican incumbent will not compete for the seat and a strong Democrat candidate is presented. The reason for this is that, unlike what happens in other states, Nebraska's five electoral votes are won according to the presidential candidate that obtains the majority of votes in a given district. To win district two would mean an electoral vote for Obama, which could be decisive in a tough election. Lastly, Obama's strategy includes the defense of the "blue" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (48 electoral votes) which McCain's campaign is working to win in November. If Obama achieved all those objectives, absolutely a "mission impossible" he would mean win the election by a landslide. The way things are at the moment, there are signs that Obama is ahead of McCain and that's expressed in some recent surveys, although there are substantial differences with respect to the magnitude of this lead. In two national surveys taken in June, the results of presidential preference varied from 47% for Obama and 42% for McCain by Reuters/Zogby, to another showing 51% for Obama and 36% for McCain. Obama's main disadvantages in terms of electoral preference lie in being seen as inexperienced in governmental management, or for his "weird" name, or lack of confidence due to his "background." The ethnic aspect is an issue that raises the sensitivity of a substantial part of voters, but the effect it has on the decision of black and white people at the time of voting doesn't reveal, according to surveys, a great difference in the way they previously voted for Democrat presidential candidates. An important element for Obama's hopes is the development of the fusion of his campaign organization with Hillary Clinton's, so he can win the vote of those who supported her in the primaries. The most recent surveys indicate that 53% of them would vote for Obama and more than 20% for McCain. A renowned lawyer from Washington, Robert Barnett -who has negotiated contracts worth millions of dollars for the publication of books on the Clinton's and of Obama- is acting as an intermediary between the two groups to define crucial issues such as how to pay off Hillary's campaign debt; the role William Clinton will play; the way Hillary and her delegates will participate in the National Democrat Convention: if Hillary's name is written even symbolically as an aspirant to the nomination, how would delegates favoring Hillary feel, and other logistic aspects. A campaign baptized as "United for Change" has been launched to stress the need of unity between the two groups. In that direction some 3,000 meetings have been scheduled in homes in the 50 states. *The author is a specialist in International Relations and was the head of the Cuban Interest Section in the United States from September, 1977 to April, 1989. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 9 16:18:15 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fish fossils plug hole in evolutionary theory Message-ID: <487500E7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Fish fossils plug hole in evolutionary theory Previous message: [Marxism] Query concerning Jean van Heijenoort Next message: [Marxism] Dog Wags Tail, Bites Nobody Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Julie Steenhuysen CHICAGO (Reuters) - Some odd-looking fish fossils discovered in the bowels of several European museums may help solve a lingering question about evolutionary theory, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday. The 50 million-year-old fossils -- which have one eye near the top of their heads -- help explain how flatfish such as flounder, sole and halibut developed the strange but useful trait of having both eyes on one side. For flatfish, which lie on their sides at the bottom of the sea, this arrangement gives them the use of two watchful eyes. But the trait has posed a problem for evolutionary biologists because no one had found any so-called transitional fossils -- fossils showing intermediate steps in the evolution of this trait. "The important thing about this study is it delivers evidence of those intermediates," said Matt Friedman of The Field Museum and the University of Chicago, whose study appears in the journal Nature. This missing link in the evolution of flatfishes has been seen as a hole in the theory of natural selection. The argument is that intermediate forms of these fish could not exist because there would be no survival benefit from having one eye that was slightly off center, but still on the opposite side of the head. Biologists have theorized that maybe the changes occurred all at once with a large-scale mutation. According to this popular "hopeful monster" theory, flatfishes developed this weird trait, which luckily turned out to be very useful. Friedman's find now suggests that flatfishes followed a more conventional evolutionary plan. "There was no macromutation that all of a sudden gave them both eyes on the same side of the head," he said in a telephone interview. complete article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/sc_nm/fish_fossils_dc_1 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 9 18:28:01 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:28:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] History and Human Existence (1) Message-ID: Miller, James. History and Human Existence: from Marx to Merleau-Ponty. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. I picked up this book for a few bucks at a used book store yesterday. Never heard of it before, and I'm guessing it long ago disappeared down the memory hole of history. Yet it fits in perfectly with my intensive research on a number of fronts in the past few weeks, which I'll get to momentarily. It also unwittingly illustrates something all too obvious, the abandonment by "left" intellectuals of Marxism, which ultimately means capitulation to the rule of unreason and barbarism. That this book was published at the end of the '70s and ends with Merleau-Ponty I think is quite significant. Such a book could not get published today, since the radical chic intelligentsia abandoned Marxism somewhere in the 1980s and moved on to postmodernism. Now Marxism has always been mixed up with other intellectual streams, from Darwinism to Nietzscheanism to Neo-Kantianism to positivism to Freudianism to neopositivism to phenomenology to existentialism to structuralism to analytical Marxism and other trends I've surely left out. So the engagement with various intellectual trends is not nor should it be a novelty, nor is there necessarily any legitimate entity such as "Marxism" that deserves to be preserved in its purity. Marxism was always in trouble the minute it became "Marxism", and all of its major problems were in play by the end of the 19th century. Yet when Marxism, i.e. the centrality of the fundamental class structure of society and the prospects for the creation of a rational society drop out of the picture--for intellectuals this means theoretical perspective--the vacuum created results in a loss for the prospects of humanity on planet Earth--severely imperiled at this crucial moment--and also a loss and imperilment of the capacity of human reason itself. Miller wonders about the capacity to institute reason in human society, tied in with the viability of the prospect of a socialist society. His emphasis is an essential one: the centrality of the human individual and the development of his and her capacities in the process of social emancipation--which he puts at the center of Marx's project, a theme too often obscured by the collectivist nonsense peddled as Marxism. Miller reviews a lineage of thinkers which will be familiar to the majority of my readers, yet his concise and lucid adumbration of their ideas and the essential problems they faced philosophically and politically, in a concentrated narrative, is very useful in summing up the interplay of rationality and irrationality, optimism and pessimism, social analysis and metaphysics, over the past century and a half. PART ONE: MARX Miller summarizes Marx's social theory and the role of alienated labor and the prospects for free individuality within it, and points up the ambiguities in Marx, for example: is Marx's theory a science; does Marx's theory convincingly argue for the conclusive overcoming of entrapment within capitalism, or does it in the end only prove the impossibility of escaping from social conditioning in class society? All in all, Marx comes down on the side of revolutionary rationalism; i.e. people ultimately are capable of acting in their rational interest. PART TWO: FROM ENGELS TO GRAMSCI Miller applied the usual criticisms of Engels, but doesn't go too far, and keeps him on the side of Marx rather than on the side of the Second International, where Marxist theory's basic weaknesses are instituted. Much more could be said about Engels's theoretical contribution and his philosophical interventions. Marxist philosophy, while often falling down on the job as a constructive enterprise, has always excelled in its criticisms of bourgeois philosophy, and Engels' interventions into the confusions and obfuscations of the late 19th century hodgepodge of science and speculation deserve more considered attention. As Marxism is definitively elevated to a science with "materialism" as its foundational principle, and history is seen as lawful a process as the processes of nature, the role of human subjectivity and freedom in a deterministic universe becomes ever more problematic. To the extent that orthodox Marxism is philosophical, the major philosophers of this trend are Plekhanov and Labriola, with Kautsky holding the line. Hilferding made Marxist theory value-free. Bernstein ineptly fought this tendency via the untenable dualism of Neo-Kantianism. The most sophisticated response to revisionism, as Miller sees it, is Max Adler's introduction of subjective teleology into the mix. (118) Lenin comes in for the usual drubbing, and his notebooks on Hegel are not seen to substantiate ameliorate Lenin's position, not to mention that Lenin accelerates political nastiness in philosophical debates to an unheard-of level. While Lenin's more voluntarist politics seems to contradict a fatalist view of historical development, Lenin's perspective actually reinforces the passivity of the proletariat, esp. viz. the scientific perspective monopolized by the party intelligentsia (a tendency with its roots in Kautsky's orthodoxy). The emancipation of the individual, and with it, democracy, disappears from Lenin's purview. While there is a certain merit in Miller's critique, his dismissal of Lenin as philosopher is unwarranted. For example, he neglects the import of Lenin's struggle against positivism and the mystification of the revolutions in physics. (Those who refer to Second and/or Third International Marxism as positivistic need to be precise about their meaning.) As for Lenin's politics and view of the vanguard party, the situation is more complicated, both conceptually and in practice, before and after the 1917 revolution. The next upsurge of revolutionary rationalism is exemplified by Luxemburg, Lukacs, and Gramsci. I don't recall whether Miller specifically makes this claim, but it appears here as in many other writings that Rosa Luxemburg represents the highest point reached during the period of the Second International. Lukacs of course is the fount of the resurrection of Marxist philosophy following the First World War. Korsch and the Council Communists (Pannekoek) only come in for passing mention, and then Gramsci gets the spotlight. Gramsci virtually renounces the scientific pretensions of Marxism to pose a historically uncertain outcome of the struggle for socialism against barbarism. Now none of this is new to you and probably seems trite as I summarize it. But remember, this recapitulates what was learning in the English-speaking world by the end of the '70s, and more importantly, though Miller's analysis is abbreviated in several respects, the ideas he pinpoints he succeeds in explaining succinctly and well, especially in view of his overall project, which is about the relationship between individuation and social development. PART THREE: EXISTENTIAL MARXISM We begin here with the incorporation of irrationalist tendencies into Marxist theory, which emphasize subjectivity, unreason, radical contingency, social ossification and social pessimism. Influences include Kierkegaard, Bergson, Sorel, and above all, Nietzsche. Nietzsche emphasizes not only the sovereignty of the (exceptional) individual but disintegration as the defining tendency of contemporary society. "While he promulgated an important series of affirmative doctrines, such as the will to power and eternal recurrence, his decisive significance for social theory derives not so much for his positive ontology, which valued whatever enhances life, as from his negative teaching, and, above all, his insight into the modern epoch. (141) Nietzsche cast doubt on the optimistic perspective of the Enlightenment. I will grant Nietzsche his due in certain areas, but social theory is not one of them. Weber thought Nietzsche and Marx to be the two paramount influences of his time. Nietzsche uncovers the fearful nature of society and the individual's passions and creates a chaotic picture of existence that inherently challenges all conceptions of an orderly universe of either a divine or secular nature. (143) It is quite understandable why Nietzsche would be such an eye-awakening presence in an ideological culture that repressed the subterranean impulses and tabooed underbelly of psyche and society. But to me this is just another manifestation of a void in late 19th century (and much of 20th century) bourgeois culture which would sprout a Nietzsche but which Nietzsche in my mind does not properly fill. (What's so disgusting now is how advanced bourgeois decadence is the way it is taking over the humanities, so that now Nietzsche is cultural capital for the most corrupt opportunist elements of Ivy League Black Studies, or should I say "African American" in keeping with the buppification of the black academic intelligentsia.) Well, before Freud, what was there but Nietzsche? But now we come to the man I would call the third great modern philosopher of subjectivity, Husserl. Then comes the macabre development of phenomenology in the hands of Heidegger, who ends up exerting a decisive influence on Neo-Marxism. Next comes a short excursion into Critical Theory, specifically Marcuse, Adorno, and Horkheimer. Amongst the three of them taken together, the most comprehensive engagement with contemporary philosophy and social theory was achieved to date. Horkheimer and Adorno were ambivalent in their engagement with existentialism, life-philosophy, and the like, both criticizing and recognizing these philosophies, in accord with their fluctuating assessments of the possibility of social emancipation. Yet all three still maintained a prioritization of reason, an orientation that was severely battered by the rise of fascism and World War II. Miller briefly summarizes the individual trajectories of these three thinkers. Miller concludes: "The unflinching loyalty of the Hegelio-Marxist form of rationalism helped keep a critical Marxist philosophy alive throughout the thirties and forties. At the same time, though, their allegiance, however qualified, to Hegelian modes of thought, as well as their apparent belief that Freud had essentially solved "the problem of the subject," helped limit their philosophical reconsideration of subjectivity." (155) Miller maintains that the most far-reaching engagement of Marxism with subjectivity was effected by Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. I am skeptical with respect to Sartre, as I find his efforts far inferior to those of any member of the Frankfurt School even on a bad day. But perhaps we shall see why Miller makes this claim. Sartre is the first figure since Engels to get a whole chapter to himself, and Miller does an excellent job of explicating the stages of Sartre's philosophical development, demonstrating at every point the irresolvable contradictions of Sartre's perspective. Perhaps Miller thinks that Sartre is close to the summit in engaging subjectivity because no matter how much Sartre incorporates the social (which apparently reaches its maximum in Sartre's study of Flaubert), in the final analysis all of Sartre's philosophy is predicated on the project of the individual, an emphasis which sets an all-time record for Marxism. Sartre's revolutionary elan notwithstanding, the actual portrait he paints of ineluctable interpersonal conflict renders the prospects for revolutionary transformation of society quite dodgy. The summit of Sartre's philosophical attempt to fuse existentialism with Marxism is reached in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. Sartre undertakes a philosophical anthropology to provide a foundation for answering the question, "What makes history possible?". But now Miller wonders: "Oddly, Sartre never clarified why Marxism so obviously needed a priori support--unless he felt that Marx's image of the future could be sustained in no other fashion. To be sure, he did not undertake a logical deduction of the dialectic in the Critique, but he did propose an ontological deduction; in order for History to be possible, man must be a being of praxis, characterized by "need, transcendence and the project." Since he also derived praxis from scarcity, presumably a contingent rather than necessary circumstance of human affairs, he hedged his bets. Apparently, his philosophical anthropology was necessary a priori merely for this historical world--the only one we happen to know." (184-5) At this point I have to say that of all the philosophers attempting to think their way beyond the straightjacket of orthodoxy, none can compare to the Frankfurt School--to put it bluntly: not any 10 most celebrated French philosophers put together. But I am unfamiliar with the work of Merleau-Ponty, who, at least at the beginning of the final chapter (to be followed by an Epilogue), is far more appealing than Sartre and other phenomenologists and Kantians. We shall see how this chapter turns out. Now all this is old stuff, and those of you familiar with it may be bored to tears just reading a rehash of it again. Yet I think that, my usual nitpicking aside, this book serves very well as an explication of the ideas it incorporates and thus could certainly serve to introduce new people to these streams of thought and the issues they were designed to grapple with. But just as importantly, this narrative concentrates and highlights a fundamental historical as well as intellectual tension operant within the past century and a half. Consider the dynamic tension at work: (1) the conflict between the rational and irrational dimensions of human existence, and their reflection in competing philosophical traditions and their hybrids; (2) the alternation between empirical (scientific?) and philosophical analyses of society and the individual; (3) the interventions of scientific and metaphysical perspectives in the process of both stimulating revolution and coping with frustration and defeat. Now, all of this is framed in the book by an emphasis on the individual subject within the social and revolutionary process, which Miller finds central in Marx as opposed to much of Marxism. I think this is a valid emphasis for a book, for several books. But let me add one important observation: in the treatment of the individual, with the exception of references to the would-be science of psychoanalysis, the individual is approached exclusively from the standpoint of philosophy. Now if you were going to read serious treatments of individual thought and behavior intended for a popular audience and published in the USA over the past half century, you would find at various times an emphasis on psychoanalysis, behavioral psychology, the effects of advertising and techniques of persuasion on mass psychology, the institutionalization of conformity and alienation (the "organization man", the "lonely crowd", etc.), experimental psychology, evolutionary biology, neurophysiology, cognitive science, etc.--some trends fading into the background in time, others more recently coming to the fore. Of course, there is plenty of philosophizing of various sorts, mostly sordid, but pop versions of real philosophies as well. My point though is, if social structures can be analyzed scientifically because such analysis can to some extent (I assert this only provisionally) get away without a philosophical foundation for human agency, why not apply allegedly scientific procedures to the analysis of the individual, which was at least part of the program of the Frankfurt School, not to mention nothing essentially new at all for Kautsky? Why pitch one's tent in philosophy in the final analysis? Why phenomenology? I don't think this is an impenetrable mystery, but it poses an essential question on a number of fronts, regardless of the object of analysis. Naturalizing epistemology, for example, comes into question here. And, overall, the tension between naturalism and the philosophies of subjectivity. It seems that the ghost of Kant continues to haunt the world. I don't think philosophy and empirical analysis can ever fully collapse into one, nor do I think they can remain apart. And there is not only knowledge, and not only even the absence of knowledge, but ideology, or our subjective relation to what is known and what we are. Is philosophy, though, destined to be the last stand, an ark perched on Ararat as the world is consumed by the Flood? It seems this has happened time and time again, and surely we cannot rest content with this. Let's just hope we still have a choice. I think this book is a suitable addition to my guide in progress to the interplay of rationalism and irrationalism in bourgeois thought: Positivism vs Life Philosophy (Lebensphilosophie) From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 9 21:45:03 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama & Nietzsche & Leiter, sittin' in a tree . . . Message-ID: I never thought a great deal of Brian Leiter, particularly his ridiculous efforts to recruit Nietzsche into the one-foot-in-the-grave regiments of analytical philosophy, but now I'm convinced he's a fucking idiot, incarnating the triple imbecility of analytical philosophers, continental philosophers, and Obamaniacs. How utterly worthless, how useless and clueless these overprivileged, academic pseudo-liberals really are. The only thing worse than being a whore for the Democratic Party, or a whore for academia, is being a whore for both. (How many Lakoffs does it take to screw in a light bulb?) To wit, Leiter's Nietzsche blog: Brian Leiter's Nietzsche Blog http://www.brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.com/ All the entries and most of the commentary I've read so far are so moronic, in the immortal words of Lenny Bruce, it's thrilling! This one got me started: Obama and Nietzsche "A New York Times article reports that as a college student, Barack Obama, one of the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for President, was interested in Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre. A hopeful sign! I would have been worried if as an undergraduate he had been enamored of Kant or Hegel!" What a fucking asshole! From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Thu Jul 10 00:32:39 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] More Leiter Nietzsche droppings Message-ID: "the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced" That is how Mitt Romney, a Mormon who is one of the contenders for the Republican nomination to be U.S. President, described this idea: "The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life." Admittedly, in the American context, this is partly code language for opposition to abortion, but putting the parochial peculiarities of American politics to one side, Romney is surely right that the "inherent and inalienable worth of every life" is, indeed, "the most revolutionary political proposition" of modernity (perhaps ever). It is equally clear that the basis he offers for it--namely that "every single human being is a child of God"--is (viewed as a cognitive, rather than an emotive, proposition) false. But when Nietzsche mocks the "free thinkers" who "oppose the Church but not its poison" (GM I:9) is he not thinking precisely of those who reject the false cognitive proposition but still accept that "most revolutionary political proposition," precisely the one discovered by those Nietzsche calls the "slaves" at the birth of Christianity? -------------- Not terribly insightful on anyone's part. But now I think I understand Michel Onfray's Atheist Manifesto better. He cut and pasted some Nietzsche, big fucking froggie surprise. To analyze Nietzsche's assertion, though, requires a bit more. One item on the agenda is to examine what the German socialists had to say about Christianity. Was the moral poison the moralistic illusions about Christianity, or the egalitarianism so hated by Nietzsche? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nietzsche's Naturalism Redux: Thoughts on Janaway Here is one place Leiter makes the case for Nietzsche's naturalism, distinguishing speculative naturalism from actual science. Once again, the appropriation of continental for the aims of a moribund anal-tickle philosophy, plus the frisson of flirting with a dangerous man from the green pastures of the Ivy League. It's beginning to dawn on me why these little shits love Nietzsche so. It's one thing to discover Nietzsche and people like him for the first time, but once one has absorbed what there is to be learned, it's time to move on. What do any of these people have to say about society? They must think they're advanced because they watch Jon Stewart and sport Obama buttons. __________________________________________________ "I treat the ridiculous seriously when I treat it with ridicule." -- Karl Marx From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 09:27:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:27:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Green Party Taps Hip-Hop Activist Rosa Clemente For VP Message-ID: <4875F22F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Wednesday, July 09, 2008 Green Party Taps Hip-Hop Activist Rosa Clemente For VP Signaling it is serious about courting the hip-hop vote, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has tapped respected hip-hop activist Rosa Clemente as her Vice Presidential pick. If the Green Party accepts McKinney's nomination this weekend at its convention, Clemente will make history as the first hip-hop generation candidate on a presidential ticket, and together with McKinney make up the first all-female of color ticket in U.S. history. McKinney is African American. Clemente identifies herself as Puerto Rican of African descent. Clemente joins Brooklyn Congressional candidate Brooklyn Congressional candidate Kevin Powell as another prominent hip-hop writer/activist competing in the 2008 elections. Maryland hip-hop activist and scholar Jared Ball also competed for the Green Party presidential nomination, ending his run this past January. "This campaign is the opportunity the Hip-Hop generation has been working for," Clemente wrote in an email to supporters this morning. "This is our time to address the issues affecting our communities - rising unemployment, the high cost of food and housing, a lack of quality public education and access to higher education, the prison-industrial complex, and unaccountable corporate media. These issues are not being addressed by either the Republican or Democratic nominee." Clemente has been one of the most prominent national hip-hop activists for nearly a decade. She was one of the co-founders of the National Hip-Hop Political Convention and of REACHip-Hop , a New York City-based coalition that launched a boycott of Hot 97 for greater accountability and balance on the airwaves. Affiliated with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement , Clemente has been a prominent national organizer around securing aid to Gulf Coast victims of Katrina, and against the verdicts in the Sean Bell case. Clemente's potential VP run was welcomed by many in the hip-hop community. "I've never voted in the Presidential election; I've never felt strongly enough about a candidate to, said rapper M1 of Dead Prez. "I feel that now is the greatest opportunity for the Hip-Hop community to put our collective strength and power to the test and vote for someone who represents who we are and what we stand for." "It's a good sign of political maturity for hip-hop," Troy Nkrumah, 2008 Chair of the National Hip-Hop Political Convention , said of Clemente's run. "There are issues we've been screaming about to the candidates and they've ignored them--whether police accountability, the prison system, or the war in Iraq. They touch the issues on the surface, they talk about change, but their policies are in line with Bush. A lot of us were turned off." "But Rosa is one of the people that knows we need systemic change, especially the youth community," he added. "She has a history of speaking her mind, not holding her tongue, and telling the truth." This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 09:37:13 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:37:13 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Message-ID: <4875F468.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >>> "Tahir W."- lbo-talk While looking through some of my files for material on Heidegger, I found three extracts from Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy, which I had typed out for discussion on a Hegel-Marx list a couple of years ago. This book has influenced me as much as, or more than, any other that I have ever read. I still have the battered copy that I found on a book sale more than twenty years ago. It was Rose's second book, following her The Melancholy Science: The Thought of Theodore W. Adorno. It constitutes her critique of both sociology and marxism. I thought I would share these extracts with the list for anyone who may be interested, since they touch, albeit indirectly, on some of our recent themes. I'll post the three extracts as three separate instalments. The first instalmment then is the opening paragraphs from Ch. 2. The chapter is called Politics in the Severe Style. Tahir "In general religion and the foundation of the state is (sic) one and the same thing; they are identical in and for themselves. (Hegel) We may understand the proposition or judgement that religion is identical with the state in several ways. We may read it as a contingent generalization based on induction from experience. In this case we might argue, on empirical grounds, that it is wrong. We may read it as a prescription, as a recommendation that the state and religion should be identical. In this case we might disagree, and argue that such an identity is inconceivable, undesirable or impossible. We might protest, on the basis of yet another reading, that the proposition is neither empirically wrong, nor undesirable, but unintelligible. For how can religion and the state be identical, unless ?religion? and the ?state? are so defined that the proposition becomes an uninformative tautology? If the proposition is made tautologically true, there is no point in our assent or our dissent. All of these readings are based on the same assumptions. They divide the sentence into a grammatical subject and predicate joined by the copula ?is?. The grammatical subject is considered a fixed bearer of variable accidents, the grammatical predicates, which yield the content of the proposition. Hegel knew that his thought would be misunderstood if it were read as a series of ordinary propositions, which affirm an identity between a fixed subject and contingent accidents, but he also knew that, like any thinker, he had to present his thought in prepositional form. He thus proposed, in an unfortunately schematic statement, that the prepositional form must be read as a ?speculative proposition?. This use of ?speculative? is not the same as Kant?s use of it. It does not refer to the illegitimate use of correct principles, but embraces the impossibility of Kantian justification. To read a proposition ?speculatively? means that the identity which is affirmed between subject and predicate is seen equally to affirm a lack of identity between subject and predicate. This reading implies an identity different from the merely formal one of the ordinary proposition. This different kind of identity cannot be pre-judged, that is, it cannot be justified in a transcendental sense, and it cannot be stated in a proposition of the kind to be eschewed. This different kind of identity must be understood as a result to be achieved. >From this perspective the ?subject? is not fixed, nor the predicates accidental: they acquire their meaning in a series of relations to each other. Only when the lack of identity between subject and predicate has been experienced, can their identity be grasped. ?Lack of identity? does not have the formal meaning that subject and predicate must be different from each other in order to be related. It means that the proposition which we have affirmed, or the concept we have devised of the nature of an object, fails to correspond to the state of affairs or object which we have also defined as the state of affairs or object to which it should correspond. This experience of lack of identity which natural consciousness undergoes is the basis for reading propositions as speculative identities. The subject of the proposition is no longer fixed and abstract with external, contingent accidents, but, initially, an empty name, uncertain and problematic, gradually acquiring meaning as the result of a series of contradictory experiences. Thus it cannot be said, as Marx, for example, said, that the speculative proposition turns the predicate into the subject and therefore hypostatizes the subject. ?The important thing is that Hegel at all times makes the Idea the subject and makes the proper and actual subject, like ?political sentiment?, the predicate. But the development proceeds at all times on the side of the predicate.? But the speculative proposition is fundamentally opposed to the kind of formal identity which would still be affirmed by such a reversal of subject and predicate. The identity of religion and the state is the fundamental speculative proposition of Hegel?s thought, or, and this is to say the same thing, the speculative experience of the lack of identity between religion and the state is the basic object of Hegel?s exposition. Speculative experience of lack of identity informs propositions such as ?the real is the rational?, which have so often been misread as ordinary propositions. Some of Hegel?s works present experiences of both religion and the state, or, in other terms, which Hegel uses, of subjective disposition (die Gesinnung) and absolute ethical life. The Philosophy of History and the Phenomenology of Spirit present experiences of both religion and the state. The Philosophy of Religion is mostly concerned with meaning of religion and has important sections on the relations between religion and the state. The Philosophy of Right and the earlier political writings from the Jena period refer least of all the religion and history. These writings concentrate on ethical life and less on forms of subjective disposition, although it is the relation between the two which makes up the whole of ethical life. Thus in these political writings the presupposition of absolute ethical life is more explicit that it is in those works where the relation between the different illusions of natural consciousness (religious, aesthetic, moral) and absolute ethical life is presented. This is not to say that the earlier works consist of ?regional ontologies?, as Habermas has argued, that is of examinations of distinct realms of social life, not unified by any absolute identity. On the contrary, I am arguing that the unifying presupposition is more explicit in the earlier works, and hence the lack of unity in political life is more explicit too. However, the earlier political writings and the Philosophy of Right are not ?shot from a pistol?. They are phenomenologies: the illusions and experiences of moral and political consciousness are presented in an order designed to show how consciousness may progress through them to comprehension of the determination of ethical life. Hegel starts from what appears to ordinary consciousness as the most ?natural? and ?immediate? ethical relations, the family, or the sphere of needs, civil society. The order of exposition is therefore not necessarily the order in history. The family and sphere of needs are not autonomous realms antecedent to the state, and to see them as such would be to produce an anthropological reading. But it is even less correct to understand the family or civil society as emanations of an hypostatized state, and to see them as such would be to produce a panlogical reading. Hegel is stressing, in opposition to liberal natural law, that the institutions which appear most ?natural? and ?immediate? in any society, such as the family or the sphere of needs, presuppose an overall economic and political organization which may not be immediately intelligible. Unfortunately, the mistakes of natural consciousness which Hegel was exposing have frequently been attributed to him. Absolute ethical life is more explicit in the political writings than in other writings. In the Philosophy of Right this is because the other illusions which made Hegel despair of any reunification of political and religious life are not prominent. Yet he could not ?justify? in the Kantian sense the idea of absolute ethical life; he could not provide any abstract statement of it apart from the presentations of the contradictions which imply it. For an abstract statement would make manifest that this ethical life does not exist in the modern world. This would be to turn ethical life into an abstract ideal, an autonomous prescription, a Sollen, which would be completely ?unjustified? because not implied by the contradictions between political consciousness and social and historical bases. Hegel?s solution to this dilemma was to emphasize the presence of ethical life, not the task of achieving it. Ironically, as a result, the Philosophy of Right has been read as the justification (sic) of a status quo, instead of the attempt in speculative (dis)guise to commend the unity of theory and practice." This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 10:44:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:44:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Agro-Profiteering and Predictable Food Scarcity Message-ID: <48760442.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Agro-Profiteering and Predictable Food Scarcity The Human Right to Eat By JOAN P. MENCHER http://www.counterpunch.org/mencher06282008.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 13:32:28 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:32:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vatican says aliens could exist Message-ID: <48762B8C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Tuesday, 13 May 2008 Vatican says aliens could exist http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm By David Willey BBC News, Rome Father Funes says the universe is so vast that other life forms may exist http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 13:36:59 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:36:59 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] History and Human Existence (1) Message-ID: <48762C9C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miller, James. History and Human Existence: from Marx to Merleau-Ponty. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. I picked up this book for a few bucks at a used book store yesterday. Never heard of it before, and I'm guessing it long ago disappeared down the memory hole of history. Yet it fits in perfectly with my intensive research on a number of fronts in the past few weeks, which I'll get to momentarily. ^^^^ CB: Good to get what seems a lot of your own thinking in this. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 14:31:25 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Meso-American literacy Message-ID: <4876395D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Meso-American literacy CeJ jannuzi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CB: >>Check out Mixtec or Aztec picture writing.<< In their most developed forms for representing glottographic language, the scripts and texts to check out are Mayan and Zapotec. The problem I have with interpreting Mixtec writing as 'pictorial' as a way to represent a language is the much-too-much limited corpus. You could say the same thing about Aztec writing too. One thing that has helped with the decipering of Mayan glyphs is the fact that millions of people still speak languages which descend from the languages that underlie and motivate ancient Mayan writing and scripts. I'm not sure what picture writing in Mixtec or Aztec actually represented in everyday life, ^^^ CB: It didn't represent much in everyday life. Most early writing, whether picture writing or alpha betical represents ruling class "stuff" . The Bible doesn't discuss everyday life, for example. ^^^^ as the artifacts are so limited. But it is interesting to note that written Mayan evolved into a logo-syllabic system that in its mixed representational principles (word and phonological/phonetic, at a syllable level) parallels Japanese. To me that might mean that ancient Mayan itself is a language resulting from the collision and mixing of other languages (possibly not even related languages). Or it could mean that however intuitive using word-symbols is, if the language is highly inflected and multi-syllabic, a syllabic level of representation is also useful for making written language function as written communication for people who can speak or at least understand a common language (or a related group of dialects and languages). At any rate, a pictorial level (though the shift to a rebus principle is one way to extend it) is insufficient for glottographic writing, ^^^ CB: Right . "Picture" writing isn't based in spoken language. That's the point I'm making here. It is not as symbolic as spoken language or alphabetical language. A picture of something "imitates" it, so the signier is not arbitrarily related to the signified. It is "motivatedly" or "iconically" related to what it represents in picture writing. As you quote below: Mesoamerican glyphs bear resemblance to real objects such as animals, people, natural features, etc, albeit in a stylized fashion ^^^^ though I guess it could be agreed Mixtec and Aztec represent some interesting attempts to test the limits. http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html >>Among one of the common cultural traits found in many Mesoamerican groups is writing. In fact, Mesoamerica is the only place in the Americas where indigenous writing systems were invented and used before European colonization. While the types of writing systems in Mesoamerica range from minimalist "picture-writing" to complex logophonetic systems capable to recording speech and literature, they all share some core features that make them visually and functionally distinct from other writing systems of the world.<< >>Common Features of Mesoamerican Writing Systems The most distinguishable feature of all Mesoamerican scripts is the highly intricate and pictorial form of signs. They are often called "hieroglyphic" in analogy to Egyptian hieroglyphs since their symbols are highly pictorial. For this reason, a sign from a Mesoamerican scripts is often called a "glyph", as a short form of "hieroglyph". Visually, Mesoamerican scripts resemble each other, and share many similar glyphs. This is primarily due to the fact that many Mesoamerican glyphs bear resemblance to real objects such as animals, people, natural features, etc, albeit in a stylized fashion. Often animals and humans appear as "portraits" in that only the heads of these creatures are drawn, but in few cases "full-body" glyphs are also used. Human body parts, especially arms and legs, are also used extensively to denote action, or verbs if used as grammatical structures. Other times glyphs appear as complex geometrical shapes like circles, rectangles, cross-hatches, etc. << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_script >>The Maya script, also known as Maya hieroglyphs, was the writing system of the pre-Columbian Maya civilization of Mesoamerica, presently the only deciphered Mesoamerican writing system. The earliest inscriptions which are identifiably Maya date to the 3rd century BCE,[1] and writing was in continuous use until shortly after the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores in the 16th century CE (and even later in isolated areas such as Tayasal). Maya writing used logograms complemented by a set of syllabic glyphs, somewhat similar in function to modern Japanese writing. Maya writing was called "hieroglyphics" or "hieroglyphs" by early European explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries who did not understand it but found its general appearance reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs, to which however the Maya writing system is not at all related.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/zapotec.html >>Unlike later Mixtec and Aztec scripts, Zapotec was much more textual, possibly capable of representing sentences. Zapotec very well could be a logophonetic writing system, but likely not as extensively phonetic as epi-Olmec or Maya. For instance, the number of non-calendrical glyphs range between 80 to 90, making it possible that Zapotec contained a mixture of logograms and phonograms. Also, the way signs are joined into compounds might indicate affixes, possibly spelled out phonetically, attached to a root logogram to form a noun or verb phrase. Some tantalizing clues come from Javier Urcid, whose studies have shown that possible instances of homophonic principle, or "rebus writing", are used in naming personages. He also demonstrated that grammatical constructs (like short sentences) might be present in some monuments (which you will see below).<< >>The Zapotec system very likely was the source of the Mixtec system, which is characterized by a highly pictorial and minimal set of logograms, and by the use of the rebus principle for rough phonetic spelling of names. In fact, the Zapotec writing system started to be replaced by the early form of Mixtec script by the 10th century CE. When the Spanish conquistadores arrived in Oaxaca in the 16th century CE, the Zapotec script has long been forgotten, although the Zapotec language continues to be spoken to this date.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/mixtec.html >>Even though surrounded by more textual writing systems, the Mixtecs opted to write in a more minimalistic manner. Mixtec "writing" is really an amalgam of written signs and pictures. In particular, pictorial scenes would depict historical events such as birth, marriage, coronation, war, and death, while written glyphs would record the date of the event and identify the people and places involved.<< http://www.ancientscripts.com/aztec.html >>You might find that from the above examples that the way to read place names is complicated and not straightforward to modern eyes. Signs could be polyvalent, such as the "hill" sign which can stand for both can and tepec. Glyphs in a place name are not always read in a linear fashion but could jump from one end to another. And sometimes, visual metaphors come into play, such as the position of glyphs itself representing a sound. It is true that for the most part this system did not record human speech or long texts, and it might seem to be not a true writing system. However, it does exhibit a lot of regular rules and conventions. The seemingly random reading order often can be inferred by the knowledge of language and naming convention. Signs used for phonetic values are not randomly drawn from the logograms but actually from a very predictable and minimal set. But, most of all, since the knowledge of the underlying language, Nahuatl, is essential to fully interpret the glyphs, the Aztec script most certainly classifies as a writing system.>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 14:35:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:35:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Law of identity Message-ID: <48763A61.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> CeJ >>>>The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. ^^^^ CB: Are you saying said statements don't refer to things ?<<<< If I remember correctly, at least in Leibnizian logic, it could be stated in terms of things. If A and B are the same thing, then any property you specify of A is also true of B. I remember asking in Algebra class, though, when in the real world are two things ever the SAME thing? Being an identical twin, the issue interested me greatly. CJ ^^^^^ CB: I'd say your second to the last statement gets at something profound. Ok, so what is the meaning of "number" ? There can't be two things that are the _same_ thing. There might be two things that are the same _type_ of thing. This gets to the relationship between the general and the individual. Think about pawns on a chess board. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 10 14:50:03 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:50:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] the law of identity Message-ID: <48763DBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The law of identity, as far as I am concerned, is about the non-contradictoriness of statements, or more precisely, propositions. The fact that something changes from moment to moment is irrelevant; the question is whether one makes consistent sets of statements or not. ^^^^^ CB: What do we care about statements that don't refer to reality ? ^^^^ The static look at the world of statements that adhere to the law of identity is necessary to avoid Heraclitus' "dilemma", to secure some definiteness in our thinking to act in the world. ^^^^^ The notion of the REALITIES about which statements being made being contradictory only makes sense when it is impossible to remove contradictions from one's statements about reality. Change in time or space is no longer logically contradictory in the realm of mathematics. Much of the Marxist specialist literature has long become more sophisticated about the nature of dialectical contradictions, which are really more about categories than futzing with the law of identity or the BS dialectical laws. Here's one in to the question: Graham Priest vs Erwin Marquit on Contradiction http://autodidactproject.org/my/priest-limits-3.html ^^^^^ Comrade Erwin Marquit's press at Univ. of Minnesota published a book on Dialectical Contradictions that's real "sophisticated". Marquit wrote an article in _Nature, Society and Thought_ on the same. And: Dialectics Bout: Richard Norman vs. Sean Sayers by R. Dumain http://autodidactproject.org/my/norman-sayers.html Too bad the damage done by party literature has hit too deep to be undone. What is puzzling why people who know better still peddle the standard diamat propaganda. Contrast for example, Marquit's own articles with his republication of John Somerville's piece-of-shit intro to Marxist philosophy. ^^^^ CB: So,, you don't think the Party has damaged Marquit's thinking on this , huh ? He is in the Party, you know. ^^^^^ The only way I can account for this is the brain damage done by the groveling and bootlicking to Moscow, Peking, or Trotsky over the decades, which invariably results in brain damage. ^^^ CB: Having to resort to name calling such as calling people brain damaged is a sign that your argument may be weak. It's not the sign of the frustration of a "superior" brain dealing with inferior brains. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From jannuzi at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 20:53:58 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:53:58 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Meso-American literacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >>It didn't represent much in everyday life. Most early writing, whether picture writing or alpha betical represents ruling class "stuff" . The Bible doesn't discuss everyday life, for example.>> Well that and, if it did exist, mass literacy might not leave any artefacts. Drawings in the dirt, on leaves, etc. Sometimes we might erroneously think that everyone who lived in Jane Austen's world lived in Georgian manor houses scattered about the English countryside. >>CB: Right . "Picture" writing isn't based in spoken language. That's the point I'm making here. It is not as symbolic as spoken language or alphabetical language. A picture of something "imitates" it, so the signier is not arbitrarily related to the signified. It is "motivatedly" or "iconically" related to what it represents in picture writing. << And yet one needs to refer to spoken Aztec to make sense of the picture writing. Which is why my point is about thinking of motivation vs. arbitrary as a spectrum. Also, in the case of the artifice of writing systems, these might be highly motivated and even iconic in their principles of construction, but as they come to be used it practical communication or in not so practical elite literature, etc. they might not function iconically at all. To take one example (perhaps apocryphal) the letter descends from a hieroglyph that stood for the Egyptian word for 'owl'. Also all writing systems are arbitrary even when iconic in that the represent choices--for example how the Chinese chose to iconically represent mountain with their character (that looks like an upright fork)--they could have chosen instead an inverted T shape, etc. CJ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 11 09:08:39 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Meso-American literacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48773F36.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >>> CeJ Well that and, if it did exist, mass literacy might not leave any artefacts. Drawings in the dirt, on leaves, etc. Sometimes we might erroneously think that everyone who lived in Jane Austen's world lived in Georgian manor houses scattered about the English countryside. ^^^^ CB: Yes, I can see some writing might not have been preserved. "Carved in stone", like the Ten Commandments ,was probably reserved for the ruling class writing. This association of writing with ruling classes relates to the idea that the first class divisions corresponded with the antagonism between predominantly mental and predominantly physical labor, with writing being a specialty of the mental laborers, priests or whatever. ^^^ >>CB: Right . "Picture" writing isn't based in spoken language. That's the point I'm making here. It is not as symbolic as spoken language or alphabetical language. A picture of something "imitates" it, so the signier is not arbitrarily related to the signified. It is "motivatedly" or "iconically" related to what it represents in picture writing. << And yet one needs to refer to spoken Aztec to make sense of the picture writing. Which is why my point is about thinking of motivation vs. arbitrary as a spectrum. ^^^^ CB: I agree with you on the spectrum. That is sort of my point too. A picture is still a representation or a symbol. The picture is not the thing it represents, so it is a symbol. A picture is in two dimensions and what it represents is in three dimensions. But an alphabetical signifier is very much not at all the thing it signifies. It is at the extreme of the spectrum you mention. ^^^^ Also, in the case of the artifice of writing systems, these might be highly motivated and even iconic in their principles of construction, but as they come to be used it practical communication or in not so practical elite literature, etc. they might not function iconically at all. To take one example (perhaps apocryphal) the letter descends from a hieroglyph that stood for the Egyptian word for 'owl'. ^^^^ CB: So, the M is wings of an owl ? ^^^^^ Also all writing systems are arbitrary even when iconic in that the represent choices--for example how the Chinese chose to iconically represent mountain with their character (that looks like an upright fork)--they could have chosen instead an inverted T shape, etc. ^^^ CB: Yes, this is part of your "spectrum" point's logic. There is a sort of range of arbitrariness. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 11 09:24:49 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason Message-ID: ... or, analytical philosophy's being-for-death. I thought I would die laughing reading this essay, as it gives the whole game away: ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE Dr. Babette E. Babich http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/babich02.htm Her book Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science was abominable, but this essay is paradoxically brilliant. She deftly exposes not only the key weaknesses of analytical philosophy but its duplicitous colonization of the continent. Leiter is of course a key colonizer. It's quite masterful. But then look at the alternative in the embrace of Nietzsche and Heidegger. I am so right about all of these people, so, so on target. Babich's intervention then is a counter-imperialist venture to accomplish just the opposite, sort of like fascist Japan's Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Here's another book of note: Glazebrook, Trish. Heidegger's Philosophy of Science. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000. Publisher description. And see the links at: Heidegger and Science http://beyng.com/hlinks/hscience.html The depth of all of this rottenness is so thrilling, it's better than The Sopranos. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 11 12:53:17 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:53:17 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487773DD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE The Question of Philosophy. It is the difference in the reply that can be made to the question, "What is philosophy?' that constitutes the difference - and the divide - between analytic and continental styles of thinking. For analytic purposes, philosophy may be defined as, Michael Dummet defines it in the Origins of Analytic Philosophy, [1] in terms of 'the belief, first, that a philosophical account of thought can be attained through a philosophical account of language, and, secondly, that a comprehensive account can only be so attained. [2] Like Dummett, Martin Heidegger too will define philosophy in terms of thought and of language, although conceiving both conceptions as intrinsically elusive rather than clearly available. In What is Called Thinking, Heidegger reflects on the nature of thinking but declares, and repeatedly declares: 'Most thought-provoking is that we are still not thinking." And, as Heidegger admits, the claim that we are 'still not thinking" seems annoyingly erroneous: 'how dare anyone assert today that we are still not thinking, today when there is everywhere a lively and constantly more audible interest in philosophy, when almost everybody claims to know what philosophy is all about! [3] ^^^^^^^ CB: Did Heidegger claim that he was thinking ? How does he know all this about thinking that we don't know ? ^^^^^ For Heidegger just as for Dummett, philosophy is a matter of thinking, the difference is that for Heidegger, as also for Nietzsche, one cannot simply give an account of thinking: not only must we ask what thinking is, we have first to learn to think, which for Heidegger means we have to learn to listen, and he will even claim, learn to learn - and to let learn.[4] In reference to language too, [5] Heidegger is careful to remind us of the inherent ambiguity of what "plays with our speech [6] as language does: 'we are moving on shifting ground, or, still better, on the billowing waters of an ocean. [7] "Words," for Heidegger, "are not terms, and thus are not like buckets and kegs from which we scoop a content that is not there. Words are wellsprings that must be found and dug up again and again, that easily cave in, but that at times also well up when least expected. {8} Thus Heidegger can explain that "Thinking clears its way only by its own questioning advance. But this clearing of the way is curious. The way that is cleared does not remain behind, but is built into the next step, and is projected forward from it.[9] Where Dummett advances propositio >>> Ralph Dumain 07/11/2008 11:24 AM >>> ... or, analytical philosophy's being-for-death. I thought I would die laughing reading this essay, as it gives the whole game away: ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE Dr. Babette E. Babich http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/babich02.htm Her book Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science was abominable, but this essay is paradoxically brilliant. She deftly exposes not only the key weaknesses of analytical philosophy but its duplicitous colonization of the continent. Leiter is of course a key colonizer. It's quite masterful. But then look at the alternative in the embrace of Nietzsche and Heidegger. I am so right about all of these people, so, so on target. Babich's intervention then is a counter-imperialist venture to accomplish just the opposite, sort of like fascist Japan's Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Here's another book of note: Glazebrook, Trish. Heidegger's Philosophy of Science. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000. Publisher description. And see the links at: Heidegger and Science http://beyng.com/hlinks/hscience.html The depth of all of this rottenness is so thrilling, it's better than The Sopranos. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 11 13:05:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:05:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] Message-ID: <487776C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. ^^^ CB: So, there is no law that a thing must be identical with itself ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 11 13:34:09 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:34:09 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason In-Reply-To: <487773DD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487773DD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <48777D71.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> How about the question of "philosophy" is the relationship between thought and being ? >>> "Charles Brown" 07/11/2008 2:53 PM >>> ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE The Question of Philosophy. It is the difference in the reply that can be made to the question, "What is philosophy?' that constitutes the difference - and the divide - between analytic and continental styles of thinking. For analytic purposes, philosophy may be defined as, Michael Dummet defines it in the Origins of Analytic Philosophy, [1] in terms of 'the belief, first, that a philosophical account of thought can be attained through a philosophical account of language, and, secondly, that a comprehensive account can only be so attained. [2] Like Dummett, Martin Heidegger too will define philosophy in terms of thought and of language, although conceiving both conceptions as intrinsically elusive rather than clearly available. In What is Called Thinking, Heidegger reflects on the nature of thinking but declares, and repeatedly declares: 'Most thought-provoking is that we are still not thinking." And, as Heidegger admits, the claim that we are 'still not thinking" seems annoyingly erroneous: 'how dare anyone assert today that we are still not thinking, today when there is everywhere a lively and constantly more audible interest in philosophy, when almost everybody claims to know what philosophy is all about! [3] ^^^^^^^ CB: Did Heidegger claim that he was thinking ? How does he know all this about thinking that we don't know ? ^^^^^ For Heidegger just as for Dummett, philosophy is a matter of thinking, the difference is that for Heidegger, as also for Nietzsche, one cannot simply give an account of thinking: not only must we ask what thinking is, we have first to learn to think, which for Heidegger means we have to learn to listen, and he will even claim, learn to learn - and to let learn.[4] In reference to language too, [5] Heidegger is careful to remind us of the inherent ambiguity of what "plays with our speech [6] as language does: 'we are moving on shifting ground, or, still better, on the billowing waters of an ocean. [7] "Words," for Heidegger, "are not terms, and thus are not like buckets and kegs from which we scoop a content that is not there. Words are wellsprings that must be found and dug up again and again, that easily cave in, but that at times also well up when least expected. {8} Thus Heidegger can explain that "Thinking clears its way only by its own questioning advance. But this clearing of the way is curious. The way that is cleared does not remain behind, but is built into the next step, and is projected forward from it.[9] Where Dummett advances propositio >>> Ralph Dumain 07/11/2008 11:24 AM >>> ... or, analytical philosophy's being-for-death. I thought I would die laughing reading this essay, as it gives the whole game away: ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE Dr. Babette E. Babich http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/babich02.htm Her book Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science was abominable, but this essay is paradoxically brilliant. She deftly exposes not only the key weaknesses of analytical philosophy but its duplicitous colonization of the continent. Leiter is of course a key colonizer. It's quite masterful. But then look at the alternative in the embrace of Nietzsche and Heidegger. I am so right about all of these people, so, so on target. Babich's intervention then is a counter-imperialist venture to accomplish just the opposite, sort of like fascist Japan's Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Here's another book of note: Glazebrook, Trish. Heidegger's Philosophy of Science. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000. Publisher description. And see the links at: Heidegger and Science http://beyng.com/hlinks/hscience.html The depth of all of this rottenness is so thrilling, it's better than The Sopranos. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 11 13:43:57 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:43:57 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] In-Reply-To: <487776C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487776C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Not in my book. At 03:05 PM 7/11/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Ralph Dumain > >The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. > >^^^ >CB: So, there is no law that a thing must be identical with itself ? From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 11 15:14:01 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:14:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] In-Reply-To: References: <487776C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <487794D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> How can I get a copy of your book ? Why is it important to have a law that entities in statements are identical with themselves, but no similar law for actually existing things ? >>> Ralph Dumain 07/11/2008 3:43 PM >>> Not in my book. At 03:05 PM 7/11/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Ralph Dumain > >The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. > >^^^ >CB: So, there is no law that a thing must be identical with itself ? _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sat Jul 12 14:44:26 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism & the Origins of British Socialism Message-ID: Now: Marxism and the Origins of British Socialism: The Struggle for a New Consciousness by Stanley Pierson (1973). Included are the Contents, Introduction, Conclusion. I haven't yet finished my review of his other book: Pierson, Stanley. Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Going by these two books, it seems that the possibility of putting Marxist theory into practice was in deep shit by the end of the 19th century. I just finished an article on Croce, Labriola, and Sorel which documents a comparable problem. The problems of the intellectuals are not all the same as that of the laboring masses, but frustrations in practice and in political/social development do tend to send the intellectuals scurrying in different directions, and perhaps there are some interesting historical lessons there. From farmelantj at juno.com Sat Jul 12 14:59:04 2008 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:59:04 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism & the Origins of British Socialism Message-ID: <20080712.165904.928.6.farmelantj@juno.com> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:44:26 -0400 Ralph Dumain writes: > Now: > > Marxism > > and the Origins of British Socialism: The Struggle for a New > Consciousness by Stanley Pierson (1973). > > Included are the > Contents, > > Introduction, Conclusion. > > I haven't yet finished my review of his other book: > > Pierson, Stanley. Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class > Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University > Press, 1993. > > Going by these two books, it seems that the possibility of putting > Marxist theory into practice was in deep shit by the end of the 19th > > century. I just finished an article on Croce, Labriola, and Sorel > which documents a comparable problem. Croce as I recall was proclaiming the death of Marxism in the early 1900s. How was his era like and unlike our own? Jim F. ____________________________________________________________ Beauty Product Reviews Read Unbiased Beauty Product Reviews and Join Our Product Review Team! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7UvsapU9nZJzqFQ4yHMcNfZlwk3fMifKBG72Eg9Nilg0bmh/ From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 02:33:06 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:33:06 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason In-Reply-To: <48777D71.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487773DD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <48777D71.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: You are, most likely, thinking of philosophy as the struggle between idealism and materialism, as Engels put it. I'll leave this aside for the moment. Note how utterly provincial and insipid are Babich's assertions about the difference between the analytical and continental modes of philosophizing. And they are not even true, if we begin with the recognition that the continental philosophy she so militantly defends with academic politics in mind, is a fiction. Babich is so devoted to obscurantist gibberish, she wishes to wage war against analytical imperialism in an effort of reverse colonization, just like imperial Japan, as I said. So now Nietzsche is being used to colonize philosophy of science. How utterly banale. Note that the dichotomy presented to us is a dichotomy entirely defined by bourgeois conceptions. And everything that is not "analytical" is mushed together as "continental", but what is "continental" pretty much comes down to what stems from Nietzsche and Heidegger. It's too disgusting for words. Now what is most characteristic of an approach to philosophy that comes from Hegel and Marx is that it is progressive and historically and socially self-reflective. Not merely "contextual", and not merely "embodied", and certainly not "local" or relativistic. The perspective I have in mind overlaps but does not coincide with the fictive entity concocted as "continental philosophy". Now with respect to the history of philosophy the problem is to understand what motivates philosophical systems internally and "externally". A too provincial merely analytical approach or a too conceptually vague historical/social-critical approach can't do the job. In this respect there are different styles that correspond to the "analytical" and "continental", but note how narrow and tendentious Babich's characterizations are. Another point about these generalized categories: individuals are more interesting than groups, and individual philosophers are more noteworthy than the schools they (are said to) belong to. Some categories of philosophical subdisciplines--like "African Philosophy" or the more recent concoction of "African American Philosophy"--are intellectually and ideologically bankrupt, but there are some noteworthy individuals subsumed under these categories who have something to say. So first of all go for the individuals and maintain skepticism about the pigeonholing academic empire builders. As for "the" question of philosophy again, my interest here is relating the question to the development of society as a whole, and the overall pattern of the unity and struggle of bourgeois reason and unreason. And "bourgeois" includes also what has transpired under "marxism", which after all is part of bourgeois society, wherever it is undertaken in the world. Without unequivocally endorsing either Friedman or Waite, I find it quite telling that Friedman approaches the Cassirer-Heidegger controversy as a technical philosophical contretemps falling out of competing Neo-Kantian schools, whilst Waite, entirely steeped in the postmodernist milieu, sees it as Heidegger outwitting the clueless Cassirer via an esoteric cunning operating under the radar of what was ostensibly under debate. Oh, and here's another tidbit I'm not in a position to verify. I'm told that Henry Pachter attended the Davos conference, at which brownshirts were visibly present, who rebuffed Cassirer as did Heidegger, and that the political undertone of the debate was not in the least subtle. I might add that Cassirer, unlike Leiter, was at least not insipid. But perhaps a steady diet of Babich would make Leiter look good, though both, it seems to me, are bankrupt. Bourgeois reason has left the building. At 03:34 PM 7/11/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >How about the question of "philosophy" is the relationship between >thought and being ? > > >>> "Charles Brown" 07/11/2008 2:53 PM > >>> >ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: >NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE > > > > >The Question of Philosophy. > >It is the difference in the reply that can be made to the question, >"What is philosophy?' that constitutes the difference - and the divide >- >between analytic and continental styles of thinking. For analytic >purposes, philosophy may be defined as, Michael Dummet defines it in >the >Origins of Analytic Philosophy, [1] in terms of 'the belief, first, >that >a philosophical account of thought can be attained through a >philosophical account of language, and, secondly, that a comprehensive >account can only be so attained. [2] Like Dummett, Martin Heidegger >too >will define philosophy in terms of thought and of language, although >conceiving both conceptions as intrinsically elusive rather than >clearly >available. In What is Called Thinking, Heidegger reflects on the >nature >of thinking but declares, and repeatedly declares: 'Most >thought-provoking is that we are still not thinking." And, as >Heidegger >admits, the claim that we are 'still not thinking" seems annoyingly >erroneous: 'how dare anyone assert today that we are still not >thinking, >today when there is everywhere a lively and constantly more audible >interest in philosophy, when almost everybody claims to know what >philosophy is all about! [3] > >^^^^^^^ >CB: Did Heidegger claim that he was thinking ? > >How does he know all this about thinking that we don't know ? > >^^^^^ > >For Heidegger just as for Dummett, philosophy is a matter of thinking, >the difference is that for Heidegger, as also for Nietzsche, one >cannot >simply give an account of thinking: not only must we ask what thinking >is, we have first to learn to think, which for Heidegger means we have >to learn to listen, and he will even claim, learn to learn - and to >let >learn.[4] In reference to language too, [5] Heidegger is careful to >remind us of the inherent ambiguity of what "plays with our speech >[6] >as language does: 'we are moving on shifting ground, or, still better, >on the billowing waters of an ocean. [7] "Words," for Heidegger, "are >not terms, and thus are not like buckets and kegs from which we scoop >a >content that is not there. Words are wellsprings that must be found >and >dug up again and again, that easily cave in, but that at times also >well >up when least expected. {8} Thus Heidegger can explain that "Thinking >clears its way only by its own questioning advance. But this clearing >of >the way is curious. The way that is cleared does not remain behind, >but >is built into the next step, and is projected forward from it.[9] >Where >Dummett advances propositio > > >>> Ralph Dumain 07/11/2008 11:24 AM > >>> >... or, analytical philosophy's being-for-death. > >I thought I would die laughing reading this essay, as it gives the >whole game away: > >ON THE 'ANALYTIC-CONTINENTAL' DIVIDE IN PHILOSOPHY: >NIETZSCHE AND HEIDEGGER ON TRUTH, LIES, AND LANGUAGE >Dr. Babette E. Babich >http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/babich02.htm > >Her book Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science was abominable, but this >essay is paradoxically brilliant. She deftly exposes not only the key >weaknesses of analytical philosophy but its duplicitous colonization >of the continent. Leiter is of course a key colonizer. It's quite >masterful. But then look at the alternative in the embrace of >Nietzsche and Heidegger. I am so right about all of these people, so, >so on target. Babich's intervention then is a counter-imperialist >venture to accomplish just the opposite, sort of like fascist Japan's >Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. > >Here's another book of note: > >Glazebrook, Trish. Heidegger's Philosophy of Science. New York: >Fordham University Press, 2000. >Publisher > >description. > >And see the links at: > >Heidegger and Science >http://beyng.com/hlinks/hscience.html > >The depth of all of this rottenness is so thrilling, it's better than >The Sopranos. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 02:48:19 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:48:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy In-Reply-To: <4875F468.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4875F468.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: My first reaction is, this is mostly horseshit, i.e. everything concerning the speculative proposition. The contrast between "natural consciousness" and transcendental or speculative consciousness is obscurantist. The concluding statements about the relation between family and state are more interesting, though. At 11:37 AM 7/10/2008, Charles Brown wrote: > >>> "Tahir W."- lbo-talk While looking through > some of my files for material on Heidegger, I > found three extracts from Gillian Rose's book > Hegel Contra Sociologyy, which I had typed out > for discussion on a Hegel-Marx list a couple of > years ago. This book has influenced me as much > as, or more than, any other that I have ever > read. I still have the battered copy that I > found on a book sale more than twenty years > ago. It was Rose's second book, following her > The Melancholy Science: The Thought of Theodore > W. Adorno. It constitutes her critique of both > sociology and marxism. I thought I would share > these extracts with the list for anyone who may > be interested, since they touch, albeit > indirectly, on some of our recent themes. I'll > post the three extracts as three separate > instalments. The first instalmment then is the > opening paragraphs from Ch. 2. The chapter is > called Politics in the Severe Style. Tahir "In > general religion and the foundation of the > state is (sic) one and the same thing; they are > identical in and for themselves. (Hegel) We may > understand the proposition or judgement that > religion is identical with the state in several > ways. We may read it as a contingent > generalization based on induction from > experience. In this case we might argue, on > empirical grounds, that it is wrong. We may > read it as a prescription, as a recommendation > that the state and religion should be > identical. In this case we might disagree, and > argue that such an identity is inconceivable, > undesirable or impossible. We might protest, on > the basis of yet another reading, that the > proposition is neither empirically wrong, nor > undesirable, but unintelligible. For how can > religion and the state be identical, unless > ???religion??? and the ???state??? are so > defined that the proposition becomes an > uninformative tautology? If the proposition is > made tautologically true, there is no point in > our assent or our dissent. All of these > readings are based on the same assumptions. > They divide the sentence into a grammatical > subject and predicate joined by the copula > ???is???. The grammatical subject is considered > a fixed bearer of variable accidents, the > grammatical predicates, which yield the content > of the proposition. Hegel knew that his thought > would be misunderstood if it were read as a > series of ordinary propositions, which affirm > an identity between a fixed subject and > contingent accidents, but he also knew that, > like any thinker, he had to present his thought > in prepositional form. He thus proposed, in an > unfortunately schematic statement, that the > prepositional form must be read as a > ???speculative proposition???. This use of > ???speculative??? is not the same as Kant???s > use of it. It does not refer to the > illegitimate use of correct principles, but > embraces the impossibility of Kantian > justification. To read a proposition > ???speculatively??? means that the identity > which is affirmed between subject and predicate > is seen equally to affirm a lack of identity > between subject and predicate. This reading > implies an identity different from the merely > formal one of the ordinary proposition. This > different kind of identity cannot be > pre-judged, that is, it cannot be justified in > a transcendental sense, and it cannot be stated > in a proposition of the kind to be eschewed. > This different kind of identity must be > understood as a result to be achieved. >From > this perspective the ???subject??? is not > fixed, nor the predicates accidental: they > acquire their meaning in a series of relations > to each other. Only when the lack of identity > between subject and predicate has been > experienced, can their identity be grasped. > ???Lack of identity??? does not have the formal > meaning that subject and predicate must be > different from each other in order to be > related. It means that the proposition which we > have affirmed, or the concept we have devised > of the nature of an object, fails to correspond > to the state of affairs or object which we have > also defined as the state of affairs or object > to which it should correspond. This experience > of lack of identity which natural consciousness > undergoes is the basis for reading propositions > as speculative identities. The subject of the > proposition is no longer fixed and abstract > with external, contingent accidents, but, > initially, an empty name, uncertain and > problematic, gradually acquiring meaning as the > result of a series of contradictory > experiences. Thus it cannot be said, as Marx, > for example, said, that the speculative > proposition turns the predicate into the > subject and therefore hypostatizes the subject. > ???The important thing is that Hegel at all > times makes the Idea the subject and makes the > proper and actual subject, like ???political > sentiment???, the predicate. But the > development proceeds at all times on the side > of the predicate.??? But the speculative > proposition is fundamentally opposed to the > kind of formal identity which would still be > affirmed by such a reversal of subject and > predicate. The identity of religion and the > state is the fundamental speculative > proposition of Hegel???s thought, or, and this > is to say the same thing, the speculative > experience of the lack of identity between > religion and the state is the basic object of Hegel???s exposition. The above is totally insufferable. >Speculative experience of lack of identity >informs propositions such as ???the real is the >rational???, which have so often been misread as >ordinary propositions. Some of Hegel???s works >present experiences of both religion and the >state, or, in other terms, which Hegel uses, of >subjective disposition (die Gesinnung) and >absolute ethical life. The Philosophy of History >and the Phenomenology of Spirit present >experiences of both religion and the state. The >Philosophy of Religion is mostly concerned with >meaning of religion and has important sections >on the relations between religion and the state. >The Philosophy of Right and the earlier >political writings from the Jena period refer >least of all the religion and history. These >writings concentrate on ethical life and less on >forms of subjective disposition, although it is >the relation between the two which makes up the >whole of ethical life. Thus in these political >writings the presupposition of absolute ethical >life is more explicit that it is in those works >where the relation between the different >illusions of natural consciousness (religious, >aesthetic, moral) and absolute ethical life is >presented. This is not to say that the earlier >works consist of ???regional ontologies???, as >Habermas has argued, that is of examinations of >distinct realms of social life, not unified by any absolute identity. The above is partly insufferable. >On the contrary, I am arguing that the unifying >presupposition is more explicit in the earlier >works, and hence the lack of unity in political >life is more explicit too. However, the earlier >political writings and the Philosophy of Right >are not ???shot from a pistol???. They are >phenomenologies: the illusions and experiences >of moral and political consciousness are >presented in an order designed to show how >consciousness may progress through them to >comprehension of the determination of ethical >life. Hegel starts from what appears to ordinary >consciousness as the most ???natural??? and >???immediate??? ethical relations, the family, >or the sphere of needs, civil society. The order >of exposition is therefore not necessarily the >order in history. The family and sphere of needs >are not autonomous realms antecedent to the >state, and to see them as such would be to >produce an anthropological reading. But it is >even less correct to understand the family or >civil society as emanations of an hypostatized >state, and to see them as such would be to >produce a panlogical reading. Hegel is >stressing, in opposition to liberal natural law, >that the institutions which appear most >???natural??? and ???immediate??? in any >society, such as the family or the sphere of >needs, presuppose an overall economic and >political organization which may not be >immediately intelligible. Unfortunately, the >mistakes of natural consciousness which Hegel >was exposing have frequently been attributed to >him. Absolute ethical life is more explicit in >the political writings than in other writings. >In the Philosophy of Right this is because the >other illusions which made Hegel despair of any >reunification of political and religious life >are not prominent. Yet he could not >???justify??? in the Kantian sense the idea of >absolute ethical life; he could not provide any >abstract statement of it apart from the >presentations of the contradictions which imply >it. For an abstract statement would make >manifest that this ethical life does not exist >in the modern world. This would be to turn >ethical life into an abstract ideal, an >autonomous prescription, a Sollen, which would >be completely ???unjustified??? because not >implied by the contradictions between political >consciousness and social and historical bases. >Hegel???s solution to this dilemma was to >emphasize the presence of ethical life, not the >task of achieving it. Ironically, as a result, >the Philosophy of Right has been read as the >justification (sic) of a status quo, instead of >the attempt in speculative (dis)guise to commend >the unity of theory and practice." The above is quite interesting. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 00:33:32 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:33:32 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Re: Marxism & the Origins of British Socialism In-Reply-To: <20080712.165904.928.6.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <20080712.165904.928.6.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: I don't think this era was like our own at all. Among other things, the last thing we have to worry about is a socialist movement being coopted by reformism, because we have neither a socialist nor a reformist movement, at least not in the USA, and this is likely true of other advanced bourgeois democracies. I haven't yet brought in the Labiola/Croce/Sorel article, which I might as well at least mention: --------------------------------------- Jacobitti, Edmund E. "Labriola, Croce, and Italian Marxism (1895-1910)," Journal of the History of Ideas, 36: 297-318, 1975. Abstract: Late 19th century European Mmarxism was influenced by various non-materialist doctrines (Neo-Kantianism, Bergsonianism, e.g.) in reaction to the concrete non-metaphysical Marxian-Labriolan "philosophy of the practical." Croce's association with Labriola, his polemics against Lafargue and Loria, earned him an orthodox reputation in Marxist circles. Hence when Croce later developed his own philosophy of spiritual idealism, it was, to the dismay of Labriola, imported into Italian Marxism as Neo-Kantianism was imported into German Marxism. Croce, with Sorel, whom he popularized in Italy, concluded that Marxism, to succeed, must abandon the non-metaphysical and become a spiritual force. This idea helped destroy moderate non-ideological Turatian socialism and prepare the way for Mussolini. Croce, himself, altogether abandoned Marxism; it did not abandon him. --------------------------------------- The lessons to be learned, if any, are of varying scope. Jacobitti's article has practically nothing to say about the overall political situation, so one doesn't know from the article alone how arbitrary the directions are that these intellectuals took. The only potentially demonstrable connection between the philosophies of these intellectuals (which the rank and file workers demonstrated zero interest in) and the politics of the socialist movement is the ominous obsession with idealism, myth, and faith which seems to be connected with the ultimate transformation of Italian socialism into fascism. Pierson's book on the UK purports to show how a Marxist orientation became ineffectual in Britain through dilution by various native ideological tendencies and absorption into reformist politics. I have to read more to say more about this. Pierson's book on German social democracy is more revealing, as it connects a variety of ideological trends among intellectuals to larger national political and ideological trends: trade union politics and reformism, growing imperialist nationalism, etc. There remains a question, though, to what degree intellectuals are reacting to objectively determinable frustrations or following their own characteristic preoccupations. After all, how could Neo-Kantianism possibly materially improve the chances of the German party even with a reformist bent? Intellectuals apparently have their own set of concerns and motivations, and thus their reactions to political frustration and sociocultural developments may have distinctive properties, apart from the more objective question of the failure to stimulate appropriate class consciousness among the laboring masses. I have to learn more about the various national contexts and the overall European situation of a century ago. I get the impression that something changed around the turn of the century, some impasse was reached that stimulated grave doubts and led either to ossification among the orthodox or irrationalism among the dissidents (the most extreme case being Sorel, whose preoccupation with myth is proto-fascist), signalling the coming civilizational crisis that was to result in the world war. One sees here as everywhere in bourgeois society--which includes Marxism--for the past two centuries a periodic ideological oscillation between scientism and romanticism, positivism and irrationalism. These contradictions remain irresolvable in modern society. Now we are in an irrationalist phase while the lingering rationalists look on helpless (and mostly clueless), as the world careens to its doom. However, the abstract ideological pattern I have in mind hardly serves to pin down concretely what is going on in the world today or how it compares to the bourgeois world order of a century ago. At 04:59 PM 7/12/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:44:26 -0400 Ralph Dumain ><rdumain at autodidactproject.org> >writes: > > Now: > > > > > <http://autodidactproject.org/other/pierson-Marxism-UK.html>Marxism > > > > > and the Origins of British Socialism: The Struggle for a New > > Consciousness by Stanley Pierson (1973). > > > > Included are the > > > <http://autodidactproject.org/other/pierson-Marxism-UK.html>Contents, > > > > > Introduction, Conclusion. > > > > I haven't yet finished my review of his other book: > > > > Pierson, Stanley. Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class > > Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University > > Press, 1993. > > > > Going by these two books, it seems that the possibility of putting > > Marxist theory into practice was in deep shit by the end of the 19th > > > > century. I just finished an article on Croce, Labriola, and Sorel > > which documents a comparable problem. > >Croce as I recall was proclaiming the death of Marxism in >the early 1900s. How was his era like and unlike our own? > >Jim F. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 01:51:53 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 03:51:53 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] In-Reply-To: <487794D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487776C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <487794D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: There are some who confine logic to the consistency of sets of statements and the validity of inference, and others who mix it up with metaphysics. I belong to the former camp. Answering your question with a question: what exactly does it mean to say that something is identical or not identical with itself? Especially if one means this literally and not merely poetically? If one is thinking of change, e.g. the fictional instant in which something allegedly is and is not occupying one point or one moment of time, then the proper dialectical question concerns the relation between the idealization of the point-instant and the reality. The stultification of the mind by party loyalty applies most aptly to Marquit. His own articles demonstrate he understands the issue, yet he goes ahead and republishes John Somerville's intellectually inept, bootlicking piece of crap in Nature, Society, and Thought. Only Somerville's book on Soviet philosophy (during the Stalin period) is more vile. At 05:14 PM 7/11/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >How can I get a copy of your book ? > >Why is it important to have a law that entities in statements are >identical with themselves, but no similar law for actually existing >things ? > > >>> Ralph Dumain 07/11/2008 3:43 PM > >>> >Not in my book. > >At 03:05 PM 7/11/2008, Charles Brown wrote: > > >Ralph Dumain > > > >The law of identity is a property of statements, not things. > > > >^^^ > >CB: So, there is no law that a thing must be identical with itself ? From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 10:19:58 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Patriotic Ballad Uncut and Wet In-Reply-To: <4874EB81.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4874EB81.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: All I can say is: Life every voice and sing till earth and heaven ring. Oh, yeah, and those tea-sipping motherfuckers burned Buffalo to the ground, too. At 04:46 PM 7/9/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >...... > >The British moved on Baltimore September 12-15, and the population >mobilized to defend their city. Trade unionists and African-Americans >took up arms to protect their homes, alongside the property owners. ..... From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Sun Jul 13 11:03:19 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:03:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Patriotic Ballad Uncut and Wet In-Reply-To: References: <4874EB81.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Oops, I meant "Lift every voice and sing". I.e. the Negro National Anthem, which was the subject of controversy in this stupid country recently when some white people got bent out of shape when a black woman sang the words of this song to the tune of The Star-Spangled Banner. There's no pleasing these people; you'd think that after 400 years these motherfuckers would cut some slack. At 12:19 PM 7/13/2008, Ralph Dumain wrote: >All I can say is: > >Life every voice and sing >till earth and heaven ring. > >Oh, yeah, and those tea-sipping motherfuckers burned Buffalo to the >ground, too. > >At 04:46 PM 7/9/2008, Charles Brown wrote: > >...... > > > >The British moved on Baltimore September 12-15, and the population > >mobilized to defend their city. Trade unionists and African-Americans > >took up arms to protect their homes, alongside the property owners. >..... From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Mon Jul 14 17:30:47 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Mystery of Capital Message-ID: The Mystery of Capital and the Construction of Social Reality Edited by Barry Smith, David M. Mark, and Isaac Ehrlich http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/mystery.htm Anyone have any idea what this is on about? And why is John Searle interested in the mystery of capital? From dogangoecmen at aol.com Tue Jul 15 04:04:02 2008 From: dogangoecmen at aol.com (=?utf-8?Q?Do=C4=9Fan_G=C3=B6=C3=A7men?=) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:04:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lacan: The Subversion of the Subject... Message-ID: <8CAB4793E41997B-A80-20A@WEBMAIL-DF03.sysops.aol.com> Dear All, I am looking for an English online source for Lacan's "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious". Can anyone help with this? Thanks, Dogan ?---------------------- Do?an G??men Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 11:50:56 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:50:56 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama: GM to survive economic woes Message-ID: <487CAB43.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Obama: GM to survive economic woes David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama called General Motors Corp.'s plan for cutting jobs, truck production and other measures "a sober reminder of the difficult economic times we're facing." Obama spoke in Washington before heading to Indiana tomorrow. He plans to leave on a trip to Europe and the Middle East later this week. Obama said "my heart goes out to all the workers and families in Michigan and across the country who will be affected as well as those who have been impacted over the last few months and years of turbulence in the auto industry. Advertisement "America's auto workers are not just the backbone of our economy, they are on the front lines of our effort to produce the next generation of clean vehicles," he said in a statement. Obama met with GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner last month and Ford president and CEO Alan Mulally. He said domestic automakers "are facing a perfect storm of record gas prices, rising steel prices, a credit market contraction that has made it more difficult for consumers to purchase autos, and a weakening economy that has shed jobs for six straight months." "The impact of their hardship goes far beyond their own companies -- to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a strong auto industry." Obama said he has "complete confidence that GM and our other auto companies will adapt and thrive in the 21st century economy if we bring real change to Washington." The candidate's first statement on GM's restructuring repeated a mistake he made in June, when he asserted President Bush had waited for six years to meet with the CEOs of Detroit's Big Three. Bush in fact met with them in 2003. His campaign issued a corrected statement. Obama spokesman Dan Leistikow said "it was obviously a mistake and quickly corrected." You can reach David Shepardson at (202) 662 - 8735 or dshepardson at detnews.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 11:52:25 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:52:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Bush: No bailouts for automakers Message-ID: <487CAB9C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Bush: No bailouts for automakers David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- President Bush said he wouldn't back government bailouts for automakers in the wake of a massive restructuring announcement by General Motors Corp. He also rejected efforts to force Americans to do more to conserve gasoline. "I don't think the government ought to be involved with bailing out companies. ( unless they are hedge funds and investment banks - CB) I think the government ought to create the conditions so that companies can survive," Bush said at a White House press conference. Bush was asked whether companies like "General Motors, which today is cutting jobs, announcing they're going into the credit market to raise billions of dollars -- are there other entities that are so crucial to stability that require government action to show support for them?" Advertisement GM spokesman Greg Martin said the automaker hasn't sought a government bailout. "The action and urgency is on our shoulders," Martin said, saying the company. Bush also rejected calls to mandate fuel conservation. "People can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks," Bush said. But he noted the shift in consumer demand in the auto industry. "Consumers are beginning to say, wait a minute, I don't want a gas guzzler anymore, I want a smaller car," he said. "The automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes." You can reach David Shepardson at (202) 662 - 8735 or dshepardson at detnews.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 11:54:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evangelicals embrace science to become environmentalists Message-ID: <487CAC2D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Ken Wilson: Faith and Policy Evangelicals embrace science to become environmentalists There is a shift in the American religious landscape. Evangelicals who have been known to affix the adjective "wacko" to the term "environmentalist" are starting to go green. Calls to return to the biblical heritage of environmental stewardship are pouring from leaders like Richard Cizik, the vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, Rick Warren, the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," and Bill Hybels, the voice for over 6,000 churches in his Willow Creek Association. What began as a trickle and has swelled into a steady stream is bound to become a flood as evangelicals in America become the new environmentalists. We will bring new energy to address the growing global environmental crisis of a warming climate, an alarming extinction rate, the rapid loss of land that can grow crops and more than a billion people without clean drinking water. Why am I so sure? Because evangelicals love to rediscover biblical truths that have been long neglected in the church and dive into them with passion. Good stewardship of God's green earth is a hallmark of faithfulness to the earth's creator. The Bible is shot through with this emphasis, but many evangelicals have been blind to it for cultural reasons. The fact is most evangelicals are suspicious of environmentalism because many environmentalists are secular and view abortion on demand as an important tool for slowing population growth. But evangelicals are sophisticated enough to realize that pro-choice environmentalists can be wrong about abortion but right about the need to protect the environment. And evangelicals are undergoing a reawakening to environmental concern because scientists, including secular ones, are reaching out to us to say, "We need your help." For the first time in a long time evangelical leaders are meeting face to face with scientists for real dialogue. Scientists and evangelicals are finding they have more in common than either group realized. They are in the process of blowing stereotypes of each other out of the muddy waters of media-managed myths. Carl Safina, a secular environmental ocean conservationist, has partnered with me to gather two such groups -- one at the University of Akron and another at Ohio State University -- after attending one ourselves in Georgia. We find that when the scientists and evangelical pastors get together for a day, they come away shaking their heads and saying, "I was wrong about those people." They start listening to and learning from each other and God's good earth or the environment -- call it what you will -- is the better for it. After all, the founder of Christianity had a rule that summed up his reading of the Law and the Prophets (his Bible): Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When scientists who are alarmed by the way we're treating the planet and evangelicals who realize that human beings have a built-in capacity for mischief get together and listen to each other, good things are bound to happen. Even better, God things are bound to happen. And Lord knows, the creation has been groaning for this day to arrive for a long time. Ken Wilson is pastor of Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor and co-founder of The Friendship Collaborative, bringing evangelical pastors together with environmental scientists to discover common ground. E-mail comments to letters at detnews.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 13:55:13 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason Message-ID: <487CC864.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain ... or, analytical philosophy's being-for-death. I thought I would die laughing reading this essay, as it gives the whole game away: ^^^ CB: Come on , Ralph. Elaborate ( pretty please) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 14:19:35 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:19:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] formal logic not "static" [WAS: Parting of the Wa ys: Reviews (7)] Message-ID: <487CCE1A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain There are some who confine logic to the consistency of sets of statements and the validity of inference, and others who mix it up with metaphysics. I belong to the former camp. Answering your question with a question: what exactly does it mean to say that something is identical or not identical with itself? ^^^ CB: Thanks for returning the "ball". As an example, I continously think of you as the same person/thing, as opposed to a new you every time you post. I know that technically, some of the molecules that were part of your body the last time have changed, but I ignore that. I'm just thinking that it is the issue that we couldn't function if there wasn't some definiteness and stability in our world. You know this better than I , probably. It's avoiding the Heraclitus problem or total flux. ^^^^^ Especially if one means this literally and not merely poetically? If one is thinking of change, e.g. the fictional instant in which something allegedly is and is not occupying one point or one moment of time, then the proper dialectical question concerns the relation between the idealization of the point-instant and the reality. ^^^^ CB: And isn't the answer to the dialectical question the imposing of formal logic on objective reality, even if we know it's a fiction ? All I'm saying is that formal logic is not confined to thought , but is used in the relationship between thought and being, as well. In everyday thought, we treat many things as fixed, static, unchanging otherwise we'd literally be in a flux. There is also "circular" motion. ^^^^^ The stultification of the mind by party loyalty applies most aptly to Marquit. His own articles demonstrate he understands the issue, yet he goes ahead and republishes John Somerville's intellectually inept, bootlicking piece of crap in Nature, Society, and Thought. Only Somerville's book on Soviet philosophy (during the Stalin period) is more vile. ^^^ CB: This is like when you review an article by cussing it out, Ralph. I sure wish you would take the time to articulate the criticisms that fuel your anger. I can't learn anything about any book or article you are criticizing based on "cussing" or pissing on somebody. What is your criticism specifically ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 14:55:31 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:55:31 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason Message-ID: <487CD686.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain You are, most likely, thinking of philosophy as the struggle between idealism and materialism, as Engels put it. I'll leave this aside for the moment. ^^^ CB: Sure, but it is also a sort of different aspect in itself, relationship between thought and being I mean. Interesting that in that article, the author compared Heidegger and analyticals by talking only about how they deal differently with thought ( and language). That's what made me think back to Engels "thought and being" topic. ^^^^^ Note how utterly provincial and insipid are Babich's assertions about the difference between the analytical and continental modes of philosophizing. And they are not even true, if we begin with the recognition that the continental philosophy she so militantly defends with academic politics in mind, is a fiction. Babich is so devoted to obscurantist gibberish, she wishes to wage war against analytical imperialism in an effort of reverse colonization, just like imperial Japan, as I said. So now Nietzsche is being used to colonize philosophy of science. How utterly banale. ^^^ CB: When you refer to analytical "imperialism" are you being metaphorical , or are you saying analytical philo is connected to literal imperialism ? If a metaphor, please elaborate the metaphor. ^^^^ Note that the dichotomy presented to us is a dichotomy entirely defined by bourgeois conceptions. ^^^ CB: How are you using "bourgeois" here ? ^^^^ And everything that is not "analytical" is mushed together as "continental", but what is "continental" pretty much comes down to what stems from Nietzsche and Heidegger. It's too disgusting for words. ^^^^ CB: Patience, mon vieux. ^^^^^ Now what is most characteristic of an approach to philosophy that comes from Hegel and Marx is that it is progressive and historically and socially self-reflective. Not merely "contextual", and not merely "embodied", and certainly not "local" or relativistic. The perspective I have in mind overlaps but does not coincide with the fictive entity concocted as "continental philosophy". ^^^^ CB: OK. Lets concentrate on progressive and historically and socially self-reflective. Elaborate. Does the overlap mean that we can learn from so-called continental ? ^^^^ Now with respect to the history of philosophy the problem is to understand what motivates philosophical systems internally and "externally". A too provincial merely analytical approach or a too conceptually vague historical/social-critical approach can't do the job. In this respect there are different styles that correspond to the "analytical" and "continental", but note how narrow and tendentious Babich's characterizations are. ^^^^ CB: Not to be whatever, but could you specify what is narrow and tendentious , please ? ^^^ Another point about these generalized categories: individuals are more interesting than groups, and individual philosophers are more noteworthy than the schools they (are said to) belong to. Some categories of philosophical subdisciplines--like "African Philosophy" or the more recent concoction of "African American Philosophy"--are intellectually and ideologically bankrupt, but there are some noteworthy individuals subsumed under these categories who have something to say. So first of all go for the individuals and maintain skepticism about the pigeonholing academic empire builders. ^^^^ CB: Ah individuals. I noticed in the essay you sent a little while back ( I want to get back to it sometime) you dogged "collectivism". Do you consider it an error of bad Marxist philo ( Stalinist) that it shortchanges individualism , and slogs too much collectivism on philo ? ^^^^^^^ As for "the" question of philosophy again, my interest here is relating the question to the development of society as a whole, and the overall pattern of the unity and struggle of bourgeois reason and unreason. And "bourgeois" includes also what has transpired under "marxism", which after all is part of bourgeois society, wherever it is undertaken in the world. ^^^^ CB: Yea interesting point on Marxism. won't quibble on it for now, 'cause I don't want to get into cussing. Bourgeois reason and unreason. Lets see, that makes me think that communism, preserves and overcomes bourgeois society. We preserve its reason and overcome its unreason ? But , we've got to specify the reason and unreason. Is it much more than what Marx and Engels specified in these ? Has bourgeois reason developed or grown in 150 years ? I can think of bourgeois unreason growing in fascism. Hey, by the way, a follower of Heidegger on lbo said that Heidegger is the philosopher of fascism, but I must say he holds the position that most fascism is not nearly as horrific as Nazism. Fascism was ( is !) not that bad in Italy , et al. ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Without unequivocally endorsing either Friedman or Waite, I find it quite telling that Friedman approaches the Cassirer-Heidegger controversy as a technical philosophical contretemps falling out of competing Neo-Kantian schools, whilst Waite, entirely steeped in the postmodernist milieu, sees it as Heidegger outwitting the clueless Cassirer via an esoteric cunning operating under the radar of what was ostensibly under debate. Oh, and here's another tidbit I'm not in a position to verify. I'm told that Henry Pachter attended the Davos conference, at which brownshirts were visibly present, who rebuffed Cassirer as did Heidegger, and that the political undertone of the debate was not in the least subtle. I might add that Cassirer, unlike Leiter, was at least not insipid. But perhaps a steady diet of Babich would make Leiter look good, though both, it seems to me, are bankrupt. Bourgeois reason has left the building. ^^^^ CB: Is there anything worth learning from these people ? I'm thinking you extract some rational kernel or something useful to thought and being out of their "thought". This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 14:57:55 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:57:55 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Message-ID: <487CD716.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Dumain My first reaction is, this is mostly horseshit, i.e. everything concerning the speculative proposition. The contrast between "natural consciousness" and transcendental or speculative consciousness is obscurantist. ^^^ CB; Yea, what is this "transcendental ? Cultural ? symbolic in my terminology ? ^^^^ The concluding statements about the relation between family and state are more interesting, though. ^^^ CB: Please elaborate This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 14:59:35 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:59:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Message-ID: <487CD77A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> This is from the last chapter of Hegel contra Sociology: ?Missing from Marx?s oeuvre is any concept of culture, of formation and re-formation (Bildung). There is no idea of a vocation which may be assimilated or re-formed by the determinations or law which it fails to acknowledge or the strength which it underestimates. Because Marx did not relate actuality to representation and subjectivity, his account of structural change in capitalism is abstractly related to possible change in consciousness. This resulted in gross oversimplification regarding the likelihood and the inhibition of change. This is not the argument that Marx?s predictions about the conditions of the formation of revolutionary consciousness were wrong. It is an argument to the effect that the very concept of consciousness and, a fortiori, of revolutionary consciousness, are insufficiently established in Marx. This absence of any account of the formation of ?natural consciousness? or ?subjective disposition? in its modern, individualistic, moral, religious, aesthetic, political and philosophical misapprehensions has meant the Marxism is especially susceptible to re-formation. For revolutionary consciousness is subjective consciousness, just as natural consciousness is, that is, it is a determination or re-presentation of substance, ethical life, actuality, in the form of an abstract consciousness. An abstract consciousness is one which knows that it is not united with ethical life. It is determined by abstract law to know itself as formally free, identical and empty. It is only such an abstract consciousness which can be potentially revolutionary, which can conceive the ambition to acquire a universal content or determination which is not that of the bourgeois property law which bestowed universality and subjectivity on it in the first place. The very notion of Marxism, that is that Marx?s ideas are not realized, implies that Marxism is a culture, the very thing of which it has no idea. Furthermore Marxism has been ?applied? or imposed as revolutionary theory both in societies with no formal, bourgeois law and in societies with formal bourgeois law. Marx?s use of ?alienation? as characteristic of capitalist society has obscured the force of Hegel?s historically specific use of alienation to present theantinomies of revolutionary intention if pre-bourgeois societies. Strictly speaking, Hegel only analysed cultures in pre-bourgeois societies. In bourgeois, capitalist society the cultures of art and religion culminating in the French Revolution were over. Philosophy is attributed the vocation which other forms of re-presentation held previously, and, as we have seen, in places Hegel intimated that philosophy might be equally perverted, ?awkward? in its conduct?, and in others he seemed to be announcing its success. Both Hegel?s and Marx?s discourse has been misread and has been either assimilated to the prevalent law or lawlessness or imposed on it. Hegel anticipated this, but Marx, who made the relation of theory and practice so central, misunderstood the relation between his discourse and the possibility of a transformed politics. This is to point to a flaw not in Marx?s analysis of Capital, but in any presentation of that analysis as a comprehensive account of capitalism, and in any pre-judged, imposed ?realization? of that theory, any using it as a theory of Marxism. This is the utility which hegel analysed in the French Revolution: an instrumental use of a ?materialist? theory rests in fact on the idealist assumption that social reality is an object and that its definition depends on revolutionary consciousness. This is to fail to acknowledge that reality is ethical, and it is to risk creating a terror, or reinforcing lawlessness, or strengthening bourgeois law in its universality and arbitrariness. This critique of Marxism itself yields the project of a critical Marxism. The Hegelian exposition of a re-formation of a vocation in a society in which reflection dominates is an exposition of the perpetually renewed victory of forms of bourgeois cultural domination or hegemony. It provides the possibility of re-examining the changing relation between Marx?s presentation of the contradictions of Capital and a comprehensive exposition of capitalism * of capitalism itself as a culture in both its formative and destructive potencies. To expound capitalism as a culture is thus not to abandon the classical Marxist interests in political economy and in revolutionary practice. On the contrary, a presentation of the contradictory relations between Capital and culture is the only way to link the analysis of the economy to comprehension of the conditions for revolutionary practice.? (Hegel contra Sociology, pp. 218-220). Tahir: Those paragraphs, which end the book, I think should be read in the light of such other passages as the following: "The System der Sittlichkeit is an attack on the primacy of the concept, and on the predominance of social relations to which such philosophical primacy corresponds. At the same time the exposition of absolute ethical life starts from these relations, lack of identity or difference, from their own (mis)understanding of themselves. The absolute identity cannot be starkly opposed to these relative identitites, for the absolute identity would then also be only negative and abstract, another imposed concept. Hence this different kind of identity must be evolved out of intuition, the nature which is subsumed. To put it in different terms, the idea of a just society where pure and empirical consciousness coincide cannot be merely legislated, for then it would be as unjust as the one imposed by the concept. The idea of a just society can only be achieved by a transformation not of the concept but of intuition (Anschauung).? (pp. 64-65) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 15 15:05:39 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Message-ID: <487CD8E6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The following quotation from Rose?s book is from a section called Morality and Method in Chapter 1, The Antinomies of Sociological Reason: ?The development of the idea of a scientific sociology was inseparable from the transformation of transcendental logic into Geltungslogik, the paradigm of validity and values. Prima facie the idea of sociological account of validity appears contradictory. For a sociological interpretation of experience, like a psychological one, might be expected to address itself to the quaestio quid facti, not the quaestio quid juris, to the history and genesis of experience, not to its justification or validity. On the contrary, the sociology of Durkheim and of Weber indorsed the neo-Kantian critique of Psychologism, the derivation of validity from processes of consciousness. Like the neo-Kantians, Durkheim and Weber treated the question of validity as pertaining to a distinct realm of moral facts (Durkheim) or values (Weber) which is contrasted with the realm of individual sensations or perceptions (Durkheim) or from the psychology of the individual (Weber). Durkheim granted the question of validity priority over the question of values, and made validity into the sociological foundation of values (moral facts). Weber granted the question of values priority over the question of validity and made values into the sociological foundation of validity (legitimacy). The meaning of the paradigms of validity and values was decisively changed. It was the ambition of sociology to substitute itself for traditional theoretical and practical philosophy, as well as to secure a sociological object-domain sui generis. The identification of a realm of values (Sollen) or moral facts, and the development of a scientific method for their investigation, a Cohen-like logic in the case of Durkheim?s Rules, a Rickertian logic of the cultural sciences in the case of Weber, were classical neo-Kantian moves in the original project to found a scientific sociology. But Durkheim and Weber turn a Kantian argument against neo-Kantianism. For when it is argued that it is society or culture which confers objective validity on social facts or values, then the argument acquires a metacritical or ?quasi-transcendental? structure. The social or cultural a priori is the precondition of the possibility of actual social facts or values (transcendental). The identified, actual, valid facts or values can be treated as the objects of a general logic (naturalistic). The status of the precondition becomes ambiguous: it is an a priori, that is, not empirical, for it is the basis of the possibility of experience. But a ?sociological? a priori is, ex hypothesi, external of the mind, and hence appears to acquire the status of a natural object or cause. The status of the relation between the sociological precondition and the conditioned becomes correspondingly ambiguous in all sociological transcendental arguments.? (pp.13-14) The above quotation begins to elucidate the argument that Rose outlines at the beginning of the book where she says that: ?The transcendental structure of Durkheim?s and Weber?s thought has been persistently overlooked, and this has resulted in fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of their sociologies. The common criticisms that Durkheim?s most ambitious explanations are tautological, and that Weber?s hypothesis of a rational ethic to explain capitalism is circular, miss the point that a transcendental account necessarily presupposes the actuality or existence of its object and seeks to discover the conditions of its possibility. The neo-Kantian paradigm is the source of both the strengths and weaknesses of Durkheim?s and of Weber?s sociology. Many of the subsequent radical challenges to the sociology of Durkheim and the Weber were motivated by the desire to break out of the constrictions of the neo-Kantian paradigm. Phenomenology and the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, for example, must be assessed in this light. Nevertheless, I shall argue, they remain essentially within that paradigm. More recent discussions of the significance of Marx for social theory have also been dominated by neo-Kantian assumptions. The very idea of a scientific sociology, whether non-Marxist or Marxist, is only possible as a form of neo-Kantianism. This neo-Kantianism bars access to the philosophy of Hegel, and, consequently, inhibits discussion of Marxism from the standpoint of its philosophical foundations. Yet, as I shall show, Hegel?s thought anticipates and criticizes the whole neo-Kantian endeavour, its methodologism and its moralism, and consists of a wholly different mode of social analysis.? (pp.1-2) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 02:16:32 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:16:32 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama not closing U.S. racial divide (I am so shocked) Message-ID: Obama not closing U.S. racial divide Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:11am BST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are sharply divided by race ahead of the first presidential election in which a black candidate will represent a major party, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed on Tuesday, The poll found that blacks and whites hold vastly different views of Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who would be the first black president, and are also divided on the state of race relations in the United States, the newspaper reported. In the survey, 83 percent of blacks had a favourable opinion of Obama, compared with 31 percent of white voters. Obama will face John McCain, a white Republican senator from Arizona, in the November 4 presidential election. On the status of race relations, 59 percent of black respondents they were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites who thought the same way. The nationwide telephone poll of 1,796 adults showed that 39 percent of blacks said there had been no real progress in recent years in getting rid of racial discrimination. Only 17 percent of whites said the same thing. Twenty-seven percent of whites said too much had been made of problems facing black people, while half of blacks said not enough had been made of racial barriers faced by black people. The poll was conducted July 7-14 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. (Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by John O'Callaghan) From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 03:29:45 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:29:45 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy In-Reply-To: <487CD8E6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487CD8E6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Just a few comments on this load of shit interleaved: At 05:05 PM 7/15/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >The following quotation from Rose???s book is >from a section called Morality and Method in >Chapter 1, The Antinomies of Sociological >Reason: ???The development of the idea of a >scientific sociology was inseparable from the >transformation of transcendental logic into >Geltungslogik, the paradigm of validity and >values. Prima facie the idea of sociological >account of validity appears contradictory. For a >sociological interpretation of experience, like >a psychological one, might be expected to >address itself to the quaestio quid facti, not >the quaestio quid juris, to the history and >genesis of experience, not to its justification >or validity. On the contrary, the sociology of >Durkheim and of Weber indorsed the neo-Kantian >critique of Psychologism, the derivation of >validity from processes of consciousness. Like >the neo-Kantians, Durkheim and Weber treated the >question of validity as pertaining to a distinct >realm of moral facts (Durkheim) or values >(Weber) which is contrasted with the realm of >individual sensations or perceptions (Durkheim) >or from the psychology of the individual >(Weber). Durkheim granted the question of >validity priority over the question of values, >and made validity into the sociological >foundation of values (moral facts). Weber >granted the question of values priority over the >question of validity and made values into the >sociological foundation of validity >(legitimacy). The meaning of the paradigms of >validity and values was decisively changed. It >was the ambition of sociology to substitute >itself for traditional theoretical and practical >philosophy, as well as to secure a sociological >object-domain sui generis. The identification of >a realm of values (Sollen) or moral facts, and >the development of a scientific method for their >investigation, a Cohen-like logic in the case of >Durkheim???s Rules, a Rickertian logic of the >cultural sciences in the case of Weber, were >classical neo-Kantian moves in the original >project to found a scientific sociology. But >Durkheim and Weber turn a Kantian argument >against neo-Kantianism. For when it is argued >that it is society or culture which confers >objective validity on social facts or values, >then the argument acquires a metacritical or >???quasi-transcendental??? structure. The social >or cultural a priori is the precondition of the >possibility of actual social facts or values >(transcendental). The identified, actual, valid >facts or values can be treated as the objects of >a general logic (naturalistic). The status of >the precondition becomes ambiguous: it is an a >priori, that is, not empirical, for it is the >basis of the possibility of experience. I don't know how much of the above is true, or how much is even significant. >But a ???sociological??? a priori is, ex >hypothesi, external of the mind, and hence >appears to acquire the status of a natural object or cause. This is the crux of all radical critiques of bourgeois social science, or even of Marxism turned into a natural science. Although "mind" is not the term generally used, it would be "subjectivity" or "agency" or "praxis". >The status of the relation between the >sociological precondition and the conditioned >becomes correspondingly ambiguous in all >sociological transcendental arguments.??? >(pp.13-14) The above quotation begins to >elucidate the argument that Rose outlines at the >beginning of the book where she says that: >???The transcendental structure of Durkheim???s >and Weber???s thought has been persistently >overlooked, and this has resulted in fundamental >misunderstanding of the nature of their >sociologies. The common criticisms that >Durkheim???s most ambitious explanations are >tautological, and that Weber???s hypothesis of a >rational ethic to explain capitalism is >circular, miss the point that a transcendental >account necessarily presupposes the actuality or >existence of its object and seeks to discover >the conditions of its possibility. The >neo-Kantian paradigm is the source of both the >strengths and weaknesses of Durkheim???s and of >Weber???s sociology. Many of the subsequent >radical challenges to the sociology of Durkheim >and the Weber were motivated by the desire to >break out of the constrictions of the neo-Kantian paradigm. Is all of this so? > Phenomenology and the Marxism of the Frankfurt > School, for example, must be assessed in this > light. Nevertheless, I shall argue, they remain > essentially within that paradigm. More recent > discussions of the significance of Marx for > social theory have also been dominated by > neo-Kantian assumptions. The very idea of a > scientific sociology, whether non-Marxist or > Marxist, is only possible as a form of > neo-Kantianism. This neo-Kantianism bars access > to the philosophy of Hegel, and, consequently, > inhibits discussion of Marxism from the > standpoint of its philosophical foundations. This is all horseshit. >Yet, as I shall show, Hegel???s thought >anticipates and criticizes the whole neo-Kantian >endeavour, its methodologism and its moralism, >and consists of a wholly different mode of social analysis. This I've got to see. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 03:39:37 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:39:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy In-Reply-To: <487CD77A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487CD77A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Just a few marks on this pretentious crap, interleaved below. At 04:59 PM 7/15/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >This is from the last chapter of Hegel contra >Sociology: ???Missing from Marx???s oeuvre is >any concept of culture, of formation and >re-formation (Bildung). There is no idea of a >vocation which may be assimilated or re-formed >by the determinations or law which it fails to >acknowledge or the strength which it >underestimates. Because Marx did not relate >actuality to representation and subjectivity, >his account of structural change in capitalism >is abstractly related to possible change in >consciousness. This resulted in gross >oversimplification regarding the likelihood and >the inhibition of change. This is not the >argument that Marx???s predictions about the >conditions of the formation of revolutionary >consciousness were wrong. It is an argument to >the effect that the very concept of >consciousness and, a fortiori, of revolutionary >consciousness, are insufficiently established in Marx. Louis Dupre (yes?) wrote a whole book on Marx's critique of culture, with some unfavorable conclusions. Marx, though, never pretended to establish a system. He was too busy absorbing as much information about as many things as fast as he could. That's why he studied the available literature of ethnology. So his work was incomplete. What exactly is Rose on about here? >This absence of any account of the formation of >???natural consciousness??? or ???subjective >disposition??? in its modern, individualistic, >moral, religious, aesthetic, political and >philosophical misapprehensions has meant the >Marxism is especially susceptible to >re-formation. For revolutionary consciousness is >subjective consciousness, just as natural >consciousness is, that is, it is a determination >or re-presentation of substance, ethical life, >actuality, in the form of an abstract consciousness. What is "natural consciousness"? Is this a term borrowed from phenomenology? >An abstract consciousness is one which knows >that it is not united with ethical life. It is >determined by abstract law to know itself as >formally free, identical and empty. It is only >such an abstract consciousness which can be >potentially revolutionary, which can conceive >the ambition to acquire a universal content or >determination which is not that of the bourgeois >property law which bestowed universality and >subjectivity on it in the first place. The very >notion of Marxism, that is that Marx???s ideas >are not realized, implies that Marxism is a >culture, the very thing of which it has no idea. What the fuck does this mean? > Furthermore Marxism has been ???applied??? or > imposed as revolutionary theory both in > societies with no formal, bourgeois law and in > societies with formal bourgeois law. Implying what? That Marx was oblivious to the historical importance of bourgeois democracy? >Marx???s use of ???alienation??? as >characteristic of capitalist society has >obscured the force of Hegel???s historically >specific use of alienation to present >theantinomies of revolutionary intention if >pre-bourgeois societies. Strictly speaking, >Hegel only analysed cultures in pre-bourgeois >societies. In bourgeois, capitalist society the >cultures of art and religion culminating in the >French Revolution were over. Philosophy is >attributed the vocation which other forms of >re-presentation held previously, and, as we have >seen, in places Hegel intimated that philosophy >might be equally perverted, ???awkward??? in its >conduct???, and in others he seemed to be >announcing its success. Both Hegel???s and >Marx???s discourse has been misread and has been >either assimilated to the prevalent law or lawlessness or imposed on it. What the fuck? > Hegel anticipated this, but Marx, who made the > relation of theory and practice so central, > misunderstood the relation between his > discourse and the possibility of a transformed > politics. This is to point to a flaw not in > Marx???s analysis of Capital, but in any > presentation of that analysis as a > comprehensive account of capitalism, and in any > pre-judged, imposed ???realization??? of that > theory, any using it as a theory of Marxism. So Marx had a finished system he was trying to impose on the world? >This is the utility which hegel analysed in the >French Revolution: an instrumental use of a >???materialist??? theory rests in fact on the >idealist assumption that social reality is an >object and that its definition depends on >revolutionary consciousness. This is to fail to >acknowledge that reality is ethical, and it is >to risk creating a terror, or reinforcing >lawlessness, or strengthening bourgeois law in >its universality and arbitrariness. So who is being criticized here? Reality is ethical? >This critique of Marxism itself yields the >project of a critical Marxism. The Hegelian >exposition of a re-formation of a vocation in a >society in which reflection dominates is an >exposition of the perpetually renewed victory of >forms of bourgeois cultural domination or >hegemony. It provides the possibility of >re-examining the changing relation between >Marx???s presentation of the contradictions of >Capital and a comprehensive exposition of >capitalism * of capitalism itself as a culture >in both its formative and destructive potencies. >To expound capitalism as a culture is thus not >to abandon the classical Marxist interests in >political economy and in revolutionary practice. >On the contrary, a presentation of the >contradictory relations between Capital and >culture is the only way to link the analysis of >the economy to comprehension of the conditions >for revolutionary practice.??? (Hegel contra Sociology, pp. 218-220). There's something here, it seems, but haven't other people written about this better? >Tahir: Those paragraphs, which end the book, I >think should be read in the light of such other >passages as the following: "The System der >Sittlichkeit is an attack on the primacy of the >concept, and on the predominance of social >relations to which such philosophical primacy >corresponds. At the same time the exposition of >absolute ethical life starts from these >relations, lack of identity or difference, from >their own (mis)understanding of themselves. The >absolute identity cannot be starkly opposed to >these relative identitites, for the absolute >identity would then also be only negative and >abstract, another imposed concept. Hence this >different kind of identity must be evolved out >of intuition, the nature which is subsumed. To >put it in different terms, the idea of a just >society where pure and empirical consciousness >coincide cannot be merely legislated, for then >it would be as unjust as the one imposed by the >concept. The idea of a just society can only be >achieved by a transformation not of the concept >but of intuition (Anschauung).??? (pp. 64-65) Seems like empty rhetoric to me. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Tue Jul 15 23:18:48 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:18:48 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lakoff vs Chomsky (& Pinker) (1) Message-ID: [Q:] What do you think of the work of George Lakoff, who has applied linguistics in his political work? [Chomsky:] I don?t see any place in that work where linguistics and cognitive science enters. A lot of it seems to be sort of common sense. Five Minutes With: Noam Chomsky By Niral Shah, Dartmouth College Thursday February 1, 2007 http://campusprogress.org/features/1410/five-minutes-with-noam-chomsky ----------------------------------- One should be careful of conflating the philosophical with the scientific with the political issues, yet it is clear to me that Lakoff is philosophically and politically bankrupt. I have yet to find a direct confrontation between the liberal Lakoff and the radical Chomsky on political issues, yet the two do get mixed up in other people's minds on more than one of these axes, and the hostility within linguistics between these two is of long standing. For example: Volume 20, Number 12 ? July 19, 1973 The New York Review of Books Chomsky Replies By Noam Chomsky In response to Deep Language (February 8, 1973) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9785 Lakoff's cluelessness is truly remarkable. His remoteness from reality is evident from his first forays into politics, because, for a person who pretends as if he's revolutionized all of western thought by prattling about embodiedness, his notions of liberalism and metaphor (including the centrality of the family metaphor for explaining everything_ are curiously disembodied from American history, social reality, and the reality of the Democratic Party. Lakoff had no idea of who he was dealing with when he became a big shot in the world of political consulting, and doesn't seem to understand why he couldn't get the results he wanted from the leading Dem politicos. See: The Framing Wars By MATT BAI Published: July 17, 2005 The New York Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/magazine/17DEMOCRATS.html?ei=5090&en=36ac46ed797d7ab6&ex=1279252800&pagewanted=all Lakoff himself seems to have been embroiled in a conflation of philosophico-linguistic disputes with an ideological/political dispute with another first-class asshole, Steven Pinker: When Cognitive Science Enters Politics by George Lakoff A Response to Steven Pinker?s Review of Whose Freedom? in The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20061009&s=pinker100906) Last modified Thursday, October 12, 2006 09:34 AM http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics One must disentangle this mess to determine who is right, or more to the point, wrong about what. Lakoff complains that the Democratic Party doesn't have a clue about framing. He wonders if it's because they don't know what they're really about. But what about in the past? How did Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey in spite of all expectations of the establishment press? Here's one interview: Inside the Frame / AlterNet BuzzFlash. Posted January 15, 2004. http://www.alternet.org/story/17574/%22?page=entire&ses=32e0e456edada400d3f680e66a253863 Lakoff's conception of framing, as well as his puffed-up claims of originality, have been criticized in many quarters. Here's one good one: 04.11.2006 (The New Republic Open University Blog) FRAME GAME by Geoffrey Nunberg http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2006/11/04/60751.aspx Nunberg begins with the Pinker-Lakoff dispute and ends by showing how incredibly limited and naive Lakoff is, and, by reducing political conflicts to personality (and family) types, he is reinforcing a very conservative frame. Nunberg actually shows that he is on the verge of understanding institutional realities that other upscale "liberals" like Lakoff somehow fail to grasp. Nunberg, though, has written another book in the what-happened-to-liberalism genre: Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism Into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show . Nunberg is also a linguist. It's not clear that he has anything particularly deep to offer, either. Lakoff also contributes his ideas on philosophy and cognitive linguistics to The Edge, which promotes another piece of ideological obfuscation called the Third Culture, which goes beyond the C.P.-Snow-instigated "Two Cultures" debate, but which is, in practice, an effort at colonizing the humanities for the natural sciences. All this comes to the breakdown of bourgeois reason in the face of the new fascism. It's pathetic and sickening. But one more word now on framing and whoring for the Democratic Party. I see people like this in Washington all the time; I attend their book talks and listen to the idiotic questions from their audiences. And I note something consistent about all of them, and about all the politicos and talking heads on television, when they talk about the "American People". Listen to these folks for a while, and listen carefully. Whatever their politics, when these folks refer to the "American People", what they really mean is white people. The American people means whites only. It's really true. Nobody else really exists for these people, though when have no conscious desire to exclude others. I even said this to Richard Shenkman's face a couple weeks ago, when he was here hawking his book Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth about the American Voter. He was dumbfounded. But you see, these middlebrow intellectuals and journalists are as dumbed down as the rest of us. It's even worse. Whenever Barack Obama talks about the "American people", he's referring to whites only. That's why I agree with Jesse Jackson and oppose all the columnists left and right who condemn Jackson for his remarks. I only differ in objecting to the presupposition that Democrats have any nuts to cut off. You know when this really hit me? It was on Sunday's "Meet the Press" when that disgusting Bible-humping, double-talking bullshit artist black Clintonite Harold Ford mentioned the "American people". It's not true that Obama's candidacy proves that America has changed. It proves just the opposite: America still means "for white only". Colored servants enter through the rear. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 01:31:00 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:31:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lakoff vs Chomsky (2) Message-ID: I meant to write more about Lakoff's defense of his ideas, but I'm fading, and so is my memory--maybe I was going to draw from Lakoff's response to Pinker, I'm not sure. Here's a review of Lakoff's work on metaphor that draws a link between language and politics, or rather, quotes a link of Lakoff's himself. Metaphor in the Raw Michael Sinding McMaster University sindinm at mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (2000) http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.900/11.1.r_sinding.txt Note these odd political claims: "Lakoff and Johnson demonstrate the overall coherence of Chomsky's views by relating his assumptions about mind to his politics. Thus, because minds are independent from bodies, we can think and act freely of physical constraints. This defines human nature, so that all people require maximum freedom, and do not need excess material possessions. Therefore government rule and capitalism tend to violate human nature, and an ideal political system is anarchist and socialist. These reconstructions may find little favor with specialist scholars, since when it comes to fine points, we seem far from simple mappings. But it is a strength of this method that it accounts for the sense of large regularities linking distant parts in a theory, even when they do not strictly follow one from another. How might the logic of details conflict with the logic of their governing metaphors? Chomsky says the two parts of his work are only loosely related, but accepts Harry Bracken's linking of models of mind with ethics, in that rationalism erects a "modest conceptual barrier" against racism because it proposes a universal human essence (Chomsky 92-94). How does this square with the fact that a racist could be a Chomskyan linguist? The basic mappings provide an overall structure from our prereflective source-concept, but presumably further specifications can depart from that concept without changing it. One could accept the linguistic metaphors without seeing reason and freedom as the human essence, or one could apply other metaphors of stable order as human nature. Perhaps everyone has a system with a Kuhnian paradigmatic structure that stays in place as long as it can, and a more literal periphery that accommodates local demands for consistency with itself and with new knowledge." It will be necessary to check the book itself to see if and how Lakoff & Johnson exactly claim this linkage. Then determine the ideological motivation for criticizing Chomsky in this way. Sinding's conclusion: "Psychoanalysis and Marxism have elevated imagination by elevating irrationality. They dwell on unconscious drives and downplay the conscious mind's excuses for itself. But to restore imagination to its central place requires showing how it does real cognitive work: an account of the mind as imaginatively rational can still accommodate the irrational, but an account of the mind as imaginatively irrational cannot explain the successes of reason. This task requires changing our basic ideas about reason. Philosophy in the Flesh goes a long way to this end; in doing so, it shows how irrationalism leaves the traditional picture of reason intact. A theory that invests so much in metaphor should produce echoes within the padded walls of literary academe. Embodied cognition conceived in this range and depth informs the structure of culture, creativity, narrative, imagery, figures and signification, belief and ideology and the epistemological grid, empathic projection, emotion, desire and the unconscious, and the elements of the other arts. Lakoff and Johnson put the study of imaginative processes on a new footing--keen attention to their work could revitalize the study of culture." This seems palpably idiotic to me. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 02:17:13 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lakoff vs Chomsky -- Obama (3) Message-ID: I haven't been able to find any substantive remarks by Chomsky on Obama, except for one passing comment citing Obama as an example of writing off America's wars as "mistakes". I haven't checked Lakoff's ouevre in this regard, but I did stumble onto this piece from January: What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race? The Huffington Post Posted January 30, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html The commentators on this blog were by and large not taken in. What a fucking idiot! These academic liberals are so useless, it's stunning. These people and their alleged "science" falls apart in grappling with society in any but the shallowest way. They apply their junk science to their junk politics. Linguists are probably not any more mentally retarded than the rest, but they're a sad lot, too. For example, Deborah Tannen's The Argument Culture is more middlebrow liberal bullshit. Her work is mostly on male/female conversational dynamics, which belongs more to Oprah than it has anything to do with science. Of course, there are neocon linguists too, like that piece-'o-shit black conservative John McWhorter. __________________________________________________ "I treat the ridiculous seriously when I treat it with ridicule." -- Karl Marx From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Wed Jul 16 03:21:37 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:21:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Who(')s(e) nuts? Jesse, Barack, me Message-ID: I've been searching the web for someone who dissents from the conventional wisdom black and white that Jesse did the wrong thing in commenting unfavorably about Barack's mouth and testicles. But the only reasonable commentary I can find is a commentary imputed to Samuel L. Jackson: I'm tired of hearing about Obama's got-damn nut-sack http://www.newsgroper.com/samuel-l-jackson/2008/07/10/im-tired-hearing-about-obamas-got-damn-nut-sack "I've seen Obama's balls, and motherfucker has some great big black low-hangers." You can't get this kind of commentary on "Meet the Press". I was kinda disappointed with the pro-Barack anti-Jesse commentary picked up from a barbershop on H Street in Washington DC: American blacks look to Obama as savior from enemy within http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbAng6xa-mX0zJRuQaZAS8Tv7ILA I'm not sure where this black barbershop is, but I know H Street well--I was running an errand there yesterday--and I can only say that it's not likely to be a major supplier of America's future rocket scientists. Another rocket scientist, Russell Simmons, is in a very lovey-dovey mood: "You can judge someone you love, and I would say Jesse Jackson loves Obama so much that maybe he had a judgment." http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/48524/ You always unman the one you love. Hopefully he'll remember this the next time he visits his friend Farrakhan. Yet another rocket scientist, Spike Lee thinks Jesse is jealous of Barack's nuts. I think this event is bound to end up on the stage. I've already got the title: "The Scrotum Soliloquies" I wish George Carlin could have held on a couple weeks longer. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 16 08:33:25 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:33:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama not closing U.S. racial divide (I am so shocked) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487DCE75.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The nationwide telephone poll of 1,796 adults showed that 39 percent of blacks said there had been no real progress in recent years in getting rid of racial discrimination. Only 17 percent of whites said the same thing. ^^^^ CB: So a majority of Blacks said progress has been made ^^^ Twenty-seven percent of whites said too much had been made of problems facing black people, while half of blacks said not enough had been made of racial barriers faced by black people. ^^^ CB: A majority of Whites said it is not true that too much has been made of problems facing Black people. ^^^^ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From ballistanc at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 10:04:25 2008 From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] FW: Paro mundial 3 agosto Message-ID: <887699.42014.qm@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ...aunque yo no comparto esta practica considero que es necesario impulsarla hasta colocarla en el lugar hist?rico que le corresponde....On to August 3rd!!! --- On Tue, 7/15/08, lissette sarda diaz wrote: From: lissette sarda diaz Subject: FW: Paro mundial 3 agosto To: Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 8:29 PM #yiv689462537 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv689462537 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} #yiv689462537 .hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv689462537 {FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} F ? ? ? PARO MUNDIAL 3 AGOSTO APOYEMOSLO POR EL BIEN DE TODOS ?? ? SENORES Iniciemos un paro mundial de COMPRA DE GASOLINA. SE HA DECRETADO que se har? un paro de compra de combustible en todo el mundo el d?a 3 de agosto de 2008. ? Si hacemos presi?n en todo el mundo, lograremos que los precios del combustible bajen dr?sticamente. Nunca antes el mundo se hab?a puesto de acuerdo en algo tan grande e importante. Si conoce a alguien con correo electr?nico env?e este mensaje. ? Siga las siguientes instrucciones: ? 1. NO COMPRE EN GRANDES CANTIDADES EL D?A ANTERIOR O POSTERIOR 2. COMPRE UN POCO MAS DE LO NORMAL CADA D?A PARA NO PARAR SUS OPERACIONES EL DIA DEL PARO. 3. NO PLANEE NINGUN VIAJE LARGO PARA EL 3 DE AGOSTO 4. ES DOMINGO, QUEDESE EN CASA, PLANEE ALGUN EVENTO FAMILIAR EN CASA 5. COMUNIQUESELO A TODAS LAS PERSONAS QUE CONOCE. VERBAL O POR ESCRITO. 6. ES HORA DE UNIRNOS MUNDIALMENTE PARA UN PROP?SITO MUNDIAL. LA UNION HACE LA FUERZA ? ? ? ? ? Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Consigue el nuevo Windows Live Messenger Pru?balo Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? Get it now! Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger __________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis! Reg?strate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Stop squinting -- view your photos on your TV. Learn more Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 16 11:40:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] THE RIGHT TO STAY HOME Message-ID: <487DFA3C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> THE RIGHT TO STAY HOME By David Bacon New America Media http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=66a8eccf43428bfe3542bfc7ddfb19ff JUXTLAHUACA, OAXACA, MEXICO (7/9/08) - For almost half a century, migration has been the main fact of social life in hundreds of indigenous towns spread through the hills of Oaxaca, one of Mexico's poorest states. That's made the conditions and rights of migrants central concerns for communities like Santiago de Juxtlahuaca. Today the right to travel to seek work is a matter of survival. But this June in Juxtlahuaca, in the heart of Oaxaca's Mixteca region, dozens of farmers left their fields, and women weavers their looms, to talk about another right, the right to stay home. In the town's community center two hundred Mixtec, Zapotec and Triqui farmers, and a handful of their relatives working in the U.S., made impassioned speeches asserting this right at the triannual assembly of the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations (FIOB). Hot debates ended in numerous votes. The voices of mothers and fathers arguing over the future of their children, echoed from the cinderblock walls of the cavernous hall. In Spanish, Mixteco and Triqui, people repeated one phrase over and over: the derecho de no migrar - the right to not migrate. Asserting this right challenges not just inequality and exploitation facing migrants, but the very reasons why people have to migrate to begin with. Indigenous communities are pointing to the need for social change. About 500,000 indigenous people from Oaxaca live in the US, 300,000 in California alone, according to Rufino Dominguez, one of FIOB's founders. These men and women come from communities whose economies are totally dependent on migration. The ability to send a son or daughter across the border to the north, to work and send back money, makes the difference between eating chicken or eating salt and tortillas. Migration means not having to manhandle a wooden plough behind an ox, cutting furrows in dry soil for a corn crop that can't be sold for what it cost to plant it. It means that dollars arrive in the mail when kids need shoes to go to school, or when a grandparent needs a doctor. In Oaxaca the category of extreme poverty encompasses 75 percent of its 3.4 million residents, according to EDUCA, an education and development organization. For more than two decades, under pressure from the World Bank and U.S. loan conditions, the Mexican government has cut spending intended to raise rural incomes. Prices have risen dramatically since price controls and subsidies were eliminated for necessities like gasoline, electricity, bus fares, tortillas, and milk. Raquel Cruz Manzano, principal of the Formal Primary School in San Pablo Macuiltianguis, a town in the indigenous Zapotec region, says only 900,000 Oaxacans receive organized healthcare, and the illiteracy rate is 21.8%. "The educational level in Oaxaca is 5.8 years," Cruz notes, "against a national average of 7.3 years. The average monthly wage for non-governmental employees is less than 2,000 pesos [about $200] per family [per month], the lowest in the nation. Around 75,000 children have to work in order to survive or to help their families." "But there are no jobs here, and NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] made the price of corn so low that it's not economically possible to plant a crop anymore," Dominguez asserts. "We come to the U.S. to work because we can't get a price for our product at home. There's no alternative." Without large scale political change most local communities won't have the resources for productive projects and economic development that could provide a decent living. Towns like Juxtlahuaca, don't even have waste water treatment. Rural communities rely on the same rivers for drinking water that are also used to carry away sewage. "A typical teacher earns about 2200 pesos every two weeks [about $220]," says Jaime Medina, a reporter for Oaxaca's daily Noticias. "From that they have to purchase chalk, pencils and other school supplies for the children," Because of its indigenous membership, FIOB campaigns for the rights of migrants in the U.S. who come from those communities. It calls for immigration amnesty and legalization for undocumented migrants. FIOB has also condemned the proposals for guest worker programs. Migrants need the right to work, but "these workers don't have labor rights or benefits," Dominguez charges. "It's like slavery." At the same time, "we need development that makes migration a choice rather than a necessity -- the right to not migrate," explains Gaspar Rivera Salgado, a professor at UCLA. "Both rights are part of the same solution. We have to change the debate from one in which immigration is presented as a problem to a debate over rights. The real problem is exploitation." But the right to stay home, to not migrate, has to mean more than the right to be poor, the right to go hungry and homeless. Choosing whether to stay home or leave only has meaning if each choice can provide a meaningful future. In Juxtlahuaca Gaspar Rivera Salgado was elected FIOB's new binational coordinator. His father and mother still live on a ranch half an hour up a dirt road from the main highway, in the tiny town of Santa Cruz Rancho Viejo. There his father Sidronio planted three hundred avocado trees a few years ago, in the hope that someday their fruit would take the place of the corn and beans that were once his staple crop. He's fortunate -- his relatives have water, and a pipe from their spring has kept most of his trees, and those hopes, alive. Fernando, Gaspar's brother, has started growing mushrooms in a FIOB-sponsored project, and even put up a greenhouse for tomatoes. Those projects, they hope, will produce enough money that Fernando won't have to go back to Seattle, where he worked for seven years. This family perhaps has come close to achieving the derecho de no migrar. For the millions of farmers throughout the indigenous countryside, not migrating means doing something like it. But finding the necessary resources, even for a small number of families and communities, presents FIOB with its biggest challenge. This was the source of the debate at its Juxtlahuaca assembly. Gaspar Rivera-Salgado says, "we will find the answer to migration in our communities of origin. To make the right to not migrate concrete, we need to organize the forces in our communities, and combine them with the resources and experiences we've accumulated in 16 years of cross-border organizing." Fernando, the greenhouse builder and mushroom farmer, agrees that FIOB has the ability to organize people. "But now we have to take the next step," he urges, "and make concrete changes in peoples' lives." Organizing FIOB's support base in Oaxaca means more than just making speeches, however. As Fernando Rivera Salgado points out, communities want projects that help raise their income. Over the years FIOB has organized women weavers in Juxtlahuaca, helping them sell their textiles and garments through its chapters in California. It set up a union for rural taxis, both to help farming famiies get from Juxtlahuaca to the tiny towns in the surrounding hills, and to provide jobs for drivers. Artisan co-ops make traditional products, helped by a co-operative loan fund. The government does have some money for loans to start similar projects, but it usually goes to officials who often just pocket it, supporters of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which has ruled Oaxaca since it was formed in the 1940s. One objective debated at the FIOB assembly was organizing community pressure to win some of these resources. But any government subsidy is viewed with suspicion by activists who know the strings tied to it. Another concern is the effect of the funding on communities themselves. "Part of our political culture is the use of regalos, or government favors, to buy votes," Gaspar Rivera Salgado explains. "People want regalos, and think an organization is strong because of what it can give. But now people are demanding these results from FIOB, so do we help them or not? And if we do, how can we change the way people think? It's critical that our members see organization as the answer to problems, not a gift from the government or a political party. FIOB members need political education." Political abstention isn't an option, however, warns Juan Romualdo Gutierrez Cortez. "We aren't the only organization in Oaxaca - there are 600 others. If we don't do it, they will." But for the 16 years of its existence, FIOB has been a crucial part of the political opposition to Oaxaca's PRI government. Gutierrez, a school teacher in Tecomaxtlahuaca, was FIOB's Oaxaca coordinator until he stepped down at the Juxtlahuaca assembly. He is also a leader of Oaxaca's teachers union, Section 22 of the National Education Workers Union, and of the Popular Association of the People of Oaxaca (APPO). In June of 2006 a strike by Section 22 led to a months-long uprising, led by APPO, which sought to remove the state's governor, Ulises Ruiz, and make a basic change in development and economic policy. The uprising was crushed by Federal armed intervention, and dozens of activists were arrested. According to Leoncio Vasquez, an FIOB activist in Fresno, "the lack of human rights itself is a factor contributing to migration from Oaxaca and Mexico, since it closes off our ability to call for any change." This spring teachers again occupied the central plaza, or zocalo, of the state capital, protesting the same conditions that sparked the uprising two years ago. Gutierrez himself was not jailed during the uprising, although the state issued an order for his detention. But he's been arrested before. In the late 1990s he was elected to the Oaxaca Chamber of Deputies, in an alliance between FIOB and Mexico's leftwing Democratic Revolutionary Party. Following his term in office, Gutierrez was imprisoned by Ruiz' predecessor, Jose Murat, until a binational campaign won his release. His crime, and that of many others filling Oaxaca's jails, was insisting on a new path of economic development that would raise rural living standards, and make migration just an option, rather than an indispensable means of survival. Despite the fact that APPO wasn't successful in getting rid of Ruiz and the PRI, Gaspar Rivera-Salgado believes that "in Mexico we're very close to getting power in our communities on a local and state level." He points to Gutierrez' election as state deputy, and later as mayor of his hometown San Miguel Tlacotepec. Other municipal presidents, allied with FIOB, have also won office, and activists are beginning to plan a FIOB campaign to elect a Federal deputy. FIOB delegates agreed that the organization would continue its alliance with the PRD. Nevertheless, that alliance is controversial, partly because of the party's internal disarray. "We know the PRD is caught up in an internal crisis, and there's no real alternative vision on the left," Rivera Salgado says. "But there are no other choices if we want to participate in electoral politics, so we're trying to put forward positive proposals. We're asking people in the PRD to stop fighting over positions, and instead use the resources of the party to organize the community. We can't change things by ourselves. First, we have to reorganize our own base. But then we have to find strategic allies. "Migration is part of globalization," he emphasizes, "an aspect of state policies that expel people. Creating an alternative to that requires political power. There's no way to avoid that." For more articles and images on Mexico and immigration, see http://dbacon.igc.org/Mexico/mexico.htm http://dbacon.igc.org/Imgrants/imgrants.htm Coming in September, 2008, from Beacon Press: Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2002 See also the photodocumentary on indigenous migration to the US Communities Without Borders (Cornell University/ILR Press, 2006) http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4575 See also The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border (University of California, 2004) http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9989.html -- __________________________________ David Bacon, Photographs and Stories http://dbacon.igc.org This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 20:05:27 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:05:27 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lakoff vs Chomsky -- Obama (3) Message-ID: Lakoff vs Chomsky -- Obama (3) http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2008-July/022490.html >>I haven't been able to find any substantive remarks by Chomsky on Obama, except for one passing comment citing Obama as an example of writing off America's wars as "mistakes". I haven't checked Lakoff's ouevre in this regard, but I did stumble onto this piece from January:<< I wish we could simply get the point on left discussion lists where we could simply not care what Chomsky thinks about this or that. Not that RD is guilty of incessant citing of Chomsky. It's not that I think Chomsky is wrong in a lot of his analyses, but rather citing him (and then the liberal spectrum well to his right) seems to replace any real thought or discussion on wash-out left lists. Besides, much of what makes it into the web sources like Info. Clearinghouse is Chomsky unedited, transcribed straight from his mouth. It doesn't make for interesting or informative reading usually. It's the same with that stupid liberal Juan Cole and his so-called analysis of Iraq. Most of what he puts on his dumb blog comes from the sources anyone can access--but only after through a big Juan Cole shit filter usually. What is far more interesting is how the federal government-defense establishment is more than happy to take Obama up on his proposition that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the REAL FRONT in the war against the planet (er, that is usually stated as 'terror'). Remember, the truth of such statements comes from the very same people who gave us WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Wow, an invasion and occupation of Pakistan, I can't wait for that one. Whose going to lead such efforts? Unocal Karzai? And you can just see the Repug re'sume' for the election: Iraq is tamed, FARC has been defeated, Libya and N. Korea have been brought to heel, so has Somalia. Lebanon and the PA/PLO have been re-leadered. And the Sudan will soon be. Oh, and Afghanistan needs 100,000 troops, and the US needs to declare an anti-terror occupation zone in N. Pakistan. So Pres. Obama, please give them a trillion dollars a year for the next 8 years while they work on ways to get two trillion dollars a year for the next 1000. CJ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 17 09:14:42 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:14:42 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Global trade Message-ID: <487F29A2.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Dear All, Please consider the following machines available for sale, details as below :- Caterpillar Motor Grader Model No. CAT14G, Serial No. 96U06676 Year : 1987, Hours : 7016, Ripper, Blade, Canopy Price : USD 106,000 CIF Dubai Good/Ready to Work Condition. Caterpillar Excavators Model No. CAT330CL, Serial No. TBA Year : 2004, Hours : 6692 Price : USD 108,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. Model No. CAT320D, Serial No. AZR02568, Year : 2006, Hours : 2112, 600G Shoe, EPA, Price : USD 106,000 FOB, Good/Ready to Work Condition. Hitachi Excavators Model No. ZX125US, Serial No. HCM1SE00T00010735 Year : 2003, Hours : 10361 Cabin with Air Con, Pipping 500MM Shoe, Price : USD 44,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. Model No. ZX225US, Serial No. HCM1GF00J00109454 Year : 2003, Hours : 9735 Cabin with Air Con, Pipping 600MM Shoe, Price : USD 70,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. Komatsu Dozer Model No. D355A-3, Serial No. TBA Year : 1982, Hours : 12391 Cabin, Ripper, Blade, Price : USD 75,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. P&H Mechanical Truck Crane (100 Tons) Model No. P&H 8100, Serial No. TBA, Year : 1988, Hours : 10943, STD Boom, 100 Ton Hook, Hyd. Jack, Left Hand Drive, Engine : Mitsubishi 6D22, Electrical System and Mechanically Crane is in Good Working Condition, Price : USD 200,000 FOB, Good/Ready to Work Condition. Koehring Crawler Crane (100 Tons) Model No. Koehring 1495, Serial No. 2753, Year : 1986, Hours : 5475, Capacity : 100 Tons, Boom : 48M, Swing Bearing, Electrical System and Mechanically Crane is in Good Working Condition. Undercarriage : 75% with 100 Ton Hook, Price : USD 300,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. Krupp All Terrain Crane (110 Tons) Model No. KMK 5090 1204, VIN No. W09090512MWK20004 Year : 1991, Boom : 135, Jib : 79, Winch : One Drum Dolly : 2 Axle Engine Lower : Mercedes-Benz OM 442 1A (Hours : 6660) Engine Upper : Mercedes-Benz OM 366 A (Hours : 8734) Tires : 75%, Total Travelling Weight 122,000 LB, Counter Weight 32,600 LB Jib Weight 37,080 LB, Hook Block 40 Tons, 7 Axles, Price : USD 390,000 FOB Good/Ready to Work Condition. Pictures and relevent details will be provided on your request! Hope to get your positive response soon. Best Regards W. B. INAM A Machine Trade Singapore Pte Ltd One Raffles Quay # 25-00, North Tower Singapore 048583 Tel : +65-6622-5342, Fax : +65-6622-5999 Mobile : +65-8102-0129 Email : sales at machinetrade.com.sg This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 17 09:24:38 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:24:38 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF KHAZARIA Message-ID: <487F2BF6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF KHAZARIA by Kevin Alan Brook, Copyright ? 1996-2004 Latest revision: September 2004. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html "Of all the astonishing experiences of the widely dispersed Jewish people none was more extraordinary than that concerning the Khazars." - Nathan Ausubel, in Pictorial History of the Jewish People (1953) "The Khazar people were an unusual phenomenon for Medieval times. Surrounded by savage and nomadic tribes, they had all the advantages of the developed countries: structured government, vast and prosperous trading, and a permanent army. At the time, when great fanatism and deep ignorance contested their dominion over Western Europe, the Khazar state was famous for its justice and tolerance. People persecuted for their faiths flocked into Khazaria from everywhere. As a glistening star it shone brightly on the gloomy horizon of Europe, and faded away without leaving any traces of existence." - Vasilii V. Grigoriev, in his essay "O dvoystvennosti verkhovnoy vlasti u khazarov" (1835), reprinted in his 1876 compilation book Rossiya i Aziya on page 66 "Though the Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the world persecuted as well, Khazaria was the one place in the medieval world where the Jews actually were their own masters.... To the oppressed Jews of the world, the Khazars were a source of pride and hope, for their existence seemed to prove that God had not completely abandoned His people." - Raymond Scheindlin, in The Chronicles of the Jewish People (1996) The history of Khazaria presents us with a fascinating example of how Jewish life flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time when Jews were persecuted thruout Christian Europe, the kingdom of Khazaria was a beacon of hope. Jews were able to flourish in Khazaria because of the tolerance of the Khazar rulers, who invited Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees to settle in their country. Due to the influence of these refugees, the Khazars found the Jewish religion to be appealing and adopted Judaism in large numbers. Most of the available information about the Khazars comes from Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian, Byzantine, and Slavic sources, most of which are reliable. There is also a large quantity of archaeological evidence concerning the Khazars that illuminates multiple aspects of the Khazarian economy (arts and crafts, trade, agriculture, fishing, etc.) as well as burial practices. Origins. The Khazars were a Turkic1 people who originated in Central Asia. The early Turkic tribes were quite diverse, although it is believed that reddish hair was predominant among them prior to the Mongol conquests. In the beginning, the Khazars believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a Turkic language, and were nomadic. Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities and towns thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine. The Khazars had a great history of ethnic independence extending approximately 800 years from the 5th to the 13th century. The earliest history of the Khazars in southern Russia, prior to the middle of the 6th century, is hidden in obscurity. From about 550 to 630, the Khazars were part of the Western Turkish Empire, ruled by the Celestial Blue Turks (K?k Turks). When the Western Turkish Empire was broken up as a result of civil wars in the middle of the 7th century, the Khazars successfully asserted their independence. Yet, the K?k kaganate under which they had lived provided the Khazars with their system of government. For example, the Khazars followed the same guidelines as the K?k Turks regarding the succession of kings. Political power. At its maximum extent, the independent country of Khazaria included the geographic regions of southern Russia, northern Caucasus, eastern Ukraine, Crimea, western Kazakhstan, and northwestern Uzbekistan. Other Turkic groups such as the Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgharia was founded. The Khazars had their greatest power over other tribes in the 9th century, controlling eastern Slavs, Magyars, Pechenegs, Burtas, North Caucasian Huns, and other tribes and demanding tribute from them. Because of their jurisdiction over the area, the Caspian Sea was named the "Khazar Sea", and even today the Azeri, Turkish, Persian, and Arabic languages designate the Caspian by this term (in Turkish, "Hazar Denizi"; in Arabic, "Bahr-ul-Khazar"; in Persian, "Daryaye Khazar"). In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Islamic world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains. This was accomplished thru a series of wars known as the Arab-Khazar Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries. The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs. Cities. The first Khazar capital was Balanjar, which is identified with the archaeological site Verkhneye Chir-Yurt. During the 720s, the Khazars transferred their capital to Samandar, a coastal town in the north Caucasus noted for its beautiful gardens and vineyards. In 750, the capital was moved to the city of Itil (Atil) on the edge of the Volga River. In fact, the name "Itil" also designated the Volga River in the medieval age. Itil would remain the Khazar capital for at least another 200 years. Itil, the administrative center of the Khazar kingdom, was located adjacent to Khazaran, a major trading center. In the early 10th century, Khazaran-Itil's population was composed mostly of Muslims and Jews, but a few Christians lived there also. The capital city had many mosques. The king's palace was located on an island nearby, which was surrounded by a brick wall. The Khazars stayed in their capital during the winter, but they lived in the surrounding steppe in the spring and summer to cultivate their crops. The great capital city of modern Ukraine, Kiev, was founded by Khazars or Hungarians. Kiev is a Turkic place name (K?i = riverbank + ev = settlement). A community of Jewish Khazars lived in Kiev. Other towns of the Khazars, many of which also had important Jewish communities, included Kerch (Bospor), Feodosia, Tamatarkha (Tmutorokan), Chufut-Kale, Sudak, and Sarkel. The local governor of Samandar was Jewish, and it may be assumed that many of the governors of these other localities were also Jewish. A major brick fortress was built in 834 in Sarkel, along the Don River. It was a cooperative Byzantine-Khazar venture, and Petronas Kamateros, a Greek, served as chief engineer during the construction. Civilization and trade. The staple foods for the Khazars were rice and fish. Barley, wheat, melons, hemp, and cucumbers were also harvested in Khazaria. There were many orchards and fertile regions around the Volga River, which the Khazars depended upon due to the infrequency of rain. The Khazars hunted foxes, rabbits, and beavers to supply the large demand for furs. Khazaria was an important trade route connecting Asia and Europe. For example, the "Silk Road" was an important link between China, Central Asia, and Europe. Among the things traded along the Khazar trade routes were silks, furs, candlewax, honey, jewelry, silverware, coins, and spices. Jewish Radhanite traders of Persia passed thru Itil on their way to western Europe, China, and other locations. The Iranian Sogdians also made use of the Silk Road trade, and their language and runic letters became popular among the Turks. Khazars traded with the people of Khwarizm (northwest Uzbekistan) and Volga Bulgharia and also with port cities in Azerbaijan and Persia. The Khazars' dual-monarchy was a Turkic system under which the kagan was the supreme king and the bek was the civilian army leader. The kagans were part of the Turkic Asena ruling family that had provided kagans for other Central Asian nations in the early medieval period. The Khazar kagans had relations with the rulers of the Byzantines, Abkhazians, Hungarians, and Armenians. To some extent, the Khazarian kings influenced the religion of the Khazar people, but they tolerated those who had different religions than their own, so that even when these kings adopted Judaism they still let Greek Christians, pagan Slavs, and Muslim Iranians live in their domains. In the capital city, the Khazars established a supreme court composed of 7 members, and every religion was represented on this judicial panel (according to one contemporary Arab chronicle, the Khazars were judged according to the Torah, while the other tribes were judged according to other laws). Ancient communities of Jews existed in the Crimean Peninsula, a fact proven by much archaeological evidence. It is significant that the Crimea came under the control of the Khazars. The Crimean Jewish communities were later supplemented by refugee Jews fleeing the Mazdaq rebellion in Persia, the persecutions of Byzantine emperors Leo III and Romanus I Lecapenus, and for a variety of other reasons. Jews came to Khazaria from modern-day Uzbekistan, Armenia, Hungary, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and many other places, as documented by al-Masudi, the Schechter Letter, Saadiah Gaon, and other accounts. The Arabic writer Dimashqi wrote that these refugee Jews offered their religion to the Khazar Turks and that the Khazars "found it better than their own and accepted it". The Jewish Radhanite traders may have also influenced the conversion. Adopting Judaism was perhaps also a symbol of political independence for Khazaria, holding the balance of power between Muslim Caliphate and the Christian Byzantine Empire. Under the leadership of kings Bulan and Obadiah, the standard rabbinical form of the Jewish religion spread among the Khazars. King Bulan adopted Judaism in approximately the year 838, after supposedly holding a debate between representatives of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths. The Khazar nobility and many of the common people also became Jews. King Obadiah later established synagogues and Jewish schools in Khazaria. The books of the Mishnah, Talmud, and Torah thus became important to many Khazars. Saint Cyril came to Khazaria in 860 in a Byzantine attempt to convert the Khazars to Christianity, but he was unsuccessful in converting them away from Judaism. He did, however, convince many of the Slavs to adopt Christianity. By the 10th century, the Khazars wrote using Hebrew letters. The major Khazar Jewish documents from that period were written in the Hebrew language. The Ukrainian professor Omeljan Pritsak estimated that there were as many as 30,000 Jews in Khazaria by the 10th century. In 2002, the Swedish numismatist Gert Rispling discovered a Khazar Jewish coin. In general, the Khazars may be described as a productive and tolerant people, in contact with much of the rest of the world and providing goods and services at home and abroad. Many artifacts from the Khazars, exhibiting their artistic and industrial talents, have survived to the present day. Decline and fall. During the 10th century, the East Slavs were united under Scandinavian overlordship. A new nation, Kievan Rus, was formed by Prince Oleg. Just as the Khazars had left their mark on other peoples, so too did they influence the Rus. The Rus and the Hungarians both adopted the dual-kingship system of the Khazars. The Rus princes even borrowed the title kagan. Archaeologists recovered a variety of Khazar or Khazar-style objects (including clothing and pottery) from Viking gravesites in Chernigov, Gnezdovo, Kiev, and even Birka (Sweden). The residents of Kievan Rus patterned their legal procedures after the Khazars. In addition, some Khazar words became part of the old East Slavic language: for example, bogatyr ("brave knight") apparently derives from the Khazar word baghatur. The Rus inherited most of the former Khazar lands in the late 10th century and early 11th century. One of the most devastating defeats came in 965, when Rus Prince Svyatoslav conquered the Khazar fortress of Sarkel. It is believed that he conquered Itil two years later, after which he campaigned in the Balkans. Despite the loss of their nation, the Khazar people did not disappear. Some of them migrated westward into Hungary, Romania, and Poland, mixing with other Jewish communities.2 Notes. 1. Many medieval writers attested to the Khazars' Turkic origins including Theophanes, al-Masudi, Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzillai, Martinus Oppaviensis, and the anonymous authors of the Georgian Chronicle and Chinese chronicle T'ang-shu. The Arabic writer al-Masudi in Kitab at-Tanbih wrote: "...the Khazars... are a tribe of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, pp. 57-58). T'ang-shu reads: "K'o-sa [Khazars]... belong to the stock of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, p. 58). In his Chronographia, Theophanes wrote: "During his [Byzantine emperor Heraclius] stay there [in Lazica], he invited the eastern Turks, who are called Chazars, to become his allies." (cited in Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, 1997, p. 446). The claim that the Khazars were Scythians is completely without merit. 2. Timothy Miller discovered that Jewish Khazars were members of the Jewish community of Pera in the Byzantine Empire around the 11th century (see Timothy S. Miller, "The Legend of Saint Zotikos According to Constantine Akropolites," Analecta Bollandiana vol. 112, 1994, pp. 339-376). Suggestions for further research. Here are some useful published introductory materials on the Khazars. Some are available from retail bookstores, while others are only available through libraries. "The Jews of Khazaria, Second Edition" by Kevin Alan Brook (2006). 10 chapters, plus glossary, timeline, bibliography, maps, notes. Click here for table of contents, reviews, and more information. "The World of the Khazars" edited by Peter B. Golden, Haggai Ben-Shammai, and Andr?s R?na-Tas (2007) "Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century" by Norman Golb and Omeljan Pritsak (1982). Russian translation: "Khazarsko-yevreiskie dokumenty X veka" by Golb and Pritsak, with new section by Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin (1997). "The History of the Jewish Khazars" by Douglas M. Dunlop (1954, 1967) "Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars" by Peter B. Golden (1980) Journal article "Khazaria and Judaism" by Peter B. Golden, in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, volume 3, 1983, pages 128 to 156. "The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith" by Yehudah HaLevi, translated by N. Daniel Korobkin (1998) "The Emergence of Rus 750-1200" by Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (1996) "A History of Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia - Volume 1: Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire" by David Christian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you like to subscribe to the Khazaria.com newsletter? The newsletter provides readers with news about the latest discoveries and events in Khazar studies, including new publications, new conferences, and new archaeological finds. Back issues are available upon request. To subscribe, send an email to Kevin Brook at khazaria-announce-subscribe at yahoogroups.com or visit KHAZARIA-ANNOUNCE Subscription Page. Khazaria-Announce is not a discussion list or message board because it is a read-only newsletter. However, you must be 13 or older to subscribe, and subscription is not automatically granted. Yahoo! is a trademark of Yahoo! Inc. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 17 11:37:29 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] JULY 19 CELEBRATE Message-ID: <487F4B18.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2008w28/msg00038.htm Tom Baker here sharing with you a recounting of the history of the people of Nicaragua. It is the work of Bob Siegel, member of the Executive Committee of Nicaragua Network Alliance for Global Justice, with me, and responding to the Peace Action group in NYC where some, like too many others have long since, it seems, forgotten everything, including Father Miguel D'Escoto Bob writes This is a letter I wrote recently to Peace Action of New York State regarding their selection of Fr. Miguel D'Escoto to receive an award this fall. It contains a lot of information regarding the full scope of the U.S.' savage history vis-a-vis Nicaragua and the Sandinistas' extraordinary human rights record that I thought would be of considerable interest to those who seem to have forgotten. I wrote the letter in response to someone raising the possibility that some Peace Action members might have " a problem with honoring a Sandinista." This is the headline I refer to in the second paragraph of my letter Peace Action as an organizational entity and on the individual member level, can not just focus on peace in a general, amorphous way; on eliminating this or that weapons system; on calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from whatever poor, small, weak Third World country is the target of U.S. aggression at a particular point in time. Peace Action has to be thoroughly grounded in, and fully integrate into its work, a crystal-clear, comprehensive, incisive understanding of the full, stark reality of U.S. foreign policy. And, Nicaragua is the ultimate case study in that reality. Countless countries all around the world have been brutalized and savaged by the U.S. No country has been brutalized longer and more consistently than has Nicaragua. The U.S. has used every form of violence, every form of terror to dominate Nicaragua, to control Nicaragua, to subjugate Nicaragua. From the 1850s to 1926, the U.S.savaged and dominated Nicaragua through direct military attack and invasion, invading Nicaragua a total of 14 times. The last of these 14 invasions/occupations, from 1926-1933, was the longest and most murderous. During this occupation, the U.S. for the first time in history used the airplane as an instrument of war against civilians, killing over 400 Nicaraguan men, women, and children in the town of Ocotal in 1928. Starting in 1927, an army of Nicaraguan workers and peasants was formed to drive out the occupying U.S. troops. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, this Nicaraguan people's army courageously and effectively fought the occupying U.S. troops to a standstill. This people's army was organized and led by General Augusto Sandino, Nicaragua's national patriotic hero. Augusto Sandino, who was known, not only in Nicaragua, but throughout Latin American, as The General of Free Men. Augusto Sandino, after whom the Sandinistas are named. Based on U.S. promises that its brutal occupation of Nicaragua would end, Sandino and his men were persuaded to disarm. U.S. troops did, in fact, leave Nicaragua in 1933, but not before installing the first of the hated Somozas----Anastasio Somoza Garcia----as the head of the Nicaraguan government. In 1934, when Sandino went to the capital city of Managua to negotiate a longer-term peace treaty, he was murdered in cold blood by Somoza's henchmen, with the "kill order" coming from U.S. Ambassador Arthur Bliss. In the ensuing weeks and months, Sandino's followers throughout Nicaragua were killed. The stage was now set for the second form of violence and terror the U.S. employed to dominate Nicaragua: rule by a proxy dictatorship and a proxy army. During its military occupation, the U.S. created the National Guard. The National Guard was created specifically to do the dirty work of subjugating Nicaragua that had been done for the previous three-quarters of a century by U.S. troops. For the next nearly half-century, the U.S. financed, trained, armed, and equipped the National Guard. During its 47 years, the National Guard murdered, tortured, raped, and disappeared tens of thousands of Nicaraguans. The National Guard was the instrument of terror of, and maintained in power, the Somoza dictatorship from 1934 to 1979. The Somoza dictatorship, aside from being one of the most brutal and savage in the world, was, also, one of the most corrupt. An American businessman was quoted in Newsweek magazine in 1978 as saying: " You just don't do business in Nicaragua without offering Somoza a share in it from the beginning." When Somoza fled Nicaragua in July 1979, he took with him nine hundred million dollars. This in a country that had a total Gross Domestic Product of only three billion dollars. During 1978 and 1979, when the Sandinista-led national rebellion against the Somoza dictatorship was gaining increasing momentum, the U.S. tried mightily to preserve Somoza's rule. The U.S. sharply increased its shipments of weapons to Somoza. Flying U.S. planes and dropping U.S.-made bombs, Somoza's Air Force waged a savage air war against the Nicaraguan people as, for 10 to 12 hours a day, every Nicaraguan city was relentlessly bombed. In June 1979, the U.S. formally proposed to the Organization of American States that it authorize the sending of troops to Nicaragua to preserve the Somoza dictatorship and prevent a Sandinista victory. The OAS, for the first time in its then-31-year history, rejected this formal U.S. proposal. When the Sandinistas eventually overthrew the Somoza dictatorship on July 19, 1979, the U.S. then moved to the third phase of its attempt to control Nicaragua through any violent means possible----- the creation of a mercenary army, the contras. President Jimmy Carter started the ball rolling in this regard by illegally using airplanes with phony Red Cross insignias to fly more than two dozen National Guard officers out of Nicaragua to Miami after the fall of Somoza. President Ronald Reagan then formalized the creation of the contras via Executive Order ( National Security Decision Directive # 17 ) on November 23, 1981, authorizing the CIA to organize, train, arm, equip, and finance the contra force. All 12 of the contras' ruling body, the General Staff, were former National Guardsmen. The contras consciously patterned themselves after the paramilitary death squads of El Salvador and Guatemala ( those death squads, in turn, having been organized, trained, and armed by the U.S., starting with John Kennedy's notorious " counterinsurgency program" in the early 1960s ). The contras' entire modus operandi was the terrorization of Nicaragua's civilian population. The contras murdered, mutilated, tortured, raped, and abudcted thousands upon thousands of Nicaraguan men, women, and children. They specifically targeted for destruction hospitals, health care clinics, schools, job training centers food processing and storage facilities and specifically targeted for murder health care workers, teachers, and farmers. In June 1986, the World Court---- as part of a decision finding the U.S. guilty of criminal aggression against the nation and people of Nicaragua and ordering the U.S. to pay to Nicaragua $ 17 billion in reparations----- formally labeled the contras a " terrorist force." Knowing this history is essential to comprehending----truly comprehending----what extraordinary people Fr. Miguel D'Escoto and the Sandinistas are. Knowing this history is essential to fully comprehending the incredible forgiveness, mercifulness, and humanity the Sandinistas showed during, and after, their governance to those who had so brutalized them and the Nicaraguan people. The core ideals of Peace Action are peace, non-violence, and meeting human needs. No government has lived those ideals more than the Sandinista government. Peace and Non-Violence. In the words of a visiting Canadian Parliamentary delegation to Nicaragua in the mid-1980s, " No government in human history has shown more Christ-like forgiveness, more Christ-like humanity than the Sandinista government of Nicaragua." The Sandinistas demonstrated this " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " from the very first day. On July 19, 1979, the date of the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship, the first act of the Sandinistas was to outlaw the death penalty. Since the overwhelming majority of Nicaraguans had at least one member of their families murdered, tortured, or raped during the Somoza dictatorship, the Nicaraguan people were clamoring for the execution of Somocista officials and National Guard officers----- nearly all of whom were deemed by the United Nations to be guilty of " crimes against humanity." But, the Sandinistas would not accede to that desire on the part of so many of the people for retribution, no matter how understandable that desire was. Not only did the Sandinistas abolish the death penalty, they abolished lifetime imprisonment as well, setting the maximum criminal penalty at 30 years' imprisonment. And, these Somocista and National Guard mass murderers did not come close to serving even that sharply-reduced punishment since, in an act of amnesty, the Sandinistas released all of them after only 10 years. Then, the second act of the Sandinistas was to outlaw the use of torture. Under the U.S.- maintained Somoza dictatorship, nearly all of the Sandinistas were subjected to the most horrific torture. Electrocution, suffocation, drowning, savage beatings were the norm. A particularly ghoulish form of torture was administered to Daniel Ortega when he was locked in a coffin for 9 months. For 2 of those months, he was starved and survived only by drinking his own urine. Yet, far from hating his torturers, Daniel Ortega, displaying that " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity," repeatedly said to his torturers: " Brother, why are you doing this to me"? The National Guard kept having to reassign new people to torture Daniel Ortega since, after being with him for a few weeks, Guardsmen did not have the stomach to administer the torture. Tomas Borge, one of the three founders of the Sandinista Party in 1961 and the Interior Minister in the Sandinista government, was described by Amnesty International in the early 1970s as " the most tortured political prisoner in the world." What did this " most tortured political prisoner in the world " do after the Sandinista victory? On July 21, 1979, two days after the Sandinista triumph, he went to the detention center where the National Guardsman who supervised his torture was being held and personally forgave and freed his torturer. Then, throughout the 1980s, the Sandinistas displayed this " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " to the contra terrorists. In general, contra foot soldiers who were captured or who surrendered were free to return to their home towns without serving any jail time if they turned in their arms and forswore any further violence. It was, by and large, only the contra officers who served any jail time. And, the following says it all about how incredibly humanely these contra terrorists were treated in jail. After being permitted unlimited access to interview contra prisoners, a delegation from Amnesty International reported in November 1985 that the sum total of the contras' complaints about prison conditions was three: 1 ) light bulbs in their cells burned all day and night; 2 ) they were made to stand during questioning; and 3 ) they were fed too many meals, supposedly, in the contras' eyes, to make them think that time was going by more quickly. And, from 1990, even when they no longer were the governing party, the Sandinistas-----led by Fr. Miguel D'Escoto------continued to show incredible " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " toward the contra terrorists. Continuing a sordid history that had been in effect since the early 20th century, the U.S.------in violation of international law as well as U.S. law, to say nothing of Nicaraguan law------ massively intervened in every respect in Nicaragua's February 25, 1990, national elections. By funneling in enormous amounts of money and threatening the Nicaraguan people with an endless continuation of the terrorist war if they dared to re-elect the Sandinistas, the U.S. literally stole the election from the Sandinistas and effected the election of its hand-picked candidate, Violeta Chamorro and the UNO party which the U.S. cobbled together from 13 splinter parties. After the UNO " victory," the contras, who described themselves as the military arm of UNO, instigated a new wave of violence, murdering, mutilating, and torturing hundreds of farmers and peasants who were Sandinista supporters. After taking office in April 1990, Violeta Chamorro reneged on her previously-made promises to the contras to provide them with veterans' benefits, medical benefits, pensions, jobs, and parcels of land. Given that these were, also, demands of former Sandinista soldiers, Fr. Miguel D' Escoto saw this as an opportunity to establish common ground with the contras. Through constant, unflagging efforts, Fr. D' Escoto overcame the contras' hostility, gained their trust and confidence, and persuaded them to work with him to obtain desperately-needed benefits for all ex-combatants. Thus, literally single-handedly, Fr. D' Escoto de-fused a renewed wave of contra terrorism and averted a calamitous civil war. Meeting Human Needs. On April 12, 1986, the Executive Director of the United Nations' Development Programme said " In my 25 years at the U.N., I have never seen a government more committed to the elimination of poverty, injustice, and oppression than the Sandinista government of Nicaragua." In every area of human endeavor, the Sandinistas' achievements were historic and unparalleled. In health care, the Sandinistas built more hospitals and health clinics than had ever been built, trained more doctors, nurses, and health care workers than had ever been trained in Nicaragua's history. Long-time killer diseases such as polio and diphtheria were eliminated. The infant mortality rate was slashed by 80%, On three different occasions, the World Health Organization cited Sandinista Nicaragua for its achievements in health care. In education and literacy, the Sandinistas' slashed the illiteracy rate form 50% to 12% in only 18 months, an unprecedented achievement , for which they were given UNESCO's highest award. They built more schools than had ever been built and trained more teachers than had ever been trained in Nicaragua's history. The Sandinistas implemented the most comprehensive, successful land reform program the world has seen. The 35% of Nicaraguan territory stolen by the Somozas and the National Guard was redistributed to 500,000 landless Nicaraguans ( one-sixth of Nicaragua's then-total 3,000,000 people ). In addition to being given land ownership for the first time in their lives, the new landowners were given by the government bank credits to purchase seeds, fertilizers, farming tools, poultry, and livestock. The Sandinistas built thousands of new homes. They provided, for the first time, electricity, sanitation, running water to hundreds of remote towns and villages. Even U.S. officials acknowledged the historic, unprecedented achievements of the Sandinistas in improving the welfare of its people. In a confidential memorandum written in August 1983, the U.S. Executive Liaison to the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) stated: " The Sandinistas' implementation of economic and social development projects has been superb. In many cases, the best in the world." In a 1986 off-the-record, confidential interview with U.S. journalist Holly Sklar, a U.S. Ambassador to another Central American country stated: " The Sandinistas have given the Nicaraguan people, for the first time in their history, a sense of national pride and dignity. They have brought landmark economic and social improvements throughout Nicaragua, in to the country's tiniest capillaries. These things are against U.S. objectives." Two final points. First, the Reagan Administration, in 1983, created an entire propaganda agency to coordinate and direct its relentless torrent of Orwellian propaganda, disinformation, and lies against the Sandinistas. This propaganda agency was the Office of Public Diplomacy ( OPD ) and it operated under the aegis of the State Department. The OPD was described by senior White Officials as " a massive propaganda operation of the kind usually directed enemy populations during wartime." This orchestrated propaganda/disinformation campaign was, in turn, ( with rare exceptions ) parroted uncritically by the major print and electronic media outlets in this country. Including, and especially, those outlets considered the most influential and respectable. Elliot Abrams was the Reagan Administration's point man for its terrorist war against Nicaragua. Abrams' reputation as a congenital and notorious liar was so well known that, for the first time in American history, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to take even ordinary and routine testimony from Abrams unless he gave such testimony under oath. In 1987, Abrams was asked which media outlets had, in his opinion, the " best " coverage of Nicaragua. Without a moment's hesitation, he replied " The New York Times" And, then, quickly added " The Washington Post." Thus, any self-perceived liberal/progressive who would be " tense ' about honoring a Sandinista should seriously re-examine and re-evaluate how he/she processes information. Second, the history, actions, policies, and behavior of the Sandinistas stand in direct, polar contrast to those of the United States. Would that we, in this country, had 300,000,000 " dyed-in-the-wool Sandinistas. If we did, we would not have any need for Peace Action. Sincerely, Bob JULY 19 We Celebrate with the People of Nicaragua 29th Anniversary of The Peoples' Trimph over the Somoza US dictatorship. Which means, we sit and talk on porch steps, tell stories, here at my home. We have videos and NEWS on what's now happening down there. It's a what has happened and what is happening, what next, scenario Please bounce this back or phone 773 973 6529 - Want to make sure we got enough Flor de Cana. Evening event, 7pm to later Stop by, share your time, share your views We live in Rogers Park, Lunt near Sheridan. Phoning ahead makes it easier to get you here. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 10:33:55 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black Message-ID: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Obama responds to critics? anti-Black accusations https://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=6256&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com By Hazel Trice Edney NNPA Editor-in-Chief WASHINGTON (NNPA) ? U. S. Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee and possibly America?s first Black president, denies that he is distancing himself from Black constituents as he seeks to win broader support in the general election. ?I?ve spent the last year and a half on the campaign talking about problems of poverty and problems of injustice. That?s been what my whole campaign has been built around,? Obama said in an exclusive interview with the NNPA News Service. ?My answer is that?s what I?ve been doing my whole campaign.? Obama was responding to a question pertaining to his criticism of absent Black fathers in a Father?s Day message at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He said that speech should not send a signal that his general election campaign will focus on the negatives of the Black community in order to win the support of undecided or conservative whites. ?The fact that I made one speech about the very real problems of the fathers not looking after our kids doesn?t negate everything that I?ve been talking about during the course of this campaign, about people lacking health care about the problems of the unjust criminal justice system. I?ve given multiple speeches on these issues and I will continue to,? he said. Some pundits have observed that since the end of the primaries, Obama?s campaign appears to be doing less reaching to African Americans since he is no longer competing with Sen. Hillary Clinton. In a current column headlined, ?Obama Distances Himself From Blacks: Is There a Cost?? Dr. Ron Walters wrote, ?It is common knowledge now that Barack Obama has to distance himself from Black radicals, from his church, and much of his community in order to make white voters comfortable enough with him to trust him and then give him their votes. And he will probably show at the NAACP Convention. But the troubling trend which finds him absent from other venues that are the substance of Black life looks like he is taking the Black community for granted because of their thirst for his victory.? Even some members of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a 200-member group also known as the ?Black Press of America?? that has given Obama two awards this year, note that he has been absent during both events. ?I am disappointed that Sen. Obama is not here. That is a big disappointment for me,? said Seattle Medium Publisher Chris H. Bennett, a former NNPA president, as he spoke on a Black Press-Black Church unity panel at the organization?s summer convention late last month. ?We?re the Black Press of America. If you don?t come down here and talk to us and ask us for your support, don?t take us for granted.? Bennett continued, ?We don?t need a representative. Does that tell us that when he gets in the White House that we?ve got to go through 10, 12 or 15 other people in order to deal with him? I would think not. We need to deal with what we need to deal with and not be taken for granted.? Walters and Howard University economist Bill Spriggs both contend there is need for more targeted policy pertaining to anti-discrimination in the Black community among other issues that neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain are debating. In the NNPA interview with Obama, which took place the day before the organization?s conference that started June 25, Obama said he recognizes the need for targeted policy to undo the long time affects of race discrimination in employment as well as the criminal justice system. ?We?ve got a special problem in terms of inner city youth who are deprived of a lot of opportunities,? he said. He said while all youth need early childhood education, better pay and training for teachers and his proposed $4,000 a year tuition credit for college students, there are special needs in urban community that are often predominately Black and Latino. ?We?ve got a special category of young people who are getting caught up in the drug trade. And we?ve got programs that deter them from engaging in crimes in the first place. But, also, we?ve got diversion programs so that they?re not ending up as hardened felons, but instead are in courts, substance abuse treatment programs and if they do end up going to prisons, we?ve got to make sure that we?ve got the kinds of second chance programs afterward that can help them to get their lives back on track,? he said. Spriggs, an Obama advisor, said the reason the unemployment rate for African Americans is consistently twice that of whites and the national average is because of race discrimination. Obama said he would remedy that as president through Justice Department enforcement as well as strategic judicial appointments. ?I think it?s very simple,? Obama said. ?You?ve got to make sure that our civil rights laws are enforced. That?s something that [the Bush] administration has not put an emphasis on. We want to make sure that the civil rights division is making sure that everybody is being treated fairly and equally. And we need judges on the bench who are sympathetic to instances of discrimination in the work place. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans support equal treatment. But, we?ve got to have an enforcement mechanism. That?s something that I will make sure is in place when I?m president.? In a turnabout this week, Walters has written a subsequent column praising Obama for a speech he made before the National Conference of Mayors in which he noted that Obama announced plans for a White House Office of Urban Policy. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 18 10:50:35 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: So what if Barry's black, even though he can also be classified as biracial--both classifications being rather bizarre but sociologically legitimate? Barry talks out both sides of his mouth, and says what he has to say to stroke all of his constituents, who harbor mutually incompatible perspectives. Everybody--black commentators included--have been badmouthing Jesse Jackson. But isn't it obvious that Barry (is there anyone besides you who calls him Barry? Is this to counteract "Hussein"?) was exploiting the opportunity to appeal to whites, scapegoating blacks in the process of so doing? Of course, you can't become a president without doing as much whoring as can be done, so even if Barack were honest, he'd still have to debase himself to get anywhere. It's a curious cat-and-mouse game, to pretend to be everybody's friend at once. Perhaps he is the best neoliberalism has to offer. At 12:33 PM 7/18/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Obama responds to critics??? anti-Black >accusations >https://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=6256&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com >By Hazel Trice Edney NNPA Editor-in-Chief >WASHINGTON (NNPA) ? U. S. Sen. Barack Obama, the >pressumptive Democratic nominee and possibly >America???s first Black president, denies that >he is distancing himself from Black constituents >as he seeks to win broader support in the >general election. ???I???ve spent the last year >and a half on the campaign talking about >problems of poverty and problems of injustice. >That???s been what my whole campaign has been >built around,??? Obama said in an exclusive >interview with the NNPA News Service. ???My >answer is that???s what I???ve been doing my >whole campaign.??? Obama was responding to a >question pertaining to his criticism of absent >Black fathers in a Father???s Day message at the >Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He said that >speech should not send a signal that his general >election campaign will focus on the negatives of >the Black community in order to win the support >of undecided or conservative whites. ???The fact >that I made one speech about the very real >problems of the fathers not looking after our >kids doesn???t negate everything that I???ve >been talking about during the course of this >campaign, about people lacking health care about >the problems of the unjust criminal justice >system. I???ve given multiple speeches on these >issues and I will continue to,??? he said. Some >pundits have observed that since the end of the >primaries, Obama???s campaign appears to be >doing less reaching to African Americans since >he is no longer competing with Sen. Hillary >Clinton. In a current column headlined, ???Obama >Distances Himself From Blacks: Is There a >Cost???? Dr. Ron Walters wrote, ???It is common >knowledge now that Barack Obama has to distance >himself from Black radicals, from his church, >and much of his community in order to make white >voters comfortable enough with him to trust him >and then give him their votes. And he will >probably show at the NAACP Convention. But the >troubling trend which finds him absent from >other venues that are the substance of Black >life looks like he is taking the Black community >for granted because of their thirst for his >victory.??? Even some members of the National >Newspaper Publishers Association, a 200-member >group also known as the ???Black Press of >America?????? that has given Obama two awards >this year, note that he has been absent during >both events. ???I am disappointed that Sen. >Obama is not here. That is a big disappointment >for me,??? said Seattle Medium Publisher Chris >H. Bennett, a former NNPA president, as he spoke >on a Black Press-Black Church unity panel at the >organization???s summer convention late last >month. ???We???re the Black Press of America. If >you don???t come down here and talk to us and >ask us for your support, don???t take us for >granted.??? Bennett continued, ???We don???t >need a representative. Does that tell us that >when he gets in the White House that we???ve got >to go through 10, 12 or 15 other people in order >to deal with him? I would think not. We need to >deal with what we need to deal with and not be >taken for granted.??? Walters and Howard >University economist Bill Spriggs both contend >there is need for more targeted policy >pertaining to anti-discrimination in the Black >community among other issues that neither Obama >nor Republican Sen. John McCain are debating. In >the NNPA interview with Obama, which took place >the day before the organization???s conference >that started June 25, Obama said he recognizes >the need for targeted policy to undo the long >time affects of race discrimination in >employment as well as the criminal justice >system. ???We???ve got a special problem in >terms of inner city youth who are deprived of a >lot of opportunities,??? he said. He said while >all youth need early childhood education, better >pay and training for teachers and his proposed >$4,000 a year tuition credit for college >students, there are special needs in urban >community that are often predominately Black and >Latino. ???We???ve got a special category of >young people who are getting caught up in the >drug trade. And we???ve got programs that deter >them from engaging in crimes in the first place. >But, also, we???ve got diversion programs so >that they???re not ending up as hardened felons, >but instead are in courts, substance abuse >treatment programs and if they do end up going >to prisons, we???ve got to make sure that >we???ve got the kinds of second chance programs >afterward that can help them to get their lives >back on track,??? he said. Spriggs, an Obama >advisor, said the reason the unemployment rate >for African Americans is consistently twice that >of whites and the national average is because of >race discrimination. Obama said he would remedy >that as president through Justice Department >enforcement as well as strategic judicial >appointments. ???I think it???s very simple,??? >Obama said. ???You???ve got to make sure that >our civil rights laws are enforced. That???s >something that [the Bush] administration has not >put an emphasis on. We want to make sure that >the civil rights division is making sure that >everybody is being treated fairly and equally. >And we need judges on the bench who are >sympathetic to instances of discrimination in >the work place. I think the overwhelming >majority of Americans support equal treatment. >But, we???ve got to have an enforcement >mechanism. That???s something that I will make >sure is in place when I???m president.??? In a >turnabout this week, Walters has written a >subsequent column praising Obama for a speech he >made before the National Conference of Mayors in >which he noted that Obama announced plans for a >White House Office of Urban Policy. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 11:13:33 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:13:33 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> So what if Barry's black, even though he can also be classified as biracial--both classifications being rather bizarre but sociologically legitimate? ^^^^ Read "Barry's Black" as in "Barry's Black (smile)". So what if he's Black ? It's great that he's Black. Black is beautiful. ^^^^^^^^ Barry talks out both sides of his mouth, ^^^^ CB: That's cause he's not identical with himself. ^^^^ and says what he has to say to stroke all of his constituents, who harbor mutually incompatible perspectives. Everybody--black commentators included--have been badmouthing Jesse Jackson. But isn't it obvious that Barry (is there anyone besides you who calls him Barry? Is this to counteract "Hussein"?) ^^^^ CB: I got you to do it too I started it when they were calling Clinton "Hillary" all the time. ^^^^ was exploiting the opportunity to appeal to whites, scapegoating blacks in the process of so doing? ^^^^ CB: Nope. Not in my opinion. That's why Black people voted for him in such large percentages. He's wasn't scapegoating Blacks, ( in Black folks' opinion , which is the only opinion that counts on this one) yet he talked about race in a way that Whites still voted for him. He found a good uniting language. ^^^^ Of course, you can't become a president without doing as much whoring as can be done, so even if Barack were honest, he'd still have to debase himself to get anywhere. It's a curious cat-and-mouse game, to pretend to be everybody's friend at once. Perhaps he is the best neoliberalism has to offer. ^^^^ CB: I'd say Barry's setting a new record for the least debasing oneself in running for President. This ain't the same-o same-o At 12:33 PM 7/18/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Obama responds to critics??? anti-Black >accusations >https://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=6256&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com >By Hazel Trice Edney NNPA Editor-in-Chief >WASHINGTON (NNPA) ? U. S. Sen. Barack Obama, the >pressumptive Democratic nominee and possibly >America???s first Black president, denies that >he is distancing himself from Black constituents >as he seeks to win broader support in the >general election. ???I???ve spent the last year >and a half on the campaign talking about >problems of poverty and problems of injustice. >That???s been what my whole campaign has been >built around,?? Obama said in an exclusive >interview with the NNPA News Service. ???My >answer is that???s what I???ve been doing my >whole campaign.?? Obama was responding to a >question pertaining to his criticism of absent >Black fathers in a Father???s Day message at the >Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He said that >speech should not send a signal that his general >election campaign will focus on the negatives of >the Black community in order to win the support >of undecided or conservative whites. ???The fact >that I made one speech about the very real >problems of the fathers not looking after our >kids doesn???t negate everything that I???ve >been talking about during the course of this >campaign, about people lacking health care about >the problems of the unjust criminal justice >system. I???ve given multiple speeches on these >issues and I will continue to,?? he said. Some >pundits have observed that since the end of the >primaries, Obama???s campaign appears to be >doing less reaching to African Americans since >he is no longer competing with Sen. Hillary >Clinton. In a current column headlined, ???Obama >Distances Himself From Blacks: Is There a >Cost??? Dr. Ron Walters wrote, ???It is common >knowledge now that Barack Obama has to distance >himself from Black radicals, from his church, >and much of his community in order to make white >voters comfortable enough with him to trust him >and then give him their votes. And he will >probably show at the NAACP Convention. But the >troubling trend which finds him absent from >other venues that are the substance of Black >life looks like he is taking the Black community >for granted because of their thirst for his >victory.?? Even some members of the National >Newspaper Publishers Association, a 200-member >group also known as the ???Black Press of >America?????? that has given Obama two awards >this year, note that he has been absent during >both events. ???I am disappointed that Sen. >Obama is not here. That is a big disappointment >for me,?? said Seattle Medium Publisher Chris >H. Bennett, a former NNPA president, as he spoke >on a Black Press-Black Church unity panel at the >organization???s summer convention late last >month. ???We???re the Black Press of America. If >you don???t come down here and talk to us and >ask us for your support, don???t take us for >granted.?? Bennett continued, ???We don???t >need a representative. Does that tell us that >when he gets in the White House that we???ve got >to go through 10, 12 or 15 other people in order >to deal with him? I would think not. We need to >deal with what we need to deal with and not be >taken for granted.?? Walters and Howard >University economist Bill Spriggs both contend >there is need for more targeted policy >pertaining to anti-discrimination in the Black >community among other issues that neither Obama >nor Republican Sen. John McCain are debating. In >the NNPA interview with Obama, which took place >the day before the organization???s conference >that started June 25, Obama said he recognizes >the need for targeted policy to undo the long >time affects of race discrimination in >employment as well as the criminal justice >system. ???We???ve got a special problem in >terms of inner city youth who are deprived of a >lot of opportunities,?? he said. He said while >all youth need early childhood education, better >pay and training for teachers and his proposed >$4,000 a year tuition credit for college >students, there are special needs in urban >community that are often predominately Black and >Latino. ???We???ve got a special category of >young people who are getting caught up in the >drug trade. And we???ve got programs that deter >them from engaging in crimes in the first place. >But, also, we???ve got diversion programs so >that they???re not ending up as hardened felons, >but instead are in courts, substance abuse >treatment programs and if they do end up going >to prisons, we???ve got to make sure that >we???ve got the kinds of second chance programs >afterward that can help them to get their lives >back on track,?? he said. Spriggs, an Obama >advisor, said the reason the unemployment rate >for African Americans is consistently twice that >of whites and the national average is because of >race discrimination. Obama said he would remedy >that as president through Justice Department >enforcement as well as strategic judicial >appointments. ???I think it???s very simple,?? >Obama said. ???You???ve got to make sure that >our civil rights laws are enforced. That???s >something that [the Bush] administration has not >put an emphasis on. We want to make sure that >the civil rights division is making sure that >everybody is being treated fairly and equally. >And we need judges on the bench who are >sympathetic to instances of discrimination in >the work place. I think the overwhelming >majority of Americans support equal treatment. >But, we???ve got to have an enforcement >mechanism. That???s something that I will make >sure is in place when I???m president.?? In a >turnabout this week, Walters has written a >subsequent column praising Obama for a speech he >made before the National Conference of Mayors in >which he noted that Obama announced plans for a >White House Office of Urban Policy. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 11:14:41 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Hope District: Message-ID: <48809741.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Hope District: https://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=6206&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com Mike Wimberly / ERIC CAMPBELL PHOTO True community development spreads one block at a time By Eric T. Campbell The Michigan Citizen DETROIT ? The philosophy driving development of the Hope District comes from a teaching that Mike Wimberly took to heart during a lecture on urban redevelopment ?start on one corner, or one block, and don?t move until you?ve touched everything. A chain of revitalized property on East Forest going east of Van Dyke has benefited from Wimberly?s adherence to this credo. He and the community around him have taken a grassroots initiative and created a point of reference for the area. Centered in a building dubbed the Club Technology resource center, the Hope District spread as a way to make the community self-reliant and stem the tide of economic depression. Projects devoted to food security, collective entrepreneurship, and spiritual healing are in various states of development along a corridor marked with colorful murals and maturing fruit trees. ?Our whole job is to create a place where people can become who they are in the community,? Wimberly told the Michigan Citizen during a recent tour. Areas like the Little Egypt open-air market give residents an opportunity to buy and sell locally made products. An adjacent bus stop acts as a resource center and a point of sale for neighborhood merchants who offer homemade jewelry, purses or food items. Kitty corner to the market is the Butterfly Dream Garden. Surrounding a corner lot are billboards decorated with painted honeycombs. Residents are encouraged to share, in writing, their thoughts, hopes and concerns. On one, a neighborhood mother wrote a poem dedicated to her son, Lorenzo King, who was killed in March of 2007. In the middle of the circle sits a fire pit under construction?another location designed for locals to share stories and experiences. According to Mike?s mother and co-collaborator, Lily Wimberly, these platforms are offered to encourage the facilitating of good memories?a first step in rediscovering the hope that has been lost in many urban cities. ?We want to bring back some happy, stable memories that people can pivot from,? Wimberly says. ?It has to do with memories of your grandparent?s garden and the pot on the stove, which came right from the garden.? Lily Wimberly founded the non-profit Friends of Detroit and Tri-County organization in 1994 as a way to rehabilitate local housing and commercial properties. Her efforts led to the forming of Club Technology, now a resource and meeting center for residents who wish to learn a new skill or become involved with neighborhood initiatives. Lily says that the Hope District originated out of meetings held at Club Technology and trying to figure out what community needs were not being met and why. The Hope District is designed to visually inspire those who choose to get involved. A stunning Egyptian-influenced mural by air-brush artist, Brian Gavin, decorates the side of a soon-to-be-opened storefront. A painting on a small billboard called ?Miracle Park? can be seen form the road in addition to small paintings and artwork which mark all the garden plots. But the prominent feature of the District is the abundance of resources devoted to fresh food and green space. The ?Peace Zone for Life? is a wooded sanctuary designed partly by activist Ron Scott for reflection and, eventually, live entertainment. The ?Cultivating Coping? area has been planted with Box Elder, Hedge Maple, Bir Oak and Eastern Red Bud trees. It serves as place to settle disputes. Behind a row of trees, across an alley, sits a small field on the corner of Maxwell and Willard dotted with raised vegetable beds overflowing with cabbage, kale, tomatoes, and onions. Master gardeners who volunteer as part of the gardening extension program at Michigan State University frequently tend the sculpted lots. Early in 2006, they put together a garden, which incorporates plants that were described in a journal by French explorer Antoine Cadillac in the early 1700?s. An artist?s depiction of Cadillac oversees a 30-foot herb wheel at the entrance of the garden, which will support medicinal varieties such as lemon balm, lavender and strewing herb. Lily Wimberly estimates that 60-70% of the neighbors within range of the Hope District have at one time, actively involved themselves in a project or a meeting. She?s now starting to hear the stories from residents that the Hope District was meant to inspire?stories that start and end in the community. ?It?s an enthusiasm that you can feel and you can hear,? says Lily, ?through stories about their gardens.? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From dhenwood at panix.com Fri Jul 18 11:33:38 2008 From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <02D35415-545F-4861-BF51-E4967982153C@panix.com> On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Charles Brown wrote: > CB: I'd say Barry's setting a new record for the least debasing > oneself in running for President. This ain't the same-o same-o I had a friend long ago who thought of writing his psychology dissertation on self-deception, but decided it would be too hard, and took on a more manageable topic. Wish he'd done it; there's no shortage of material. Doug From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 11:37:06 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: <02D35415-545F-4861-BF51-E4967982153C@panix.com> References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <02D35415-545F-4861-BF51-E4967982153C@panix.com> Message-ID: <48809C83.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >>> Doug Henwood < > CB: I'd say Barry's setting a new record for the least debasing > oneself in running for President. This ain't the same-o same-o I had a friend long ago who thought of writing his psychology dissertation on self-deception, but decided it would be too hard, and took on a more manageable topic. Wish he'd done it; there's no shortage of material. Doug ^^^ No shortage of material that you can provide your friend on your self-deception, yea. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 18 11:58:47 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: <48809C83.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <02D35415-545F-4861-BF51-E4967982153C@panix.com> <48809C83.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: I suspect that the body of literature to be cited--the whole of human history--was just too overwhelming, and working on a dissertation is too brutal a process as it is. A more manageable topic would be: how association with the Communist Party causes brain damage. At 01:37 PM 7/18/2008, Charles Brown wrote: > >>> Doug Henwood < > > > > > CB: I'd say Barry's setting a new record for the least debasing > > oneself in running for President. This ain't the same-o same-o > >I had a friend long ago who thought of writing his psychology >dissertation on self-deception, but decided it would be too hard, and > >took on a more manageable topic. Wish he'd done it; there's no >shortage of material. > >Doug > >^^^ >No shortage of material that you can provide your friend on your >self-deception, yea. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 12:30:00 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:30:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Message-ID: <4880A8E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy Ralph Dumain This is the crux of all radical critiques of bourgeois social science, or even of Marxism turned into a natural science. Although "mind" is not the term generally used, it would be "subjectivity" or "agency" or "praxis". ^^^^ CB: Marx seemed to think that Marxism was originally a natural science. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm "Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the _natural laws_ (emphasis added -CB) of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future." "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of _natural history_ (emphasis added -CB) , can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them" ^^^ CB: I'd say the natural science impacts human history as follows: humans have biological-physiological needs, necessities. Class divided society conditions meeting these needs upon production of surpluses by the oppressed/exploited classes for the oppressor/exploiting classes. Therein is a basis for a natural scientific aspect of the "evolution" of class divided society. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 18 12:32:25 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:32:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barry's Black In-Reply-To: References: <48808DB3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <488096FD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <02D35415-545F-4861-BF51-E4967982153C@panix.com> <48809C83.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4880A979.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >>> Ralph Dumain I suspect that the body of literature to be cited--the whole of human history--was just too overwhelming, and working on a dissertation is too brutal a process as it is. A more manageable topic would be: how association with the Communist Party causes brain damage. ^^^^ Or how hatred of the Communist Party causes a form of Turette's syndrome At 01:37 PM 7/18/2008, Charles Brown wrote: > >>> Doug Henwood < > > > > > CB: I'd say Barry's setting a new record for the least debasing > > oneself in running for President. This ain't the same-o same-o > >I had a friend long ago who thought of writing his psychology >dissertation on self-deception, but decided it would be too hard, and > >took on a more manageable topic. Wish he'd done it; there's no >shortage of material. > >Doug > >^^^ >No shortage of material that you can provide your friend on your >self-deception, yea. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From jannuzi at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 16:55:32 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:32 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Self-deception (was , me saying, who the f- is Barry for about 5 secs.) Message-ID: DH:>>I had a friend long ago who thought of writing his psychology dissertation on self-deception, but decided it would be too hard, and took on a more manageable topic. Wish he'd done it; there's no shortage of material.<< That would have been an interesting--but I'm sure largely unread--self-referential project. Imagine the depths of self-deception the candidate would have to go through as he, step-by-step, satisfied the people in charge of his project--you know, the ones there to make sure he was making an 'original', that is acceptable, contribution to their field. CJ From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 18 17:24:15 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy In-Reply-To: <4880A8E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4880A8E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: My point was, irrespective of what Marx thought, that criticisms of Marxism as a form of objectivism without taking subjectivity or praxis into account are legion. Why is Rose's pretentious take on this subject insightful, in comparison to far superior analyses of the issue? What does Rose add that is lacking in Marx(ism)'s world-picture. Marx himself apparently was not entirely consistent in expressing himself, since both class struggle and its conscious reflection in understanding and accelerating it cannot but interfere in the seeming naturalness of these alleged natural laws and altering their operation. At 02:30 PM 7/18/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Gillian Rose's book Hegel Contra Sociologyy >Ralph Dumain > >This is the crux of all radical critiques of >bourgeois social science, or even of Marxism >turned into a natural science. Although "mind" >is not the term generally used, it would be >"subjectivity" or "agency" or "praxis". > >^^^^ >CB: Marx seemed to think that Marxism was originally a natural >science. > >http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm > >"Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of >development of the social antagonisms that result from the _natural >laws_ (emphasis added -CB) of capitalist production. It is a question of >these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity >towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed >industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own >future." > > >"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist >and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through >rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far >as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of >particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from >which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a >process of _natural history_ (emphasis added -CB) , can less than any >other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he >socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above >them" > >^^^ >CB: I'd say the natural science impacts human history as follows: >humans have biological-physiological needs, necessities. Class divided >society conditions meeting these needs upon production of surpluses by >the oppressed/exploited classes for the oppressor/exploiting classes. >Therein is a basis for a natural scientific aspect of the "evolution" of >class divided society. From rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Jul 18 17:57:39 2008 From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] analytic-continental: denouement of bourgeois reason In-Reply-To: <487CD686.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <487CD686.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: By "analytical imperialism" I mean the incorporation of this artificial construct known as "continental philosophy" into the analytical world market, as it were. In others words, I mean this metaphorically. Colonization in reverse can happen as well, as one sees with John McCumber, for example. Now, as I've mentioned elsewhere, individual philosophers may be on to something that doesn't fit into stereotypical conceptions of what analytical and continental philosophers are allegedly about. However, to the extent that these stereotypes represent realities, analytical colonization means converting the world-beating ambitions of the "continentals" into one-dimensional logical problems of a strictly technical nature. Continental colonization means converting the logic-chopping products of the analyticals into fodder for their irrationalist projects. But my point is that these are highly provincial and questionable paths towards reuniting the estranged branches of the bourgeois philosophical family. It's bourgeois not from the perspective of a juvenile workerism that Justin knows full well I've never adhered to. but from the smallness, provincialism, and ultimate bankruptcy of the concerns and goals of both branches of the family. Of course these are stereotypical generalizations of what goes on under these rubrics, but I didn't invent the stereotypes; academia itself institutionalizes them. In the USA the continentals are still lodged, from what I can see, in non-philosophy departments, which means they are subject to the pervasive nonsense that rages in literature and other humanities fields. Naturally, one can learn from people who have been placed, of their own accord or without their consent, in the continental category, or the analytical. But if there is any accounting or rapprochement to be had, it should be undertaken under different premises from what we see going on. We can see the same process going on under the revivification and expansion of "American Philosophy" and pragmatism. It means, whoever becomes famous becomes important whatever the actual substance or lack of it to be found in their work. So now the pragmatists no longer consist solely of stuffy (or stuffed, since the originals are all dead) WASPs, but vacuous blowhards like Cornel West. American philosophy becomes expanded to included African American, Latin American, Native American philosophy, etc.--which is all pretty much worthless, that is, in the aggregate. Philosophy, as bad as it may have been before, becomes a venue of the most insipid form of affirmative action and multiculturalism, which is, in the end, a self-indulgent enterprise, an artificial bloating of cultural capital serving the diversification of elites, not the fundamental transformation of thought or society. Babich's tendentiousness is evident in that she loves the notion of analytical philosophy being preoccupied by narrowly defined technical problems so that she can glory in her persecuted continental state of glorifying the irrational depths of the psyche and the mysteries of being. Her linkage of Nietzsche to the philosophy of science is an attempt of reverse colonization. And yes, I'd say that bourgeois reason and unreason both have developed in a century and a half. The former, it seems, is under strain right now and giving way to the latter. On a popular level, who are the defenders of reason? The atheists, secular humanists, skeptics, assorted scientists and technocrats. The best of them are weak and clueless liberals, poorly equipped philosophically and politically to stave off the new Dark Age. Their followers don't seem to be much more astute. There are more of them about, as the right wing has brought a lot of opposition out of the woodwork. But the whole society has moved to the right, and a liberal today is only liberal in limited ways compared to yesteryear. These 20-somethings I encounter really have no perspective at all, and they resent being told this. Yet, they are quite conformist in following the leads of an older generation, not mine, but the older generation I rebelled against! Not to mention the attention-deficit sound bite mentality that inhibits sustained reflection. I was invited to lead a discussion on religion in politics and the media, but my short paragraph consisting of questions I wanted to address was deemed too controversial and difficult to follow by the organizer in charge, a 20-something who told me she was used to sound bites and couldn't handle my exposition. And these are supposed to be the exponents of "reason" and "free inquiry" in our society! At 04:55 PM 7/15/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Ralph Dumain > >You are, most likely, thinking of philosophy as the struggle between >idealism and materialism, as Engels put it. I'll leave this aside >for the moment. > >^^^ >CB: Sure, but it is also a sort of different aspect in itself, >relationship between thought and being I mean. Interesting that in that >article, the author compared Heidegger and analyticals by talking only >about how they deal differently with thought ( and language). That's >what made me think back to Engels "thought and being" topic. > >^^^^^ > >Note how utterly provincial and insipid are Babich's assertions about >the difference between the analytical and continental modes of >philosophizing. And they are not even true, if we begin with the >recognition that the continental philosophy she so militantly defends >with academic politics in mind, is a fiction. Babich is so devoted to >obscurantist gibberish, she wishes to wage war against analytical >imperialism in an effort of reverse colonization, just like imperial >Japan, as I said. So now Nietzsche is being used to colonize >philosophy of science. How utterly banale. > >^^^ >CB: When you refer to analytical "imperialism" are you being >metaphorical , or are you saying analytical philo is connected to >literal imperialism ? >If a metaphor, please elaborate the metaphor. > >^^^^ > >Note that the dichotomy presented to us is a dichotomy entirely >defined by bourgeois conceptions. >^^^ >CB: How are you using "bourgeois" here ? > >^^^^ > > And everything that is not >"analytical" is mushed together as "continental", but what is >"continental" pretty much comes down to what stems from Nietzsche and >Heidegger. It's too disgusting for words. > >^^^^ >CB: Patience, mon vieux. > >^^^^^ > >Now what is most characteristic of an approach to philosophy that >comes from Hegel and Marx is that it is progressive and historically >and socially self-reflective. Not merely "contextual", and not >merely "embodied", and certainly not "local" or relativistic. The >perspective I have in mind overlaps but does not coincide with the >fictive entity concocted as "continental philosophy". > >^^^^ >CB: OK. Lets concentrate on progressive and historically and socially >self-reflective. Elaborate. >Does the overlap mean that we can learn from so-called continental ? > >^^^^ > >Now with respect to the history of philosophy the problem is to >understand what motivates philosophical systems internally and >"externally". A too provincial merely analytical approach or a too >conceptually vague historical/social-critical approach can't do the >job. In this respect there are different styles that correspond to >the "analytical" and "continental", but note how narrow and >tendentious Babich's characterizations are. > >^^^^ >CB: Not to be whatever, but could you specify what is narrow and >tendentious , please ? > >^^^ > >Another point about these generalized categories: individuals are >more interesting than groups, and individual philosophers are more >noteworthy than the schools they (are said to) belong to. Some >categories of philosophical subdisciplines--like "African Philosophy" >or the more recent concoction of "African American Philosophy"--are >intellectually and ideologically bankrupt, but there are some >noteworthy individuals subsumed under these categories who have >something to say. So first of all go for the individuals and maintain >skepticism about the pigeonholing academic empire builders. > >^^^^ >CB: Ah individuals. I noticed in the essay you sent a little while back >( I want to get back to it sometime) you dogged "collectivism". Do you >consider it an error of bad Marxist philo ( Stalinist) that it >shortchanges individualism , and slogs too much collectivism on philo ? > >^^^^^^^ > >As for "the" question of philosophy again, my interest here is >relating the question to the development of society as a whole, and >the overall pattern of the unity and struggle of bourgeois reason and >unreason. And "bourgeois" includes also what has transpired under >"marxism", which after all is part of bourgeois society, wherever it >is undertaken in the world. > >^^^^ >CB: Yea interesting point on Marxism. won't quibble on it for now, >'cause I don't want to get into cussing. > >Bourgeois reason and unreason. Lets see, that makes me think that >communism, preserves and overcomes bourgeois society. We preserve its >reason and overcome its unreason ? But , we've got to specify the reason >and unreason. Is it much more than what Marx and Engels specified in >these ? Has bourgeois reason developed or grown in 150 years ? I can >think of bourgeois unreason growing in fascism. > >Hey, by the way, a follower of Heidegger on lbo said that Heidegger is >the philosopher of fascism, but I must say he holds the position that >most fascism is not nearly as horrific as Nazism. Fascism was ( is !) >not that bad in Italy , et al. > >^^^^^ > >^^^^^ > >Without unequivocally endorsing either Friedman or Waite, I find it >quite telling that Friedman approaches the Cassirer-Heidegger >controversy as a technical philosophical contretemps falling out of >competing Neo-Kantian schools, whilst Waite, entirely steeped in the >postmodernist milieu, sees it as Heidegger outwitting the clueless >Cassirer via an esoteric cunning operating under the radar of what >was ostensibly under debate. Oh, and here's another tidbit I'm not >in a position to verify. I'm told that Henry Pachter attended the >Davos conference, at which brownshirts were visibly present, who >rebuffed Cassirer as did Heidegger, and that the political undertone >of the debate was not in the least subtle. > >I might add that Cassirer, unlike Leiter, was at least not insipid. >But perhaps a steady diet of Babich would make Leiter look good, >though both, it seems to me, are bankrupt. Bourgeois reason has left >the building. > >^^^^ >CB: Is there anything worth learning from these people ? I'm thinking >you extract some rational kernel or something useful to thought and >being out of their "thought". From ballistanc at yahoo.com Fri Jul 18 17:07:18 2008 From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] JULY 19 CELEBRATE In-Reply-To: <487F4B18.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <778090.48214.qm@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ...like I told you on the phone, in order to confront effectively?the military forces of the capitalist class we shall wage a revolutionary struggle on the international scale.? My working thesis is that Sandino did not have an international grasp of the moment, even though he confronted capital?s forces by creating a nationalist army.? Remember it was a revolutionary period since the 1917-1923 proletarian wave had just been defeated? in this later year, the longest communist tentative to imposed the communist mode of production....Anyway, in 1926 capital?s forces occupied Nicaraguan territory and there was a battle, like you said, in 1928.? The Ocotal?s battle? was the way the proletariat responded to capital?s forces....Was Sandino correct to call up for the formation of an Army to fight back?? Above and beyond I don?t agree with his theoretical understanding of the military question, I have to say he practical answer to the problem was correct...So, since he didn?t have an organic and theoretical, communist, background, he "went to the capital to negotiate a longer-term peace treaty..."; a good opportunity for the political elements of capital to murder him...as they did....Tanking into consideration your historical evidence, I think there is no space for dialog with bourgeois forces.....: We shall not continue allowing the bourgeoisie to wage local wars against the proletariat.? Any local, military invasion by capital?s forces, like the ones in Haiti, Irak, and Afghanistan, must be confronted on an international scale.... --- On Thu, 7/17/08, Charles Brown wrote: From: Charles Brown Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] JULY 19 CELEBRATE To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 1:37 PM http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2008w28/msg00038.htm Tom Baker here sharing with you a recounting of the history of the people of Nicaragua. It is the work of Bob Siegel, member of the Executive Committee of Nicaragua Network Alliance for Global Justice, with me, and responding to the Peace Action group in NYC where some, like too many others have long since, it seems, forgotten everything, including Father Miguel D'Escoto Bob writes This is a letter I wrote recently to Peace Action of New York State regarding their selection of Fr. Miguel D'Escoto to receive an award this fall. It contains a lot of information regarding the full scope of the U.S.' savage history vis-a-vis Nicaragua and the Sandinistas' extraordinary human rights record that I thought would be of considerable interest to those who seem to have forgotten. I wrote the letter in response to someone raising the possibility that some Peace Action members might have " a problem with honoring a Sandinista." This is the headline I refer to in the second paragraph of my letter Peace Action as an organizational entity and on the individual member level, can not just focus on peace in a general, amorphous way; on eliminating this or that weapons system; on calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from whatever poor, small, weak Third World country is the target of U.S. aggression at a particular point in time. Peace Action has to be thoroughly grounded in, and fully integrate into its work, a crystal-clear, comprehensive, incisive understanding of the full, stark reality of U.S. foreign policy. And, Nicaragua is the ultimate case study in that reality. Countless countries all around the world have been brutalized and savaged by the U.S. No country has been brutalized longer and more consistently than has Nicaragua. The U.S. has used every form of violence, every form of terror to dominate Nicaragua, to control Nicaragua, to subjugate Nicaragua. From the 1850s to 1926, the U.S.savaged and dominated Nicaragua through direct military attack and invasion, invading Nicaragua a total of 14 times. The last of these 14 invasions/occupations, from 1926-1933, was the longest and most murderous. During this occupation, the U.S. for the first time in history used the airplane as an instrument of war against civilians, killing over 400 Nicaraguan men, women, and children in the town of Ocotal in 1928. Starting in 1927, an army of Nicaraguan workers and peasants was formed to drive out the occupying U.S. troops. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, this Nicaraguan people's army courageously and effectively fought the occupying U.S. troops to a standstill. This people's army was organized and led by General Augusto Sandino, Nicaragua's national patriotic hero. Augusto Sandino, who was known, not only in Nicaragua, but throughout Latin American, as The General of Free Men. Augusto Sandino, after whom the Sandinistas are named. Based on U.S. promises that its brutal occupation of Nicaragua would end, Sandino and his men were persuaded to disarm. U.S. troops did, in fact, leave Nicaragua in 1933, but not before installing the first of the hated Somozas----Anastasio Somoza Garcia----as the head of the Nicaraguan government. In 1934, when Sandino went to the capital city of Managua to negotiate a longer-term peace treaty, he was murdered in cold blood by Somoza's henchmen, with the "kill order" coming from U.S. Ambassador Arthur Bliss. In the ensuing weeks and months, Sandino's followers throughout Nicaragua were killed. The stage was now set for the second form of violence and terror the U.S. employed to dominate Nicaragua: rule by a proxy dictatorship and a proxy army. During its military occupation, the U.S. created the National Guard. The National Guard was created specifically to do the dirty work of subjugating Nicaragua that had been done for the previous three-quarters of a century by U.S. troops. For the next nearly half-century, the U.S. financed, trained, armed, and equipped the National Guard. During its 47 years, the National Guard murdered, tortured, raped, and disappeared tens of thousands of Nicaraguans. The National Guard was the instrument of terror of, and maintained in power, the Somoza dictatorship from 1934 to 1979. The Somoza dictatorship, aside from being one of the most brutal and savage in the world, was, also, one of the most corrupt. An American businessman was quoted in Newsweek magazine in 1978 as saying: " You just don't do business in Nicaragua without offering Somoza a share in it from the beginning." When Somoza fled Nicaragua in July 1979, he took with him nine hundred million dollars. This in a country that had a total Gross Domestic Product of only three billion dollars. During 1978 and 1979, when the Sandinista-led national rebellion against the Somoza dictatorship was gaining increasing momentum, the U.S. tried mightily to preserve Somoza's rule. The U.S. sharply increased its shipments of weapons to Somoza. Flying U.S. planes and dropping U.S.-made bombs, Somoza's Air Force waged a savage air war against the Nicaraguan people as, for 10 to 12 hours a day, every Nicaraguan city was relentlessly bombed. In June 1979, the U.S. formally proposed to the Organization of American States that it authorize the sending of troops to Nicaragua to preserve the Somoza dictatorship and prevent a Sandinista victory. The OAS, for the first time in its then-31-year history, rejected this formal U.S. proposal. When the Sandinistas eventually overthrew the Somoza dictatorship on July 19, 1979, the U.S. then moved to the third phase of its attempt to control Nicaragua through any violent means possible----- the creation of a mercenary army, the contras. President Jimmy Carter started the ball rolling in this regard by illegally using airplanes with phony Red Cross insignias to fly more than two dozen National Guard officers out of Nicaragua to Miami after the fall of Somoza. President Ronald Reagan then formalized the creation of the contras via Executive Order ( National Security Decision Directive # 17 ) on November 23, 1981, authorizing the CIA to organize, train, arm, equip, and finance the contra force. All 12 of the contras' ruling body, the General Staff, were former National Guardsmen. The contras consciously patterned themselves after the paramilitary death squads of El Salvador and Guatemala ( those death squads, in turn, having been organized, trained, and armed by the U.S., starting with John Kennedy's notorious " counterinsurgency program" in the early 1960s ). The contras' entire modus operandi was the terrorization of Nicaragua's civilian population. The contras murdered, mutilated, tortured, raped, and abudcted thousands upon thousands of Nicaraguan men, women, and children. They specifically targeted for destruction hospitals, health care clinics, schools, job training centers food processing and storage facilities and specifically targeted for murder health care workers, teachers, and farmers. In June 1986, the World Court---- as part of a decision finding the U.S. guilty of criminal aggression against the nation and people of Nicaragua and ordering the U.S. to pay to Nicaragua $ 17 billion in reparations----- formally labeled the contras a " terrorist force." Knowing this history is essential to comprehending----truly comprehending----what extraordinary people Fr. Miguel D'Escoto and the Sandinistas are. Knowing this history is essential to fully comprehending the incredible forgiveness, mercifulness, and humanity the Sandinistas showed during, and after, their governance to those who had so brutalized them and the Nicaraguan people. The core ideals of Peace Action are peace, non-violence, and meeting human needs. No government has lived those ideals more than the Sandinista government. Peace and Non-Violence. In the words of a visiting Canadian Parliamentary delegation to Nicaragua in the mid-1980s, " No government in human history has shown more Christ-like forgiveness, more Christ-like humanity than the Sandinista government of Nicaragua." The Sandinistas demonstrated this " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " from the very first day. On July 19, 1979, the date of the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship, the first act of the Sandinistas was to outlaw the death penalty. Since the overwhelming majority of Nicaraguans had at least one member of their families murdered, tortured, or raped during the Somoza dictatorship, the Nicaraguan people were clamoring for the execution of Somocista officials and National Guard officers----- nearly all of whom were deemed by the United Nations to be guilty of " crimes against humanity." But, the Sandinistas would not accede to that desire on the part of so many of the people for retribution, no matter how understandable that desire was. Not only did the Sandinistas abolish the death penalty, they abolished lifetime imprisonment as well, setting the maximum criminal penalty at 30 years' imprisonment. And, these Somocista and National Guard mass murderers did not come close to serving even that sharply-reduced punishment since, in an act of amnesty, the Sandinistas released all of them after only 10 years. Then, the second act of the Sandinistas was to outlaw the use of torture. Under the U.S.- maintained Somoza dictatorship, nearly all of the Sandinistas were subjected to the most horrific torture. Electrocution, suffocation, drowning, savage beatings were the norm. A particularly ghoulish form of torture was administered to Daniel Ortega when he was locked in a coffin for 9 months. For 2 of those months, he was starved and survived only by drinking his own urine. Yet, far from hating his torturers, Daniel Ortega, displaying that " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity," repeatedly said to his torturers: " Brother, why are you doing this to me"? The National Guard kept having to reassign new people to torture Daniel Ortega since, after being with him for a few weeks, Guardsmen did not have the stomach to administer the torture. Tomas Borge, one of the three founders of the Sandinista Party in 1961 and the Interior Minister in the Sandinista government, was described by Amnesty International in the early 1970s as " the most tortured political prisoner in the world." What did this " most tortured political prisoner in the world " do after the Sandinista victory? On July 21, 1979, two days after the Sandinista triumph, he went to the detention center where the National Guardsman who supervised his torture was being held and personally forgave and freed his torturer. Then, throughout the 1980s, the Sandinistas displayed this " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " to the contra terrorists. In general, contra foot soldiers who were captured or who surrendered were free to return to their home towns without serving any jail time if they turned in their arms and forswore any further violence. It was, by and large, only the contra officers who served any jail time. And, the following says it all about how incredibly humanely these contra terrorists were treated in jail. After being permitted unlimited access to interview contra prisoners, a delegation from Amnesty International reported in November 1985 that the sum total of the contras' complaints about prison conditions was three: 1 ) light bulbs in their cells burned all day and night; 2 ) they were made to stand during questioning; and 3 ) they were fed too many meals, supposedly, in the contras' eyes, to make them think that time was going by more quickly. And, from 1990, even when they no longer were the governing party, the Sandinistas-----led by Fr. Miguel D'Escoto------continued to show incredible " Christ-like forgiveness, Christ-like humanity " toward the contra terrorists. Continuing a sordid history that had been in effect since the early 20th century, the U.S.------in violation of international law as well as U.S. law, to say nothing of Nicaraguan law------ massively intervened in every respect in Nicaragua's February 25, 1990, national elections. By funneling in enormous amounts of money and threatening the Nicaraguan people with an endless continuation of the terrorist war if they dared to re-elect the Sandinistas, the U.S. literally stole the election from the Sandinistas and effected the election of its hand-picked candidate, Violeta Chamorro and the UNO party which the U.S. cobbled together from 13 splinter parties. After the UNO " victory," the contras, who described themselves as the military arm of UNO, instigated a new wave of violence, murdering, mutilating, and torturing hundreds of farmers and peasants who were Sandinista supporters. After taking office in April 1990, Violeta Chamorro reneged on her previously-made promises to the contras to provide them with veterans' benefits, medical benefits, pensions, jobs, and parcels of land. Given that these were, also, demands of former Sandinista soldiers, Fr. Miguel D' Escoto saw this as an opportunity to establish common ground with the contras. Through constant, unflagging efforts, Fr. D' Escoto overcame the contras' hostility, gained their trust and confidence, and persuaded them to work with him to obtain desperately-needed benefits for all ex-combatants. Thus, literally single-handedly, Fr. D' Escoto de-fused a renewed wave of contra terrorism and averted a calamitous civil war. Meeting Human Needs. On April 12, 1986, the Executive Director of the United Nations' Development Programme said " In my 25 years at the U.N., I have never seen a government more committed to the elimination of poverty, injustice, and oppression than the Sandinista government of Nicaragua." In every area of human endeavor, the Sandinistas' achievements were historic and unparalleled. In health care, the Sandinistas built more hospitals and health clinics than had ever been built, trained more doctors, nurses, and health care workers than had ever been trained in Nicaragua's history. Long-time killer diseases such as polio and diphtheria were eliminated. The infant mortality rate was slashed by 80%, On three different occasions, the World Health Organization cited Sandinista Nicaragua for its achievements in health care. In education and literacy, the Sandinistas' slashed the illiteracy rate form 50% to 12% in only 18 months, an unprecedented achievement , for which they were given UNESCO's highest award. They built more schools than had ever been built and trained more teachers than had ever been trained in Nicaragua's history. The Sandinistas implemented the most comprehensive, successful land reform program the world has seen. The 35% of Nicaraguan territory stolen by the Somozas and the National Guard was redistributed to 500,000 landless Nicaraguans ( one-sixth of Nicaragua's then-total 3,000,000 people ). In addition to being given land ownership for the first time in their lives, the new landowners were given by the government bank credits to purchase seeds, fertilizers, farming tools, poultry, and livestock. The Sandinistas built thousands of new homes. They provided, for the first time, electricity, sanitation, running water to hundreds of remote towns and villages. Even U.S. officials acknowledged the historic, unprecedented achievements of the Sandinistas in improving the welfare of its people. In a confidential memorandum written in August 1983, the U.S. Executive Liaison to the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) stated: " The Sandinistas' implementation of economic and social development projects has been superb. In many cases, the best in the world." In a 1986 off-the-record, confidential interview with U.S. journalist Holly Sklar, a U.S. Ambassador to another Central American country stated: " The Sandinistas have given the Nicaraguan people, for the first time in their history, a sense of national pride and dignity. They have brought landmark economic and social improvements throughout Nicaragua, in to the country's tiniest capillaries. These things are against U.S. objectives." Two final points. First, the Reagan Administration, in 1983, created an entire propaganda agency to coordinate and direct its relentless torrent of Orwellian propaganda, disinformation, and lies against the Sandinistas. This propaganda agency was the Office of Public Diplomacy ( OPD ) and it operated under the aegis of the State Department. The OPD was described by senior White Officials as " a massive propaganda operation of the kind usually directed enemy populations during wartime." This orchestrated propaganda/disinformation campaign was, in turn, ( with rare exceptions ) parroted uncritically by the major print and electronic media outlets in this country. Including, and especially, those outlets considered the most influential and respectable. Elliot Abrams was the Reagan Administration's point man for its terrorist war against Nicaragua. Abrams' reputation as a congenital and notorious liar was so well known that, for the first time in American history, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to take even ordinary and routine testimony from Abrams unless he gave such testimony under oath. In 1987, Abrams was asked which media outlets had, in his opinion, the " best " coverage of Nicaragua. Without a moment's hesitation, he replied " The New York Times" And, then, quickly added " The Washington Post." Thus, any self-perceived liberal/progressive who would be " tense ' about honoring a Sandinista should seriously re-examine and re-evaluate how he/she processes information. Second, the history, actions, policies, and behavior of the Sandinistas stand in direct, polar contrast to those of the United States. Would that we, in this country, had 300,000,000 " dyed-in-the-wool Sandinistas. If we did, we would not have any need for Peace Action. Sincerely, Bob JULY 19 We Celebrate with the People of Nicaragua 29th Anniversary of The Peoples' Trimph over the Somoza US dictatorship. Which means, we sit and talk on porch steps, tell stories, here at my home. We have videos and NEWS on what's now happening down there. It's a what has happened and what is happening, what next, scenario Please bounce this back or phone 773 973 6529 - Want to make sure we got enough Flor de Cana. Evening event, 7pm to later Stop by, share your time, share your views We live in Rogers Park, Lunt near Sheridan. Phoning ahead makes it easier to get you here. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jul 21 10:39:03 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michelle Obama Message-ID: <48848367.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Michelle Obama credited with helping recast image of U.S. black women BY CASSANDRA SPRATLING ? FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER ? July 20, 2008 What?s this? There's a new joy and excitement among many of the patrons of the Spiral Collective, a collection of businesses owned by black women in Detroit. Their happiness centers on Michelle Obama, a woman they say puts a refreshing face on America's image of African-American women. "People who come in here are absolutely in love with Michelle Obama," says Janet Webster Jones, who owns the Source Booksellers, one of the four businesses in one building at the corner of Cass and Willis in Midtown. The others are an art gallery, a natural hair care salon and an eclectic boutique. "The ladies who come in here say they love how they love each other," Jones, 71, says, referring to the affection between Michelle Obama and her husband, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president of the United States. That excitement was evident in the crowd of women who lined up to see Michelle Obama in downtown Pontiac earlier this month, some of whom arrived three hours before the doors of the Crofoot ballroom opened to them. Jones and others say that Michelle Obama knocks down old stereotypes of black women: Sapphire, the angry black woman; Mammy, the caretaker and nurturer of her own children and everybody else's, and Jezebel, the loose woman. Jones' daughter, Alyson Jones, 34, says the modern-day jezebels are booty-shaking hoochie mamas popularized in hip-hop videos. "So Michelle comes along and she completely dispels all that," Janet Jones says. "She represents someone who came from humble beginnings to achieve a high level of education. She has a strong self-identity as a female. "You know she likes to wear dresses and high heels and she's almost 6 feet tall. And she's a loving wife and a great mother." "She normalizes black women," says Alyson Jones, an elementary teacher at Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse, a charter school in Detroit. "She's not the bitter black woman pundits have tried to make her out be." Negative images still hurt The current New Yorker magazine cover shows a caricature of that angry, militant, black woman, featuring Michelle Obama with a huge afro, wearing military fatigues and brandishing an assault rifle. Barack Obama is dressed in traditional Muslim attire. Magazine editors say the cover is satire typical of the magazine, meant solely to dramatize the politics of fear. But Gail E. Wyatt, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, says it fuels fears. "The image is reminiscent of the look and posture of Angela Davis and the Black Panther era," says Wyatt, who authored the book, "Stolen Women" (Wiley, John & Sons, $14.95). "This is to incite images of the black woman as a militant, comrade and at war," Wyatt says. The goal is to frighten people and to make this couple different and alien from mainstream America." "This whole thing about Michelle Obama being a mad black woman is utterly ridiculous," says Mandisa Smith, 54, a jewelry designer and fine arts appraiser. "But as far as I'm concerned, black women have a right to be mad," Smith says. Black women, she says, are often paid less than any other demographic group, regardless of credentials. Black women typically have the worst health statistics. Research bears out those concerns. African-American women earn 15% less than white women and 10% less than African-American men, according to Faye Wattleton, president of the Center for the Advancement of Women. In a recent column on the organization's Web site she noted that AIDS is the leading cause of death among black women between the ages of 25 and 44, yet one in five African-American women doesn't have medical insurance. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control provide other examples of disparities. Black women on average die five years sooner than white women; black women have higher rates of diabetes and high blood pressure than white women, and while less likely than white women to get breast and cervical cancer, they are more likely to die from them. Karen Fort Hood, Michigan Court of Appeals judge, calls Michelle Obama a role model for all women, not just African-American women. "She's brilliant, she's beautiful, she's classy and she's a warm caring individual," Fort Hood, 54, says. "Not only is it great for black women to see a sister who could be the First Lady, it's good for all women because she has the qualities we can all admire." Shirley Thomas, assistant professor of social work at Wayne State University, agrees that Michelle Obama's popularity will have a positive impact on America's image of black women. "We are a diverse population," says Thomas, who has studied stress among African-American women. The achieving black woman is almost invisible in American society, she says. "Then you have a woman who is a mother, a very supportive wife, a very well-respected lawyer, who went to Princeton and Harvard Law." Thomas says the very fact that Barack Obama married a clearly African-American woman sends a message that you can marry a black woman and still be successful. Typically, society has touted a narrow image of the attractive black woman, Thomas says. That woman has usually been a lighter-skinned black woman -- something Whoopi Goldberg brought up when Michelle Obama recently cohosted the ABC television show "The View." Goldberg complimented Obama's brown skin saying, "I know it sounds funny and silly, but if you are a black woman and you are tuning in and every time you see someone who is supposed to represent black women and ... not very, very fair skin women, I am talking about dark black women, I just want to say thanks." "Whoopi was right in a sense," Thomas says. "There was a certain look you had to have. Michelle Obama is a real sister. She appears to be very down-to-earth. She will have a powerful impact." Art gallery owner Sherry Washington agrees. She says that when she saw that Michelle Obama was undeniably black, "and had African-American features, I was so happy. It says to me that Barack Obama sees a person for who they are and not superficial standards of beauty. "She's creating a new standard of beauty, although it's been there all along." Wyatt says America is not accustomed to seeing a black woman with breadth, depth, intelligence and beauty, and Michelle Obama has the potential to change that. "People need to realize she represents more of what they haven't seen than what they have seen," Wyatt says. Michelle Obama's brains, beauty and style were hot topics of conversation among the crowd of predominantly African-American women in Pontiac for Michelle Obama's first public appearance in Michigan. Oakland County Commissioner Mattie Hatchett was among several people who made introductory comments about Michelle Obama before she spoke. In Hatchett's enthusiastic introduction, she made a deliberate point of complimenting Obama's intelligence and her beauty. Hatchett later said she did so because she's so happy and proud that finally there's a woman who gives the world a more balanced and complete picture of African-American women. "She's bright; she's beautiful; she's a mother; she's powerful in her own right; she's very supportive of her man and still doesn't lose her identity," Hatchett says. Brenda Kirk, 42, brought her daughters Paige, 12, and Bria, 9, and a friend, Shaniya Douglass, 10, to see Obama. "I had to bring them here to see a black woman like Michelle Obama," says Kirk, a day care provider who lives in Auburn Hills. "She is paving the way for so many of our young black girls. Michelle Obama shows our ancestors that the work and sacrifices they went through are not in vain. And she shows our daughters what's possible, that you can work hard and achieve, and that you can be First Lady of the United States." "Aesthetically, when you look at her you really do see a black woman," says Detroit businesswoman Char Hackney-Goolsby, mother of 12-year-old Lauren Goolsby. "When I was growing up -- and still, to a certain extent -- it was not fashionable to be black or brown. She kind of validates black women. For my little girl and for other little black girls, she represents a hopefulness that is exciting. I kept looking at her and thinking, 'Wow!' " Contact CASSANDRA SPRATLING at 313-223-4580 or cspratling at freepress.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jul 21 10:52:22 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Demonstrate to stop the eviction of Rubie Curl-Pinkins Message-ID: <48848685.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Why is Countrywide and their law firm Trott & Trott evicting a 72-year-old disabled woman from her home of 45 years, rather than accepting full payment for the house? Demonstrate to Stop the Eviction of Rubie Curl-Pinkins! Tuesday, July 22, 12 Noon at Bank of America Guardian Building, Congress & Griswold, Detroit (Bank of America has bought out Countrywide!) In one of the latest horror stories in the foreclosure epidemic that is devastating the city of Detroit, Countrywide and their law firm Trott & Trott have decided to evict Rubie Curl-Pinkins from her home of 45 years, rather than accept full payment for the home through a reverse mortgage. Rubie Curl-Pinkins is a 72-year-old woman suffering from numerous physical disabilities. Her doctor has stated that being evicted from her home could have a devastating effect on her health. Her daughter, who also lives in the home on Holden Street, is also disabled, suffering from congestive heart failure and on oxygen to help her breathe. Like many people in Detroit, when confronted with numerous debts, Ms. Curl-Pinkins was lured into a predatory loan in exchange for a mortgage on her paid-off home. The interest rate exceeds 10%. When her medical bills mounted, she fell behind on her mortgage payments and her home went into foreclosure. Before the redemption period ended, however, she succeeded in arranging a reverse mortgage that would pay off the debt. But Countrywide delayed in providing a pay-off letter so she could finish the loan, pay off the redemption amount, and keep her home. Once the redemption period ended, rather than work with Ms. Curl-Pinkins, Countrywide and its attorneys Trott & Trott have refused to accept payment for the home and insisted on evicting Ms. Curl-Pinkins. Under pressure, she signed a consent judgment and is scheduled to be evicted on July 25, 2008. Countrywide and Trott & Trott?s actions epitomize the ruthlessness and illogic of the finance industry, which would rather assert its power to throw people in the streets than accept payment for the homes. The banks and finance companies are destroying our communities, throwing people into the streets, creating thousands of abandoned and vandalized homes, and reducing property values for everyone. (It should be noted that Countrywide has recently been bought by Bank of America. So much for their signs about ?serving Detroit?!) Just this week, the federal government bailed out the banks and finance industry by guaranteeing $300 billion in taxpayer money to back up their bad loans. What about bailing out the people, the real victims of the foreclosure crisis? We need a Moratorium on Foreclosures to stop this epidemic and keep people in their homes! Join the growing movement to support SB 1306, a bill introduced by State Senator Hansen Clarke which would halt foreclosures in Michigan for two years to allow the people to survive this crisis. Stop the Eviction of Rubie Curl-Pinkins! Fight for the passage of SB 1306 to Stop Foreclosures in Michigan! Join the demonstration this Friday. Moratorium NOW! Coalitionto Stop Foreclosures and Evictions 23 E. Adams, 4th Floor, Detroit, MI 48226 www.moratorium-mi.org (313) 319-0870 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 22 15:55:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:55:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On Commanding-in-Chief Message-ID: <48861F27.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/07/21/on-commanding-in-chief/#comment-221962 Community-based theology On Commanding-in-Chief 21st July 2008, 11:54 am by Stan Goff Catastrophe: n. 1. A great, often sudden calamity. 2. A complete failure; a fiasco: The food was cold, the guests quarreled?the whole dinner was a catastrophe. 3. The concluding action of a drama, especially a classical tragedy, following the climax and containing a resolution of the plot. 4. A sudden violent change in the earth?s surface; a cataclysm. [Greek katastroph, an overturning, ruin, conclusion, from katastrephein, to ruin, undo : kata-, cata- + strephein, to turn.] For years now, I have been accused by sisters and brothers from right to left of being ?catastrophist.? There is an energy crisis coming. ?Catastrophist.? The housing bubble will devastate the economy. ?What housing bubble, catastrophist?? The war in Southwest Asia constitutes a strategic defeat of the United States government, now tied down in a two-front war. ? ? ? On the first two, I can pretty much rest my case. As to closing the case on that last assertion about the war, the main obstacle is a Chinese Wall of twittering ignorance that defines American culture. American culture is trained by media monopolies; and for them, the war is an entertainment commodity. For the time being, the war-commodity serves best as background for that quadrennial personality contest that we call the general election. That?s how this ?commander-in-chief? issue is being used to bewilder the public about the war itself. In the seemingly endless horse-race analysis of the upcoming elections, we can?t escape the ersatz erudition of public opinion-makers on the subject of whether John McCain or Barack Obama will make a more suitable Commander-in-Chief. Every echo-chamber is attuned. The blogosphere is abuzz. The blanket has been thrown over the war, but this commander-in-chief thing has become the media Big Ten top-model competition of public affairs. What we generally hear from the chattering classes on this topic seems to be intentionally clueless, so I feel impelled to do some of my own chattering. I should warn you that my chatter on this matter is? well, catastrophist. Before laying out the argument, there are some assumptions smuggled into the info-media drivel that need correcting. First assumption: Military service makes one more suitable for the position of commander-in-chief. This one is universally attractive not simply on account of the American idealization of all things military, but because so many liberals latched onto the highly-gendered and ultimately irrelevant ?chickenhawk? criticism of George W. Bush. This critique of Bush, even coming from the left that should have known better, implicitly accepts the assumption that military service translates into suitability to be a President? since Congress long ago ceded its war-making prerogative to the executive branch, making every US president now a de facto independent warlord. There is the de jure command given in the Constitution; but then there is the reality that Congress has not only ceded the authority, they won?t even cut the purse strings to an unpopular war like Iraq. So the position of commander-in-chief is not only real and powerful, it concentrates the consequential impact of military adventures on that one person. Having military experience might afford that person some potential insight into the military; and having been involved in a war does provide the opportunity to learn something about war. I emphasize ?potential,? because it is not frequently actualized. Plenty of people can serve in the military, and even participate in one capacity or another in war, and still not have enough sense to pound sand. Conversely, plenty of people who have no military experience can attend to the strategic (read: politico-economic) goals of conflict, and delegate the tactical details to the lumpen-intelligentsia of the armed forces officer corps. John McCain flew airplanes and dropped bombs. The only thing he commanded was an instrument panel. He did that 23 times in combat, before he was shot down and captured by the same Vietnamese he had been bombing. Before that, he was injured in a ship fire aboard the USS Forrestal. He had some harrowing (not synonymous with heroic) experiences, but there is no historical evidence that suffering automatically leads to increased intelligence or even empathy for others who suffer. Ulysses Grant was a real commander of armed forces and a mediocre commander-in-chief who followed closely on the heels of Abraham Lincoln - a lawyer and career politician who had zero direct military experience? but who did win the bloodiest war in history at that time by directing Grant and others. Franklin Roosevelt steered the US through the greatest military conflagration in history - with no military experience of his own - bobbing and weaving to let other nations take the brunt of the war, and positioning the US to climb onto the heap of 48 million bodies as the globe?s newly predominant nation? a position the US has held to this day. Not making any moral points here. Lincoln and Roosevelt were as ruthless and cynical as any chief executive. They succeeded, is all I?m saying, as commanders-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. The hoopla about McCain?s suitability as commander-in-chief might make a bit more sense if he had spent a real career in the military and become a flag officer, I suppose. But Wesley Clark - a sycophant who rose through the ranks, like Colin Powell, as a successful bureaucrat - makes me hesitate to say even that. The point is, the military is one arm of the state; and before a former military person can employ the military intelligently, he (they are all he?s so far) has to get hold of the fact that military outcomes are determined not in the local, tactical context, but by strategic-political factors. This is why the general analysis of the tactical trends and dispositions in Iraq right now are both deceptive and self-deceptive. Commentators are either not at liberty to or capable of explaining the macrotrends that define the boundaries of political (and therefore military) action in Southwest Asia? and the world. One of the better ideas embodied in the Constitution of the United States is the idea that civilian authority should be in firm control of the military. (?Civilian? is also supposed to imply a sovereign people, and in money-run elections reported by ruling class media, there is no sovereign people.) The reason for that rule is that history taught past generations that military leaders who are successful in war are often brutal as well as stupid - a winning combination when the goal is simply to tear things up using a vast technological advantage. It?s the machismo? a synonym for brutal stupidity. Military stewardship of nations has a disastrous historical record; which is why the media?s focus on this aspect of the presidency is not only off the mark with regard to John McCain. His own ?service? - the real or the idealized - is largely irrelevant. The media focus also cops to the most dangerous accomplishment of the Bush administration: the publicly-accepted idea of a ?global war on terror.? Smuggled assumption Two. There is no such thing, of course. There is a war to control Southwest Asia and its strategic resources. The ?global war on terror? (GWOT) is a legal pretext that apparently slipped right past all those fine lawyers in Congress. What GWOT does is consolidate US executive control over both domestic and foreign policy, by redefining the entire planet as a battlefield. This ?global battlespace? justifies actions that are only sanctioned by international law on the battlefield. ?The whole world? cannot be shoehorned into any definition of a ?battlefield? embodied in international law on the issue of war. That?s one of several reasons the US won?t sign onto the International Criminal Court. The GWOT is simply rhetorical cover for a naked political power-grab. And this suits a Democratic executive just as nicely as it does a Republican one? as Congress has demonstrated in its perpetuation by word and deed of the GWOT myth. That is why - even though its not a sexy issue - debunking the GWOT assumption of a ?global battlespace? is one of the most crucial debates we can have about the war? it goes way beyond just Iraq, and set the stage for Guantanamo, rendition, et al. The lawyer running against McCain is play-acting at having missed this pretextual fiction, too; because he talks about winning this GWOT himself. That commits him whether he likes it or not. That is why after he wins the Presidency, Barack Obama - our new commander-in-chief - will find himself becoming the Lyndon Johnson of Afghanistan? and the US will continue sending troops to die for control of strategic resources through his entire term. Meanwhile, the world and the nation will grow poorer and meaner. It may even be during Obama?s first term that the debt ledge, public and private, snaps off (catastrophically). As the ledge plummets into the abyss with all of us tumbling behind, so his popularity will plunge down with us as inexorably as Bush?s has. The war didn?t destroy Bush?s ratings; losing it did. Obama will not only be caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of Wall Street and a pissed-off public; he will be trying to win an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and Iraq. All he will do is shift the center of gravity from Iraq to Afghanistan, which is already shifting as the Taliban expands its power into the interstices of the current NATO occupation. I know, I know. You?ve heard the media say Obama wants to leave Iraq. That?s because they don?t listen and don?t want you to. Obama has never called for a withdrawal from Iraq. He talks the al-Qaeda-babble just as enthusiastically as Dick Cheney, in fact, and has called for a permanent US occupation of Iraq, linguistically disguised as ?overwatch? with Special Operations on call. Any withdrawals (that is, troop draw-downs) remains contingent on ?the Iraqis.? This means the squabbling cliques inside the Green Zone, not most Iraqis. The trigger for discontinuing the occupation, then, is the ?government of Iraq? taking measures that they are unlikely to take, and over which the US has nearly no control? meaning these redeployment triggers will never be pulled. This bait-and-switch worked for Bush, and it will work for Obama until our sheer exhaustion with the war and the domestic economic crisis force a change on the Obama administration. Obama started his campaign for commander-in-chief with the easy - and false - critique that the Bush administration was killing the wrong people. It?s not Iraqis we need to kill, but Afghans. His popular deception is not that Iraq is responsible for 9-11. His implication is that Afghanistan did 9-11 because bin Laden was there. Again, not true, but why let that hold you back. The Taliban government of Afghanistan tried to give the US Osama bin Laden before 9-11. Since the US had invasion plans on the table, they didn?t want to lose the bin Laden pretext, and they refused. The attacks of 9-11-01 were conducted by 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, and two citizens of the United Arab Emirates. No Afghans. No Iraqis. Here is something that is true about Afghanistan though. Guerrilla war against outsiders has always succeeded there. And it is succeeding now against the US and NATO. The loss of a US perimeter base near the Pakistani border last week is just a foreshadowing of where the war there is headed. This is the war that Obama wants to fight? Yet he seems to have trapped himself in it already. He says that Afghanistan is being lost because there are too many US troops tied down in Iraq. Does he propose then that the current institutional trend lines in the military be maintained? More expensive recruitment and lower recruitment standards, falling morale, an unsustainable operations tempo, the reward of criminality and incompetence in the leadership, and reliance on $180,000-a-year mercenaries to take up the slack? Obama claims that he is going to fight terrorism by attacking Afghans instead of Iraqis, as well as maintain an ?overwatch? presence of tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Where will the troops come from? Well, he has stated that he wants to expand the ground forces by 93,000 (both Army and Marines). Lyndon Johnson started out like this, nickel-diming, and eventually found himself with 500,000 American troops occupying Vietnam. Several years later, the last US troops were literally driven out of Vietnam at gunpoint. Johnson didn?t run that war; the war ran him. That?s where Obama is headed right now; and for the record, that does not mean there is no difference between him and McCain, or that I am encouraging electoral abstinence. Those are red herrings. It means the war has in many respects escaped the calculable control of the American state no matter who the President is. Obama will be the next chief executive of the American state - a state by, for, and of the business class. That?s the job description. That business class depends on the larger economy which is materially dependent on massive and unceasing throughputs of fossil hydrocarbons. That same economy has been overrun by rentier capitalists who have driven the global economy over a cliff. Competitors are on the horizon, China, Russia, India, Brazil? but mostly Western Europe. The war is one central drama in a multiply-determined crisis that also includes immanent food shortages, water famines, radical climate shifts, and the general decay of inter-class stability. Obama did not inherit Bush?s war, except in the details. He inherited a business class?s war that was inevitable (though not in its present form). The United States was going to reposition its international military after the Cold War in any case; the old disposition for ?containing? the Soviet Union was obsolete after all. And given the most obvious of considerations, the place to seek permanent and fully operational military bases abroad was in Southwest Asia. That?s where the hydrocarbons are; and when you have the hydrocarbons, you have the competition on a nose ring. Following through with this is Obama?s job after the election. (We get to participate in the elections for which wealth-selected candidate will be the CEO; but we are not, alas, on the board of directors.) Obama is a very smart guy - a genuine intellectual - who has jumped through a rare political window of opportunity, but there?s a punji-pit on the other side. Bush?s approval numbers are abysmal in the face of a four-sided crisis: a bursting bubble of fictional value, skyrocketing fuel prices, an interminable unpopular war, and the collapse of ecosystems. Bush (ahistorically) gets all the blame. That?s the window of opportunity. Obama has also run a brilliant and even technically audacious campaign (his policy pronouncements are anything but audacious). I suspect he is going to win, and win big. In other circumstances, he might win to become a brilliant CEO for the business class, and even make enough of the rest of us comfortable enough to remain complacent. But he is inheriting problems that are already - as they have been for the Bush administration - supra-political, impermeable to intervention by the actually-existing political system in which we live. He is inheriting a complex and world-historic impasse for the world and the US state. And he will be the commander-in-chief for the United States Armed Forces. He has already committed himself to the emergent consensus of that system. Southwest Asia will be secured for the US, by military force if necessary; or there will be a phase shift in American economics and politics that will sideline the entire system (and consensus). There is not a shred of evidence (except in the public?s ever-hopeful imagination) that he intends to be anything more or less than other commanders-in-chief. Like the others, he will bend the military to the emergencies of empire - that is, secure the continuity of the existing system. Maybe McCain will win, and none of this will matter to Obama. It will go the same way for McCain, and worse still if he elects to vicariously relive the pre-capture glory days by ordering bombing runs over Qom. He?d be the commander-in-chief. He can do that as commander-in-chief. And Congress will not stop him. Neither will we. The ?antiwar movement? has always been more an anti-Bush movement and an anti-defeat movement (nudged along by competing leftist cadres without their own popular bases); and it has shown no ability to employ anything except 60s-70s tactics and techniques, even though the ruling class has long ago adapted to them. Neither Congress nor the people-at-large will stop McCain or Obama from war-mongering. That?s one reason there has been so much emotional investment in Obama?s change rhetoric. A general election (a new king) is the current limit of our cultural imagination and the limit of our collective political will. This in no way means the system will continue along. It simply means that these creatures of the system will not be the agents of its undoing. The weeds have been in the wheat for quite some time now, but pulling the weeds will kill the wheat. The harvest has to come before we can winnow and start fresh. Making McCain out a devil does not make Obama a rescuing angel. Obamas?s mature, articulate confidence is certainly reassuring after eight years of a Yalie frat-rat smirking in the foreground of serial disasters; but there is such a thing as misplaced confidence? even feigned confidence. Obama?s foreign policy is likely to be warmed-over Brzezinski-ism; and it was Brzezinski who was the architect of the conditions that put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the first place. Brzezinski, prardoxically, is warning Obama of exactly what?s been said here, citing the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. ?We have to be careful?? Brzezinski warns Obama, ??not to overestimate the appeal of the democratic Afghan elite, because we run the risk that our military presence will gradually turn the Afghan population entirely against us. ?I realize that in an electoral campaign you don?t want to antagonize large groups which are highly motivated. This is a very dangerous period of time with very unpredictable consequences. You have three countries [Iran, Israel and the U.S.] doing a kind of death dance on the basis of confusion, division and fear. ?If we end up with war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, [and] Iran at the same time, can anyone see a more damaging prospect for America?s world role than that? That?s the fundamental foreign policy dilemma at the back of this election. A four-front war would get us involved for years . . . It would be the end of American predominance.? In fact, a two-front war is already contributing to the same thing. What?s a commander-in-chief to do? Welcome to GWOT world. Want that catastrophe with one lump or two? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 23 15:21:52 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:21:52 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Current Oil Shock Message-ID: <488768B3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The Current Oil Shock http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2008w28/msg00104.htm No Relief in Sight by Dilip Hiro www.tomdispatch.com (July 15 2008) When will it end, this crushing rise in the price of gasoline, now averaging $4.10 a gallon at the pump? The question is uppermost in the minds of American motorists as they plan vacations or simply review their daily journeys. The short answer is simple as well: "Not soon". As yet there is no sign of a reversal in oil's upward price thrust, which has more than doubled in a year, cresting recently above $146 a barrel. The current oil shock, the fourth of its kind in the past three-and-a-half decades, and the deadliest so far, shows every sign of continuing for a long, long stretch. The previous oil shocks - in 1973-74, 1980, and 1990-91 - stemmed from specific interruptions of energy supplies from the Middle East due, respectively, to an Arab-Israeli war, the Iranian revolution, and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Once peace was restored, a post-revolutionary order established, or the invader expelled, vital Middle Eastern energy supplies returned to normal. The fourth oil shock, however, belongs in a different category altogether. Nothing Like It Before Unlike in the past, the present price spurt has been caused mainly by global demand for energy outstripping available supply. Alarmingly, there is no short-term prospect that supply will match demand. For a commodity like petroleum that underwrites and permeates every aspect of modern life - from fuel to fertilizers, paints to plastics, resins to rubber - "balance" requires a five percent safety factor on the supply side. At present, however, spare capacity in the oil industry is less than two percent, down from more than six percent in 2002. As a result, the price of oil responds instantly to negative news of any sort: a threat against Iran by an Israeli cabinet minister, a fire on a Norwegian offshore drilling rig, or an attack on an oil facility by armed rebels in Nigeria. Behind the present price surge, other factors are also at work. Take the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. It flared almost a year ago, drastically lowering the market value of the stocks of banks and allied companies. The concomitant downturn in other equities led investment fund managers and speculators to direct their cash into more productive markets, especially commodities such as gold and oil, driving up their prices. The continued weakening of the US dollar - the denomination used in oil trading - has also encouraged investment in commodities as a hedge against this depreciating currency. The earlier oil shocks led non-OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) nations to accelerate oil exploration and extraction to increase supplies. Their collective reserves, however, represent but a third of OPEC's 75% of the global total. By the turn of the century, these countries had pumped so much crude oil that their collective output went into an irreversible decline. A mere glance at the oil production table of the authoritative BP Statistical Review of World Energy - published annually - shows declines in such non-OPEC countries as Britain, Brunei, Denmark, Mexico, Norway, Oman, Trinidad, and Yemen {1}. Over the past decade, oil output in the US has declined from 8.27 million barrels per day (bpd) to 6.88 million bpd. The exploitation of the much-vaunted tar sands of Canada - expected to cover the global shortfall - only helped to raise that country's output from 3.04 million bpd in 2005 to 3.31 million bpd in 2007, a mere ten percent in two years. In the 1990s, overflowing supplies and cheap oil had led to an overall decline in oil exploration as well as under-investment in refineries. These two factors constitute a major hurdle to hiking the supply of petroleum products in the near future. In addition, new hydrocarbon fields are increasingly found in deep-water regions that are arduous to exploit. The paucity of the specialized equipment needed to extract oil from such new reserves has created a bottleneck in future offshore production. The world's current fleet of specialized drill ships is booked until 2013. The price of building such a vessel has taken a five-fold jump to $500 million in the last year. The cost of crucial materials - such as steel for rigs and pipelines - has risen sharply. So, too, have salaries for skilled manpower in the industry. Little wonder then that while, in 2002, it cost $150,000 a day to hire a deep-water rig, it now costs four times as much. Static Supply, Rising Demand While the oil supply remains essentially static, worldwide demand shows no signs of tapering off. The only way to cool the energy market at the moment would be to reduce consumption. Luckily - from the environmentalist's viewpoint - soaring gasoline and diesel prices have begun lowering consumption in North America and Western Europe. Gasoline consumption in the United States dropped three percent in the first quarter of 2008, when compared to the previous year. When it comes to energy conservation, there is a far greater opportunity for saving in the affluent societies of the West than anywhere else in the world. An average American uses twice as much oil as a Briton, a Briton twice as much as a Russian, and a Russian eight times as much as an Indian. It was therefore perverse of US energy secretary Sam Bodman to focus on the way the Chinese and Indian governments subsidize oil products to provide relief to their citizens - and to urge their energy ministers to cut those subsidies to "reduce demand". It is true that China and India, which together account for two-fifths of the human race, are now major contributors to the growth in global oil demand. But it's an indisputable fact that only by increasing per capita energy consumption from current abysmally low levels can the Chinese and Indian governments hope to lift hundreds of millions of people out of grinding poverty. In a country like India, for instance, half of all households lack electricity, so hurricane lanterns, fueled by kerosene, are a basic necessity. Subsidized kerosene, also used for cooking stoves, helps hundreds of millions of poor Indians. To cut or eliminate the subsidy on kerosene would only intensify poverty. In truth, when it comes to energy conservation, the main focus at the moment should be on the thirty-member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of the globe's richest nations which cumulatively consumes nearly three out of every five barrels of oil used anywhere. Among OECD members, Japan provides a model to be emulated. Japan's Exemplary Performance When it comes to energy conservation, Japan provides a glaring counterpoint to the United States. Consider what's happened in both countries since the first oil shock of the mid-1970s when prices quadrupled. That price hike initially led to a drive for fuel efficiency in the US, Western Europe, and Japan. It also gave a boost to the idea of developing renewable sources of energy. Ever since, Japan has followed a consistent, long-range policy of reduction in petroleum usage, while the US first wavered and then fell back dramatically. Under the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the US modestly improved the fuel efficiency of its vehicles, as stipulated by a federal law. President Carter also announced a $100 million federal research and development program focused on solar power and symbolically had a solar water heater installed on the White House roof. During the subsequent presidency of Ronald Reagan, when oil prices fell sharply, energy efficiency and conservation policies went with them, as did the idea of developing renewable sources of energy. This was dramatized when Reagan ordered the removal of that solar panel from the White House. In the private sector, utilities promptly slashed by half their investments in energy efficiency. President George H W Bush, an oil man, followed Reagan's lead. And his son, George W (along Vice President Dick Cheney, former chief executive of energy services giant Halliburton) has done absolutely nothing to wean Americans away from their much talked about "addiction to oil". Even now, instead of urging Americans to cut oil usage (and putting a little legislative heft behind those urgings), politicians of both parties are blaming soaring gas and diesel prices on "speculators", conveniently ignoring how thin a line divides "speculators" from "investors". In Japan, on the other hand, the government and private companies have stayed on course since the First Oil Shock. Despite the doubling of Japan's gross domestic product during the 1970s and 1980s, its annual overall levels of energy consumption have remained unchanged. Today, Japan uses only half as much energy for every dollar's worth of economic activity as the European Union or the United States. In addition, national and local authorities have continually enforced strict energy-conservation standards for new buildings. It is, again, Japan that has made significant progress when it comes to renewable sources of energy. By 2006, for instance, it was responsible for producing almost half of total global solar power, well ahead of the US, even though it was an American, Russell Ohl, who invented the silicon solar cell, the building block of solar photovoltaic panels, which convert sunshine into electricity. What to Do: Medium-Term Solutions Worldwide, over half of all oil is used for transport. Though we instantly associate a car or truck with an internal combustion engine (ICE), it was not always so. At the turn of the twentieth century, cars were also powered by steam engines or batteries. Now, our salvation lies in finding a way back to the pre-ICE era. It is incumbent upon the automobile companies in rich nations to accelerate the process of divorcing vehicles from the internal combustion engine. Cars of the future can be powered by batteries, hydrogen cells, or solar panels - or a combination of the above. Typically, Japanese companies are in the forefront of research and development on this. It was Toyota which first introduced a "concept" hybrid car in 1995, combining batteries with the internal combustion engine, and began mass producing them some years later. This June, Honda set up an assembly line for producing a hydrogen-powered car, the FCX Clarity. This model already can travel 280 miles on a tank of liquid hydrogen. But it will go into mass production only after there is an infrastructure of liquefied hydrogen stations in place in Japan and in California, which will take time. So far there are only thirteen hydrogen stations, funded by the government, in the Tokyo area. Meanwhile, aware of the enormous cost of its product, it is initially planning to lease the FXC Clarity to drivers for $600 a month. Another Japanese corporation, Mazda, has come up with a hybrid car using hydrogen cells as well as an internal combustion engine. As the mass production of non-ICE cars takes off in rich nations, the cost will fall, and such models will find markets in the fast expanding (yet comparatively poor) economies of China and India. Medium-Term: The Nuclear Option Besides powering transport, oil is a major source of fuel for electricity-generating plants. With even Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer conceding publicly that we are nearing peak oil production (after which oil reserves will decline irretrievably), attention is increasingly turning, in the West, to coal and nuclear power as medium-term solutions. The very mention of nuclear plants revives nightmarish memories of the partial meltdown of a US reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, and the catastrophic burning of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986. On the other hand, nuclear stations now provide 79% of France's electricity and have, so far, been accident-proof. That country's leading nuclear company, Areva, expects to sell 100 power stations, fueled by third-generation Evolutionary Pressure Water Reactors (EPWR), worldwide by 2030. Areva also heads a consortium that is building the first nuclear power station in Europe in more than a decade - in Finland. On nuclear waste management and safety, the Finnish nuclear authority Posiva seems to have found a workable solution. After twelve years of public debate, it has allowed the construction of a $3.5 billion nuclear plant equipped with an EPWR reactor, on an offshore island. The new plant is designed to last sixty years, twice the average life of a nuclear power plant today. If its control rods should fail, triggering a core meltdown, a special basin of concrete will be there to hold the debris, thus theoretically preventing the release of radioactive material. The nuclear waste will then be set in cast iron, encased in copper, and dropped down a borehole, half a kilometer deep, which would, in turn, be saturated with bentonite, a kind of clay. According to Posiva's metallurgists, under such conditions the copper barrier should last a million years. Once this station is commissioned, nuclear-fueled electricity will rise from 27% to 37% of the total on the Finnish national grid. So acute is the demand for electricity in India that three nuclear power stations are to be commissioned this year. Once on line, however, these plants will make but a marginal difference in meeting Indian energy needs. Only coal, which abounds in India, can help meet exploding demand, as is true in coal-rich China. There, an electric plant fueled by (dirty, conventional) coal is being commissioned every week. Medium-Term: Cleaner Coal In the hydrocarbon family, coal is the least efficient energy source, providing only half as much energy as oil, while producing twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2). But coal has the longest history of supplying energy to modern societies, and as the twenty-first century began, it was still one of the leading fuels for power plants worldwide. Today, coal provides 28% of electric power globally, only marginally less than in the 1970s. Countrywide, percentages vary widely - from twenty percent in the United States to four times as much in China. Because coal isn't going away any time soon, the challenge is obviously to burn coal more efficiently and, at the same time, capture its carbon dioxide emissions before they reach the atmosphere. One possible solution to coal's polluting problems lies in producing de-carbonized coal - that is, in converting coal into petroleum products, thereby also reducing demand for crude oil. A hybrid technology involving de-carbonizing natural gas or coal already exists. In a coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility, coal is broken up, extracting the hydrogen and leaving behind the carbon. Next the hydrogen is burned, emitting heat that drives the electricity-generating turbines, while carbon, in the form of liquefied carbon dioxide, is stored underground or under the seabed. But, at the moment, an IGCC station needs one-fifth more coal as fuel than a conventional plant just to produce the energy needed to power the carbon-capturing mechanism. The price of the electric power thus generated would be a third to a half higher than that from dirty coal. On the other hand, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) system could someday provide up to 55% of the emissions reduction needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming. Last month, the G8 energy ministers, meeting in Japan, called for the launch of twenty large-scale CCS projects globally by 2010. Soon after, the British government invited four leading European companies to submit tenders for such a project in the United Kingdom. At the recent oil summit in Jeddah, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that his country would work with Saudi Arabia on perfecting the technology for carbon capture. The United States and Australia are already committed to advance this technology with public funds. As it gets cheaper with frequent application, it will become affordable by countries like India and China. With oil supplies peaking in the coming years and uranium following a similar path as the present century unfolds, the weight of humanity's needs will increasingly fall on coal. It is coal, for better or worse, that will provide the energy to sustain higher living standards for a growing segment of humanity, even as the search for, and development of, renewable energies proceeds at a faster pace. Last week, recognizing this reality, the G8 summit renewed its commitment to advance carbon capture and storage systems with all due speed. This, in a nutshell, is the global energy future in the medium term. It is the reality we face. Link {1} http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622 _____ Dilip Hiro is the author of numerous books on the Middle East. His most recent book, Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources (Nation Books, 2006) is a vivid history of how oil has revolutionized civilian life, war, and world politics over the last century, as well as of alternatives to oil, including renewable energy sources. Copyright 2008 Dilip Hiro http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174955/dilip_hiro_the_energy_reality_we_faceThe http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 23 15:23:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Current Oil Shock (according to Dilip Hiro) Message-ID: <488768F8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The Current Oil Shock (according to Dilip Hiro) http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2008w28/msg00105.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interestingly, Dilip Hiro seems to promote only solutions that concentrate power and control in the hands of giant enterprises. It is the exact opposite of the German solution described by Herman Scheer. I uploaded his 27 minute interview at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hermann+scheer&sitesearch =# Todd Boyle toddboyle at xxxxxxxxxxx (425) 827-3107 9745 128th Avenue NE, Kirkland WA 98033-5286 http://rosehill.net antiwar This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 23 15:30:11 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:30:11 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michelle Obama Message-ID: <48876AA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jones and others say that Michelle Obama knocks down old stereotypes of black women: Sapphire, the angry black woman; Mammy, the caretaker and nurturer of her own children and everybody else's, and Jezebel, the loose woman." ??? They aren't 'stereotypes' for women of any culture, they are existent and imo, neccesary roles, and further there's NOTHING wrong with those roles, just people's culturally programmed bigotry towards them. Thanks for attempting to reinforce the belief that there's something wrong with care-giving other's children, getting angry, or laid. Sick. Leigh ^^^^ CB: You are in dire need an education in Black history and feminism. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 23 15:31:49 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michelle Obama In-Reply-To: <48876AA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48876AA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <48876B07.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrong list >>> "Charles Brown" 07/23/2008 5:30 PM >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jones and others say that Michelle Obama knocks down old stereotypes of black women: Sapphire, the angry black woman; Mammy, the caretaker and nurturer of her own children and everybody else's, and Jezebel, the loose woman." ??? They aren't 'stereotypes' for women of any culture, they are existent and imo, neccesary roles, and further there's NOTHING wrong with those roles, just people's culturally programmed bigotry towards them. Thanks for attempting to reinforce the belief that there's something wrong with care-giving other's children, getting angry, or laid. Sick. Leigh ^^^^ CB: You are in dire need an education in Black history and feminism. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 19:13:33 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:13:33 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oil shock Message-ID: Saddam Hussein had only one weapon of mass destruction--high quality oil that could be pumped much more cheaply than what so many others produced. By invading Iraq the Bush regime took much of the Iraqi oil off the world markets, tightening supplies immediately. Even Putin and Chavez (as did the Gulf states) cried crocodile tears because Iraq's demise , they realized, might help drive up the price of even their more marginal crudes, thus allowing them to finance their governments. I would bet the in Washington's inner circles includes a calculation that a sharply higher price of oil would help boost profits (of course), and more profitable oil majors could then expand production--THEIR production. Either directly or by investing, as they often do, in smaller companies. For example, exploration and production offshore of the US--which is now bubbling up in Repug campaign rhetoric--no doubt, with a revival of nuclear power and coal. Instead of investing in new oil production, in an era of rampant leveraged speculation, we got rampant leveraged speculation on the price of BENCHMARK sweet crudes. If there is a shortage it is in capacity for turning heavier crudes into the most important products--diesel, gasoline, air craft fuel, etc. Especially where it is being pumped out of the earth. This is why Iran and Venezuela sit on huge heavy oil surpluses--they lack the capacity or the financial ability to turn it into what the world would immediately buy (or, well, speculate on). Meanwhile, Bush not only helped tighten oil supplies--of the best stuff--by doubling the US's stockpiles, it also pushed its allies (such as Japan) to do the same. Why? For one thing, it wants Japan to be its military's gas station for E. Asia. Meanwhile, it pursued AIR WARS world wide . Imagine how much fuel US and its NATO allies expend running a war in landlocked Afghanistan. Add in low interest rates, cheap money, and doubts about the profitability of stocks, bonds, and then real estate-linked instruments, and no wonder you had a nice long run at an oil pricing bubble. I guess the winners this summer are those who had a hunch that the price would test 150 dollars but not beyond. And the biggest suckers, it is turning out, are the ones who bet that cheap money and speculation would drive oil (futures on benchmark crudes) to 200 dollars a barrel. Probably of the same ilk who, circa 2002, were lauding real-estate linked 'securities' as instruments that have eliminated RISK. The very same sort who were sure Enron was showing the world how to make capitalism more profitable. You know what stupidity is? The inability of so many 'well educated' people to listen to those who can say, I TOLD YOU SO. Hindsight is 20-20 for whom? CJ From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 20:16:51 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:16:51 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oil shock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html Plenty of Oil, but Few Refineries for Iran By BRIAN MURPHY The Associated Press Wednesday, May 31, 2006; 3:27 PM TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran is flush with huge oil reserves and cash, but a refinery shortage leaves it heavily dependent on imported gasoline and diesel to keeps its cars and trucks rolling. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/07/Business/Cutting_an_oil_artery.shtml Chief among these is the close proximity of the U.S. market, which cuts transportation costs. U.S. refineries are also specially equipped to process Venezuela's sulphur-laden crude. While Citgo pays U.S. taxes, it also delivers a huge dividend to its Venezuelan parent company, worth $400-million last year. Oil industry experts question whether Chavez can achieve his objective of breaking away from the U.S. oil market. The Panama oil pipeline he's eyeing pumps 100,000 barrels a day of Ecuadoran crude (from the Pacific to the Atlantic) for Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline lacks the capacity to simultaneously ship Chavez's oil to China in the opposite direction, analysts say. They also point out that Venezuela may be of only temporary interest for China, which is busy exploring for oil and gas closer to home in the South China Sea. On the other hand, if Chavez is serious about diversifying his client base away from the United States, now isn't a bad time to cash in his assets, analysts say. With high crude prices, Citgo would fetch a high price. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/08/sweet_and_sour.html The third critical ingredient is refining capacity. British Petroleum reported that global refinery capacity increased by 1.8 million barrels a day between 2001 and 2004, while global crude production was up 5.3 mbd. Moreover, not enough of this capacity is able to process the increasingly heavy and sour crude supplies. Chernoff again: The marginal refining capacity in the world cannot process heavy, sour crudes at all, let alone process these crudes into light, sweet products. Converting existing refining capacity to process heavy, sour crudes to produce light, sweet products is expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S., the conversion (for the refiners who are converting) is a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar project. Some refiners have elected to produce light, sweet products only from light, sweet crudes. Others have elected to retire refining capacity. In parts of the world that supply markets with only higher sulfur products or that have dropped out of the market to supply low-sulfur products, little or no conversion will take place and the demand will continue for the diminishing fraction of light, sweet crudes. Although the change in the price spread is pretty dramatic, the explanation is quite simple: (1) supply is down, (2) demand is up, and (3) the capital investments necessary to cope with facts (1) and (2) were not made. Government regulation in response to environmental concerns appears to have played an important role in both (2) and (3). http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2496 Saudi Arabia bitter over global taste for sweet and not sour oil by Carl Mortished SAUDI ARABIA's oil minister said his country was ready to pump more oil but it could not find buyers as the Kingdom's high-sulphur crude was being rejected by Western refineries. In a bid to quell the surging price of crude, Ali al-Naimi said Saudi Arabia was ready to pump more crude but gave warning to consuming nations that they needed to invest in new refineries to process Saudi Arabia's "sour" crude. "We have 500,000 barrels a day extra capacity and we are ready to produce now but there are no buyers. Consumer nations need to build sufficiently sophisticated refineries to be able to handle sour crude," said Mr Al-Naimi, speaking at an oil conference yesterday in the Gulf. The Saudi minister's comments highlight emerging problem of high-sulphur oil reserves. "There's a difference between sour and sweet crude and what's on offer now is the light sour crude," Mr Al-Naimi said. Tightening emission controls over motor vehicles have increased demand from refiners for low-sulphur ("sweet") crudes, such as North Sea Brent or Nigeria's Bonny Light, which are easily refined into high-quality petrol or ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel. However, supplies from Nigeria are likely to be under threat today from a general strike in the troubled West African state where the main labour union is protesting high petrol prices. A shortage of sweet crudes, such as Brent and America's West Texas Intermediate, has driven their prices to extraordinary levels. On Friday, Brent set a new record closing just shy of $50 a barrel. A chasm is growing between the premium price of sweet crudes and the discounted price at which the bulk of the world's oil is sold. The surplus of sour crude is hitting the price of Arab Light, a higher-sulphur crude that accounts for most of the Saudi exports, and the Kingdom has been forced to double the discount at which it is priced against Brent. Russian oil, too, is being shunned for its sulphur content. Urals, the main blend of Russian export crude is now trading at more than $7 below the price of US Light crude, compared with just $2 a year ago. According to oil industry experts, about 40 per cent of the world's current crude output is "sweet", but rough estimates of the proven reserves in the ground show more than 75 per cent is higher-sulphur "sour" crude. A shortage of refineries capable of converting sour crude into low-emission fuels suggests continuing price pressure on sweet blends and high prices for consumers. "The world is going sour," said Rafiq Latta of Petroleum Argus, a publication that monitors crude prices. "The only regions where there is room for expanding sweet production is West Africa and Algeria." North Sea and Texas oilfields have been the largest, easily accessible sources of low-sulphur crude but these are now in accelerating decline. For future oil supply, the world will increasingly look to the sour crudes of the Gulf and Russia. A lack of refineries equipped to process sour crudes is the problem, according to Julian Lee of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. "America hasn't built a new refinery since 1976," he said. Ever-tightening environmental legislation is adding to the pressure on refiners to buy premium crudes, Mr Lee said. Even refiners equipped to convert sour crudes are now finding it necessary to buy lighter, sweeter products to produce the new ultra-clean fuels. http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_01/hamilton011201.html Through the vagaries of ancient geologic history, Iraq has been blessed with some of the most highly sought-after crude oil on the planet. Iraqi crude is generally light sweet, indicating an optimum refining weight and a desirably low sulfur content. All things being equal, most of the world's oil refineries prefer light sweet crude over heavier grades with more sulfur that has to be removed. High sulfur content adds to both the complexity and cost of refining oil. Some refineries in certain countries do not even yet have the technical capability to crack heavier crude into important distillates like gasoline and heating oil. As Iraqi crude is very high quality, this magnifies the importance of its exports to the world petroleum markets. From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 20:21:36 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:21:36 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oil shock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So apparently not only is there a glut of heavy oils, there is a glut of LIGHT SOUR oil too--Saudi Arabia can't sell it. As for investments like the the ones being made in tar sands and oil shale, this is to quite an extent as exotic as investments in making fuels from corn or sugar cane. It is not really a part of the world's 'conventional' oil production. CJ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ From jannuzi at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 21:17:00 2008 From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:17:00 +0900 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oil shock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Notice how it is the pro-capitalists who can not understand what drives the various layers and elements of the oil industry. http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=299313& "The facts are clear: Oil companies have already had ample opportunity to increase supply, but they have sat on their hands. They aren't even using more than half of the public lands they already have leased for drilling. And despite the huge tax breaks President Bush and Republican Congresses have given oil and gas companies to invest in refineries, domestic production has actually dropped. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0615-02.htm Because it takes about four years to build a large refinery, planning for a new plant would have had to begin by the mid-1990s, energy experts say. There has not been a new refinery build in the United States in 25 years; in the meantime, dozens of small ones have closed. The documents obtained by Wyden's office suggest that in the mid-1990s oil companies had no interest in building refineries because of low profit margins. In fact, companies were discussing the need to curtail refinery output in order to make more money, the documents suggest. "If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins (profits)," said an internal Chevron document in November 1995, citing views presented by participants at an American Petroleum Institute conference. A year later, an official at Texaco, in a memo marked "highly confidential," called concerns about too much refinery capacity "the most critical factor" facing the refinery industry. Excess capacity is producing "very poor refining financial results," the memo said. Wyden said the documents "raise significant questions about whether America's oil companies tried to pull off a financial triple play ? boosting profits by reducing refinery capacity, tagging consumers with higher pump prices and then arguing for environmental rollbacks." The institute produced statistics showing refinery capacity has increased since 1996 as refineries became more efficient and some expanded. The figures also showed capacity increasing slower than demand. Cavaney, the institute's president, said the industry's reluctance to invest in new refinery capacity when profit margins are low and supplies are adequate ? as was the case in the mid-1990s ? was "a normal response in a commodity market." Wyden singled out a 1996 memo from Mobil Corp., which has since merged with Exxon, that suggests that Mobil was ready for a "full court press" to make sure an independent California refinery, which had closed in 1995, would not reopen. At the time Mobil was concerned that if the refinery, owned by the Powerine Oil Co., resumed production it might force down the price of a special, cleaner burning gasoline by as much as 3 cents. "Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down," the memo said. "Full court press is warranted in this case." The refinery remained closed. Texaco spokeswoman Keelin Molloi said Wyden's allegations "divert attention away from legitimate policy questions" about energy needs. As for the 1995 Texaco memo, she said: "Within any company, discussions about the margins and capacity are conducted in a normal course of business and in no way constitutes inappropriate or illegal behavior." Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell said the company "flatly denies any improper conduct involving refinery production levels or gasoline pricing." Attempts to reach ExxonMobil were unsuccessful. The need for more refinery capacity has been the focus of President Bush's energy plan. Vice President Dick Cheney has blamed gasoline prices increases on tight supplies caused to a large part, he contends, by the fact that the last new U.S. refinery was built in 1976. In fact, 24 refineries ? many of them small independents ? have shut down since 1995, according to the Energy Department. That has accounted for the loss of 831,000 barrels a day of refining capacity. Individual refinery expansions at the same time have added 1 to 2 percent of capacity annually. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm Low refinery capacity would at first suggest that oil prices should fall. After all, if there is no more space at refineries there will be surplus oil on the market waiting to be refined. So logically crude oil prices should fall. There are no firm expansions in refining capacity, not just in the US but in North America, South America and Europe. All of the expansions are in the Middle East and Asia Barclays analyst Paul Horsnell But the oil market has no real mechanisms to make this happen. It only has crude prices at one end and pump prices at the other to regulate demand. As a result if refinery capacity is limited the price of crude will rise, as an incentive to reduce demand. The idea being that high pump prices kill demand for petrol, in turn lowering the price of crude. It can best be seen in reverse. Post-Katrina, governments and the International Energy Agency released emergency stocks of crude. The USA released 60 million barrels from its Strategic Reserve, for only the second time in its 30-year history. They did this to reduce the shock of high pump prices, especially for American consumers in the hope that if they flooded the market with crude oil then oil prices would fall. This in turn would pull back American pump prices from a record nationwide average of $3.12. Only a year earlier the price had been $1.87. Reduced capacity But why does this refinery shortage exist? During the last 29 years, US gasoline consumption has risen 45%, yet not a single new refinery has been built. A refinery in Baytown, Texas People dislike it when refineries are built close to where they live US environmental laws have made it near impossible to build refineries close to residential populations. But the primary motive behind the lack of US refinery new builds is a basic one, a lack of profits for oil companies. In the 1980s and 90s, the fashion for American refineries was not to build more, but to close existing ones. In 2001, Senator Ron Wyden authored a comprehensive report on the state of the US refining industry. He noted that between 1995 and 2001 there were a total of 24 refinery closures in the United States. These lost America around 830,000 barrels per day of gasoline. That is about the same amount of capacity lost to Katrina alone. No new refineries Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits. Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing." "The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo. "The same situation exists for the entire US refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." The same basic premise has operated in Europe. Not only have no new refineries been built for two decade; there are no plans to build any in the future. There is a plan for one small 150,000 bpd US refinery in Arizona near the town of Welton, but even that has many hurdles to overcome. "If you had a magic wand solution, your magic wand would give you a few more refineries within the US system," said Paul Horsnell to his clients. "That is not going to happen." Changing power balance However this has opened the way for other nations to capitalise on the current shortages. HE Sheikh Ahmad Fahad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Sheikh Al-Sabah blames 'Nimbys' for the refinery shortage That is especially the case with the eleven Opec nations. The future of the refining industry could well be shifting, away from rich countries like the USA and those in Europe, to nations with significant oil reserves. To illustrate this, the last Opec meeting saw the sitting President, Kuwaiti oil minister HE Sheikh Ahmad Fahad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, attack Gordon Brown's widely reported pronouncements on Opec. His stinging response was aimed at the high tax take of the UK government, but also at its failure to build new refinery output. "It is the tax problem and the procedures to build refineries; nobody wanted a refinery in the back yard of his house," he said. As a result it is Opec that is building the new refineries for the world. Indonesia is to build a new refinery in Tuban, Java. Kuwait is spending $9.8bn to build a huge new 600,000bpd refinery near Kuwait City plus upgrades to other refineries in Al Ahmadi and Mina Abdullah. Nigeria are investing over $2bn in refinery capacity and Qatar are undertaking billions of dollars of investment in gas-to-liquids (GTL) which produces liquid fuels from natural gas deposits. Saudi Arabia are to spend $11.3bn upgrading some existing refineries, but also to build a massive new plant at Yanbu on the Red Sea. As well as this, the Saudi state oil company Saudi Aramco are investing in joint ventures overseas in China in Qingdao and Fujian. Paul Horsnell from Barclays Capital again "We're stuck in an imperfect world," observed Mr Horsnell. "Refining shortages are going to play a key role in price formation. "There are no firm expansions in refining capacity, not just in the US but in North America, South America and Europe. All of the expansions are in the Middle East and Asia." There is a undoubtedly a problem with the world's refining capacity. Opec's new refineries will not come online until around five years from now. By then demand levels could be even higher than they are now. But what it may cost to fill your car by then, is anyone's guess. http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080311&id=8324183 Valero may sell U.S. plants in hard refinery times March 11, 2008 7:07 PM ET advertisement Article tools * E-mail this article * Print-friendly version * Discuss this article Stocks mentioned in this article Petroleo Brasileiro ADR Reptg 2 Ord Shs (PBR) Stock Quote, Chart, News, Add to Watchlist Valero Energy Ord Shs (VLO) Stock Quote, Chart, News, Add to Watchlist ReutersAll Reuters news SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Top U.S. refining company Valero Energy Corp said on Tuesday it is considering selling nearly a third of its North American refineries amid a U.S. economic slowdown that is crimping fuel demand, and that it is exploring new projects in the Middle East and Asia. The outlook marks a major shift in Valero's strategy after a decade of sterling profits, acquisitions and expansions transformed the San Antonio-based company from small independent refiner into a behemoth. Valero Chief Executive Bill Klesse, speaking at the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association meeting, said the company is close to selling refineries in Aruba, Memphis, Tennessee, and Krotz Springs, Louisiana, and has received interest from potential buyers for two other plants. Klesse did not say what companies were vying for the plants, which account for 840,000 barrels per day of the company's 3.1 million bpd capacity. But Zurich-listed Petroplus announced in late February it partnered with two private equity firms to buy U.S. refineries, raising some speculation in the oil industry that it could be one of the bidders. Brazilian state oil company Petrobras has also said it is eyeing opportunities to buy refineries. Klesse said that at the same time, Valero is exploring potential growth in the Middle East and Asia, where demand for fuel has been robust. "We have looked in the last six months at opportunities in the Middle East and we looked at a situation in Asia," said Klesse. "Nothing is imminent." Subsidized prices and a weakening U.S. dollar have helped keep fuel demand high in many consuming nations, he said. U.S. 'GOLDEN AGE' OVER After a stretch of soaring profits that Valero once dubbed "the golden age" of refining, the sector in the United States has faced a sharp downturn. Surging crude oil prices, softening demand growth, tough environmental regulations and rising costs for materials and labor have cut into margins and led U.S. refiners to slow fuel production and scrap more than a half a million barrels per day in expansion plans in recent months. Klesse said he expects prices of crude oil, the primary feedstock in fuel production, to continue to hold strong despite weaker U.S. demand growth for gasoline. Crude oil hit a new peak near $110 a barrel on Tuesday. He added that poor margins, particularly in the Midwest, had led the company to slow some gasoline production even as pump prices hit new peaks. "Oil prices are going to stay high," Klesse said. "I'd like to think not $110. The world economy has shown it can handle these high prices." Klesse said the United States may need to raise tariffs on imported gasoline to protect domestic refiners against "dumping" from foreign suppliers. Average regular gasoline prices hit an all-time high of $3.227 per gallon Tuesday, according to travel group AAA. OFF THE BOOKS When Valero began a buying spree in 1997, it had only one refinery. That number ballooned to 18 until the middle of last year when it sold off a plant in Ohio. If it sells the five plants Klesse indicated were on the block, it will have cut the number of its plants by nearly a third. Klesse said it would likely sell its plants in Aruba, Memphis and Krotz Springs by the end of 2008. "There is no question that I know the values are good for these (three) refineries for our shareholders," Klesse said. "It's more driven by the fact that Valero is not going to invest in these plants and take them to the next level." He added Valero was also entertaining interest in two other plants in Ardmore, Oklahoma and Paulsboro, New Jersey. "Paulsboro is not on the market, but I have said it is on the bubble," he told reporters. "In other words, it is a plant we are looking at and trying to decide is it in fact worth more to another company than it is to Valero." Klesse, 61, has been CEO since January 2006. He said Valero is still interested in buying plants, but added it is in an "enviable" selective position. "We are still interested in acquisitions," he said. "But we do not need to make any and they have to be extremely strategic because of the (high) price of them." Klesse reiterated that Valero will spend about $4 billion to $5 billon on capital expenditures this year and about $5 billon in 2009. Valero two weeks ago announced it will spend $2.4 billion to expand its Port Arthur, Texas refinery by the mid-2011. The expansion of the refinery will boost throughput to 415,000 bpd from the current capacity of 325,000 bpd. (Editing by Marguerita Choy and David Gregorio) Copyright 2008 Reuters http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/January/investing-in-oil-companies.html Crude Refineries Profit On The Crack Spread Companies that refine crude make their profits on the "crack spread." In chemistry, to "crack" means to separate the component parts of a substance; in this case, the extraction of petroleum products from crude oil, including gasoline, kerosene, diesel, heating oil, aviation fuel, asphalt and others. The crack spread is the profit margin an oil refinery can expect to make from these products. This fall, the price of crude has run up even as gasoline demand has gone down. People like to drive more in the summer than in winter. This demand slack has put pressure on the refiners' margins, and they are making less spread. Consequently, the market punished these stocks. As winter turns to spring, I believe that crude prices will moderate while demand for gasoline moves forward because of seasonal demand. So now is a great moment to invest in the following crude oil refineries: * Holly Corporation (NYSE: HOC): Holly owns refineries in New Mexico and Utah. It sells gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and northern Mexico. The company also manufactures and markets asphalt products from various terminals in Arizona and New Mexico. Based in Dallas, Holly also owns assets in the gas and petroleum transportation and pipeline business. Trading at 7 times earnings, this stock has a large margin of safety. As gas prices go up, you will make money. * Tesoro Corporation (NYSE: TSO): The 90-year-old Kirk Kerkorian, with a fortune north of $18 billion, is the seventh-richest person in the U.S., according to Forbes. He tried to buy a 16% stake in Tesoro, only to be spurned by the board. Kerkorian has built a fortune with smart investments in the airline, auto, hotel, casino and movie industries. Last year, Kerkorian withdrew his tender offer to buy the stake in Tesoro after the oil company's board adopted a "poison pill" plan. The plan makes it difficult for any shareholder to acquire more than 20% of Tesoro. The board did this because they knew that Kerkorian was getting a great value and they didn't want to lose control of the company. * Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO): Valero is the King Kong of this sector. Valero Energy owns and operates 17 refineries in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean with a combined throughput capacity of approximately 3.1 million barrels per day. Bizarrely, this firm is trading at a P/E of only 5.5. It has a price-to-book value ratio of only 1.59. This year, the firm in the capital-intensive refining business has a free cash flow of $5.22 billion. If Valero's stock gets much cheaper, some vulture investor like Kerkorian will move in and try to buy it. http://www.fleetstreetinvest.co.uk/oil/oil-refining/oil-refiners-dead-00008.html So stay away from refiners Indeed, I am starting to wonder whether the refining industry will EVER be a good investment in the future. After all, isn't this why no refinery has been built in the US since the 1970s? It does not make economic sense. There may have been a four-year gravy train at the start of the century, but there isn't another locomotive anywhere in sight. According to research by UK energy consultancy KBC, global refining margins may come under pressure for five years, beginning 2010, as capacity addition is likely to surpass demand. "The amount of capacity coming on stream is likely to result in an excess of refining capacity over demand at least till 2015? Utilisation for the industry is expected to come down from the current 95% to 85% as the capacity expansion surpasses demand." The research is interesting, but did not deal with the obvious issue that refining margins are under pressure NOW. What's going to happen between now and 2010? The only way that refiners will become a solid buy in the next year or so is the oil price falls substantially. I do not expect it to do so? neither does the futures market. This implies tight crack spreads for some time ? and poor profits at refiners. Indeed, another factor supportive of the oil price is the arrival of Peak Oil in Western Siberia. Leonid Fedun, the 52-year-old vice-president of Lukoil, Russia's largest independent oil company, told the Financial Times he believed last year's Russian oil production of about 10m barrels a day was the highest he would see "in his lifetime". http://www.africanoiljournal.com/03-07-2007%20indian_oil_company_drops_plan_to%20set%20up%20algerian%20refinery.htm >>The grassroots LAB refinery project in Algeria is not viable in the light of surplus capacity globally. Even the n-paraffin project is not economically viable due to recent commissioning of GTL projects in Qatar, he said. << http://www.wikinvest.com/industry/Oil_%26_Gas_Refining_%26_Marketing U.S. refining capacity in particular has declined over the past 30 years. In addition to the lower returns for investment in refining, environmental permitting has become more difficult for new refineries. No new refineries have come on-line in the U.S. since 1976. In fact, a wave of shutdowns and divestitures occurred throughout the 1980's and, when returns on refining were low and there was a glut of capacity in the market. Recently, the historical situation has largely reversed itself for a number of reasons. The decline in operable refineries and increasing demand for oil have driven up utilization rates. However, new investment in refining capacity has not been quick to follow, as the memories of past overcapacity, high returns from investments in upstream activities, and environmental regulations on air quality and fuel standards have deterred new investment. The outstanding question among refiners is whether the current increase in margins heralds a "Golden Age or a Short Cycle?", as the Energy Information Agency asked in a recent presentation. Regardless, refiners seem to be realizing that there is a shortage of refining capacity, especially for production of high value-added products, and therefore announcements of additional refining capacity are coming fast and furious. The particular focus in the U.S. is on adding capacity that can convert heavier, cheaper crude oil into higher-value added products (especially low-sulfur fuels). This is obviously more expensive than standard oil refining, but likely reflects the reality of the oil supply situation for refiners for at least the medium term. Over the medium-term refiners can be fairly confident that margins will remain stable, as the IEA estimates that 30-40 new refineries are required just to meet increases in demand over the next decade. http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil_report.pdf The oil industry and its allies would have the public believe that insufficient refining capacity, restrictive environmental standards, growing gasoline demand and OPEC production cutbacks are the primary reasons for the current oil and gas supply problem. However, the record shows ? supported by documents I have obtained ? that there is more to the story. Specifically, the documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins; that competing oil companies worked together to subvert supply; that refinery closures inhibited supply; and that oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity. For the last several months limited domestic refinery capacity has taken center stage as the purported reason for insufficient domestic gasoline supply and higher prices. http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/130-heavy-crude-refining-capacity.html When the price gap widened between sweet and sour crude, US refineries were better able than most to take advantage of the gap. Refineries along the Gulf Coast, which account for about half of the country's refinery capacity, are considered the most sophisticated in the world. Venezuela, which is a major producer of heavy sour oil, became partners in some of those refineries to ensure a market for its oil. "We're probably in a better position than most to handle these heavy oils," said Joanne Shore, an analyst for the Energy Information Administration. In addition, California refineries have been upgraded to handle heavy sour crude, and most of those in the upper Midwest are also thought to be capable of handling heavy sour crude. Another indication of the country's increasing use of lower-quality crude oil is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is meant to help the United States in case of a major disruption in oil supplies, is two-thirds sour crude and one-third sweet crude. So given that tilt toward lower grades, is it misleading to use the widely reported price of West Texas Intermediate, a US benchmark for light sweet crude? Analysts say no, in part because oil is a worldwide market and sweet crude is a crucial part of it. In addition, sweet crude is needed by many US refiners. The wide difference between sweet and sour crude prices is important to most US refineries. Valero Energy, the country's third-largest refining company, in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said a "significant" percentage of the oil it used was sour crude, and the difference between sweet and sour crude prices affected its profitability. Premcor, another US refining company, reported third-quarter earnings of $145 mm, dwarfing the $60 mm it made in the same quarter a year ago. Premcor singled out the use of sour crude for its contribution to those profits. "Margins have been enhanced by what appears to be a longer-term widening of the differential between light low-sulphur crude oil and heavy high-sulphur crude oil," Thomas O'Malley, the company's CEO, said. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade a refinery to process heavy sour, but the current discounts for sour crude are making such investments look good. However, there are concerns that the costs of converting more US refineries will be much harder to recoup if the discounts return to levels of just a year or two ago. Hyatt, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the wider price spreads between light and heavy crude should last through at least next year. But any reduction in worldwide demand for oil or more supplies of light sweet crude, which may be possible from Russia and Africa, could cause the price spread to narrow. "If that happens, the shift would not be permanent," he said. But longer term, the ability to use heavy sour crude is an issue that's expected to confront the refining industry because of the vast reserves of the oil. OPEC, whose members already have large amounts of sour crude to sell, think the time is now to upgrade more facilities worldwide -- and even in the United States -- to add more flexibilityin handling different types of crude. The US refinery system could use the additional flexibility, according to OPEC. Though much of the industry can refine sour crude, refiners have no excess capacity to adapt to growing demand and the United States is importing about 10 % of the gasoline it needs. It is further pressed by the need to produce several "boutique" gasoline blends to meet environmental regulations in different parts of the country. As S.A. Kermati, a petroleum products market analyst for OPEC, summed it up: "The situation is very fragile, especially for a market which is leading the rest of the markets."Source http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn44964.htm Worldwide, OPEC estimates that 45 % of refining capacity can use heavy sour oil. Refineries, for a hefty price, can be upgraded to handle heavy sour. Still, few expected in 2003 that refineries would soon have to scramble to find light crude. Such a scramble occurred this year when OPEC took most of its surplus oil production out of mothballs to try to moderate rising oil prices and meet rising demand. Most of the added oil was medium and heavy sour, which did not help greatly in some regions. In Asia, for example, where China's growth is driving demand, OPEC estimates that only 30 % of refineries can process heavy sour oil. So, light sweet crude such as West Texas Intermediate remained in relatively short supply, putting more pressure on the price. In contrast, plenty of sour crude was on the market, which triggered additional discounts for it. At one point this year, a barrel of Arab Gulf Dubai heavy sour crude produced in the United Arab Emirates was $ 18 less than a barrel of West Texas Intermediate, the US benchmark. As the price of light sweet crude has dropped, that gap has narrowed, and it dipped just below $ 13. But the gap is farmore than is historically normal -- it was about $ 4 a year ago -- and OPEC has clearly been irked by accounts of record prices for Texas sweet crude while its members have gotten far less for their sour crude. "Not withstanding those headlines marking benchmark price levels, another major but less widely reported market characteristic is the increasing gap between light sweet and heavy sour grades," according to OPEC's Monthly Market Report for October. Light sweet crude has its advantages. Light oil, compared with medium and heavy, is more easily refined into a high percentage of high-value products such as gasoline. And "sweet" oil contains less sulphur than sour does, and sulphur must be removed to meet environmental regulations. As a result, heavy sour costs more to refine, meaning its producers must offer it at a discount off the price of light sweet crude. When the price gap widened between sweet and sour crude, US refineries were better able than most to take advantage of the gap. Refineriesalong the Gulf Coast, which account for about half of the country's refinery capacity, are considered the most sophisticated in the world. Venezuela, which is a major producer of heavy sour oil, became partners in some of those refineries to ensure a market for its oil. "We're probably in a better position than most to handle these heavy oils," said Joanne Shore, an analyst for the Energy Information Administration. In addition, California refineries have been upgraded to handle heavy sour crude, and most of those in the upper Midwest are also thought to be capable of handling heavy sour crude. Another indication of the country's increasing use of lower-quality crude oil is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is meant to help the United States in case of a major disruption in oil supplies, is two-thirds sour crude and one-third sweet crude. So given that tilt toward lower grades, is it misleading to use the widely reported price of West Texas Intermediate, a US benchmark for light sweet crude? Analysts say no, in part because oil is a worldwide market and sweet crude is a crucial part of it. In addition, sweet crude is needed by many US refiners. The wide difference between sweet and sour crude prices is important to most US refineries. Valero Energy, the country's third-largest refining company, in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said a "significant" percentage of the oil it used was sour crude, and the difference between sweet and sour crude prices affected its profitability. Premcor, another US refining company, reported third-quarter earnings of $ 145 mm, dwarfing the $ 60 mm it made in the same quarter a year ago. Premcor singled out the use of sour crude for its contribution to those profits. "Margins have been enhanced by what appears to be a longer-term widening of the differential between light low-sulphur crude oil and heavy high-sulphur crude oil," Thomas O'Malley, the company's CEO, said. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade a refinery to process heavy sour, but the current discounts for sour crude are making such investments look good. However, there are concerns that the costs of converting more US refineries will be much harder to recoup if the discounts return to levels of just a year or two ago. Hyatt, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the wider price spreads between light and heavy crude should last through at least next year. But any reduction in worldwide demand for oil or more supplies of light sweet crude, which may be possible from Russia and Africa, could cause the price spread to narrow. "If that happens, the shift would not be permanent," he said. But longer term, the ability to use heavy sour crude is an issue that's expected to confront the refining industry because of the vast reserves of the oil. OPEC, whose members already have large amounts of sour crude to sell, think the time is now to upgrade more facilities worldwide -- and even in the United States -- to add more flexibilityin handling different types of crude. The US refinery system could use the additional flexibility, according to OPEC. Though much of the industry can refine sour crude, refiners have no excess capacity to adapt to growing demand and the United States is importing about 10 % of the gasoline it needs. It is further pressed by the need to produce several "boutique" gasoline blends to meet environmental regulations in different parts of the country. As S.A. Kermati, a petroleum products market analyst for OPEC, summed it up: "The situation is very fragile, especially for a market which is leading the rest of the markets." Source: Kansas City Star http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article645.html Second is the far-more-obstinate problem of refining capacity. Refiners literally convert raw crude oil into these usable refined products such as gasoline. They're the key middlemen between crude oil and actual, usable products. This crucial step in the crude oil supply chain is often ignored by the financial media. Assuming the refineries are working properly, the total throughput of Iranian refineries is less than 1.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. And that's a big assumption; as I've stressed before, Iran has massively underinvested in the upkeep of its energy infrastructure. If refinery accidents and shut-ins are relatively common in countries like the US and the UK, you can imagine the potential if a country isn't investing sufficient cash in maintenance. At any rate, Iran's refining capacity is no better than 38 percent of its oil production; the country can't even refine half the oil it produces. Nor, for that matter, can Iran even refine close to what it consumes. The bottom line: Iran actually imports some 40 percent of the oil consumed domestically. Somewhat akin to Coleridge's ancient mariner, Iran is surrounded by crude oil but totally incapable of using that oil domestically. Importing all that petrol is expensive. Iran's parliament is sensibly concerned with its domestic subsidy program and wants to limit the annual subsidy to $2.5 billion. My guess: A 25 percent price hike isn't going to fix that problem or curb Iran's dependence on foreign refining capacity. And this isn't a problem just for Iran. When you factor the refining capacity into the global energy puzzle, the picture changes dramatically. Take Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for example. As part of Chavez's "Socialist Revolution," he's implicitly and/or explicitly threatened to cut off US oil supplies; Venezuela exports roughly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to the US, including both raw crude and oil products. That puts Venezuela behind only Canada and Mexico as a source of petroleum for the American market. In the context of the current tight global crude market, this would seem to be a significant potential problem. Chavez has, of course, followed up this rhetoric with stunts like offering subsidized heating oil to poor in the US and even getting Joe Kennedy to front that effort. He's also talked with China and the left-leaning mayor of London about ways for Venezuela to divert more of its oil to these countries and away from the US. But it's important to understand the myriad issues with Chavez's plan. First, much of Venezuela's crude is heavy and/or sour crude. To explain, every day in the newspaper and all over the Internet we hear of crude trading at $60 or $58 per barrel as if it were just one commodity with one price. Typically, the price we hear about will be the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) futures price, which is based on the price of light, sweet crude oil. You'll also hear talk of Brent crude, a standard for oil sourced from the North Sea of the UK and Norway. The name comes from the Brent oilfield, located northeast of Scotland's Shetland Islands. But these are just common types of crude and certainly don't represent the current trading price of every grade of crude on Earth. Oils are typically described based on two basic properties-- specific gravity and sulphur content . Without delving into too much detail, specific gravity measures the density of a substance compared to the density of pure water. According to the standard scientific definition, the specific gravity of water is 1; if a substance has a specific gravity less than 1, it's less dense than water and will float. To put this into context, 1 gallon (3.79 liters) of gasoline typically weighs a little more than 6 pounds (2.73 kilograms). In comparison, a gallon of fresh water weights closer to 8.3 pounds (3.77 kilograms); that means the specific gravity of gasoline is roughly 0.72 (6.0 divided by 8.3). Gasoline is less dense than water. In the petroleum business, however, the standard scientific measure of specific gravity is altered by a standard formula to yield API gravity . (API stands for American Petroleum Institute.) API gravity moves opposite to standard specific gravity; in other words, the higher the API gravity, the "lighter" or less dense the crude oil. Crude oils are graded by API gravity. For example, crude oils with an API gravity of more than 31.1 degrees are considered light crude oils. When you hear the term light, sweet crude on the news, that's exactly what they're talking about. Crude oils with an API gravity of less than 21.5 degrees are, as you may have already guessed, called heavy crude oils. And crudes with a grade between these two levels are typically termed medium crude oils. Brent crude typically has an API gravity around 38 to 39, so it's considered a light crude. The NYMEX crude oil futures contract also calls for crude with "not less than 37 degrees API gravity nor more than 42 degrees API gravity." Therefore, this futures contract is also based on light crude oil. This measure isn't meaningless from a refiner's standpoint. Specifically, light crude oils are simpler to refine than heavy crude oils. That's because your typical barrel of light crude oil will tend to yield a higher quantity of useful products such as gasoline per-barrel refined. Refining light crude into gasoline is a less-complex process than refining heavy crude. Using some more-complex processes, the gasoline yield of heavy crude oils can be increased tremendously. But not all refineries can handle heavy crude economically. That is why light crudes typically trade at a premium valuation to heavy crudes. The second key terms to understand are sweet and sour . These terms have absolutely nothing to do with taste; rather, both terms refer to the sulphur content of the crude oil. Sweet crudes are relatively low in sulphur, while sour crudes have a higher naturally occurring sulphur content. The bottom line about all of this is that the most-commonly quoted type of crude oil is light, sweet crude. This is also one of the most-expensive, highest-quality types of crude oil on the planet. Standard Maya crude has an API gravity of 22 degrees and a sulphur content of 3.3 percent; it's a heavy, sour crude. The current price of Maya crude is about $45 per barrel, a whopping $11 discount to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and closer to $14 discount to Brent. The chart below shows the difference in price between WTI crude and Maya crude over the past several years. Source: Bloomberg Here's the problem for Venezuela: The country has no alternative market to the US for much of its crude. One useful measure in this regard is a refinery's complexity index . Refineries that are able to run heavier, more-sour feedstocks are said to be more complex than refineries that can only run light, sweet crude. There are a few different ways to measure this, but one of the simplest is to compare a refinery's conversion capacity to its total throughput capacity . Without delving into too much detail, suffice it to say that conversion capacity is what allows a refiner to process heavy, sour crudes. Venezuela has total refining capacity of about 1.28 million barrels of crude oil per day. The country's total conversion capacity is less than 40 percent of that amount; my crude measure of complexity stands at 38 percent. Venezuela is woefully incapable of refining even a small part of its crude domestically, so it must export that oil to countries where it can be refined. Of course, the Venezuelan government-owned oil company, doing business as Citgo in the US, owns refineries abroad--mainly in the US mainland and in the US Virgin Islands (St. Croix). Citgo either owns outright or holds a large stake in another 1.1 million barrels per day worth of refining capacity located in the US. The complexity index for its US-based refineries stands at 83 percent. Obviously, these refineries were set up with the express purpose of handling Venezuelan heavy crude oil imports into the US market. And, as a whole, US refineries are among the most complex in the world; it's a logical importer of Venezuela's crude. How about those other potential markets? China has total refining capacity of about 6.25 million barrels per day. But the complexity index for these refineries is only 15.5 percent; China can't adequately refine heavy crudes, so the vast majority of Venezuelan oil exports would be useless to China. Chavez's threats ring hollow when you consider these facts. Chavez needs every ounce of oil revenue he can get to stay in power. Without his oil-funded social programs and "21st century" socialist spending, he'd likely be out of power in a matter of weeks. The fact is he's just as dependent on the US as the US is on Venezuela, perhaps even more so. CJ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jul 25 07:44:24 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:44:24 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Has Socialism Failed? Message-ID: <4889A078.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> South African Communist Party Joe Slovo 1989 Has Socialism Failed? by Joe Slovo (Smile) http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/slovo/1989/socialism-failed.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From dogangoecmen at aol.com Sun Jul 27 22:47:54 2008 From: dogangoecmen at aol.com (=?utf-8?Q?Do=C4=9Fan_G=C3=B6=C3=A7men?=) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:47:54 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt In-Reply-To: <200807271738.8cd488cead1166@rly-ma09.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CABE843B8A6CAE-10EC-1D25@webmail-me19.sysops.aol.com> Dear All I conducted an Interview with Professor Domenico Losurdo (President of International Society Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought) and Professor Andreas Arndt (Chair of International Hegel Society) about Hegel's historical reception, influence, and actual philosophical and political importance. I conducted the interview for "Baykus" (a Turkish journal for philosophy). The interview is in German. Anyone of you reading German and interested in the interview can contact me off-list. But I am also interested in finding people who can spare some time to translate it into English so we can make it available to broader readership. Best wishes, Dogan ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. From do_not_reply at perfspot.com Mon Jul 28 07:10:38 2008 From: do_not_reply at perfspot.com (juan ballistan) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:10:38 -0700 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] =?utf-8?q?No_me_decepciones?= Message-ID: <84140-220087128131038146@perfspot.com> Vamos, ?a qu? esperas? Ven a ver mi perfil de PerfSpot y crea una cuenta gratuita para que podamos estar en contacto m?s f?cilmente. Utiliza este enlace para unirte y convertirte en mi amigo: http://www.perfspot.com/j/12043364 Este sitio es genial, es gratis, puedes subir fotos ilimitadas, escuchar m?sica, conocer a chicos y chicas, personalizar tu p?gina y m?s... Av?same cuando hayas creado tu sitio, no puedo esperar a verlo. Que tengas un gran d?a. juan ballistan ------------------------------------------------------------ Est?s recibiendo este email porque juan ballistan (ballistanc at yahoo.com) te ha invitado a unir. Si deseas nunca ser entrado en contacto con por PerfSpot.com otra vez, por favor oprime aqu?: http://www.perfspot.com/u.asp?e=marxism%2Dthaxis%40lists%2Eecon%2Eutah%2Eedu Si tienes alguna pregunta o requieres ayuda por favor contacta a nuestro equipo: Sin cargos de conexi?n (USA): 1-888-311-PERF (311-7373) Marcado Directo (Internacional): (1)602-273-3758 Email: support at PerfSpot.com PerfSpot.com | 4800 N. Scottsdale Rd Suite 4500 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251 | USA From steiger2001 at centrum.cz Tue Jul 29 06:18:37 2008 From: steiger2001 at centrum.cz (steiger2001 at centrum.cz) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt In-Reply-To: <8CABE843B8A6CAE-10EC-1D25@webmail-me19.sysops.aol.com> References: <200807271738.8cd488cead1166@rly-ma09.mx.aol.com> <8CABE843B8A6CAE-10EC-1D25@webmail-me19.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200807291418.10302@centrum.cz> Dear colleague (or comrade): I would very much appreciate your sending me the text of your interviews as I am very much interested both in the Hegel-Marx-dialectics and Professor Losurdo?s opinion. Thanks. Stephen Steiger ______________________________________________________________ > Od: dogangoecmen at aol.com > Komu: undisclosed-recipients:; > Datum: 28.07.2008 13:27 > P?edm?t: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt > Dear All I conducted an Interview with Professor Domenico Losurdo (President of International Society Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought) and Professor Andreas Arndt (Chair of International Hegel Society) about Hegel's historical reception, influence, and actual philosophical and political importance. I conducted the interview for "Baykus" (a Turkish journal for philosophy). The interview is in German. Anyone of you reading German and interested in the interview can contact me off-list. But I am also interested in finding people who can spare some time to translate it into English so we can make it available to broader readership. Best wishes, Dogan ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ? From dogangoecmen at aol.com Tue Jul 29 08:34:54 2008 From: dogangoecmen at aol.com (=?utf-8?Q?Do=C4=9Fan_G=C3=B6=C3=A7men?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:34:54 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt In-Reply-To: <200807291418.10302@centrum.cz> References: <200807271738.8cd488cead1166@rly-ma09.mx.aol.com> <8CABE843B8A6CAE-10EC-1D25@webmail-me19.sysops.aol.com> <200807291418.10302@centrum.cz> Message-ID: <8CABF9F668C409A-1650-215B@MBLK-M09.sysops.aol.com> Dear Stephen, das Interview ist im Anhang. eine ?bertragung in Deine Sprache w?re w?nschenswert. All the best, Dogan ?---------------------- Do?an G??men Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 -----Original Message----- From: steiger2001 at centrum.cz To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:18 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt Dear colleague (or comrade): I would very much appreciate your sending me the text of your interviews as I am very much interested both in the Hegel-Marx-dialectics and Professor Losurdo?s opinion. Thanks. Stephen Steiger ______________________________________________________________ > Od: dogangoecmen at aol.com > Komu: undisclosed-recipients:; > Datum: 28.07.2008 13:27 > P?edm?t: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt > Dear All I conducted an Interview with Professor Domenico Losurdo (President of International Society Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought) and Professor Andreas Arndt (Chair of International Hegel Society) about Hegel's historical reception, influence, and actual philosophical and political importance. I conducted the interview for "Baykus" (a Turkish journal for philosophy). The interview is in German. Anyone of you reading German and interested in the interview can contact me off-list. But I am also interested in finding people who can spare some time to translate it into English so we can make it available to broader readership. Best wishes, Dogan ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at 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 at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. From steiger2001 at centrum.cz Tue Jul 29 09:39:39 2008 From: steiger2001 at centrum.cz (steiger2001 at centrum.cz) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:39:39 +0200 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt In-Reply-To: <8CABF9F668C409A-1650-215B@MBLK-M09.sysops.aol.com> References: <200807271738.8cd488cead1166@rly-ma09.mx.aol.com> <200807291418.10302@centrum.cz> <8CABF9F668C409A-1650-215B@MBLK-M09.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200807291739.20914@centrum.cz> Lieber Dogan, vieln Dank f?r Deine prompte Antwort einschl. des Textes. Ich werde in den n?chsten Tagen versuchen die Interviews ins Tschechische zu ?bertragen und sie mindestens auf der Webseite eines (kleinen) Diskussionskreises genannt SoK (Sozialistischer Kreis) zu ver?ffentlichen. Mit freundschaftlichen Gr?ssen ?t?p?n Steiger, Prag, Tschechische Republik ______________________________________________________________ > Od: dogangoecmen at aol.com > Komu: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu > Datum: 29.07.2008 16:51 > P?edm?t: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt > Dear Stephen, das Interview ist im Anhang. eine ?bertragung in Deine Sprache w?re w?nschenswert. All the best, Dogan ?---------------------- Do?an G??men Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 -----Original Message----- From: steiger2001 at centrum.cz To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:18 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A ?Arndt Dear colleague (or comrade): I would very much appreciate your sending me the text of your interviews as I am very much interested both in the Hegel-Marx-dialectics and Professor Losurdo?s opinion. Thanks. Stephen Steiger ______________________________________________________________ > Od: dogangoecmen at aol.com > Komu: undisclosed-recipients:; > Datum: 28.07.2008 13:27 > P?edm?t: [Marxism-Thaxis] Interview with D Losurdo and A Arndt > Dear All I conducted an Interview with Professor Domenico Losurdo (President of International Society Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought) and Professor Andreas Arndt (Chair of International Hegel Society) about Hegel's historical reception, influence, and actual philosophical and political importance. I conducted the interview for "Baykus" (a Turkish journal for philosophy). The interview is in German. Anyone of you reading German and interested in the interview can contact me off-list. But I am also interested in finding people who can spare some time to translate it into English so we can make it available to broader readership. Best wishes, Dogan ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at 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 at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ? From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 30 12:22:26 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:22:26 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] You've Put Impeachment on the Table Message-ID: <48907922.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> I happened to catch this House Judiciary Committee hearing on C-Span. Elizabeth Holtzman gets the Lenin prize. She said twice the bottom line is "What is to be done ?" Charles ^^^^^ CODEPINK: Women for Peace July 30, 2008 Dear Friend, CODEPINK activists have been steadily, faithfully, and creatively pressuring Congress to impeach the criminals in the White House, and we are starting to see results. Last week, at the Judiciary Committee hearing "Executive Power and its Constitutional Limitations," impeachment was referenced dozens of times. In her first days in power, Nancy Pelosi famously announced that impeachment was off the table, but on the popular television show The View (http://www.watchingtheview.com/nancy-pelosi-on-the-view-july-28th-video/) this past Tuesday, she admitted that she would hold impeachment hearings if someone could prove that Bush committed a crime (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/taxonomy/term/17). We hope she watched last week as Dennis Kucinich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAcenaTVkQ), Liz Holtzman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dohgkV53tBQ), and Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU) passionately enumerated Bush's impeachable offenses at a Judiciary Committee hearing. Be sure to watch their stirring testimony -- it will inspire and galvanize you. Impeachment is the means the framers of the Constitution created to safeguard against an elected official's subverting the best interests of our country. Even though Bush's days in office are numbered, the damage he has done to our government may outlast his Presidency. Congress must fulfill its responsibility to hold this administration accountable for its flouting of the Constitution and international law. Please call the Judiciary Committee today at 202-225-3951 and demand an immediate impeachment hearing or inquiry. You can be documented in history as a citizen who pushed for impeachment--click here to sign our petition and be part of Dennis Kucinich's official testimony (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/424/t/4589/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1332). He will deliver the list of names on Friday, where it will be added to the Congressional record. Each name makes our case stronger -- please add your endorsement today. You don't need to stop there; click here (http://www.codepinkaction.org/article.php?list=type&type=355) to join us at the DNC/RNC conventions in late August and early September where we will keep the pressure on both parties. As we've seen, our hard work is paying off. With peace and strength, Alicia, Anne, Dana, Deidra, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Medea, Nancy, Rae and Tighe P.S. Last week we went on CODEPINK Alert after Obama's trip to the Middle East resulted in talks of withdrawing troops from Iraq only to send them to Afghanistan. We countered with our piece on on Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/24/10574/?jal_edit_comments=332366#commentform)and Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/the-peace-movement-needs_b_114707.html) as well as sending out a survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DyYMKjU6w9C_2fi9t3Mxa8Hg_3d_3d) to find out what you THINK and what you KNOW. If you haven't yet, take the survey here (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DyYMKjU6w9C_2fi9t3Mxa8Hg_3d_3d) or see the correct answers and some of our favorite comments here (http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=4321). This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 30 12:32:35 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:32:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] What did Lenin learn from Hegel? Message-ID: <48907B83.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> [Marxism] What did Lenin learn from Hegel? Arthur Kunkin Wed Jul 30 02:20:07 MDT 2008 Previous message: [Marxism] What did Lenin learn from Hegel? Next message: [Marxism] What did Lenin learn from Hegel? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was a youthful associate of C.L.R.James, Jr. when, along with Grace Lee and Raya Dunayevskaya, Jimmy made his study of how and why Lenin studied Hegel. I even made my own small contribution to the discussion by publishing at the end of the 40s, in a periodical called "The Young Marxist," a valuable pamphlet written by Lenin's wife and translated by Dunayevskaya from the Russian titled "How Lenin Studied Marx." The point I would like to add to the present discussion from my personal knowledge of the study made by James and my own reading of Hegel's Large and Small Science of Logic (and especially the Phenomenology) is that Hegel was one of the greatest historians of social change and a close observer of the French Revolution in particular. His dialectical idealism was a magnificent summation of the French Revolution seen as an evolution of human consciousness, not simply as an economic transition from feudalism to capitalism. In other words, Hegel's work was firmly rooted in historical experience, not in other-worldly academic philosophy. Seen from this point of view, a point not expressed by other participants in this thread, there was a great deal of truth in Hegel's detailed presentation of the dialectical laws of history from which Marx drew his own conclusions. It does not do justice to Hegel to simply sum up his work in the formula Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis just as it does not do justice to Marx to sum up his work as the history of class struggle. In the hundred years of Marxism we have seen unexpected changes take place in the working class and in capitalism itself that can not be understood by surface-based empirical observations. In his own study of Hegel, James concluded that the movement could better participate in social change by using Hegel's seemingly abstract and convoluted dialectical laws as a tool to keep mere empirical analysis in check. A study of Hegel does not keep a person from making errors in judgment, as James' own career shows, but it does help one focus on the prospects for change instead of capitulating to the appearance of power. In other words, instead of gloomily emphasizing such facts as the decreasing percentage of unionized workers and the sad state of mass culture, etc. it perhaps would be equally or more useful to closely observe the growing sense of alienation and tension throughout the country. It was my own knowledge of Hegel that kept The Los Angeles Free Press focusing on the important molecular movements of history and not simply on the antics of politicians or hippies. Thanks to all of you (and especially Louis) from a committed lurker, Art Kunkin On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists < ok.president+marxml at gmail.com > wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Richard Fidler > wrote: > > You will find a pretty comprehensive answer in Kevin Anderson's > > "Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism" (U of Illinois Press, 1995). > > Thanks to all who responded. I got hold of and read the above book. > > But the best answer I got was from Renton's new bio of CLR James, > where he mentions James as having pointed out that Lenin, in 1917, > thought that "Imperialist War can be turned into Civil War" -- an > insight that he got from Hegel's idea of the Unity of Opposites. Also, > James was impressed that Lenin wrote in his Hegel notebook "LEAP LEAP > LEAP" -- Hegel taught Lenin that dialectical leaps are possible and > progress is often discrete and not continuous, and so jumps are > possible. > > This is very interesting as it seems to open up to a > spontaneist/voluntarist reading of Leninism -- while remaining rooted > in dialectics. > > On a related note, I'm trying to read CLR James' "Notes on > Dialectics". MIA has only a small section online, and the book is out > of print. Anyone who knows of an online version, or has a PDF, or > would even like to sell a used copy, please contact me in private.... > > Thanks, > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 30 13:54:22 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Both personal and collective responsibility Message-ID: <48908EAE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> https://www.michigancitizen.com/print_this_story.asp?smenu=76&sdetail=6292 Both personal and collective responsibility By Ron Walters NNPA Columnist Lou Dobbs of CNN prodded his panel the other night to explain what was underneath the awful image of castration used by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., in voicing his frustration with Barack Obama. His panel completely missed the lively underground disappointment among some Blacks who support Obama, reflected in these two headlines: ?Obama Calls For More Responsibility for Black Fathers,? reflecting his speeches recently to large Black audiences such as the Apostolic Church in Chicago and the AME Convention; then another headline, ?Obama Brings Economic Message to N. Virginia? in which?before a largely White audience of 10,000?he proposed legislation to ensure equal pay for women, expanded paid family and medical leave, child-care services and pre-school programs, all paid for by reducing the Iraq War funding. The rhetoric of the moral failure of Black men has helped to nationalize an image of their inferiority. But after serving on a Commission on the Black Male, I have become sensitive to the facts that Black families fall apart?or are never consummated?most often because Black men lack education and or money, and therefore, Black women do not see them as viable partners. Part of the pressure to get money in the absence of an education pushes Black men into bad choices that result in their disproportionate incarceration or other conditions. So they are often not available as fathers to provide for their families. This image of the mass irresponsibility of Black males also gives a pass to the difficulty for anyone to accept responsibility for a family where access to the economic resources are difficult and they are often blocked by racism. Research shows that Black children arrive at most schools three to four years already behind white children, and their disproportionate poverty places them in schools that do not have the resources?in fact, there they need much greater resources than average?just to educate them on an equal basis. The 50 percent drop-out rate manifests this result and so, they become fuel for the streets. They also become fuel for a racist public policy that sweeps them up by racial profiling, targeted neighborhood policing and long sentences into prison, even though 80 percent of them are there for non-violent, petty drug offenses. Where is the outcry for the collective responsibility of government that put them there and therefore, is implicated in their inability to support their families? Where are the bridging programs that effectively connect them to their families while they are in prison? Rep. Danny Davis of Chicago should be applauded for passage of his Second Chance Act that promises to build a foundation for those just leaving prison, but my discussion with him reveals that it has not been funded. Barack Obama should be applauded for proposing to create a White House Office on Urban Policy because when Black males go to the street for their livelihood, they will find few positive options because urban policy has been on the back-burner of public policy for nearly 30 years now. How did that happen? Ronald Reagan was able to sell America on ?personal responsibility? rather than government assistance to blunt charges of racism as implicated in Black progress. With that support, he was able to take billions of dollars from cities to give to the suburbs, private corporations and the Defense establishment. Therefore, the sensitivity of Blacks to the principle of ?personal responsibility? is the awareness of its danger; it has been elevated from a natural act of virtue that Blacks have consistently performed to a powerful political ideology of the Right that marginalized the image of Blacks and supported the dramatic shift of government resources out of urban areas. So that, today even a new ?urban policy? must be targeted to achieve results. The sensitivity to the ideology of personal responsibility also reflects the intellectual awareness that, in the absence of balanced proposals that also privilege a robust version of the collective responsibility of government, the large structural problems that are faced by the Black community will not be addressed. These problems that ravage cities and their Black neighborhoods now include: The home foreclosure crisis, globalization of the economy and jobs, competition for low-wage employment, depression level unemployment rates, the persistence of poverty and under-education and crumbling infrastructure of urban institutions and places. This debate should result in both presidential candidates speaking to those needs, giving concrete public policy answers to the question of how they would address them, especially at venues where Black audiences are gathered. Dr. Ron Walters is the Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park. His latest book is: The Price of Racial Reconciliation (University of Michigan Press, 2008). This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Jul 31 06:07:01 2008 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:07:01 GMT Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Moderator's Note Message-ID: <20080731.080701.20475.2@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Today, I received a request from someone who posted to this list some years ago requesting that his name be removed from the archives. He stated that when he joined the list, he was not informed that his posts would be publicly archived. He is almost certainly mistaken in that regard, since right on the info page of this list, there is a link to the list's archives. I very much doubt that things were much different back when he was posting to this list. Therefore, to avoid any misunderstandings, you should be aware that all posts to this list are publicly archived. That means that search engines like Google can and will pick up your posts. Anyone here concerned about possible repercussions from employers or repressive governments, should get themselves a Yahoo or Hotmail account and post here under an alias. Jim Farmelant Moderator of Thaxis ____________________________________________________________ Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3m3WMF0nSKH13Xo22IcmarNh6vXaU7pX0tTKQMZVvdn6cRnr/ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 31 11:11:56 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:11:56 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's Wrong with the GDP? Message-ID: <4891BA1C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Since its introduction during World War II as a measure of wartime production capacity, the Gross National Product (now routinely measured as Gross Domestic Product - GDP) has become the nation's foremost indicator of economic progress. It is now widely used by policymakers, economists, international agencies and the media as the primary scorecard of a nation's economic health and well-being. Yet the GDP was never intended for this role. It is merely a gross tally of products and services bought and sold, with no distinctions between transactions that add to well-being, and those that diminish it. Instead of separating costs from benefits, and productive activities from destructive ones, the GDP assumes that every monetary transaction adds to well-being, by definition. It is as if a business tried to assess its financial condition by simply adding up all "business activity", thereby lumping together income and expenses, assets and liabilities. On top of this, the GDP ignores everything that happens outside the realm of monetized exchange, regardless of its importance to well-being. The crucial economic functions performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely ignored. The contributions of the natural habitat in providing the resources that sustain us go unreckoned as well. As a result, the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure and natural habitat; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as economic gain. GDP Treats Crime, Divorce, and Natural Disasters as Economic Gain Since the GDP records every monetary transaction as positive, the costs of social decay and natural disasters are tallied as economic advance. Crime adds billions of dollars to the GDP due to the need for locks and other security measures, increased police protection, property damage, and medical costs. Divorce adds billions of dollars more through lawyer's fees, the need to establish second households and so forth. Hurricane Andrew was a disaster for Southern Florida. But the GDP recorded it as a boon to the economy of well over $15 billion. GDP Ignores the Non-Market Economy of Household and Community The crucial functions of childcare, elder care, other home-based tasks, and volunteer work in the community go completely unreckoned in the GDP because no money changes hands. As the non-market economy declines, and its functions shift to the monetized service sector, the GDP portrays this process as economic advance. The GDP also adds the cost of prisons, social work, drug abuse and psychological counseling that arise from the neglect of the non-market realm. GDP Treats the Depletion of Natural Capital as Income The GDP violates basic accounting principles and common sense by treating the depletion of natural capital as income, rather than as the depreciation of an asset. The Bush Administration made this point in the 1992 report of the Council on Environmental Quality. "Accounting systems used to estimate GDP" the report said, "do not reflect depletion or degradation of the natural resources used to produce goods and services". As a result, the more the nation depletes its natural resources, the more the GDP goes up. GDP Increases with Polluting Activities and Then Again with Clean-Ups Superfund clean-up of toxic sites is slated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next thirty years, which gets added to the GDP. Since the GDP first added the economic activity that generated that waste, it creates the illusion that pollution is a double benefit for the economy. This is how the Exxon Valdez oil spill led to an increase in the GDP. GDP Takes No Account of Income Distribution By ignoring the distribution of income, the GDP hides the fact that a rising tide does not lift all boats. From 1973 to 1993, while GDP rose by over fifty percent, wages suffered a decline of almost fourteen percent. Meanwhile, during the 1980s alone, the top five percent of households increased their real income by almost twenty percent. Yet the GDP presents this enormous gain at the top as a bounty to all. GDP Ignores the Drawbacks of Living on Foreign Assets In recent years, consumers and government alike have increased their spending by borrowing from abroad. This raises the GDP temporarily, but the need to repay this debt becomes a growing burden on our national economy. To the extent that Americans borrow for consumption rather than for capital investment, they are living beyond their means and incurring a debt that eventually must be repaid. This downside of borrowing from abroad is completely ignored in the GDP. WHAT IS THE GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR - GPI? The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is a new measure of the economic well-being of the nation from 1950 to present. It broadens the conventional accounting framework to include the economic contributions of the family and community realms, and of the natural habitat, along with conventionally measured economic production. The GPI takes into account more than twenty aspects of our economic lives that the GDP ignores. It includes estimates of the economic contribution of numerous social and environmental factors which the GDP dismisses with an implicit and arbitrary value of zero. It also differentiates between economic transactions that add to well-being and those which diminish it. The GPI then integrates these factors into a composite measure so that the benefits of economic activity can be weighed against the costs. The GPI is intended to provide citizens and policy-makers with a more accurate barometer of the overall health of the economy, and of how our national condition is changing over time. While per capita GDP has more than doubled from 1950 to present, the GPI shows a very different picture. It increased during the 1950s and 1960s, but has declined by roughly 45% since 1970. Further, the rate of decline in per capita GPI has increased from an average of one percent in the 1970s to two percent in the 1980s to six percent so far in the 1990s. This wide and growing divergence between the GDP and GPI is a warning that the economy is stuck on a path that imposes large - and as yet unreckoned - costs onto the present and the future. Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what economists now consider economic growth, as measured by GDP, is really one of three things: (1) fixing blunders and social decay from the past; (2) borrowing resources from the future; or (3) shifting functions from the community and household realm to that of the monetized economy. The GPI strongly suggests that the costs of the nation's current economic trajectory have begun to outweigh the benefits, leading to growth that is actually uneconomic. If the mood of the public is any barometer at all, then it would seem that the GPI comes much closer than the GDP to the economy that Americans actually experience in their daily lives. It begins to explain why people feel increasingly gloomy despite official claims of economic progress and growth. The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data the GDP is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for certain factors (such as income distribution), adds certain others (such as the value of household work and volunteer work), and subtracts yet others (such as the costs of crime and pollution). Because the GDP and the GPI are both measured in monetary terms, they can be compared on the same scale. I. Crime and Family Breakdown Social breakdown imposes large economic costs on individuals and society, in the form of legal fees, medical expenses, damage to property, and the like. The GDP treats such expenses as additions to well-being. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs arising from crime and divorce. II. Household and Volunteer Work Much of the most important work in society is done in household and community settings: childcare, home repairs, volunteer work, and the like. These contributions are ignored in the GDP because no money changes hands. To correct this omission, the GPI includes, among other things, the value of household work figured at the approximate cost of hiring someone to do it. III. Income Distribution A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats - not if the gap between the very rich and everyone else increases. Both economic theory and common sense tell us that the poor benefit more from a given increase in their income than do the rich. Accordingly, the GPI rises when the poor receive a larger percentage of national income, and falls when their share decreases. IV. Resource Depletion If today's economic activity depletes the physical resource base available for tomorrow's, then it is not really creating wellbeing; rather, it is just borrowing it from future generations. The GDP counts such borrowing as current income. The GPI, by contrast, counts the depletion or degradation of wetlands, farmland, and non-renewable minerals (including, oil) as a current cost. V. Pollution The GDP often counts pollution as a double gain; once when it's created, and then again when it is cleaned up. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs of air and water pollution as measured by actual damage to human health and the environment. VI. Long-Term Environmental Damage Climate change and the management of nuclear wastes are two long-term costs arising from the use of fossil fuels and atomic energy. These costs do not show up in ordinary economic accounts. The same is true of the depletion of stratospheric ozone arising from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. For this reason, the GPI treats as costs the consumption of certain forms of energy and of ozone-depleting chemicals. VII. Changes in Leisure Time As a nation increases in wealth, people should have increasing latitude to choose between more work and more free time for family or other activities. In recent years, however, the opposite has occurred. The GDP ignores this loss of free time, but the GPI treats leisure as most Americans do - as, something of value. When leisure time increases, the GPI goes up; when Americans have less of it, the GPI goes down. VIII. Defensive Expenditures The GDP counts as additions to well-being the money people spend just to prevent erosion in their quality of life or to compensate for misfortunes of various kinds. Examples are the medical and repair bills from automobile accidents, commuting costs, and household expenditures on pollution control devices such as water filters. The GPI counts such "defensive" expenditures as most Americans do: as costs rather than as benefits. IX. Lifespan of Consumer Durables and Public Infrastructure The GDP confuses the value provided by major consumer purchases (such as home appliances) with the amounts Americans spend to buy them. This hides the loss in well-being that results when products are made to wear out quickly. To overcome this, the GPI treats the money spent on capital items as a cost, and the value of the service they provide year after year as a benefit. This applies both to private capital items and to public infrastructure, such as highways. X. Dependence on Foreign Assets If a nation allows its capital stock to decline, or if it finances its consumption out of borrowed capital, it is living beyond its means. The GPI counts net additions to the capital stock as contributions to well-being, and treats money borrowed from abroad as reductions. If the borrowed money is used for investment, the negative effects are canceled out. But if the borrowed money is used to finance consumption, the GPI declines. _____ The above text is excerpted from The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology, Redefining Progress C1995. Copies of the full reports are available for $10.00 by contacting: Redefining Progress - http://rprogress.org/ - One Kearny Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, California 94108 Phone: 415-781-1191; FAX: 415-781-1198. These are the same people who wrote the cover story "If the Economy Is Up, Why Is America Down?", in the October 1995 Atlantic Monthly. For back issues send $7 to: The Atlantic, Back Issues, 200 North 12th St., Newark, New Jersey 07107 Further reading: The Green National Product: A Proposed Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare by Clifford W Cobb and John B Cobb Jr (University Press of America, 1994) ISBN 0-8191-9322-4. This book is available for $24 + $5 shipping from: Society for Human Economy, Post Office Box 28, West Swanzey, New York 03469-0028 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 31 12:07:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:07:16 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why nations haven't been able to bypass capitalism to socialism Message-ID: <4891C714.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> With sincere due respect to Lou ( and I guess Trotsky), the reason Peru, China, Viet Nam, Korea, even Russia, et al. have not succeeded in building socialism without first having capitalism, is _not. some notion that _one_ country, nation or society cannot learn socialist relations of production without first learning capitalist relations. It is _not_ a "stagist" explanation or theory in this sense. It is the more vulgar power/real politik reason that _imperialist capitalism_ won't allow countries to just develop socialist "islands" outside of the world capitalist system. The world historic tragedy of the twentieth century demonstrated imperialism will _and can_ go to world historic lengths of war, mass murder on the scale of tens of millions of victims, threaten total annihilation with nuclear weapons, as well as destroying "hugely enormous" (sorry) amounts of productive forces to prevent socialism. In other words, it is _not_ "internal" characteristics of a society/mode of production that "must" unfold or develop through certain stages in a certain order, feudal-capitalist-socialist. It is the holistic and whole world or global situation that all individual societies exist in with global capitalism, imperialism. Since 1917, imperialism has demonstrated that it rules the _whole_ world, that it considers the whole world its territory, that it doesn't tolerate "opt out" , self-determination conduct by _any_ nation. It requires, and backs up that requirement with world historic and superior military force, that the whole human race will have capitalist relations of production. Russia and China don't have capitalism today because they were not capable of , if left alone, developing viable socialist relations of production ( Nor because Stalinists were too dumb to lead the development of such relations of production). They were forced at gunpoint to rejoin the world capitalist system, upon ultimate penalty of annihilation if they did not. This is what is behind Marx and Engels principle that the "advanced " capitalist countries must develop socialism first, or be among the first, not the mechanical or stagist notion that a people cannot "learn" socialism without first learning capitalism. The first socialist nations cannot be economically less developed countries than the co-existent capitalist countries, because the advanced countries can use their superior material development to create superior militaries and bludgeon the less developed socialist countries into giving up socialism, as we learned from the histories of socialist SU and "people's republican" China. Comradely, Charles This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Jul 31 15:23:34 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] How do we get past the capitalists big advantages ? Message-ID: <4891F516.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Louis Proyect Charles Brown wrote: > This is what is behind Marx and Engels principle that the "advanced " > capitalist countries must develop socialism first, or be among the > first, not the mechanical or stagist notion that a people cannot "learn" > socialism without first learning capitalism. The first socialist nations > cannot be economically less developed countries than the co-existent > capitalist countries, because the advanced countries can use their > superior material development to create superior militaries and bludgeon > the less developed socialist countries into giving up socialism, as we > learned from the histories of socialist SU and "people's republican" > China. There are some problems with this: 1. Advanced capitalist countries have not gone through a working-class radicalization in over 60 years. 2. Underdeveloped countries are driven to socialist revolution because imperialism stifles growth. With the exception of a few countries that are going through an economic upturn right now, most countries are driven to the kinds of desperation that has spawned armed struggle of the sort seen in Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, etc. If there is no armed struggle, there are still powerful mass movements that push relentlessly against capitalism (Chile in the early 70s, Venezuela today). 3. Countries moving in an independent direction are attacked by imperialism whether there are capitalist property relations or socialist property relations. The US was just as adamantly opposed to Michael Manley as it was to Fidel Castro. The only way to avoid CIA meddling or armed contra bands is to accept the capitalist status quo. ^^^^ CB: I'm not clear on how 1, 2 and 3 contradict what I said above. It is a big problem that no advanced capitalist countries have gone through working class radicalization for many years. I attribute this in large part to the fact that the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries started taking Marx and Lenin very seriously after 1917. So, they developed very effective anti-communist anti-working class counter measures within their countries as well as around the world. If Communist focused on the working class and especially the industrial sector, the bourgeoisie could do so from the opposite side of the class battle lines. And of course with McCarthyism , for example, they just "cheated" by using the repressive apparatus of the state and the state-like powers of private corporations to outlaw and make illicit Communists and communist parties. Of course, they also succeeded in identifying patriotism with anti-communism by casting the Soviet Union as America's main enemy during the Cold War. Obviously this double or triple wammy was and is totally successful. This is just a fact ( sometimes called objective conditon) and I for one know no way around it _for now_. I guess Lou is saying the "problem" is if we have to depend on revolution in advanced capitalist countries before in less economically advanced countries ( as I said), ain't nothin' happenin'. I agree it's a big problem, but I don't see an way around what we learned from the super holocaust against Communists in the 20th Century. On the other hand, and maybe this is what Lou is getting at, I don't mean that the heroic efforts in Venezuela, Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua, even Russia, China , Viet Nam in the 20th Century "shouldn't' happen or should wait for the Workers of the West to get it going on. Who the hell would I be to say that ! What inspiration the Bolivarians give us in the most "advanced" stinking capitalist nation to try and still make the rev in the belly of the beast. And Lou is correct ( of course !) that people in these nations are driven to struggle with arms and otherwise by imperialism. I'm just trying to state a fundamental and gigantic contradiction honestly, as a basis for coming up with a new answer. In the face of that giant contradiction, I still say, the struggle continues; victory is certain ! This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com