From ballistanc at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 04:54:57 2009
From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 03:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
In-Reply-To: <c38.4ab2df27.368dab91@aol.com>
Message-ID: <978605.86124.qm@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Do we have anything to celebrate or to be happy about?

--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:

From: Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 12:16 AM

Happy New Year!

Resolution: to work to  shorter articles.  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

_______________________________________________
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 Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  1 14:31:45 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:31:45 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
Message-ID: <c2c.4e8727b8.368e9041@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/1/2009 12:16:25 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
Waistline2 at aol.com writes:
Happy New  Year!

Resolution: to work to  shorter articles.   
*************
Do we have anything to celebrate or to be happy  about?

******************

Reply

Yea.  My children are  healthy and in one piece. My grandchildren are being 
taken care of. I'm not in  jail. I survived the market crash of 2008. I get 
another chance to fight  capital. We get another chance to expand our vision of 
communism and talk and  interact with new thousands of proletarians. At, 56 
with no money, the little  things make me happy. 

Hey, we can talk about the history of American  communism, as we seek the new 
forms of struggle. 

I celebrate all the  comrades good health. 

Waistline  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From ballistanc at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 15:04:59 2009
From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
In-Reply-To: <c2c.4e8727b8.368e9041@aol.com>
Message-ID: <146685.79830.qm@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

...You see, I don't see or look at the economic conditions and situation in individual terms...I look at them from a class point of view....At 50 with a 9 years daughter and a "well paid job" I'm suffering the deteriorating conditions of my brothers and sisters all around the world and how the proletariat still sleeping while the capitalist class is conscious of the situation.....They've been preparing themselves for a possible proletarian insurrection, how to limited to one town and defeated....so they have created the North Com and other military headquarter around the world since the know the next proletarian insurrection won't be limited to a particular State....

--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:

From: Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 4:31 PM

In a message dated 1/1/2009 12:16:25 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
Waistline2 at aol.com writes:
Happy New  Year!

Resolution: to work to  shorter articles.   
*************
Do we have anything to celebrate or to be happy  about?

******************

Reply

Yea.  My children are  healthy and in one piece. My grandchildren are being 
taken care of. I'm not in  jail. I survived the market crash of 2008. I get

another chance to fight  capital. We get another chance to expand our vision of

communism and talk and  interact with new thousands of proletarians. At, 56 
with no money, the little  things make me happy. 

Hey, we can talk about the history of American  communism, as we seek the new 
forms of struggle. 

I celebrate all the  comrades good health. 

Waistline  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

_______________________________________________
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 ballistanc at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 15:22:46 2009
From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
In-Reply-To: <c2c.4e8727b8.368e9041@aol.com>
Message-ID: <159513.28484.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

...a lot of comrades are in jail so I have nothing to celebrate even though I have a healthy and intelligent daughter...because the tendency of the market is leading toward a deeper "crisis", that is centralization, destruction of capital and productive forces in order to generalized it war of mass destruction against the international proletariat.? How are we going to fight capital in order to stop it?? I think we need a historical (communist) leadership to design and adopt an Eje Programatico and presented to the proletarian mass in order for them to fight for it if it represent its needs....In relation to history of the communist movement I can tell you that the U.S doesn't have a "particular" history but it is a product of the proletariat's defeat since the tentative of 1917-1923...Down with our own bourgeoisie!!

--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:

From: Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Happy New Year.
To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 4:31 PM

In a message dated 1/1/2009 12:16:25 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
Waistline2 at aol.com writes:
Happy New  Year!

Resolution: to work to  shorter articles.   
*************
Do we have anything to celebrate or to be happy  about?

******************

Reply

Yea.  My children are  healthy and in one piece. My grandchildren are being 
taken care of. I'm not in  jail. I survived the market crash of 2008. I get

another chance to fight  capital. We get another chance to expand our vision of

communism and talk and  interact with new thousands of proletarians. At, 56 
with no money, the little  things make me happy. 

Hey, we can talk about the history of American  communism, as we seek the new 
forms of struggle. 

I celebrate all the  comrades good health. 

Waistline  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

_______________________________________________
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 Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  1 16:46:58 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:46:58 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Learning From the Auto Crisis
Message-ID: <d05.4ae2d8ba.368eaff2@aol.com>

The   B u l l e  t      
Socialist Project ? E-Bulletin No.  172
December 31, 2008
Saving the Detroit Three,
Finishing Off the  UAW:
Learning From the Auto Crisis
Sam Gindin

At the end of 1979,  President Carter offered loan guarantees to 
Chrysler to prevent the  company's imminent bankruptcy. The loans were 
conditional on wage  concessions of some 10% and the outsourcing of 
half of Chrysler's work. In  August 1981 a newly elected President, 
Ronald Reagan, ended a strike of  13,000 air traffic controllers by 
firing the strikers en masse (the  controllers' union had ironically 
been a supporter of Reagan in his 1980  presidential campaign). In 
these cases, the American state was not just  following the private 
sector's bidding, though corporations of course  cheered it on; 
rather, the state was leading the assault on workers'  conditions and 
rights. The result was a redefinition of American labour  relations 
for a generation to come, with implications for workers  everywhere. 
The American labour movement proved incapable of mounting any  
resistance through that period and assumed it couldn't get much  worse.

It just did. It was expected that the economic crisis, like past  
crises, would intensify pressures for concessions from auto workers. 
And  it was understood that in responding to the loan requests from 
General  Motors (GM) and Chrysler, the American state would likely 
reinforce that  pressure. But the U.S. Treasury and the Bush 
Administration went stunningly  further. By formally linking UAW 
conditions to those in the Japanese  transplants, the union ? whose 
independence had already been compromised  through years of 
concessions ? was pushed to effectively act as an agency of  the state.

The loan conditions asserted that "By no later than February  17, 
2009, the Company shall submit to the President's Designee ... [a]  
term sheet signed on behalf of the Company and the leadership of each  
major U.S. labor organization [essentially the UAW] that represents 
the  employees." Over and above the elimination of any layoff benefits 
above  customary severance pay ? something the union had already 
conceded ? the  terms called for a reduction in workers' wages, 
benefits and working  conditions to match "no later than December 31, 
2009" levels that are  "competitive with the average as certified by 
the Secretary of Labor" at the  U.S. operations of Nissan, Toyota, and 
Honda. As well, the union had to  accept that at least half of each 
company's obligations to the union  administered health care plan 
would now include company stock (the full  terms are available at  
www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp1333.htm).

While American unions  were waiting for the inauguration of a new 
president to bring them  legislation that would make it easier to 
establish unions, the current  administration (with no dissent to date 
from President-elect Obama)  essentially declared, in a 
standard-setting industry, that: "You can have  unions but you can 
only have non-union outcomes."

There are a number  of lessons to learn from this unfolding event and 
we raise a few of them  here.

full:  http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet172.html#continue

_______________________________________________
pen-l  mailing  list
pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l   

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From ballistanc at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 05:02:06 2009
From: ballistanc at yahoo.com (juan De La Cruz)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 04:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Instructivo...
Message-ID: <849300.49680.qm@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

?Instructivo Militar Revolucionario
Forjar la direcci?n hist?rica para triunfar en la lucha contra la burgues?a
?
La generalizaci?n de la crisis de desvalorizacio?n en todos los sectores del capital tiende a profundisarse durante el actual espiral de destrucci?n.? El barco de la burgues?a mundial se hunde y el Pent?gono est? preparado para rescatar esta pieza de museo e iniciar un nuevo ciclo de valorizaci?n.? Las operaciones militares en medio urbano han sido redefinidas y desde hace aproximadamente 10 a?os se efect?an "entrenamientos de operativos en medio urbano...y cursos pr?cticos para dominar t?cnicas de combate callejeros".? Adem?s, el mundo ha sido dividido en 6 zonas de comando militar con el objetivo de derrotar la generalizaci?n de la insurrecci?n proletaria que ha ido produciendo la urbanizaci?n de la pobreza.
?
Para enfrentar y derrotar la pr?xima tentativa revolucionaria contra el modo de producci?n dominante la burgues?a ha creado el United States Africa Command, el United States Central Command, el United States European Command, el United States Pacific Command, ampliado ampliado el radio de acci?n de su United States Southtern Command y, el recien creado United States North Command; a lo cual hay que sumarle el control de todos los mares del planeta a trav?s de flotas poderosas listas para atacar.? El Pent?gono dirige m?s de 700 bases militares "que son los eslabones de una verdadera red que aprisiona al proletariado mundial en una poderosa camisola de fuerza". (Comunismo # 58)
?
La desvalorizaci?n de todas las fracciones del capital mundial tiende a desatar la guerra generalizada contra la mercanc?a proletaria y evitar su tentativa revolucionaria.? La competencia capitalista ya ha podido predecir que la actual tendencia econ?mica, financiera y demogr?fica "provocar? una crisis pol?tica y social en los Estados Unidos", en el corto y/o mediano plazo, la cual tendr? efectos destructivos sobre toda la econom?a mundial.?(Wall Street Journal)?? Es decir que la facci?n norteamericana de la burgues?a mundial ya est? bien preparada para ganar la guerra y salvar el sistema democr?tico.? Sin embargo, el movimiento comunista no est? preparado, no cuenta con una direcci?n hist?rica consolidada ni con un Eje Progr?matico, para adelantarse a los planes de la burgues?a mundial y triunfar en la lucha contra ella.

Forjar la direcci?n hist?rica para triunfar en la lucha contra la burgues?a!!? 
1/2/2009


      

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 07:43:01 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:43:01 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested
Message-ID: <495DE1A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

When I sent the quote on dialectics from Karl Marx in response to the
inquiry of Susan F Dane, I  cut off the last paragraph . I put it back
in below. I do so because it is a nice comment on the current economic
crisis , and even more interestingly, how it is the bourgeois media that
keeps popping up with the word "socialism" , as if the crisis has
drummed dialectics into their head.

"The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society
impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the
changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and
whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again
approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the
universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum
dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy
Prusso-German empire." 

Karl Marx


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in
this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous
way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method? 

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of
inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to
analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner
connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be
adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the
subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear
as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. 

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its
direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e.,
the process of thinking, which, under the name of ?the Idea,? he
even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the
real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of
?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than
the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into
forms of thought. 

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty
years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was
working at the first volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good
pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones ?
B?chner, D?hring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany,
to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing?s
time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I therefore openly
avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there,
in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of
expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in
Hegel?s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to
present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious
manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right
side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the
mystical shell. 

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because
it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In
its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and
its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and
affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same
time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its
inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed
social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its
transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets
nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and
revolutionary. 

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society
impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the
changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and
whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again
approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the
universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum
dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy
Prusso-German empire. 

Karl Marx
London
January 24, 1873



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 09:28:13 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:28:13 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism -	Lenin
Message-ID: <495DFA4D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Waistline2

The structural link between capital and imperialism was actually written  
about by the economist Mr. Henry CK Liu. This is not to say that Lenin should  
not be read, but for those who used Lenin regularly as a guide, this long  
article is enlightening. Henry is an accomplished economist and investor and  
extremely schooled in the writing of Lenin and Marx Capital. This is not to  kowtow 
to Mr. Liu but simply to acknowledge the obvious and give forewarning.  

Dig how Henry attacks the subject of the structural link between  capitalism 
and imperialism in part 1, which is called "the structural link."  

Quote. 

"The structural link between capitalism and imperialism  was first observed 
by John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940), English economist, who  wrote in 1902 an 
insightful analysis of the economic basis of imperialism.  Hobson provided a 
humanist critique of neoclassical economics, rejecting  exclusively 
materialistic definitions of value. With Albert Frederick Mummery  (1855-1895), the great 
British Mountaineer who was tragically killed in 1895 by  an avalanche whilst 
reconnoitering the Rakhiot Face of Nanga Parbat, an  8,000-meter Himalayan 
peak, Hobson wrote The Physiology of Industry (1889),  which argued that an 
industrial economy requires government intervention to  maintain stability, and 
developed the theory of over-saving that was given an  overflowing tribute by 
John Maynard Keynes three decades later.  http://www.henryckliu.com/page143.html 

^^^
CB: Lenin credits Hobson as originating the imperialism thesis.  He also draws heavily upon the German Marxist economist Hilferding.

^^^

Quote.

 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 09:44:29 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:44:29 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] No Compromises?
Message-ID: <495DFE1D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

No Compromises?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In the quotation from the Frankfurt pamphlet, we have seen how
emphatically the "Lefts" have advanced this slogan. It is sad to see
people who no doubt consider themselves Marxists, and want to be
Marxists, forget the fundamental truths of Marxism. This is what
Engels?who, like Marx, was one of those rarest of authors whose
every sentence in every one of their fundamental works contains a
remarkably profound content?wrote in 1874, against the manifesto of
the thirty-three Blanquist Communards:

"?We are Communists? [the Blanquist Communards wrote in their
manifesto], ?because we want to attain our goal without stopping at
intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the
day of victory and prolong the period of slavery.?

"The German Communists are Communists because, through all the
intermediate stations and all compromises created, not by them but by
the course of historical development, they clearly perceive and
constantly pursue the final aim?the abolition of classes and the
creation of a society in which there will no longer be private ownership
of land or of the means of production. The thirty-three Blanquists are
Communists just because they imagine that, merely because they want to
skip the intermediate stations and compromises, the matter is settled,
and if ?it begins? in the next few days?which they take for
granted?and they take over power, ?communism will be introduced?
the day after tomorrow. If that is not immediately possible, they are
not Communists. 

"What childish innocence it is to present one?s own impatience as a
theoretically convincing argument!" Frederick Engels, "Programme of the
Blanquist Communards", [30] from the German Social-Democratic newspaper
Volksstaat, 1874, No. 73, given in the Russian translation of Articles,
1871-1875, Petrograd, 1919, pp. 52-53).

In the same article, Engels expresses his profound esteem for Vaillant,
and speaks of the "unquestionable merit" of the latter (who, like
Guesde, was one of the most prominent leaders of international socialism
until their betrayal of socialism in August 1914). But Engels does not
fail to give a detailed analysis of an obvious error. Of course, to very
young and inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois
revolutionaries of even very respectable age and great experience, it
seems extremely "dangerous", incomprehensible and wrong to "permit
compromises". Many sophists (being unusually or excessively
"experienced" politicians) reason exactly in the same way as the British
leaders of opportunism mentioned by Comrade Lansbury: "If the Bolsheviks
are permitted a certain compromise, why should we not be permitted any
kind of compromise?" However, proletarians schooled in numerous strikes
(to take only this manifestation of the class struggle) usually
assimilate in admirable fashion the very profound truth (philosophical,
historical, political and psychological) expounded by Engels. Every
proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced "compromises"
with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to
return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing
to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian?as
a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute
intensification of class antagonisms he lives among?sees the
difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such
as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and
exhaustion)?a compromise which in no way minimises the
revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the
part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise?and, on the
other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective
causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into
"compromises"!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists,
and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion,
sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists. (The
history of the British labour movement provides a very large number of
instances of such treacherous compromises by British trade union
leaders, but, in one form or another, almost all workers in all
countries have witnessed the same sort of thing.) 

Naturally, there are individual cases of exceptional difficulty and
complexity, when the greatest efforts are necessary for a proper
assessment of the actual character of this or that "compromise", just as
there are cases of homicide when it is by no means easy to establish
whether the homicide was fully justified and even necessary (as, for
example, legitimate self-defence), or due to unpardonable negligence, or
even to a cunningly executed perfidious plan. Of course, in politics,
where it is sometimes a matter of extremely complex relations?national
and international?between classes and parties, very many cases will
arise that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate
"compromise" in a strike or a treacherous "compromise" by a
strike-breaker, treacherous leader, etc. It would be absurd to formulate
a recipe or general rule ("No compromises!") to suit all cases. One must
use one?s own brains and be able to find one?s bearings in each
particular instance. It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party
organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire,
through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts
of all thinking representatives of a given class, *6 the knowledge,
experience and?in addition to knowledge and experience?the political
flair necessary for the speedy and correct solution of complex political
problems. [30]

Naive and quite inexperienced people imagine that the permissibility of
compromise in general is sufficient to obliterate any distinction
between opportunism, against which we are waging, and must wage, an
unremitting struggle, and revolutionary Marxism., or communism. But if
such people do not yet know that in nature and in society all
distinctions are fluid and up to a certain point conventional, nothing
can help them but lengthy training, education, enlightenment, and
political and everyday experience. In the practical questions that arise
in the politics of any particular or specific historical moment, it is
important to single out those which display the principal type of
intolerable and treacherous compromises, such as embody an opportunism
that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to
explain them and combat them. During the 1914-18 imperialist war between
two groups of equally predatory countries, social-chauvinism was the
principal and fundamental type of opportunism, i.e., support of "defence
of country", which in such a war was really equivalent to defence of the
predatory interests of one?s "own" bourgeoisie. After the war, defence
of the robber League of Nations, [31] defence of direct or indirect
alliances with the bourgeoisie of one?s own country against the
revolutionary proletariat and the "Soviet" movement, and defence of
bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentarianism against "Soviet
power" became the principal manifestations of those intolerable and
treacherous compromises, whose sum total constituted an opportunism
fatal to the revolutionary proletariat and its cause.

"...All compromise with other parties ... any policy of manoeuvring and
compromise must be emphatically rejected," the German Lefts write in the
Frankfurt pamphlet.

It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically
condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the
entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October
Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory
tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois
parties!

To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a
war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than
the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in
advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of
interests (even if temporary) among one?s enemies, or any conciliation
or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary,
unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)?is that not ridiculous in
the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored
and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move
in zigzags, ever to retrace one?s steps, or ever to abandon a course
once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and
inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad;
young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period)
have met with support?whether direct or indirect, open or covert,
whole or partial, it does not matter?from some members of the
Communist Party of Holland.

After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the
overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that
country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply
because of the latter?s extensive international links, and also
because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration
of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of
the country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful
enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the
most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any,
even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests
among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various
groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by
taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a
mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable,
unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a
failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern
scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice,
over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political
situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet
learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate
all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to
the period before and after the proletariat has won political power. 

Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action, said Marx and Engels.
[32] The greatest blunder, the greatest crime, committed by such
"out-and-out" Marxists as Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, etc., is that they
have not understood this and have been unable to apply it at crucial
moments of the proletarian revolution. "Political activity is not like
the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt" (the well-kept, broad and level
pavement of the perfectly straight principal thoroughfare of St.
Petersburg), N. G. Chernyshevsky, the great Russian socialist of the
pre-Marxist period, used to say. Since Chernyshevsky?s time, disregard
or forgetfulness of this truth has cost Russian revolutionaries
countless sacrifices. We must strive at all costs to prevent the Left
Communists and West-European and American revolutionaries that are
devoted to the working class from paying as dearly as the backward
Russians did to learn this truth. 

Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary
Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois
liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the
latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old
editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich
Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a
formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois
liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and
most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois
liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in
the working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this
policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance
between the working class and the peasantry, against the liberal
bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the
bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of
elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless
ideological and political struggle against the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party,
exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described
themselves as socialists. During the Duma elections of 1907, the
Bolsheviks entered briefly into a formal political bloc with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. Between 1903 and 1912, there were periods of
several years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in a
single Social-Democratic Party, but we never stopped our ideological and
political struggle against them as opportunists and vehicles of
bourgeois influence on the proletariat. During the war, we concluded
certain compromises with the Kautskyites, with the Left Mensheviks
(Martov), and with a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov
and Natanson); we were together with them at Zimmerwald and Kienthal,
[33] and issued joint manifestos. However, we never ceased and never
relaxed our ideological and political struggle against the Kautskyites,
Martov and Chernov (when Natanson died in 1919, a
"Revolutionary-Communist" Narodnik, [34] he was very close to and almost
in agreement with us). At the very moment of the October Revolution, we
entered into an informal but very important (and very successful)
political bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the
Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its entirety, without a
single alteration?i.e., we effected an undeniable compromise in order
to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not to "steam-roller" them but
to reach agreement with them. At the same time we proposed (and soon
after effected) a formal political bloc, including participation in the
government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who dissolved this
bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then, in
July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and subsequently of an
armed struggle, against us.

It is therefore understandable why the attacks made by the German Lefts
against the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany for
entertaining the idea of a bloc with the Independents (the Independent
Social-Democratic Party of Germany?the Kautskyites) are absolutely
inane, in our opinion, and clear proof that the "Lefts" are in the
wrong. In Russia, too, there were Right Mensheviks (participants in the
Kerensky government), who corresponded to the German Scheidemanns, and
Left Mensheviks (Martov), corresponding to the German Kautskyites and
standing in opposition to the Right Mensheviks. A gradual shift of the
worker masses from the Mensheviks over to the Bolsheviks was to be
clearly seen in 1917. At the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, held
in June 1917, we had only 13 per cent of the votes; the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks had a majority. At the
Second Congress of Soviets (October 25, 1917, old style) we had 51 per
cent of the votes. Why is it that in Germany the same and absolutely
identical shift of the workers from Right to Left did not immediately
strengthen the Communists, but first strengthened the midway Independent
Party, although the latter never had independent political ideas or an
independent policy, but merely wavered between the Scheidemanns and the
Communists?

One of the evident reasons was the erroneous tactics of the German
Communists, who must fearlessly and honestly admit this error and learn
to rectify it. The error consisted in their denial of the need to take
part in the reactionary bourgeois parliaments and in the reactionary
trade unions; the error consisted in numerous manifestations of that
"Leftwing" infantile disorder which has now come to the surface and will
consequently be cured the more thoroughly, the more rapidly and with
greater advantage to the organism.

The German Independent Social-Democratic Party is obviously not a
homogeneous body. Alongside the old opportunist leaders (Kautsky,
Hilferding and apparently, to a considerable extent, Crispien, Ledebour
and others)?these have revealed their inability to understand the
significance of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat,
and their inability to lead the proletariat?s revolutionary
struggle?there has emerged in this party a Left and proletarian
wing, which is growing most rapidly. Hundreds of thousands of members of
this party (which has, I think, a membership of some three-quarters of a
million) are proletarians who are abandoning Scheidemann and are rapidly
going over to communism. This proletarian wing has already proposed?at
the Leipzig Congress of the Independents (1919) -- immediate and
unconditional affiliation to the Third International. To fear a
"compromise" with this wing of the party is positively ridiculous. On
the contrary, it is the duty of Communists to seek and find a suitable
form of compromise with them, a compromise which, on the one hand, will
facilitate and accelerate the necessary complete fusion with this wing
and, on the other, will in no way hamper the Communists in their
ideological and political struggle against the opportunist Right wing of
the Independents. It will probably be no easy matter to devise a
suitable form of compromise?but only a charlatan could promise the
German workers and the German Communists an "easy" road to victory.

Capitalism would not be capitalism if the proletariat pur sang were not
surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types intermediate
between the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns his
livelihood in part by the sale of his labour-power), between the
semi-proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft
worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the
middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not
divided into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not
divided according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to
religion, and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute
necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its
class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation
and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the
various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a
matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise?not
lower?the general level of proletarian class-consciousness,
revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win. Incidentally, it
should be noted that the Bolsheviks? victory over the Mensheviks
called for the application of tactics of changes of tack, conciliation
and compromises, not only before but also after the October Revolution
of 1917, but the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such
as assisted, boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of
the Mensheviks. The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks)
inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat,
between bourgeois democracy and the Soviet system, between reformism and
revolutionism, between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian
dictatorship, etc. The Communists? proper tactics should consist in
utilising these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising them calls
for concessions to elements that are turning towards the
proletariat?whenever and in the measure that they turn towards the
proletariat?in addition to fighting those who turn towards the
bourgeoisie. As a result of the application of the correct tactics,
Menshevism began to disintegrate, and has been disintegrating more and
more in our country; the stubbornly opportunist leaders are being
isolated, and the best of the workers and the best elements among the
petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into our camp. This is a
lengthy process, and the hasty "decision"?"No compromises, no
manoeuvres"?can only prejudice the strengthening of the revolutionary
proletariat?s influence and the enlargement of its forces.

Lastly, one of the undoubted errors of the German "Lefts" lies in their
downright refusal to recognise the Treaty of Versailles. The more
"weightily" and "pompously", the more "emphatically" and peremptorily
this viewpoint is formulated (by K. Homer, for instance), the less sense
it seems to make. It is not enough, under the present conditions of the
international proletarian revolution, to repudiate the preposterous
absurdities of "National Bolshevism" (Laufenberg and others), which has
gone to the length of advocating a bloc with the German bourgeoisie for
a war against the Entente. One must realise that it is utterly false
tactics to refuse to admit that a Soviet Germany (if a German Soviet
republic were soon to arise) would have to recognise the Treaty of
Versailles for a time, and to submit to it. From this it does not follow
that the Independents?at a time when the Scheidemanns were in the
government, when the Soviet government in Hungary had not yet been
overthrown, and when it was still possible that a Soviet revolution in
Vienna would support Soviet Hungary?were right, under the
circumstances, in putting forward the demand that the Treaty of
Versailles should be signed. At that time the Independents tacked and
manoeuvred very clumsily, for they more or less accepted responsibility
for the Scheidemann traitors, and more or less backslid from advocacy of
a ruthless (and most calmly conducted) class war against the
Scheidemanns, to advocacy of a "classless" or "above-class" standpoint.

In the present situation, however, the German Communists should
obviously not deprive themselves of freedom of action by giving a
positive and categorical promise to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles
in the event of communism?s victory. That would be absurd. They should
say: the Scheidemanns and the Kautskyites have committed a number of
acts of treachery hindering (and in part quite ruining) the chances of
an alliance with Soviet Russia and Soviet Hungary. We Communists will do
all we can to facilitate and pave the way for such an alliance. However,
we are in no way obligated to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles, come
what may, or to do so at once. The possibility of its successful
repudiation will depend, not only on the German, but also on the
international successes of the Soviet movement. The Scheidemanns and the
Kautskyites have hampered this movement; we are helping it. That is the
gist of the matter; therein lies the fundamental difference. And if our
class enemies, the exploiters and their Scheidemann and Kautskyite
lackeys, have missed many an opportunity of strengthening both the
German and the international Soviet movement, of strengthening both the
German and the international Soviet revolution, the blame lies with
them. The Soviet revolution in Germany will strengthen the international
Soviet movement, which is the strongest bulwark (and the only reliable,
invincible and world-wide bulwark) against the Treaty of Versailles and
against international imperialism in general. To give absolute,
categorical and immediate precedence to liberation from the Treaty of
Versailles and to give it precedence over the question of liberating
other countries oppressed by imperialism, from the yoke of imperialism,
is philistine nationalism (worthy of the Kautskys, the Hilferdings, the
Otto Bauers and Co.), not revolutionary internationalism. The overthrow
of the bourgeoisie in any of the large European countries, including
Germany, would be such a gain for the international revolution that, for
its sake, one can, and if necessary should, tolerate a more prolonged
existence of the Treaty of Versailles. If Russia, standing alone, could
endure the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for several months, to the advantage
of the revolution, there is nothing impossible in a Soviet Germany,
allied with Soviet Russia, enduring the existence of the Treaty of
Versailles for a longer period, to the advantage of the revolution.

The imperialists of France, Britain, etc., are trying to provoke and
ensnare the German Communists: "Say that you will not sign the Treaty of
Versailles!" they urge. Like babes, the Left Communists fall into the
trap laid for them, instead of skilfully manoeuvring against the crafty
and, at present, stronger enemy, and instead of telling him, "We shall
sign the Treaty of Versailles now." It is folly, not revolutionism, to
deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform
an enemy who is at present better armed than we are whether we shall
fight him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously
advantageous to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal; political leaders
of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable
of "changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise" in order to
take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
[30] See Marx / Engels, Werke, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, Bd. 18, S.
533. 

[31] The League of Nations was an international body which existed
between the First and the Second World Wars. It was founded in 1919 at
the Paris Peace Conference of the victor powers of the First World War.
The Covenant of the League of Nations formed part of the Treaty of
Versailles of 1919, and was signed by 44 nations. The Covenant was
designed to produce the impression that this organisation?s aim was to
combat aggression, reduce armaments, and consolidate peace and security.
In practice, however its leaders shielded the aggressors, fostered the
arms race and preparations for the Second World War.

Between 1920 and 1934, the League?s activities were hostile towards
the Soviet Union. It was one of the centres for the organising of armed
intervention against the Soviet state in

On September 15, 1934, on French initiative, 34 member states invited
the Soviet Union to join the League of Nations which the U.S.S.R. did,
with the aim of strengthening peace. However, the Soviet Union?s
attempts to form a peace front met with resistance from reactionary
circles in the Western powers. With the outbreak of the Second World War
the League?s activities came to an end, the formal dissolution taking
place in April 1946, according to a decision by the specially summoned
Assembly. 

[32] Lenin is referring to a passage from Frederick Engels?s letter
to F. A. Sorge of November 29, 18X6, in which, criticising German
Social-Democrat political exiles living in America, Engels wrote that
for them the theory was "a credo, not a guide to action" (see Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 395). 

[33] The reference is to the international socialist conferences in
Zimmerwald and Kienthal (Switzerland).

The Zimmerwald Conference, the first international socialist
conference, was held on September 5-8, 1915. The Kienthal Conference,
the second international socialist conference, was held in the small
town of Kienthal on April 24-30, 1916.

The Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences contributed to the ideological
unity, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, of the Left-wing elements in
West-European Social-Democracy, who later played an active part in the
formation of Communist parties in their countries and the establishment
of the Third Communist International. 

[34] "Revolutionary Communists"?a Narodnik group which broke away
from the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries after the latter?s mutiny in
July 1918. In September 1918, they formed the "Party of Revolutionary
Communism", which favoured co-operation with the R.C.P.(B.), and pledged
support for Soviet power. Their programme which remained on the platform
of Narodnik utopianism was muddled and eclectic. While recognising that
Soviet rule created preconditions for the establishment of a socialist
system, the "revolutionary communists" denied the necessity of the
proletarian dictatorship during the transitional period from capitalism
to socialism. Throughout the lifetime of the "Party of Revolutionary
Communism", certain of its groups broke away from it, some of them
joining the R.C.P.(B.) (A. Kolegayev, A. Bitsenko, M. Dobrokhotov and
others), and others, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. Two
representatives of the "Party of Revolutionary Communism" were allowed
to attend the Second Congress of the Comintern, in a deliberative
capacity, but with no votes. In September 1920, following the Congress
decision that there must be a single Communist Party in each country,
the "Party of Revolutionary Communism" decided to join the R.C.P.(B.).
In October of the same year, the R.C.P.(B.) Central Committee permitted
Party organisations to enrol members of the former "Party of
Revolutionary Communism" in the R.C.P.(B.). 

[*6] Within every class, even in the conditions prevailing in the most
enlightened countries, even within the most advanced class, and even
when the circumstances of the moment have aroused all its spiritual
forces to an exceptional degree, there always are?and inevitably will
be as long as classes exist, as long as a classless society has not
fully consolidated itself, and has not developed on its own foundations
-- representatives of the class who do not think, and are incapable of
thinking, for themselves. Capitalism would not be the Oppressor of the
masses that it actually is, if things were otherwise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 09:56:35 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:56:35 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism -	Lenin
Message-ID: <495E00F2.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

nyone, that read the above quote or Lenin's  "Imperialism" will notice that 
he formulates Imperialism including monopoly -  centralization and 
concentration of finance and production. My emphasis on  finance and its new evolution 
since Lenin's death does not nullify  centralization and concentration of 
finance and production in the form of  monopoly, but points to what is fundamental 
for us today. What was fundamental  yesterday is not necessarily fundamental 
for today. 

^^^^
CB: Yes , but in this case both monopoly and finance dominance, and their unity - the financial oligarchy takes the forms of corporate monopolies; Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, ec. are monopolies in the finance capital sector - remain fundamental. It is not the case that "finance" is still fundamental, but monopoly is not. Both monopoly and financial sector dominance are fundamental to capitalism in 2009.  Lenin labeled it the highest or last stage of capitalism because there is no capitalism beyond finance monopoly capitalism. It becomes the more things change, the more they stay the same and more of the same. More monopoly and more finance sector power.  There is more monopoly or greater concentration of wealth and greater dominance of finance capital in 2009 than there was when Hobson, Hilferding and Lenin were writing.   With the fall of the SU, capitalism reverted to it's pre-Soviet, pre-1917 ways in full force and more.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 09:59:12 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:59:12 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Central Committee as "oligarchy"; Henry CK & Lenin
Message-ID: <495E0190.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

What I means is that the "other bodies" do not have to  be PARTY 
ORGANIZATIONS, or "other than party organizations," much less the  Central Committee of 
THE PARTY. We do not need the state as state overseeing  production or 
organizing production as such and this is exactly what the state  had to do in Russia 
for the revolution to survive.

^^^
CB: Maybe so. Maybe not. We don't know in advance.



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 10:07:41 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:07:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Central Committee as "oligarchy"; Henry CK & Lenin
Message-ID: <495E038D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Lenin writes about "important question faced by state institutions" and the  
role of the Central Committee. What we do know is that any organization of  
production in America is going to based on an entirely different level of  
development of the productive forces. If fact the level of development of the  
productive forces are qualitatively different that what existed when Lenin wrote  
"Left Wing." 

^^^
CB: What is the qualitative difference in the level of development of the productive forces ?  

There may be two or three different "levels of development" of the productive forces since Lenin's day, but at any rate , how is it that these differences mean that there is a difference on the question of the role of the state with respect to production ?

^^

What makes you think that the "party as party," would  intervene in state 
decisions that had no nationwide significance or that did not  involve foreign 
affairs? 

^^^
CB: What makes you think it wouldn't ? (smile)

^^^^
 At minimum the role of the state is going to be a  lot different in 
America and this is based on our level of development of the  productive forces; 

^^^
CB: Why ? Why does the level of development of the productive forces change the role of the state with respect to them ?

^^^^
infrastructure and communications and so on. We do not need a  "party-state" 
or state form of organization that runs production.

^^^
CB: Why not ?

^^^
 Nor do we need  a 
"party-state" form of organization to build schools or hospitals. 

^^
CB: What about future schools and hospitals ?

^^^^
What Lenin  
describes is merely an industrial form of organization of people and forces, at  an 
extremely low level of industrial development.. Lenin needed such based on  the 
scattered character of their productive forces. 

^^^
CB:  Concentration of the productive forces doesn't necessarily mean that there is less of a role for the Party.  Look at China.

^^^^
 
By party-state does not mean the one becomes the other. The former  
intervenes direct in all important matters of the latter and the latter out of  
necessity literally owned and ran production.  

Again, discussion is  to learn creative thinking and how to began a concrete 
unraveling of our  concrete circumstances.  One can learn much from reading 
Lenin and  assimilating his method. 

^^^
CB: That's right

On another note:




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 11:52:37 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:52:37 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On New Year hopes and fears
Message-ID: <495E1C25.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Top Stories, Video and Blog Posts for AlterNet
January 2nd, 2009
http://www.alternet.org 
___________________________________________________________

10 REASONS TO BE HOPEFUL ABOUT 2009 -- AND 3 REASONS TO BE TERRIFIED 
By Sarah van Gelder, Huffington Post
Corporate power is waning, health reform is gaining ground
and a climate-friendly economy is on the horizon. Will
change finally happen? 
http://www.alternet.org/story/116728/ 

ARE 'HAIL MARY' TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS OUR ONLY HOPE TO PREVENT DISASTROUS CLIMATE CHANGE?
By Steve Connor, Independent UK
In a recent survey, the majority of scientists said
artificially lowering global temperatures could be a "Plan
B" for saving the planet. 
http://www.alternet.org/environment/116743/ 

EVERYTHING YOU NEEDED KNOW ABOUT IRAN BUT THE MASS MEDIA, THE REPUBLICANS AND HILLARY CLINTON WOULDN'T TELL YOU
By Col. Ann  Wright, TruthOut.org
We have to abandon the 30 years of crisis, threats of
military action, vindictiveness and retaliation and look to
diplomacy with Iran.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/116641/ 

THE PARADOX OF ISRAEL: REGIONAL SUPER POWER AND THE LARGEST JEWISH GHETTO EVER CREATED
By Ira Chernus, AlterNet
Israelis keep saying they only want security, while they go
on electing leaders whose policies make them less secure.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/116723/ 

ARE BLAGOJEVICH AND JESSE JACKSON JR.'S MONEY DEALINGS WITH CHICAGO'S INDIAN COMMUNITY TIED TO THE CORRUPTION CHARGES?
By Vijay Prashad, CounterPunch
Clues emerge in the possible connection between Jesse
Jackson Jr., Blagojevich, and the money for Obama's vacant
Senate seat.
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/116744/ 

ADDING UP BUSH'S DAMAGE
By Bob Herbert, The New York Times
Bush's catalog of his transgressions against the nation's
interests would keep him in a confessional for the rest of
his life.
http://www.alternet.org/story/116727/ 

BOATLOADS OF TROUBLE: HOW WE ARE IMPORTING OUR WAY TO DESTRUCTION
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
As our consumer goods travel thousands of miles by boat,
train and truck, they're leaving a trail of soot and cancer
in their wake.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97496/ 

___________________________________________________________



WHY ISRAEL WON'T ALLOW JOURNALISTS INTO GAZA
By Siun, Firedoglake
"The boat while still in international waters has been
rammed by Israeli patrol boats, our vessel has been damaged
... "
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/116263/ 

2009: NOW FOR THE HARD PART
By Peggy Drexler, Huffington Post
Is the glass half empty, half full -- or did somebody take
the glass and smash it against the wall? In times like
these, optimism is a decision.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/116628/ 

GONZALES' MOST SERIOUS CRIME: PROPPING UP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF KING GEORGE
By  Digby, Hullabaloo
There is a long list of things Gonzales did wrong. But the
underlying crime was against the principle that the U.S. is
a country of laws, not men.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/116710/ 

___________________________________________________________

These stories, videos, blog posts, and more are available on 
AlterNet.

http://www.alternet.org/ 

===========================================================
Donate: Visit https://www.alternet.org/donate/ to support
AlterNet and independent journalism. 

Unsubscribe from Headlines: 
http://www.alternet.org/newsletter/unsubscribe/?group=26451&email=charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us 

Unsubscribe from all future AlterNet communications, including headlines and all special coverage updates:
http://www.alternet.org/newsletter/unsubscribe/?group=all&email=charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 12:10:23 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:10:23 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] China, Vietnam settle border dispute
Message-ID: <495E204E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

China, Vietnam settle border dispute

JOHN RUWITCH

Reuters

December 31, 2008 at 9:50 AM EST

HANOI ? Vietnam and China said on Wednesday they had finished
demarcating their land border, a diplomatic milestone for the
Communist neighbours who fought a brief but brutal war along the
frontier 30 years ago.

Vietnamese and Chinese leaders had set a deadline to complete the task
by the end of 2008, and negotiators announced with less than six hours
to go that the goal had been achieved, underscoring the sensitivity of
the territorial dispute between the two countries with a chequered
past.

"The completion of the land border demarcation between China and
Vietnam will promote the development of the China-Vietnam strategic
partnership," Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Wu Dawei said.

"The completion of this work will also benefit peace, stability and
development in this region."

A more thorny maritime territorial dispute was not mentioned by the
negotiators or in a joint statement on Wednesday.

(That would be the Spratly Islands, where I believe Halliburton did
the test drilling for petroleum during the Vietnam war... //lcm)

In Full:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081231.wchinavietnam1231/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081231.wchinavietnam1231






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 12:14:51 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:14:51 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] ARGENTINA: RIGHTS VIOLATORS STAY IN JAIL
Message-ID: <495E215B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 ARGENTINA: RIGHTS VIOLATORS STAY IN JAIL


On Dec. 22 the second chamber of Argentina's federal appeals
court confirmed that "there is no medical examination that would
justify" releasing Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, the first president
of the 1976-1983 military regime, from prison. The ruling upholds
an Oct. 10 decision by federal judge Norberto Oyarbide removing
Videla from house arrest and sending him to the Campo de Mayo
Federal Prison under the supervision of the Federal Penitentiary
Service (SPF). Videla is being held on charges that the military
regime had a systematic plan to keep pregnant detainees in secret
detention centers until they gave birth. The babies were then
adopted by military or police families or their friends; the
mothers were killed.


The appeals court's decision came the same day that the
Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo group announced that it had
found another of the adopted children, making a total of 96
identified so far. There are estimates that 400 to 500 babies
were adopted in this manner. A total of about 30,000 people
disappeared during the seven years of the US-backed military
regime.


Less than a week earlier, on Dec. 18, another federal appeals
panel ordered the release of 14 people charged with human rights
violations during the military regime at the Navy Mechanics
School (ESMA) in Buenos Aires, including Capt. Alfredo Astiz
("The Blond Angel of Death"). The court based its decision on the
fact that the accused were held more than three years without a
conviction. Raul Plee, the prosecutor in the case, agreed that
the lengthy detention was contrary to Argentine law but asked the
court to reconsider because of the likelihood that the men would
try to escape. On Dec. 19, following a public outcry about the
release, the court suspended its decision. As of Dec. 22, the
suspects remained in prison and the government of Cristina
Fernandez de Kirchner had decided to impeach the judges that
ruled for the officers' release. [La Jornada 12/23/08 from
correspondent, 12/20/08 from AFP; BBC 12/19/08; Clarin (Buenos
Aires) 12/20/08]


http://weeklynewsupdate.blogspot.com/2008/12/wnu-972-brazil-signs-arms-deal-with.html




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 13:49:17 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:49:17 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Central Committee as "oligarchy";
	Henry CK & Lenin
Message-ID: <cfe.48b89b03.368fd7cd@aol.com>

What I means is that the "other bodies" do not have to  be PARTY  
ORGANIZATIONS, or "other than party organizations," much less the   Central 
Committee of 
THE PARTY. We do not need the state as state  overseeing  production or 
organizing production as such and this is  exactly what the state  had to do 
in Russia 
for the revolution to  survive.
 
^^^
CB: Maybe so. Maybe not. We don't know in advance.
 

Comment
 
As a side, I recently read John Case article in Political Affairs on the  
technological revolution. Not bad at all. 
 
Certain things we do know in advance due to the technological revolution  and 
the development of culture in America. By culture here, is meant the culture  
of trade. The Bolshevik did not know how to trade and had to teach  
themselves.  Or how to construct distribution networks. These important  issues decided 
by the state could not be made without the hand of the Central  Committee. 
Lenin wrote much about this and dubbed this cultural backwardness,  "Red 
Bureaucracy."  This lack of culture was attacks through organizational  means as 
attempts to make up for a lack of "culture." 
 
I do however agree that we cannot know the historically specific form of  the 
revolution; the historically specific form of organizations of the  masses 
and the historically specific form of the insurrection.  
 
Everything in America is so decentralized in the sense of production and an  
abundance of distribution centers. Production networks or the productivity  
architecture is more than 150 years old in its developmental history, unlike  
Russia. Lenin's organizational form is predicated upon an early industrial  
framework, architecture and time frames.  
 
No, it is impossible to reproduce the Leninist form of organization, even  if 
we wanted to. For instance, we do not need a layer of people attached to the  
state and party that basically count widgets. Our technology means that this  
aspect of production control is embed in machines. Even what we call "lower" 
and  "higher bodies" and there form, (repeat: form) and the form of democratic 
 centralism changes.  
 
This is a most exciting time to be revolutionary. 
 
Waistline
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 14:50:15 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:50:15 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] C C as "oligarchy";
	Henry, & Lenin/Tech Revolution is real
Message-ID: <c0d.45a69b6d.368fe617@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/2/2009 12:08:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
Lenin writes about "important question  faced by state institutions" and the  
role of the Central Committee.  What we do know is that any organization of  
production in America is  going to based on an entirely different level of  
development of the  productive forces. If fact the level of development of 
the  
productive  forces are qualitatively different that what existed when Lenin 
wrote   
"Left Wing." 

^^^
CB: What is the qualitative difference in the  level of development of the 
productive forces ?  

There may be two  or three different "levels of development" of the 
productive forces since  Lenin's day, but at any rate , how is it that these 
differences mean that there  is a difference on the question of the role of the state 
with respect to  production ?

********
Comment

The below is taken from the CPUSA  Journal Political Affairs. 

"Lets extend Engels a bit and attempt to  define a technological revolution 
in the historical materialist spirit as  follows (borrowing some elements from 
Venezuelan technology expert Carlota  Perez). 

"A technological revolution," she writes, "can be defined as a  powerful and 
highly visible cluster of new and dynamic technologies, products  and 
industries, capable of bringing about an upheaval in the whole fabric of the  economy 
and of propelling a long-term upsurge of development. It is a strongly  
interrelated constellation of technological innovations, generally including an  
important all-pervasive low-cost input, often a source of energy, sometimes a  
crucial material, plus significant new products and processes and a new  
infrastructure. The latter usually changes the frontier in speed and reliability  of 
transportation and communications, while drastically reducing their cost."  

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773

By 2030  no one is going to be unclear  about the revolutionary -qualitative, 
 changes in the productive forces. Our society is clearly under going "an  
upheaval in the whole fabric of the economy and of propelling a long-term  
upsurge of development." Our mode of production is undergoing revolution due to  
the systematic, quantitative addition of a new qualitatively different  
technology.  

May I suggest reading John Case article in Political  Affairs, in its 
entirety. He outlines the waves of quantitative expansion in the  boundary of the 
industrial system and the current qualitative changes in the  productive forces. 
His first sub head is: The Industrial Revolution, 1771-1829  
Later he writes: 



"In 1971, the Intel microprocessor was made  public in Santa Clara, 
California. Today, every science is also computer  science. Itself an outgrowth of the 
previous generation's electrical,  information and materials research ? the 
microprocessor introduced cheap  electronics, then computers, then software, 
then telecommunications, then  control instrumentation, then biotechnology, and 
further revolutions in  materials science. Massive infrastructure investments 
in fiber optics networks,  satellite and cable global systems; the Internet, 
e-mail, and other e-services;  multiple source electrical networks, higher-speed 
physical transport links by  land, air and water ? have again changed 
occupations, lifestyles, demographics ?  all social relations ? across the  world."
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773

The  steam engine was revolutionary, a qualitatively different form of power, 
 although it was a pre-electrical mechanical device. The steam engine 
introduced  into society a qualitatively different form of energy conversion. By 
itself the  steam engine is just a steam engine. However, the steam engine and its 
 technology expressed the quantitative addition of a new qualitative 
ingredient  that would qualitatively change society.   

Case writes in the  same article: 
"In 1829 the "Rocket" steam engine powered a passenger train  from Manchester 
to Liverpool. And with it was born ? almost simultaneously in  the US and 
Britain ? the explosion of iron and coal, steam, machine and power  industries 
that again mandated the remaking of much of the old economy and  society. New 
and much enlarged requirements for resources and changed modes of  production 
stimulated vast imperial ambitions throughout the world."   

Further 

"The old mode of production is nearing exhaustion as a  previous 
techno-economic era matures and saturates markets. As excitement over  the new cluster of 
technologies mounts, a frenzy of speculation follows.  Inequality skyrockets 
as some become fabulously rich, while most fall behind.  Then comes the crash 
as speculation pushes asset values above their real value.  After the crash 
comes a new wave of institutional reform, regulation ? often  entire changes of 
government, and not infrequently, social revolution."   

Our discussion, at least from my point of view is on the form of  
organization of society, state, the party, etc. The productive forces are  qualitatively 
different in 2009 American than 1920 Russia. The computer is  qualitatively 
different - not a quantitative enhancement of the type writer or  mechanical 
adding machine, or anything else that existed in 1920 Russia.  

By the way, I have mentioned several times that I have read and studied  
Political Affairs - on and off, for a solid 30 years and gave my Political  
Affairs (1938 roughly to 1980) to General B, when I moved to Atlanta Georgia in  
1981. (I also gave a comrade in Alabama my Collected Works of Stalin).  


^^

What makes you think that the "party as party,"  would  intervene in state 
decisions that had no nationwide significance  or that did not  involve 
foreign 
affairs? 

^^^
CB: What makes  you think it wouldn't ? (smile)

***********

WL: Because it is  redundant and added work that would simply be a 
bureaucratic distortion.  

^^^^
At minimum the role of the state is going to be a  lot  different in 
America and this is based on our level of development of  the  productive 
forces; 

^^^
CB: Why ? Why does the level of  development of the productive forces change 
the role of the state with respect  to them ?

^^^^
infrastructure and communications and so on. We do not  need a  "party-state" 
or state form of organization that runs  production.

^^^
CB: Why not ?

^^^
Nor do we need  a  
"party-state" form of organization to build schools or hospitals.  

^^
CB: What about future schools and hospitals  ?

^^^^

The Central Committee of the party would not be interested  in new - future, 
hospital and school construction, which would clearly fall  under local 
authority. Lenin's Russia had to build a modern school system  appropriate to their 
budding industrial society. Under conditions of a chronic  labor shortage, 
limited and scattered resources, it was imperative that the  state set orders of 
priority. 

***************


What  Lenin  describes is merely an industrial form of organization of people 
and  forces, at  an 
extremely low level of industrial development.. Lenin  needed such based on  
the 
scattered character of their productive  forces. 

^^^
CB:  Concentration of the productive forces doesn't  necessarily mean that 
there is less of a role for the Party.  Look at  China.

^^^^

WL: Not concentration of production but the very real  revolution in the 
productive forces does in fact change the form and role  of the party as compared 
with the role of the party in 1920 Russia. The form of  organization must 
change. America will be less bureaucratic than 1920 and 1938  Russia. Russia was a 
nightmare in statistical controls owing to having no  computers and modern 
forms of communications in 1920. Our forms of economic,  social and political 
society intercourse is increasingly post industrial. The  form and role of the 
party must in turn change from the Leninists form.  

The CPC was not a Leninist Party, but a more than less military  apparatus 
whose task was to fight the imperial armies. Chairman Mao could not  apply the 
Leninist form of party organization to the concrete circumstances in  China. 
Today CPC today is not a Leninist Party in the form of Lenin's party in  1920. 
To what degree the CPC remains a revolutionary party remains to be seen.  The 
deepening of the financial crisis and slow down in production, will create  
upheaval in the party as it adjusts to the new reality in China and the world.  
China was a semi-feudal country and most certainly an agrarian society. In 
fact.  the majority of China today is still not urban. Henry wrote an extensive 
article  on urbanization and China. 
 
I have no idea of exactly what the form of political organization  of the 
proletariat will be after the conquest of power by the proletariat. The  role of 
the state as state cannot be changed by political decree or political  process 
as such. Only its form changes with changes in the productive forces,  which 
is turn defines how the organization of society is shaped. The form of the  
state as an organization of violence and class rule is in the category of  
history and subject to a different set of laws: laws that describe and define  
classes and property relations, that will persists in the hearts and minds of  
people. 
 
Again, please read John Case. 
 
 
Waistline 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 15:08:30 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] C C as "oligarchy";
	Henry, & Lenin/Tech	Revolution is real
In-Reply-To: <c0d.45a69b6d.368fe617@aol.com>
References: <c0d.45a69b6d.368fe617@aol.com>
Message-ID: <495E4A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> <Waistline2 at aol.com>
In a message dated 1/2/2009 12:08:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
Lenin writes about "important question  faced by state institutions"
and the  
role of the Central Committee.  What we do know is that any
organization of  
production in America is  going to based on an entirely different level
of  
development of the  productive forces. If fact the level of development
of 
the  
productive  forces are qualitatively different that what existed when
Lenin 
wrote   
"Left Wing." 

^^^
CB: What is the qualitative difference in the  level of development of
the 
productive forces ?  

There may be two  or three different "levels of development" of the 
productive forces since  Lenin's day, but at any rate , how is it that
these 
differences mean that there  is a difference on the question of the
role of the state 
with respect to  production ?

********
Comment

The below is taken from the CPUSA  Journal Political Affairs. 

^^^
CB: My analysis of the current scientific and technological revolution
- discussed a few years ago here on Marxism-Thaxis is  based on
extending the logic that Marx developed in _Capital_ I in the chapters
on machines and factories. 

Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value

Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value 
Ch. 13: Co-operation 
Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture 
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry 

Marx noted a two "pronged" process: 1) greater cooperation, i.e.
formation of factories, increased local socialization of labor, and
2)machines. In the late 20th Century, the revolution in machine
technology, with a revolution in communication and transportation,
including the development of computers, robots, containerization, mass
trucking, just in time delivery, et al., the overall tendency to
"cooperation" , bigger and bigger factories, and factory towns was
negated and reversed, turned into its opposite. The points of production
were scattered geographically and thinned inside factories.  This is a
dialectical negation of the negation , qualitative change, a revolution,
a dialectical leap, because one aspect of the contradiction - machines -
negates the other aspect -cooperation.

^^^^

"Lets extend Engels a bit and attempt to  define a technological
revolution 
in the historical materialist spirit as  follows (borrowing some
elements from 
Venezuelan technology expert Carlota  Perez). 

"A technological revolution," she writes, "can be defined as a 
powerful and 
highly visible cluster of new and dynamic technologies, products  and 
industries, capable of bringing about an upheaval in the whole fabric
of the  economy 
and of propelling a long-term upsurge of development. It is a strongly 

interrelated constellation of technological innovations, generally
including an  
important all-pervasive low-cost input, often a source of energy,
sometimes a  
crucial material, plus significant new products and processes and a new
 
infrastructure. The latter usually changes the frontier in speed and
reliability  of 
transportation and communications, while drastically reducing their
cost."  

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773 

By 2030  no one is going to be unclear  about the revolutionary
-qualitative, 
 changes in the productive forces. Our society is clearly under going
"an  
upheaval in the whole fabric of the economy and of propelling a
long-term  
upsurge of development." Our mode of production is undergoing
revolution due to  
the systematic, quantitative addition of a new qualitatively different 

technology.  

May I suggest reading John Case article in Political  Affairs, in its 
entirety. He outlines the waves of quantitative expansion in the 
boundary of the 
industrial system and the current qualitative changes in the 
productive forces. 
His first sub head is: The Industrial Revolution, 1771-1829  
Later he writes: 



"In 1971, the Intel microprocessor was made  public in Santa Clara, 
California. Today, every science is also computer  science. Itself an
outgrowth of the 
previous generation's electrical,  information and materials research
? the 
microprocessor introduced cheap  electronics, then computers, then
software, 
then telecommunications, then  control instrumentation, then
biotechnology, and 
further revolutions in  materials science. Massive infrastructure
investments 
in fiber optics networks,  satellite and cable global systems; the
Internet, 
e-mail, and other e-services;  multiple source electrical networks,
higher-speed 
physical transport links by  land, air and water ? have again changed

occupations, lifestyles, demographics ?  all social relations ?
across the  world."
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773 

The  steam engine was revolutionary, a qualitatively different form of
power, 
 although it was a pre-electrical mechanical device. The steam engine 
introduced  into society a qualitatively different form of energy
conversion. By 
itself the  steam engine is just a steam engine. However, the steam
engine and its 
 technology expressed the quantitative addition of a new qualitative 
ingredient  that would qualitatively change society.   

Case writes in the  same article: 
"In 1829 the "Rocket" steam engine powered a passenger train  from
Manchester 
to Liverpool. And with it was born ? almost simultaneously in  the US
and 
Britain ? the explosion of iron and coal, steam, machine and power 
industries 
that again mandated the remaking of much of the old economy and 
society. New 
and much enlarged requirements for resources and changed modes of 
production 
stimulated vast imperial ambitions throughout the world."   

Further 

"The old mode of production is nearing exhaustion as a  previous 
techno-economic era matures and saturates markets. As excitement over 
the new cluster of 
technologies mounts, a frenzy of speculation follows.  Inequality
skyrockets 
as some become fabulously rich, while most fall behind.  Then comes the
crash 
as speculation pushes asset values above their real value.  After the
crash 
comes a new wave of institutional reform, regulation ? often  entire
changes of 
government, and not infrequently, social revolution."   

Our discussion, at least from my point of view is on the form of  
organization of society, state, the party, etc. The productive forces
are  qualitatively 
different in 2009 American than 1920 Russia. The computer is 
qualitatively 
different - not a quantitative enhancement of the type writer or 
mechanical 
adding machine, or anything else that existed in 1920 Russia.  

By the way, I have mentioned several times that I have read and studied
 
Political Affairs - on and off, for a solid 30 years and gave my
Political  
Affairs (1938 roughly to 1980) to General B, when I moved to Atlanta
Georgia in  
1981. (I also gave a comrade in Alabama my Collected Works of Stalin). 



^^

What makes you think that the "party as party,"  would  intervene in
state 
decisions that had no nationwide significance  or that did not  involve

foreign 
affairs? 

^^^
CB: What makes  you think it wouldn't ? (smile)

***********

WL: Because it is  redundant and added work that would simply be a 
bureaucratic distortion.  

^^^^
At minimum the role of the state is going to be a  lot  different in 
America and this is based on our level of development of  the 
productive 
forces; 

^^^
CB: Why ? Why does the level of  development of the productive forces
change 
the role of the state with respect  to them ?

^^^^
infrastructure and communications and so on. We do not  need a 
"party-state" 
or state form of organization that runs  production.

^^^
CB: Why not ?

^^^
Nor do we need  a  
"party-state" form of organization to build schools or hospitals.  

^^
CB: What about future schools and hospitals  ?

^^^^

The Central Committee of the party would not be interested  in new -
future, 
hospital and school construction, which would clearly fall  under local

authority. Lenin's Russia had to build a modern school system 
appropriate to their 
budding industrial society. Under conditions of a chronic  labor
shortage, 
limited and scattered resources, it was imperative that the  state set
orders of 
priority. 

***************


What  Lenin  describes is merely an industrial form of organization of
people 
and  forces, at  an 
extremely low level of industrial development.. Lenin  needed such
based on  
the 
scattered character of their productive  forces. 

^^^
CB:  Concentration of the productive forces doesn't  necessarily mean
that 
there is less of a role for the Party.  Look at  China.

^^^^

WL: Not concentration of production but the very real  revolution in
the 
productive forces does in fact change the form and role  of the party
as compared 
with the role of the party in 1920 Russia. The form of  organization
must 
change. America will be less bureaucratic than 1920 and 1938  Russia.
Russia was a 
nightmare in statistical controls owing to having no  computers and
modern 
forms of communications in 1920. Our forms of economic,  social and
political 
society intercourse is increasingly post industrial. The  form and role
of the 
party must in turn change from the Leninists form.  

The CPC was not a Leninist Party, but a more than less military 
apparatus 
whose task was to fight the imperial armies. Chairman Mao could not 
apply the 
Leninist form of party organization to the concrete circumstances in 
China. 
Today CPC today is not a Leninist Party in the form of Lenin's party in
 1920. 
To what degree the CPC remains a revolutionary party remains to be
seen.  The 
deepening of the financial crisis and slow down in production, will
create  
upheaval in the party as it adjusts to the new reality in China and the
world.  
China was a semi-feudal country and most certainly an agrarian society.
In 
fact.  the majority of China today is still not urban. Henry wrote an
extensive 
article  on urbanization and China. 
 
I have no idea of exactly what the form of political organization  of
the 
proletariat will be after the conquest of power by the proletariat. The
 role of 
the state as state cannot be changed by political decree or political 
process 
as such. Only its form changes with changes in the productive forces, 
which 
is turn defines how the organization of society is shaped. The form of
the  
state as an organization of violence and class rule is in the category
of  
history and subject to a different set of laws: laws that describe and
define  
classes and property relations, that will persists in the hearts and
minds of  
people. 
 
Again, please read John Case. 
 
 
Waistline 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making

headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

_______________________________________________
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 Jan  2 15:18:55 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:18:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
Message-ID: <495E4C7F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
By Erwin Marquit ( physics professor)
  
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/7780/1/355/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My answer to the question ?Why is a philosophy of the natural
sciences needed?? will take the form of several distinct components.
Before enumerating them, I should point out that no separate Marxist
philosophy of the natural sciences exists distinct from dialectical and
historical materialism. Marxist philosophy of the natural sciences is
the methodological application of dialectical and historical materialism
to investigations in the various natural sciences. 

1. The logic of the Marxist analysis of social development is based on
the philosophical system of dialectical and historical materialism.
Dialectical and historical materialism together constitute a unitary
philosophical system. Comprehensive philosophical systems, or
worldviews, are always universal in character, embracing the spheres of
nature, society, and thought. In asserting the validity of their
philosophical system, Marx and Engels felt it necessary to demonstrate
that dialectical and historical materialism provide the universal
logical basis for understanding processes of change in the spheres of
nature and society as well as in the thought processes by which this
understanding comes about. Engels stressed this in his work on the
dialectics of nature when he wrote: ?The fact that our subjective
thought and the objective world are subject to the same laws, and,
hence, too, that in the final analysis they cannot contradict each other
in their results, but must coincide, governs absolutely our whole
theoretical thought. It is the unconscious and unconditional premise for
theoretical thought? (Engels 1987, 544). 

2. By the 1870s, Marx and Engels had essentially established the
law-governed revolutionary transformative character of the process
leading from capitalism to socialism. They had laid the theoretical
basis for a revolutionary political movement that would be needed in
this process and participated actively in its formation. Already in
1844, Marx put forth the view: ?The weapon of criticism cannot, of
course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown
by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as
it has gripped the masses? (1975, 182). An ideologically strong
revolutionary political movement is needed to bring this material force
into being. The material character of this movement was further
elaborated by Lenin in outlining the organizational character of the
party of a new type in What is to be Done? The reformist undermining of
the thesis that a revolutionary movement is necessary was based on the
mechanistic projection that the operation of dialectics of nature would
inevitably bring about the self-destruction of capitalism, making
unnecessary a class struggle oriented toward socialism. Therefore,
according to Bernstein, and later Kautsky and Hilferding, the task of
socialists was to work for reforms within the capitalist system (Azad
2005, 504). By ignoring the necessity of ideological struggle for the
cause of socialism, they effectively discarded historical and
dialectical materialism and turned dialectics of nature into a
mechanistic determinism. But the transition from capitalism to socialism
differs from previous societal transformations in that the process can
only be brought about with conscious understanding of its nature and
necessity. Life under the material conditions of existence under
capitalism serves as the source for acquisition of this consciousness
among the masses, but this acquisition cannot occur spontaneously
through economic struggles. The consciousness must be imparted to them
by the party that is guided by historical and dialectical materialism. 

3. The Hegelian Marxists, such as Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci, argued
that dialectics is not applicable to nature and that in fact its
application to nature is the source of the mechanistic determinism that
led to reformism (Azad 2005, 307, drawing on Callinicos 1976, 70). In
making this argument, they also rejected the Leninist reflection theory
of knowledge as the basis for the Marxist-Leninist concept of the
relationship between the two fundamental philosophical categories,
matter and ideas. The understanding of this relationship lies at the
heart of the Marxist concept of the scientific method. The idealist
character of this view led to giving overriding priority to the
development of a socialist consciousness while paying inadequate
attention to strengthening the material organizational basis of the
class struggle. Despite the common idealist character of their
philosophies, Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci differed considerably in their
political orientation. Although Gramsci?s philosophical inclinations
leaned toward idealism, he was in fact a Leninist in politics (Ged?
1993, 15, citing Argeri 1976, 141). 

In the latter half of the twentieth century, the effectively reformist
attempt to deny the applicability of dialectics to nature took the
additional form of separating Marx from both Engels and Lenin. Marx was
characterized affectionately as a humanist, while Engels and Lenin were
characterized as crass materialists. Supporters of this view (for
example, the well-known Israeli political scientist Shlomo Avineri)
assert unabashedly that Marx never accepted the applicability of
dialectics to nature, and that we have only Engels?s word for his
doing so. Such assertions are made in spite of the fact that Avineri and
others of that school were well aware of Marx?s letter to Kugelman in
which he wrote that ?the dialectical method? is ?the method of
dealing with matter? (27 June 1870, 528). Actually it was not
necessary, of course, for Marx to state explicitly (although clearly he
did) that dialectics applies to the sphere of nature. Hegel had already
spelled this out in his works, as did Marx himself in Capital and
elsewhere. Underlying the attempt to deny the applicability of
dialectics to nature is a strong anti-Communism that dissociates itself
from any political, organizational forms of class struggle. Reassertion
of the integrity of historical and dialectical materialism and its
applicability to nature, society, and thought strengthens the
theoretical basis for engaging in day-to-day organized political
struggle essential for opening up space for the development of a
socialist consciousness. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China




PA Editors Blog

Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh
THE WINNER OF OUR DISCONTENT
Gaza crisis: challenge and opportunity for Obama to turn the page
toward peace
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
4. One of the principal reasons for attention to dialectical
materialism by natural scientists is the clarity it brings to
understanding processes of change in all the natural sciences. I found
it an invaluable tool both in my teaching of physics and my research on
the conceptual foundations of physics. In most of the twentieth century,
the dominant philosophy of science was logical positivism, which gave
birth to the concept that basic properties in any science have to be
defined by operational definitions. The leading textbook of introductory
physics at US universities in the 1970s was Fundamentals of Physics by
David Halliday and Robert Resnick. In the 1974 edition, we read: ?One
view is that the definition of a physical quantity has been given when
the procedures for measuring that quantity are specified. This is called
the operational point of view because the definition is, at root, a set
of laboratory operations leading to a number with a unit? (1).
Although this was presented as ?one view,? no other view was
presented. Another 1970s textbook, Physics, by Chris Zafiratos, in
discussing units of time, gives an operational definition of the second
by the swings of a simple pendulum. It continues, ?In this manner the
romantic, philosophic question, ?What is time?? is ignored in favor
of a definition so that we can get on with the study of motion? (1976,
3?4). As Lenin pointed out, however, fundamental properties cannot be
defined, because if a property is fundamental, there is nothing more
fundamental with which to define it (1962, 146). In the
dialectical-materialist view, fundamental properties in a given field
are akin to philosophical categories, the building blocks of logical
thought. The meaning of fundamental properties is determined by the
interrelationships among them as expressed through the laws of the
particular scientific field invoking them. In reality, operational
definitions in physics are not definitions at all, but procedures for
standardizing the units in which they are measured. Largely as a result
of the Marxist critique of logical positivism, operational definitions
began to fade away from physics textbooks, as did logical positivism
itself. 

Another change in the direction of the Marxist dialectical
understanding is the change in the textbook statements about the subject
matter of physics ? from characterizing it as the study of invariances
(that is, the unchanging character) of matter to the increasingly
current characterization as the study of changes in the physical world.


Prior to the 1920s, the concept of causality in physics was based on
the principle that a single cause produces a single effect. With the
emergence of quantum physics in the 1920s, this principle was thrown
into confusion because it turned out that a single cause could produce a
variety of effects. The outcome of a precisely established experimental
process could not be predicted uniquely, but only statistically. This
seemed to invalidate the philosophical principle of determinism. Marxist
physicists ? Paul Langevin in France, Vladimir Fock in the Soviet
Union, and Mituo Taketani in Japan ? showed that a materialist concept
of determinism was not locked into what was essentially the mechanistic
principle that a single cause produces a single effect. They
demonstrated that acceptance of statistical laws as fundamental laws of
physics is still an expression of determinism consistent with a
materialist outlook (for details, see Freire 1995, and H?rz et al. 1980,
83?114). 

In the 1920s, the famous Marxist biochemist Joseph Needham introduced
in biology the philosophical and methodological concept that is
designated today as levels of organization and integration of matter.
For example, in physics we now have fields of specialization called
elementary particle physics, nuclear physics, atomic physics, molecular
physics, solid-state physics, etc. In the dialectical-materialist view,
each level of organization and integration of matter represents a
qualitative transformation from the level below it. Each level requires
study for its own laws of behavior; this is an understanding quite
opposite to the mechanistic reductionism that sought to explain the
sciences by seeking the simplest parts of a physical system and basing
its laws on them. The Marxist critique of racist theories of
intelligence argues that attempts to factor out the cultural component
of intelligence from the genetic component represent an incompatible
mixing of the genetic level of the human being with the social level. 

A dialectical-materialist content is reflected in any progress
scientists make in moving the theory of a natural science forward,
whether or not all scientists are conscious of it. A notable example of
this is in Isaac Newton?s concept of inertial mass. Newton?s
mechanics have long been considered the principal source of mechanistic
thought. Yet he quantifies the (inertial) mass of a physical body by
asserting its proportionality to the inertial resistance to a change in
motion in the presence of an external force. In this way, he establishes
the meaning of (inertial) mass by relating it to the interaction of two
opposing forces. In his reasoning, he uses the Aristotelian dialectic of
the realization of the actual from the potential by asserting that this
inertial resistance (which he called ?vis insita, or innate force of
matter?) ?only exerts this force when another force, impressed upon
it, endeavors to change its condition? (Newton 1934, 1:2; for a more
detailed discussion, see Marquit 1990). 

5. Philosophy of the natural sciences is also needed because of the
interconnection between the natural sciences and societal development.
This interconnection exists, of course, whether or not natural
scientists concern themselves with it. The problem is that natural
scientists, in their education and work, tend to ignore this
interconnection and focus intensely and narrowly on their particular
fields of theory and practice, oblivious to the consequences of their
work on other fields. Consider, for example, the Green Revolution, a
development in agricultural technology that increased agricultural
production in many developing countries. Its application, however, also
contributed to the growth of surplus rural populations that migrated to
cities with no plan to absorb them, resulting in huge slums. 

One can cite numerous scientific and technological advances that when
introduced into the economy subsequently endangered human life ? most
notably through the destruction of the physical environment. In
particular, inadequately tested new materials and chemicals have been
introduced with toxic properties causing tragic results. How does this
come about? 

Initial answers to this question may be to fault regulatory agencies
and to cite the absence of regulatory legislation that would require
adequate testing before the products are approved for use. While
regulatory legislation requiring adequate testing is an absolute
necessity, the initiative for signaling such testing should be built
into the scientific methodology employed by the scientists involved in
the development. But this is not done. A major reason for this
disastrous omission is that educational and research institutions in
most cases relegate philosophy to the social sciences, and in doing so
isolate philosophy in a separate department. Philosophical research in
the natural sciences is then perceived as a diversion from actual
sciences. Instead, philosophy should be integrated into the individual
disciplines of the social and natural sciences. 

The failure to integrate philosophy into each discipline deprives
natural scientists of intimate contact with the conceptual foundations
of their sciences. They are left ignorant of understanding the broad
scope of the interconnections of their fields with other fields unless
they happen to self-educated in the philosophical literature concerning
their fields as well as in philosophy in general. 

The problem here is that when research in philosophy of physics is
carried out by philosophers in a philosophy department, the tendency is
to view the results of such research as a contribution to philosophy.
Benefits of this research are effectively confined to other
philosophers, who are not those doing the science. In contrast, when a
physicist deals with philosophical problems of physics, it is not in
order to make a contribution to philosophy, but rather to apply
philosophical knowledge to the understanding of physics. The narrowness
that is inevitably associated with mechanistic applications of science
and technology can only be overcome by incorporating awareness of the
dialectical interconnections among the sciences into the education and
work of natural scientists. 

Conclusion 

Dialectical and historical materialism came into being as a
philosophical system because Marx and Engels needed it to uncover the
evolutionary process guiding societal transition from capitalism to
communism. With this tool, they were able to unravel the political
economy of capitalist production, especially the source of capitalist
profit; and to establish the interconnection between the material
conditions of life and the consciousness that arises from these
conditions. They recognized that imparting this knowledge to the working
class and its allies would give them an indispensable weapon: the
understanding that the revolutionary transformation from capitalism to
socialism is conditioned on the development of an ideologically alert
mass movement aware of its historical mission. Their studies of the
natural sciences enabled them to show how the development of the
material forces of production (natural resources, tools, and labor),
integrated with empirical and scientific knowledge about them, lies at
the heart of societal change. 

The spheres of nature, society, and thought all enter into Marx and
Engels?s theoretical analyses. In laying the foundations of
dialectical and historical materialism, Marx and Engels gave natural
scientists, as well as social scientists, a most valuable methodological
tool for research in the individual disciplines and demonstrated the
danger of ignoring interconnections among the various fields of the
natural and social sciences. 

--Erwin Marquit is Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of
Minnesota, and a contributing editor of Political Affairs. This paper
was presented in abbreviated form at Communist University of Britain
2008, Croydon, London, 18 October 2008. 

REFERENCE LIST 

Azad, Bahman. 2005. ?The Scientific Basis of the Vanguard Party of
the Proletariat.? Nature, Society, and Thought 18, no. 4:303?33. 

Callinicos, Alex. 1976. Althusser?s Marxism. London: Pluto Press. 

Colletti, Lucio. 1972. From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and
Society. London: New Left Books. 

Engels, Frederick. 1987. Dialectics of Nature. In vol. 25 of Collected
Works, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 311?588. New York:
International Publishers. 

Freire, Olival Jr. 1995. ?Dialectical Materialism and the Quantum
Controversy: The Viewpoints of Fock, Langevin, and Taketani.? Nature,
Society, and Thought 8, no. 3:309?25 

Ged?, Andr?s. 1993. ?Gramsci?s Path through the Tension between
?Absolute Historicism? and Materialist Dialectics: Marxism as
Historical Philosophy.? Nature, Society, and Thought 6, no. 1:7?40.


Halliday, David, and Robert Resnick. 1974. Fundamentals of Physics.
Revised printing. New York: Wiley. 

H?rz, Herbert et al. 1980. Philosophical Problems in Physical Science.
Minneapolis: Marxist Educational Press. 

Lenin, V. I. 1962. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Vol. 14 of
Collected Works. Reprint 1972. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 

Marquit, Erwin. 1990. ?A Plea for a Correct Translation of Newton's
Law of Inertia.? American Journal of Physics 57 (September): 867?70.


Marx, Karl. 1975. ?Contribution to the Critique of Hegel?s
Philosophy of Law.? In vol. 3 of Collected Works, by Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, 3?129. New York: International Publishers. 

???. 1988. Letter to Kugelman, 27 June 1870. In vol. 43 of
Collected Works, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 527?28. New York:
International Publishers. 

Newton, Isaac. 1934. Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy. 2 vols. Translated by Andrew Motte, revised
translation by Florian Cajori. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press,
1934. 

Zafiratos, Chris. 1976. Physics. New York: Wiley.  



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  2 15:25:02 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:25:02 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] C C as "oligarchy";
	Henry, &	Lenin/Tech	Revolution is real
In-Reply-To: <495E4A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <c0d.45a69b6d.368fe617@aol.com>
	<495E4A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <495E4DEE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

The thing is in defining a revolution ( as opposed to an evolution) is
to get a concept of qualitative change, of quantity turning into
qualitity, the dialectical leap.  A dialectical analysis must be of a
contradiction. In this case, since this is a Marxist understanding of
"technology" , we look to Marx's elementary analysis of "technology",
i.e. machines.

CB

>>> "Charles Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> 01/02/2009 5:08 PM
>>>


>>> <Waistline2 at aol.com>
In a message dated 1/2/2009 12:08:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
Lenin writes about "important question  faced by state institutions"
and the  
role of the Central Committee.  What we do know is that any
organization of  
production in America is  going to based on an entirely different
level
of  
development of the  productive forces. If fact the level of
development
of 
the  
productive  forces are qualitatively different that what existed when
Lenin 
wrote   
"Left Wing." 

^^^
CB: What is the qualitative difference in the  level of development of
the 
productive forces ?  

There may be two  or three different "levels of development" of the 
productive forces since  Lenin's day, but at any rate , how is it that
these 
differences mean that there  is a difference on the question of the
role of the state 
with respect to  production ?

********
Comment

The below is taken from the CPUSA  Journal Political Affairs. 

^^^
CB: My analysis of the current scientific and technological revolution
- discussed a few years ago here on Marxism-Thaxis is  based on
extending the logic that Marx developed in _Capital_ I in the chapters
on machines and factories. 

Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value

Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value 
Ch. 13: Co-operation 
Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture 
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry 

Marx noted a two "pronged" process: 1) greater cooperation, i.e.
formation of factories, increased local socialization of labor, and
2)machines. In the late 20th Century, the revolution in machine
technology, with a revolution in communication and transportation,
including the development of computers, robots, containerization, mass
trucking, just in time delivery, et al., the overall tendency to
"cooperation" , bigger and bigger factories, and factory towns was
negated and reversed, turned into its opposite. The points of
production
were scattered geographically and thinned inside factories.  This is a
dialectical negation of the negation , qualitative change, a
revolution,
a dialectical leap, because one aspect of the contradiction - machines
-
negates the other aspect -cooperation.

^^^^

"Lets extend Engels a bit and attempt to  define a technological
revolution 
in the historical materialist spirit as  follows (borrowing some
elements from 
Venezuelan technology expert Carlota  Perez). 

"A technological revolution," she writes, "can be defined as a 
powerful and 
highly visible cluster of new and dynamic technologies, products  and 
industries, capable of bringing about an upheaval in the whole fabric
of the  economy 
and of propelling a long-term upsurge of development. It is a strongly


interrelated constellation of technological innovations, generally
including an  
important all-pervasive low-cost input, often a source of energy,
sometimes a  
crucial material, plus significant new products and processes and a
new
 
infrastructure. The latter usually changes the frontier in speed and
reliability  of 
transportation and communications, while drastically reducing their
cost."  

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773 

By 2030  no one is going to be unclear  about the revolutionary
-qualitative, 
 changes in the productive forces. Our society is clearly under going
"an  
upheaval in the whole fabric of the economy and of propelling a
long-term  
upsurge of development." Our mode of production is undergoing
revolution due to  
the systematic, quantitative addition of a new qualitatively different


technology.  

May I suggest reading John Case article in Political  Affairs, in its 
entirety. He outlines the waves of quantitative expansion in the 
boundary of the 
industrial system and the current qualitative changes in the 
productive forces. 
His first sub head is: The Industrial Revolution, 1771-1829  
Later he writes: 



"In 1971, the Intel microprocessor was made  public in Santa Clara, 
California. Today, every science is also computer  science. Itself an
outgrowth of the 
previous generation's electrical,  information and materials research
? the 
microprocessor introduced cheap  electronics, then computers, then
software, 
then telecommunications, then  control instrumentation, then
biotechnology, and 
further revolutions in  materials science. Massive infrastructure
investments 
in fiber optics networks,  satellite and cable global systems; the
Internet, 
e-mail, and other e-services;  multiple source electrical networks,
higher-speed 
physical transport links by  land, air and water ? have again
changed

occupations, lifestyles, demographics ?  all social relations ?
across the  world."
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773 

The  steam engine was revolutionary, a qualitatively different form of
power, 
 although it was a pre-electrical mechanical device. The steam engine 
introduced  into society a qualitatively different form of energy
conversion. By 
itself the  steam engine is just a steam engine. However, the steam
engine and its 
 technology expressed the quantitative addition of a new qualitative 
ingredient  that would qualitatively change society.   

Case writes in the  same article: 
"In 1829 the "Rocket" steam engine powered a passenger train  from
Manchester 
to Liverpool. And with it was born ? almost simultaneously in  the
US
and 
Britain ? the explosion of iron and coal, steam, machine and power 
industries 
that again mandated the remaking of much of the old economy and 
society. New 
and much enlarged requirements for resources and changed modes of 
production 
stimulated vast imperial ambitions throughout the world."   

Further 

"The old mode of production is nearing exhaustion as a  previous 
techno-economic era matures and saturates markets. As excitement over 
the new cluster of 
technologies mounts, a frenzy of speculation follows.  Inequality
skyrockets 
as some become fabulously rich, while most fall behind.  Then comes
the
crash 
as speculation pushes asset values above their real value.  After the
crash 
comes a new wave of institutional reform, regulation ? often  entire
changes of 
government, and not infrequently, social revolution."   

Our discussion, at least from my point of view is on the form of  
organization of society, state, the party, etc. The productive forces
are  qualitatively 
different in 2009 American than 1920 Russia. The computer is 
qualitatively 
different - not a quantitative enhancement of the type writer or 
mechanical 
adding machine, or anything else that existed in 1920 Russia.  

By the way, I have mentioned several times that I have read and
studied
 
Political Affairs - on and off, for a solid 30 years and gave my
Political  
Affairs (1938 roughly to 1980) to General B, when I moved to Atlanta
Georgia in  
1981. (I also gave a comrade in Alabama my Collected Works of Stalin).




^^

What makes you think that the "party as party,"  would  intervene in
state 
decisions that had no nationwide significance  or that did not 
involve

foreign 
affairs? 

^^^
CB: What makes  you think it wouldn't ? (smile)

***********

WL: Because it is  redundant and added work that would simply be a 
bureaucratic distortion.  

^^^^
At minimum the role of the state is going to be a  lot  different in 
America and this is based on our level of development of  the 
productive 
forces; 

^^^
CB: Why ? Why does the level of  development of the productive forces
change 
the role of the state with respect  to them ?

^^^^
infrastructure and communications and so on. We do not  need a 
"party-state" 
or state form of organization that runs  production.

^^^
CB: Why not ?

^^^
Nor do we need  a  
"party-state" form of organization to build schools or hospitals.  

^^
CB: What about future schools and hospitals  ?

^^^^

The Central Committee of the party would not be interested  in new -
future, 
hospital and school construction, which would clearly fall  under
local

authority. Lenin's Russia had to build a modern school system 
appropriate to their 
budding industrial society. Under conditions of a chronic  labor
shortage, 
limited and scattered resources, it was imperative that the  state set
orders of 
priority. 

***************


What  Lenin  describes is merely an industrial form of organization of
people 
and  forces, at  an 
extremely low level of industrial development.. Lenin  needed such
based on  
the 
scattered character of their productive  forces. 

^^^
CB:  Concentration of the productive forces doesn't  necessarily mean
that 
there is less of a role for the Party.  Look at  China.

^^^^

WL: Not concentration of production but the very real  revolution in
the 
productive forces does in fact change the form and role  of the party
as compared 
with the role of the party in 1920 Russia. The form of  organization
must 
change. America will be less bureaucratic than 1920 and 1938  Russia.
Russia was a 
nightmare in statistical controls owing to having no  computers and
modern 
forms of communications in 1920. Our forms of economic,  social and
political 
society intercourse is increasingly post industrial. The  form and
role
of the 
party must in turn change from the Leninists form.  

The CPC was not a Leninist Party, but a more than less military 
apparatus 
whose task was to fight the imperial armies. Chairman Mao could not 
apply the 
Leninist form of party organization to the concrete circumstances in 
China. 
Today CPC today is not a Leninist Party in the form of Lenin's party
in
 1920. 
To what degree the CPC remains a revolutionary party remains to be
seen.  The 
deepening of the financial crisis and slow down in production, will
create  
upheaval in the party as it adjusts to the new reality in China and
the
world.  
China was a semi-feudal country and most certainly an agrarian
society.
In 
fact.  the majority of China today is still not urban. Henry wrote an
extensive 
article  on urbanization and China. 
 
I have no idea of exactly what the form of political organization  of
the 
proletariat will be after the conquest of power by the proletariat.
The
 role of 
the state as state cannot be changed by political decree or political 
process 
as such. Only its form changes with changes in the productive forces, 
which 
is turn defines how the organization of society is shaped. The form of
the  
state as an organization of violence and class rule is in the category
of  
history and subject to a different set of laws: laws that describe and
define  
classes and property relations, that will persists in the hearts and
minds of  
people. 
 
Again, please read John Case. 
 
 
Waistline 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is
making

headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

_______________________________________________
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 Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 16:21:34 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:21:34 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] C C as "oligarchy";
	Henry, & Lenin/Tech Revolution is real
Message-ID: <cfc.4a8b19f3.368ffb7e@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/2/2009 5:25:28 P.M. Eastern  Standard Time, 
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
The thing is in  defining a revolution ( as opposed to an evolution) is
to get a concept of  qualitative change, of quantity turning into
qualitity, the dialectical  leap.  A dialectical analysis must be of a
contradiction. In this case,  since this is a Marxist understanding of
"technology" , we look to Marx's  elementary analysis of "technology",
i.e. machines.

CB

Comment  


Quantity can never turn into quality. Since quantity is abstract and  we are 
ALWYAS speaking of something real, the real thing that is being spoken of  - 
in this case the productive forces, must be explained. The productive forces  
cannot change qualitatively with a simple or gigantic addition of the same  
thing. 
 
It is not possible. 
 
For instance if we added a million gallons of water into an existing  million 
gallons of water this will not in itself produce a qualitative change in  the 
state of water. On the other hand if one introduces a new quality into or in  
the environment of the water - fire, heat, cold, a change occurs in the state 
of  water. 

When the steam engine was invented, this introduced a new thing - quality,  
into the energy sources of the existing infrastructure and production. 
 
For an existing quality to change a new ingredient MUST be introduced  or 
taken away. 
 
THE QAUNTITATIVE ADDITION, OF A NEW QUALITY, ALTERS AND BEGINS THE  
QUALITATIVE CHANGES in the productive forces. The new quality is added -  injected 
into, the existing quality - productive forces and because it is a new  quality, 
the expansion of the productive forces, on the old basis comes to an  end. Not 
all at one time. 
 
 
Waistline 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 17:07:41 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:07:41 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] China, Vietnam settle border dispute
Message-ID: <cda.4390ef22.3690064d@aol.com>

America's hot war with the people of Vietnam  ended in 1975. 

Does this mean that the Vietnam was era has finally come  to a close?  

WL
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 17:29:18 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:29:18 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Birth of American financial imperialism. A
	Primer (1)
Message-ID: <c62.3e9c838d.36900b5e@aol.com>





The Birth of American financial imperialism: A Worker Primer .  
 
The nature of money and the role of finance has been a controversial issue  
since the founding of America. 
 
?Jefferson prophesied: ?If the American people allow the banks to control  
the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the  
banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive people of 
all  property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their 
 fathers occupied ... The issuing power of money should be taken from the 
banks  and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.? 
 
?Jefferson's opposition to the establishment of a national bank was the  
focus of his overall opposition to the entire Hamiltonian program of strong  
central government and elite financial leadership. Jefferson felt that a  national 
bank would give a small group of elite private investors, mostly from  the New 
England states, excessive power over the national economy with unfair  
opportunities for large certain profits.? _http://henryckliu.com/page71.html_ 
(http://henryckliu.com/page71.html) 
 

At our very beginnings, America was basically a Southern country with  the 
South being the economic, social and political center of gravity for the  whole 
country. 
The South had a stranglehold on political power and was  called the slave 
power because of the ?Constitutional Provision? that counted  slaves as 3/5 of a 
person for appropriating representation in Congress. The  South - slave 
Oligarchy, dominated and wrote the economic and political agenda  for capital and 
the whole country. However the South?s interest were not the  only financial 
interest in the country. 
 
Northern manufacturing and financial capital was dependent upon slavery and  
the manufacturing that resulted from it. The ?good things in life,? the  
luxuries, came from England but all the necessary things of life came from the  
North. As manufacturing took off and the North passed into revolution from  
manufacturing to industrial production, the growing producing power of the North  
outran the consuming power of the South. Thirsty for profits, and seeking to  
deploy its expanding productive power, Northern industrial-financial capital  
would seek out new markets for their commodities and government policy to aid  
its economic development. Everywhere and on virtually everything North and 
South  collided. For instance, the Northern industrial-finance capitalists 
wanted the  new territories to be free market economy with wage earners that could 
purchase  their goods and land speculation.
 
South-North economic antagonism led to early and sharp political struggles  
within Congress, government and the country as a whole as the largest slave  
owners drove government to meet its demands, which more often than not ran  
counter to the developmental needs of the budding Northern industrial and  
financial capitalists. These Northern interests were never purely ?industrial  
interest,? but also the interest of financiers of the New England States. 
 
Northern industrial-finance capital needed financing for infrastructure  
development to connect eastern markets to western markets because most commerce  
was transported by river boats along rivers running North-South. Further, there 
 was millions to be made in opening free states to land speculation and 
railway  financing. 
 
Capitalism in agriculture, free labor or slave labor, never reckoned with  
agrarian ecology because the land is cultivated for profits - exchange, rather  
than direct consumption. Large scale cotton and tobacco production is even  
harsher on the land and ecology, requiring constant expansion into fresh  
cultivatable land. America dominated and run by the Slave Oligarchy was an  
expansionist and brutal imperialist society. 
 
Land and slaves comprised the bulk of southern capital. Liquid forms of  
wealth like specie (gold, silver) or paper currency were hard to come by in a  
predominantly agrarian region. Southern capital needed financing for land  
cultivation, purchase of slaves, land expansion and wars of aggression; and to  
purchase many necessities of life. 
 
The Northern industrial-financial interests wanted tariffs on overseas  
products to protect its markets against low cost producers. The South opposed  such 
tariffs because it amounted to a tax on its purchasing power.  ?Why  should 
we pay more for goods in taxes, when these taxes go towards Northern  
industrial development,? was the political Slave Oligarchy?s thinking and  behavior. 
The slave oligarchy screamed ?bloody murder? against the rising  industrial 
and financial oligarchy in the North. Individuals are driven my ideas  and 
concepts, but more often than not, policy struggles and clashes in  government 
contains underlying economic interests.  
 
Interestingly, all the robber barons of this pre-Civil War era were members  
of the new Republican Party, which throughout history has represented big  
business and finance. 
 
Although many would blame the tariffs, abolitionists, Northern arrogance  and 
Southern pride, etc., for causing the Civil War - ?the War of the  Rebellion,?
 the result of these sector differences in capital, when combined  with 
something else - (the fact that the slave system was hostile to free market  
capitalism because it lived and thrived off of slave labor rather than wage  labor), 
is the economic ?tension? at the base of the war.  In this sense  slavery, 
rather than the slave,  was the cause of the Civil War. 
 
In summary, the Slave Oligarchy dominated the Senate, Supreme Court and  
Presidency and refused to pass harbor, railroad, canal and tariff  appropriations. 
Such legislation was necessary to the growth of the Northern  industry, but 
not in the interest of the slave-owning agricultural South. The  new industrial 
productive forces in the North came into conflict with the  productive 
relations of slavery in the South . . . . and these two forms of  capital could no 
longer co-exist as a unity.
 
Imperialism the last stage of capitalism means the domination of finance -  
banking, capital over industrial capital, national government, the state and 
all  of society. In as much as America was Southern in its economic and 
political  centers of gravity; and the financial regime of the North came to dominate  
through and on the basis of the Civil War, the South became the first 
financial  colony of the North. 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 18:00:24 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:00:24 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] American financial imperialism: Rise of
	Rockefeller (3)
Message-ID: <d3c.35dd9019.369012a8@aol.com>

Money, Power and Modern Art
PART II: A  Monetary Coup d'etat

By Henry C K Liu 




The rise of  Rockefeller

In 1868, John D Rockefeller struck a major deal with a  railroad, 
guaranteeing a certain volume of shipments in exchange for rebates.  The first of many, 
this deal was made with Jay Gould, owner of the Erie  Railroad. The financial 
importance of controlling railroads was highlighted by  the meteoric success of 
Rockefeller, who in 1871 struck secret deals with the  oil-transporting 
railroads to not only give him rebates on the oil he shipped  but also to pay him 
drawbacks on shipments by rival oil refineries. The  refineries that were 
driven into bankruptcy and the oil drillers who were forced  to accept whatever 
distressed price Rockefeller offered described him as a  ruthless monster, 
although the methods Rockefeller used were common practice at  the time. All the 
victims would not have hesitated to do what they denounced  Rockefeller for doing 
if they had the foresight and discipline to do it.  Rockefeller nevertheless 
became the lightning rod for the scandal surrounding  the South Improvement Co 
scheme, a secret alliance between major refiners of  which Rockefeller was 
one of several and the railroads. By March 1872, the  33-year-old Rockefeller 
had used this special relationship with the railroads  and iniquitous financial 
tactics to take over 22 of the 26 refineries in  Cleveland. Known as the 
Cleveland Massacre, this was the first step in his rise  to unprecedented 
industrial supremacy. 

Rockefeller created the original  "trust" and after the state of Ohio 
outlawed the trust corporate structure, he  engineered a change in New Jersey laws 
and moved to New Jersey in 1889 to form a  giant holding company by the name of 
Standard Oil of New Jersey. Standard Oil  employed a number of cutthroat 
business practices, including monopolization,  buying up all the components needed 
for the manufacture of oil barrels in order  to deny competitors the means of 
getting their oil to the market; waging rate  wars by cutting the price of oil 
temporarily to force smaller competitors who  could not sustain the 
short-term losses out of business; insisting on rebates on  public rates offered by the 
railroads; and using intimidation by dispatching  thugs to break up 
competitors' operations that could not otherwise be  controlled. Often, Rockefeller did 
not personally partake in unethical conducts.  His style was merely to lay 
down a corporate objective and leave it to his  zealously aggressive managers to 
achieve the result by whatever means. Thus by  focusing on the positive 
vision while isolating himself from the dirty tasks  needed to achieve that vision, 
Rockefeller was able to believe honestly that he  did no wrong and created 
much good. It's the "breaking eggs to make omelet"  argument. The holding 
company expanded beyond oil by acquiring, with oil  profits, ownership of railroads, 
iron and copper mines, public utilities,  shipping, communication and real 
estate. 

In Rockefeller's eyes, the  state of the oil business was chaotic and 
wasteful. Because entry costs were low  in both oil drilling and oil refining, the 
market was glutted with crude oil due  to overcapacity accompanied with high 
levels of waste and redundancy. In his  view, free competition worked only at the 
infancy of an industry when a dominant  firm had not emerged. Free 
competition ceased to work well as soon as a few very  large, efficient firms emerged 
amid many medium and small inefficient firms. His  view was that the financially 
weak and badly managed firms, or evenly  well-managed small firms that were 
structurally inefficient due to their small  size, in their desperate attempts 
to survive drove prices down below production  costs, hurting not only 
themselves but even the well-managed and  well-capitalized large firms such as his 
own. This is an insight that is still  applicable to globalized trade today in 
the so-called race-to-the-bottom effect.  

Rockefeller's solution was an oligarchic-controlled market with a few  large, 
vertically integrated firms to bring order into the growing industry.  This 
was a pattern into which other industrial sectors eventually also evolved.  
This pattern of consolidation launched the US economy as a world power. The  
success of the industrial nationalization programs in the early history of the  
Soviet Union was modeled after the Rockefeller scheme of central planning and  
control, with the exception of state ownership replacing private ownership.  
Similarly, the economic miracle of the Third Reich was modeled after the  
Rockefeller vision of orderly markets with no wasteful competition and  redundancy. 
Notwithstanding the neo-liberal myth of the linkage between free  competition 
and growth, the American system was built by monopolies. Even today,  with a 
century of antitrust efforts, every industry in the US is dominated by  two or 
three major players who manage to fix prices and wages without the need  of 
direct collusion, with a spattering of inconsequential minor companies  
tolerated for appearance' sake. 

http://henryckliu.com/page71.html  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 18:02:42 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:02:42 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] American financial imperialism: Rise of
	Finance capital (2)
Message-ID: <ca8.3e423913.36901332@aol.com>



II 
 

During the process of the Civil War, both sides needed guns, clothes,  boots, 
food and all kinds of products to conduct the war and this required  
production facilities and expanding existing ones. This expansion required  financing. 
Wall Street banks and financiers provided the financing for the war,  
momentarily financing both sides, although the North benefited the most, because  it 
had access to capital markets. The Civil War cost the federal government over  
$3 billion. War demands and its financing excited the explosive growth of  
Northern industries. In a real since American financial imperialism arose on the 
 basis of war financing and its techniques which are still used to this day. 
 
Wall Street bankers and financiers accumulated an unheard amount of money  
through and on the basis of the Civil War. Wall Street finance imperialism  
(Yankee Imperialism), as distinct from the previous forms of American  
imperialism, began buying up the South?s plantations, dominating not only the  defeated 
South but the Northern industrialists. There would be notably  industrial 
magnates to ?hold outs? and try to avoid this new domination - like  Henry Ford 
Sr., whose early experience with the banks he never forgot. In the  end ?
finance-industrial capital? proved absolute.   
 
Before the war, finance- banking capital, was dominated by and depended  upon 
industry and the slave system for its profits. Although our history is  
written to say America became an imperialist power in 1898 as the result of the  
Spanish-American war and ?acquiring? Cuba and Puerto Rico by force, this is not 
 the whole story. The Slave Oligarchy with it?s strangle hold on government 
was  ?expansionists,? if not brutally imperialist, seizing Texas in 1845 and 
half of  Mexico?s territory in the American-Mexican War (1846-1848).  
The  economic impulse for this imperial expansion was the slave system. 
 
After the war this relationship between various sectors of capital was  
changed with the defeat of the Slave power. Because the slave oligarchy?s  capital 
was tied up in land and slaves, with some $ 4 billion in slaves,  emancipation 
meant destruction of the slave oligarchy as a class. With the slave  power 
wiped from history and its capital ?gone with the wind,? the industrialist  
little by little fell under the domination of Wall Street finance capital. 
 
What only a few years earlier was Northern industrial-financial capital  with 
its distinct economic and political polices, was now being stood on its  
head. Whereas before, the distinct economic policy of Northern  
industrial-financial capital was the export of commodities - (products), with  the financial 
elite financing industry and slavery, now emerged a relationship  where the 
financial elite would rapidly come to dominated industry. National  policy was 
increasingly dominated by financial-industrial concerns whose  distinct policy was 
the export of money: the buying up of land, productive  forces and its 
financing throughout the Western hemisphere.   
 
Still smarting from its horrific defeat on the battlefield; deprived of its  
capital and facing a land of freed slaves and small farmers eager to start a 
new  life, the shattered slave oligarchy rushed into the waiting arms of the  
financial-industrial elite. 
 
This new form of American imperialism would consolidate itself politically  
on the basis of the Hayes-Tiden Agreement of 1876, with the defeated Southern  
planters serving as their most chauvinistic lapdogs. This new economic  
relationship had found its front men. This political relation and its expression  in 
Congress persists - more than less, now and again shifting with shifts in the 
 form of capital and changes in the productive forces, to this very day. 
 
Interestingly and owing to the peculiarity of American history, the large  
monopoly corporations that would come into existence and flourish in all the  
advanced capitalist countries during and after the 1890s, were early  
consolidated by our financial elite, standing upon their feet in the new  century.  
 
Wall Street - finance capital, controlled the South and the South  controlled 
the country. This control would no longer be exercised on the basis  of the 
constitutional provision making slaves 3/5 of a person for purposes of  
representation, but by segregating and excluding blacks from voting rights for  the 
next 90 years.   
 
Fifty years after the emergence of Wall Street financial-industrial  
imperialism, Lenin would write of finance capital: 
 
?Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the  
dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established; in which the  export 
of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of  the 
world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all  
territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been  completed.
? 
 
(Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1870-1924, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of  
Capitalism, Chapter 7 - 1916)."

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 20:15:24 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:15:24 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901021915x1ee56da3x64c02cee85889e3f@mail.gmail.com>

To summarise the discussion so far, as I understand it:

Hudson hasn't had an original idea since the first Nixon
administration era, and like most of the people on A-List, full of
shit.
Lenin is dead, and hasn't had a chance to update his work lately.
And HCKL has never had an original idea in his life and for the most
part mixes economics, financial magic-speak and gobbledegook into
unreadable prose, some of which impresses people, like the assholes on
A-list.

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 21:25:44 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:25:44 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] speculative stock market dominates the policies of
	businesses.
Message-ID: <d06.48b39ee8.369042c8@aol.com>


American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market  dominates
the policies of businesses.
 
by Lawrence E Mitchell
 
AlterNet (December 22 2008)
 
Editor's Note: The following is an edited excerpt from The  Speculation
Economy:  How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007),  Lawrence
Mitchell's definitive history of the rise of American finance  and
analysis of how it shaped corporate behavior in the modern era.
 

During the rise of the "speculation economy" in the early years of  the
20th century, business' focus on production was replaced with  business
management's focus on stock prices.
 
That goal might be consistent with healthy, sustainable and  responsible
business practices, but it also might not be. Understanding the  complex
development of American corporate capitalism can help us better  improve
and sustain the strength of the American economy.
 
While our current economic crisis is frequently compared to that of  the
Great Depression, its roots and causes go further back in history -  to
the development of the modern American stock market at the turn of  the
20th century.
 
Contrary to popular belief, the public market for industrial  securities
didn't finance industrialization - industrialization had already  taken
place. Instead, it exploded into existence as a result of  trust
promoters and investment bankers trying to restrain competition  through
the creation of giant combinations of corporations and at the same  time
getting rich quick by dumping the overvalued securities of these  giant
corporate behemoths onto an emerging middle class eager to share the  wealth.
 
The first major industrial stock market crash followed fast on the  heels
of its birth.
 
The formative era of American corporate capitalism took place  between
1897 and 1919. The American business landscape of the late 19th  century
had been characterized by independent factories. No matter what  their
size, they typically were owned by entrepreneur industrialists,  their
families and perhaps a few business associates.
 
But in the first decades of the 20th century, American  business
transformed into a vista of giant combinations of industrial  plants
owned directly and indirectly by widely dispersed shareholders.
 
Business reasons sometimes justified these combinations. But they  might
never have come into being if financiers and promoters had  not
discovered that they could be used to create and sell massive amounts  of
stock for their own gain.
 
The result is a form of capitalism in which a speculative stock  market
dominated the policies of American business. The result is  the
speculation economy.
 
Historians have studied virtually every aspect of the Progressive  Era,
including the social and philosophical changes that took place  in
Americans' ways of living and thinking about their world, the  dramatic
technological and economic developments that occurred, the rise of  big
business, the growth in importance of the federal government, the  fitful
creation of American industrial policy, the establishment of the  bargain
between labor and capital, the changes in political relations  between
government and big business, the development of new styles of  regulation
and America's assumption of its turn as the world's dominant  economic
power. Many have provided rich pictures of different aspects of  the
dramatic and related economic, social and political transformations  that
occurred during that period.
 
The story I tell in The Speculation Economy:  How Finance Triumphed  Over
Industry (2007) is the economic equivalent of the political creation  of
the republic. It is a story that needs to be told for many reasons,  not
least of which is that the corporate economy that emerged during  this
era has been beset with problems ranging from short-term  management
horizons that can damage the long-term health of business to  the
increasing willingness of corporate managers to "externalize" the  costs
of production for the benefit of their stockholders.
 
A recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations  revealed
that almost eighty percent would have at least moderately  mutilated
their businesses in order to meet financial analysts' quarterly  profit
estimates.
 
Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising  and
maintenance, and delaying hiring and new projects are some of  the
long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations.  Why?
Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to  meet
quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to  the
corporation's stock price.
 
One lesson of the formative period is that meaningful reform can  be
achieved only by reforming the market, by reforming finance itself  to
create the incentives for stockholders, and through them the market,  to
re-learn the lesson that profits come from industrial production,  not
from the breeze that blows toward tomorrow. It is a lesson that  was
often forgotten during these early years, and many times since.
 
Finally, the story of the creation of American corporate  capitalism
illustrates the possibilities of capitalism and the variety of  forms it
can take. Some of these were present in the American corporate  economy
of the late 19th century.
 
Closely held industrial capitalism, bank-finance capitalism,  capitalism
in which publicly held permanent investments like bonds  characterized
the principal source of corporate finance, even a heavily  regulated
state-guided capitalism, all were possibilities before the election  of
Warren Harding. Many of these different forms of capitalism  have
appeared successfully in different regions, cultures and  countries
during the 20th century. American corporate capitalism - stock  market
capitalism - was neither the necessary nor inevitable form of  the
American economy.
 
The story of the formative period is a story of problems  misperceived,
transformations not yet understood and misguided regulation.  One lesson
of this story is that modern American corporate capitalism is the  result
of human choices. It is a system we maintain out of choice. It is  a
system that has ramifications beyond the economic that have helped  to
embed the kind of "hyper-individualism" that interferes with  the
cooperation necessary for a successful economy and a thriving  society.
It is within our power either to change it, to modify its rough  edges or
to accept it as it is. But these choices can only be made  with
understanding.
 
Several years into my research on the rise of the speculation economy,  I
began to see in the formation of American corporate capitalism  the
reasons for a number of contemporary economic and social  problems,
problems which so many are trying to solve today without grasping  some
of the important causes that this history helps to identify. Perhaps  as
important, I started to see the way our speculation economy affects  the
norms of American society, how it has pushed American social norms  from
a vision of collective life that achieved some currency during  the
Progressive Era to a more atomistic form of individualism that has  both
recalled an earlier American ideal and driven the future. Nowhere  in
American society is violent, competitive individualism more rampant  than
in the modern stock market.
 
Finally, the story holds important lessons for citizens of  other
nations, even as the American form of corporate capitalism has  affected
the different ways many other countries do business. For somewhat  over a
decade now, many countries have been at a decision point as to  whether
they will adopt the American way or pursue their own, or even  whether
they have much choice in the matter.
 
_____
 
Lawrence E Mitchell is Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law  at
George Washington University.
 
(c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
 
_http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/_ 
(http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/) 
 

_http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com_ (http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com) 
_http://www.ashisuto.co.jp_ (http://www.ashisuto.co.jp) 
 
 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  2 21:27:17 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:27:17 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperia...
Message-ID: <d03.4c865e0d.36904325@aol.com>


In a message dated 1/2/2009 10:15:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jannuzi at gmail.com writes:
To summarise the discussion so far, as I understand  it:

Hudson hasn't had an original idea since the first  Nixon
administration era, and like most of the people on A-List, full  of
shit.Lenin is dead, and hasn't had a chance to update his work  lately.
And HCKL has never had an original idea in his life and for the  most
part mixes economics, financial magic-speak and gobbledegook  into
unreadable prose, some of which impresses people, like the assholes  on
A-list.

CJ

Comment 

Interesting summation. 
 
Actually, Mr. Liu coined the term "dollar hegemony" in  its modern  meaning. 
His analysis of fiat currencies in real time has been embrace by many  
economic writers. 

I have had occasion to visit Hudson's web site  and  found it to be 
informative. 

I to have had no original ideas in  the field of economic theory in my whole 
life.

Perhaps you can suggest  some authors worthy of reading and studying . . . 
yes? 

Waistline  







**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Fri Jan  2 23:15:45 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is
 Needed
Message-ID: <30406070.1230963345480.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

This article is shockingly awful and an unfortunate product of CP & Soviet miseducation, and a further contribution to same.

The part about Newton's mechanics is interesting, as are the materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the reference to Joseph Needham, but the rest is useless and even harmful. Here is a quick list of some commonly accepted falsehoods or nonsensical assertions:

1. "The logic of the Marxist analysis of social development is based on the philosophical system of dialectical and historical materialism. Dialectical and historical materialism together constitute a unitary philosophical system."

2. "By the 1870s, Marx and Engels had essentially established the law-governed revolutionary transformative character of the process leading from capitalism to socialism."

3. "The Hegelian Marxists, such as Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci, argued that dialectics is not applicable to nature and that in fact its application to nature is the source of the mechanistic determinism that led to reformism (Azad 2005, 307, drawing on Callinicos 1976, 70). In making this argument, they also rejected the Leninist reflection theory of knowledge as the basis for the Marxist-Leninist concept of the relationship between the two fundamental philosophical categories, matter and ideas. The understanding of this relationship lies at the heart of the Marxist concept of the scientific method. The idealist character of this view led to giving overriding priority to the development of a socialist consciousness while paying inadequate attention to strengthening the material organizational basis of the class struggle."

"Actually it was not necessary, of course, for Marx to state explicitly (although clearly he did) that dialectics applies to the sphere of nature. Hegel had already spelled this out in his works, as did Marx himself in Capital and elsewhere. Underlying the attempt to deny the applicability of dialectics to nature is a strong anti-Communism that dissociates itself from any political, organizational forms of class struggle."

4. "One of the principal reasons for attention to dialectical materialism by natural scientists is the clarity it brings to understanding processes of change in all the natural sciences."

"In the dialectical-materialist view, fundamental properties in a given field are akin to philosophical categories, the building blocks of logical thought. The meaning of fundamental properties is determined by the interrelationships among them as expressed through the laws of the particular scientific field invoking them."

"Another change in the direction of the Marxist dialectical understanding is the change in the textbook statements about the subject matter of physics ? from characterizing it as the study of invariances (that is, the unchanging character) of matter to the increasingly current characterization as the study of changes in the physical world."

5. "Philosophy of the natural sciences is also needed because of the interconnection between the natural sciences and societal development."

"The failure to integrate philosophy into each discipline deprives natural scientists of intimate contact with the conceptual foundations of their sciences. They are left ignorant of understanding the broad scope of the interconnections of their fields with other fields unless they happen to self-educated in the philosophical literature concerning their fields as well as in philosophy in general."

CONCLUSION:

"Dialectical and historical materialism came into being as a philosophical system because Marx and Engels needed it to uncover the evolutionary process guiding societal transition from capitalism to communism."

These quotes are only symptomatic of a very confused argument. One could go into more detail, but it seems hardly worth the bother.
  
Marx did not create a philosophical system at all, let alone dialectical materialism as a philosophical system. Marx had epistemological principles, which have to be teased out of his episodic methodological statements, and he had what could be called an ontology of labor and social being, especially in his earlier years, but a philosophical system-builder he was not.

Marquit is correct that it is simplistic to attribute the mechanistic determinism of the 2nd International and its inheritors to dialectical materialism per se, but he misses the logic of Lukacs' turning away from Engels' dialectics of nature, which emerges clearly in Lukacs' recently published manuscript TAILISM AND THE DIALECTIC. 

Here is another telling passage:

"But the transition from capitalism to socialism differs from previous societal transformations in that the process can only be brought about with conscious understanding of its nature and necessity. Life under the material conditions of existence under capitalism serves as the source for acquisition of this consciousness among the masses, but this acquisition cannot occur spontaneously through economic struggles. The consciousness must be imparted to them by the party that is guided by historical and dialectical materialism."

But actually this was substantially the viewpoint of Lukacs when he was maligned by Zinoviev,  Deborin, Rudas, and whoever else I'm forgetting. 
  
As for dialectics constituting the unified abstract laws of nature, society, and thought, Marquit thoughtlessly follows Engels' ambiguous and misguided formulation. And while scientific theory always implicates philosophical issues, there is no straightforward relationship between science and philosophy, and certainly not dialectical materialist as he describes it.

This is a depressing read.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Sent: Jan 2, 2009 2:18 PM
>To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
>Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
>
> Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
>By Erwin Marquit ( physics professor)
>  
>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/7780/1/355/
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>My answer to the question ?Why is a philosophy of the natural
>sciences needed?? will take the form of several distinct components.
>Before enumerating them, I should point out that no separate Marxist
>philosophy of the natural sciences exists distinct from dialectical and
>historical materialism. Marxist philosophy of the natural sciences is
>the methodological application of dialectical and historical materialism
>to investigations in the various natural sciences. 
>
>1. The logic of the Marxist analysis of social development is based on
>the philosophical system of dialectical and historical materialism.
>Dialectical and historical materialism together constitute a unitary
>philosophical system. Comprehensive philosophical systems, or
>worldviews, are always universal in character, embracing the spheres of
>nature, society, and thought. In asserting the validity of their
>philosophical system, Marx and Engels felt it necessary to demonstrate
>that dialectical and historical materialism provide the universal
>logical basis for understanding processes of change in the spheres of
>nature and society as well as in the thought processes by which this
>understanding comes about. Engels stressed this in his work on the
>dialectics of nature when he wrote: ?The fact that our subjective
>thought and the objective world are subject to the same laws, and,
>hence, too, that in the final analysis they cannot contradict each other
>in their results, but must coincide, governs absolutely our whole
>theoretical thought. It is the unconscious and unconditional premise for
>theoretical thought? (Engels 1987, 544). 
>
>2. By the 1870s, Marx and Engels had essentially established the
>law-governed revolutionary transformative character of the process
>leading from capitalism to socialism. They had laid the theoretical
>basis for a revolutionary political movement that would be needed in
>this process and participated actively in its formation. Already in
>1844, Marx put forth the view: ?The weapon of criticism cannot, of
>course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown
>by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as
>it has gripped the masses? (1975, 182). An ideologically strong
>revolutionary political movement is needed to bring this material force
>into being. The material character of this movement was further
>elaborated by Lenin in outlining the organizational character of the
>party of a new type in What is to be Done? The reformist undermining of
>the thesis that a revolutionary movement is necessary was based on the
>mechanistic projection that the operation of dialectics of nature would
>inevitably bring about the self-destruction of capitalism, making
>unnecessary a class struggle oriented toward socialism. Therefore,
>according to Bernstein, and later Kautsky and Hilferding, the task of
>socialists was to work for reforms within the capitalist system (Azad
>2005, 504). By ignoring the necessity of ideological struggle for the
>cause of socialism, they effectively discarded historical and
>dialectical materialism and turned dialectics of nature into a
>mechanistic determinism. But the transition from capitalism to socialism
>differs from previous societal transformations in that the process can
>only be brought about with conscious understanding of its nature and
>necessity. Life under the material conditions of existence under
>capitalism serves as the source for acquisition of this consciousness
>among the masses, but this acquisition cannot occur spontaneously
>through economic struggles. The consciousness must be imparted to them
>by the party that is guided by historical and dialectical materialism. 
>
>3. The Hegelian Marxists, such as Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci, argued
>that dialectics is not applicable to nature and that in fact its
>application to nature is the source of the mechanistic determinism that
>led to reformism (Azad 2005, 307, drawing on Callinicos 1976, 70). In
>making this argument, they also rejected the Leninist reflection theory
>of knowledge as the basis for the Marxist-Leninist concept of the
>relationship between the two fundamental philosophical categories,
>matter and ideas. The understanding of this relationship lies at the
>heart of the Marxist concept of the scientific method. The idealist
>character of this view led to giving overriding priority to the
>development of a socialist consciousness while paying inadequate
>attention to strengthening the material organizational basis of the
>class struggle. Despite the common idealist character of their
>philosophies, Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci differed considerably in their
>political orientation. Although Gramsci?s philosophical inclinations
>leaned toward idealism, he was in fact a Leninist in politics (Ged?
>1993, 15, citing Argeri 1976, 141). 
>
>In the latter half of the twentieth century, the effectively reformist
>attempt to deny the applicability of dialectics to nature took the
>additional form of separating Marx from both Engels and Lenin. Marx was
>characterized affectionately as a humanist, while Engels and Lenin were
>characterized as crass materialists. Supporters of this view (for
>example, the well-known Israeli political scientist Shlomo Avineri)
>assert unabashedly that Marx never accepted the applicability of
>dialectics to nature, and that we have only Engels?s word for his
>doing so. Such assertions are made in spite of the fact that Avineri and
>others of that school were well aware of Marx?s letter to Kugelman in
>which he wrote that ?the dialectical method? is ?the method of
>dealing with matter? (27 June 1870, 528). Actually it was not
>necessary, of course, for Marx to state explicitly (although clearly he
>did) that dialectics applies to the sphere of nature. Hegel had already
>spelled this out in his works, as did Marx himself in Capital and
>elsewhere. Underlying the attempt to deny the applicability of
>dialectics to nature is a strong anti-Communism that dissociates itself
>from any political, organizational forms of class struggle. Reassertion
>of the integrity of historical and dialectical materialism and its
>applicability to nature, society, and thought strengthens the
>theoretical basis for engaging in day-to-day organized political
>struggle essential for opening up space for the development of a
>socialist consciousness. 
>
>Additional resources: 
>Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China
>
>
>
>
>PA Editors Blog
>
>Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh
>THE WINNER OF OUR DISCONTENT
>Gaza crisis: challenge and opportunity for Obama to turn the page
>toward peace
> Subscribe to this Feed
>
> 
>4. One of the principal reasons for attention to dialectical
>materialism by natural scientists is the clarity it brings to
>understanding processes of change in all the natural sciences. I found
>it an invaluable tool both in my teaching of physics and my research on
>the conceptual foundations of physics. In most of the twentieth century,
>the dominant philosophy of science was logical positivism, which gave
>birth to the concept that basic properties in any science have to be
>defined by operational definitions. The leading textbook of introductory
>physics at US universities in the 1970s was Fundamentals of Physics by
>David Halliday and Robert Resnick. In the 1974 edition, we read: ?One
>view is that the definition of a physical quantity has been given when
>the procedures for measuring that quantity are specified. This is called
>the operational point of view because the definition is, at root, a set
>of laboratory operations leading to a number with a unit? (1).
>Although this was presented as ?one view,? no other view was
>presented. Another 1970s textbook, Physics, by Chris Zafiratos, in
>discussing units of time, gives an operational definition of the second
>by the swings of a simple pendulum. It continues, ?In this manner the
>romantic, philosophic question, ?What is time?? is ignored in favor
>of a definition so that we can get on with the study of motion? (1976,
>3?4). As Lenin pointed out, however, fundamental properties cannot be
>defined, because if a property is fundamental, there is nothing more
>fundamental with which to define it (1962, 146). In the
>dialectical-materialist view, fundamental properties in a given field
>are akin to philosophical categories, the building blocks of logical
>thought. The meaning of fundamental properties is determined by the
>interrelationships among them as expressed through the laws of the
>particular scientific field invoking them. In reality, operational
>definitions in physics are not definitions at all, but procedures for
>standardizing the units in which they are measured. Largely as a result
>of the Marxist critique of logical positivism, operational definitions
>began to fade away from physics textbooks, as did logical positivism
>itself. 
>
>Another change in the direction of the Marxist dialectical
>understanding is the change in the textbook statements about the subject
>matter of physics ? from characterizing it as the study of invariances
>(that is, the unchanging character) of matter to the increasingly
>current characterization as the study of changes in the physical world.
>
>
>Prior to the 1920s, the concept of causality in physics was based on
>the principle that a single cause produces a single effect. With the
>emergence of quantum physics in the 1920s, this principle was thrown
>into confusion because it turned out that a single cause could produce a
>variety of effects. The outcome of a precisely established experimental
>process could not be predicted uniquely, but only statistically. This
>seemed to invalidate the philosophical principle of determinism. Marxist
>physicists ? Paul Langevin in France, Vladimir Fock in the Soviet
>Union, and Mituo Taketani in Japan ? showed that a materialist concept
>of determinism was not locked into what was essentially the mechanistic
>principle that a single cause produces a single effect. They
>demonstrated that acceptance of statistical laws as fundamental laws of
>physics is still an expression of determinism consistent with a
>materialist outlook (for details, see Freire 1995, and H?rz et al. 1980,
>83?114). 
>
>In the 1920s, the famous Marxist biochemist Joseph Needham introduced
>in biology the philosophical and methodological concept that is
>designated today as levels of organization and integration of matter.
>For example, in physics we now have fields of specialization called
>elementary particle physics, nuclear physics, atomic physics, molecular
>physics, solid-state physics, etc. In the dialectical-materialist view,
>each level of organization and integration of matter represents a
>qualitative transformation from the level below it. Each level requires
>study for its own laws of behavior; this is an understanding quite
>opposite to the mechanistic reductionism that sought to explain the
>sciences by seeking the simplest parts of a physical system and basing
>its laws on them. The Marxist critique of racist theories of
>intelligence argues that attempts to factor out the cultural component
>of intelligence from the genetic component represent an incompatible
>mixing of the genetic level of the human being with the social level. 
>
>A dialectical-materialist content is reflected in any progress
>scientists make in moving the theory of a natural science forward,
>whether or not all scientists are conscious of it. A notable example of
>this is in Isaac Newton?s concept of inertial mass. Newton?s
>mechanics have long been considered the principal source of mechanistic
>thought. Yet he quantifies the (inertial) mass of a physical body by
>asserting its proportionality to the inertial resistance to a change in
>motion in the presence of an external force. In this way, he establishes
>the meaning of (inertial) mass by relating it to the interaction of two
>opposing forces. In his reasoning, he uses the Aristotelian dialectic of
>the realization of the actual from the potential by asserting that this
>inertial resistance (which he called ?vis insita, or innate force of
>matter?) ?only exerts this force when another force, impressed upon
>it, endeavors to change its condition? (Newton 1934, 1:2; for a more
>detailed discussion, see Marquit 1990). 
>
>5. Philosophy of the natural sciences is also needed because of the
>interconnection between the natural sciences and societal development.
>This interconnection exists, of course, whether or not natural
>scientists concern themselves with it. The problem is that natural
>scientists, in their education and work, tend to ignore this
>interconnection and focus intensely and narrowly on their particular
>fields of theory and practice, oblivious to the consequences of their
>work on other fields. Consider, for example, the Green Revolution, a
>development in agricultural technology that increased agricultural
>production in many developing countries. Its application, however, also
>contributed to the growth of surplus rural populations that migrated to
>cities with no plan to absorb them, resulting in huge slums. 
>
>One can cite numerous scientific and technological advances that when
>introduced into the economy subsequently endangered human life ? most
>notably through the destruction of the physical environment. In
>particular, inadequately tested new materials and chemicals have been
>introduced with toxic properties causing tragic results. How does this
>come about? 
>
>Initial answers to this question may be to fault regulatory agencies
>and to cite the absence of regulatory legislation that would require
>adequate testing before the products are approved for use. While
>regulatory legislation requiring adequate testing is an absolute
>necessity, the initiative for signaling such testing should be built
>into the scientific methodology employed by the scientists involved in
>the development. But this is not done. A major reason for this
>disastrous omission is that educational and research institutions in
>most cases relegate philosophy to the social sciences, and in doing so
>isolate philosophy in a separate department. Philosophical research in
>the natural sciences is then perceived as a diversion from actual
>sciences. Instead, philosophy should be integrated into the individual
>disciplines of the social and natural sciences. 
>
>The failure to integrate philosophy into each discipline deprives
>natural scientists of intimate contact with the conceptual foundations
>of their sciences. They are left ignorant of understanding the broad
>scope of the interconnections of their fields with other fields unless
>they happen to self-educated in the philosophical literature concerning
>their fields as well as in philosophy in general. 
>
>The problem here is that when research in philosophy of physics is
>carried out by philosophers in a philosophy department, the tendency is
>to view the results of such research as a contribution to philosophy.
>Benefits of this research are effectively confined to other
>philosophers, who are not those doing the science. In contrast, when a
>physicist deals with philosophical problems of physics, it is not in
>order to make a contribution to philosophy, but rather to apply
>philosophical knowledge to the understanding of physics. The narrowness
>that is inevitably associated with mechanistic applications of science
>and technology can only be overcome by incorporating awareness of the
>dialectical interconnections among the sciences into the education and
>work of natural scientists. 
>
>Conclusion 
>
>Dialectical and historical materialism came into being as a
>philosophical system because Marx and Engels needed it to uncover the
>evolutionary process guiding societal transition from capitalism to
>communism. With this tool, they were able to unravel the political
>economy of capitalist production, especially the source of capitalist
>profit; and to establish the interconnection between the material
>conditions of life and the consciousness that arises from these
>conditions. They recognized that imparting this knowledge to the working
>class and its allies would give them an indispensable weapon: the
>understanding that the revolutionary transformation from capitalism to
>socialism is conditioned on the development of an ideologically alert
>mass movement aware of its historical mission. Their studies of the
>natural sciences enabled them to show how the development of the
>material forces of production (natural resources, tools, and labor),
>integrated with empirical and scientific knowledge about them, lies at
>the heart of societal change. 
>
>The spheres of nature, society, and thought all enter into Marx and
>Engels?s theoretical analyses. In laying the foundations of
>dialectical and historical materialism, Marx and Engels gave natural
>scientists, as well as social scientists, a most valuable methodological
>tool for research in the individual disciplines and demonstrated the
>danger of ignoring interconnections among the various fields of the
>natural and social sciences. 
>
>--Erwin Marquit is Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of
>Minnesota, and a contributing editor of Political Affairs. This paper
>was presented in abbreviated form at Communist University of Britain
>2008, Croydon, London, 18 October 2008. 
>
>REFERENCE LIST 
>
>Azad, Bahman. 2005. ?The Scientific Basis of the Vanguard Party of
>the Proletariat.? Nature, Society, and Thought 18, no. 4:303?33. 
>
>Callinicos, Alex. 1976. Althusser?s Marxism. London: Pluto Press. 
>
>Colletti, Lucio. 1972. From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and
>Society. London: New Left Books. 
>
>Engels, Frederick. 1987. Dialectics of Nature. In vol. 25 of Collected
>Works, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 311?588. New York:
>International Publishers. 
>
>Freire, Olival Jr. 1995. ?Dialectical Materialism and the Quantum
>Controversy: The Viewpoints of Fock, Langevin, and Taketani.? Nature,
>Society, and Thought 8, no. 3:309?25 
>
>Ged?, Andr?s. 1993. ?Gramsci?s Path through the Tension between
>?Absolute Historicism? and Materialist Dialectics: Marxism as
>Historical Philosophy.? Nature, Society, and Thought 6, no. 1:7?40.
>
>
>Halliday, David, and Robert Resnick. 1974. Fundamentals of Physics.
>Revised printing. New York: Wiley. 
>
>H?rz, Herbert et al. 1980. Philosophical Problems in Physical Science.
>Minneapolis: Marxist Educational Press. 
>
>Lenin, V. I. 1962. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Vol. 14 of
>Collected Works. Reprint 1972. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 
>
>Marquit, Erwin. 1990. ?A Plea for a Correct Translation of Newton's
>Law of Inertia.? American Journal of Physics 57 (September): 867?70.
>
>
>Marx, Karl. 1975. ?Contribution to the Critique of Hegel?s
>Philosophy of Law.? In vol. 3 of Collected Works, by Karl Marx and
>Frederick Engels, 3?129. New York: International Publishers. 
>
>???. 1988. Letter to Kugelman, 27 June 1870. In vol. 43 of
>Collected Works, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 527?28. New York:
>International Publishers. 
>
>Newton, Isaac. 1934. Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of
>Natural Philosophy. 2 vols. Translated by Andrew Motte, revised
>translation by Florian Cajori. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press,
>1934. 
>
>Zafiratos, Chris. 1976. Physics. New York: Wiley.  
>
>
>
>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  Fri Jan  2 23:46:37 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:46:37 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901021915x1ee56da3x64c02cee85889e3f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901021915x1ee56da3x64c02cee85889e3f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901022246s6d3030ddpf625c2335ccf5fcc@mail.gmail.com>

I think he popularized the collocation of dollar and hegemony. Hardly original.
As for original ideas, I mean specifically those that help us to
analyze our situation.
I suggest you read the business section of news publications.

CJ
-- 
Japan Higher Education Outlook
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan  3 09:41:38 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:41:38 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] New Conditions Call for New Tactics by Nelson
	Peery - Democratic Party
Message-ID: <d02.4b37c617.3690ef42@aol.com>

New Conditions Call for New Tactics
 
by Nelson Peery

full: _http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed3art1.html_ 
(http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed3art1.html) 
 
 
Old Tactics Hold Back Process
 
 For change to occur, there first has to be a change in the objective  - the 
economy.  That change came in the form of the introduction of  electronics 
into the work place and in the field of communications. Suddenly it  was possible 
to move a factory into a low wage area and yet have as complete  control as 
if it were across the street. Robotics, which are labor- replacing  rather than 
labor- saving machinery, combined with globalization, rapidly drove  down the 
wage and living standards of the formerly bribed workers. The global  labor 
market appeared along side labor- replacing technology. There was more  labor 
and less demand for it. These factors dramatically drove down the living  
standards of all workers. Economic polarization led to increasingly social  
polarization.
 
  By the middle 1980's this economic polarization was in full swing.  As 
conditions began to worsen and the polarization of wealth and poverty  increased, 
the workers began a spontaneous motion toward political independence.  Most of 
their leaders struggled to tie them even more tightly to the Democratic  
Party under some form of the slogan, "fight the right." Even the revolutionaries  
raised the battle cry of "Vote for the lesser of two evils" or shouted that we 
 must carry on the fight inside the Democratic Party, since a vote for a 
workers'  party would insure the election of the most reactionary candidates.
 
 It is now becoming clear to the advanced workers that in order to  free 
themselves from the political clutches of their enemy they will have to  stop 
"fighting the right" and throw their blow at the middle, the Democratic  Party.  
It should be clear to all, that it is this middle, the Democratic  Party, that 
ties the workers to their enemy and makes them politically impotent.  More 
importantly, the destruction of the political and ideological middle is  
indispensable to polarization and transformation.  Without this  destruction,  they 
remained tied by a thousand threads to the "right" and  are incapable of 
fighting them.
 
 Those who believe we can change the course of history by getting more  
people to work inside the Democratic Party and force it to the "Left" are  telling 
us that they believe that we can create our history without conforming  to or 
recognizing any laws or conditions that govern the process of change and  
development.  They are telling us that history is "just one damned thing  after 
another" and there is no such thing as causality or logic of  history.
 
 The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin,  
taking each other's place and protecting one another. By preventing a more  
democratic proportional representation, they have been able to effectively keep  the 
people from participating in the political process. The American people are  
beginning to react to this truth. In a number of areas, local parties are  
springing up representing a spontaneous striving to break away from the  
domination of the two parties of corporate capital. The formation of the Labor  Party 
was an expression of this reaction on a national basis.
 
 As the economic middle disintegrates, the social middle follows. It  is now 
necessary to begin the destruction of the political and ideological  middle. 
In a word this means liquidating the influence the Democratic Party has  over 
the masses. This cannot be done in one blow. Like everything else, it is a  
process. It has to go through stages of development that correspond to the  
people becoming aware of their economic and social position.
 
  The first step is to unite their thinking with their actual  conditions. 
They cannot become aware of their condition until they stop thinking  like the 
ruling class. They have to be won over to think according to what they  are. 
This has been a difficult job in America for historical reasons. As  indicated 
above, this country has had many sharp social struggles. Except for  the Civil 
War struggle between the ex-slaves and the Confederacy, there have  been no 
wide spread class struggles in this country. Because of their feudal  history, 
European countries had clearly defined social classes and a history of  class 
uprisings. Lacking a history of class struggle in the United States, there  are 
few roots for us to proceed from.
 
  Furthermore, there is little in the forms of revolution in other  countries 
that can be applied to the current American scene. Nevertheless, our  duty 
now is to win the people over to supporting and fighting for a new America  
based on cooperation rather than the so- called competition that has placed the  
wealth of the country in such a few hands. Can the American people be won over  
to a non-ideological concept of communism?  Yes, they can. It has to be  done 
on the basis of a patriotic defense of the country as well as the class. 
 
It is commonly accepted today that corporate economic and political power  is 
undercutting what democracy remains in our country. The fight to transform  
these giant corporations into public property is a patriotic fight. The ruling  
class has linked capitalism to patriotism through the highly paid section of 
the  working class. This organized, bribed section of the class, which is the 
mass  base of the Democratic Party, has been the major bulwark against 
communism  within the class. It was summed up in Walter Ruther's demand that "We must 
not  kill the goose that lays the golden egg".  We must challenge them on 
moral  grounds. 82, 000 homeless in one city is cause enough to challenge the 
system.  This challenge has to be made within the framework of the particular 
history,  not only of the American people in general, but within the history of 
the area  and region they work in.
 
 The role of the revolutionary is not so much to invent or attempt to  impose 
revolution, but to facilitate the actual historical process. That means  to 
keep the subjective - the social and political process in line with and  
reflecting the economic process. For the past 20 years the polarization of the  
economy has been dramatic.  There has been little attempt on the part of  the 
revolutionaries to educate the people accordingly. Life always asserts  itself and 
the time of mass response to these intolerable conditions is not far  off. No 
matter how politically backward the American people may appear,  
revolutionaries must begin the difficult fight to win them away from capitalism  and to a 
system of social cooperation.   This struggle begins with  rejecting the 
"fight the right" tactic, and to develop the natural tactic of  throwing the blow 
at the middle. This starts with the struggle for ideological  polarization 
which will be expressed as political polarization in the form of a  militant 
workers party.
 
Nelson Peery has published several books, including Black Fire: The making  
of an American Revolutionary and The Future is Up to Us. He is available to  
speak through the Speakers for a New America. For more information,  contact:
_info at speakersforanewamerica.com_ (mailto:info at speakersforanewamerica.com) 
 
 
 


**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan  3 11:06:59 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:06:59 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] C C "oligarchy";
	Henry, Lenin/Tech Revolution (correction)
Message-ID: <be0.4d714571.36910343@aol.com>


CORRECTION 
 
 
 
> The form of the  state as an organization of violence and class  rule is in 
the category of  
history and subject to a different set of  laws: laws that describe and 
define  
classes and property relations,  that will persists in the hearts and minds 
of  
people. <
 
Should Read: 
 
 
The ROLE of the  state as an organization of violence and class  rule is in 
the category of  
history and subject to a different set of  laws: laws that describe and 
define  
classes and property relations,  that will persists in the hearts and minds 
of  
people. The form of the  state is a historical/political "thing" - 
phenomenon, subject to the form of  productive forces and political will. 
 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan  3 19:51:23 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:51:23 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ground Invasion of Gaza: task of American left
Message-ID: <c90.375a7d47.36917e2b@aol.com>

Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
> 
>> Considering the situation,  "as long as necessary" may well mean
> "forever". Hope I am wrong.
 
I fear you are correct. It seems to me that Israel is aiming at  the
cultural and political genocide of the Palestinian people as a  people
and the complete incorporation of West Bank & Gaza into  Israel,
scattering the Palestinian people (those who survive) about other  "Arab"
countries as permanent refugees.
 
But these events in Palestine, combined with the utter inability  of
scattered leftist forces throughout the world to have appreciable  effect
on events, reinforce what has been my growing belief for half a  decade:
that leftists in the U.S. (and probably in Europe, Japan,  Australia,
Canada) have only one core task, that of creating themselves AS A  LEFT.
Until we do so our views and responses to the actions of the U.S.  and
other core capitalist powers are merely a joke.
 
Carrol
 


**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 08:39:12 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alexander Saxton interview on religion
Message-ID: <10852337.1231083552907.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Role of Religion in Human History: Interview with Alexander Saxton
By Political Affairs
3/21/07
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/5021/1/248/

I've read and possibly commented on Saxton's Monthly Review interview.  Here I'm extracting some quotes of particular interest.

---------
<quote>
Marxists usually assume that religion is approximately like Christianity as it was in the early nineeteenth century. That is, they take Judaeo-Christian monotheism as an "ideal type," or prototype, of all religion. They get this from Hegel. It fits neatly into ideological arguments that make religion part of the apparatus of ruling class domination. These doubtless are accurate descriptions of the way religion works in class societies. But they lack historical depth because they contain no account of the origin of religion. Early Marxists conceived ideology as obscurantist: it was how a ruling class manipulated ideas about law, government, philosophy (especially about religion) to obscure the exploitive power of the ruling class. This makes ideology a product of class conflict; but class conflict could not have begun -- and Marx and Engels did not think it began -- early in history. Human societies had to have existed a long time before you get to a division of labor that could make classes, and class exploitation, possible. And if religion began only at that point, there would remain a long gap in the so-called hunter-gatherer period (of which Marx and Engels were well aware and sometimes referred to as "primitive communism") before religion could have emerged or assumed any significant cultural role. Yet obviously religion must have existed during this long time span. Then, what was it doing? What was its function in the evolution of human culture? This is the area I think needs to be explored in a Marxist critique of religion.

Why is this worth bothering about? The intellectual goal of the entire Marxian movement has been to construct a materialist interpretation of history. Religious or spiritual belief negates materialist interpretation. Consequently, in order to claim any sort of persuasive power, a materialist interpretation of history must begin with a secular and materialist explanation for the origin of religion. That was exactly where Marx and Engels began, but were obliged to postpone the task; and later Marxists have not filled the gap. My own book is an attempt to reopen this part of the agenda. 

<end quote>
-----------------

COMMENT: I am not familiar with all the literature written on the subject, so I don't know if Marxists have so thoroughly failed.  The average treatment of the subject is inadequate for just these reasons, ignoring the deeper roots of magical thinking and the management of violence.

The next quote is part of a discussion of liberation theology.

--------------------
<quote>
Resistance groups, working in the tradition of liberation theology, will invoke religious precepts like the Golden Rule in defense of exploited working people. But to stand against their own reactionary clergies, they will need powers of demonstration that can come only from outside religion. Liberationists inside will need to collaborate with non-believers outside. Might there be signals exchanged, then, simply at the level of human survival? Believers and non-believers, actually, have a lot in common. They both are vulnerable to so-called "worldly loves." (Yet note how negative a connotation religion attaches to that luminous phrase!) They both are likely to feel parental affections normally held for children, as well as that irresistible romantic sympathy with young people in love -- hoping things might go well for them! It is these overlaps of shared experience, I think, that contain our best hopes for resolving the crises of the twenty-first century this side of global disaster.

But I want to express this same idea in more general terms. All great movements of history have brought people together to work for immediate, urgent purposes, even while they might be disagreeing on other matters. What was crucial was not total agreement but confidence and honest disclosure. We are all better off because people like Tom Paine and Robert Ingersoll dared speak frankly about religion. And we would all be a lot better off today if the Marxist critique of religion could have been completed fifty years ago.
<end quote>
----------------------

Now, a quote on the nature-nurture issue.

-------------------
<quote>
I began my career as a historian firmly convinced there was an absolute division between biology and culture. Long before that, as an undergraduate in college, I had read Franz Boas, who in his great book The Mind of Primitive Man showed that so-called "primitive" languages are capable of the same precision in physical, logical and moral expression as the most modern of modern languages. He used this line of argument to reject biological racism and refute the then-widely held beliefs in "essentialist" differences among differing "racial" (and gender) populations of the human species. Of course as you indicate in your question, many such beliefs are still held today; but Boas was absolutely correct in rejecting them. He died in the 1940s. Since then there have been extraordinary breakthroughs in fields of linguistics, genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, early anthropology. The entire picture has changed since Boas' time. Were he still alive I am sure he would welcome and rejoice in these breakthroughs. They reinforce his conclusions about race and racial differences although they render obsolete some of his leading assumptions. One of these was that of a sharp dividing line between biological evolution and human culture. I have already acknowledged that was my own starting point, but that stance is no longer tenable. What we see now is not two separate realms, but a complex overlapping and interpenetration by various processes of evolutionary change. Culture is biological -- although biology is not necessarily cultural. But for the human animal culture became an essential part of its biological equipment. We were talking earlier about adaptive traits. Culture, for humans, is THE chief adapative trait, directly responsible for their dominating role in the biology of planet Earth.

You say in your question that racists and sexists use biological arguments. Of course they do, but that does not make their arguments valid or persuasive.

Racists and sexists have been drawing false arguments from religion, history, culture, biology, for the past 3- or 400 years. So we reject them. In my own case, what convinced me as to the interpenetration of culture with biology was the work of Noam Chomsky, whom no one certainly could accuse of being racist, sexist, anti-democratic or libertarian. Chomsky, in his research on the origin of language, presents cultural continuities (like language) as beginning within evolutionary biology and then developing, not separately from biology, but as part of the ongoing process of cultural evolution. My own treatment of religion in this book represents an attempt to construct a comparable explanation for the origin and development of religion. Yes, it IS part of culture; but also an adaptive trait which enhances the survival-power of the human species, up till, of course, the historical change we have already discussed. Making culture part of biological process does not mean subordinating culture to biology. On the contrary, culture is the apex, the culmination.
<end quote>
-----------------------------




From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 09:57:17 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] philosophy in POLITICAL AFFAIRS (1)
Message-ID: <10604003.1231088238164.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Somewhere I came across Thomas Riggins recently; maybe I landed on his blog somehow. Now I see he seems to be the resident philosopher of the CPUSA's magazine POLITICAL AFFAIRS, though there are a number of other contributors on philosophical subjects as well. A number of his articles are interesting. I would nitpick some of them; however, many are fairly exemplary popularizations of issues with bourgeois philosophy.  Here are some samples with occasional comments.

Wilfred Sellars and Marxism
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7190/

Remembering Richard Rorty, 1931-2007
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5421/1/266/

REMEMBERING PAUL RICOEUR: 1913-2005 (French Philosopher)
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/index.php/article/articleview/1201/

Remembering Jacques Derrida (1930-2004)
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/328/

Russell, Rousseau, and Rationality: A Marxist Critique
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5496/

Bertrand Russell in 90 Minutes
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/341/1/66/

BOOK REVIEW: BYZANTINE PHILOSOPHY by Basil Tatakis
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/index.php/article/articleview/1167/

Sartre at 100
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/825/

The House of War & The Future of Hegel 
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3644/1/191/

Materialism, Contradiction and the Philosophy of Art
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/142/

  COMMENT: A rather scattered and incoherent analysis.

Marxism, Liberalism or Communitarianism
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3503/1/187/

     COMMENT: Effectively criticizes liberalism, but glosses over the reactionary roots of communitarianism.

To Believe or Not to Believe
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/725/

MARX GOES TO CHURCH
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2711/

Slavoj Zizek and Perverse Christianity
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/308/1/72/

    COMMENT: Another revelation of Zizek's bankruptcy

Marxism and the New Synthesis in Moral Psychology
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5528/

    COMMENT: A needed critique of Jonathan Haidt in the May 18, 2007 issue of Science ("The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology." 

Michael Shermer On Dennett's ?Breaking The Spell?
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2818/1/151/

    COMMENT: tears Shermer & Dennett new assholes.

Philosophy and Fascism: Reflections on Richard Wolin's "Heidegger Made Kosher"
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2863/

    SEE ALSO:

      Heidegger Made Kosher
      By Richard Wolin
      This article appeared in the February 20, 2006 edition of The Nation.
      February 1, 2006
      http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/wolin/single




From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 10:57:09 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] philosophy in POLITICAL AFFAIRS (2): Confucianism
Message-ID: <9130292.1231091829770.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Marxism and Confucian Relevance
By Thomas Riggins
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/318/

This is a review of Daniel A. Bell and Hahm Chaibong's anthology Confucianism for the Modern World (Cambridge, 2003). It is, unfortunately, a confused critique. 

Riggins lists and criticizes the editors' perspective on five questions to be addressed:

(1) What Confucian values "should be promoted in contemporary East Asian societies?" This I think is too (2) "How should this be promoted?" 
(3) "What are the political and institutional implications of ?Confucian humanism??" 
(4) "How do the practical implications of modern Confucianism differ from the values and workings of liberal capitalist societies?"
(5) What are the prospects for "the adoption of Confucianism to this project (conformity to liberal capitalism) and if it can "be justified from a moral point of view.""

Riggins focusus on criticizing the editors' neoliberal agenda.  But he doesn't get the subject matter completely right:

"The values of traditional Confucianism can, I think, be brought into line with those of socialist or communist humanism but they can only be adapted to the values of capitalism, liberal or otherwise, by doing violence to their core ethical commitments. I think this question also reveals one of the purposes of the book is to try and use a warped and mutated "Confucianism" as an apologetic for East Asian capitalism."

Confucianism is a product of feudalism and is totally incompatible with socialism.  Any apologist of Stalinism is bound to remember the Maoist Cultural Revolution's attempt to wipe out Confucianism with one stroke, the long-term result being the rehabilitation of Confucianism in state capitalist China in order to mediate class inequality.  Indeed, the rehabilitation of Confucianism promoted by scholars worldwide is no better than the reactionary drive to theocracy.

Riggins concludes:

"In fact, I think Confucian humanism is completely compatible with a Marxist interpretation and totally incompatible with the theoretical and practical functioning of capitalism with the possible exception of some capitalist inspired market reforms guided by a desire to strengthen a socialist state."

Confucianism is however, completely incompatible with Marxism. And China is no socialist state.  Well, I guess one can only expect so much from the CPUSA.


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 12:04:04 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] philosophy in POLITICAL AFFAIRS (3): other authors
Message-ID: <33278940.1231095844869.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Hannah Arendt and ?The Human Condition?
By Reuven Kaminer
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5108/

This Month?s Conference on Hannah Arendt at Bar-Ilan University
By Reuven Kaminer
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5091/


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 13:03:08 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Thomas Riggins' blog (1)
Message-ID: <18797774.1231099388881.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Thomas Riggins' blog
http://leninlives.blogspot.com

I discovered this a couple months ago and may have made some notes to myself, but I don't believe I wrote anything for public consumption.

The blog includes entries on philosophical as well as on political topics. Examples are:

Engels on early Christianity
Russell on German Social Democracy
series on Chinese philosophy
Searle's naive political "theory"

I'll comment separately on some of these, but I'll begin with the three-part account of Engels' take on early Christianity.  I've given my views on a strictly class struggle oriented view of religion before, so this time I will only single out one passage:

"Engels reveals that misleadership is also a problem in these early movements (and still today I would add) due to the low levels of education found amongst the poor and oppressed. He quotes a contemporary witness, Lucian of Samosata ("the Voltaire of classic antiquity"). The Christians "despise all material goods without distinction and own them in common-- doctrines which they have accepted in good faith, without demonstration or proof. And when a skillful impostor who knows how to make clever use of circumstances comes to them he can manage to get rich in a short time and laugh up his sleeve over these simpletons.""

The "low levels of education" is an understatement, the proverbial tip of the iceberg, but at least it points to the deeper questions. Misleadership is an issue, but leaves out some more basic questions. Misleadership begins with St. Paul, who, as the prime mover of Christianity, was clearly manipulative, sociopathic and delusional. The entire ideology of Christianity is infected with the sick mentality endemic to the Roman Empire. Early Christianity as a manifestation of the Communist ideal is a rather simplistic conception of the nature of Christianity. See for example, THE MIND OF THE BIBLE-BELIEVER by Edmund G. Cohen.




From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Sun Jan  4 15:25:20 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
Message-ID: <22098474.1231107920597.JavaMail.root@whwamui-ascend.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

Thomas Riggins' started another blog on Bastille Day, which but there has been nothing since:

LENIN'S MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM 
http://materialismandempiriocriticism.blogspot.com/

See also the entry on Thomas Riggins' blog:

Reading Lenin 23 [Finis] 
http://leninlives.blogspot.com/2008/07/reading-lenin-23-finis.html

Riggins summarizes Lenin's book chapter by chapter, indicating where Lenin attacks Avenarius, Mach, Bogdanov, and others

A few points of interest, where Riggins dissents from Lenin:

(1) Lenin's labelling of Berkeley as a subjective idealist is challenged.

(2) On the relation of matter and sensation:

"Lenin says that he represents "the real views of materialists." Which "views do not consist in deriving sensations from the movement of matter or in reducing sensations to the movement of matter, but in recognising sensation as one of the properties of matter in motion. On this question Engels shared the standpoint of Diderot." This is not clear to me. If sensation is a property of "matter in motion" have we not reduced sensations to the "movement of matter"?"




From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Mon Jan  5 02:42:15 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
Message-ID: <5909972.1231148535356.JavaMail.root@whwamui-apprise.pas.sa.earthlink.net>

More comments from Riggins:

(3) 

"There now follow a few pages where Lenin defends the objectivity of time and space against Mach who thinks that Newton's views may not actually be applicable. Here Lenin seems to equate Newton's notion of ABSOLUTE time and space with the materialist view the denial of which leaves room for fedeism [religion]. Newton was, however, himself a Deist and left room for God in his system. Modern physics has adopted the views of Einstein concerning time and space which are very different from those of Newton."

(4) 

"Lenin does agree with Mach in rejecting a fourth spacial dimension. Mach is no "believer" and rejects a fourth spacial dimension so as not to aid "many theologians, who experience difficulty in deciding where to place hell." Lenin, of course, doesn't worry about the location of Hell. He would probably agree with Sartre that Hell is other people (especially mensheviks). His point is that Mach, thinking that Space and Time are products of the human mind, unconsciously adopts the materialist position (as it was in his time) when he asserts there are only three spacial dimensions because he assumes this to be an objective fact and is thus inconsistent."

(5)

"Lenin says, "The principal feature of Kant's philosophy is the reconciliation of materialism with idealism, a compromise between the two, the combination within one system of heterogeneous and contrary philosophical trends."

"Yes, but here is a question to think about. Why is this not a dialectical unity of opposites, a synthesis of a thesis (idealism) and antithesis (materialism), making Kantianism a higher philosophy than either of the others? Why is dialectical materialism so hostile to Kantianism rather than trying to make a synthetic unity with it?"

NOTE: Lenin goes on to lambaste the Russian Machists and link Machism with fideism. 

(6)

"Lenin and Helmholtz may be just having a verbal disagreement and not a disagreement of substance. Lenin says because Helmholtz says our sensations are symbols of the external world which, when we learn to read them properly can "direct our actions so as to achieve the desired result....," he has lapsed into "subjectivism" and a denial of objective truth and reality. This is too strong and I believe it is incorrect. The rose is part of objective reality-- it is red for us and ultra-violet for the bee. That the red rose is a symbol of my love-- is that objective or subjective?

"I also think Lenin is wrong to say that Helmholtz presents a "flagrant untruth" when he says "An idea and the object it represents obviously belong to two entirely different worlds...." Helmholtz is only saying, more or less, what Plato (I think truthfully) would have said, viz., when I look at the "Mona Lisa" my sensation is not the same as the picture on the wall, and the picture on the wall is not anything like the woman painted by Leonardo.

"That this is so is seen when Helmholtz says, "As to the properties of the objects of the external world, a little reflection will show that all the properties we may attribute to them merely signify the EFFECTS wrought by them either on our senses or on other natural objects." Lenin also says this is materialism."


(7) 

"What is "the error of Machism in general"? It does not understand the basis of materialism and does not differentiate metaphysical from dialectical materialism. Changes is our scientific understanding of the world is not a problem for diamat! Lenin, for example, uses the "ether" as an example of something existing independently of the human mind and reproaches the idealists for thinking it only a mind dependent convention. But the science of your day may not be the science of tomorrow. The "ether" turned out to be a construction of the human mind.

"So Lenin was wrong, but his real claim, that "dialectical materialism insists on the approximate, relative character of every scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties," is not wrong, and so, where it matters, Lenin was right."

(8)

"After discussing atoms, the ether, and electrons Rucker prefers the copy theory. Lenin says, "The gist of his position is this: The theory of physics is a copy (becoming ever more exact) of objective reality. The world is matter in motion, our knowledge of which grows ever more profound."

"This may an argument over words. How can the Ptolemaic geo-centric universe of Dante, or even the Copernican universe, which still uses epicycles, be a "copy" of the universe as it is as opposed to a symbolic representation? Physicists today (2008) don't know what the universe is really like.* Seventy four per cent of it is composed of something called "dark energy" and they have no idea what that is, so how can their descriptions be a "copy" of anything?

"It should be enough, for materialism, to hold that whatever is out there has been around before there were any humans (even before there was the Earth) and so it exists in objective reality independent of the human mind (i.e., the cerebral cortex of human brains)."

(9)

"Now it is time for an interesting metaphysical speculation. Ward writes that materialism is dependent upon the hard solid indestructible atom and since we now know the atom IS destructible, materialism must fall by the wayside. Lenin responds by saying, "The destructibility of the atom, its inexhaustibility, the mutability of all forms of matter and its motion, have always been the strong hold of dialectical materialism. All boundaries in nature are conditional, relative, movable, and express the gradual approximation of our mind towards knowledge of matter. But this does not in anyway prove that nature, matter itself is a symbol, a conventional sign, i.e., the product of our mind."

"Granted that Lenin is correct about "matter itself"-- what about our THEORIES about the nature of matter and the universe? Are they not the product of our mind? Are they "copies" even "photographic copies" of "matter itself" or are they conventional and often far from the truth of what "matter itself" really is "in itself" versus what it is "for us" at any particular time? Does Kant still have a right to a hearing? IF the nature of really turns out to be based on string theory how can the atomic models of Lenin's day be a copy? An approximate copy is not a copy. Ponderous pondering indeed."

(10)

--quote--
Lenin thinks the popularity of this idealistic "deviation towards reactionary philosophy" is only temporary ("a transitory period of sickness") -- a growth ailment he calls it, "mainly caused by the ABRUPT BREAK-DOWN of old established concepts." We should all be able to understand this. The abrupt break-down of the USSR and eastern European socialism in our own time has led to similar reactionary consequences not only in science and philosophy but in the theory and practice of Marxism as well.

If Marxism is a science, i.e., "scientific socialism"-- then these words of Lenin about physics should also apply to it. "The materialist spirit of physics, as of all modern science, will overcome all crises, but only by the indispensable replacement of metaphysical materialism by dialectical materialism."

This raises some serious questions. Few scientists today call themselves "dialectical materialists." Can we say they are "shamefaced" dialectical materialists? Can we say they are practicing diamat more or less unconsciously?

Lenin gives a long quote from Abel Rey the gist of which is that as physics has become more and more mathematical it has begun to lose contact with real objects and to deal with mathematical abstractions. Lenin thinks this is one of the reasons for the growth of idealist tendencies in the new physics.

Another reason is the growth of RELATIVISM. This is not a reference to the theory of relativity, first proposed by Einstein in 1905, and Einstein is never mentioned in MEC. Lenin thinks that the principle of the relativity of our knowledge leads to idealistic conclusions in the brains of people ignorant of dialectics.

--end quote--

(11)

"Lenin chose physics to illustrate his theories. He could have picked any number of sciences had he so wished. I should also note the conditions of 1908 are not unique. Marxism itself, as a scientific world view, is going through a similar crisis today in 2008 as was physics in 1908. Lenin's methods of analysis are as useful today as they were then."

COMMENT: The prior citations include some questioning of Lenin, with occasional extrapolations of the issues involved.  This one is not a criticism, but a rather silly analogy.

(12)

However, now Lenin, or the summary of Lenin, proceeds to questions of social science and social analysis.

I will deviate from my previous practice and cite Riggins even where he does not dissent from Lenin. This is important because if there is something politically reactionary about Machian and related positivism and not merely obscurantist, here's the place where it counts.

Lenin disposes of the German Machist Petzoldt:

"He has a philosophy of "stability" which is based on "human nature." The tendency is for humanity to attain a state of "stability." This conflict free state will come about on its own by the operations of human nature. It cannot be brought about by socialism. But "moral progress" towards this stability and equality can be seen in our [1908] time. Wages are going up for workers and profits are going down, and there is the foundation of the Salvation Army all of which is evidence for Petzoldt's views! Lenin says this is just "hackneyed rubbish" and represents not a scientific understanding of social science but the "infinite stupidity of the philistine.""

Then Lenin proceeds to Bogdanov:

"Bogdanov wrote an article in 1902 in which he quotes the famous passage from Marx's introduction to "Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy" about consciousness being a reflection of material reality. Bogdanov then concludes, "SOCIAL BEING AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS ARE, IN THE EXACT MEANING OF THESE TERMS, IDENTICAL." Lenin thinks this is nonsense."

(13)

"The philosophy of Marx and Engels "is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to bourgeois-reactionary falsehood." Is this too strong a statement? Is Lenin too fundamentalist? Or is this correct and far too many so called Marxists, even in our own day, have fallen into a similar stance as that of Bogdanov?"

(14)

"At the close of this section Lenin makes some interesting comments about Marx and Engels that are certainly relevant today. He says that for Marx "the transfer of biological concepts IN GENERAL to the sphere of the social sciences is PHRASE-MONGERING." This is certainly true of social Darwinism, but what about modern (2008) attempts to do this? Has science advanced to where this is no longer phrase-mongering? I am thinking of sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and neuroscientific explanations being applied to the social sciences."

(15)I won't quote anything here, only to say that Riggins summarizes Lenin's major themes in the rest of the book, of which I will list the most striking:

(a) There is no third way between idealism and materialism;
(b) Scientists are untrustorthy outside of their fields, esp. when dabbling in philosophy or politics, which are both essentially partisan;
(c) Some unfavorable remarks are made about William James's pragmatism;
(d) Bourgeois thought should be studied and its genuine and necessary contributions assimilated into Marxism, rather than the other way round;
(e) Lenin excoriates Lunacharsky's religious tendencies;
(f) Haeckel is full of contradictions, but he provides some important lessons.

I'm not claiming mcuh of anything at this point about Riggins, or about Lenin's book, which I'd have to re-read after several decades to comment on both. Lenin's objections to positivism are sound, His imprecise formulations of the reflection theory, and his comment about Marxism being an unbreakable whole may not stand up to scrutiny if some of the formulations are clumsy and inaccurate, as are some of Engels' notions of logic and dialectics of nature. Lenin's hostility to positivism is that it is idealist and idealism is the royal road to fideism. This is probably true, but again, we have to scrutinize the logic of argumentation.  That positivism leads to the most ridiculous social science, reducing the theory of history and society to physics and biology, would be most damning.  Riggins hardly provides a comprehensive or profound analysis, but given his Marxist-Leninist commitments, the fact that he would quibble with Lenin at all points to problem areas.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
>Sent: Jan 4, 2009 2:25 PM
>To: "marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>Cc: Marxist philosophy <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
>
>Thomas Riggins' started another blog on Bastille Day, which but there has been nothing since:
>
>LENIN'S MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM 
>http://materialismandempiriocriticism.blogspot.com/
>
>See also the entry on Thomas Riggins' blog:
>
>Reading Lenin 23 [Finis] 
>http://leninlives.blogspot.com/2008/07/reading-lenin-23-finis.html
>
>Riggins summarizes Lenin's book chapter by chapter, indicating where Lenin attacks Avenarius, Mach, Bogdanov, and others
>
>A few points of interest, where Riggins dissents from Lenin:
>
>(1) Lenin's labelling of Berkeley as a subjective idealist is challenged.
>
>(2) On the relation of matter and sensation:
>
>"Lenin says that he represents "the real views of materialists." Which "views do not consist in deriving sensations from the movement of matter or in reducing sensations to the movement of matter, but in recognising sensation as one of the properties of matter in motion. On this question Engels shared the standpoint of Diderot." This is not clear to me. If sensation is a property of "matter in motion" have we not reduced sensations to the "movement of matter"?"
>


From farmelantj at juno.com  Mon Jan  5 05:38:23 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:38:23 GMT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
Message-ID: <20090105.073823.29594.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>



-- Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:


(11)

"Lenin chose physics to illustrate his theories. He could have picked any number of sciences had he so wished. I should also note the conditions of 1908 are not unique. Marxism itself, as a scientific world view, is going through a similar crisis today in 2008 as was physics in 1908. Lenin's methods of analysis are as useful today as they were then."

COMMENT: The prior citations include some questioning of Lenin, with occasional extrapolations of the issues involved.  This one is not a criticism, but a rather silly analogy.

-----------------------


Well in Soviet writing, Lenin's notion of a crisis in physics
as described in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" was
applied to a number of different disciplines.  Thus,
the early Soviet psychologists (Vygotsky,Lenontiev, 
Rubenshtein, Luria, etc. maintained that their own
science was undergoing a crisis that was similar to the
one that Lenin had asserted was troubling physics.

The crisis in psychology was seen as emerging
from a contradiction between the materialist
outlook that was associated with experimental
psychology, and the idealism which bourgeois
psychology retained from the philosophies
of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Kant.
The writings of Wundt, the father of modern
psychology, were seen as exemplifying this
contradiction.  Therefore, early Soviet psychologists
were more than willing to give a fair hearing to
psychologies that challenged Wundt's
introspectionism including
both John B. Watson's behaviorism and
Gestalt psychology. Watson's work was looked
favorably upon because he was seen as attempting
to articulate a materialist psychology. Indeed, Watson
was invited to write an article on behaviorism for
the *Large Soviet Encyclopedia*.  Gestalt psychology
was treated favorably at first because it was
seen as an attempt at developing a dialectical
psychology.  A little later on, Soviet psychologists
initiated attempts at developing their own
psychological theories which they hoped
would be consistent with basic Marxist principles
such as the materialist conception of history and
Lenin's analysis of reflection. Thus,
American behaviorism was ultimately rejected
as being mechanistic and positivistic
while Gestalt psychology was rejected
as idealist. Nevertheless, they were recognized
as having made important contributions
which had to be absorbed into a psychology
that was firmly grounded in dialectical
materialism.

Jim Farmelant

____________________________________________________________
Click here for proven Credit Repair programs. Increase your score today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2Ou7KoRuSgp0h3NwUUGbacARVZUxreAzViQItkbYknBozHT/


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 08:08:52 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:08:52 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Owl of Minerva: looking back at a labor era in
	Detroit
Message-ID: <4961DC33.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

The end of an era for labor in Detroit was made obvious by the loss of the Detroit newspaper workers' strike.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-May/009617.html

INTERVIEW WITH DETROIT NEWSPAPER STRIKER BARB INGALLS

[Editor's note: On July 13, 1995, some 2,500 employees of the
Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press went on strike against
owners Gannett and Knight-Ridder, who had been trying for some
time to bust the unions at the two papers. Thirty-three months
later, the strike continues.

The Action Coalition of Strikers and Supporters (ACOSS) sponsored
a speaking tour so that the strikers could educate the public,
gain support across the West Coast and promote a nationwide
boycott of USA Today. After they were locked out, some of the
strikers started the Sunday Journal, a Detroit weekly striker-run
newspaper funded entirely by advertising.

At the forefront of the struggle is Barb Ingalls, a 41-year-old
graphic designer who had been working at the Detroit newspapers
for one year and one week when the strikers were locked out in
1995. Barb is a member of Detroit Typographical Union Local 18 as
well as a member of the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
Today her strike job is classified as director for the Sunday
Journal with, as she puts it, "a minor in mischief and mayhem."
Barb is incredibly outspoken, articulate, and passionate about the
strikers' cause.

The following is an excerpt of an interview Barb Ingalls granted
while she was on a speaking tour in Oregon. The interviewer is
Amanda Levinson.]



PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE: What kind of press, if any, are the strikers
getting in Detroit and nationally? Are you finding that the
community is supportive?

BARB INGALLS: One of our people went to the Media and Democracy
Forum last fall in New York City and met with a couple of people
from the New York Times, and they just said, "It's old, it's
boring news, and we're not going to write about you." Public radio
is really a bad joke. In fact, in the local NPR [National Public
Radio] station, one of their people is a really important scab who
crossed our picket line.

We had 100,000 people for a labor march, one of the largest labor
marches in the United States last June, and the local station said
it was 7,000 people. We have to rely on going door to door. When
people find out that we're still [on strike], they're incredulous,
they're supportive.

We've had people call when we're right there and cancel their
subscriptions [to the Free Press and the News]. But we're working
in the dark. We have radio ads that none of the stations will
play. They won't buy them, they say that they're too
controversial. We have newspaper ads which only one newspaper
would buy. We're under a total media blackout.

I am representing a group called ACOSS, which is Action Coalition
of Strikers and Supporters, and what's happened is that we got
really tired of waiting for the courts, and we got tired of
waiting for them to grow hearts -- it's not going to happen. So a
group of really wonderful people around the country have networked
and brainstormed and put these tours together. Word of mouth is
what has kept us alive, and my joke is that if I have to talk to
everybody in America one by one, I'll do it.


PT: What do you see in the future of the strike and what are the
things you need to really win?

BI: I believe really strongly that this strike isn't just about
Detroit. It's a national issue about union busting. So what we
need to do is to stay on the road. We need crews of people out on
the road in Arlington, Virginia, where Gannett's headquarters are,
and we need to have people there working the streets and getting
publicity and raising hell and having demonstrations and making it
embarrassing. We need to be able to continue the ad boycott and
costing them money. We're trying to spark a nationwide boycott of
USA Today. USA Today is Gannett's No. 1 money maker. We're also
trying to raise money across the country.

What's important right now is that the people on strike and a lot
of the community supporters have decided that we can't go on like
this, waiting and waiting for the courts to work. When they write
the history of the strike, and the victory of it, it's going to be
because people wouldn't put up with it anymore and came up with
these ways to deal with it and ended it. It's going to end up
being the workers' strike and the workers' victory.

To support the strike, you can send money to: Detroit Newspaper
Striker Relief Fund, 450 W. Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

You're also encouraged to visit the Sunday Journal website at
http://www.rust.net/~workers/strike.html 

For more information on ACOSS, write: Action Coalition of Strikers
and Supporters, 5750 Fifteen Mile Road Box 242, Sterling Heights,
Michigan 48310-5777 or visit the website at
http://members.aol.com/actmotown/index.html 


******************************************************************
This article originated in the PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE (Online Edition),
Vol. 25 No. 5 / May, 1998; P.O. Box 3524, Chicago, IL
60654, pt at noc.org or WWW:

             http://www.mcs.com/~league 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 08:20:55 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:20:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] philosophy in POLITICAL AFFAIRS (1)
Message-ID: <4961DF06.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Materialism, Contradiction and the Philosophy of Art
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/142/ 

  COMMENT: A rather scattered and incoherent analysis.

^^^
CB: Form fits content. Art tends to be scattered itself



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 08:32:47 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:32:47 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Thomas Riggins' blog (1)
Message-ID: <4961E1CE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 Early Christianity as a manifestation of the Communist ideal is a rather simplistic conception of the nature of Christianity. See for example, THE MIND OF THE BIBLE-BELIEVER by Edmund G. Cohen.

^^^
CB: True. In case you don't think Engels also held a more complex understanding of the nature of Christianity. See _Ludwig Feuerbach_ and Marx's "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right - Introduction."









This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 08:39:15 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:39:15 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
Message-ID: <4961E352.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Lenin is dead, and hasn't had a chance to update his work lately.

CJ

^^^^
CB: Most of Lenin's concepts from 1916 don't need updating.  Monopoly, financial oligarchy cartels. financial sector dominance and parasitism of industrial capital, objective laws or tendencies of capitalism apply better in 2009 than  anything you or other analysts are talking about. We can learn more from the dead Lenin about capitalism 2009 than we can from your posts even though you are alive (ha ha !).  As to the updating, aren't you up to that ?






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 08:49:54 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:49:54 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
Message-ID: <4961E5D1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Ralph Dumain 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is shockingly awful and an unfortunate product of CP & Soviet miseducation, and a further contribution to same.

^^^
CB: No this article is very much needed. Your comment is more evidence of your unfortunate ignorance of critical aspects of Marxist philosophy  (that of Marx , Engels and Lenin) due to _your_ anti-Soviet mis-education. Reminds me of that book _The Mis-education of the Negro_. Somewhere down the line you got petit bourgeois educated , and it keeps you from becoming a real Marxist philosopher.

^^^^

The part about Newton's mechanics is interesting, as are the materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the reference to Joseph Needham, but the rest is useless and even harmful.

^^^
CB: Yeah, silly rabbit. He's physicist (smile) . Reread and rethink and you might learn something about philosophy and the natural sciences. 

^^
 Here is a quick list of some commonly accepted falsehoods or nonsensical assertions:

^^
CB: I'll get to a critique of the critique later.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 09:18:27 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:18:27 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Worried German bourgeoisie
Message-ID: <4961EC82.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Louis Proyect 

(posted to LBO-talk by SA)

[From an interview with Hasso Plattner, co-founder of SAP]

<http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html>http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html 


[...]

SPIEGEL: Sometimes it's a nasty game. In 2005, Deutsche Bank CEO 
Josef Ackerman announced a 25 percent return for the company while at 
the same time saying it would lay off more than 6,000 employees.

Plattner: Objectively speaking, he was completely right. His bank 
needed those returns in order to stay globally competitive. He just 
expressed it badly. It's something that's understood almost 
everywhere around the world, just not in Germany, where one sometimes 
comes across a confused social romanticism.

SPIEGEL: What's utopian about people wanting a just society?

Plattner: Is German society unjust, then? Ever since the economic 
miracle of Ludwig Erhard, we Germans have been entrenched in a 
capitalist business system, on top of which we have super-imposed the 
cloak of a "social market economy"


SPIEGEL: 
which we find reasonable, because it softens the effects of 
extreme capitalism.

Plattner: I completely agree. But there's a feeling in this country 
that we don't want capitalism any more, and instead want something 
different, something nicer. But nothing better exists, despite all 
the system's weaknesses and its dark sides. East Germany showed us 
where a communist planned economy would lead us. Some people have 
started talking fondly about those times.

SPIEGEL: For example, the actor who played the police detective on 
the TV crime show Tatort, Peter Sodann, [now running for the largely 
ceremonial post of German president on behalf of the Left Party in an 
election next year] said: "I won't let the GDR be taken away from me."

Plattner: For me, that's just curious. On the other hand, the man is 
a candidate for the office of president of the republic.

SPIEGEL: In surveys, fewer and fewer Germans say they consider 
democracy to be the best political system, or capitalism to be the 
most sensible economic system.

Plattner: That really bothers me too. The only thing to do is take a 
look at the world, Cuba for example.






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 10:05:19 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:05:19 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] American steel industry needs $1 trillion bailout
Message-ID: <4961F77E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



NY Times, January 2, 2009
Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to U.S. Stimulus
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

The steel industry, having entered the recession in the best of health,

is emerging as a leading indicator of what lies ahead. As steel 
production goes ? and it is now in collapse ? so will go the
national 
economy.

That maxim once applied to Detroit?s Big Three car companies, when
they 
dominated American manufacturing. Now they are losing ground in good 
times and bad, and steel has replaced autos as the industry to watch
for 
an early sign that a severe recession is beginning to lift.

The industry itself is turning to government for orders that, until the

September collapse, had come from manufacturers and builders. Its 
executives are waiting anxiously for details of President-elect Barack

Obama?s stimulus plan, and adding their voices to pleas for a huge 
public investment program ? up to $1 trillion over two years ?
intended 
to lift demand for steel to build highways, bridges, electric power 
grids, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants and rapid transit.

?What we are asking,? said Daniel R. DiMicco, chairman and chief 
executive of the Nucor Corporation, a giant steel maker, ?is that our

government deal with the worst economic slowdown in our lifetime
through 
a recovery program that has in every provision a ?buy America?
clause.?

Economists in the Obama camp said the president-elect?s proposals to

Congress will include significant infrastructure spending that draws on

heavy industry.

New spending should provide an immediate jolt to the steel business, 
which has already gone through the painful makeover now demanded of 
automakers. Steel mills were closed, companies were consolidated, 
hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and the survivors agreed to 
concessions. As a result, productivity shot up and so did profits, to 
record levels in the first nine months of this year. Even as the
economy 
wobbled, steel held its own.

But then the recession hit in force. Steel goes into nearly everything

made in America, from homes and office buildings to cars, appliances
and 
light bulb sockets, and as construction and manufacturing wound down,
so 
did the output of steel, plunging 50 percent since September.

The steel industry?s collapse closely tracks the alarming late-autumn

swoon in the national economy, as the housing bust and the credit
crisis 
converted a mild downturn into ?a severe one that has much further to

run,? says Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global
Insight, 
offering a view increasingly shared by forecasters.

Through August, steel production was actually up slightly for the year.

The decline came slowly at first, and then with a rush in November and

December. By late December, output was down to 1.02 million tons a week

from 2.1 million tons on Aug. 30, the American Iron and Steel Institute

reported. The price of a ton of steel is also down by half since late 
summer.

?We are making our steel at four mills instead of six,? said John 
Armstrong, a spokesman for the United States Steel Corporation, adding

that two mills were recently idled and the four still operating are 
running at less than full capacity.

?The third quarter was one of the best in U.S. Steel?s history,?
Mr. 
Armstrong added. ?And it has been a very precipitous drop from
there.?

The cutback has been particularly hard on workers at the big integrated

mills like those at U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal USA, with their blast

furnaces and coke ovens converting iron ore and other materials into 
steel. Operated at less than full capacity, these mills are less 
efficient than the equally large ?minimills,? like Nucor, whose
electric 
arc furnaces can be operated efficiently at lower speeds.

So the plant closings have been mostly at the integrated mills, whose 
50,000 workers ? roughly 40 percent of the nation?s steelworkers
? are 
represented by the United Steelworkers. The union says that early this

year it expects 20,000 workers to be on furlough.

Ten thousand already have been. Kathleen Loepker, a millwright and 
mechanic, is among the most recent to join their ranks. She was laid
off 
on Dec. 19 from the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, Ill., which shut,

putting more than 2,000 employees out of work. With nearly 30 years 
seniority, Ms. Loepker, 48, has worked through bankruptcies, union 
concessions and consolidations during which her mill was acquired by 
U.S. Steel in 2003.

Her income today is tied more to incentive bonuses than in the past. On

layoff, she is collecting $20 an hour, which is 80 percent of her base

pay of $25.12 an hour. That base pay, rather than rising significantly,

is fattened by incentive bonuses tied to amounts of steel produced and

to profits. It had been averaging an additional $7 an hour ? money
now 
gone until the mill reopens.

?No one knows when that will happen,? said Ms. Loepker, who lives
by 
herself in a four-bedroom home she bought in nearby Belleville, three 
blocks from a married sister. ?The company tells us the end of March,

but they don?t know either,? Ms. Loepker said. ?The uncertainty
has 
everyone fearful.?

Not since the 1980s has American steel production been as low as it is

today. Those were the Rust Belt years when many steel companies were 
failing and imports of better quality, lower cost steel were rising.

Foreign producers no longer have an advantage over the refurbished 
American companies. Indeed, imports, which represent about 30 percent
of 
all steel sales in the United States, also are hurting as customers 
disappear.

The industry, in response, is lobbying the Obama transition team for 
infrastructure projects that would require big amounts of steel. Mass 
transit systems are high on the list, and so is bridge repair.

?We are sharing with the president-elect?s transition team our
thoughts 
in terms of the industry?s policy priorities,? said Nancy Gravatt,
a 
spokeswoman for the American Iron and Steel Institute.

The Obama team has not yet revealed details of the president-elect?s

soon-to-be-announced recovery plan other than to indicate that most of

the package will probably go into infrastructure spending rather than 
tax breaks.

?If the president-elect really follows through, he?ll fund a lot of
mass 
transit projects,? said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., the Wall Street deal
maker 
who put together the steel conglomerate known as Arcelor Mittal USA. 
?All the big cities have these projects ready to go.?

The sharp slide in steel production has several causes. Construction
and 
auto production have fallen sharply; between them, they account for 57

percent of the steel bought each year in the United States, according
to 
the Iron and Steel Institute. Appliances, machinery and other
electrical 
equipment account for an additional 13 percent, and the fall-off in 
production of these goods has also reduced steel orders.

Then there are the wholesalers, known in the steel industry as service

centers. They buy in huge quantities from the mills, building up 
inventories and selling to customers like a construction company that 
needs I-beams to build a shopping center, or a manufacturer of auto 
parts in need of steel tubing.

Until recently, the inventories were bought on credit, and the service

centers constantly replenished these stockpiles as steel was sold to
end 
users. But now the service centers, unable to borrow money easily and 
reluctant to borrow anyway in these hard times, have stopped buying
from 
the steel mills. They are selling off their inventories instead,
raising 
cash in the process. It is a tactic that annoys Mr. DiMicco, the Nucor

chief, no end.

?They don?t want to be without cash when they go into whatever the
black 
hole is that is being created by the financial crisis,? he said, and

faulted the nation?s lenders for collecting billions in government 
bailout money and then, in his view, refusing to lend it to the service

centers on reasonable terms. ?Credit completely dried up,? Mr.
DiMicco 
said, ?and it is still hard to get.?





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 10:17:43 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:17:43 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britain
Message-ID: <4961FA66.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

"Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is no Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a
fresh, broad, powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the
workers, which justifies the best hopes. There are several political
parties and organisations (the British Socialist Party [35], the
Socialist Labour Party, the South Wales Socialist Society, the
Workers? Socialist Federation [36]), which desire to form a
Communist Party and are already negotiating among themselves to this
end. In its issue of February 21, 1920, Vol. VI, No. 48, The Workers?
Dreadnought, weekly organ of the last of the organisations mentioned,
carried an article by the editor, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, entitled
"Towards a Communist Party". The article outlines the progress of the
negotiations between the four organisations mentioned, for the formation
of a united Communist Party, on the basis of affiliation to the Third
International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of
parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. It appears that one of the greatest obstacles to the
immediate formation of a united Communist Party is presented by the
disagreement on the questions of participation in Parliament and on
whether the new Communist Party should affiliate to the old,
trade-unionist, opportunist and social-chauvinist Labour Party, which is
mostly made up of trade unions. The Workers? Socialist Federation and
the Socialist Labour Party *7 are opposed to taking part in
parliamentary elections and in Parliament, and they are opposed to
affiliation to the Labour Party; in this they disagree with all or with
most of the members of the British Socialist Party, which they regard as
the "Right wing of the Communist parties" in Great Britain. (Page 5,
Sylvia Pankhurst?s article.)

Thus, the main division is the same as in Germany, notwithstanding the
enormous difference in the forms in which the disagreements manifest
themselves (in Germany the form is far closer to the "Russian" than it
is in Great Britain), and in a number of other things. Let us examine
the arguments of the "Lefts".

On the question of participation in Parliament, Comrade Sylvia
Pankhurst refers to an article in the same issue, by Comrade Gallacher,
who writes in the name of the Scottish Workers? Council in Glasgow.

"The above council," he writes, "is definitely anti-parliamentarian,
and has behind it the Left wing of the various political bodies. We
represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland, striving continually
to build up a revolutionary organisation within the industries [in
various branches of production], and a Communist Party, based on social
committees, throughout the country. For a considerable time we have been
sparring with the official parliamentarians. We have not considered it
necessary to declare open warfare on them, and they are afraid to open
an attack on us.

"But this state of affairs cannot long continue. We are winning all
along the line.

"The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more
disgusted with the thought of Parliament, and the Soviets [the Russian
word transliterated into English is used] or Workers? Councils are
being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course,
for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are
using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into
the parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not [all italics are
the author?s] give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going
to be a difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the
treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more impelling force
than their regard for the revolution. Any support given to
parliamentarism is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our
British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are
hopelessly reactionary. The official I.L.P. is more and more coming
under the control of middle-class Liberals, who ... have found their
?spiritual home? in the camp of Messrs. MacDonald, Snowden and
Co. The official I.L.P. is bitterly hostile to the Third International,
the rank and file is for it. Any support to the parliamentary
opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former. The B.S.P.
doesn?t count at all here.... What is wanted here is a sound
revolutionary industrial organisation, and a Communist Party working
along clear, well-defined, scientific lines. If our comrades can assist
us in building these, we will take their help gladly; if they cannot,
for God?s sake let them keep out altogether, lest they betray the
revolution by lending their support to the reactionaries, who are so
eagerly clamouring for parliamentary ?honours? (?) [the query mark
is the author?s] and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as
effectively as the ?boss? class politicians themselves."

In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the
temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank-and-file
workers who are only just beginning to accept communism. This temper is
highly gratifying and valuable; we must learn to appreciate and support
it for, in its absence, it would be hopeless to expect the victory of
the proletarian revolution in Great Britain, or in any other country for
that matter. People who can give expression to this temper of the
masses, and are able to evoke such a temper (which is very often
dormant, unconscious and latent) among the masses, should be appreciated
and given every assistance. At the same time, we must tell them openly
and frankly that a state of mind is by itself insufficient for
leadership of the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and that the
cause of the revolution may well be harmed by certain errors that people
who are most devoted to the cause of the revolution are about to commit,
or are committing. Comrade Gallacher?s letter undoubtedly reveals the
rudiments of all the mistakes that are being made by the German "Left"
Communists and were made by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in 1908 and
1918.

The writer of the letter is full of a noble and working-class hatred
for the bourgeois "class politicians" (a hatred understood and shared,
however, not only by proletarians but by all working people, by all
Kleinen Leuten to use the German expression). In a representative of the
oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the "beginning of
all wisdom", the basis of any socialist and communist movement and of
its success. The writer, however, has apparently lost sight of the fact
that politics is a science and an art that does not fall from the skies
or come gratis, and that, if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the
proletariat must train its own proletarian "class politicians", of a
kind in no way inferior to bourgeois politicians.

The writer of the letter fully realises that only workers? Soviets,
not parliament, can be the instrument enabling the proletariat to
achieve its aims; those who have failed to understand this are, of
course, out-and-out reactionaries, even if they are most highly educated
people, most experienced politicians, most sincere socialists, most
erudite Marxists, and most honest citizens and fathers of families. But
the writer of the letter does not even ask?it does not occur to him to
ask?whether it is possible to bring about the Soviets? victory over
parliament without getting pro-Soviet politicians into parliament,
without disintegrating parliamentarianism from within, without working
within parliament for the success of the Soviets in their forthcoming
task of dispersing parliament. Yet the writer of the letter expresses
the absolutely correct idea that the Communist Party in Great Britain
must act on scientific principles. Science demands, first, that the
experience of other countries be taken into account especially if these
other countries, which are also capitalist, are undergoing, or have
recently undergone, a very similar experience; second, it demands that
account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses
operating in a given country, and also that policy should not be
determined only by the desires and views, by the degree of
class-consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone.

It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the
Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want
to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the
bourgeoisie), that they want to "rule" along the old bourgeois lines,
and that when they are in power they will certainly behave like the
Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it does not at all follow
that to support them means treachery to the revolution; what does follow
is that, in the interests of the revolution, working-class
revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of
parliamentary support. To explain this idea, I shall take two
contemporary British political documents: (1) the speech delivered by
Prime Minister Lloyd George on March 18, 1920 (as reported in The
Manchester Guardian of March 19, 1920), and (2) the arguments of a
"Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in the article mentioned
above.

In his speech Lloyd George entered into a polemic with Asquith (who had
been especially invited to this meeting but declined to attend) and with
those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but
closer relations with the Labour Party. (In the above-quoted letter,
Comrade Gallacher also points to the fact that Liberals are joining the
Independent Labour Party.) Lloyd George argued that a coalition?and a
close coalition at that?between the Liberals and the Conservatives was
essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party,
which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist" and which is working for
the "common ownership" of the means of production. "It is ... known as
communism in France," the leader of the British bourgeoisie said,
putting it popularly for his audience, Liberal M.P.s who probably never
knew it before. In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is
called Bolshevism, he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable
on principle, Lloyd George explained, because they stand in principle
for private property. "Civilisation is in jeopardy," the speaker
declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite....

"...If you go to the agricultural areas," said Lloyd George, "I agree
you have the old party divisions as strong as ever. They are removed
from the danger. It does not walk their lanes. But when they see it they
will be as strong as some of these industrial constituencies are now.
Four-fifths of this country is industrial and commercial; hardly
one-fifth is agricultural. It is one of the things I have constantly in
my mind when I think of the dangers of the future here. In France the
population is agricultural, and you have a solid body of opinion which
does not move very rapidly, and which is not very easily excited by
revolutionary movements. That is not the case here. This country is more
top-heavy than any country in the world, and if it begins to rock, the
crash here, for that reason, will be greater than in any land."


From dogangoecmen at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 10:32:42 2009
From: dogangoecmen at aol.com (dogangoecmen at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:32:42 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Worried German bourgeoisie
In-Reply-To: <4961EC82.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <4961EC82.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <8CB3D72BFA141FA-5BC-465@MBLK-M10.sysops.aol.com>

This is very interesting and being discussed in Germany for more than one year.
What I find more interesting in this connection is what Roland Koch, the temporary prime minister of Hessen and one of the leading figures?of Christian Democrat Party (CDU), said:?he said that Germany must come out of the crisis with new market segments in hand. Similar assertions has been made by chancellor Angelika Merkel. She said that Germany must come out the crisis stronger. Is that the old game of imperialist expansion policy?


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu; marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:18
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Worried German bourgeoisie




Louis Proyect 

(posted to LBO-talk by SA)

[From an interview with Hasso Plattner, co-founder of SAP]

<http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html>http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html 



[...]

SPIEGEL: Sometimes it's a nasty game. In 2005, Deutsche Bank CEO 
Josef Ackerman announced a 25 percent return for the company while at 
the same time saying it would lay off more than 6,000 employees.

Plattner: Objectively speaking, he was completely right. His bank 
needed those returns in order to stay globally competitive. He just 
expressed it badly. It's something that's understood almost 
everywhere around the world, just not in Germany, where one sometimes 
comes across a confused social romanticism.

SPIEGEL: What's utopian about people wanting a just society?

Plattner: Is German society unjust, then? Ever since the economic 
miracle of Ludwig Erhard, we Germans have been entrenched in a 
capitalist business system, on top of which we have super-imposed the 
cloak of a "social market economy"


SPIEGEL: 
which we find reasonable, because it softens the effects of 
extreme capitalism.

Plattner: I completely agree. But there's a feeling in this country 
that we don't want capitalism any more, and instead want something 
different, something nicer. But nothing better exists, despite all 
the system's weaknesses and its dark sides. East Germany showed us 
where a communist planned economy would lead us. Some people have 
started talking fondly about those times.

SPIEGEL: For example, the actor who played the police detective on 
the TV crime show Tatort, Peter Sodann, [now running for the largely 
ceremonial post of German president on behalf of the Left Party in an 
election next year] said: "I won't let the GDR be taken away from me."

Plattner: For me, that's just curious. On the other hand, the man is 
a candidate for the office of president of the republic.

SPIEGEL: In surveys, fewer and fewer Germans say they consider 
democracy to be the best politica
l system, or capitalism to be the 
most sensible economic system.

Plattner: That really bothers me too. The only thing to do is take a 
look at the world, Cuba for example.






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


________________________________________________________________________
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  Mon Jan  5 10:38:52 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:38:52 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology
Message-ID: <4961FF5C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology
By Peter Zerner and Joel Wendland
 


 



  
The financial meltdown on Wall Street has provoked a severe ideological
crisis. Capitalism itself is under scrutiny. In the corporate media, one
can now find regular discussions of Marxism, capitalism and socialism
? not always positively presented to be sure, but at times the
discussion has been thoughtful. 

Even former Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan, long an
outspoken champion of free-market fundamentalism, told Congress in late
October that he was in the midst of ?an existential crisis.?
Greenspan confessed that he had ?made a mistake in presuming that the
self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were
such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders
and their equity in the firms." 

Another example of this trend is the recent Reuters analysis by Bernd
Debusmann who writes that ?Capitalism as we used to know it is on its
deathbed. And those who predicted that the old brand, the unfettered,
American-promoted system, was a danger to the world, are being
vindicated. They include Karl Marx, whose thinking on banks seems oddly
contemporary these days." 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China




PA Editors Blog

World Peace Council statement on Gaza
Depression Economics and Fundamental Change
Film Review: The Waltz of Bashir
 Subscribe to this Feed



  
Subscribe to Political Affairs Readers  
Email:    
Visit this group  
 
On the other end of the spectrum, consider the confused display of
logic in this op-ed from the Washington Post in October: "Is this the
end of American capitalism?? The answer is that ?we are not
witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted
markets." In the Post?s opinion, the collapse of the current system is
not a capitalist crisis, because we are not living under ?true
capitalism.? The Post's editors, however, seemed unable to elaborate a
vision of true capitalism. 

Former World Bank chief economist Joseph E. Stiglitz has offered more
thoughtful observations. In a recent article in Vanity Fair entitled
?Reversal of Fortune,? Stiglitz lists the chief characteristics
of the ideology of free-market capitalism as practiced in the US:
"special interest pressure, populist politics, bad economics, and sheer
incompetence," characteristics which he views in turn as the root causes
of the current crisis. 

Stiglitz hammers away at the anti-government ideology behind right-wing
economic policy. ?[This] ideology proclaimed that markets were always
good and government always bad.... [but] the fact is that key problems
facing our society cannot be addressed without effective government." In
his criticism of neoliberalism, Stiglitz displays an independent streak
and goes much further than most orthodox American economists dare. 

Like their counterparts among the nation?s CEOs, most US economists
have long abandoned any pretense of practicing objective science.
Instead, for the past three decades they have preferred to view the
American economy through rose-colored glasses. Why shouldn?t they?
When things go wrong, there is no price for their academic mistakes.
This is perhaps the most distinctive feature of today?s no-fault
capitalism. On the one hand ?robbing with a fountain pen? often goes
unpunished; on the other, acting as academic cheerleaders for
neoliberalism carriers no risk for today?s practitioners of the
?dismal science.? Among those who prophesy about the future of
the American economy, there are always far more Pollyannas than
Cassandras. 

Joseph Stiglitz is different. Having seen at close hand the damage
wrought by the IMF and its neoliberal policies, especially among the
world?s poorer nations, Stiglitz listened to his conscience and
resigned his position as chief IMF economist in 1999. Since then he has
criticized the neoliberal dogma of free-trade, an ideology which has
served as a convenient fig leaf to conceal the multitude of crimes
perpetrated by unregulated corporate greed operating on a global scale.


In Vanity Fair, Stiglitz points to the unspoken secret of US
capitalism. "Our economy,? he wrote, ?rests on public investments in
technology, such as the Internet.? Advances in modern technology, he
noted, have been the driving force behind the modern American economy
and will continue to be so in the future. All these revolutionary
developments ? for example, information technology, alternative energy
and space technology ? have resulted from publicly-financed
cooperative efforts between the US government and university and
corporate research centers. 

Such advances, in turn, are transformed, for good or for ill, into
lucrative sources of profit for US corporations and are exported
throughout the world. All of these technological breakthroughs, however,
resulted from carefully planned, government-backed efforts which
harnessed the scientific and managerial talents of large numbers of
individuals working together to achieve a common goal. The future of the
American economy and the achievement of economic security for the
American people lie in precisely this kind of planning and
problem-solving. 

Markets, by themselves, have been decisively proven to be extremely
inefficient regulators of economic life. As Stiglitz says, "We learned
from the Depression that markets are not self-adjusting," adding that
sporadic government interventions in the economy such as interest rate
adjustments, are insufficient to prevent recurring economic crises. We
are now faced with a wide range of interconnected economic problems,
foremost among them the housing and financial crisis. But today?s
economic crises are so systemic and widespread that they cannot be
solved by simply adjusting interest rates. 

Because markets aren't self-adjusting and because a healthy, dynamic
economy requires public financing and governmental regulation of the
financial markets, it is obvious that the US is in dire need of a form
of economic therapy far different from the free-market quackery
practiced by the Bush administration. 

In his article, Stiglitz not only rejects the cult of free-market
fundamentalism, but he also criticizes more orthodox proponents of
limited government intervention by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as
sporadic emergency bailouts like the Wall Street rescue package proposed
by Bernanke and Paulson. As Stiglitz notes, the so-called ?free
market? comes with an enormous hidden price tag, which the American
people are now being forced to pay. Part of the reason the costs are so
high is that Washington lobbyists and special interests have bought
access to the halls of Congress and the regulatory bodies that were
originally designed to keep an eye on the criminal activities those who
hire the lobbyists and buy the votes in Congress actually engage. They
have essentially gamed the system and have, in Stiglitz?s words,
?bent the rules to benefit themselves." 

This unfettered free-market system ran rampant during the Reagan-era
and Republican one-party rule under George W. Bush. Under Bush, the
corporate components of Bush?s true base, Halliburton, Blackwater USA,
Big Oil, and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have all lined
up at the trough for no-bid government contracts, huge tax breaks,
exemption from government oversight and a shooting spree in Iraq. It was
during this new golden age of political corruption that Donald Diamond,
the Arizona real estate tycoon, paid for John McCain?s help in
acquiring a lucrative stretch of public land on the California coast, so
he could erect McMansions on it. In the 1980s another Arizonan, Charles
Keating, received special Senate favors from his
?till-death-do-us-part? friend John McCain, along with four other
US senators, enticing them by means of lavish campaign contributions to
look the other way as his Lincoln Savings and Loan engaged in massive
fraudulent activity. 

People before profits: An idea whose time has come 

The economic crisis we face is the direct result of the anarchy of a
financial system guided purely by self-interest and profit. 


  
advertisement  
But if the self-interested quest for profits of the corporations and
the wealthiest Americans has been proven to be responsible for the
current financial chaos, what kinds of policies are needed in its place?
Stiglitz calls for carefully-planned government intervention, reinforced
oversight of the financial markets, massive investments in basic
infrastructure, and new programs and regulations that allow homeowners
who are faced with foreclosure to pay off their debts in a reasonable
fashion and stay in their homes. 

Another respected economist, James K. Galbraith of the University of
Texas (son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the prominent progressive
economist of the Kennedy-Johnson years) recently addressed the crisis of
capitalism in an article in Harper's Magazine simply titled "Plan." In
it he advocates just that ? a planned economy. Galbraith viewed the
present system as a ?mixed economy.? As it now exists, corporate
interests dominate this mixed economy. With the rise of free market
fundamentalism, corporate interests have totally overwhelmed a formally
vital public component of the economy that has lain essentially dormant
for decades since the time of FDR (with a brief attempt at resuscitation
during the years of LBJ?s Great Society program). 

Galbraith seems to agree with Stiglitz that rigid adherence to policies
based entirely on free market fundamentalism comes with a great price.
In his view, those who have wielded power for so many years in US
political and economic circles, fervently believe in using "the
government to build monopolies, to control resources, to block
regulation, to crush unions, [and] to divert as much as possible from
taxpayers into private pockets." 

Obviously the solution to the present economic crisis is not a retreat
to some more ?authentic? or ?original? form of capitalism, like
the Washington Post op-ed writer dreams about. Nor does it lie in simply
beefing up regulation and oversight of the financial markets and banks.
Galbraith emphasizes that planning is the best solution. For him, the
role of government should be to provide continuous oversight of the
American economy and the inevitable excesses of capitalism. 

Only a democratically-based government that is responsive to the needs
of the American people can provide the necessary planning and monetary
resources to adequately address the problems that inevitably arise in a
capitalist economy. Some of the negative consequences of unrestrained
capitalism we are currently seeing are millions of home foreclosures,
rising unemployment, plant shutdowns, market chaos, and a dwindling
supply of natural resources like oil and water. Government planners,
with the interests of the American public, not profits, at heart, should
be at work providing real-time solutions to the nation?s economic
problems. Galbraith highlights the environmental crisis we face and
points to the direct impact of global warming and dependence on foreign
oil on the faltering economy. 

Systematic planning can address the many problems we face as a nation
? social problems such as the lack of good-paying jobs and secure
financial futures, environmental problems like global warming and a
rotting infrastructure, the abysmal state of our health care system, and
the problems of racial, ethnic and sexual discrimination. Each of these
problems has grown steadily worse during the past eight years of the
Bush administration, which has exhibited a total lack of strategic
planning (Iraq/Katrina/the subprime mess) and a haughty disdain for
contemplating the needs of any sector of American society apart from the
extremely wealthy. And for those who do not subscribe to the official
dogma of unfettered free market capitalism, any input into the
formulation of economic policy has been effectively blocked. 

Galbraith also stresses that we need a government where the voices of
working people are heard and programs implemented that offer viable ways
to revive the American economy. Such new approaches could be harnessed
to end our long reliance on non-renewable fossil fuel and provide for
massive investment in renewable energy alternatives. The direct result
of this planning process would be to strengthen environmentally-friendly
industries and create new jobs. Intellectual foresight and planning is
also needed to create a universal health care system that ensures equal
and complete access to medical care for all the American people. 

The money we need to revive our economy should come from rescinding the
tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of taxpayers, while at the same
time providing tax cuts and stimulus packages for the rest of us. We can
also free up more federal dollars for domestic needs by ending the war
in Iraq, which has become an Augean stable of graft and corruption that
is costs $10 billion a month. 

Preserving the environment, preventing wars, finding ways to reduce the
bloated military budget and creating jobs are the intellectual and moral
challenges of the 21st century that require more than what the so-called
experts have to offer. The task at hand also demands the direct,
grassroots input of millions of ?ordinary? Americans, who have
first-hand knowledge of the problems we face. 

A new economy can only be built if it is based on hard work, democracy
and careful planning. It can never arise out of a self-interested desire
for the acquisition of enormous personal wealth ? the hallmark of
free-market capitalism. But planning for American?s economic future
should not be the exclusive domain of government bureaucrats or
university professors, a 21st century version of Plato?s philosopher
kings. 

Effective planning requires the leadership and active participation of
America?s working people. Leadership for a new economy should come
particularly from the organized labor movement, whose leaders and
rank-and-file members have direct experience with the problems working
families face. These dedicated working-class leaders are ready, willing
and able to work together with government and business to find ways to
protect the economic interests of the essential core of democracy, the
American people. 

To engage and defeat this many-headed economic monster demands a boldly
different, multifaceted approach. Succeeding in this Herculean task
requires a concerted national effort and careful economic planning.
Essential to its success is the adoption of a grassroots strategy,
working from the bottom up, a massive effort akin to the mobilization
sparked by the Obama campaign, relying on the input of the American
people to tell us what our national priorities ought to be. Such an
effort will obviously require a massive injection of federal dollars,
rationally allocated and carefully planned. 

There has never been a better or more urgent time to re-evaluate the
economic system we live in. With Barack Obama in the White House and the
Democrats firmly in control of Congress, now is the time for us to make
the basic changes in the economy that will put an end to the reign of
no-fault, free-market capitalism we have suffered under for the last
eight chaotic years ? and finally put the interests of the American
people before corporate profits. 

--Peter Zerner is managing editor of Political Affairs. Joel Wendland
is editor of Political Affairs. 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 11:16:30 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:16:30 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
In-Reply-To: <5909972.1231148535356.JavaMail.root@whwamui-apprise.pas.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <5909972.1231148535356.JavaMail.root@whwamui-apprise.pas.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4962082D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



"Yes, but here is a question to think about. Why is this not a dialectical unity of opposites, a synthesis of a thesis (idealism) and antithesis (materialism), making Kantianism a higher philosophy than either of the others? Why is dialectical materialism so hostile to Kantianism rather than trying to make a synthetic unity with it?"

^^^
CB: In the philosophical line Lenin is part of Kant's philosophy had already been critiqued by Hegel.  Marx and Engels don't even have much to say about Kant, as far as I know.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 14:39:08 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:39:08 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Good look at crisis in Gaza
References: <8fe1d4750901051317wcc97548s89b7bcb1841c6f70@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496237AB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://pww.org/article/articleview/14219/ 
Gaza crisis: challenge and opportunity for Obama to turn the page toward
peace

>Archive <http://pww.org/article/archive/0/> - Daily Online<http://pww.org/article/archive/266/>

Author: Susan Webb <http://pww.org/article/author/view/247>
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/31/08 17:45





The tiny Gaza Strip, with its 1.5 million people crowded into 139 square
miles, has been a tinderbox since Israel's unilateral pullout in 2005.

Israel has maintained a punitive military and economic grip on Gaza, keeping
the population in what is internationally condemned as a deepening
humanitarian crisis. Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) seized power there
in 2007, and began its "resistance" policy of firing rockets into southern
Israel. A tenuous six-month ceasefire ended in early December despite
reported behind-the-scenes initiatives to extend it, and now we have the
horrible spectacle of a massive aerial bombardment of this densely populated
strip by Israel, with the civilian toll mounting daily (currently nearly 500
Gazans dead and approaching 2,000 wounded, including children). Hamas has
continued rocket attacks on Israel, killing 4 Israelis as of this week, and
is threatening suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel.

Israel says its assault is a defensive operation, yet also says it intends
to physically wipe out the Hamas leadership. Other objectives appear to be
to intimidate the Palestinian people, further weaken Palestinian civil
society and promote disunity, and reassert Israeli power.

There is growing international condemnation of Israel's disproportionate use
of force and collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population, both
violations of the Geneva Conventions.

It's possible a temporary truce may emerge in the next few days, but, more
than ever, the underlying issues will at long last have to be resolved. And
the incoming Obama administration will have the challenge, and the
opportunity, to lead the way to peace.

*Who benefits from the crisis that has erupted in **Gaza**?*

The election of Barack Obama brought with it the real possibility for a just
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict based on two states, as long ago
envisioned by the United Nations.

During his campaign Obama told Jewish leaders on a number of occasions that
his support for Israel did not mean he would support the policies of
Israel's Likud Party. This was a courageous stand by Obama, but it also
reflected the growing awareness in influential U.S. circles that a peaceful
two-state solution is in U.S. interests, including the long-term global
interests of U.S. capitalism, not to mention the interests of the Israeli
and Palestinian people.

When he announced his naming of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and
other top national security appointments, Obama singled out a lasting
solution for Israel and the Palestinians as one of his four top foreign
policy priorities.

Many believe the current military explosion in Gaza seeks to take advantage
of the post-election/pre-inauguration leadership vacuum in Washington and
the Bush administration's knee-jerk green-lighting of Israeli military
confrontation. Some see it as a challenge to Obama, and an effort to stymie
his peace efforts. The Gaza crisis, rather than advancing peace, has the
potential to strengthen military extremism in Israel, among the
Palestinians, and in the region.

*Not everyone wants a political solution*

Reactionary forces in Israel, like the fanatical settlers who attacked
Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron recently, don't want a
political settlement of the conflict. The Israeli far right rejects
Palestinian statehood and even the state of Israel within the UN-recognized
pre-1967 borders, claiming the entire West Bank as part of "the land of
Israel." Other right and center forces in Israel, while in some cases giving
lip service to a two-state solution, want to hold onto as much of the
occupied West Bank as possible.

Noted Israeli historian Avi Shlaim wrote last May, "Sixty years on, Israel
is not fighting for its security or survival but to retain some of the
territories it conquered in the course of the war of June 1967."

The real purpose of Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 (snubbing
negotiations with the Palestinian leadership), Shlaim wrote, was not peace,
but to concentrate on unilaterally redrawing the borders of "greater Israel"
by incorporating Jerusalem and key settlement blocs in the West Bank.
"Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity,
the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term Likud effort to deny the
Palestinian people an independent political existence on their land." Since
then, Israel, with the help of provocations by Hamas, has continued to use
Gaza as a lever to disrupt the overall peace process.

*Regional power struggle/failed Cold War strategy*

Reactionary Islamic and Arab elements don't want a political settlement
either. For them, and thus for the rest of us, this crisis is part of a
regional power struggle with global ramifications.

Continuing a centuries-old struggle for dominance in the region, Iran's
reactionary Islamist regime is contesting for power against the reactionary
regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All of them have used the
Israel-Palestinian conflict and the suppression of Palestinian national
aspirations as an opportunity to claim the mantle of leadership by wielding
militant anti-imperialist and/or Arab nationalist rhetoric, while
suppressing their own democratic and working class movements.

The rise of extremist Islamic movements is due in large part to the bloody
repression and even extermination of communist, left, working class and
other democratic currents in all these countries (as in others such as Iraq,
Afghanistan, Sudan and Indonesia), promoted and abetted by the U.S. as part
of its global Cold War strategy.

The U.S. Cold War strategy also included using Israel armed to the teeth as
a beachhead in the region, encouraging and supporting Israeli militarists.
Israeli government policy, dominated by this approach, has long been to
undermine the PLO, in which secular left and democratic forces have played
an important role. It is widely known that Israel aided and abetted the
formation of Hamas in the early 1980s as a counterweight to the PLO and the
secular left/progressive trend within it. Ironically, it is the Palestinian
communists and their Israeli counterparts who stood alone in supporting the
two-state solution when it was adopted by the United Nations in 1947. Thus
Israeli government policy, carrying out the U.S. Cold War policy, has helped
created today's crisis.

Seeing the real or potential threats to their power from extremist Islamic
groups their policies helped to create, the Saudis and other reactionary
Arab rulers are caught in something of a dilemma. Their alliance with the
U.S. became problematic for them following the disastrous U.S. invasion of
Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has turned from an opportunity to a
major problem for them. At the same time Iran's Ahmadinejad regime is widely
seen as backing Hamas as well as Lebanon's Hezbollah as part of its project
to assume regional dominance by claiming the mantle of "resistance" to
imperialism.

Meanwhile, the Israeli right and center forces are in their own crisis. Many
commentators tie the current assault on Gaza to the power struggle leading
up to Israel's February elections. As in the U.S., Israeli politicians feel
they have to show they are "tough" on national security, and that has
translated into aggressive military action. But many Israelis and others
warn that, as in the Israeli "defensive" attack on Lebanon in 2006, there
will be no good outcome. Many fear the Gaza offensive will only lead to a
February election victory by the right-wing Likud Party led by Benjamin
Netanyahu, which would further impede the prospects for peace.

*Militarism a dead end*

Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab made relevant points in a Dec. 30
Washington Post op ed:

"For different reasons, Hamas and Israel both gave up on the cease-fire,
preferring instead to climb over corpses to reach their political goals. One
side wants to resuscitate its public support by appearing to be a heroic
resister, while the other, on the eve of elections, wants to show toughness
to a public unhappy with the nuisance of the Qassam rockets.

"The disproportionate and heavy-handed Israeli attacks on Gaza have been a
bonanza for Hamas," Kuttab wrote. "The movement has renewed its standing in
the Arab world, secured international favor further afield and succeeded in
scuttling indirect Israeli-Syrian talks and direct Palestinian-Israeli
negotiations."

He concluded, "By choosing the waning days of the Bush administration to
attack Gaza, the Israelis knew they would face no opposition from the leader
of the so-called war on terrorism. Just as George W. Bush's misadventure in
Iraq played into the hands of radicals and terrorists, this Israeli action
will produce nothing less than that in Palestine. Let us hope that the Obama
administration will see the consequences of what is not only a crime of war
but also a move whose results are exactly the opposite of its publicly
proclaimed purposes."

Gershon Shafir, an Israeli sociologist who directs the Institute for
International, Comparative, and Area Studies at the University of California
in San Diego, writes: "At a strategic level, Hamas is not interested in
political alternatives to armed confrontation. But whether one wants to call
the Hamas strategy resistance or terrorism, the lack of a serious political
plan to accompany military strategies is always counterproductive, as it is
has been for Hamas and for the people of Gaza.

"It will be equally counterproductive for Israel. It appears that Israeli
political leaders and military planners labor under the illusion that there
is a military 'solution' to Hamas. The extended military operation in Gaza
is expected to serve as a pedagogical tool for moderating or eliminating
Hamas. But this will not work, and the idea that a ground invasion of Gaza
could actually eliminate Hamas as a force in Palestinian politics is
delusional. The Israeli approach is every bit as driven by militarism as
Hamas' strategy is. Beyond a certain point, it can serve no realistic
political goals."

*Challenge and opportunity*

For the Obama administration to finally achieve the much-needed peaceful
solution not only for Gaza but for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will
have to break with the disastrous Cold War policies of the past. This means
serious diplomacy that promotes the realist, peace-inclined forces in Israel
who realize that peace is in their interests, and, on the Palestinian side,
furthers rather than hinders re-establishment of unity and advancement of a
more realist, peace-oriented approach. It means promoting the realist,
peace-oriented forces in U.S. politics as well. It means diplomacy with Iran
that recognizes its legitimate role as an important country in the region.
It means political, economic and social foreign policies that promote mutual
de-nuclearization and demilitarization, labor rights, grassroots economic
and social development and culture, and real democracy - not the phony kind
trumpeted by Bush and his ilk.

-----
Susan Webb (suewebb @ pww.org) is associate editor of the People's Weekly
World.

Sources:
Daoud Kuttab, "Has Israel revived
Hamas?"<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901901.html?hpid=opinionsbox1>

Gershon Shafir, "War without
end?"<http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/12/war-without-end.html>

Avi Shlaim, "Israel at 60: the 'iron wall'
revisited"<http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel_at_60_the_iron_wall_revisited>



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 15:04:10 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:04:10 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Why a Philosophy of the Natural Sciences is Needed
Message-ID: <49623D8A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Ralph Dumain 
 Here is a quick list of some commonly accepted falsehoods or
nonsensical assertions:

1. "The logic of the Marxist analysis of social development is based on
the philosophical system of dialectical and historical materialism.
Dialectical and historical materialism together constitute a unitary
philosophical system."

2. "By the 1870s, Marx and Engels had essentially established the
law-governed revolutionary transformative character of the process
leading from capitalism to socialism."

3. "The Hegelian Marxists, such as Luk?cs, Korsch, and Gramsci, argued
that dialectics is not applicable to nature and that in fact its
application to nature is the source of the mechanistic determinism that
led to reformism (Azad 2005, 307, drawing on Callinicos 1976, 70). In
making this argument, they also rejected the Leninist reflection theory
of knowledge as the basis for the Marxist-Leninist concept of the
relationship between the two fundamental philosophical categories,
matter and ideas. The understanding of this relationship lies at the
heart of the Marxist concept of the scientific method. The idealist
character of this view led to giving overriding priority to the
development of a socialist consciousness while paying inadequate
attention to strengthening the material organizational basis of the
class struggle."

"Actually it was not necessary, of course, for Marx to state explicitly
(although clearly he did) that dialectics applies to the sphere of
nature. Hegel had already spelled this out in his works, as did Marx
himself in Capital and elsewhere. Underlying the attempt to deny the
applicability of dialectics to nature is a strong anti-Communism that
dissociates itself from any political, organizational forms of class
struggle."

4. "One of the principal reasons for attention to dialectical
materialism by natural scientists is the clarity it brings to
understanding processes of change in all the natural sciences."

"In the dialectical-materialist view, fundamental properties in a given
field are akin to philosophical categories, the building blocks of
logical thought. The meaning of fundamental properties is determined by
the interrelationships among them as expressed through the laws of the
particular scientific field invoking them."

"Another change in the direction of the Marxist dialectical
understanding is the change in the textbook statements about the subject
matter of physics ? from characterizing it as the study of invariances
(that is, the unchanging character) of matter to the increasingly
current characterization as the study of changes in the physical
world."

5. "Philosophy of the natural sciences is also needed because of the
interconnection between the natural sciences and societal development."

"The failure to integrate philosophy into each discipline deprives
natural scientists of intimate contact with the conceptual foundations
of their sciences. They are left ignorant of understanding the broad
scope of the interconnections of their fields with other fields unless
they happen to self-educated in the philosophical literature concerning
their fields as well as in philosophy in general."

CONCLUSION:

"Dialectical and historical materialism came into being as a
philosophical system because Marx and Engels needed it to uncover the
evolutionary process guiding societal transition from capitalism to
communism."

These quotes are only symptomatic of a very confused argument. One
could go into more detail, but it seems hardly worth the bother.

^^^
CB: Typical of you. A critical and insulting conclusory remark with no
supporting argumentation for the conclusion. You like to make emoting
comments with no logical discussion. Ridiculous for "philosophical"
analysis.

^^^^
  
Marx did not create a philosophical system at all, let alone
dialectical materialism as a philosophical system.
^^^^^
CB: No evidence from Ralph to support this assertion.

^^^

 Marx had epistemological principles, which have to be teased out of
his episodic methodological statements, and he had what could be called
an ontology of labor and social being, especially in his earlier years,
but a philosophical system-builder he was not.

^^^^
CB: Oh yeah, he just had casual "epistemological" principles.  And who
does this "teasing" ?

Read the chapter in _Ludwig Feuerbach_ and _Anti-Duhring_ for a view of
the their system.

^^^

Marquit is correct that it is simplistic to attribute the mechanistic
determinism of the 2nd International and its inheritors to dialectical
materialism per se, but he misses the logic of Lukacs' turning away from
Engels' dialectics of nature, which emerges clearly in Lukacs' recently
published manuscript TAILISM AND THE DIALECTIC. 

^^^^
CB: Marx didn't "turn away" from Engels. Engels was right there making
Marxism with Marx.  To that extent, so much the worse for Luckacs
"turning away" from Engels.

^^^^^

Here is another telling passage:

"But the transition from capitalism to socialism differs from previous
societal transformations in that the process can only be brought about
with conscious understanding of its nature and necessity. Life under the
material conditions of existence under capitalism serves as the source
for acquisition of this consciousness among the masses, but this
acquisition cannot occur spontaneously through economic struggles. The
consciousness must be imparted to them by the party that is guided by
historical and dialectical materialism."

^^^
CB: Telling what ? the truth.

^^^^

But actually this was substantially the viewpoint of Lukacs when he was
maligned by Zinoviev,  Deborin, Rudas, and whoever else I'm forgetting.

^^^^
CB: So, Luckacs got some of it right. Good for him

^^^ 
  
As for dialectics constituting the unified abstract laws of nature,
society, and thought, Marquit thoughtlessly follows Engels' ambiguous
and misguided formulation.

^^^
CB: Thoughtlessly ?  You are the one not thinking.   You are the one
misguided and miseducated. Not Engels.

^^^^^


 And while scientific theory always implicates philosophical issues,
there is no straightforward relationship between science and philosophy,
and certainly not dialectical materialist as he describes it.

^^^^
CB: Conclusory remark with no supporting argument.   

This is a depressing read.

^^^






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan  5 15:13:27 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:13:27 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] More spectre of "socialism" from the right
Message-ID: <49623FB6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Speaking of... 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/ 


Tuesday, December 30, 2008 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts 

Ralph Z. Hallow <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/ralph-z-hallow/> ( Contact <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/ralph-z-hallow/contact>) 

*EXCLUSIVE:* 

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration. 

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers. 

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it. 

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed. 

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers. 

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly. 

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead. 

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion. 

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision." 

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do. 

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it." 

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said. 

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment. 

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy." 

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store. 

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach. 

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said. 

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility." 

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill. 

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president. 

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee. 

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that. 

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing." 

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?" 

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year." 

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine. 

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said. 

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials. 

*Jon Ward contributed to this report.* 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 16:31:33 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:31:33 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism,
	" by John Case - Critique (1)
Message-ID: <c3c.4a3be381.3693f255@aol.com>

"The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism," by John Case, traces the  
emergence of speculative bubbles, technological innovation and changes in the  
productive forces as change waves in five distinct era of capitalism. 
_http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773_ 
(http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7773)  
 

"The Industrial Revolution, 1771-1829 
 
"When Richard Arkwright's Cromford mill in Britain opened in 1771, the  
future paths to the cost-reducing mechanization of the cotton, textile and other  
industries became powerfully visible. Soon mechanization of cotton, wrought  
iron, and the age of machine tools transformed, or created wholly new economic,  
industrial and social infrastructures such as canals, waterways, turnpike 
roads  and the greatly improved application of water power to industry. "Once 
risky  ventures of the early investors in the application of this new technology 
gave  way to a speculative frenzy. Thomas Tooke, the early 19th century 
merchant and  author, described the British crash of 1793, which brought the first 
industrial  revolution in Britain to its turning point, to "a great and undue 
extension of  the system of credit and paper circulation." A year earlier in 
America, Thomas  Jefferson, observing the first financial collapse in the 
independent United  States, noted that "our paper bubble has burst.?" 
 
"The Industrial Revolution, 1771-1829 , Case summarizes the speculative  
bubble created, as financiers scrabbled to profit from technological innovation  
during this period: 
 
"The frenzy of speculation built on the potential of these industries  
swelled throughout the 1830's and 1840's, with numerous and increasingly  
European-wide crashes in the latter years. The pain of this era of mounting  inequality 
was documented with poignancy and outrage in Engels' The Condition of  the 
Working Class in England ? 1844." 
 
"The Age of Steam and Railways, 1829-1873 
 
In 1829 the "Rocket" steam engine powered a passenger train from Manchester  
to Liverpool. And with it was born ? almost simultaneously in the US and 
Britain  ? the explosion of iron and coal, steam, machine and power industries that 
again  mandated the remaking of much of the old economy and society. New and 
much  enlarged requirements for resources and changed modes of production 
stimulated  vast imperial ambitions throughout the world. 
 

"The Age of Steel, Electricity, Heavy Engineering, 1875-1918," "Again,  
speculative frenzies opened and led to big financial crashes in the late 1890's  ? 
the huge increase in inequality that resulted from a new era of financial  
speculation was celebrated in Veblen's "the Leisure class." A new era of reforms  
and socialization (epitomized in the Theodore Roosevelt reforms) attempted to 
 align institutions with the rapidly changing technological infrastructures. 
The  early trade union movement was born out of the fight for the eight-hour 
day, and  bans on child labor in this era. In addition worldwide conflict 
between the  emerging and powerful capitalist centers culminated in World War I. 
The striving  for new technologies of war accelerated and shortened the hoped 
for stability of  the "reform era." A new technological revolution was already 
erupting. Finance  capital again found a new cluster of technologies that would 
make the Age of  Steel appear primitive, and began its split from production 
again." 
 
"Age of the Automobile, Oil and Mass Production, 1908-1974." 
 
"The frenzy associated with this new technological revolution we remember  
today as the Roaring Twenties. The crash that ensued in 1929 was devastating.  
Institutions and politics throughout society were fundamentally changed." 
 
In the final sub-section, 
 
"The Age of Information and Telecommunications, 1971-???," chronicling what  
could be called quantitative boundaries in the expansion of the industrial  
system, Case writes: 
 
"The crash of this cycle however, as each before it, has familiar, but also  
new features. We do not have to go back beyond living memory to recall the  
eruption of the semiconductor and software surges of the 1980's, and the frenzy  
of speculation from the mid-1990's through 2000 ? when the latest turning 
point,  and build up to the current crash, began." 
 
"The Current Crash 
 
"This crash has had two stages. The first occurred in 2000 when the latest  
technology bubble, referred to as the "dot-com bubble," burst. The second  
occurred now, eight years after the Bush administration did not get the hint  that 
serious reform was needed in financial markets. Instead, Bush loosened  
regulation even further under the influence of a "free-market fundamentalism"  
perfectly fitting a frenzy mentality overtaking an entire government. As with  
previous revolutions, finance capital overshot the rate at which the new  
technology could reach its full potential."  (end quote)
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 16:36:28 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:36:28 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(2)
Message-ID: <cd6.42f61966.3693f37c@aol.com>



I. Capitalism is not the meaning of industrial process. The industrial  
system is founded on machinery driven by mechanical motion. Each expansion of  the 
quantitative boundary of the electro-mechanical process further  
revolutionized the productive forces on the basis of mechanical motion  principles. The 
passing from one boundary to another does not qualitatively  change the 
underlying logic of industrial process (machine mechanical motion and  
electro-mechanical motion).  Rather, each expansion of the productive  forces enlarges the 
principles upon which our existing mode of production was  founded. Machine 
mechanical motion is a system of pulleys, levers, gears and  wheels (fly wheels) 
that sit at the foundation and give meaning to the word  "industrial.? The 
semi-conductor and the modern integrated circuits/boards are  not mechanical motion 
devices, rotates and oscillating on the basis of the fly  wheel principle. 
 
A  summary of the origins of the industrial revolution and its  mechanical 
properties is necessary. 
 
"When in 1735, John Wyatt brought out his spinning machine, and began the  
industrial revolution of the 18th century, not a word did he say about an ass  
driving it instead of a man, and yet this part fell to the ass. He described it 
 as a machine "to spin without fingers."  (Capital Vol. 1) 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm)  
 

"The history of the proletariat in England begins with the second half  of 
the last century, with the invention of the steam-engine and of machinery for  
working cotton. These inventions gave rise, as is well known, to an industrial  
revolution, a revolution which altered the whole civil society; one, the  
historical importance of which is only now beginning to be recognized."   
(Introduction: Conditions of the Working class of England) 
 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch02.
htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch02.htm) . 
 
"This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam  
engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of  
other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence  
could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production 
 and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper 
and  better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient  
spinning wheels and handlooms" 
 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)  
 
"After the steam-engine, this ( the spinning throstle invented by Richard  
Arkwright) is the most important mechanical invention of the 18th century. It  
was calculated from the beginning for mechanical motive power, and was based  
upon wholly new principles." 
 
"But as soon as the immeasurable importance of mechanical power was  
practically demonstrated, every energy was concentrated in the effort to exploit  this 
power in all directions, and to exploit it in the interest of individual  
inventors and manufacturers; and the demand for machinery, fuel, and materials  
called a mass of workers and a number of trades into redoubled activity. The  
steam-engine first gave importance to the broad coal-fields of England; the  
production of machinery began now for the first time, and with it arose a new  
interest in the iron mines which supplied raw material for it." 
 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch02.
htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch02.htm)  
 
In one swoop Marx describes the concrete dialectic in the development of  the 
industrial process, as it emerges from manufacture. 
 
"Here, then, we see in Manufacture the immediate technical foundation of  
Modern Industry. Manufacture produced the machinery, by means of which Modern  
Industry abolished the handicraft and manufacturing systems in those spheres of  
production that it first seized upon. The factory system was therefore 
raised,  in the natural course of things, on an inadequate foundation. When the 
system  attained to a certain degree of development, it had to root up this 
ready-made  foundation, which in the meantime had been elaborated on the old lines, 
and to  build up for itself a basis that should correspond to its methods of  
production." 
 
Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Modern Industry 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm)  
 
Industrial society as the primary mode of production is the sublating of  the 
manufacturing process and basis of agrarian society. In a few words, the  
domination of machinery as the primary means by which society reproduces itself.  
This does not mean that primitive modes of producing no longer exist. With 
the  emergence of machine society, what constitutes a qualitative change in the 
mode  of production is a revolution that reconfigures the underlying 
principles by  which the sum total of all machines operates. In this sense we are 
speaking of  the laws of mechanical motion.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 16:41:13 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:41:13 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(3)
Message-ID: <be9.4515ad23.3693f499@aol.com>

II. The semi-conductor is to industrial society, what the spinning machine  
and steam engine was to manufacture. 
 
The semi-conductor and associated technology, expresses a leap is in  
progress, (understanding leap to mean a transition), from an industrial society  
founded on mechanical motion machinery, first driven by oxen, then water and  
finally electricity. Every leap - transition, in the development of a process is  
not necessarily a qualitative leap or the kind of leap where a new quality 
comes  into existence. There are leaps in development that quantitatively expand 
the  productive capacity of industrial machinery without changes its 
underlying  principles. The leap from water power to electricity as primary energy 
source,  did not change the principles by which machinery is operated, but 
expanded the  boundary of the industrial system by making it more productive. 
 
The semi-conductor and computer expresses a new kind of machine.  Its  
injection into the production process produces and begins the qualitative leap.  Our 
society is undergoing a revolution in its mode of production, described by  
many writers as "post-industrial." The introduction of the semi-conductor  
(integrated circuit) into the productive forces brings to an end further  
development of the productive forces on the basic of machine mechanical motion  
principles. This quantitative addition of a new qualitative ingredient - (the  
semi-conductor), into the electro-mechanical process is altering and must alter  - 
qualitatively, the foundation upon which industrial society was built. 
 
Not all at one time, but incrementally and inexorably. Further development  
of the productive forces takes place on the basis of electrical-computerized  
processes, advanced robotics, biotech development, etc., rather than  
electro-mechanical principles. 
 
III. Comrade Case begins the new era in 1971 with no closing date. This era  
should be the period of 1971-1990 or mid 1990?s. During this period first and  
second generation new products appeared, like the CD player, cell phones, the 
 early video games, alongside the first and second generation factories 
producing  semi-conductors on a mass scale. First generation advanced robotics 
appeared in  auto in the 1980s and second generation machines in the 1990?s. The 
computer  driven machinery is the beginning of a new mode of production in the 
exact same  manner that the spinning machine and steam engine was the 
beginning of the  industrial revolution. We are at the beginning of  a new era. 
 
Historical Imperialism and problems of history conception 
 
The history of the major surges in technology within the capitalist mode of  
production expanded the boundary of industrial production and each stage  
constitutes the technological/scientific meaning of era. The sum total of these  
era?s becomes the technological and scientific meaning of epoch. 
 
There has been a history problem within the Marxist movement concerning our  
application of historical materialism. Marx method and approach was born of 
the  period of the industrial revolution and the overthrow of monarchy. 
Subsequent  generations of Marxist tended to define a primary mode of production on 
the  basis of the political superstructure. For instance our society is called  
capitalism because the capital is privately owned. However, what is 
fundamental  to our society that makes it what it is; is an industrial society, not  
capitalism. The Soviet Union was an industrial society but socialist. This  
description of society on the basis of political superstructure remained a valid  
description of mode of production, in as much as industrial society had no  
visible ending. 
 
Thus, the entire epoch of manufacture and its passing over to heavy  
manufacture (ship building and the founding of steel works) is defined as the  epoch 
of feudalism rather than by the primary principles by which the productive  
forces operates. And in turn feudalism was implied to mean its productive  
forces. Feudalism is the political superstructure with sits upon an agrarian  
society in which products and needs are met by hand labor. The epoch of  feudalism 
embraces the long period from hand labor to the emergence of heavy  
manufacture; the emergence of commodity production and capital. 
 
If  . . . "The materialist conception of history starts from the  proposition 
that the production of the means to support human life and, next to  
production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social  structure; 
that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in  which wealth 
is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is  dependent upon 
what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are  exchanged." 
 
And it does. Then it is valid to describe our society and the industrial  
revolution as: 

1).  the advent of machine society; 
2). the incremental  displacement of human labor and animal power by 
mechanical motion machines  driven by an external electrical energy source; and 
3). the rise and  domination of capital. 
 
What precedes machine society is agrarian society. 
 

IV. The "Perfect Storm? 
 
With the coming of the semi-conductor (integrated circuit), digitalized  
processes and computer controlled process, industrial processes begin their  
qualitative transformation and reconfiguration on a new basis. The "perfect  storm" 
emerges as revolution in the mode of production in all aspects. 
 
We can witness the dialectic of this process.  Clusters of new  technology 
are grafted unto the existing system of production without destroying  its 
underlying principles, alongside the introduction of new products operating  on the 
basis of new principles of motion. This is the first stage of the  
revolutionary transformation. At a certain stage of grafting the new technology  unto 
the existing system a boundary is reached where further expansion is  blocked. 
The system as a whole has to be reconfigured for further expansion. The  epoch 
of industrial production, the first epoch of machine society draws to a  close 
and begins its decline. Marx described the same general process logic  
(dialectic) under feudalism: 
 
"Under the constitutional monarchy, manufacturing at first expands to an  
extent hitherto unknown, only to make way for heavy industry, the steam engine,  
and the colossal factories. Whole classes of the population disappear, to be  
replaced by new ones, with new living conditions and new requirements." 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/english-revolution.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/english-revolution.htm)  
 
Finally, "Manufacture produced the machinery, by means of which Modern  
Industry abolished the handicraft and manufacturing systems in those spheres of  
production that it first seized upon." 
 
One would not be exaggerating  to state, Industrial processes  (mechanical 
motion machinery driven by external energy source that is not human  labor) 
produced the technology, by means of which the semi-conductor (integrated  
circuit) and its associated technologies is abolishing the industrial system, in  
those spheres of production that it seized upon. 
 
However, "the electronics revolution" (and perhaps it will be described  
different by future historians) in the means of production is unlike the  
industrial revolution in that it is less related to the science of mechanics  than to 
modern physics. Modern physics was developed by scientists such as Erwin  
Schrodinger investigating the fundamental nature of matter. In the book Visions:  
How Science Will Transform the 21st Century, Michio Kaku says that these  
investigations yielded concepts such as the quantum theory of matter that served  
as the theoretical framework for subsequent revolutions in computer technology 
 and bio-molecular technology. 
 
Marx wrote "In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins  
with the labor-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of  
labor."  With the maturing of the industrial revolution, our revolution  began 
with science. 
 
"The men who in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries laboured to create  
the steam-engine had no idea that they were preparing the instrument which 
more  than any other was to revolutionise social relations throughout the world." 
 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm_
 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm)  
 
The individuals pioneering the new technology understood that its  underlying 
science and application would alter the very fabric and foundation  upon 
which industrial society was erected. When in 1735, John Wyatt brought out  his 
spinning machine, he could not know his invention would sit at the focal  point 
of changing the world.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 22:00:53 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:00:53 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] > Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052100t4f64aa93t934a62b149c4aad8@mail.gmail.com>

>   9. Super Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
>      (Charles Brown)

>>CB: Most of Lenin's concepts from 1916 don't need updating.  Monopoly, financial oligarchy cartels. financial sector dominance and parasitism of industrial capital, objective laws or tendencies of capitalism apply better in 2009 than  anything you or other analysts are talking about. We can learn more from the dead Lenin about capitalism 2009 than we can from your posts even though you are alive (ha ha !).  As to the updating, aren't you up to that ?<<

Poor CB,he can't even tell when I agree with him. Dude, if you would
stop soaking your ass in places like A-hole list, Marxmal and Liberal
Bored Observer, maybe we could communicate occasionally.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 22:15:26 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:15:26 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052115j356b4b7dw3eba07affd044426@mail.gmail.com>

>>   5. Re: Lenin philosophy blog (farmelantj at juno.com)

>>A little later on, Soviet psychologists
initiated attempts at developing their own
psychological theories which they hoped
would be consistent with basic Marxist principles
such as the materialist conception of history and
Lenin's analysis of reflection. Thus,
American behaviorism was ultimately rejected
as being mechanistic and positivistic
while Gestalt psychology was rejected
as idealist. Nevertheless, they were recognized
as having made important contributions
which had to be absorbed into a psychology
that was firmly grounded in dialectical
materialism.<<

It could also be noted that the 'crisis' was hardly limited to Soviet
thinkers--see the works of Brentano and Husserl, for example.
And later Wittgenstein as well.

It's interesting that the Soviet Union gives modern and post-modern
thinking such influential psychologists as Vygotsky, who probably gets
more cited in educational research as a 'founder' now than Dewey. And
then there is the research of Elkonin, from which emerges the attempt
to treat 'reading development' within a psychological scientific
framework.

http://www.marxist.com/science/vygotsky_501.html

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 22:41:16 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:41:16 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(4)
Message-ID: <cff.491136f1.369448fc@aol.com>

V.  Speculation 
 
"But the middle ages had handed down two distinct forms of capital, which  
mature in the most different economic social formations, and which before the  
era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital quand m?me ?
  [all the same] usurer?s capital and merchant?s capital. "  (emphasis 
added) 
 
Chapter Thirty-One: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm)  
 
Speculation has ancient roots as old as money and like capital predates the  
capitalist mode of production. Even the Biblical Jesus is said to have entered 
 the temple and turned over the tables of the money lenders in contempt. 
 
Speculation as risk taking during the epoch of feudalism is part of the  
early user?s and merchant capital. Speculation was also involved in financing  the 
slave trade or later, the huge latifundia plantations. Speculation and  
financing played a role in ship building; the quest for gold and opening  the 
so-called New World to European exploration and exploitation. There also  existed 
scattered "private speculators" that passed from usury to loaning money  to the 
government. 
 
"At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only  
associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of  
governments, and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to  
advance money to the State." (Idid) 
 
The problem for historical materialism is that the first round of recorded  
financial speculation is tulip speculation. 
 
"Tulip mania or tulipomania (Dutch names include tulpenmanie, tulpomanie,  
tulpenwoede, tulpengekte, and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age  
during which contract prices for bulbs of the newly-introduced tulip reached  
extraordinarily high levels and then suddenly collapsed[1]. At the peak of 
tulip  mania in February 1637 tulip contracts sold for more than 20 times the 
annual  income of a skilled craftsman. It is generally considered the first 
recorded  speculative bubble.[2] The term "tulip mania" is often used 
metaphorically to  refer to any large economic bubble.[3]" 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania)  
 
Speculation needs to be looked at in its relatedness in each of the  distinct 
boundaries in the industrial system. During "The Age of Steel,  Electricity, 
Heavy Engineering, 1875-1918," speculation as finance capital is  more often 
than not, productive capital, even when the speculative bubble  emerges. 
 
"The Age of Steel, Electricity, Heavy Engineering, 1875-1918," is the era  of 
emergence of financial imperialism.  This period proper is also the era  of 
the rise of monopoly industrial concerns and their corresponding financial  
institutions. Finance capital, indissolubly fused with industrial capital  
becomes dominant over industrial capital and speculation operates as another  part 
of finance capital. With the emergence of modern imperialism, finance  capital 
is/means financial-industrial capital and not what is implied in the  word 
"financing" or an abstract "finance." No matter how one approach  speculation 
today, it was not the dominating form of financial-industrial  capital writing 
the economic and political agenda for capital during this  period. 
 
Speculation as an aspect of finance capital, even as fiction capital -  
(certificates, commercial paper and debt instruments), is still connected to  
production of commodities with even when the connection is distant.  Interestingly, 
Case does not mention that a speculative form of capital,  dominating and 
writing the agenda for capital as a whole, exists. 
 
Speculation on the part of a sector of capitalists, whose sum total is a  
form of capital dubbed "speculative capital," is not reducible  to "risk  
taking," because all capital investment, production and sale of commodities  involves 
risk of some sort, due to capitalist competition. Any "economic  bubble"  can 
be called a speculative bubble but this does not described the  inner essence 
of modern speculation and its connection or non-connection with  production. 
 
Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than  
speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during the era of  Lenin. 
Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the  basis 
of financial institutions more than less detached from production of  
commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital rises to  domination 
on the basis of revolution in the productive forces.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 23:06:20 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:06:20 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(5)
Message-ID: <bcb.41dde6fe.36944edc@aol.com>

V.  Speculation 
 
"But the middle ages had handed down two distinct forms of capital, which  
mature in the most different economic social formations, and which before the  
era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital quand m?me ?
  [all the same] usurer?s capital and merchant?s capital. "  (emphasis 
added) 
 
Chapter Thirty-One: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm)  
 
Speculation has ancient roots as old as money and like capital predates the  
capitalist mode of production. Even the Biblical Jesus is said to have entered 
 the temple and turned over the tables of the money lenders in contempt. 
 
Speculation as risk taking during the epoch of feudalism is part of the  
early user?s and merchant capital. Speculation was also involved in financing  the 
slave trade or later, the huge latifundia plantations. Speculative and  
financing played a role in ship building and opening the so-called New World to  
European exploration and exploitation. There also existed scattered "private  
speculators" that passed from usury to loaning money to the government. 
 
"At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only  
associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of  
governments, and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to  
advance money to the State." (Idid) 
 
The problem for historical materialism is that the first round of recorded  
financial speculation is tulip speculation. 
 
"Tulip mania or tulipomania (Dutch names include tulpenmanie, tulpomanie,  
tulpenwoede, tulpengekte, and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age  
during which contract prices for bulbs of the newly-introduced tulip reached  
extraordinarily high levels and then suddenly collapsed[1]. At the peak of 
tulip  mania in February 1637 tulip contracts sold for more than 20 times the 
annual  income of a skilled craftsman. It is generally considered the first 
recorded  speculative bubble.[2] The term "tulip mania" is often used 
metaphorically to  refer to any large economic bubble.[3]" 
 
Further, 
 
"There is no dispute that prices for tulip bulb contracts rose and then  fell 
in 1636?37, but even a dramatic rise and fall in prices does not  necessarily 
mean that an economic or speculative bubble developed and then  burst. For 
tulip mania to have qualified as an economic bubble, the price of  tulip bulbs 
would need to have become unhinged from the intrinsic value of the  bulbs. 
Modern economists have advanced several possible reasons for why the rise  and 
fall in prices may not have constituted a bubble.[37]" 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania)  
 
Speculation needs to be looked at in its relatedness in each of the  distinct 
boundaries in the industrial system. During "The Age of Steel,  Electricity, 
Heavy Engineering, 1875-1918," speculation as an aspect (part of  the world) 
of finance capital is more often than not, productive capital, even  when the 
speculative bubble emerges.  After all tulip speculation involved  a real thing 
recognized as matter  - tulip bulbs, while the modern  speculative regime 
deal in intangible and abstractions of an abstraction. 
 
"The Age of Steel, Electricity, Heavy Engineering, 1875-1918," is the era  of 
emergence of financial imperialism.  This period proper is also the era  of 
the rise of monopoly industrial concerns and their corresponding financial  
institutions. Finance capital, indissolubly fused with industrial capital  
becomes dominant over industrial capital and speculation operates as another  part 
of finance capital. With the emergence of modern imperialism, finance  capital 
is/means financial-industrial capital and not what is implied in the  word 
"financing" or an abstract "finance." No matter how one approach  speculation 
today, it was not the dominating form of financial-industrial  capital writing 
the economic and political agenda for capital during this  period. 
 
Speculation as an aspect of finance capital, even as fiction capital -  
(certificates, commercial paper and debt instruments), remains connected to  
production of commodities, even when the connection is distant or remote.  
Interestingly, Case does not mention that a speculative form of capital,  dominating 
and writing the agenda for capital as a whole, exists. 
 
Speculation on the part of a sector of capitalists, whose sum total is a  
form of capital dubbed "speculative capital," is not reducible  to "risk  
taking," because all capital investment, production and sale of commodities  involves 
risk of some sort, due to capitalist competition. Any "economic  bubble"  can 
be called a speculative bubble but this does not described the  inner essence 
of modern speculation and its connection or non-connection with  production. 
 
Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than  
speculation as "risk taking" on the part of finance capital during the era of  Lenin. 
Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the  
basis of financial institutions, whose activity is utterly detached from  
production of commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital  rises 
to domination on the basis of revolution in the productive forces. 
 
"The Age of Information and Telecommunications, 1971-???," begins a new  
period in the development and evolution of the productive forces. Comrade Case  
describes the technological revolution: 
 
"A technological revolution," she writes, "can be defined as a powerful and  
highly visible cluster of new and dynamic technologies, products and 
industries,  capable of bringing about an upheaval in the whole fabric of the economy 
and of  propelling a long-term upsurge of development. It is a strongly 
interrelated  constellation of technological innovations, generally including an 
important  all-pervasive low-cost input, often a source of energy, sometimes a 
crucial  material, plus significant new products and processes and a new 
infrastructure.  The latter usually changes the frontier in speed and reliability of  
transportation and communications, while drastically reducing their cost." 
 
Just as the spinning machine and steam engine accelerate the rise of the  
industrial Revolution, the semi-conductor and integrated circuit sparked the  
revolution called the age of information and telecommunications. The application  
of the new technology is not limited to information and telecommunication and 
 changes the frontier (boundary) "in speed and reliability of transportation 
and  communications, while drastically reducing their cost." The new 
technology also  arises in correspondence with changes in the form of capital. 
 
The revolution in production is exhausting, consuming and reconfiguring the  
industrial side of our mode of production and compelling changes in the  
capital-labor relations, and the form of capital itself. The old mode of  
production is being sublated or reconfigured incrementally and requires  political 
revolution to allow the new technological regime to stand on its own  foundation. 
 
The definition of "technological revolution" seems more appropriate to  
describing the passing from one quantitative boundary to another as the  industrial 
revolution (electro-mechanical process), sweep over the earth and  sublated 
the old agrarian society. Agricultural base living and manufacture did  not 
disappear from the earth but the main form of economic commerce shifted upon  the 
foundation of machinery. 
 
Technological revolution is qualitative change in the mode of production  
pushing society into social revolution. It also corresponds to changes in the  
form of society wealth. This was the case with the feudal system. What really  
began the beak up of the feudal system was the transition in the form of  
wealth from landed property to movable property as gold. It was the quest for  gold 
(the landed of Europeans in the New World) that drove New World discovery  
and fired up ship building, which in true gave impetus to navigation and science 
 as a whole. Speculative capital as a sector and institution arise and 
becomes  operational on the basis of the semi-conductor, which makes possible a new 
real  time reality, interactive web of non-banking financial institutions and  
manipulation of symbolic equations (mirror images of mirror images, as one  
economist in China put matters). Modern speculative capital developed in  
relation to profound changes within the capitalist system and revolution in the  
productive forces upon which it sits. 
 
First the revolution in the productive forces and then changes in various  
form of economic intercourse. All the changes during the various stages of  
development of the industrial system did not change the form of wealth, and  
wealth remained hinged to value - labor, even when accumulation of capital was  
only remotely connected to productive capital. Capital as a social relations of  
production means the material bond between he who labors and he who owns the  
factors of production. 
 
Capital must circulate through labor (purchase labor power) and create  
commodities to realize profits and expanded value. Labor, not machines is the  
source of all value. The advent of the new technology renders labor superfluous  
in the production of commodities. In the early phases of the industrial  
revolution capital reduces the production time of commodities while growing the  
industrial working class in the absolute sense. The industrial working class got  
bigger and bigger or quantitatively expanded, while fewer and fewer workers  
produced a greater magnitude of commodities than a previously existing group 
of  workers. But the industrial working class in its industrial form expanded 
and  sublated the serf form of working class. 
 
Because labor is the source of all value, rather than machines, "laborless  
production" driven by the new technology means increasingly valueless 
production  - and hence, profitless production. With "laborless production," capital 
can no  longer be utilized to create more value and more surplus value. So, 
capital is  being shifted into purely speculative investment. Speculative capital 
does not  create value or realize surplus-value, but makes money largely from 
amassing  vast sums based in debt. Wealth created as such is a new form of 
wealth or  rather the destruction of labor based wealth. This means that a 
rupture, split  or crack if you will, within capital has taken place; a rupture in 
the capital  labor bond, because this form of capital has no relationship with 
labor and  exists in external collision with the working class masses. 
 
The new financial instruments and products came on line in the early  1970?s. 
"Financial products"  . . . . Indeed! In 1971 the Federal Reserve  "floated" 
the dollar, no longer pegging it to gold, creating a regime of fiat  money. 
Fiat money means the money no longer expresses a material value like  gold. As 
long as the dollar could be converted into gold - a holder of labor and  value, 
it was species money. In 1972 currency futures were launched, equity  futures 
in 1973, T-bill futures and futures on mortgage-backed bonds in 1975,  
setting the stage for a new hedging and speculative universe. Today a universe  of 
"financial products" with ABC names exists. 
 
A new non-banking financial system arose ("shadow banking" system) emerged  
in the 1990s. The speculative infrastructure is founded on new technology. A  
massive expansion of speculative credit instruments for a globally leveraged  
speculative community was created. From 1987-2007 credit market debt 
quadrupled,  from $11 trillion to $48 trillion, a private issuance of $37 trillion 
coupled  with $11 trillion in federal, state and local government obligations. The  
financial services sector in the 1990s became the largest sector of the U.S.  
private economy. 
 
The value of U.S. home mortgage debt increased by $3 trillion. The  
securitization of debt as well as the creation of other exotic and complex debt  
instruments became the new wealth machines, but wealth was created by moving  money 
around, with the circulation of goods and services only a secondary  
by-product. With collateralized debt obligations (CDO?s), asset-backed  securities 
(ABS), and other debt instruments, speculative capital has been  allowed to emerge 
as a "shadow" banking system, where mutual funds, non-bank  lenders, hedge 
funds and securities, largely outside the existing financial  regulatory 
structure, have become the new "liquidity factories." 
 
The impact of the rise of speculative capital is becoming increasingly  
clear. On the one hand, the risk of catastrophe has been shifted onto the  balance 
sheets of ordinary families. On the other hand, it has fed, and  continues to 
feed, not only a growing global credit crisis, but a dangerous  economic 
instability. 
 
The essence of speculative capital as a form of capital is its disconnect  
(rupture) with/from production. What is detached from production is not finance  
but speculative capital, which is a sector and form of finance capital. And 
now  the latest speculative bubble has burst. The Federal Reserve had earlier   
put $435 billion on the auction block to ease the credit crunch and provide  
liquidity. New York banks were issued perhaps trillions in liquidity this 
year,  and Bear Stearns was rescued by a $30 billion emergency loan. AIG was 
bailed out  to the tune of $85 billion, the government took over Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac,  and has gone from assuming all the distressed assets or "bad debts" 
of Wall  Street to practically a full-scale giveaway to financial 
institutions and  corporations alike. The underlying economic crisis set off by the 
introduction  of a qualitatively different productive regime - electronic means of 
production,  has led to the current financial crisis that is in turn led to a 
greater  economic crisis engulfing the entire world. 
 
 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 23:11:03 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:11:03 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901052115j356b4b7dw3eba07affd044426@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901052115j356b4b7dw3eba07affd044426@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052211hfadc6e7m21780ae55feb2ba0@mail.gmail.com>

And see:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Jan  5 23:13:35 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:13:35 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] > Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imper...
Message-ID: <bff.5150ecf1.3694508f@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/6/2009 12:00:59 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
jannuzi at gmail.com writes:
>   9. Super  Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary  Imperialism
>      (Charles  Brown)

>>CB: Most of Lenin's concepts from 1916 don't need  updating.  Monopoly, 
financial oligarchy cartels. financial sector  dominance and parasitism of 
industrial capital, objective laws or tendencies of  capitalism apply better in 2009 
than  anything you or other analysts are  talking about. We can learn more 
from the dead Lenin about capitalism 2009 than  we can from your posts even 
though you are alive (ha ha !).  As to the  updating, aren't you up to that ?<<

Poor CB,he can't even tell when  I agree with him. Dude, if you would
stop soaking your ass in places like  A-hole list, Marxmal and Liberal
Bored Observer, maybe we could communicate  occasionally.

CJ


Comment 

An industrial capital  formation as a historically distinct sector of capital 
no longer exist. I am not  aware of one single economist of note that speaks 
of an industrial sector of  capital. Not one. The existence of Chrysler, Ford 
or GM does not mean a sector  of capital called industrial capital exists. 
Industrial capital without  industrial capitalists cannot exists. 

Where is the industrial capitalist  as a sector of capital? 

Why not simple produce the evidence of the  existence of a sector of capital 
that is industrial capital?  



Waistline  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 23:15:46 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:15:46 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901052211hfadc6e7m21780ae55feb2ba0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901052115j356b4b7dw3eba07affd044426@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901052211hfadc6e7m21780ae55feb2ba0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052215u3f6b0a61sc74dda76c1037241@mail.gmail.com>

And see:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm

Also important to note that Piaget, in attempting to work out a
description of the 'sciences of man', integrates Marxism into his
system.

CJ



-- 
Japan Higher Education Outlook
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 00:21:47 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:21:47 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] > Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901052100t4f64aa93t934a62b149c4aad8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901052100t4f64aa93t934a62b149c4aad8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052321m416e8090l66c693bb86fccd89@mail.gmail.com>

>>An industrial capital  formation as a historically distinct sector of capital
no longer exist. I am not  aware of one single economist of note that speaks
of an industrial sector of  capital. Not one. The existence of Chrysler, Ford
or GM does not mean a sector  of capital called industrial capital exists.
Industrial capital without  industrial capitalists cannot exists. <<

Whoah, wait a minute. Are you trying to argue against Lenin or Marx here?
I think Lenin does contribute to Marxism in many ways (pay me and I'll
write a book about it), and I think much of what Lenin wrote about has
relevance to understanding the historic formations that reach into
this post-modern episteme. I'm not sure what a serious economist is
nowadays and think for the most part I couldn't give a shit.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 00:45:56 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:45:56 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] > Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901052321m416e8090l66c693bb86fccd89@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901052100t4f64aa93t934a62b149c4aad8@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901052321m416e8090l66c693bb86fccd89@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901052345k53b528ber6321d3b5c5eb7900@mail.gmail.com>

This paper from 1997 does look prescient though--but then again I was
thinking the same sort of things in 1997 having seen Japan's crash and
then the run up to the Asian crisis (which was precipitated by
currency bets by the big players like Soros).

http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/papers/HowFinanceCapital.htm

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Jan  6 02:48:13 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:48:13 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial capital
	U have the last word
Message-ID: <c3c.4a42aa3b.369482dd@aol.com>

(Charles  Brown) 
 
CB: Most of Lenin's concepts from 1916 don't need updating.   Monopoly, 
financial oligarchy cartels. financial sector  dominance and  parasitism of 
industrial capital, objective laws or tendencies of   capitalism apply better in 2009 
than  anything you or other analysts  are  talking about. We can learn more 
from the dead Lenin about capitalism  2009 than  we can from your posts even 
though you are alive (ha ha  !).  As to the  updating, aren't you up to that ?<< 
 

Comment 
 
 
Produce the evidence of the existence of industrial capital as a distinct  
sector of capital in 2009 or for the last twenty years, for that matter. . 
 
Wouldn't it be more prudent and accurate to speak of productive capital?  
That is how most Marxist and radical economic writers of today pose the issue  
when dealing with finance capital today and its manifestation as the production  
of commodities. Minimally put forth a rationale for the use of the concept  
"industrial capital." 
 
Reading  Marx's "Capital" on the "genesis of the Industrial  capitalists" is 
not evidence of his existence today. Just because the industrial  capitalists 
as a sector of capital was alive and well during the time of Lenin,  and Lenin 
speaks of him in his "Imperialism" does not means a sector called  
"industrial capital" exist today. 
 
Slave capital and the Slave Oligarchy as a sector of capital with real  
people - (capital personified), was abolished from history. Sectors of capital  can 
and do rise and fall and some are abolished as forms of capital. The ancient  
users and merchant CAPITAL, WHICH PRECEDED capitalism and the capitalist mode 
of  production by hundreds if not a couple of thousand years, was wiped from  
history. (1) 
 
Then there was manufacturing capital and MANUFACTURING CAPTIALISTS and  
private speculators, who more often than not constituted themselves as banking  
capital as the next evolution of capital. 
 
Manufacturing capital and banking capital financed the growth of heavy  
manufacturing (Engels term) and was the basis on which industrial capital and  the 
industrial capitalists, rose as a class. The industrial capitalist did not  
create industry but developed industry. It would seem (seem!) that in history  
one form of capital arises and displaces an existing form of capital on the  
basis of productive force development and expansion; and it is this development, 
 which stamps its historically specific form on capital. Then it seems that a 
 period emergences where the new sector of capital, corresponding to the 
changes  in the productive forces, battles it way in the political sphere and 
comes to  dominate and write the agenda for the total capital. 
 
Industrial capital without industrial capitalists, as a sector of capital,  
means something has changed in the form of capital 
 
It is not enough to say "look at a factory, that is proof of "industrial  
capital" as a sector of capital, "because the factory is industrial production  
of commodities." 
 
The banks - financial capital own all of us and long ago absorbed - (not  
simply dominated), industrial capital as a historically distinct sector and  
consequently there is no class of industrial capitalists in America, exploiting  
their workers and passing out coins like old man Henry Ford was fond of doing. 
 
Comrade, submit for inspection an American industrial capitalists so we may  
put him on the stand of proletarian inquiry to testify to who he is. Or 
present  us an industrial capitalist so that we may put him on display in the museum 
 alongside the spinning machine, steam engine, electricity driven stamping  
machines and lathes; the vacuum tube and first generation semi-conductors. 
 
The speculative capitalists and speculative capital as a sector is  presented 
for your inspection.   
 
Chrysler Corporation is owned and administered by direct representative of  
the speculative sector of capital. The name of the corporation is Cerberus, who 
 happens to own about 51% of General Motors. Cerberus bought Chrysler for a 
song. 
 
"Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity  
investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and  
run by 48-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan  
Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its  
international units." _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerberus_Capital_Management_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerberus_Capital_Management) 
 
When Cerberus invests in Chrysler their capital is not converted into  
"industrial capital" or an "industrial capital formation," but productive  capital. 
This capital becomes productive capital because it is bound up with  
reproduction of value, (real commodities) or rather an expanded value. Even when  the 
sale of products is not completed to the final consumer, profits can be  
realized by financing sales to dealers and the dealer is left holding the bag,  
while their debt is sold through complex financial instruments. 
 
After the 1979 crash where it failed to meet its obligations in the bond  
market and the government bail out, Chrysler was stock, lock and barrel owned by  
financiers period. Iaacoco attempt to turn Chrysler into a holding company  
failed and then the banks behind Daimler purchased the company for its cash on  
hand. 
 
48-year-old financier Steve Feinberg is a speculative capitalist as is Dan  
Quayle in as much as he earns his living in part from speculative ventures. I 
am  learning about all of this through modern authors and Lenin could not help 
me  begin to understand Cerberus, as a living dominating form of capital. 
Chrysler  as industrial capital long ago shed the industrial capital form as a 
distinct  entity. What the Chrysler workers face is not monopoly capital and a 
group of  monopolists, but the speculators. 
 
Modern financial capital during the time of Lenin, meant  
financial-industrial capital arising on the basis of monopoly. It was called  
financial-industrial capital to denote, not monopoly, but the domination of the  financiers as a 
sector of capital over the industrial capitalist and industrial  capital as a 
sector. 
 
The political death of industrial capital as a form and sector of capital,  
begins with the defeat of Germany in the Second Imperialist World War. Here it  
was industrial capital that was the most reactionary and chauvinistic sector 
of  capital, striving to recreate the closed colonial system as protection of 
its  markets. History as the evolution of capital defeated and abolished 
industrial  capital as a historically distinct form and sector, which became  
antagonistic to the further development of industry. The development of industry  - 
expanding as monopoly concerns, outgrew industrial capital in the same way  
historically as manufacturing capital was sent to the museum.  
 
Only the financier survived and from a sector of finance, the speculator -  
who has ancient and remote roots, rose to domination.  
 
At least this is my opinion and my understanding of the meaning of  
productive capital and speculative capital. This does not mean there is nothing  to 
learn from Lenin. Or that my post are more insightful than Lenin's wonderful  
books. (ha ha) I am no Lenin and shall never be as smart as him or you for that  
matter. I read and when things make sense I agree with them. 
 
Capital as a notional value is written about daily. 
 
The existence of the speculative regime does not mean some of these  
individual institutions do not invest in tangibles. The issue is the economic  
behavior of a regime and their political logic as a sector and how the workers  can 
fight them because they are leading the assault against the masses.  
 
I am convinced - in my head, that the overthrow of the speculative regime  is 
the overthrow of all forms of capital and is the final conflict of the 21st  
century proletariat. 
 
"Rally Comrades for the last fight we face." 
 
I must apologized if I suggested than one can learn more from my posts  about 
capitalism than reading Marx or Lenin. It is the duty of every  
communist/Marxist to study the classics. One can learn more about capitalism by  reading 
Marx than Lenin in my experience. I treasure "Wage, Labor and Capital"  and the 
"Communist Manifesto" and Capital all volumes. I never tire of reading  them. 
I recently reread half of Capital Volume 1. 
 
In the case of the Communist Manifesto the fighting program of action - and  
its doctrine of combat, is outdated and one should not try to apply it to the  
conditions of today. 
 
All of us can take part in updating the experience of our working class  
since Lenin. In fact, that is what is taking place through thousands of daily  
discussions on and off line. Lenin illuminates. 
 
Goodnight Lenin. 
 
You have the last word. 
 

Waistline 
 
 
 
1). ?But the middle ages had handed down two distinct forms of capital,  
which mature in the most different economic social formations, and which BEFORE  
the era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital quand  
m?me ? [all the same] usurer?s capital and merchant?s capital. ?    
(emphasis added). 
 
Chapter Thirty-One: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm) 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Jan  6 04:30:49 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:30:49 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] > Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imper...
Message-ID: <cb2.4b12e3e2.36949ae9@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/6/2009 2:21:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jannuzi at gmail.com writes:

>>An industrial capital  formation as a historically  distinct sector of 
capital
no longer exist. I am not  aware of one  single economist of note that speaks
of an industrial sector of   capital. Not one. The existence of Chrysler, Ford
or GM does not mean a  sector  of capital called industrial capital exists.
Industrial capital  without  industrial capitalists cannot exists. <<

Whoah, wait  a minute. Are you trying to argue against Lenin or Marx here?
I think Lenin  does contribute to Marxism in many ways (pay me and I'll
write a book about  it), and I think much of what Lenin wrote about has
relevance to  understanding the historic formations that reach into
this post-modern  episteme. I'm not sure what a serious economist is
nowadays and think for the  most part I couldn't give a shit.

CJ

Comment
 
The issue was never Lenin's contribution to the treasure house of  Marx.
 
Economic forms and their corresponding political form was being  discussed. 
 
Marx describes the details of the genesis of the industrial capitalist. The  
industrial capitalist is called "industrial" because he personifies a stage of 
 development of the productive forces. Manufacturing capital correspond with 
a  period of "man" - hand, production as a primary mode. Usury capital 
conjures a  vision of non-connection with production, money lending. Merchant capital 
 conjures a vision of capital from the purchase and sell of things.  
Merchant. 
 
Marx tended to wed a historically specific form of capital to a stage or  
phase of development of the productive forces, but this is not unique to Marx.  
People once named themselves after instruments of production like "Smith." Is  
not the governor of California last name translated as Arnold Blacksmith?  

Speculative as in "speculative capital" conjures a vision. 
 
For a solid decade economist and non-economist alike have discussed the new  
financial products and all of them without exception, agree that these 
products  are intangibles and complex math formulas. Today these math formulas are 
tied to  debt one way or another. Capital as an imaginary - notional, value is  
impossible but there it is. Capital without value. Capital without value means 
 no labor component because capital is a social relations of production.  
Production of commodities. 
 
We have finally hit the historical wall. 
 
The thing fundamental to understanding real world finance capital today is  
to identify what sector is writing the political agenda as an expression of  
their domination over the total capital. 
 
In respects of President elect Obama, he will gyrate in his policies  between 
productive capital and speculative capital and not an "industrial  capital" 
and finance capital. Today, financing infrastructure development or  auto 
production for that matter - putting people to work, is not an act and  expression 
of industrial capital, but the productive capital of the  financier. The 
industrial as a class died for Christ sake.  
 
Produced the data to confirm the existence of an industrial sector of  
capital in 2009. (Not you!) 
 
Where are the industrialists in America today? Out of a population of 300  
million, surely one must still exists, having survived in the cracks - giant  
cracks, of finance.  
 
One cannot be said to be inconsistent with Marx by identifying and naming a  
sector of capital by its connection or non-connection to a state of 
development  of the productive forces and how it strives to realize an expanded value. 
Hence,  speculative capital and its domination over the total capital. Finance 
capital  has a non-productive sector. The industrial capital formation was 
eaten up  Pac-man style by finance capital. 
 
Dude, its all finance capital. 

Lenin most certainly contributed to the treasure house of Marxism and his  
contribution won the honor of an "ism," Leninism. Leninism is a political  
doctrine of combat. On the other hand Marx name is associated with an economic  
doctrine as well as a political doctrine. Leninism is not an economic doctrine  
because Lenin did not pioneer a new way of looking at economy. Nor did  Lenin 
pioneer a new method of approach to the study of society. Lenin was a  Marxist. 
 
The ideas that nothing has changed since Lenin is just intellectual  laziness 
and a refusal to admit that things change at best and dogmatism at  worse. 
 
GMAC not GM is the master of GM. GMAC is GM. 
. 
Dude, its all finance capital.
 
Waistline 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Jan  6 05:09:38 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:09:38 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(6)
Message-ID: <c46.4a849d80.3694a402@aol.com>

Comrade Case puts forth several points as immediate and partial solution to  
the 2008 crisis. These points begin with: 
 
1). "Economic infrastructures, including much of the financial system must  
be further socialized. This is necessary to begin the large institutional  
restructuring process without which recovery is impossible. Institutions whose  
failure creates systemic risk must be nationalized in whole or in part." (end  
quote). 
 
The infrastructure is the physical components - applied technology, upon  
which sits the organization of a company or society. For instance the military  
infrastructure or society infrastructure of roads, communications,  
transportation, and so on. The infrastructure of the financial sector is the  buildings, 
desks, computers, communications system, hardware and software;  underlying 
technology and tools giving systems shape; and how people are  organized to use 
them. 
 
The computer and software is at the very heart of the new non-banking  
financial infrastructure and made it possible for the speculative sector of  capital 
to consolidate itself as a dominating class. The speculators and  speculative 
capital serves no socially useful purpose owing to its detachment  from 
production. 
 
Speculative capital dominating and writing the agenda for capital, by  
definition causes systemic risk because it?s tendency is to converts productive  
capital into speculative capital. 
 
Beginning in the 1980s this meant asset stripping and fire sales of  
companies. Here is another danger to Chrysler Motors being owned by Cerberus,  with 
the company also owning 51% of General Motors. Also, the auto producers  suffer 
from overcapacity, with roughly 30% of their capacity permanently not  
utilized. Perhaps abolition of non-productive capital is in order? 
 
2). "At the same time well-functioning markets must not disappear, but in  
fact improve. A big government, more socialist, regime can correct many  
instabilities, can improve the distribution of wealth to moderate inequality,  and it 
can train and pay intellectuals and scientists to invent new ideas, but  it 
is notably less successful at deploying the benefits of new technology  
throughout an economy, at least insofar as the myriad of unimportant  transactions 
between producers and consumers of goods and services are  concerned."  (end 
quote). 
 
The size of government is depended on the underlying technology and  division 
of labor that defines the infrastructure upon which it sits and  operates, in 
the last instance. However, government can be inflated by political  means or 
the "payroll padded" as it is called. If technology is rendering labor  
superfluous in one sector of the economy after the other, government must also  be 
affected. Government can be looked at in the same five period context that  
defined eras of the industrial system and capital. The major task of government  
is to create the structural programs and policies that allow the economy to  
function. For example, when the government was the instrument of the farmers,  
that government did the things necessary to protect and expand the farm. The  
Indians were annihilated and cleared from the fertile lands, slavery was  
protected and extended, shipping lanes for export were cleared and frontiers  
expanded. 
 
As the farm gave way to industry, the government transformed itself into a  
committee to take care of the new needs of industry. At that point, government  
began to grow. Industry needed literate workers, so the school system 
expanded  under a Secretary of Education. The army needed healthy young men to fight 
the  wars brought on by industrial expansion, so a school lunch program was 
started.  As industry got big, a Department of Housing and Urban Development 
provided  order to the chaotic, burgeoning cities it created. Government became 
big  government in order to serve the needs of industry as it became big 
industry.  The workers were kept relatively healthy and the unemployed were 
warehoused in  such a manner as to keep them available for work with every industrial  
expansion. 
 
Why would we need a big government today? 
 
Government does not have to be enlarged to put people to work. Other than  
giving the mandate and serving as watch dogs, government does not have to be  
involved at all. In virtually every single city in America there already exist  
non-governmental labor agencies in the form of "temporary help" businesses and 
 non-governmental training and hiring agencies. It is these agencies that 
need to  be contained in their pursuit for profits. 
 
Many layers of government only function to service capital interests, and  
would be abolished immediately with a communist government. A host of  
non-governmental agencies can be created whose purpose is the economic, social  and 
cultural development of the proletarian masses. 
 
3). "The reuniting of finance capital with production capital to fully  
deploy the new technologies will likely require huge public and international  
investments. For the next decade, at least, we should expect a public  
intervention on the scale of up to 100 percent of GDP, or more. The initial  trillion 
dollar bank bailout represents about 10 percent of current GDP ? by  comparison. 
The precedent: World War II spending reached 110 percent of GDP, and  finally 
lifted the economy out of the great depression. " (end quote). 
 
Finance capital is inseparable from investment in the production of  
commodities, hence "productive capital. " This is so because finance capital  once 
meant "financial-industrial capital," but today the industrial sector of  capital 
no longer exists. Every major and not so major company in America exists  by 
the behest of financial markets. 
 
A massive public works program, which our middles classes and a section of  
the poorest proletarians urgently need, along with providing socially necessary 
 means of life to all, including those who cannot work or will not work for  
various reasons, is urgently needed. 
 
Perhaps a word on financial capitalism today is needed. 
 
Finance capital cannot be reunited with productive capital because it is  not 
separated, in the meaning of a rupture, from productive capital. Finance  
capital operating with non reliance on production (separate as in rupture), or  
split from productive capital is called speculative capital. When capital  
operates as a notional (imaginary, abstract or fiction) value, in structured  
finance, credit is no longer anchored in equity but by circular debt  selling.  
Debt to equity ratio in no longer a measure of the amount of  built up value 
(equity) in a thing. Here is the meaning of speculative capital  as a form of 
capital. In speaking of finance capitalism the economist Henry Liu  writes: 
 
"Finance capitalism is operating with less and less reliance on capital.  
Capital has become a notional value in structured finance. Credit is no longer  
anchored by equity but by circular hedges. Debt-to-equity ratio is no longer a  
relevant consideration. Practically all US major businesses nowadays, with 
their  high debt leverage based on an unprecedented asset bubble, would have 
negative  real equity if the price/earning (P/E) ratio were to return to 
historical norms.  Blue-chip corporations are being shut out of the unsecured 
short-term commercial  paper market as their credit ratings are downgraded. Corporate 
credit ratings  have been inflated by exorbitant market capitalization value, 
which in turn  reflects irrational P/E ratios. Even now, during what many on 
Wall Street  contend to be a savage bear market, the Standard & Poor's 500 
Index yields  25 times earnings. It would have to fall by another 41 percent to 
reach the  median valuation prevailing since 1957. When that happens, the 
derivative  defaults will hit the financial system like a tsunami." 
_http://henryckl.ipower.com/page142.html_ (http://henryckl.ipower.com/page142.html)  
 
Speculative capital is to be abolished. 
 

4). "Some separation between finance and production capital is thus  also 
inevitable and a key challenge will be to understand the process better and  
establish a balance between financial instructions, government and production  
that hopefully will permit growth and innovation ? without either excessive  
instability, or stagnation from an over-regulated environment." 
 
The separation within finance capital as sectors is productive capital and  
speculative capital. 
As a concept finance capital has to be described in its history, connection  
or non-connection with production and environment because an abstract finance  
cannot exist. For instance the financing of the Civil War to the tune of $3  
billion for the feds, meant the extending of credit for expansion of 
production  capacity to meet war demands. Speculation built on the potential of these  
industries, even when it reaches outrageous proportions implies connection 
with  production of material value. 
 
Debt instruments in and of themselves are not inherently destructive when  
anchored to production and expansion of the peoples living conditions. At best  
debt instruments can be used as a measure of value, resource allocation and  
future planning when anchored to production. At worse debt instruments can be  
used for usury. Modern speculation on the part of the speculative regime turns 
 debt instruments upside down by detaching financing from production through 
its  regime of modern financial products.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Jan  6 05:32:36 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:32:36 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism"
	(7) end
Message-ID: <be1.4d7d4076.3694a964@aol.com>

The old financial-industrial capital means exactly what the word implies:  
financial and industrial capital fused, with the financial sector being the  
dominator. When the financier subsumed industrial capital what remained was  
finance capital with a productive and non-productive sector. 
 
Again, productive capital implies a connection of finance capital with the  
process of production. 
 
In an even earlier period of American history one can speak of  
industrial-finance capital with the industrialist dominating the banking  institutions. 
Speculative capital as a form of finance capital cannot be  reunited with 
productive capital by definition of the former and can only be  destroyed. 
 
5). ?The new technologies have the potential to de-proletarianize much of  
labor, even banishing from public discourse the corporate view of workers as  ?
maggots with hands.? Nationalized health care, retirement, and education,  
shorter hours, plus the freedom to organize, promise to erode the "labor-power"  
market and replace it with a more protected "labor" market where work is  
compensated proportional to its product, or the actual value of the service  
rendered, not merely what subsistence it takes to them to return to complete  
alienation from the product of labor each day, and with a declining share of  
national income as well." (end quote). 
 
Nationalized health care, retirement, and education, shorter hours, plus  the 
freedom to organize, are urgently needed by our working class and are  
concessions worth fighting and dying for. The feet of the Obama administration  must 
be put to the fire to deliver these concessions. As a representative of  
finance capital, Obama and his administration cannot be pushed to the left, but  
government can be compelled to deliver concessions. 
 
I understand to ?de-proletarianize much of labor,? to mean to leave folks  
without jobs, and industrial work culture, in as much as the overwhelming  
majority of the unemployed are proletarian. Breaking the grip of bourgeois  
morality in the form of the "work ethic," which is really a "job ethic," is an  
inescapable part of the fight against capital. Full employment for those who  
desire a job is a noble idea but impossible under capitalism. The problem today  
is that even if there was not a massive financial and economic crisis, labor is 
 being rendered superfluous to the production of commodities and a segment of 
 society is being forced lower and lower.  
 
This growing ?class? of unemployed and underemployed, increasingly living  
outside the norms of civic bourgeois society and the formerly middle class  
workers being pushed down (like the autoworker having their entry wages cut 60%)  
that constitutes the sharpest antagonism with capital in all its forms, and 
the  salient face of the crisis of capital. This sector of the working class - 
(the  unemployed, underemployed and even much of the unemployable as they 
exist in  real life intertwined with the lowest paid workers), emerges as the 
mirror image  opposite of speculative capital without any connecting bond between 
them. 
 
The speculator and speculative capital can be defeated politically, due  
precisely because of their lack of connection with production and hence no  social 
basis amongst the proletarian masses. Productive capital has a social  basis, 
precisely because it is productive, i.e., the labor capital bond. . 
 
A word concerning the unemployed. 
 
As the application of new scientific marvels to the workplace expands, a  new 
economic category, the structurally unemployed, was created. This new class  
of unemployed are proletarians. Some 150 years ago, Marx and Engels coined the 
 term "the reserve army of the unemployed." We need to ask what constituted 
the  meaning of ?reserve? in the reserved army? One hundred fifty years ago, 
this was  the industrial reserve to be thrown into ?the battle? for production 
as the need  arose, and the need did arise through various boundaries of 
development of  industry. The structurally unemployed is something different and 
should be  examined in light of the technological revolution. This is a new, 
growing,  permanently unemployed sector of the proletariat created by the new, 
emerging  economic structure. 
 
Given the massive surplus of labor in America and world wide, our vision  
should be modified to include a sector of society - millions, who cannot find  
work, are not and should not be required to work as a condition to receive from  
society socially necessary means of life. There are millions of other ways to 
 contribute to society outside a job. 
 
Speculative capital as a form and sector arising out of  financial-industrial 
operates, exists in external collision to the poorest  sector of the 
proletarian masses and in contradiction (not antagonism) with  productive capital, and 
as such cannot be reunited with productive capital. Its  destruction means 
the emancipation of the working class from all forms of  capital. 
 
The fight for its destruction, which will constitute an era of isolating  the 
political middle and breaking the grip of the Democratic Party on the  
masses, has opened as a line of march for the revolutionary proletariat  after a 
century of "no way out." 
 
A sector of the proletariat is being cast adrift from capital and its  
spontaneous demands for food, clothing, shelter, etc. - (socially necessary  means 
of life), increasingly intertwines with the poorest and not so poor  workers, 
is the demand for economic communism in the here and now. 
 
Rally Comrades for the last fight we face.
The International Shall be the Human Race. 
 
?It is this last point that crystallizes the role of Marx's communist ideal  
as a valuable guide with which to approach the possibilities and dangers 
before  us. The opportunity to move forward from this crisis towards an enlightened 
 society is here. Marx often characterized the emergence of communist society 
as  the bourgeois rights of the Enlightenment, given voice in the Declaration 
of  Independence for example, extended to all workers ? "from each according 
to  their ability, to each according to their work." The slogan will serve us, 
our  country, and our world well in the troubled times ahead, as once again, 
we set  forth to remake the world.? 
 
--John Case is a member of the economics commission of  the Communist  Party. 
 
Waistline 
 




**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 11:01:53 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:01:53 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Systemic Threat?
Message-ID: <49635641.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Re: [PEN-L] Systemic Threat?
Eubulides
Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:34:29 -0800

On 11/10/05, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Carrol,
>
> For financial economists, "systemic threat" means a situation where the
> regular functioning of the financial markets (i.e. the equity, forex and
> the futures markets) is disrupted, e.g. by a liquidity crisis caused by
> say the insolvency of a major institution.
>
> More than any systematic, organized opposition, the major threats to
> capitalism today are its own internal contradictions. I disagree that
> "crises come and crises go". The last time there was a major capitalist
> crisis was arguably during the Great Depression, which did lead to
> earth-shaking events. Capital emerged intact perhaps stronger from WW2,
> but there is no guarantee that will happen again.  A capitalist crisis
> e.g. from a derivatives collapse could be a Progressive Opportunity.
>
> --raghu.
>

---------------------------------

"Capitalist crisis certainly reflects the contradiction between
exchange value and use value on which commodity production systems
rest, since it exhibits a simultaneous increase of unfulfilled need
and of unused capacity to meet need. Crises are inherent in a system
where the proximate motive for production is surplus value, and the
meeting of need is achieved as a contingent byproducts of the pursuit
of profit. This analysis cannot, however, support the conclusion that
the capitalist mode of production is contradictory in the sense of
posing  logically inconsistent requirements for its own reproduction,
of being, in fact impossible. Crisis must be seen as part of the
normal pattern of successful reproduction of capitalism.

"Finance appears to be a critical mediating channel between changes in
underlying parameters of accumulation like the markupp and the ebbing
of aggregate demand associated with the realization phases of crises.
The disruption of the financial system is itself one of the most
dramatic manifestations of such crises. But the circuit of capital
analysis tends to confirm the view that financial problems have their
origin in systematic effects of capital accumulation. Crises are not
primarily financial, and no reform of the financial system alone can
eliminate the tendency to crisis.

[...]

"Furthermore, if the persistence and severity of crises depend on the
persistence of financial imbalances, there are presumably strong state
measures available to avoid systemic catastrophe. The financial system
is a system of promises, and a financial crisis is a situation where a
large number of such promises cannot be met consistently. If the state
can achieve an orderly dissolution of enough financial promises, it
can create a situation where accumulation can proceed, as long as
there is a surplus value potentially available in the unpaid labor of
productive workers.

"This last remark calls into serious question the idea of a final or
ultimate crisis of capitalist production arising from purely from the
predictable effects of accumulation. Economic crises may become more
severe in their social impact as larger parts of the population depend
on capitalist production to meet an ever larger part of their need.
But if social labor is capable of producing a surplus, it is hard to
see why a society that agreed on capitalist principles could not
arrange to have that potential surplus take the form of a surplus
value." [Duncan Foley "Money, Accumulation and Crisis" 1986].

If you don't hit it it won't fall.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:13:28 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:13:28 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism" (2)
Message-ID: <49637519.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 Exactly. Though I would recommend the whole of Part IV of _Capital_
Vol. I to get the whole "swoop" on the Industrial Revolution.

Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value

Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value 
Ch. 13: Co-operation 
Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture 
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry 

Marx defines the last technological revolution in this Part. My thesis
on what is revolutionary in the current situation of fundamental change
in the technological regime starts with Marx's definition of "industry"
in Part IV. The essential two aspects are Co-operation and Machinery.
Currently, the development of machinery ( computers and robots are parts
of machines) has negated the cooperative aspect.  The culmination of the
revolution in communication and transportation has allowed the
capitalists to _reverse_ the trend, noted by Marx in Part IV, of bigger
and bigger factories, more and more local concentration of workers. This
constitutes a qualitative change _in the terms that Marx defined. So ,
it defines a _Marxist_ revolution  in science and technology
fundamentally transforming the industrial system that _Marx_ defined in
Part IV of _Capital_ I.


^^^^^
In one swoop Marx describes the concrete dialectic in the development
of  the 
industrial process, as it emerges from manufacture. 
 
"Here, then, we see in Manufacture the immediate technical foundation
of  
Modern Industry. Manufacture produced the machinery, by means of which
Modern  
Industry abolished the handicraft and manufacturing systems in those
spheres of  
production that it first seized upon. The factory system was therefore

raised,  in the natural course of things, on an inadequate foundation.
When the 
system  attained to a certain degree of development, it had to root up
this 
ready-made  foundation, which in the meantime had been elaborated on
the old lines, 
and to  build up for itself a basis that should correspond to its
methods of  
production." 
 
Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Modern Industry 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm)  
 
Industrial society as the primary mode of production is the sublating
of  the 
manufacturing process and basis of agrarian society. In a few words,
the  
domination of machinery as the primary means by which society
reproduces itself.  

^^^
CB: Machinery plus Co-operation ( Co-operation is Marx's term

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm 


Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Capitalist production only then really begins, as we have already seen,
when each individual capital employs simultaneously a comparatively
large number of labourers; when consequently the labour-process is
carried on on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large
quantities of products. A greater number of labourers working together,
at the same time, in one place (or, if you will, in the same field of
labour), in order to produce the same sort of commodity under the
mastership of one capitalist, constitutes, both historically and
logically, the starting-point of capitalist production. With regard to
the mode of production itself, manufacture, in its strict meaning, is
hardly to be distinguished, in its earliest stages, from the handicraft
trades of the guilds, otherwise than by the greater number of workmen
simultaneously employed by one and the same individual capital. The
workshop of the medieval master handicraftsman is simply enlarged.

At first, therefore, the difference is purely quantitative. We have
shown that the surplus-value produced by a given capital is equal to the
surplus-value produced by each workman multiplied by the number of
workmen simultaneously employed. The number of workmen in itself does
nor affect, either the rate of surplus-value, or the degree of
exploitation of labour-power. If a working-day of 12 hours be embodied
in six shillings, 1,200 such days will be embodied in 1,200 times 6
shillings. In one case 12 ? 1,200 working-hours, and in the other 12
such hours are incorporated in the product. In the production of value a
number of workmen rank merely as so many individual workmen; and it
therefore makes no difference in the value produced whether the 1,200
men work separately, or united under the control of one capitalist. 

^^^^^^^

This does not mean that primitive modes of producing no longer exist.

^^^^^
CB: Agree

^^^^
 With 
the  emergence of machine society, what constitutes a qualitative
change in the 
mode  of production is a revolution that reconfigures the underlying 
principles by  which the sum total of all machines operates.
^^^^
CB: Yes ! Plus Co-operation.  The factories brought larger numbers of
workers together in one place than Manufacture , too.

^^^^


 In this sense we are 
speaking of  the laws of mechanical motion.






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:15:41 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:15:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism" (4)
Message-ID: <4963759E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than  
speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during the era of  Lenin. 
Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the  basis 
of financial institutions more than less detached from production of  
commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital rises to  domination 
on the basis of revolution in the productive forces.

^^^^^
CB: The speculation that Lenin discusses is essentially the same as all the other speculation down through the centuries. It's moneylending. 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:20:16 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:20:16 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Does industrial capital exist ?
Message-ID: <496376B0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

  
WL: I am not  aware of one single economist of note that speaks 
of an industrial sector of  capital.


 

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 5,210,000 for Industrial sector of capital.
(0.23 seconds) 
Search ResultsIndustrial Sector Outlook - Capital Spending Trends (2 of
2 ...Full Study Keywords: Market Size, Market Share, Market Leaders,
Demand Forecast, Sales, Company Profiles, Market Research, Industry
Trends and Companies ...
www.freedoniagroup.com/(S(y1bchd55bd11f445edywy4i5))/FractionalDetails.aspx?DocumentId=386248
- 19k - Cached - Similar pages
Policy Areas - Enterprise and Industry - European CommissionINDUSTRY
SECTORS ? POLICY AREAS ? Public Consultations ... Equity Capital,
Business Angels, Basel II, Guarantees, Microcredit, Round tables of
bankers and ...
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policy_en.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
Peru - Labor and Capital in the Industrial SectorLabor and Capital in
the Industrial Sector. In line with its basic conception of social
order, the military government also created a complex system of ...
www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-10286.html - 4k - Cached - Similar
pages
Peru Labor and Capital in the Industrial Sector - Flags, Maps ...Peru
Labor and Capital in the Industrial Sector - Flags, Maps, Economy,
History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International
Agreements, ...
www.photius.com/countries/peru/economy/peru_economy_labor_and_capital_in~790.html
- 9k - Cached - Similar pages
Industry Sector - Whole Banking and Capital Markets - Ernst &
YoungErnst & Young?s dedicated Wholesale Banking and Capital Markets
sector team ... and capital markets industry to help our clients perform
and execute better. ...
www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/UK/_Banking_and_Capital_Markets - 48k -
Cached - Similar pages
Siemens AG Capital Market Day `Industry` Sector Transcript ...Dec 18,
2008 ... Credit & Investment Research, Thomson StreetEvents: Siemens AG
Capital Market Day `Industry` Sector Transcript - Transcript -
2008/12/18 ...
www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/ccbn/T2055234 - 20k - Cached - Similar
pages
IPCC Technical Paper I: Industrial SectorTechnologies for Reducing GHG
Emissions in the Industrial Sector .... to achieve GHG reductions within
the industrial sector by providing investment capital ...
www.gcrio.org/ipcc/techrepI/industrial.html - 22k - Cached - Similar
pages
TM Capital Corp. - Industrial SectorTM Capital is a leader in the
industrial sector. ... TM Capital has extensive industrial sector
expertise gained through completing the many transactions ...
www.tmcapital.com/industry_industrial.html - 77k - Cached - Similar
pages
Capital investment in insurance is evidence of sector?s long-term
...Dec 29, 2008 ... The capital it?s said would help industry
operators accommodate bigger risks particularly in the oil and gas
sectors; compete in the global ...
www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2090:-capital-investment...sectors...
- 60k - Cached - Similar pages
Legal, IPO, sector, industry, capital market, equity and ...Since
INVgr's launch in December 1998, a vast amount of equity research,
quantitative research, IPO, sector, industry, capital market, flash,
strategy and ...
www.invgr.com/reports.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:22:09 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:09 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
Message-ID: <49637721.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And see:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm 

Also important to note that Piaget, in attempting to work out a
description of the 'sciences of man', integrates Marxism into his
system.

CJ

^^^^
CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ?







This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:25:27 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:25:27 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
Message-ID: <496377E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


CeJ jannuzi 
>>

Poor CB,he can't even tell when I agree with him. Dude, if you would
stop soaking your ass in places like A-hole list, Marxmal and Liberal
Bored Observer, maybe we could communicate occasionally.

CJ


^^^^^
CB: As a linguist , you know it takes two to communicate (smile)



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From dhenwood at panix.com  Tue Jan  6 13:29:35 2009
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:29:35 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <496377E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <496377E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <FD2BD807-B61B-49BD-B183-F05A247997F7@panix.com>


On Jan 6, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Brown wrote:

>
> CeJ jannuzi
>>>
>
> Poor CB,he can't even tell when I agree with him. Dude, if you would
> stop soaking your ass in places like A-hole list, Marxmal and Liberal
> Bored Observer, maybe we could communicate occasionally.
>
> CJ
>
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: As a linguist , you know it takes two to communicate (smile)

What a dazzling use of language from our linguist! Missed it first  
time around, because CeJ goes straight to /dev/null.


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 13:42:17 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:42:17 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Industrial organization of production
Message-ID: <49637BDA.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

^^^^ CB: Sure. The goal is a class_less_ society. The working class is an exploited/oppressed class. The aim in no exploiting or exploited classes. 

But in the transitional stage, the working class is the ruling class. That's before the total abolition of classes. 

^^^^ 

^^ 



> and that the essence of capitalism is NOT private 
>property plus the market, 


^^^ CB: Capitalism's "essence" is that commodity production and exchange ( "the market") dominates the whole economy , and the vast majority oflabor is becomes a commodity ( wage-labor). Feudalism and slavery had private property, but commodity production ( production for exchange, not use) was in only a small section of the whole economy. Labor power as a commodity was in only a small segment too. 


and that it cannot be transcended by merely 
>abolishing private proprty and the market but that the industrial 
>organization of production must be eliminated. 




I don't know what "industrial organization of production" means. 

^^^ CB: See Part IV of _Capital_ Vol. I. Marx gives the Marxist essentials of The Industrial Revolution - Cooperation and Machines. 

Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value 

Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm ^^^ 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Jan  6 15:00:29 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:00:29 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Blacks versus the New Deal
Message-ID: <49638E2E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



Charles,

I don't know whether the KKK lynched anybody in 1916, but not only
wasn't that the question, but an accurate answer to it doesn't enter
into what we were discussing...which was Harry Truman's 1922
membership in the KKK.

In that context, the point of your eagerness to begin "using the KKK
generically" is lost on me.

ML

^^
Mark,

I looked over the thread before I posted last, and there was no one "question". There were several questions , and I am free to introduce new questions, as you know.  The thread is "Blacks and the New Deal". So , obviously, the topic is not just whether Harry Truman was in the KKK in 1922. 

As to generic use of "KKK" , think about it for about a nano-second , and you'll get it I'm sure. 

 However, I appreciate your specialized historical knowledge of the KKK , and your teaching me that there was a two phased history to the KKK.

I do think that the Dixicrats who left the DP in 1948 likely represented the Jim Crow views of the KKK , official and knockoff.  

As to Harry Truman, by 1948  he was a major player in doing unKlanly stuff, like writing an  Executive Order integrating the armed forces.

Tell us when your new book is finished.

Charles






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 22:28:04 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:28:04 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>

>>The ideas that nothing has changed since Lenin is just intellectual  laziness
and a refusal to admit that things change at best and dogmatism at  worse.

GMAC not GM is the master of GM. GMAC is GM.
.
Dude, its all finance capital.<<

I'm not sure I'm following your arguments. One, who here has said that
nothing has changed since Lenin? Two, who here has said we should
ignore 'finance capitalism' and speculation? Three, the categories you
are talking about are analytic ones, not ontological ones. I'm not
even sure they get to the psychological motive of most capitalists.
They simply describe the way capital functions in the transformative
social process. Often investors have only one motive (they have been
all but guaranteed a 12-20% annual return on their investment, even
more if the window given is 3-5 years). Their money goes towards
industrial and financial ends. In times of a bubble, since everyone
wants that 12-20% return they put their money into whatever they think
will get them that higher return. If manufacturing cars in Detroit
would get that--or at least convince them it could get that--they
would put their money there. Consider the Madoff scandal. Two years
ago he was one of the go-to guys who could get investors that high
rate of return. Now he is an alleged Ponzi scheme broker. What is the
difference between now and two years ago? No one believes in his
scheme anymore. I'm not sure if such speculative craziness goes all
the way back to the Tulip Bubble, but it has been in world capitalism
for quite some time. It's main attraction? The higher rate of return
promised. Why do people become convinced? Because they saw so-and-so
and so-and-so-and-so get 20% last year. Whether it is individual
investors or CALPERS or Harvard, the thinking is the same and is
exploited the same.

So could you re-state what you are trying to argue here? I just don't get it.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 22:32:40 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:32:40 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062132y74652ac6n1c7026b645277af7@mail.gmail.com>

>>What a dazzling use of language from our linguist! Missed it first
time around, because CeJ goes straight to /dev/null.<<

Hey since irony is out this year (leftists have a world to save), I'll
take that as a compliment, even from someone like Duff Henwood. Thanks
Duff, and Happy New Year to you. BTW, please don't post links to porn
sites to this list--keep them on your Liberal Bored Observer outlet
only. Thanks.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 22:34:18 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:34:18 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism,
	Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901062132y74652ac6n1c7026b645277af7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062132y74652ac6n1c7026b645277af7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062134r46476f5bme778300a4b59537d@mail.gmail.com>

>>CB: As a linguist , you know it takes two to communicate (smile)<<

Extended quotes aren't communication if no one reads them, and they
seem to bring in a third party, don't they?

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 22:43:58 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:43:58 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin philosophy blog
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901052215u3f6b0a61sc74dda76c1037241@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901052115j356b4b7dw3eba07affd044426@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901052211hfadc6e7m21780ae55feb2ba0@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901052215u3f6b0a61sc74dda76c1037241@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062143r461d340ek4b0dd02dff27bb11@mail.gmail.com>

>>CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ?<<

That's a good question. I'll get back to you on that. I have a work on
the philosophy of 'human' sciences by Piaget (he was commissioned to
write it a few years before Lyotard was commissioned to tell us about
the post-modern episteme) but in paper only. My Piaget resources
online are mostly non-existent. I do know Piaget admired the work of
Vygotsky once he found out about it and that they had useful exchanges
(if I remember my reading from twenty years ago, when I thought
philosophy of science for the social sciences was an interesting
topic).

Again, going from memory here, I think Piaget uses the term 'means of
production' in an expanded sense that I like to think Marx would have
loved.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 23:12:05 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:12:05 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>

>>Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than
speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during the
era of  Lenin.
Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the  basis
of financial institutions more than less detached from production of
commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital rises
to  domination
on the basis of revolution in the productive forces.<<

The irony is--I would bet my money!--that so much money pours into
speculative finance because the motive behind moving the money is
thinking like this: this is a surer and higher return on my money than
anything else, including direct investment into something producing a
good or service.

Take GE, it makes most of its money (or at least up until recently) as
a straightforward finance capital firm through its financial arms. It
also makes money manufacturing for military, governments  or for
markets where it almost enjoys a monopoly. And one of the best ways to
make money manufacturing for the US military is simply to win the big
contract and then squeeze profits out of all the sub-contractors who
actually do all the work.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 23:39:59 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:39:59 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Piaget and Marx (Stems from Re: Lenin philosophy
	blog)
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901062239j79021900sc7eb1c09e71e771c@mail.gmail.com>

>>>CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ?<<

First, a correction. I must have imagined any Piaget-Vygotsky
correspondence. Piaget only found out about Vygotsky's work after his
death, through contact with people who studied under Vygotsky.

Second, we have discussed this before (or at least Piaget as a
philosopher of social science of the 20th century, a status the
Anglo-analytic traditions ignore), but since that time I have found
more online, including a straightforward Marxist critiques of Piaget
(Lektorsky, Durak):

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm#piaget-jean

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/piaget2.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lektorsky/subject-object/ch01.htm#s2

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/piaget.htm

http://tomweston.net/PiagetDurak.pdf


-----------------------
I will follow up on that use of the term 'means of production' as that
fascinates me more than the 'dialectic' one, which we already
discussed anyway. I think Durak's charge (after a quick scan read, so
don't hold me responsible for not understanding Durak just yet)
against Piaget of 'idealism' holds, then it makes all structuralists
and Frege idealists as well.

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Jan  7 00:36:01 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:36:01 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have...
Message-ID: <bf5.4d076798.3695b561@aol.com>

Seems to me you do in fact get the distinction between productive capital  
and speculative capital. A good Ponzi scheme is not back until it collapses.  
Profits to be made from that side of the business constituting productive  
capital has never been bad business. 
 
On the other hand this category called "industrial capital sector" or a  
"crack between industrial capital and finance (finance!!)" is well . . .  

Industry = industrial capital. How amusing. 
 
The industrial capitalists can be found in your local museum, standing to  
the left of the merchant capitalist.
 
Wait a minute. Because GE also sells commodities and some one must sell  
these commodities to the consumer, its capital is really a form of merchant  
capital because someone brought the product from GE, and sold it to someone  else. 
 
Buy such a thinking man a beer. 
 
I did follow some of the links CB provided and it seem to me he had not  read 
them. 
 
Waistline 




In a message dated 1/7/2009 1:12:16 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
jannuzi at gmail.com writes:

>>Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different  than
speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during  the
era of  Lenin. Speculative capital as a concept means investment and  risk 
taking on the  basis
of financial institutions more than less  detached from production of
commodities. Speculative capital as a form and  sector of capital rises
to  domination on the basis of revolution in the  productive forces.<<

The irony is--I would bet my money!--that so  much money pours into
speculative finance because the motive behind moving  the money is
thinking like this: this is a surer and higher return on my  money than
anything else, including direct investment into something  producing a
good or service.

Take GE, it makes most of its money (or  at least up until recently) as
a straightforward finance capital firm through  its financial arms. It
also makes money manufacturing for military,  governments  or for
markets where it almost enjoys a monopoly. And one  of the best ways to
make money manufacturing for the US military is simply to  win the big
contract and then squeeze profits out of all the sub-contractors  who
actually do all the work.

CJ
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 01:11:52 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:11:52 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>

WL>>Seems to me you do in fact get the distinction between productive capital
and speculative capital. A good Ponzi scheme is not back until it collapses.
Profits to be made from that side of the business constituting productive
capital has never been bad business. <<

I never said I didn't get such a distinction (although why do I not
like that term 'productive' capital? Will get back to you about that.)
For the purposes of analysis Marx, Lenin, Veblen and Keynes all make
such a distinction. I don't think any would deny how they overlap in
the 'magic of profit-taking' of capitalism.

Industrial capitalists like what the UK, US had in the 19th century
might not exist today (afterall, they were people in the 19th
century), but we can still use the term 'industrial capital'.

I just refuse to go over the ontological or exegetical deepends (as so
many Marxists are wont to do).

But I do detect a thesis in your posts WL.  I just don't know that it
means anyone else is wrong about the current crisis of capital.

CJ


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Jan  7 01:31:08 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:31:08 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have...
Message-ID: <d3d.35c89438.3695c24c@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/7/2009 12:28:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jannuzi at gmail.com writes:

>I'm not sure I'm following your arguments. One, who here has said  that
nothing has changed since Lenin?<

WL: CB  . . .  repeatedly and directly . . . in his line of arguing the 
existence of industrial  capital and Lenin's "Imperialism."  And in statement that 
American society  is not qualitatively different from feudal Russia. Russia 
was after all  basically feudal in its economic and social structures when Lenin 
died. America  was qualitatively different from Russia when Lenin was alive. 
 
Some of the discussion is sectarian on both sides but not the majority of  
it. I think. The matter of who rules today is going to be important with Obama  
coming into office. One cannot push him to the left. He is finance capital  
representative left to tap dance between the whims of productive and  
non-productive capital. Get ready for advocacy of the anti-monopoly coalition.  It is 
the Democratic party that has to be isolated and their grip over the  workers 
broken. Obama has already had his day in the sun by being elected. 
 
Give it six months. 
 
WL 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 02:21:49 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:21:49 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901070121m5bddc48as2ac04388d1afb464@mail.gmail.com>

>>WL: CB  . . .  repeatedly and directly . . . in his line of arguing the
existence of industrial  capital and Lenin's "Imperialism."  And in
statement that
American society  is not qualitatively different from feudal Russia. Russia
was after all  basically feudal in its economic and social structures
when Lenin
died. America  was qualitatively different from Russia when Lenin was alive. <<

More importantly Lenin was referring to the national and international
capitalism of his day, not just Russia emerging from a feudal empire.
Of course he addressed speculation, but of course he addressed it in a
world where there was no 24-7 electronic frenzy to worldwide trading
across linked markets (although don't count that out completely
because of the telegraph). Forgive us, though, if some of us
inherently trust the analysis of Lenin more than we do a guy in charge
of an investment fund in NYC (who may well write apocalyptic rhetoric
about speculative finance simply because he is ocean deep in the
bearest of all bear bets).

>>Some of the discussion is sectarian on both sides but not the majority of
it. I think. The matter of who rules today is going to be important with Obama
coming into office. One cannot push him to the left.<<

Well if he could be pushed to the left he would snap in the wind.

The only place this man has to go is into a S. Asian quagmire (can't
wait for the Pashtun to attack the first convoy of Bradley vehicles
leaving Pakistan) to match the Mesopotamian quagmire (surely the most
successful occupation ever in terms of the sheer deficit spending on a
handful of contractors and their myriad camp following
sub-contractors). And a capitalist and ruling class crisis that makes
the US of 2008 look like a combination of the British Empire in 1918,
B.E. in 1945 and the US in 1929 and I don't know freaking what!--and
that doesn't do it justice!!!


>>He is finance capital representative left to tap dance between the whims of productive and non-productive capital.<<

Why do I like the term 'production capital' better?  Where in Das
Kapital does Marx use that term 'productive capital' or am I simply
misremembering the term and there is a distinction between productive
capital and production capital?

Of course the capitalist who has none of Marx in the first place would
say my money is my money, and I want this money to PRODUCE more money
anyway it can (which is why we get blackbox monsters of the stock
market like Enron, World Crossing, Tyco, Citigroup, AIG, etc--much of
the accounting for which is still set up for industrial capitalists
trying to pay fewer taxes--so they have enough money to pay
state-level politicians).


>> Get ready for advocacy of the anti-monopoly coalition.  It is
the Democratic party that has to be isolated and their grip over the  workers
broken. Obama has already had his day in the sun by being elected.
 Give it six months. <<

Are you being ironic about the 'anti-monopoly coalition' (just
thinking of Lenin again)? Or did you mean some kind of political
monopoly (the Repugs and the Demoncrats).

The Democratic Party I would say doesn't have a grip on the
workers--that is why Repugnicans win so many elections. It isn't even
going to take six months for the so-called markets to realize that
after another trillion outlay from the federal government, Pres. Obama
and all his Clintonite friends haven't got a clue as to what they are
doing.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 02:33:58 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:33:58 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901070121m5bddc48as2ac04388d1afb464@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070121m5bddc48as2ac04388d1afb464@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901070133n2bb0ca8ds2deda2bea80f330@mail.gmail.com>

I guess one question here is why Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't
re-invest profits into accumulating their industrial capital. One, if
the goal was to reach a certain level of production to stay
competitive in the world (what is the benchmark now, 2 million
vehicles per year?), the most obvious solution was to acquire stakes
in and control of other car companies and attempt integration of
production. Two, this very easily moves over to finance and
speculative finance because of the way such deals were run by
investment banks able to put together the 'leverage' to finance the
deals (while taking a huge cut for themselves). Three, what is most
surprising though is how these companies all say at the same time that
they are in effect 'bankrupt' and need federal loans to stay solvent.
So did management as ownership strip out so much money from these
companies to enrich themselves (so they could, for example, speculate
on other things)? So much for the idea that management even tries to
act in the best interest of the company.

A different area of inquiry and analysis is how so much of the
political economies we produce in have become owned by 'holding
companies', which ultimately are owned by private equity groups and
things like hedge funds (who invest for 'institutional investors'),
while these private equity groups and hedge funds are dominated by US
and UK 'interests'.


CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 03:00:29 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:00:29 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901070133n2bb0ca8ds2deda2bea80f330@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070121m5bddc48as2ac04388d1afb464@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070133n2bb0ca8ds2deda2bea80f330@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901070200g3c210308q346f1565588fe4e4@mail.gmail.com>

If only this guy would read Marx. No wait, that would just make him
another HCKL or something similar to that.

BTW, I noticed one of the more famous private equity groups, Carlyle
Group, is trying to put  together big deals in overseas universities.
I guess they think 'American-quality' higher education is the next big
 wave. And Laureate is the model.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/watch.html

BILL MOYERS: This story in THE NEW YORK TIMES this week. What do you
think when you read a story like that?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, first, it's a national disgrace. Simply put. And
there are some things that must be entrusted to government and some
things that must be entrusted to private enterprise. And what we see
there, at least in my judgment, is that we've taken medical care,
healthcare and going from making it a profession in which the patient
is the object of the game ? preserving the patient "first do no harm"
as Hippocrates would say or would have said and turn that into a
business. And so, it's a bottom line. I've often said we're in a
bottom line society. We're measuring the wrong bottom line.

BILL MOYERS:What does it say to you that the real owners of the
nursing home, the private investors have created this maze of smoke
and mirrors that make it virtually impossible to find out who the
owners really are?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, that's so typical of much that's going on in American
finance, the way we structure these financial instruments, which are
stock certificates or debt instruments. But it's the same thing of the
removal of your friendly, local neighborhood bank holding the mortgage
and being able to work with you when you fall on hard times to some
unnamed, often unknown, financial institution who couldn't care less.

BILL MOYERS:These private equity firms that own these nursing homes
wouldn't even talk to THE NEW YORK TIMES. They won't talk to
reporters. I mean, there's no accountability to the public.

JOHN BOGLE: There's no accountability. And it's wrong. It's
fundamentally a blight on our society.

BILL MOYERS:What does it say that big private money can operate so
secretly, with so little accountability, that the people who are hurt
by it, the residents in the nursing home have no recourse?

JOHN BOGLE:It says something very bad about American society. And you
wonder ? the first question anybody would have after reading the
article ? how in God's name do they get away with that? Well, we have
all these attorneys that are capable of devising complex instruments,
and money managers who are capable of devising highly complex
financial schemes. And there's kind of no one to answer to the call of
duty at the end of it.

BILL MOYERS: And we're talking about some of the most powerful names
in the business. I mean, these are formidable forces, right?

JOHN BOGLE: They're formidable forces. But, I'm afraid--

BILL MOYERS: Respectable citizens, right?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, I mean, I don't know about that. But, it's certainly
-- it's easy to say that greed is taking ? playing a part ? greed has
a role in a capitalistic society. But, not the dominant role and--

BILL MOYERS: What should be the dominant? What is the job of capitalism?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, ultimately, the job of capitalism is to serve the
consumer. Serve the citizenry. You're allowed to make a profit for
that. But, you've got to provide good products and services at fair
prices. And that's the long term, that's what businesses do in the
long term. The businesses that have endured in America have done that
and done that successfully.

But, in the short term, there's all these financial machinations in
which people can get very rich in a very short period of time by
creating highly complex financial instruments, providing services that
can be cut back easily as in the hospital article, not measuring up to
basically their duty.

We all know that in professions, the idea has been service to the
client before service to self. That's what a profession is. That's
what medicine was. That's what accountancy was. That's what attorneys
used to be. That's what trusteeship used to be inside the mutual fund
industry. But, we've moved from that to a big capital accumulation ?
self interest ? creating wealth for the providers of these services
when the providers of these services are in fact subtracting value
from society. So, it doesn't work.

BILL MOYERS:So, the private equity nursing homes have added to their
wealth. But, they've subtracted from society the care for people who
need it.

JOHN BOGLE: That is exactly correct. Not good.

BILL MOYERS:THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page celebrates what it
called the animal spirits of business. And as if that's the heart of
capitalism. What do you think about that?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, I like the animal spirits of business. I mean Lord
Keynes told us about animal spirits. And it comes out of a part of his
work that says, "You know, all the precise numbers and the
perspectives mean nothing. What determines the future of a business is
its animal spirits." You know, the desire for progress, the desire to
create something new. That's all good. But, it's gotten misshapen.
Badly--

BILL MOYERS: How so?

JOHN BOGLE: --misshapen.

BILL MOYERS: How so?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, it's gotten misshapen because the financial side of
the economy is dominating the productive side of the economy

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, let me say it very simply. The rewards of the growth
in our economy comes from corporate, largely - from corporations who
are a very important measure, from corporations that are providing
goods and services at a fair price innovating and bringing in new
technology ? providing a higher quality of life for our society and
they make money doing it. I mean, and the returns in business in the
long run are 100 percent the dividends a corporation pays and the rate
at which its earnings grow.

That still exists. But, it's been overwhelmed by a financial economy.
The financial economy, which is the way you package all these ways of
financing corporations, more and more complex, more and more
expensive. The financial sector of our economy is the largest
profit-making sector in America. Our financial services companies make
more money than our energy companies ? no mean profitable business in
this day and age. Plus, our healthcare companies. They make almost
twice as much as our technology companies, twice as much as our
manufacturing companies. We've become a financial economy which has
overwhelmed the productive economy to the detriment of investors and
the detriment ultimately of our society.

BILL MOYERS: By the financial sector, you mean?

JOHN BOGLE:Banks, money managers, insurance companies, certainly
annuity providers. They're all subtracting value from the economy.
They have to subtract. To be clear on this now ? I don't want to
overstate it. To be clear on this, they have to subtract some value.
But, the question is--

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean they subtract some value?

JOHN BOGLE:In other words, ? you've go to pay somebody something to
provide a service. It's just gotten totally out of hand. My estimate
is that the financial sector takes $560 billion a year out of society.
Five hundred and sixty billion.

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

JOHN BOGLE:It goes into the pockets of hedge fund managers, mutual
fund managers, bankers, insurance companies. Let me give you this just
one little example. If you didn't make a $129 million last year ? I'm
presuming that you didn't. You don't rank among the highest paid 25
hedge fund managers. A $129 million doesn't get you into the upper
echelon.

BILL MOYERS: And on the way here this morning, I saw a story that now
a $1 billion will not get you in the FORTUNE 400. A $1 billion!

JOHN BOGLE:Well, I spend a lot of time thinking about that. I mean,
you kind of asked the question, which I've asked in some of my work.
What is enough here? And the society is out of control. I mean, in THE
BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM, I talk about the frightening
similarities between the American economy in America, our nation, at
the beginning of the 21st century and Rome all those centuries ago
around the 4th century.

BILL MOYERS: What are the comparisons?

JOHN BOGLE:We have an idea that we are the world's value creator and
leader. And I'm talking not just about economic value, but, we like to
think of America as having the best values of integrity and
citizenship in the world. We're getting a little bit too much self
interested. We have our own bread and circuses. And they're a little
different than the bread and circuses they had in Rome. But, we surely
have our circuses whether it's sports teams or casino gambling or the
lottery in the states. And we see this not just in our economy, in our
financial system. This very short-term focus on everything. You see
it, sadly, in our government.

Everybody knows social security is going to run into crisis. We can't
run these federal deficits forever. But, everybody looks out two years
and says, "Will I be elected two years from now or a year and a half
from now?" And, the short term focus ultimately betrays the very
values that we have come to be used to in this great nation of ours.

BILL MOYERS: You said the other day to someone that we think we can
fight the war in Iraq without paying for it.

JOHN BOGLE:Well, we borrow the money to fight the Iraq War by some
estimates and they're not absurd estimates is running now towards a $1
trillion. We could be doing what the British empire did. We could be
bankrupting ourselves in the long run. And--

BILL MOYERS: You see us as an empire?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, of course it's an empire. We reach all over the
world. We thought of ourselves in many, many respects as the policemen
of the world. God knows we know we're the policemen of the Middle
East. And there are those say, even from Alan Greenspan on up or down,
that oil is the root of that. I mean, these are great societal
questions. Protecting oil, which is in turn polluting the atmosphere.

We have problems as a society. And we don't have to surrender to them.
But, we have to have a little introspection about where we are in
America today. We've go to think through these things. We've got to
develop a political system that is not driven by money. I mean, these
are societal problems for us that don't have any easy answers.

But you don't have to be an economist to know that a great deal of or
a minimum in our economy is coming from borrowed money. People are
spending at a higher rate than they're earning, and we're starting to
pay a price for that now. Particularly in the mortgage side. But,
eventually, that could easily spread and people won't be able to do
that anymore. You can't keep spending money you don't have. It gets a
lot of it, you know, and it wasn't that many years ago ? maybe a
couple of generations ago ? that if you wanted something, you saved
for it. And when you completed saving for it, you bought it. Imagine
that. And that wasn't so bad. But, now, we know that we can have the
instant gratification and pay for it with interest payments, of
course, over time, which is not an unfair way to do it. We're going to
pay a big price for the excessive debt we've accumulated in this
society both in the public side and the private side.

And it's no secret that this lack of savings in our economy ? just
about zero ? is putting us at the mercy of foreign countries. China
owns ? I don't know the exact number ? but, let me say about 25
percent of our federal debt. China does. What happens when they start
to buy our corporations with all those extra dollars they've got
there? I mean, I think that's very-- these problems are long term, are
very much worrisome and very much intractable.

BILL MOYERS: Your book is called THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM. Tell me what
you mean by the soul of capitalism.

JOHN BOGLE: Well, I try in the book a little definition from Thomas
Aquinas about the core of being ? he's talking about the human soul,
of course ? but, the core of being,the elements that give you meaning,
the values that you have-- the whole kind of wrap up of what makes a
human being a human being.

And that happens in a much more, you know, a much less profound way in
a corporation. There is in a good corporation and in capitalism a core
of being of providing goods and services, at raising the standard
living. And it's done a very good job at that. I don't want to demean
that. You know, we went from the beginning of time, to around 1800, ?
the way people lived barely changed at all. And since 1800, the
Industrial Revolution, and capitalism around that time has taken us to
standards of living that are just ? that would have been unimaginable
to anybody of that day. We have all the perquisites and ease and
freedom and safety of modern life. And so I salute capitalism for
doing that. It's just we've taken it too far. Today's capitalists are
different from yesterday's capitalists-

BILL MOYERS: How so? What's the big difference?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, I think much more they're operating on their own.
Instead of for the interest of whose money has been entrusted to them.
It's an element ? it's what we call a bottom-line society, again. But
I think it's the wrong bottom line. I want to come back to the
difference between the financial system and the productive system. The
productive system adds to the value of our economy. And, by and large,
the financial system subtracts. And, yet, it's growing and growing and
growing. And this short term thing where short term orientation in
which trading pieces of paper is regarded as a social value. It is not
a social value. Some of it has to happen, don't mistake me.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

JOHN BOGLE: But not as much as we have.

BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you that people seem so indifferent
to the fact that one tenth of one percent of the population owns most
of the wealth in this country?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, in the long run, I believe it's unsustainable. You
know, this is not going to be, you know, a country like France, say,
at the time of before the French Revolution. You know, the lords of
France, the kings had probably the same kind of distribution of wealth
we had today come by through long generations. Their own castles. We
have those castles in America now. But it says to me that, in this
society, it's not sustainable. There will be an outcry.

Even Allen Greenspan says in his book he's worried, new book-- he's
worried about this division in the society. He's worried about
dissatisfaction. He's worried about violence in our society. You can
only have so much of an advantage to those at the top of the pyramid,
and so much disadvantage that's at the bottom of the pyramid, before
you start to get some very difficult things going on.

BILL MOYERS: This seems to me to be your great concern, that this self
correcting faculty that is built into both democracy and capitalism is
in jeopardy?

JOHN BOGLE:Actually, I think it's fair to say it's in jeopardy. But
there's one sense that it's not in jeopardy. And that is, ultimately,
the system will correct. The bigger the boom, I fear, the bigger the
bust. In other words, you pay the price. It's not a self sustaining
system at this kind of a level.

BILL MOYERS: Do we need new rules?

JOHN BOGLE: One thing is, I believe, to have a federal standard of
fiduciary duty for money managers. They've come from eight percent
ownership of American business to 74 percent ownership of American
business. It's staggering, over unbelievable change. Without any rules
as to how they're supposed to behave. We have state laws of proven
investing and fiduciary duty and things of that nature. But they don't
seem to be working. And our founding fathers actually thought about
having a federal statute-- a federal corporate chartering statute. I
think we probably need one because if some of the states step up and
say improve their governance provisions, corporations will move to
another state. So the state system I don't think can prevail.

So a federal standard of fiduciary duty which demands that our pension
trustees and our mutual fund directors make sure that those pension
funds and mutual funds are operated in the prime interest of those who
have entrusted their money to them. And that includes responsibility
for corporate governance. And it will ultimately turn to be focused
more on long term investing.

When I came into this business in the 1950's, it was a business
focused on the wisdom of long term investing. We changed in that
period to a business that is focused on the folly of short term
speculation. And think about this for a minute. If you're a true
investor holding a company for the long term, you're well aware that
the value in that company is company's earnings compounded over time,
developing new products and services, developing efficiencies-- trying
to size up the proper corporate strategy, you know, making the company
more valuable. But, in the folly of short term speculation, you're
just thinking will that stock be worth more or less six months from
now or a year from now?

Give you a very specific example. In the first 15 years I was in this
business, the average mutual fund held the average stock for seven
years. Call that long term investing. Now, the average mutual fund
holds the average stock for one year. That's short term speculation.
So, if you're a speculator, you don't care much about ownership
interest. You don't care so much about corporate governance. Why vote
a proxy, for example, if you'll not even be holding a stock in three
months?

The other part of it is,and this is really makes it a very difficult
problem to solve. And that is a little about of ? I guess it's Pogo ?
we have met the enemy and they are us. These mutual fund companies--
these management companies are now owned largely by corporate America.
Or international corporations ? Deutsche Bank ? AXA, big international
companies who have bought their way into the US financial system,
which is-- don't mean to demean that. But, they own these public
corporations-- giant public corporations like insurance companies, big
banks-- foreign insurance companies and banks own 41 of the 50 largest
mutual fund managers.

Now, what is the job of a corporation when they buy into a mutual fund
management company? It's to earn a return on the capital they invest
in that company. It's not to earn a return on the capital of the
investors who invested with that mutual fund. Now, in fairness, they
want to earn as much money as they can for the fund shareholders. But,
not at their own expense.

What we've done is have you know, what I call in the book, a
pathological mutation of capitalism from that old traditional owners'
capitalism to a new form of capitalism, which is manager's capitalism.
The evidence is quite compelling that today corporations are run in a
very important way to maximize the returns of its managers at the
expense of its stockholders.

BILL MOYERS: Its CEOs.

JOHN BOGLE:Its CEOs, well, the upper level of five or six top
officers. And they get enormous amounts of pay for actually doing very
little. I'm a businessman. Listen, we all-- we chief executives get an
awful lot of credit that we don't deserve. Real work in companies is
done by the people who are getting themselves together and doing the
hard work of making companies grow--

BILL MOYERS: And, yet, these--

JOHN BOGLE: every day.

BILL MOYERS: These are the people who most often get laid off, right?

JOHN BOGLE:They get laid off. And, of course, the ironic part of that
is they often get laid off ? used to be called downsizing. But, of
course, in today's America, it's called right sizing. They get laid
off. That reduces expenses. That increases earnings and that means the
CEO gets more.

Just think about the country for a minute. For an agricultural
economy, 95 percent, 98 percent agricultural when this country came
into existence. And even by 1850, half agricultural. Now it's about,
they moved from agricultural economy, to a manufacturing economy, to a
service economy. And now to a financial service economy. And the
financial service economy is what troubles me. Because it's diverting
resources from the investors to the capitalists. To the entrepreneurs.
To Wall Street. To the investment bankers. The hedge fund managers. To
mutual fund managers. And that is a negative to our societal values.

Where agriculture and manufacturing and services, I mean, I'm
perfectly willing to give a high value, for example, to art and poetry
and literature. They add value to society. It may not be easy to
measure it in a society that measures too much of what's not
important. And not enough of what is important. As the sign in
Einstein's office says-- "There are some things that count that can't
be counted. And some things that can be counted that don't count."

BILL MOYERS: John Bogle, thank you for joining me.

JOHN BOGLE: My pleasure.


From mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  7 06:11:36 2009
From: mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com (Mehmet Cagatay)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have...
Message-ID: <67598.77461.qm@web31703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hello,

I found this list via Jim Farmelant's post on Marxmail. After reading Waistline's arguments about the macro economic composition of capital and his brave challenge that provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the "SECTOR" called "industrial capital", eventually I decided to subscribe to the list and post a small contribution to the debate. 

I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim resides in confusion of dialectical method with the descriptive dimension of dialectical analysis. Therefore, he takes the concepts literally whereas their purpose is to reflect diverse forms of the object in its dialectical movement. 

When Marx accuses the political economy for throwing commercial capital and industrial capital together and overlooking the characteristics of former, he does not, in any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical division of capital but draws attention to the diverse forms of capital in the operation of capitalist accumulation. 

For instance, in the vol. 3 of Capital, Marx says, "...our purpose, which is to define the specific difference of this special form of capital":

"We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The Costs of Circulation,") to what extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are, indeed, practically bound up with these distinct, specific functions, although with the development of the social division of labour the function of merchant's capital evolves in a pure form, i.e., divorced from those real functions, and independent of them. Those functions are therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the specific difference of this special form of capital. In so far as capital solely employed in the circulation process, special commercial capital, partly combines those functions with its specific
 ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its pure form after stripping it of all these incidental functions."

So when Marx applies the concepts such as, "industrial capital", "industrial capitalists", "fictitious capital", "commercial capitalists" and so on, he designates singular forms of capital in the movement of its being but not the specific categorical divisions of capital. 

With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the "financial capital" or when Sweezy, talked about "the triumph of financial capital" they were merely describing the distinctive characteristics of a specific form which is the core of imperialist exploitation. 

I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite easy: There is no such a thing as "industrial capital sector" or industrial capital as a subdivision in the totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no financial capital too. 

The supposed difficulty of this question rises on the bizarre confusion about categories and forms.


Mehmet ?agatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


      


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 07:46:33 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:46:33 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive
	&.	Industrialcapital U have...
In-Reply-To: <bf5.4d076798.3695b561@aol.com>
References: <bf5.4d076798.3695b561@aol.com>
Message-ID: <496479F9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> <Waistline2 at aol.com> 01/07/2009 2:36 AM >>>
Seems to me you do in fact get the distinction between productive capital  
and speculative capital. A good Ponzi scheme is not back until it collapses.  
Profits to be made from that side of the business constituting productive  
capital has never been bad business. 
 
On the other hand this category called "industrial capital sector" or a  
"crack between industrial capital and finance (finance!!)" is well . . .  

Industry = industrial capital. How amusing. 
 
The industrial capitalists can be found in your local museum, standing to  
the left of the merchant capitalist.

^^^
CB: Back when there was such a thing as an industrial capitalist, what distinguished them from financial capitalists, and merchant capitalists ?
 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 08:04:43 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:04:43 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Piaget and Marx
Message-ID: <49647E3B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ?<<

First, a correction. I must have imagined any Piaget-Vygotsky
correspondence. Piaget only found out about Vygotsky's work after his
death, through contact with people who studied under Vygotsky.

Second, we have discussed this before 

^^^
CB: Yes, I recall. Will have to look into the Thaxis archives. I recall developing a critique of Piaget's theory of the origin of the concept of number as positivistic. That is the idea of some child counting pebbles on a beach as occurring over and over again down through the centuries , as if the original discovery of the concept of number was made in this way. It is positivistic in the essential sense that it is individualistic, or in Marx's terminology, a "Robinsonade".  The concept number is discovered socially , I hypothesize in the original commodity exchange, as abstractly outlined in Marx's first pages in _Capital_.  I hypothesize that "Number" is invented in commodity exchange.  "Name" is invented at human origin. "Number" is invented with swivilization.

Anyway, psychologically, number is socially psychologically learned, not learned through re-invention by individual geniuses.

Empirically , many primary cultures don't count very, high even ones that are on beaches with lots of pebbles.


(or at least Piaget as a
philosopher of social science of the 20th century, a status the
Anglo-analytic traditions ignore), but since that time I have found
more online, including a straightforward Marxist critiques of Piaget
(Lektorsky, Durak):

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm#piaget-jean 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/piaget2.htm 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lektorsky/subject-object/ch01.htm#s2 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/piaget.htm 

http://tomweston.net/PiagetDurak.pdf 


-----------------------
I will follow up on that use of the term 'means of production' as that
fascinates me more than the 'dialectic' one, which we already
discussed anyway. I think Durak's charge (after a quick scan read, so
don't hold me responsible for not understanding Durak just yet)
against Piaget of 'idealism' holds, then it makes all structuralists
and Frege idealists as well.

CJ



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 08:06:47 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:06:47 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] American capitalism is such that a speculative
	stock market dominates
Message-ID: <49647EB7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market  dominates
the policies of businesses.
 
by Lawrence E Mitchell
 
AlterNet (December 22 2008)
 
Editor's Note: The following is an edited excerpt from The  Speculation
Economy:  How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007),  Lawrence
Mitchell's definitive history of the rise of American finance  and
analysis of how it shaped corporate behavior in the modern era.
 

During the rise of the "speculation economy" in the early years of  the
20th century, business' focus on production was replaced with  business
management's focus on stock prices.
 
That goal might be consistent with healthy, sustainable and  responsible
business practices, but it also might not be. Understanding the  complex
development of American corporate capitalism can help us better  improve
and sustain the strength of the American economy.
 
While our current economic crisis is frequently compared to that of  the
Great Depression, its roots and causes go further back in history -  to
the development of the modern American stock market at the turn of  the
20th century.
 
Contrary to popular belief, the public market for industrial  securities
didn't finance industrialization - industrialization had already  taken
place. Instead, it exploded into existence as a result of  trust
promoters and investment bankers trying to restrain competition  through
the creation of giant combinations of corporations and at the same  time
getting rich quick by dumping the overvalued securities of these  giant
corporate behemoths onto an emerging middle class eager to share the  wealth.
 
The first major industrial stock market crash followed fast on the  heels
of its birth.
 
The formative era of American corporate capitalism took place  between
1897 and 1919. The American business landscape of the late 19th  century
had been characterized by independent factories. No matter what  their
size, they typically were owned by entrepreneur industrialists,  their
families and perhaps a few business associates.
 
But in the first decades of the 20th century, American  business
transformed into a vista of giant combinations of industrial  plants
owned directly and indirectly by widely dispersed shareholders.
 
Business reasons sometimes justified these combinations. But they  might
never have come into being if financiers and promoters had  not
discovered that they could be used to create and sell massive amounts  of
stock for their own gain.
 
The result is a form of capitalism in which a speculative stock  market
dominated the policies of American business. The result is  the
speculation economy.
 
Historians have studied virtually every aspect of the Progressive  Era,
including the social and philosophical changes that took place  in
Americans' ways of living and thinking about their world, the  dramatic
technological and economic developments that occurred, the rise of  big
business, the growth in importance of the federal government, the  fitful
creation of American industrial policy, the establishment of the  bargain
between labor and capital, the changes in political relations  between
government and big business, the development of new styles of  regulation
and America's assumption of its turn as the world's dominant  economic
power. Many have provided rich pictures of different aspects of  the
dramatic and related economic, social and political transformations  that
occurred during that period.
 
The story I tell in The Speculation Economy:  How Finance Triumphed  Over
Industry (2007) is the economic equivalent of the political creation  of
the republic. It is a story that needs to be told for many reasons,  not
least of which is that the corporate economy that emerged during  this
era has been beset with problems ranging from short-term  management
horizons that can damage the long-term health of business to  the
increasing willingness of corporate managers to "externalize" the  costs
of production for the benefit of their stockholders.
 
A recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations  revealed
that almost eighty percent would have at least moderately  mutilated
their businesses in order to meet financial analysts' quarterly  profit
estimates.
 
Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising  and
maintenance, and delaying hiring and new projects are some of  the
long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations.  Why?
Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to  meet
quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to  the
corporation's stock price.
 
One lesson of the formative period is that meaningful reform can  be
achieved only by reforming the market, by reforming finance itself  to
create the incentives for stockholders, and through them the market,  to
re-learn the lesson that profits come from industrial production,  not
from the breeze that blows toward tomorrow. It is a lesson that  was
often forgotten during these early years, and many times since.
 
Finally, the story of the creation of American corporate  capitalism
illustrates the possibilities of capitalism and the variety of  forms it
can take. Some of these were present in the American corporate  economy
of the late 19th century.
 
Closely held industrial capitalism, bank-finance capitalism,  capitalism
in which publicly held permanent investments like bonds  characterized
the principal source of corporate finance, even a heavily  regulated
state-guided capitalism, all were possibilities before the election  of
Warren Harding. Many of these different forms of capitalism  have
appeared successfully in different regions, cultures and  countries
during the 20th century. American corporate capitalism - stock  market
capitalism - was neither the necessary nor inevitable form of  the
American economy.
 
The story of the formative period is a story of problems  misperceived,
transformations not yet understood and misguided regulation.  One lesson
of this story is that modern American corporate capitalism is the  result
of human choices. It is a system we maintain out of choice. It is  a
system that has ramifications beyond the economic that have helped  to
embed the kind of "hyper-individualism" that interferes with  the
cooperation necessary for a successful economy and a thriving  society.
It is within our power either to change it, to modify its rough  edges or
to accept it as it is. But these choices can only be made  with
understanding.
 
Several years into my research on the rise of the speculation economy,  I
began to see in the formation of American corporate capitalism  the
reasons for a number of contemporary economic and social  problems,
problems which so many are trying to solve today without grasping  some
of the important causes that this history helps to identify. Perhaps  as
important, I started to see the way our speculation economy affects  the
norms of American society, how it has pushed American social norms  from
a vision of collective life that achieved some currency during  the
Progressive Era to a more atomistic form of individualism that has  both
recalled an earlier American ideal and driven the future. Nowhere  in
American society is violent, competitive individualism more rampant  than
in the modern stock market.
 
Finally, the story holds important lessons for citizens of  other
nations, even as the American form of corporate capitalism has  affected
the different ways many other countries do business. For somewhat  over a
decade now, many countries have been at a decision point as to  whether
they will adopt the American way or pursue their own, or even  whether
they have much choice in the matter.
 
_____
 
Lawrence E Mitchell is Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law  at
George Washington University.
 
(c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
 
_http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/_ 
(http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/) 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 09:49:52 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:49:52 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capital
Message-ID: <496496E0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capital: The Role of Fractional
Reserve Banking

http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/papers/HowFinanceCapital.htm 

 

[Published in Briefing Notes in Economics, Vol. 4, Issue No. 26
(January 1997).]

Huge amounts of debt have plagued the economies of the United States
and many less-developed countries during the last two decades. Despite
the heavy toll that the debt burden is taking on these economies,
mainstream economic theories have been pitifully inept in explaining
the
causes or developments that led to the proliferation of the debts thus
accumulated. According to these theories, whether Keynesian or
monetarist, the supply of credit is determined by two factors: (a) the
savings by households and businesses, and (b) the Federal Reserve
policies that determine reserve requirements and the money supply?the
so-called fractional reserve banking (FRB), which will be discussed
later in this essay. 

But the huge sums of credit that financial intermediaries extended to
a
variety of borrowers during the last two decades went far beyond the
boundaries set by the amount of savings or Federal Reserve money
supply
regulations. For example, in the United States alone the amount of
domestic lending during the 1982-90 period exceeded the amount of
household and corporate savings by 23% (Citicorp Economics Database,
as
cited in Pollin, 1992:22). 

Neither do the standard theories explain the demand side of the debt
overhang (i.e., the demand for debt financing). For example,
neoclassical economists attribute the rise in the debt financing since
the mid-1960s to the low cost of borrowing in the 1960s and 1970s?the
high inflation rates of those years made the real interest rates very
low, sometimes even negative. But this explanation is inadequate in
light of the fact that deficit spending continued through the
1980s?indeed, it speeded up during the 1980s?despite the drastic
rise in the cost of borrowing during that decade, especially in the
first half of the decade. 

The view of the Post-Keynesian economists of the debt overhang is
similarly inadequate. Based on Hyman Minsky's "financial fragility
hypothesis" of mature market economies, this view maintains that
during
long expansionary business cycles both lenders and borrowers tend to
base their lending/borrowing decisions more on positive expectations
of
the upswing of the cycle than on realistic calculations of returns on
investment against which they accumulate debt claims, or debt
burdens?this tendency to base lending/borrowing decisions on
optimisitic expectations of the expansionary of cycle is called "boom
psychology." Under the boom psychology even the less secured and less
competitive businesses embark on a borrowing binge in an effort to
expand their market share. Partly due to this boom psychology, partly
due to competitive pressure, banks discard their hesitations to extend
loans to less and less-secured borrowers. Eventually as the
expansionary
cycle reaches its peak and a fall in sales and/or profits occurs,
businesses in weaker financial positions fail to meet their payment
commitments. The lenders then retreat form extending additional
credit.
The credit crunch that replaces the prior credit boom will
subsequently
lead to a crisis of illiquidity and indebtedness (Minsky, 1978 and
1982). 

Implicit in this theory is that there is a positive correlation
between
real investment (i.e., capacity buildup), on the one hand, and debt
financing, on the other. That is, investment in plant and equipment
during the upswing of the business cycle is associated with debt
financing, and a decline in real investment on the downside of the
cycle
is accompanied or followed by credit crunch and a decline in deficit
expenditure. This theory is valid as far as it goes (i.e., to the
extent
that it explains such developments in real world). In other words, it
is
an empirical explanation, not a scientific theory. For example, it
does
not explain the rise in U.S. business/corporate debt financing since
the
mid-1960s as this rise has in fact been accompanied by a relative fall
in real investment. Nor does it therefore explain the broader global
debt overhang that has tormented the economies of the United States
and
many less-developed countries during the last two decades. 

Within these two major views of the debt crisis there are a number of
less known explanations of the problem. Despite the fact that these
secondary explanations are distinct from one another in many respects,
they all tend to be based not so much on scientific theories or
factual
evidence of the debt or credit crisis as they are on exogenous or
psychological hypotheses such as rational expectations, the moral
hazard
problem, a principal-agent dilemma, uninformed bankers, overborrowing
thesis, and so on (see Darity, 1985, pp. 15-49, for example).

Thus, orthodox economic theories, whether Monetarist or Keynesian, do
not provide adequate explanations of the ongoing crisis of global
debt,
or credit. Here are a number of brief suggestions and arguments that I
hope will go some way to rectify these inadequacies.

1. The credit system in mature market economies is not much
constrained
by domestic savings or central bank regulation of money supply. The
institutional structure of the monetary/financial system which gives
the
commercial banks the power of creating money many times the amount of
their reserves?by virtue of the so-called fractional reserve
system?makes the supply of money much more flexible than the
domestic savings or formal central bank regulations permit. Commercial
banks and other financial intermediaries are quite resourceful in
expanding their lending capacity beyond their legal limits. The
apparent
idea behind these limits is that, based on the amount of their
loanable
deposits as determined by reserve requirements, the commercial banks
first determine their lending capacity and then go around for
customers.
But the realities are quite the other way around. Half of all new
business loans are made to big corporations under credit lines the
companies have negotiated with their bankers, legally entitling them
to
borrow agreed-upon amounts. As one officer of the New York Federal
Reserve has put it, "In the real world, banks extend credit. . . and
look for reserves later. In one way or another, the Federal Reserve
will
accommodate them." (as cited in Heilbroner and Galbraith, 1990, p.
383).

There are a number of ways through which financial intermediaries find
reserves beyond their formal or legal lending capacity?ways that have
come to be known as "liability management." One way is the use of
unutilized reserves (i.e., unutilized lending capacity) of other
financial intermediaries. Within the well developed financial markets
of
today, funds can easily be moved from financial intermediaries with
excess reserves to those with shortages. Another way of expanding
their
lending capacity is for the financial intermediaries to convince
depositors to hold their financial assets in higher yielding forms of
deposit which carry lower reserve requirements?certificates of deposit
are a good example of this strategy. Financial intermediaries can also
draw upon foreign sources in order to expand their lending capacity,
either their own offshore branches or other institutions. The
increasing
use of this practice was in fact a major impetus for the explosive
growth of the Eurodollar market since the mid-1960s, and it has become
a
major source of United States loanable funds. (For a detailed account
of
the Commercial banks' "liability management" see Pollin, 1987:148-149,
for example.)

With so much resourcefulness of commercial banks in augmenting their
lending capacity and creating money?debt money, to be sure?their
drive for speculative loan pushing in order to expand their interest
earnings by creating ever more debt money becomes understandable. This
explains why, for example, in 1987, out of a total of $3350 billion of
national deposits in the United States, only $65 billion (or barely 2
percent) were kept as reserves and the rest were all loaned out,
despite
the fact that the official required reserves were supposed to be over
20
percent! Equally surprising was the ratio of debt money, money created
by commercial banks, to real or legal tender money, money created by
government?that ratio was between 12/1 and 13/1 (Hixson, 1991: 246.)

2. Contrary to the standard views, demand for credit is not limited to
industrial and/or commercial credit (i.e., to debt financing of real
investments and sales). In the era of well developed stock markets,
futures markets, real estate markets, and similar markets for
speculation, a large part of credit is demanded for speculative debt
financing, or speculative investment?investment in buying and selling
of existing assets with the expectation of capital gain. This clearly
explains the rise in mergers and takeover of the 1980s, along with the
corresponding strategies of debt financing such as the so-called "junk
bonds." 

3. The Keynesian monetary policy, that was largely inspired by the
experience of the Great Depression, and the consequent financial
arrangements that were institutionalized in many advanced capitalist
economies have greatly contributed to the protracted global debt
crisis.
Prior to Keynes (and/or the Great Depression), the use of debt money
(via government deficit expenditure) as a policy tool to avoid
periodic
crises and depressions was unacceptable. Such financial injections
were
considered irresponsible as they would lead to a disequilibrium
between
the productive capacity and the (monetarily) effective demand, and
would
artificially prop up inefficient enterprises, thereby preventing
periodic "cleansing" of inefficiencies that resulted from crises and
depressions. Thus, despite their brutality, periodic crises of
overproduction usually led to a fresh start, marked by higher
productivity of labor and higher rates of profit, through the
destruction of a lot of value and a lot of debt during the period of
crisis. 

The experience of the Great Depression and the Keynesian financial
prescriptions and policies changed all this. Since then, governments
have regularly used deficit expenditure and debt money to prevent high
unemployment rates and deep recessions. But while this has prevented
cataclysmic crises of the type of the 1929-33, it has created a number
of side effects. One such side effect has been the long-term monetary
instability and the protracted (and accumulating) global debt. As the
Keynesian monetary policy of government deficit spending contributed
to
the long expansionary cycle of the post-World War II period, it also
contributed to the accumulation of huge financial assets in the hands
of
major commercial banks, both here at home as well as abroad, largely
in
the form of the so-called Eurodollars. 

As the low profit rates of the late 1960s and early 1970s replaced the
earlier high profits, corporate or industrial demand for investment
and
expansion declined accordingly. And as the demand for credit by their
reliable traditional customers thus softened, commercial banks turned
toward Third World countries for investment outlets. By the end of the
1970s and the early 1980s, however, Third World debt exploded into a
crisis that threatened the entire global financial system. As a
result,
the commercial banks recoiled from further lending to the Third World
and, instead, reverted back to their home markets, especially those of
the United States, largely in pursuit of speculative lending and
investment?and hence the tidal waves of mergers and takeovers of the
1980s (Sen, 1991; Pollin, 1992; Mandel, 1972; and MacEwan 1987). 

4. A radical restructuring of the financial/monetary/banking system is
necessary in order to make the system less susceptible to the crises
that result from the dependence of money supply on debt money created
by
commercial banks, from the speculative credit extension, and from
overindebtedness and illiquidity. Perhaps the most important element
in
such a restructuring would be taking away the power of money creation
from commercial banks and making it solely the prerogative of the
government. This requires replacing the present fractional reserve
system of banking with the 100% reserve system. The 100% reserve
system
means that when "people make deposits and thus think they have money
in
the bank," argue William Hixson, "they would actually have legal
tender
money in the bank, not 94 percent (more or less) of their money loaned
by the banker to himself, his relatives, his friends, or others"
(1991:
242). Writing in support of the 100% reserve plan, Professor John
Hotson
at Ontario's University of Waterloo notes:

 

[T]he 100 percent reserve plan . . . would end the debt-money. . . .
[G]overnement money [legal tender money] . . . is "Good Money" because
it can be spent into circulation interest and debt free, and ever
after
perform the useful functions of money for the minor cost of replacing
worn out bills and coins. . . . [M]oney produced by commercial banks
is
"Bad Money" because it must be lent into circulation at interest, and
it
only remains in existence so long as someone is willing to pay
interest
and the banks are willing to continue to lend (1985:48-50).

The 100% reserve plan envisions that the present-day commercial banks
would be reorganized so as to have three completely separate
departments, or that they would be superseded by three independent
financial institutions, none of which would have the power to create
money. The first type of such institutions would be "check banks," or
the checking deposit departments. Check banks would serve as mere
storage or warehouses where the public could continue to make deposits
and withdraw cash or pay their bills by check at any time just as they
have always done. They would receive no interest on deposits and would
pay higher fees for banking services than previously. Since the check
banks could no longer serve as financial intermediaries (i.e., make
loans of depositors' money), or act as creators of credit money, they
would therefore have no outstanding loans that might prove
uncollectable. This means that "the check banks would be perfectly
safe
from the point of view of bankers and depositors alike and no
government
insurance of checking accounts would be required," (Hixson, 1991, pp.
241-44).

The second department or institution would be "mortgage-loan
institutions" serving farmers, homeowners, and small unincorporated
businesses, similar to savings and loan associations of the era before
deregulations in the 1980s. The mortgage-loan institutions or
departments would be required to accept only time deposits, deposits
that would require a substantial waiting period before a withdrawal
can
be made. These institutions would be allowed to hold in cash only a
fraction of their deposits. With the rest of their deposits, or excess
reserves, they would make only secured loans. Thus while these can
serve
as financial intermediaries, they cannot create deposits or create
money. "Perhaps all such institutions would obtain funds solely by
issuing noncallable, nontransferable certificates of deposits (CDs) at
rates of interest rising with the length of the term of the CDs. The
basic idea here is to make savings deposits so illiquid that they
cannot
be considered a part of the money supply" (Ibid., 243). 

The third department or institution would be "investment trusts,"
which
would exist for the purpose of assisting in the financing of corporate
and large businesses. Investment trusts would obtain funds solely
through the sale of equity shares on the open market and would pay
dividends on the basis of returns to real investments (by nonfinancial
corporations) thus involved. Real investment is key here. It means
that
the investment trusts would be required to finance primarily the
new-issue equities and to make long-term, noncallable loans to
businesses that would create jobs. These institutions or departments,
would be required "by law to keep most of their assets in equity
shares
rather than in debt paper" (Ibid.).

It is necessary to point out here that the restructuring of the
financial/monetary system thus envisioned will mitigate (or do away
with) only those financial crises that are due to institutional and/or
legal arrangements, such as the fractional reserve banking, or due to
policy manipulations of those arrangements, such as debt money
creation
and speculative loan pushing by the commercial banks and other
financial
intermediaries. The restructuring will not do away with the financial
crises that are due to fundamental or systemic properties of a market
economy, such as the discordance between the constantly increasing
productive capacity, on the one hand, and limited possibilities of
sales
and capital valorization (i.e., profitable investment of capital), on
the other. 

REFERENCES

Banuri, T. and J.B. Schor, eds., Financial Openness and National
Autonomy, Oxford University Press, 1992.

Business Week, "Citibank's Pervasive Influence on International
Lending", author unidentified, May 16, 1983.

Darity, W. "Loan Pushing: Doctrine and Theory", International Finance
Discussion Papers, No. 247, Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of
the
Federal Reserve, 1984.

Donaldson, T.H. International Lending By Commercial Banks, New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1979.

Griffin, K. "The Role of Foreign Capital", In Griffin, K. (ed.),
Financing Development in Latin America, London: Macmillan, 1971.

Gwynne, S. C. "Adventures in the Loan Trade", Harper's, Vol. 267:1600,
September 1983.

Heilbroner, R. and J. Galbraith, Understanding Macroeconomics,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Hixson, W. F. A Matter of Interest: Reexamining Money, Debt, and Real
Economic Growth, New York: Praeger, 1991.

Hossien-zadeh, E. "Global Debt: Causes and Cures", Review of Radical
Political Economics, 20(2 & 3):223-234, Summer-Fall 1988. 

Hotson, J. "Ending the Debt Money System", Challenge, March-April
1985.

Kindleberger, C. P. Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of
Financial
Crises, New York: Basic Books, 1978.

Lewis, C. America's Stake in International Investments, Washington,
D.C.: Brookings, 1938.

MacEwan, A. "Imperial decline and International Disorder: An
Illustration from the Debt Crisis", in Cherry, R. et. al (eds.),The
Imperiled Economy (Book I), New York: URPE, 1987.

Madrid, R. L. Overexposed: U.S. Banks Confront the Third World Debt
Crisis, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1992. 

McIntyre, R. "A Look at International Credit", Review of Radical
Political Economics , Summer 1988.

Mandel, E. Late Capitalism , London: New Left Books (Chs. 13 & 14),
1972. 

Martin, H. "Financial Instability and the U.S. Economy", in Cherry, R.
et. al (eds.), The Imperiled Economy (Book I), New York: URPE, 1987.

Minsky, H. Can It Happen Again?: Essays on Instability and Finance,
Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1982.

Minsky, H. "The Financial Instability Hypothesis: A Restatement",
Thames Papers in Political Economy, Autumn 1978.

Naylor, R. T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, New York: The Linden
Press/Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Pollin, R. "Destabilizing Finance Worsened This Recession", Challenge,
April-March 1992.

Pollin, R. "Structural Change and Increasing Fragility in the U.S.
Financial System", in Cherry, R. et. al (eds.),The Imperiled Economy
(Book I), New York: URPE, 1987.

Sen, S. "Swings and Paradoxes in International Capital Markets: A
Theoretical Note", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 15(2): 179-198,
June
1991. 

Wallich, H. "The Future of Latin American Dollar Bonds", American
Economic Review, 33:2, June 1943.

Williams, R. C. et. al. International Capital Markets, IMF Occasional
Paper No. 7, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 1981.

Winkler, M. foreign Bonds: An Autopsy, Philadelphia: Roland Swain
Company, 1933.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 11:04:38 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:04:38 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
Message-ID: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



Jim Devine wrote: 
but even FDR's "Bonapartism" was not very good in the early New Deal.
The NRA, for example. Needed was mass pressure from the left.

Lou Pro:
Sad but true. With the left so weak, there is even less incentive for Obama to move boldly. If he has any motivation to create a kind of new New Deal, it will be from a policy wonk perspective. In other words, the kind of thing you get from the U. of Chicago economists he relies on. The screwy thing is that from the long term needs of the capitalist system, it is imperative to address infrastructure, environment, education, etc. but the state is too much a captive of ideological accretions and institutional inertia. When I had a house guest from Uganda in November who had exactly the same ethnic background as Obama, he dismissed Obama with one word: Brezhnev.

^^^^^
CB: Brezhnev was to the left of the Bonaparts , FDR, and Krugman.



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From shmage at pipeline.com  Wed Jan  7 11:49:48 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:49:48 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
In-Reply-To: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <A776BFB0-FBE5-4E85-AD35-2063D56E6738@pipeline.com>


On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.


How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many  
political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he  
imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?


Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 11:50:44 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:50:44 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial capital
Message-ID: <4964B334.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 U have the
CeJ jannuzi at



I guess one question here is why Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't
re-invest profits into accumulating their industrial capital. One, if
the goal was to reach a certain level of production to stay
competitive in the world (what is the benchmark now, 2 million
vehicles per year?), the most obvious solution was to acquire stakes
in and control of other car companies and attempt integration of
production. Two, this very easily moves over to finance and
speculative finance because of the way such deals were run by
investment banks able to put together the 'leverage' to finance the
deals (while taking a huge cut for themselves). Three, what is most
surprising though is how these companies all say at the same time that
they are in effect 'bankrupt' and need federal loans to stay solvent.
So did management as ownership strip out so much money from these
companies to enrich themselves (so they could, for example, speculate
on other things)? So much for the idea that management even tries to
act in the best interest of the company.

A different area of inquiry and analysis is how so much of the
political economies we produce in have become owned by 'holding
companies', which ultimately are owned by private equity groups and
things like hedge funds (who invest for 'institutional investors'),
while these private equity groups and hedge funds are dominated by US
and UK 'interests'.


CJ

^^^^
CB: Yeah. I think the "whole" thing has been aimed at busting down auto-workers' wages and benefits. So, Waistline's point is correct at this level. Lenin's "merger" of industrial and finance capital as "finance capital."  

By the way, did Waistline forget that he is basically putting forth Lenin's position ? Lenin in _Imperialism_  said that industrial and finance capital had merged into finance capital.  

So, this merged finance capital in the late twentieth century ordered its industrial branch to ruin the US companies so they could bust the autoworkers and wages and benefits down. They seem to have succeeded.



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 12:02:12 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:02:12 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
In-Reply-To: <A776BFB0-FBE5-4E85-AD35-2063D56E6738@pipeline.com>
References: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
	<A776BFB0-FBE5-4E85-AD35-2063D56E6738@pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <4964B5E4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Shane Mage 

On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.


How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many  
political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he  
imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?

^^^^
CB: "Stalinist" is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos

_______________________________________________
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  Wed Jan  7 12:11:38 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:11:38 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Manufacturing Tumbles Globally
Message-ID: <4964B81A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

(Chart Redacted)
  a.. JANUARY 3, 2009 Page A-1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094144619950373.html  
Manufacturing Tumbles Globally 

By KELLY EVANS and ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS
Manufacturing activity around the world fell sharply in December, suggesting that the U.S. recession will extend well into 2009, if not longer, and that unemployment will rise globally.

A broad index of change in U.S. manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level since June 1980, when the economy was on the verge of a severe double-dip recession, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Not one of the 18 industries surveyed reported growth, and some, such as wood products, have been in decline for more than two years.

New orders, a gauge of future activity, sank to the lowest index level since records began 60 years ago. Exports and production also sank, and employment levels declined. The downturn in demand for manufactured goods is prompting companies of all sizes to lay off workers, shut down plants and reduce production of machinery, steel, plastics and other basic components.

Separate surveys of manufacturing activity around the world released on Friday, the first business day of the new year, were also bleak. Manufacturing is a key component of a country's gross domestic product, and the data often serve as a barometer of future economic growth.

Nevertheless, on Friday, stock markets around the world shrugged off the manufacturing numbers, posting gains in Hong Kong, Seoul and Europe on light trading volume. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 258.3 points, or 2.94%, to close at 9034.69. Some analysts say global weakness is already priced into shares, which in the U.S. just closed their worst year since 1931.

Manufacturing activity contracted in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, pushing the Markit Economics survey of euro-zone manufacturing last month to the lowest level in its 11-year history. In Russia, the VTB Bank Europe manufacturing index fell to its lowest level since it began in September 1997.

The data from Asia also looked grim. A survey by brokerage firm CLSA showed employment and output fell at a record clip in Chinese factories in December. Indian manufacturers cut jobs for the first time in the history of a survey by ABN AMRO Bank.

The simultaneous woes of manufacturing in rich countries and poor countries are something new in the global economy. In the past, weaknesses in U.S. and European manufacturing meant a windfall for developing economies, which took up the slack.

Hong Kong, which like the euro zone slipped into recession in the third quarter, saw manufacturing activity as surveyed by Markit decline for the sixth straight month. Earlier this week, Japan's Nomura/JMMA index of manufacturing sank to a new low, due to a reduction in overseas demand and the deteriorating global economy.

The spreading and deepening manufacturing slump has some experts worried that the global economy in 2009 won't fare much better than last year. J.P. Morgan's global manufacturing index, released Friday and compiled from surveys in 19 countries, reached a new low in December, consistent with a "severe" 17% annualized contraction in global activity. J.P. Morgan estimates global output declined 4% in the last three months of 2008 compared to the previous quarter, reflecting reduced spending and available financing on autos, housing and capital equipment.

Manufacturers around the world have already begun layoffs to conserve cash and reduce production, but many more are expected this year.

The job cuts are coming across industries and borders. Nickent Golf, a golf-club manufacturer in the Los Angeles area, recently cut assembly workers in China and the U.S. to cope with falling demand. In Elbow Lake, Minn., Cosmos Enterprises Inc., which makes metal and plastic parts for manufacturers including car and farm-equipment makers, has cut capacity, and in October it laid off five machinists and one quality inspector. "What is 2009 going to bring? There's a scary thought," says sales manager Kelly Chandler.

The struggles of big steel companies are particularly troubling, because that industry's health is considered an early indicator of how other industries are faring. ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel Corp. and AK Steel all have announced layoffs in the U.S. or Canada. In the U.S., mills that produce raw steel are working at only about 43% of capacity.

Gerdau Macsteel Inc., a specialty-steel maker, said it would eliminate 300 employees by Jan. 16 at its Jackson, Mich., plant, although it is unclear whether the layoffs will be permanent. The steelmaker has been hit especially hard because about 50% of its output goes into automotive applications. The U.S. shed some 1.9 million jobs in 2008, through November, and the unemployment rate, currently 6.7%, is expected to rise when the government reports December figures next Friday.

The surveys "underscore the depth of the global recession, which we believe will prove to be the worst in the post-war era," says Nigel Gault, an economist with IHS Global Insight. His firm estimates that U.S. gross domestic product declined at a 5.6% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. "With no evidence that the rate of contraction is moderating, we expect declines almost that large in the first quarter of 2009," he says. "The long-awaited fiscal-stimulus package cannot come soon enough."

In Germany, Europe's largest economy, machinery, equipment and auto makers are struggling. Volkswagen AG, Europe's largest car maker, said on Dec. 9 that waning sales may make it harder to reach growth targets for 2010. BMW and Mercedes-Benz both saw about 25% drops in November sales.

Unemployment across the euro zone hit 7.7% in October, its highest level in nearly two years. The rate is expected to continue rising this year. In December, European Central Bank staffers forecast the euro-zone economy will contract by about 0.5% in 2009. Many private-sector economists contend that prediction is too optimistic, arguing that the bloc could face its sharpest recession since World War II.

Sentiment is similar in Asia. Countries such as India and China, heralded for their rapid growth, are cooling as demand for their goods weakens. Chinese manufacturing activity in December posted its second lowest reading since 2004, when CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets began its survey. Both new orders and employment in China fell for the fifth month in a row. Indian employment and manufacturing activity in December fell to their lowest levels since the survey, jointly produced by ABN AMRO Bank and Markit Economics, began in 2005.

The global manufacturing decline could put pressure on governments to pull harder on monetary and fiscal levers. The European Central Bank, in particular, has been criticized for failing to move rapidly enough, despite cutting its key rate by 1.75 percentage points since October, to its current 2.5%. By contrast, the U.S. Federal Reserve has slashed its lending rate to near 0%. Investors are betting the ECB will lower its rate by another half percentage point to 2% at its next meeting on Jan. 15.

The International Monetary Fund's campaign to get countries to boost government spending by a total of 2% of global gross domestic product -- more than $1 trillion -- could get a lift as well. In the U.S., President-elect Obama has been talking of a stimulus plan of between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, largely geared to construction spending. China has talked of greatly increasing spending, although some analysts say the numbers Beijing is using are inflated. European nations, more concerned about budget deficits, have been more reluctant to adopt such tactics.


-Joellen Perry, Conor Dougherty, Chester Yung and Paul Hannon contributed to this article. 
Write to Kelly Evans at kelly.evans at wsj.com and Robert Guy Matthews at robertguy.matthews at wsj.com






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From shmage at pipeline.com  Wed Jan  7 12:26:30 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:26:30 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
In-Reply-To: <4964B5E4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
	<A776BFB0-FBE5-4E85-AD35-2063D56E6738@pipeline.com>
	<4964B5E4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <388FFFEC-C2E2-4B50-AFCE-AB7CABEE293E@pipeline.com>


On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>>>> Shane Mage
> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
> How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many
> political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he
> imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: "Stalinist" is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


When I was young, all the Stalinists I knew were proud of the title.   
Weren't you?  Weren't you all rightwingers? [rhetorical question]

Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From farmelantj at juno.com  Wed Jan  7 12:28:52 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:28:52 GMT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital	 U have...
Message-ID: <20090107.142852.2522.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com>

Forwarded from Mehmet Cagatay.

Jim Farmelant

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Mehmet Cagatay <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Mehmet Cagatay <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial capital U have...
> To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 3:11 PM
> Hello,
> 
> I found this list via Jim Farmelant's post on Marxmail.
> After reading Waistline's arguments about the macro
> economic composition of capital and his brave challenge that
> provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the
> "SECTOR" called "industrial capital",
> eventually I decided to subscribe to the list and post a
> small contribution to the debate. 
> 
> I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim
> resides in confusion of dialectical method with the
> descriptive dimension of dialectical analysis. Therefore, he
> takes the concepts literally whereas their purpose is to
> reflect diverse forms of the object in its dialectical
> movement. 
> 
> When Marx accuses the political economy for throwing
> commercial capital and industrial capital together and
> overlooking the characteristics of former, he does not, in
> any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical
> division of capital but draws attention to the diverse forms
> of capital in the operation of capitalist accumulation. 
> 
> For instance, in the vol. 3 of Capital, Marx says,
> "...our purpose, which is to define the specific
> difference of this special form of capital":
> 
> "We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The
> Costs of Circulation,") to what extent the transport
> industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a
> distributable form, may be regarded as production processes
> continuing within the process of circulation. These episodes
> incidental to the circulation of commodity-capital are
> sometimes confused with the distinct functions of
> merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are,
> indeed, practically bound up with these distinct, specific
> functions, although with the development of the social
> division of labour the function of merchant's capital
> evolves in a pure form, i.e., divorced from those real
> functions, and independent of them. Those functions are
> therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the
> specific difference of this special form of capital. In so
> far as capital solely employed in the circulation process,
> special commercial capital, partly combines those functions
> with its specific
>  ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its
> pure form after stripping it of all these incidental
> functions."
> 
> So when Marx applies the concepts such as, "industrial
> capital", "industrial capitalists",
> "fictitious capital", "commercial
> capitalists" and so on, he designates singular forms of
> capital in the movement of its being but not the specific
> categorical divisions of capital. 
> 
> With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the
> "financial capital" or when Sweezy, talked about
> "the triumph of financial capital" they were
> merely describing the distinctive characteristics of a
> specific form which is the core of imperialist exploitation.
> 
> 
> I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite
> easy: There is no such a thing as "industrial capital
> sector" or industrial capital as a subdivision in the
> totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no
> financial capital too. 
> 
> The supposed difficulty of this question rises on the
> bizarre confusion about categories and forms.
> 
> 
> Mehmet ?agatay
> http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


      

____________________________________________________________
Refine your culinary schools at a top Culinary program near you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2ROjvk74Ry8g42dyLN1LMUCcAZae7p140NwIzRTaGTCtBnz/


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 12:34:53 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:34:53 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
In-Reply-To: <388FFFEC-C2E2-4B50-AFCE-AB7CABEE293E@pipeline.com>
References: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
	<A776BFB0-FBE5-4E85-AD35-2063D56E6738@pipeline.com>
	<4964B5E4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
	<388FFFEC-C2E2-4B50-AFCE-AB7CABEE293E@pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <4964BD8D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> 01/07/2009 2:26 PM >>>

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>>>> Shane Mage
> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
> How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many
> political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he
> imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: "Stalinist" is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


When I was young, all the Stalinists I knew were proud of the title.   
Weren't you?  Weren't you all rightwingers? [rhetorical question]

Shane Mage

^^^^
CB: No I taking it as an insult as it is thrown as an insult .  It's anti-Communist and reactionary

 ( rhetorical answer)

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos

_______________________________________________
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  Wed Jan  7 13:38:16 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:38:16 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit
	26-year	high
Message-ID: <4964CC69.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

  
 
 Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit 26-year high
>Archive - Daily Online 

Author: John Wojcik 
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/07/09 14:53   

  
Jobless benefit filing systems all over the country are crashing this
week as an unprecedented wave of tens of thousands of newly unemployed
Americans scrambles to survive. 

The states are saying that their web sites are going down because they
are already overloaded with data on the 4.5 million now collecting
benefits, the highest number in 26 years. 

In many states where the systems have not yet crashed the newly
unemployed are left to hold on the phone lines for hours or are cut off
with ?all lines are busy? messages. 

On Jan. 6 systems in New York, North Carolina and Ohio were shut down
completely. New York?s phone and Internet claims system started to
fail on Jan. 5 and was out of service completely on Jan. 6. It was
restored a day later but workers there still report waiting hours to get
help. 

?Regardless of when you call, be prepared to wait and just hang on.
Try not to get frustrated,? is the advice offered in a telephone
interview with Howard Cosgrove, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department
of Workforce Development. 

Unemployment statistics that the government will release Jan. 9 are
expected to show that 500,000 more people lost their jobs in December,
which could push the official national jobless rate over 7 percent.
November?s 6.7 percent figure was already the highest in 15 years. 

For people in the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed the crashing
of the systems turns what is already a harrowing experience into a
certified nightmare. 

Tom McAvey, 54, was laid off Jan. 2 from the custodial staff in a
Brooklyn, N.Y., elementary school. ?I waited until Monday to file my
claim,? he told the World. ?Two of us at the school were laid off.
We had no idea it was coming. What a way to start the new Yyar. I?m
two week?s salary away from the poorhouse. My wife lost her job at
Bear Stearns and is still out. I don?t know how I?m going to pay the
bills. One of my daughters is in a Catholic high school ? there?s
the tuition.? 

McAvey has difficulty mustering any sympathy for state officials who
say the systems crash because of the unprecedented number of jobless
applicants. 

?I don?t buy it. The government has computers that handle much more
information like the ones that keep track of all the taxes they are
owed. If they weren?t laying off their own workers they could maintain
better systems and plan for these emergencies. Layoffs and budget cuts
are to blame ? it's not the fault of the unemployed.? 

An unemployed worker in Rhode Island emphasized how, even before the
crashes, filing for benefits in her state constituted a virtual
nightmare. Her state, along with Michigan, tops the nation with the
highest unemployment rates. 

?They have eliminated the old unemployment offices," she said. "They
have laid off state employees. You can?t go anywhere to talk to a
person. If I was lucky I got a recording that told me to call back
later. This went on for days.? 

The woman described for the World how she had to research the location
of an actual office where she could find a live person. ?But even
there, I was told to fill out a form with a message and that in a few
days someone would call me back. I was lucky to be home at the time they
did call back. They were helpful ? it was a worker trying to do a good
job, but there just aren?t enough of them. 

?Between the trips back and forth, the 75-minute waits on hold ?
once, out of desperation I held on for two hours ? it?s a struggle.
It?s a lot of time lost that could be spent on the Internet or going
out to look for a job,? she said.
 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 14:48:26 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:48:26 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Another Crisis of Capitalism
Message-ID: <4964DCDB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Another Crisis of Capitalism
By Wadi?h Halabi
  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

click here for related stories: capitalism  11-24-08, 9:31 am 


  
Unfolding globally today is another capitalist "crisis of
overproduction" and a corresponding crisis of unmet human needs, even
for food and water. Earlier crises (1907, 1929) led to terrible
suffering, political breakdowns and war, but also opened the path for
the Russian, Chinese (1917, 1949) and other socialist revolutions. 

Today, without labor unity and action, humanity itself faces a
terrifying death amidst war and social and environmental destruction.
Capitalism's failure will accelerate the damage already done to the
social and environmental foundations of human existence, and further
spread the nightmare that millions are facing in the Congo, Haiti,
Palestine, India and the Russian Federation ? and in significant
pockets of poverty in most capitalist countries, the US included. 

The crisis is certain to escalate Wall Street and big capital's efforts
to further cheapen labor and plunder weaker countries. The capitalists
will make every attempt to divide workers, to provoke nationalist
reactions and racism among workers and their organizations everywhere,
and to oppose internationalist class-based responses. This attempt to
provoke nationalism as opposed to internationalism will be extend
worldwide (even to China), with the most dangerous focus of reaction
being "white American" nationalism, a tendency already evident in
supremacist and anti-immigrant groups. 

Global labor unity, organization, class-consciousness, and coordinated
action can turn this latest failure of the old system into victories for
a new system, and holds extraordinary potential for human liberation
from capitalism. 

Sponsored Ad

  
Subscribe to Socialist Economics  
Email:    
Visit this group  
 
For any economy to avoid crisis, an approximate balance must be
maintained between production and demand by both producers and
consumers. A similar, approximate balance must be maintained between the
countless factors necessary for modern production. Otherwise,
significant waste and economic losses result. (Note that only
approximate balances are ever achievable even under communism, due to
inevitable changes in technology, the environment and consumer tastes.)


Rosa Luxemburg correctly identified imbalances between production and
demand as the underlying causes of capitalism's periodic crises. These
crises are best labeled "crises of disproportionality" rather than
"crises of overproduction." But Luxemburg only pointed to imbalances
between production and workers' incomes. The Soviet economists Nikolai
Bukharin and Evgeny Preobrazhensky correctly added the income and demand
of producers (enterprises and their owners) to that of workers, and
introduced the general contradictions of commodity production into the
equation of disproportionality and crises. 

Contrary to bourgeois propaganda (which unfortunately has penetrated
the labor movement), the capitalists do not control a capitalist
economy. If they did, they would avoid periodic crises, such as today's,
which slash their profits and can endanger their rule. A capitalist
economy is regulated by the laws of commodity production and exchange,
independent of the capitalists' wishes. This was one of Marx's basic
contributions to our understanding of capitalist political economy and
its periodic crises. 

The only element of control capitalists hold lies in the redistribution
of pain caused by crises and environmental destruction. The IMF, WTO,
NAFTA, etc., are among the global institutions used for redistributing
pain, backed by the US military, NATO, the FBI and the CIA. As such all
pretense at democracy or national sovereignty quickly disappear. 

China and the Global Economy 

After a socialist revolution countries can gain a degree of control
over their economy, through planning, greater participation and input
from below, and the constant re-allocation of the surplus (rather than
the private appropriation of profit), in order to achieve an approximate
balance in the economy. For these reasons, socialist economies are not
subject to the intensity and depth of the economic cycles that plague
capitalist economies. Wars and other political crises, along with
mismanagement, however, can lead to economic downturns in economies
formed by socialist revolutions, or even collapse. 

With capitalism still a significant mode of production worldwide,
control over the economy after a socialist revolution is limited, in
part because of the domestic legacies of capitalism (poverty,
small-scale production), and in part because of capitalism's inherent
instability. 

Today, the growth of economies formed by workers' revolutions,
particularly China, tends to introduce some stability into the world
economy. China's potential stabilizing role is why I am still reluctant
to call the present crisis a "general crisis" of disproportionality,
although it could rapidly turn into one if the dollar collapses,
bringing down world trade with it, or if China falls to
counterrevolution, as with the USSR and eleven other states under
similar pressures in the 1980s. Although counterrevolution is by no
means inevitable, both domestic and international measures are necessary
to avoid it. Cuba survived such attempts in the 1980s ? thanks in
large part to internal strengths, but it is once again coming under
immense pressure. 

To understand this point more fully, contrast China to Mexico, one of
the United States' largest trading partners. Per capita, Mexico's trade
with the US is far higher than China's. US exports to Mexico by the end
of 2008 were about double total US exports to China, according to US
government data. So why isn't Mexico significant as a stabilizing force
on the US economy (and indirectly, the world)? 

The fundamental difference between China and Mexico is that the former
is a product of socialist revolution and so has some control over its
economy, while Mexico's socialist revolution is still ahead of it.
Capitalism's "control" in Mexico is only over distribution of pain in a
crisis it cannot control. 

Mexico has suffered at least three devastating crises over the past 30
years, major damage to its basic industrial capacity. Real wages today
are significantly lower than they were 30 years ago, in part due to
sharp currency devaluations. A big part of Mexico's imports are for
processing and re-export to the US, adding to problems with
"overproduction" and "overcapacity," i.e. disproportionality. It may be
about to suffer even more than it has in recent decades. Already,
Mexico's currency has depreciated sharply in recent weeks, effectively
cutting wages and the standard of living. 

By contrast, China has now gone over 40 years without a downturn, and
30 years averaging 9.8 percent annual growth; real hourly workers' wages
have been rising at least nine percent a year for over a decade. The net
effect is that China's economic activity as a whole tends toward
stability while Mexico's (and other capitalist countries) tends to
cyclical crisis and instability. 

For all of the talk about China's exports (which are smaller than
Germany's, even though China's population is fifteen times larger),
China's imports are intended primarily to serve domestic needs. Directly
or indirectly, China has accounted for some 30 percent of the growth in
the world economy in recent years, possibly more. China's purchases from
Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, etc. not only have helped keep
those economies from freezing up, e.g. in the face of the crisis of
1997, but have also allowed them to continue purchasing from the US ?
and to service their massive debts, which can be traced back (sometimes
indirectly) to Wall Street. 

While China's economic strength has so far resisted the global
downturn, it hasn't been free of problems and vulnerabilities. This is
attributable to the fact that China still exists within a world
capitalist system on which it depends for investment, resources and
trade. Growth of China's industrial production has slowed from a rate of
20 percent at the end of 2007 and 14 percent this past summer to eight
percent currently. Further decline of the dollar and instability in
currencies will affect China's ability to sustain internal investment.
To offset this, China is considering abandoning the dollar as a major
currency reserve. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China




PA Editors Blog

Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act
Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008
Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
The stabilizing tendency of China's economic power indicates the
relative strength of the working class. The key question now is how this
strength will be used. Will it strengthen workers' power, or attempt to
maintain an unsustainable status quo? One positive sign of the direction
China is going can be found in the different responses to the global
crisis by the US and Chinese governments. While the Bush administration
poured $700 billion into propping up banks, China has pledged almost
$600 billion for affordable housing and necessary infrastructure. 

Relative economic stability in China, then, is no accident or
inexplicable phenomenon. It is the result of careful economic and social
planning, based on a socialist revolution and aimed above all at
providing for the needs of the mass of working people, rather than the
profits of capitalists. 

The Root Cause of the Current Crisis 

As the crisis of capitalism unfolds, hundreds of millions around the
world, and tens of millions in the US, face unemployment, layoffs, pay
cuts, homelessness, debt servitude, war and hunger. 

But in the midst of all this want, an estimated 34 percent of the US's
massive industrial capacity sat idle this September. Along with demand,
capacity use is falling rapidly in Europe, Canada and Japan. Industrial
and agricultural capacity has already been stunted or destroyed across
much of Africa and wide swaths of Mexico, Latin America and south Asia,
accompanied by deepening poverty and misery. 

According to the US Census Bureau's latest "Total Housing
Inventory,"over 14 million homes and apartments are now vacant
year-round in the US, up from 7.4 million in 1985. This vacant housing
is enough to shelter over 40 million people, including millions of our
impoverished, indebted youth now crowded in with parents or roommates,
or living on the streets. In the meantime, who is paying the rent or
mortgage on all that vacant housing? Inevitably massive financial losses
and the decay and destruction of housing stock will follow such high
vacancy rates. 

When considerable industrial manufacturing investments sit idle, huge
losses develop. Industrial investments depreciate in value daily, while
fixed costs (such as rent, utilities, and maintenance) mount. In 2000,
at the peak of the 1990s US boom, fully 29 percent of US industrial
capacity sat unused. The associated losses should have sunk the economy.
Yet US GDP rose smartly, thanks primarily to rapid growth in China's
purchases from the capitalist world, and secondarily to intensified
corporate plunder of the rest of the world, plunder facilitated by
NAFTA, the WTO, etc. 

By the end of 2001, with that year's "short, mild" recession officially
over, unused US industrial capacity had jumped to 36 percent. The US
(and world capitalist) economy should have fallen into all-out crisis.
Yet US GDP rose again, as corporate America's plunder escalated and
China's purchases continued to accelerate. 

At the end of 2002, unused capacity climbed some more, to 37 percent.
Yet US GDP grew faster ? along with financial speculation and plunder.
At the end of 2003, 36 percent of capacity still remained unused. In
fact, the US has not been able to bring unused capacity below 30 percent
since 2000; as mentioned earlier, an estimated 34 percent of practical
US capacity was idle as of September, 2008. (Note: Every month, the
Federal Reserve publishes an alternate measure of US industrial capacity
utilization; the latest estimates 76.4 percent utilization, or 23.6
percent unused, in September 2008. I sometimes call this a "propaganda
estimate," similar to a measure the Commerce Department once used called
"preferred capacity," that took into account factory managers' concerns
about labor costs or labor actions. The comprehensive survey by the
Census Bureau, called "A Survey of Plant Capacity," is a more realistic
estimate of practical US industrial capacity. It is issued only once a
year, with a 12-month delay in publication. I expect it will show around
66 percent of US industrial capacity was used in the fourth quarter of
2008, i.e. 34 percent went unused. Unused capacity may be even higher
depending on developments in November and December of 2008.) 

Overcapacity (or disproportionality) is at the root of the huge losses
felt in today's global crisis. The flip side of too much unused capacity
is that capitalists have "too much money," i.e. capital they cannot
invest profitably in production. If this trend continues capitalists
will choke the world in inedible paper money. 

Surplus capital drives capitalists to speculation and plunder. Today's
rampant speculation, whether in housing, foods, oil, metals,
"derivatives" or currency (the last perhaps the most destabilizing), are
a clear indication of the profound disproportionalities across the
capitalist world. Crazed speculation threatens the entire world economy
and all human society. In addition to collapsing markets, and harm on
the world's working class, the crisis has led to the accelerated
destruction of the material basis ? natural resources ? for
sustainable development. 

Capitalist measures to overcome losses, such as the trillion-dollar
bailouts by the US and European central banks, may temporarily
strengthen the hand of the world's wealthiest families, but they only
set the stage for even greater crises and misery. 

Debt Crisis in Historical Perspective 

Debt has consistently played a role in crises of the capitalist
systems, as well as in the subsequent wars and revolutions. Debt burdens
under capitalism and pre-capitlaist exploiting systems are expressions
of the weight of the past bearing down on the present (and future). 

For instance, in the 1600s, massive debt burdens impelled the British
monarchy into wars of plunder abroad and a war against its own people at
home. But this set the stage for the rise of Cromwell and the victory of
British capitalism. By the 1780s, a similar debt crisis impelled the
French monarchy into wars of plunder abroad and intensified exploitation
at home, likewise setting the stage for the victory of the French
revolution and the overthrow of feudalism in 1789. By the 1860s, French
capitalism's own mounting contradictions again took the form of a debt
crisis, the waging of wars of plunder abroad, and intensified oppression
at home, which led, in turn, to the victory of the first workers'
revolution, the Paris Commune of 1871. 

The crisis of 1929 quickly pushed the Japanese state into a debt
crisis; its aggression in China in August 1931 was an extraordinarily
brutal war of plunder, accompanied by ruthless oppression at home. This
ultimately opened the path for the victory of the Chinese Revolution in
October 1949, along with partial victories in Vietnam in August 1945 and
in Korea three years later, both countries also invaded by Japan. 

Without question, the so-called rescues of banks today are leading both
the US and Europe into a profound debt crisis without producing the
sought for stability or economic recovery needed. 

Even deeply anti-communist historians of the Russian Revolution, such
as Gary Hamburg, admits that the growing insecurity of life under
capitalism was a major factor in the 1917 Bolshevik rise to power. (Of
course, the disciplined movement led by the communists built the
necessary broad alliances against the Czar and other forces of reaction,
carrying the day.) 

Insecurity of life under capitalism is a profoundly revolutionary force
among the oppressed. On the other hand, among the exploiting classes,
rising insecurity drives them incredible acts of cruelty and greed. The
murderous role of the "desperation of greed" needs to be carefully
defined in the current crisis; if it is not linked to crisis of
overproduction, greed assumes the false meaning that capitalists would
like to attach to it, i.e., that it is just "human nature." In reality,
human "nature" is fundamentally cooperative. 

In the present global economic crisis of capitalism, the meaning of
insecurity of life has greatly deepened: Will there be air we can
breathe? Will there be food and water that will not poison us, our
children and grandchildren? Such existential insecurity immensely
weakens capitalism's hand, and with leadership will impel masses into
action against capitalist plunder and destruction of the environment. 

In recent years, China's political leadership has committed itself to
what it calls "scientific development," which ties social, economic and
environmental sustainability. Capitalism, on the other hand, is
incapable of halting its destruction of the environment, the material
source of economic sustainability. In fact, capitalism is compelled by
its deepening contradictions to accelerate the process of destruction.
This, in turn, threatens China's own goals of scientific development,
because all economic and environmental factors are ultimately global. 

The overwhelming majority of the world's population has the same
interest in scientific development as China and other states formed by
socialist revolutions. Rarely has the unity of the workers of the world
been more urgent. The crisis we are facing demands the international
unity of communist and workers' parties and trade unions worldwide.
Global working-class unity is essential to lead humanity out of the
present crisis and forward to liberation and environmental
sustainability. 

--Wadi'h Halabi is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.  



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Jan  7 14:50:14 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:50:14 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U hav...
Message-ID: <bdb.39878fa8.36967d96@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:30:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
farmelantj at juno.com writes:
Forwarded from Mehmet Cagatay.
\
Reply
 
 
Thank you very much for this contribution. 
 
You are quite correct in me taking categories of capital in their literal  
sense. This literal interpretation is "political" and part of my tradition,  
which I am not wedded to. On the other hand it is part of trying to chart the  
development of industry and its corresponding historically distinctive form of  
capital. 
 
It seems what is being stated is that from the standpoint of circulation  
(circulation of commodities or M-C-M as a circuit) historically distinctive  
forms of capital lose their distinction and their origin is immaterial to the  
fact of circulation and reproduction.  On the other hand in the circulation  of 
commercial capital - money, whose specific circuit is C-M-C, its distinctive  
form and origin is immaterial to the fact of capital in its totality. 
 
Literal interpretations over the years have on more than one occasion been  
my undoing. The question posed was trying to make heads or  tails out of  the 
concept of capital without a notional value and the relatively new  non-banking 
financial regime, that appears to have severed even a remote  "connection" 
with value as reproduction and circulation of commodities.  And its expression 
in the world of finance and as policy. 
 
Welcome. 
 
 
 
Waistline 
 
 
 
 

Jim Farmelant

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Mehmet Cagatay  <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com> wrote:

> With this in mind, also  when Lenin invoked the
> "financial capital" or when Sweezy, talked  about
> "the triumph of financial capital" they were
> merely  describing the distinctive characteristics of a
> specific form which is  the core of imperialist exploitation.
> 
> 
> I think the  answer of Waistline's question is quite
> easy: There is no such a thing  as "industrial capital
> sector" or industrial capital as a subdivision in  the
> totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no
>  financial capital too. 
> 
> The supposed difficulty of this  question rises on the
> bizarre confusion about categories and  forms.
> 
> 
> Mehmet ?agatay
>  http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/




____________________________________________________________
Refine  your culinary schools at a top Culinary program near  you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2ROjvk74Ry8g42dyLN1LMUCcAZae
7p140NwIzRTaGTCtBnz/

_______________________________________________
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
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 14:53:35 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:53:35 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh; Response
Message-ID: <4964DE0F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 
Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh
By Joel Wendland
  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

click here for related stories: socialism  1-02-09, 10:14 am 

The Republican Party is lashing out again. This time at itself. Several
media sources recently reported that at an upcoming Republican National
Convention meeting a resolution has been submitted that accuses George
W. Bush of promoting socialism through the Wall Street bailout. 

This move is remarkably ironic given that Republicans unabashedly
supported Bush until just weeks ago. Many had accused his critics of
anti-Americanism and of supporting terrorism. A host of Republican
ideologues and right-wing media outlets even took to calling Barack
Obama a communist for a variety of reasons, but especially for his plan
to give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. 

Here is what the resolution reportedly said, in part: "WHEREAS, the
Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system,
giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating
financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another
dangerous step closer toward socialism." 

Now it is tempting to laugh at this nonsense and let it go. But the
chance offered by these circumstances to explain a socialistic response
to the economic crisis is too tempting to do so. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #89 ? Auto Bailout: Why and What's the Reason For




PA Editors Blog

Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act
Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008
Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
In a recent article, we here at PoliticalAffairs.net reported recently
on a new campaign to halt the bailout because of the lack of oversight
in the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. Almost $350 billion in
taxpayer money has been given to the world's richest banks without the
least bit of curiosity on the part of the Bush administration about what
they have done with the cash. 

According to some accounts the application for taxpayer money is a
surprisingly uninquisitive two-page document that can be submitted
online. Also, a recent media survey of several major banks who have
taken the money revealed that they are flat out refusing to explain what
they have done with the cash. 

A little deeper digging found, however, that many banks have hoarded
the money rather trying to stimulate economic activity by loosening
credit. Others have used the cash to buy smaller banks or expand their
holdings in others. And the most corrupt have simply used the money to
pad their profit margins or to pay outrageous executive bonuses,
stockholder dividends, and for corporate jets and getaways. It is what
Political Affairs contributing editor Norman Markowitz, in a recent
article, called "vulture capitalism." 

This isn't socialism. Those are the fundamentals of the Republican
ideology of the free market ? with direct government assistance. Far
from being a "dangerous step toward socialism," that's how Republican
free market concept works. Privatize benefits and profits; socialize
costs and pain. No government oversight. 

Some actual socialist thinkers have called this type of economic
activity the state monopoly stage of capitalism. It is the worst, most
exploitative stage. Smaller businesses are gobbled up or eliminated;
workers' rights are squashed. Rules and laws designed to reign in the
worst excesses are discarded. Monopolies grow increasingly large and
powerful. 

It is also this stage of capitalism that is most vulnerable to change,
a stage in which socialist solutions to crises seem most feasible and
even necessary. 

A socialist program for resolving the crisis in the banking industry
would possibly have begun by using the TARP funds to gain public
ownership and oversight of the banks. It would not have been a handout.


Further, the socialist approach would have originated with the interest
of working families. If indeed the TARP project had been a socialist
one, it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with
working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be
the socialization of benefits and profit. 

For example, if TARP were handled in a socialistic way, homeowners who
now face the loss of their homes would be a top priority. Mortgages
would have been renegotiated with greater urgency than that which the
Bush administration rushed to give payouts to the JP Morgans,
Citigroups, and Bank of Americas. Credit with good terms for small
farmers and small businesses would have been prioritized above the
bottom lines of Wall Street. 

Capitalism is based on a couple of basic building blocks. Wealth is
socially created and privately accumulated. Simply put, workers, for
example, make all of the value accumulated by the auto companies, but
the Ford family (and stockholders who rarely add an significant value to
the end product) get the profit. Profit, then, is the difference between
the total value created by the workers and what they are paid (minus
taxes). 

Finance capitalism, while it exploits labor in the process of its
accumulation of wealth, mainly thrives on speculation, monopolization
and wealth accumulated elsewhere. Think about the high prices of oil
driven by speculation, which had nothing to do with the actual
extraction of petroleum or the production and distribution of gasoline,
over this past summer as an example of the central dynamic of finance
capitalism. 

Today's crisis of capitalism was driven primarily by speculation in the
housing industry. Rules overseeing this industry were eliminated or
ignored. Homeowners were allowed to refinance or purchase new homes with
so-called subprime loans that inflated after a short period. Banks
became predatory lenders. Many banks specifically targeted African
American and Latino families for these predatory practices. 

Bankers then began to sell investment securities backed by these faulty
loans to other banks and investment firms. Capitalist ideologues, like
they always do, legitimized these stupid practices by insisting the
housing boom would never end. Economists who warned about looming
problems were ridiculed and scoffed at. 

Then the bubble burst, and the rest is history. The economic situation
worsened due to a stagnating economy that had been ignored by the Bush
administration for several years. 

Public ownership of the banks would quite probably have prevented
predatory lending. Planning for adequate liquidity in credit markets
(and sectors like housing, auto, and small businesses) organized by
experts with an eye on the common good not private profits would have
prevented the actions of Wall Street, not just over the past few months
but over the course of the recent economic cycle. 

A socialistic economic policy would also likely have lessened the
impact of the bursting housing bubble (if there would have been one in
the first place), because working families and their needs would have
been prioritized all along. The growing unemployment problem, which
really began in early 2007, would have been addressed sooner. Stagnating
wages, which had been hurting working families since the previous
recession in 2001, would also have been addressed sooner. Worker
protections, such as the right to join or organize unions, would have
promoted a stronger standard of living among working families that would
have created a basic safety net for working families against the changes
in and unpredictability of the markets. 

Capitalist ideologues rationalized the necessity of the Wall Street
bailout by saying that the major banks in the financial services
industry were simply too big to let them fail. A socialist viewpoint
would argue that there are some industry just too important to allow
into the hands of people seeking private profit: basic industries,
finance, health care, defense, energy, environment, and education
probably top such a list. 

Some who read this are going to scream, "to hell with socialism" and
"what about my freedom?" Fact is, freedom without equality is simply
freedom to exploit. Freedom without equality means that big insurance
companies can force you to pay higher insurance premiums for fewer
health care services whenever they feel like it. Freedom without
equality means that JPMorgan can use its TARP funds to fly its CEO
around on fancy vacations and make dividend payments to stockholders
with taxpayer money and not have to give an accounting for it. Freedom
without equality means that predatory lenders get billions in tax
dollars while shoplifters go to jail. There must be a proper balance
struck between freedom and equality; and capitalism simply isn't the
system under which such a balance can be struck. 

 

Response: TARP, Full Employment and Other Sticky Details
By John Case
  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

click here for related stories: socialism  1-05-09, 9:16 am 

In an otherwise excellent article debunking Bush as a phony socialist
[as he is being dubbed on right-wing talk radio], Joel Wendland writes
the following theses that I think deserve "a deeper look." 

"A socialist program for resolving the crisis in the banking industry
would possibly have begun by using the TARP funds to gain public
ownership and oversight of the banks. It would not have been a handout.


Further, the socialist approach would have originated with the interest
of working families. If indeed the TARP project had been a socialist
one, it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with
working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be
the socialization of benefits and profit." 

A lot of virtue, perhaps, but much sin and confusion too, can be masked
by the phrase "public ownership and oversight of the banks." In fact the
TARP funds have been used to indeed "gain public ownership" of decisive
shares of some of the largest US financial corporations. And the right
of oversight was indeed given to the US Treasury Department by Congress.
But either through inclination, interest, or a simple lack of available
human, organizational and technical resources, or a combination of all
three, oversight has been far less effective than expected or hoped, or
required. Improvements in credit markets have been very slow, and
conditions in the real economy are rapidly deteriorating. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #90 - Depression Economics and Fundamental Change




PA Editors Blog

Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act
Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008
Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
No doubt if a socialist government were to assume power on the 20th,
instead of Obama's, the same challenge of resources to manage and direct
the TARP public investment in the financial industry would have to be
met. How would such a government distinguish itself? Well, if only a
class disinclination to nationalization or public control, or
demonstrable personal conflict of interest stand in the way, then
Wendland's formulation is home free: 

Wendland says "it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and
enacted with working people's interests at its center. The guiding
principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit." 

However, I think there are real institutional and control challenges in
restructuring and re-directing investment in ways that serve the
broadest and most sustainable recovery. Wendland's expression does not
seem at all sufficient and begs more questions, both immediate and
profound, than it answers. 

First of all, who gets excluded from the "center"? What is the
"center"? 

Second, here are the possible interpretations of the sentence: "The
guiding principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit"
that occur to me, and its likely I have missed the one intended and
others as well. 

1. Declare public the "benefits" of a TARP investment (what are the
benefits?), as well as capture all "profits" to the Treasury Department.
(To be used to do what?) 

2. Assume the "benefits" of a TARP investment are just narrowly
construed to be "jobs" ? Jobs doing what, in an investment bank? In
the overall economy? What principle will guide the determination of
wages and salaries? What "profit" gets socialized if wages are correct?


3. Assume the benefit of a TARP investment are just narrowly construed
to be "financial stability." What useful purposes do finance profits,
and thus financial markets, serve, if any? Despite promising "open
source" innovation trends, much innovation requires both competition and
a means of funding a wide range of risk in its actual deployment, with
appropriately high rewards for success. How to make "stability" more
profitable than instability? How to reduce risk, but potentially reduce
innovation and net growth as well? Can a "slower, more stable" growth
prevail in a world without a global "slower growth," or with uneven
rates of growth bent toward bringing lower-income countries up relative
to the whole? 

4. Assume the benefit from a TARP investment to be a public good, like
universal, single-payer health care ? does it still need to be
profitable? How about a new United States Car and Transportation
Company, or network of Companies ? should it be profitable? How
profitable? Conversely, If a TARP investment competes with private
goods, in either domestic or international trade, what are the terms of
trade? 

5. Assume all profits on public wealth to be purchasable in shares by
the public at discounts calculated to distribute assets proportional to
productivity by vocation and avocation, from each according to his
ability, to each according to his work ? and ability to navigate risk
successfully (the profits). The big change here is in the human
composition of capital, considered narrowly in terms of shares of
ownership, or broadly incorporating human capital and creativity
internationally. 

I think the socialist guiding principles for minimum demands in this
democratic struggle need to be more closely, immediately drawn, and made
easily understandable in straightforward language: 


  
sponsored ad  
1. TARP Investments must be subordinated to the Stimulus Program. The
Stimulus Program will set both broad and specific investment targets for
public funds and mandates. The "benefits" of TARP investments must be in
harmony with the Stimulus Program. 

2. The most important objectives of the Stimulus Program are a)
restoration of full employment, and b) enactment of universal health
coverage, while c) lessening global economic inequality, instability and
tendencies towards war. Overall this will mean for some time a smaller
investment relative to consumption based economy, more demand, than
supply, oriented. It may mean a slower, though more sustainable growth
in the US economy. The cheap oil, easy credit, bubble days are gone
beyond the horizon. In addition, the values expressed in cleaner, safer,
greener, more peaceful environments, the advancement of sports, culture
and science, the improvement of cooperation, general health and
well-being in communities will have to consume greater space in the
standard-of-living indexes alongside standard commodity consumption
metrics. 

3. Both 2.a) and 2.b) above require grass roots organization and action
approaches of a kind communists, socialists and radical social-democrats
are justly famous for developing. Neither can be achieved without such
approaches. It is here that the distinctions between phony socialists
and real ones can be made manifest. The phony socialists not only
include Bush, of course, but also the more liberal (than Bush)
representatives of the Obama Economic team, who are endorsing
socialist-like public interventions in the economy, but whose class
interests and training compromise their ability to carry through on the
key tasks of recovery. 

The full employment task compels government to set an absolute floor on
poverty, and to become an employer of last resort, even at the expense
of private prerogatives. The Obama National Service plans coincide with
the immediate foundation for mobilization for full employment. An
multi-million agitational sign-up "Application for Employment In
National Service," for example, addressed to the Obama Team and the
incoming Congress would be a worthy organizing tool, around which
American youth and seniors, unemployed and underemployed, and those
simply dedicated to public service to their country, could volunteer and
help shape the vision of a diverse and many sided national service
program. Similar tactics for a serious single-payer national health care
campaign can also garner immediate mass support and participation. Both
campaigns bear heavily on ways in which the practical impact of
socialist leadership on the overall recovery effort can be measured and
judged by the public, and especially by working people. 

4. 2.c) requires a vigilant peace movement with much broader
internationalist ties and coordination that currently exists.  



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Jan  7 15:25:58 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:25:58 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation
Message-ID: <4964E5A7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation 
From the National Organization for Women:

Two important bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) and the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12), will be among the House of Representatives' first votes of the 111th Congress. Please take time now to call or email your representative and urge her/him to vote for these bills that will help reduce wage discrimination against women. The votes could come as early as Wednesday, Jan. 7, but might possibly be held off until Friday, Jan. 9.

Regardless, please send your message -- by sending an email or calling your House member's office. The U.S. Capitol switchboard number is 202-224-3121; just ask to be connected to your representative's office and leave a message of support for these bills.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Jan  7 16:33:56 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:33:56 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
Message-ID: <c42.41d19501.369695e4@aol.com>


I am one of those persons who once wore the mantel of "Stalinism" with  
pride. However, this tells no one of who I am or my body of politics or belief  
system. I tend to avoid such sloganeering and throwing "Stalinsm" or  
"Trotskyism" at an individual because it tells no one "nothing." 

During  the 1970?s into the 1980?s, 99% of my work in the plant and union 
was in close  personal association with "IS" - (members of "International 
Socialists") and  this included intimate gathering of workers. 

I do not consider myself a  Stalinist today, not because I have changed my 
views of the "Stalin period,"  which I have in a broad sense of economics and 
industrial society as a distinct  historical period; or had a spiritual 
experience, but because labels tend to be  escape from thinking. I most certainly have 
never advocated a garrison state  mentality as a method of combat. 

Perhaps you are not aware that many of  the communists of my generation, 
specifically, African Americans and  Mexicans/Chicano?s, became "Stalinists" on 
the basis of his "Marxism and the  National Question," and all his writings on 
the question of nationalities. Free  Atzlan in the case of the Chicano. In 
America amongst my generation and peers,  the tag "Stalinism" meant a view of the 
colonial peoples and struggle from the  standpoint of Marx and Lenin. Imagine 
our feelings when one "attacked Stalin,"  which was understood as raw white 
chauvinism, rather than a body of politics.  

Those won over to Trotsky on the basis of his distinctive concept of  "uneven 
development," and international revolution, as in his permanent  revolution 
thesis, must have felt absolute contempt with political attacks on  Trotsky.  
Such attacks would be interpreted as the repudiation of  transforming the world 
of states on a socialist basis. I am deeply aware of many  supporters of 
Trotsky who felt that the "Stalinists" were narrow minded and  tended to be 
brutish and sluggish in their intellectual capacity. 

At age  56, my passions have been tempered and with close to ten years of 
on-line  experience, have learnt that hurling labels prevents thoughtful 
discussion of  events. 
 
A critique of Obama's stimulus plan is some how connected  with Stalin. 

Waistline

This email was cleaned by  emailStripper, available for free from  
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm




In a message dated  1/7/2009 2:25:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
shmage at pipeline.com  writes:

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Charles Brown  wrote:
>>>> Shane Mage
> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM,  Charles Brown wrote:
>> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
>  How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How  many
> political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did  he
> imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a  Stalinist?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: "Stalinist" is rightwing  terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


When I was young, all the  Stalinists I knew were proud of the title.   
Weren't you?   Weren't you all rightwingers? [rhetorical question]

Shane  Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always  was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and  going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From shmage at pipeline.com  Wed Jan  7 18:35:51 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:35:51 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
In-Reply-To: <c42.41d19501.369695e4@aol.com>
References: <c42.41d19501.369695e4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <B715B6E2-21CF-45A7-8456-88DA6138F4A1@pipeline.com>


On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Waistline2 at aol.com wrote:

>
> I am one of those persons who once wore the mantel of "Stalinism" with
> pride. However, this tells no one of who I am or my body of politics  
> or belief
> system. I tend to avoid such sloganeering and throwing "Stalinism" or
> "Trotskyism" at an individual because it tells no one "nothing."

You seem not to notice that the "individual" at whom I "threw"  the  
brand "Stalinist" was----Brezhnev.

>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM,  Charles Brown wrote:
>>> Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
>> How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How   
>> many
>> political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did  he
>> imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a  Stalinist?



Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 23:12:07 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:12:07 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901072212h68144765j4f722bc55672f157@mail.gmail.com>

>>You seem not to notice that the "individual" at whom I "threw"  the
brand "Stalinist" was----Brezhnev.<<

Hey call me a Stalinist if you want, I couldn't give a toss,
really--just don't call me a Krugmanite.

I think the point to be made here though is we need more than Krugman
to critique the evolution of the ruling class's response to the crisis
(which some focus on the presidency of a guy who hasn't even taken
office yet). Afterall, the Krugman dude went at the Bushwa for 8 years
and it was pretty milquetoast for we Stalinists.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 00:11:34 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:11:34 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U have the
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901070200g3c210308q346f1565588fe4e4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901062128vdda6599j88c4a87b0d8f86bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901062212w795368acw6e55f2b9933bf0fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070011l75334683w51b016966068fc9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070121m5bddc48as2ac04388d1afb464@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070133n2bb0ca8ds2deda2bea80f330@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901070200g3c210308q346f1565588fe4e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901072311q72a9a08en3a062c66de045c1c@mail.gmail.com>

And as the past 8 years (and before as well) have shown, MILITARISM
really hasn't left the 'equation' and in fact has grown even more
immense in its hold on the US. Of course we Marxists already knew
this, but here is the analysis showing up in American academia (albeit
from someone who is not Marxist but Marxist ideas permeate non-Marxist
discourse). Much better than the Chalmers Johnson books from what I
can tell looking at copies online (read-only, so I can't quote).
It's in my Amazon shopping cart now.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0230602282/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Review
"Ismael Hossein-zadeh's penetrating analysis of the role of the
military-industrial complex in driving U.S. foreign policy and
rearranging domestic priorities could not be more timely. With U.S.
military spending at levels higher than the peak years of the Vietnam
War, Hossein-zadeh provides the most cogent explanation yet of how we
got to this point."--William D. Hartung, Senior Research Fellow, World
Policy Institute at the New School "America has been overrun not by
military force, but by the force of militarism.  Using statistics,
analysis and historical references, Hossein-zadeh reveals the
troubling picture that America may have succumbed to militarism
despite the warnings of Washington, Eisenhower and Butler.
Hossein-zadeh reveals the true cost of Pentagon programs by adjusting
the federal budget for Social Security and unmasking the insatiable,
consuming maw of spending run amok.  He reveals how budgetary
militarism is defeating the New Deal, even as it musters a long term
assault on the Bill of Rights and other foundations of American
democracy. The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism is a must-read for
patriots concerned about the future of the United States." --Grant F.
Smith, Director of Research, Institute for Research, Middle Eastern
Policy
"Writing in a scholarly but accessible manner, Ismael Hossein-zadeh
provides an impressive overview of policy trends, their historical
background and their political and economic influences.  In examining
the recent tendencies towards war and militaristic responses to
foreign policy issues, the author looks past the now dominant
neo-conservative justifications, focusing on the powerful interests
that lie beneath."--David Gold, Associate Professor, International
Affairs Program, The New School

"Ismael Hossein-zadeh has produced an original and powerful synthesis
of previous explanations of contemporary U.S. militarism. He locates
the relevant economic, political, and ideological forces within a
power-elite military-industrial complex framework firmly grounded in a
structural analysis of capital accumulation. By steering past the twin
dangers of conspiracy theory and economic reductionism, this framework
clearly reveals the parasitic, class-biased, and systemic character of
the Bush administration's unilateralism. Along the way, Hossein-zadeh
provides a challenging analysis of the cyclical fluctuations of U.S.
military spending since World War II."--Paul Burkett, Professor of
Economics, Indiana State University



Product Description
This wide-ranging, interdisciplinary analysis blends history,
economics, and politics to challenge most of the prevailing accounts
of the rise of U.S. militarism. While acknowledging the contributory
role of some of the most widely-cited culprits (big oil,
neoconservative ideology, the Zionist lobby, and President Bush's
world outlook), this study explores the bigger, but largely submerged,
picture: the political economy of war and militarism. The study is
unique not only for its thorough examination of the economics of
military spending, but also for its careful analysis of a series of
closely related topics (petroleum, geopolitics, imperialism,
terrorism, religious fundamentalism, the war in Iraq, and the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict) that may appear as digressions but, in
fact, help shed more light on the main investigation.


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 00:19:26 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:19:26 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolution and the Role of New Ideas
Message-ID: <cf4.450421ac.369702fe@aol.com>

Revolution and the Role of New Ideas 
 
The history of revolution shows that fundamental change in society does not  
occur without the introduction of new ideas. What we have in our favor today,  
over any other historical period, is that the conditions are favorable for  
abolishing private property forever. Millions are being propelled into motion  
against the capitalist system, but revolutionary transformation cannot take  
place unless there is an understanding of the root of the problem and the  
solution. Poverty and oppression, or even the energy of a global movement  against 
today?s horrendous conditions ? only create the opportunity for change.  
They have never on their own created revolution. Only a vision of what?s  
possible can do that. That?s what we mean when we talk about introducing new  ideas. 
What?s new today is that a society that nourishes the material,  intellectual, 
spiritual and cultural needs of all its people is possible. The  role of 
revolutionaries is to help align the people?s thinking with the  possibilities of 
today. 
 
How revolution comes about 
 
Once the objective conditions for revolution are in place, the intellectual  
development of the people is key to revolution. By objective, we mean those  
processes that exist independent of thought ? the qualitative changes in the  
means of production that disrupt the economic and social order. In this era  
automation and globalization have created an explosion of destitute people who  
are living in urban slums. 
 
Revolution comes about as a result of conscious revolutionaries utilizing  
the objective changes to develop the subjective side of the revolution. By  
subjective, we mean the ideological expressions in peoples? minds about the  
objective processes ? their beliefs, hopes, and visions, their religious and  
spiritual life. This ideological process ? that is, what people think and  believe ?
 is currently dominated by the ruling class. Revolutionaries focus  their 
activity here. 
 
full: _http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed5art4.html_ 
(http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed5art4.html) 


This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 01:21:40 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:21:40 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Practical Movement for Communism
Message-ID: <cc3.3985d4c0.36971194@aol.com>

The Practical Movement for Communism 
 
By Sandra Reid 
 

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 03:40:35 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:40:35 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital U hav...
Message-ID: <bcb.42135b7c.36973223@aol.com>


Addition 
 
(Couldn't sleep) 
 
I reflected a tad bit more on the material below and consulted Capital Vol.  
3. The basis of the discussion of the different sectors (without quotes) of  
capital was not from the standpoint of circulation or circuit, but rather from  
the standpoint of it's personification, i.e. politics. This is not to suggest 
a  direct relations between capital, regardless of sector and the 
superstructure,  but however, capital must be expressed in the superstructure and state 
or  rather, historical form of the superstructure and state.  
 
For instance prior to the Civil War or the period before the Civil War is  
quite appropriate to speak of Slave capital, to the degree that it embody a  
materially existing social relations of production. It is true that at the point  
the product of the slave enters the world market as a commodities all  
distinction disappear and there is only commodity capital. What does not and  cannot 
disappear is the fact of the slave and slave owners, collectively  
constituting, personifying slave capital. The existence of this real capitalist  - 
person, is predicated upon the existence of other bodily capitalist, like  finance 
for instance. This financier is not merely an appearance form of capital  but 
a function. That is to say his function calls forth his form as financier. 
 
The reason communist attach labels as distinctive sectors of capital is  
because politics express interest. And capital is also a political regime. If  
there was no reality difference between Slave capital and Northern capital, then  
the twenty five years leading up the Civil War makes no sense, at least from 
the  Marxist standpoint. 
 
Marx of course speaks of capital personified and as a historically evolved  
social relations of production. From the stand point of capital, or rather the  
capitalist, the workers are so much capital. But relations of  production 
evolved and this evolution is also capital in evolution.  
 
Who writes the political agenda for capital has always been important to  
communist in understanding the historically specific conditions under which we  
fight and labor.  
 
For instance globalization - a broad term, denotes something different in  
world politics. The world of Lenin was in fact ruled from the standpoint of a  
historically special form of capital. On what basis is the destruction of the  
direct colonial system to be explained, in not the political transitions that  
took place from "the export of commodities" as "distinct from the export of  
finance?" This is not the whole explanation or meant to deny the role of 
thought  and ideas. 
 
Today, in basically every newspaper in the country speculation is being  
discuss and layperson and specialist alike, in simple and complex ways. Why?  
Circumstances are compelling our working class and intellectuals to think  
different and ask the "what and why" of economic conditions. 
 
I believe the question of sector of capital as manifestation of reality was  
not ignored by Marx or Engels as program and politics. Although I can no 
longer  remember off the top of my head to reference, it was Engels or Marx who 
coined  the political concept "sector that write the agenda." (Civil War in  
France  . . .  perhaps?) 
 
Further, in the history and development of capital real people are driving  
history, with real ideas and perception. The merchant capital is not simply the 
 appearance form of capital but also a social function. The function calls 
forth  his appearance form. Yes? That is say, he does not merely appear as 
merchant but  merchant is he. Is this to deny that from the standpoint of 
circulation of  capital has no distinction? 
 
Hardly. 
 
Industrial capital as a sector is also a historical designation, as it  users 
capital and merchant capital. Sector denotes form, function and point of  
origin. . 
 
Today, no student of Marx speaks of merchant capital to describe capital in  
the modern word of commerce. Historical forms of capital are not just  
appearance form. Or rather form itself expresses a material function in the  world of 
politics as government. When Marx writes government is the executive  
committee of/for capital it is not a play of world but to express a concept of  
function. 
 
The major task of government is to create the structural programs and  
policies that allow the economy to function. For example, when the government  was 
the instrument of the farmers, that government did the things necessary to  
protect and expand the farm. The Indians were annihilated and cleared from the  
fertile lands, slavery was protected and extended, shipping lanes for export  
were cleared and frontiers expanded. 

As the farm gave way to  industry, the government transformed itself into a 
committee to take care of the  new needs of industry. At that point, government 
began to grow. Industry needed  literate workers, so the school system 
expanded under a Secretary of Education.  The army needed healthy young men to fight 
the wars brought on by industrial  expansion, so a school lunch program was 
started. As industry got big, a  Department of Housing and Urban Development 
provided order to the chaotic,  burgeoning cities it created. Government became 
big government in order to serve  the needs of industry as it became big 
industry. The workers were kept  relatively healthy and the unemployed were 
warehoused in such a manner as to  keep them available for work with every industrial 
expansion. 
 
In this sense the discussion of what sector (no quotes) of capital rules is  
extremely important. Capital as a notional value, dominating and defining  
polices in the real world, as oppose to the world of the industrial capitalists,  
who existed in the flesh, calls forth a different policy, which must of  
necessity be guardian of that, which is distinctive to this sector of capital. 
 
In addition to just history questions, another issue arose. Why the  
resistance to loaning General Motors and Chrysler government dollars while a  couple 
trillion is pour into the black hole of finance? Just another attack on  the 
union or is something larger involved shaping policy? What is it that the  form 
of capital we are faced with today must do in terms of government and  policy 
struggles? 
 
In the lead up to WWII communists designated - or rather some  communists, 
the industrial sector of capital as the driving economic  driving content of 
fascism. This did not mean financing and finance capitalists  were not 
indissolubly bound up with capital as circulation. Or the workers labor  and labor power 
for that matter. The general line of reasoning was that  industrial policy 
demanded, as it had evolved in history, direct  colonies, although this was 
hardly all that created a Hitler or drove  German passions still smarting from its 
WW I defeat and terrified of Bolshevism.  The direct colony within the 
capitalist mode of production is a product of  capital and hence historical. The 
direct colony is not simply an appearance form  of capital but a social function 
calling forth its appearance form. On  this basis a political program and 
policy was shaped by the communists.  Whether the policy was correct or incorrect 
is immaterial from the fact of  policy based on "sector logic." 
 
 
 
 
 
Waistline



In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:30:37 P.M. Eastern  Standard Time, 
farmelantj at juno.com writes:
Forwarded from Mehmet  Cagatay.

Jim Farmelant

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Mehmet Cagatay  <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Mehmet Cagatay  <mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis]  Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial 
capital U have...
> To:  marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009,  3:11 PM
> Hello,
> 
> I found this list via Jim Farmelant's  post on Marxmail.
> After reading Waistline's arguments about the  macro
> economic composition of capital and his brave challenge  that
> provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the
>  "SECTOR" called "industrial capital",
> eventually I decided to subscribe  to the list and post a
> small contribution to the debate. 
>  
> I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim
> resides in  confusion of dialectical method with the
> descriptive dimension of  dialectical analysis. Therefore, he
> takes the concepts literally whereas  their purpose is to
> reflect diverse forms of the object in its  dialectical
> movement. 
> 
> When Marx accuses the political  economy for throwing
> commercial capital and industrial capital together  and
> overlooking the characteristics of former, he does not, in
>  any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical
> division of capital  but draws attention to the diverse forms
> of capital in the operation of  capitalist accumulation. 
> 
> For instance, in the vol. 3 of  Capital, Marx says,
> "...our purpose, which is to define the  specific
> difference of this special form of capital":
> 
>  "We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The
> Costs of Circulation,") to  what extent the transport
> industry, storage and distribution of  commodities in a
> distributable form, may be regarded as production  processes
> continuing within the process of circulation. These  episodes
> incidental to the circulation of commodity-capital are
>  sometimes confused with the distinct functions of
> merchant's or  commercial capital. Sometimes they are,
> indeed, practically bound up  with these distinct, specific
> functions, although with the development  of the social
> division of labour the function of merchant's  capital
> evolves in a pure form, i.e., divorced from those real
>  functions, and independent of them. Those functions are
> therefore  irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the
> specific difference of  this special form of capital. In so
> far as capital solely employed in  the circulation process,
> special commercial capital, partly combines  those functions
> with its specific
>  ones, it does not appear  in its pure form. We obtain its
> pure form after stripping it of all  these incidental
> functions."
> 
> So when Marx applies the  concepts such as, "industrial
> capital", "industrial  capitalists",
> "fictitious capital", "commercial
> capitalists" and  so on, he designates singular forms of
> capital in the movement of its  being but not the specific
> categorical divisions of capital. 
>  
> With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the
> "financial  capital" or when Sweezy, talked about
> "the triumph of financial capital"  they were
> merely describing the distinctive characteristics of a
>  specific form which is the core of imperialist exploitation.
> 
>  
> I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite
> easy: There  is no such a thing as "industrial capital
> sector" or industrial capital  as a subdivision in the
> totality of capital. And in this sense, there is  no
> financial capital too. 
> 
> The supposed difficulty of  this question rises on the
> bizarre confusion about categories and  forms.
> 
> 
> Mehmet ?agatay
>  http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/




**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 03:48:29 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:48:29 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive &. Industrial
	capital
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901080248w599a26ebi8d7f162a54873b7b@mail.gmail.com>

I think this piece was published on 11 Sep 2001! I remember reading it
a few years ago but it is worth reading again. I have only pasted an
excerpt below, a part that seemed relevant to our current discussion
on MT.

CJ

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/att-s11.shtml

Excerpt:

>>However, further examination reveals that one of the underlying reasons for the growth of financial speculation has been the ever-present downward pressure on profit rates over the past 20 years. Financial speculation has assumed increasing importance under conditions where overcapacity has emerged throughout the capitalist economy, meaning that capital finds it increasingly difficult to accumulate profits through productive investment and turns to other means.

One recent study of this process has noted that "an increasing
proportion of the total return on investments since the start of the
1980s has resulted from capital gains (an appreciation in the market
value of the securities concerned) rather than earnings (dividends or
interest plus reinvested profits), with the former accounting for as
much as 75 percent of total returns in the USA and Britain?compared
with well under 50 percent (on average) in the 1900-1979 period as a
whole" [Harry Shutt, The Trouble with Capitalism, page 124].

The pressure on the rate of profit is manifested not only in increased
speculation but in more fundamental processes as well. Under the
pressure of finance capital, demanding increasing returns on
shareholder value, on pain of being denied access to additional funds,
productive capital directly engaged in the extraction of surplus value
from the working class has been forced to carry out a vast
re-organisation of the production process.

The globalisation of production, the merger movement not only within
countries but, above all, on a global scale, the continuous
introduction of new technologies, the relentless downsizing in major
corporations and the consequent increasing intensity of the labour
process (both physical and intellectual) are all expressions of this
drive by finance capital for the increased extraction of surplus
value.

But it would be completely wrong to see this pressure as emanating
from finance capital as such. Rather, the dictates of the financial
markets represent the drive of capital as a whole to overcome the
tendency of the rate of profit to fall, a tendency, which as Marx
demonstrated, is rooted in the very foundations of the capitalist mode
of production itself.

Throughout its history, the capitalist mode of production has
continuously revolutionised the processes of production, resulting in
an increase in the productivity of labour.

However, this affects the rate of profit?the essential determinant of
the rate of capital accumulation?in two contradictory ways. On the one
hand, to the extent that rising labour productivity reduces the
proportion of living labour?the ultimate source of all surplus value
and profit?in the production process, it tends to lower the rate of
profit. On the other hand, to the extent that increased labour
productivity increases the surplus value extracted from each worker,
it tends to increase the rate of profit.

The history of postwar capitalism can only be grasped on the basis of
these two tendencies. The restablisation and expansion of capitalism
in the postwar period was based on the extension, to Europe and the
rest of the world, of the vastly more productive assembly-line methods
of production developed in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. This induced
an increase in the rate of profit as a whole, giving rise to a "golden
age"?the period from 1945 to 1970?to which Attac and the other
proponents of regulatory policies look back so longingly.

But the postwar expansion did not do away with the contradictions of
the capitalist system. The pressure on the rate of profit began to
reappear from the late 1960s, and for the past 25 years capital has
been engaged in a drive to once again increase labour productivity.

This has not led to a return, however, of the conditions of the
postwar expansion. On the contrary, as a result of the entire
antecedent development in the productivity of labour, stretching back
over 200 years, the point has now been reached where further increases
in the productivity of labour are unable to counter the tendency of
the rate of profit to fall. In fact, further increases in labour
productivity, which capitalist firms are compelled to try and develop
under the pressure of competition in the market, rather than lessen
the pressure on profit rates, tend to increase it.

This is what lies behind the frantic struggle by capital, not only to
drive down wages and conditions, but to claw back the social welfare
and other concessions it was forced to make in an earlier period, in a
desperate bid to increase the mass of surplus value available to it.
Herein lies the source of the relentless attack on the living
standards and social conditions of working people in the developed and
poor countries alike. It is being led and organised by finance
capital, not in opposition to productive capital, but in the interests
of capital as a whole.

This analysis of the operations of finance capital, and its
relationship to the capitalist system as a whole, exposes the
fallacies of the Attac program.

The re-regulation of finance capital, even if it were carried out,
could not return the conditions of the postwar boom, or anything
approaching them, because these conditions were shattered by the very
development of capitalist production itself.

The vast increases in labour productivity, arising from the
technological transformations in production processes during the past
two decades, have created a crisis for the global capitalist system.
It cannot be resolved either by the neo-liberal program of the "free
market" or by the imposition of new forms of regulation by the
nation-state. This conclusion, arrived at from a consideration of
fundamental economic tendencies, has far-reaching political
implications.

The root of the crisis lies in the contradiction between the
productive forces created by capitalism, manifested in the rising
productivity of labour, and the social relations based on the private
appropriation of profit and the nation-state system.<<


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 04:07:48 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:07:48 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree
	Spending
Message-ID: <d0d.46cbf4d8.36973884@aol.com>


(I read the article below and it sent a  chill down my spine. CJ stated Obama 
would not last six months. If overhauling  Social Security means anything 
other than expanding its programs or taking  unemployment and medical out and 
establishing independent expanded agencies,  with expanded benefits, I'm ready to 
march. And so are the American people. For  30 years every politicians that 
has attempted to "change" social security has  had to back up.

Perhaps something good was in fact achieved by the Obama  campaign. It got 
millions of people to come out of their homes and America is  never going back 
inside to suffer behind closed door. Hands Off Social Security  - unless its to 
expand its programs.)   

WL



<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html>
January  8, 2009
Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree Spending
By JEFF  ZELENY and JOHN HARWOOD

WASHINGTON ? President-elect Barack Obama said  Wednesday that
overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central  part" of
his administration's efforts to contain federal spending,  signaling
for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics  of
entitlement programs.

As the Congressional Budget Office projected  a record $1.2 trillion
budget deficit for this year even before the costs of  the nearly $800
billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House  and the
Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and  the
financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep  the
government's finances from deteriorating further.  

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 04:26:11 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:26:11 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Death of Identity Politics
Message-ID: <d06.4918e7ff.36973cd3@aol.com>

The Obama Campaign - in the course of a year and a half, did what we  
collectively could not do, although everyone contributed on one level or  another: 
destroyed identity politics as a social form. This does not means  identity 
politics has disappeared and no longer exist. Identity politics no  longer exist 
as a leading social form. 
 
May they rest in peace. 
 
WL 
 
(PS. Now what will I write for Black History Month? Death of a Sales . .  . I 
mean the Black leader, as Black Leader?) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 04:35:33 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:35:33 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree
	Spending
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901080335q324f062agb7ec1e7961301bad@mail.gmail.com>

>>I read the article below and it sent a  chill down my spine. CJ stated Obama
would not last six months. <<

1. I think you said something like, Give it six months.
2. I think I said something like, It won't even take one month before
the markets/people/media/awestruck Obama supporters/etc. lose
confidence in his -ability to change things and -his ability to
respond to the crisis of capitalism.
3. I think I also said I would refrain from commenting on him until he
actually took office and that even then I would wait some, like 6
months, before I said something like: I'm not going to say I told you
so, I'm just going to say there was no potential there to begin with
(I sense an empty brain pan now that I've seen him dither over
Palestine and ignore military spending while talking about social
spending being the problem to fiscal deficits).
The man is clearly a contradiction awaiting dialectic (wants ME peace,
but Israeli interests are sacrosanct, says trillion dollar deficits
are on for years, but says he must do something about the debt; says
he is against the Iraq war, but wants to expand the war in S. Asia, as
if there was no connection in the first place, etc.).

OTOH, I say things like this hoping to be proven wrong. Is that
something like real hope?

CJ


From farmelantj at juno.com  Thu Jan  8 06:23:40 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:23:40 GMT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Lie You weren't supposed to believe
Message-ID: <20090108.082340.1385.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com>



From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Thu Jan  8 10:37:12 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:37:12 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Death of Identity Politics
In-Reply-To: <d06.4918e7ff.36973cd3@aol.com>
References: <d06.4918e7ff.36973cd3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <E1LKypq-0002qP-J6@elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Seems to me that this is just the ascendancy of the new buppie 
politics, exemplified in such disgusting individuals as Harold 
Ford.  Obama's black (not mixed race, interestingly, or real 
African-American) identity still matters to the naive people who fawn 
over him, whether white or black middle class liberals, or black 
working class people happy to see a black man achieve such 
heights.  Jeremiah Wright's identity politics have not disappeared, 
nor will they as an ideological force.

As Obama's facade crumbles, the ensuing reaction will take a number 
of forms.  Whites will become even more dangerous, and there's no 
telling where black politics will go. Will it continue to divide 
between Democratic Party establishment types and nationalist sociopaths?

At 06:26 AM 1/8/2009, Waistline2 at aol.com wrote:
>The Obama Campaign - in the course of a year and a half, did what we
>collectively could not do, although everyone contributed on one 
>level or  another:
>destroyed identity politics as a social form. This does not means  identity
>politics has disappeared and no longer exist. Identity politics 
>no  longer exist
>as a leading social form.
>
>May they rest in peace.
>
>WL
>
>(PS. Now what will I write for Black History Month? Death of a Sales . .  . I
>mean the Black leader, as Black Leader?)



From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Thu Jan  8 10:54:54 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:54:54 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree
 Spending
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901080335q324f062agb7ec1e7961301bad@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901080335q324f062agb7ec1e7961301bad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1LKz6z-0001zF-3f@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Obama asserted some weeks ago, when the "issue" of his Blackberry was 
in the news, that he didn't want to become isolated in the White 
House. But there is a sense in which people in his position are 
isolated from the beginning, or rather, how they live out their niche 
of alienated society. The combination of an idealist front and naked 
opportunism is hardly new--JFK was far worse, and it's in the fabric 
of the ideology of Americanism for ages--but it is configured in a 
somewhat novel and perhaps even more dangerous form. Obama seems to 
believe his own rhetoric, which indicates his psychological 
self-isolation from the brutal reality underlying the facade.

What's going to happen when it all comes tumbling down?

For example, his speech this morning painted an ambitious picture of 
decisive action to be taken, as if Obama were the new FDR.  But as 
usual, he's trying to reconcile everyone and save the system as it 
is, while purportedly clamping down on unregulated corruption.  Yet 
what is to become of militarism, which drains the economy dry, or the 
fundamental operations of corporate America, that will continue to 
bleed the world dry while being allegedly slightly more regulated?

The ideological problem of American society at large can first be 
divided into the people who believe in Obama and the people who don't 
believe in him. Both position are highly dangerous: the deluded older 
liberals and the delusional yuppie liberals on one side, the 
neo-fascists on the other, and a bewildered and passive population in 
between. All this Internet activism--i.e. the yuppie-buppie base--is 
not going to solve the problem or make the system transparent as 
Obama claims.  It will simply be another engine of social cleavage. 
Everybody want to make the system work, except perhaps the fascists, 
and the people at large will buy into it as long as they can.  But 
when it fails, where is that frustration going to turn?  Are those 
who organized for Obama really going to organize for anything else, 
and will they expand their base once they are caught with their pants down?

At 06:35 AM 1/8/2009, CeJ wrote:
> >>I read the article below and it sent a  chill down my spine. CJ 
> stated Obama
>would not last six months. <<
>
>1. I think you said something like, Give it six months.
>2. I think I said something like, It won't even take one month before
>the markets/people/media/awestruck Obama supporters/etc. lose
>confidence in his -ability to change things and -his ability to
>respond to the crisis of capitalism.
>3. I think I also said I would refrain from commenting on him until he
>actually took office and that even then I would wait some, like 6
>months, before I said something like: I'm not going to say I told you
>so, I'm just going to say there was no potential there to begin with
>(I sense an empty brain pan now that I've seen him dither over
>Palestine and ignore military spending while talking about social
>spending being the problem to fiscal deficits).
>The man is clearly a contradiction awaiting dialectic (wants ME peace,
>but Israeli interests are sacrosanct, says trillion dollar deficits
>are on for years, but says he must do something about the debt; says
>he is against the Iraq war, but wants to expand the war in S. Asia, as
>if there was no connection in the first place, etc.).
>
>OTOH, I say things like this hoping to be proven wrong. Is that
>something like real hope?
>
>CJ



From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Thu Jan  8 11:02:55 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:02:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolution and the Role of New Ideas
In-Reply-To: <cf4.450421ac.369702fe@aol.com>
References: <cf4.450421ac.369702fe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <E1LKzEj-0007NZ-Lx@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

That's fine, but I see little prospect for these 
new ideas gaining any influence in the USA, which 
has the power to take down the rest of the world 
with it. Once the Obama illusion is shattered, 
what's left? Will there be an opening to the left? I don't see it.

At 02:19 AM 1/8/2009, Waistline2 at aol.com wrote:
>Revolution and the Role of New Ideas The history 
>of revolution shows that fundamental change in 
>society does not  occur without the introduction 
>of new ideas. What we have in our favor 
>today,  over any other historical period, is 
>that the conditions are favorable 
>for  abolishing private property forever. 
>Millions are being propelled into 
>motion  against the capitalist system, but 
>revolutionary transformation cannot take  place 
>unless there is an understanding of the root of 
>the problem and the  solution. Poverty and 
>oppression, or even the energy of a global 
>movement  against today???s horrendous 
>conditions ??? only create the opportunity for 
>change.  They have never on their own created 
>revolution. Only a vision of what???s  possible 
>can do that. That???s what we mean when we talk 
>about introducing new  ideas. What???s new today 
>is that a society that nourishes the 
>material,  intellectual, spiritual and cultural 
>needs of all its people is possible. The  role 
>of revolutionaries is to help align the 
>people???s thinking with the  possibilities of 
>today. How revolution comes about Once the 
>objective conditions for revolution are in 
>place, the intellectual  development of the 
>people is key to revolution. By objective, we 
>mean those  processes that exist independent of 
>thought ? the qualitative changes in the  means 
>of produuction that disrupt the economic and 
>social order. In this era  automation and 
>globalization have created an explosion of 
>destitute people who  are living in urban slums. 
>Revolution comes about as a result of conscious 
>revolutionaries utilizing  the objective changes 
>to develop the subjective side of the 
>revolution. By  subjective, we mean the 
>ideological expressions in peoples??? minds 
>about the  objective processes ? their beliefs, 
>hopes, annd visions, their religious 
>and  spiritual life. This ideological process ? 
>that is, what people think and  beliieve ? is 
>currently dominated by the ruling class. 
>Revoolutionaries focus  their activity here.



From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Jan  8 13:26:58 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:26:58 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Scattering of the means of production,
	and no cooperation
Message-ID: <49661B42.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Scattering of the means of production, and no cooperation
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Thu Jul 19 15:11:28 MDT 2007 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] We're all out of Africa 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] We're all out of Africa 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I had come up with the use of "scattering" to refer to dispersal
of the means of production ( today with "globalization"). But Marx used that
term, AND IN THE SAME SENTENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNDERMINING OF
COOPERATION !

Charles


This mode of production pre-supposes  
parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of  
production. As it excludes the concentration of these means of  
production, so also it excludes co-operation, division of labor  
within each separate process of production, the control over, and the  
productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the  
free development of the social productive powers. 



?The private property of the laborer in his means of production is  
the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural,  
manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential  
condition for the development of social production and of the free  
individuality of the laborer himself. Of course, this petty mode of  
production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of  
dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it  
attains its adequate classical form, only where the laborer is the  
private owner of his own means of labor set in action by himself: the  
peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool  
which he handles as a virtuoso. This mode of production pre-supposes  
parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of  
production. As it excludes the concentration of these means of  
production, so also it excludes co-operation, division of labor  
within each separate process of production, the control over, and the  
productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the  
free development of the social productive powers. It is compatible  
only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow  
and more or less primitive bounds. To perpetuate it would be, as  
Pecqueur rightly says, ?to decree universal mediocrity". At a certain  
stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its  
own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring  
up in the bosom of society; but the old social organization fetters  
them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated.  
Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualized and  
scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the  
pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the  
expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the  
means of subsistence, and from the means of labor, this fearful and  
painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to  
the history of capital. It comprises a series of forcible methods, of  
which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making  
as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The  
expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with  
merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most  
infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self- 
earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing  
together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the  
conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private  
property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of  
others, i.e., on wage-labor. [1]
        ?As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently  
decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the  
laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into  
capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its  
own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further  
transformation of the land and other means of production into  
socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as  
well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new  
form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer  
working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers.  
This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws  
of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital.  
One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this  
centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few,  
develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the  
labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the  
methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the  
instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common,  
the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of  
production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all  
peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the  
international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the  
constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp  
and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation,  
grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation,  
exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working- 
class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united,  
organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist  
production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the  
mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with,  
and under it. Centralization of the means of production and  
socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become  
incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is  
burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The  
expropriators are expropriated.?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm#n1 







This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Jan  8 14:50:08 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:50:08 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolution and the Role of New Ideas
Message-ID: <d48.43ec4077.3697cf10@aol.com>

The main opposition to the emancipation of the slaves was from the working  
class. Emancipation could have come about fairly easily, but the workers didn't 
 want it. They felt that four million blacks were going to be dumped on the 
labor  market and they would lose their jobs, or at least it was going to lead 
to a  lowering of their wages. They were told it was better to keep slavery 
and the  workers would accept whatever wages the capitalists wanted to give 
them. 
 
So the problem that the abolitionist and emancipation groups within  
Lincoln's cabinet faced was how do you change the ideas of the American worker  on 
this. There was a spontaneous motion on the part of the workers to defend  their 
jobs even to the extent of preserving slavery, and on the other hand,  there 
was this militant defense of the Union. How do you show them that one was  
absolutely entangled with the other  you couldn't have Union without  destroying 
slavery, and you couldn't destroy slavery without maintaining the  Union. This 
is what politics of that moment was all about. 
 
So you need to grab the actual existing social motion and figure out the  
factors that will allow you to turn this thing, to change the minds of people.  
What took place between the 1863 Draft Riots and a year or two later when  
literally hundreds of thousand of workers enlisted into the Union, singing "As  He 
died to make men holy, we now die to set men free"? What happened during  
those years? They moved from attacking the government for suggesting  
emancipation to being ready to die to end slavery. What happened?
 
It was the skillful activity of the abolitionists right, left and center,  
all of them put together that slowly changed peoples' minds as conditions  
changed. So the objective and the subjective were united  the changing  conditions 
provided the foundation for a change in the minds of the people. This  is what 
we're talking about when we talk about politics. 
_http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v18ed6art4.html_ (http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v18ed6art4.html)  
 
The above is not to suggest that Obama is a modern Lincoln. The point was  
the social movement. 
 
To a degree - a large degree I think, an opening for the left depends on  us. 
Unless reaction and political oppression denies us opportunity. 
 
American communists, as a general rule of our history, have steadfast  
opposed defending the bottom of the social ladder, although they scream they are  
misunderstood when this is point out. Until we can champion the cause of the  
real proletarian masses, the poorest workers, American communism will remain a  
middle class movement in fact, no matter how much we quote Marx. 
 
We have our hands full. And have to fight with our own working class. 
 
WL 
 

In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:04:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_rdumain at autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdumain at autodidactproject.org)   writes: 
 
That's fine, but I see little prospect for these new ideas gaining any  
influence in the USA, which has the power to take down the rest of the world  with 
it. Once the Obama illusion is shattered, what's left? Will there be an  
opening to the left? I don't see it.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 22:05:59 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:05:59 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree
	Spending
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901080335q324f062agb7ec1e7961301bad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901080335q324f062agb7ec1e7961301bad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901082105h6ec3b187m8638b464f22e87fd@mail.gmail.com>

>>What's going to happen when it all comes tumbling down?

For example, his speech this morning painted an ambitious picture of
decisive action to be taken, as if Obama were the new FDR.  But as
usual, he's trying to reconcile everyone and save the system as it is,
while purportedly clamping down on unregulated corruption.  Yet what
is to become of militarism, which drains the economy dry, or the
fundamental operations of corporate America, that will continue to
bleed the world dry while being allegedly slightly more regulated?

The ideological problem of American society at large can first be
divided into the people who believe in Obama and the people who don't
believe in him. Both position are highly dangerous: the deluded older
liberals and the delusional yuppie liberals on one side, the
neo-fascists on the other, and a bewildered and passive population in
between. All this Internet activism--i.e. the yuppie-buppie base--is
not going to solve the problem or make the system transparent as Obama
claims.  It will simply be another engine of social cleavage.

Everybody want to make the system work, except perhaps the fascists,
and the people at large will buy into it as long as they can.  But
when it fails, where is that frustration going to turn?  Are those who
organized for Obama really going to organize for anything else, and
will they expand their base once they are caught with their pants
down?<<

-------

Ralph hits the nail so thoroughly on the head, it's several inches
beneath the surface now, and yet not a single scratch or dent is
visible on the wood surface. Could one see a change in the
two-party-one-system politics, with the main part of the Democrats
joining up with the social liberals and 'moderate' Republican? Would
this party then be friendly to white fascists or libertarian types?
Could a real left political entity emerge from the wreckage (say
around a Dennis Kucinich), starting very small but coherently and
cohesively in order to evolve and take on a political agenda? I see
American politics as so inherently regressive that I doubt it. But
allow me to wish out loud.

CJ


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  9 08:08:01 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:08:01 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oldie but goodie
Message-ID: <49672200.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Engels on the development of materialism in opposition to theism/fideism
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Sun Jan 8 15:10:37 MST 2006 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: [hegel-marx] For Erich (A quote! oh no!) 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: agnosticism, materialism, atheism 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Engels on the development of materialism in opposition to theism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm 

 

I am perfectly aware that the contents of this work will meet with objection
from a considerable portion of the British public. But, if we Continentals
had taken the slightest notice of the prejudices of British
"respectability", we should be even worse off than we are. This book defends
what we call "historical materialism", and the word materialism grates upon
the ears of the immense majority of British readers. "Agnosticism
<http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/g.htm#agnosticism> " might be
tolerated, but materialism is utterly inadmissible. 

And, yet, the original home of all modern materialism, from the 17th century
onwards, is England. 

"Materialism is the natural-born son of Great Britain. Already the British
schoolman, Duns Scotus, asked, 'whether it was impossible for the matter to
think?' 

"In order to effect this miracle, he took refuge in God's omnipotence -
i.e., he made theology preach materialism. Moreover, he was a nominalist.
Nominalism <http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/o.htm#nominalism> , the
first form of materialism, is chiefly found among the English schoolmen. 

"The real progenitor of English materialism is Bacon. To him, natural
philosophy is the only true philosophy, and physics based upon the
experience of the senses is the chiefest part of natural philosophy.
Anaxagoras and his homoiomeriae, Democritus and his atoms, he often quotes
as his authorities. According to him, the senses are infallible and the
source of all knowledge. All science is based on experience, and consists in
subjecting the data furnished by the senses to a rational method of
investigation. Induction, analysis, comparison, observation, experiment, are
the principal forms of such a rational method. Among the qualities inherent
in matter, motion is the first and foremost, not only in the form of
mechanical and mathematical motion, but chiefly in the form of an impulse, a
vital spirit, a tension - or a 'qual', to use a term of Jakob Bohme's [2]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm#2>  -
of matter. 

"In Bacon, its first creator, materialism still occludes within itself the
germs of a many-sided development. On the one hand, matter, surrounded by a
sensuous, poetic glamor, seems to attract man's whole entity by winning
smiles. On the other, the aphoristically formulated doctrine pullulates with
inconsistencies imported from theology. 

"In its further evolution, materialism becomes one-sided. Hobbes is the man
who systematizes Baconian materialism. Knowledge based upon the senses loses
its poetic blossom, it passes into the abstract experience of the
mathematician; geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences. Materialism
takes to misanthropy. If it is to overcome its opponent, misanthropic,
flashless spiritualism, and that on the latter's own ground, materialism has
to chastise its own flesh and turn ascetic. Thus, from a sensual, it passes
into an intellectual, entity; but thus, too, it evolves all the consistency,
regardless of consequences, characteristic of the intellect. 

"Hobbes, as Bacon's continuator, argues thus: if all human knowledge is
furnished by the senses, then our concepts and ideas are but the phantoms,
divested of their sensual forms, of the real world. Philosophy can but give
names to these phantoms. One name may be applied to more than one of them.
There may even be names of names. It would imply a contradiction if, on the
one hand, we maintained that all ideas had their origin in the world of
sensation, and, on the other, that a word was more than a word; that,
besides the beings known to us by our senses, beings which are one and all
individuals, there existed also beings of a general, not individual, nature.
An unbodily substance is the same absurdity as an unbodily body. Body,
being, substance, are but different terms for the same reality. It is
impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. This matter is the
substratum of all changes going on in the world. The word infinite is
meaningless, unless it states that our mind is capable of performing an
endless process of addition. Only material things being perceptible to us,
we cannot know anything about the existence of God. My own existence alone
is certain. Every human passion is a mechanical movement, which has a
beginning and an end. The objects of impulse are what we call good. Man is
subject to the same laws as nature. Power and freedom are identical. 

"Hobbes had systematized Bacon, without, however, furnishing a proof for
Bacon's fundamental principle, the origin of all human knowledge from the
world of sensation. It was Locke who, in his Essay on the Human
Understanding, supplied this proof. 

"Hobbes had shattered the theistic prejudices of Baconian materialism;
Collins, Dodwell, Coward, Hartley, Priestley, similarly shattered the last
theological bars that still hemmed in Locke's sensationalism. At all events,
for practical materialists, Deism is but an easy-going way of getting rid of
religion." 

Karl Marx
The Holy Family
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/index.htm> 
p. 201 - 204 

Thus Karl Marx wrote about the British origin of modern materialism. If
Englishmen nowadays do not exactly relish the compliment the paid their
ancestors, more's the pity. It is none the less undeniable that Bacon,
Hobbes, and Locke are the fathers of that brilliant school of French
materialism which made the 18th century, in spite of all battles on land and
sea won over Frenchmen by Germans and Englishmen, a pre-eminently French
century, even before that crowning French Revolution, the results of which
we outsides, in England as well as Germany, are still trying to acclimatize.


There is no denying it. About the middle of this century, what struck every
cultivated foreigner who set up his residence in England, was what he was
then bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English
respectable middle-class. We, at that time, were all materialists, or, at
least, very advanced free-thinkers, and to us it appeared inconceivable that
almost all educated people in England should believe in all sorts of
impossible miracles, and that even geologists like Buckland and Mantell
should contort the facts of their science so as not to clash too much with
the myths of the book of Genesis; while, in order to find people who dared
to use their own intellectual faculties with regard to religious matters,
you had to go amongst the uneducated, the "great unwashed", as they were
then called, the working people, especially the Owenite Socialists. 

But England has been "civilized" since then. The exhibition of 1851 sounded
the knell of English insular exclusiveness. England became gradually
internationalized, in diet, in manners, in ideas; so much so that I begin to
wish that some English manners and customs had made as much headway on the
Continent as other Continental habits have made here. Anyhow, the
introduction and spread of salad-oil (before 1851 known only to the
aristocracy) has been accompanied by a fatal spread of Continental
scepticism in matters religious, and it has come to this, that agnosticism,
though not yet considered "the thing" quite as much as the Church of
England, is yet very nearly on a par, as far as respectability goes, with
Baptism, and decidedly ranks above the Salvation Army. And I cannot help
believing that under those circumstances it will be consoling to many who
sincerely regret and condemn this progress of infidelity to learn that these
"new-fangled notions" are not of foreign origin, are not "made in Germany",
like so many other articles of daily use, but are undoubtedly Old English,
and that their British originators 200 years ago went a good deal further
than their descendants now dare to venture. 

What, indeed, is agnosticism but, to use an expressive Lancashire term,
"shamefaced" materialism? The agnostic's conception of Nature is
materialistic throughout. The entire natural world is governed by law, and
absolutely excludes the intervention of action from without. But, he adds,
we have no means either of ascertaining or of disproving the existence of
some Supreme Being beyond the known universe. Now, this might hold good at
the time when Laplace, to Napoleon's question, why, in the great
astronomer's Treatise on Celestial Mechanics, the Creator was not even
mentioned, proudly replied" "I had no need of this hypothesis." But,
nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is
absolutely no room for either a Creator or a Ruler; and to talk of a Supreme
Being shut out from the whole existing world, implies a contradiction in
terms, and, as it seems to me, a gratuitous insult to the feelings of
religious people. 

Again, our agnostic admits that all our knowledge is based upon the
information imparted to us by our senses. But, he adds, how do we know that
our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive
through them? And he proceeds to inform us that, whenever we speak of
objects, or their qualities, of which he cannot know anything for certain,
but merely the impressions which they have produced on his senses. Now, this
line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation. But
before there was argumentation, there was action. Im Anfang war die That.
[from Goethe's Faust: "In the beginning was the deed."] And human action had
solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of
the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these
objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an
infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If
these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an
object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But, if
we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree
with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then
that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so
far, agree with reality outside ourselves. And, whenever we find ourselves
face-to-face with a failure, then we generally are not long in making out
the cause that made us fail; we find that the perception upon which we acted
was either incomplete and superficial, or combined with the results of other
perceptions in a way not warranted by them - what we call defective
reasoning. So long as we take care to train our senses properly, and to keep
our action within the limits prescribed by perceptions properly made and
properly used, so long as we shall find that the result of our action proves
the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things
perceived. Not in one single instance, so far, have we been led to the
conclusion that our sense-perception, scientifically controlled, induce in
our minds ideas respecting the outer world that are, by their very nature,
at variance with reality, or that there is an inherent incompatibility
between the outer world and our sense-perceptions of it. 

But then come the Neo-Kantian agnostics and say: We may correctly perceive
the qualities of a thing, but we cannot by any sensible or mental process
grasp the thing-in-itself. This "thing-in-itself" is beyond our ken. To this
Hegel, long since, has replied: If you know all the qualities of a thing,
you know the thing itself; nothing remains but the fact that the said thing
exists without us; and, when your senses have taught you that fact, you have
grasped the last remnant of the thing-in-itself, Kant's celebrated
unknowable Ding an sich. To which it may be added that in Kant's time our
knowledge of natural objects was indeed so fragmentary that he might well
suspect, behind the little we knew about each of them, a mysterious
"thing-in-itself". But one after another these ungraspable things have been
grasped, analyzed, and, what is more, reproduced by the giant progress of
science; and what we can produce we certainly cannot consider as unknowable.
To the chemistry of the first half of this century, organic substances were
such mysterious object; now we learn to build them up one after another from
their chemical elements without the aid of organic processes. Modern
chemists declare that as soon as the chemical constitution of no-matter-what
body is known, it can be built up from its elements. We are still far from
knowing the constitution of the highest organic substances, the albuminous
bodies; but there is no reason why we should not, if only after centuries,
arrive at the knowledge and, armed with it, produce artificial albumen. But,
if we arrive at that, we shall at the same time have produced organic life,
for life, from its lowest to its highest forms, is but the normal mode of
existence of albuminous bodies. 

As soon, however, as our agnostic has made these formal mental reservations,
he talks and acts as the rank materialist he at bottom is. He may say that,
as far as we know, matter and motion, or as it is now called, energy, can
neither be created nor destroyed, but that we have no proof of their not
having been created at some time or other. But if you try to use this
admission against him in any particular case, he will quickly put you out of
court. If he admits the possibility of spiritualism in abstracto, he will
have none of it in concreto. As far as we know and can know, he will tell
you there is no creator and no Ruler of the universe; as far as we are
concerned, matter and energy can neither be created nor annihilated; for us,
mind is a mode of energy, a function of the brain; all we know is that the
material world is governed by immutable laws, and so forth. Thus, as far as
he is a scientific man, as far as he knows anything, he is a materialist;
outside his science, in spheres about which he knows nothing, he translates
his ignorance into Greek and calls it agnosticism. 

At all events, one thing seems clear: even if I was an agnostic, it is
evident that I could not describe the conception of history sketched out in
this little book as "historical agnosticism". Religious people would laugh
at me, agnostics would indignantly ask, was I making fun of them? And, thus,
I hope even British respectability will not be overshocked if I use, in
English as well as in so many other languages, the term "historical
materialism", to designate that view of the course of history which seeks
the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic
events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes
of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into
distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another.


This indulgence will, perhaps, be accorded to me all the sooner if I show
that historical materialism may be of advantage even to British
respectability. I have mentioned the fact that, about 40 or 50 years ago,
any cultivated foreigner settling in England was struck by what he was then
bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English
respectable middle-class. I am now going to prove that the respectable
English middle-class of that time was not quite as stupid as it looked to
the intelligent foreigner. Its religious leanings can be explained. 

 

Next: Introduction (Part II - History of the English middle-class)
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm>  

 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  9 09:18:26 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:18:26 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
Message-ID: <49673281.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Wed Feb 1 07:41:35 MST 2006 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dennett's Breaking the Spell 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] www.darwin.ws 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do think that with respect to law in human history, necessity in human
history, at the stage of the transition to socialism, the issue of the unity
of subject and object is to some extent, well vulgar, a street hussle,
theatre even. I'd say that Marx and Engels were vulgar enough to realize
that they had to _sell_ socialism to the masses , including people from all
classes. Historical objective necessity can take the masses of human up to
the water of socialism, but it cannot make them drink. The socialist
revolution will not occur without working class consciousness and purposeful
aim to win it, make it so.  However, the workers are more likely to take the
tremendous effort involved in making socialism if they think it is
"necessary",  a historical necessity, in line with the laws of history. A
lot of middle strata people are more likely to aim for it if it is an
"historical necessity" too. Even many bourgeoisie will go for it if they
think , somehow, the "have" to do it, that the "Must" !
 
To the extent that there are laws, objective laws, of human history , they
do tend toward socialism, as a more rational way to organize society.  So,
in that regard , Marx and Engels are not selling snake oil. 
 
But that last , critical, and qualitatively different little/big leap at the
end, must take place in the subjective consciousness of each individual
human, or the great mass of them. There is no objective factor that _forces_
people, workers and middle strata workers, to want and aim for socialism,
ending capitalism. 
 
On the other hand, as Chavez says, in this era after Marx and Engels, after
Lenin, there are certain objective factors, such as nuclear weapons and
capitalisticgenic ecological pollution , which now threaten our species in a
qualitatively new way, and begin to constitute objective necessities for
ending capitalism everywhere on earth and starting worldwide socialism.
There is developing greater objective necessity for socialism now than in
the eras Marx or Lenin. 
 
Of course, a given individual can respond to these "necessities" with
resentment or nihilism or misanthropy, indifference or malice toward the
continuation of the human species. Given the many inhumanities of man toward
man , there is not guaranteed dissuasion of this any given soul.  At any
rate, there is a tremendous component of persuasion involved in building
revolutionary elan and spirit, even leaving aside those who are in extreme
despair about the whole world.  Declaring that history's laws require
socialism is in an important sense a strategy for persuading  ( "selling")
those who were thinking in terms of "laws" of science in the 1800's. 
 
Within capitalism, not so much in history in the larger sense, Marx did
discover certain strong tendencies or patterns of motion, cyclical patterns,
given the basic rules that capitalists and workers follow in their
relations, that is given the property relations.  There will , in a lawlike
manner, be a large mass of poor people. The absolute general law of
capitalist accumulation. There is a tendency or law of monopolization, one
capitalist swallows a few. There is a law or tendency of socialization of
labor or production. These laws do not directly derive from meeting
physiological requirements. 
 
Historical necessity , such as it is, derives from the requirements society
puts on individuals to meet their physiological and reproductive
requirements. The key realm of modern society which sets the requirements
for getting physiological and reproductive requirements met is the economy.
The process of getting these physiological and reproductive requirements met
is mixed in with getting many other needs or wants met in this economy. But
Marx and Engels focus on the economy, and class relations, as the main
source of necessity and law in human affairs (objectively determining
individual will), because it is where biological necessity impinges. 
 
There is a profound historical contradiction here in that a main aim of
human progress or accumulation of knowledge has been to _free_ us from this
very determining effect of biological necessity !  Culture and tradition of
science have had the aim of making us literally "supernatural" . I mean this
in  a non-religious sense, non-mystical sense. Merely, masters and
mistresses of nature. For the mastery of necessity is freedom. This freedom
is in a sense above nature. Certainly beyond the limitations that nature put
on humans 200,000 years ago at our origin. 
 
So, the contradiction is that the advance of science and technology
potentially frees us more than ever from the necessity deriving from
physiological requirements of which I speak above.  Yet,  capitalism and all
class society substitutes an artificial scarcity or inability to meet
physiological requirements for the many in order to control them. It denies
most people the immediate and easy access to freedom from the demands of
physiological necessity (or easily meeting them) that society is now capable
of providing. It denies them  . It thereby creates or maintains an
artificial "necessity or law"into human affairs by artificially bringing
people close to failing to meet their physiological and reproductive
requirements. Or allowing them to exist in a state such that they are in
jeopardy of not meeting their natural requirements, when everyone could be
easily and certainly free from such jeopardy by the level of our
technological development. This artificial return to threat or jeopardy of
failing to meet natural requirments is in the form of class, wage-labor
today.
 
I think this is the sense in which Engels uses "law" in human affairs and
history.
 
Peace in !
 
 
CB






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Fri Jan  9 09:35:54 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:35:54 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
In-Reply-To: <49673281.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <49673281.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <E1LLKM8-0001WU-9s@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

There are two senses of necessity here: one in the sense of 
determinism, the other in the sense of what is needed, or else.  If 
only the first followed from the second.

As for the workers' seeing necessity in the first sense as a spur to 
action, this was an argument justifying the Second International on 
the part of Stephen Eric Bronner, I forget in which book.

At 11:18 AM 1/9/2009, Charles Brown wrote:
>Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
>Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
>Wed Feb 1 07:41:35 MST 2006
>
>Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dennett's Breaking the Spell
>Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] www.darwin.ws
>Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I do think that with respect to law in human history, necessity in human
>history, at the stage of the transition to socialism, the issue of the unity
>of subject and object is to some extent, well vulgar, a street hussle,
>theatre even. I'd say that Marx and Engels were vulgar enough to realize
>that they had to _sell_ socialism to the masses , including people from all
>classes. Historical objective necessity can take the masses of human up to
>the water of socialism, but it cannot make them drink. The socialist
>revolution will not occur without working class consciousness and purposeful
>aim to win it, make it so.  However, the workers are more likely to take the
>tremendous effort involved in making socialism if they think it is
>"necessary",  a historical necessity, in line with the laws of history. A
>lot of middle strata people are more likely to aim for it if it is an
>"historical necessity" too. Even many bourgeoisie will go for it if they
>think , somehow, the "have" to do it, that the "Must" !
>
>To the extent that there are laws, objective laws, of human history , they
>do tend toward socialism, as a more rational way to organize society.  So,
>in that regard , Marx and Engels are not selling snake oil.
>
>But that last , critical, and qualitatively different little/big leap at the
>end, must take place in the subjective consciousness of each individual
>human, or the great mass of them. There is no objective factor that _forces_
>people, workers and middle strata workers, to want and aim for socialism,
>ending capitalism.
>
>On the other hand, as Chavez says, in this era after Marx and Engels, after
>Lenin, there are certain objective factors, such as nuclear weapons and
>capitalisticgenic ecological pollution , which now threaten our species in a
>qualitatively new way, and begin to constitute objective necessities for
>ending capitalism everywhere on earth and starting worldwide socialism.
>There is developing greater objective necessity for socialism now than in
>the eras Marx or Lenin.
>
>Of course, a given individual can respond to these "necessities" with
>resentment or nihilism or misanthropy, indifference or malice toward the
>continuation of the human species. Given the many inhumanities of man toward
>man , there is not guaranteed dissuasion of this any given soul.  At any
>rate, there is a tremendous component of persuasion involved in building
>revolutionary elan and spirit, even leaving aside those who are in extreme
>despair about the whole world.  Declaring that history's laws require
>socialism is in an important sense a strategy for persuading  ( "selling")
>those who were thinking in terms of "laws" of science in the 1800's.
>
>Within capitalism, not so much in history in the larger sense, Marx did
>discover certain strong tendencies or patterns of motion, cyclical patterns,
>given the basic rules that capitalists and workers follow in their
>relations, that is given the property relations.  There will , in a lawlike
>manner, be a large mass of poor people. The absolute general law of
>capitalist accumulation. There is a tendency or law of monopolization, one
>capitalist swallows a few. There is a law or tendency of socialization of
>labor or production. These laws do not directly derive from meeting
>physiological requirements.
>
>Historical necessity , such as it is, derives from the requirements society
>puts on individuals to meet their physiological and reproductive
>requirements. The key realm of modern society which sets the requirements
>for getting physiological and reproductive requirements met is the economy.
>The process of getting these physiological and reproductive requirements met
>is mixed in with getting many other needs or wants met in this economy. But
>Marx and Engels focus on the economy, and class relations, as the main
>source of necessity and law in human affairs (objectively determining
>individual will), because it is where biological necessity impinges.
>
>There is a profound historical contradiction here in that a main aim of
>human progress or accumulation of knowledge has been to _free_ us from this
>very determining effect of biological necessity !  Culture and tradition of
>science have had the aim of making us literally "supernatural" . I mean this
>in  a non-religious sense, non-mystical sense. Merely, masters and
>mistresses of nature. For the mastery of necessity is freedom. This freedom
>is in a sense above nature. Certainly beyond the limitations that nature put
>on humans 200,000 years ago at our origin.
>
>So, the contradiction is that the advance of science and technology
>potentially frees us more than ever from the necessity deriving from
>physiological requirements of which I speak above.  Yet,  capitalism and all
>class society substitutes an artificial scarcity or inability to meet
>physiological requirements for the many in order to control them. It denies
>most people the immediate and easy access to freedom from the demands of
>physiological necessity (or easily meeting them) that society is now capable
>of providing. It denies them  . It thereby creates or maintains an
>artificial "necessity or law"into human affairs by artificially bringing
>people close to failing to meet their physiological and reproductive
>requirements. Or allowing them to exist in a state such that they are in
>jeopardy of not meeting their natural requirements, when everyone could be
>easily and certainly free from such jeopardy by the level of our
>technological development. This artificial return to threat or jeopardy of
>failing to meet natural requirments is in the form of class, wage-labor
>today.
>
>I think this is the sense in which Engels uses "law" in human affairs and
>history.
>
>Peace in !
>
>
>CB



From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  9 14:38:13 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:38:13 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
Message-ID: <49677D75.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Ralph Dumain 



There are two senses of necessity here: one in the sense of 
determinism, the other in the sense of what is needed, or else.  If 
only the first followed from the second.

^^^
CB: Nice thought.  I'll think about it over the weekend.  I think there is third sense of necessity as in logical _modus ponens_

^^^

As for the workers' seeing necessity in the first sense as a spur to 
action, this was an argument justifying the Second International on 
the part of Stephen Eric Bronner, I forget in which book.

^^^
CB: Yes, there is a problem with "inevitability of socialism" and socialism being objectively determined leading to quietism because there is no need for anybody to do anything - socialism will just "happen".   This is a problem with the notion of "general crisis" as developed by "Stalinists" (smile).  In other words, arguing "inevitability" or objective inclination to socialism can have the opposite effect that I speculate Marx and Engels had for "inevitability" -helping to sell workers on the idea.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Jan  9 14:58:57 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:58:57 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Crisis Of '08 Reading List
Message-ID: <49678251.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

The Crisis Of '08 Reading List


(Go to link below for embedded links.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6920fba5-bfa6-4dad-b54e-d0084066ba45 
The Crisis Of '08 Reading List

The best books to help you make sense of Marx, Keynes, the Great 
Depression, and how we got where we are now.

John B. Judis,  The New Republic  Published: Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Every few years, someone urges me to do a Christmas book list, and while 
protesting my ignorance and incompetence, I gladly comply. This year's 
subject is the current global recession, which threatens to become a 
global depression. This is a layman's list, because I am strictly a 
layman on the subject of economics. You don't have to know anything 
about string theory to read any of the books I recommend.

I learned most (or what little I know) of economics from reading on my 
own or from study groups we used to hold in the fading days of the new 
left. I read all three volumes of Capital in a study group organized by 
the late Harry Chang, a Korean immigrant to the Bay Area who was a 
computer programmer by day (in the keypunch era) and a Marxist scholar 
by night. I read Keynes under sporadic supervision of economist Jim 
O'Connor, the author of The Fiscal Crisis of the State, and a fellow 
member of the collective that published Socialist Revolution (which in 
1978 became Socialist Review). And I got my introduction to economic 
history from historian Marty Sklar, who was also a member of that 
collective.

A decade ago, I might have been embarrassed to admit that I was raised 
on Marx and Marxism, but I am convinced that the left is coming back. 
Friedrich Hayek is going to be out; Friedrich Engels in. Larry Kudlow 
out; Larry Mishel in. And why is that? Because a severe global recession 
like this puts in relief the transient, fragile, and corruptible nature 
of capitalism, and the looming contradiction between what Marx called 
the forces and relations of production evidenced in unemployed engineers 
and boarded up factories and growing poverty amidst a potential for 
abundance. As capitalism itself--or at the least the vaunted miracle of 
the free market--becomes problematic, the left is poised for an 
intellectual comeback. So here are four topics and some books to read 
about them, plus a few articles, from someone who learned economics by 
reading and rereading Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy's Monopoly Capital.

1. The current crisis. I was warning my colleagues of an encroaching 
disaster a year ago, because I was reading the columns and articles of 
Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Larry Summers, and Dean Baker. They were 
on top of this when Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were still telling 
everyone not to worry. Of the current books I've read (and I haven't 
read many), I'm very high on Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf's 
Fixing Global Finance, George Cooper's The Origin of Financial Crises, 
Jamie Galbraith's The Predator State, and Dean Baker's Plunder and 
Blunder. Wolf is terrific on the international currency mess--and the 
Financial Times is the paper to read--Cooper is first-rate on the 
irrationality of money and finance, Galbraith has a good explanation of 
how we got to where we are, and how to get out of it, and Baker is the 
expert on the housing bubble. I also liked Krugman's The Return of 
Depression Economics when it appeared almost ten years ago (Short take: 
If it could happen to Japan, it could happen to us). There is a new 
edition that incorporates some material about 2008, but I haven't read it.

2. John Maynard Keynes. Keynes is back in vogue, and rightly so. One 
economist--I can't remember who it was--recently warned against reading 
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money because it was 
written strictly for economists. I don't agree at all. It's a very hard 
book, especially some of the middle sections, but worth reading and 
rereading. If you don't have energy for the whole thing, read the first 
three chapters, some of the middle chapters (7, 10, 16, and 18 are my 
suggestions) and the last three. I suggest, however, a guide. The best 
I've found is Dudley Dillard's The Economics of John Maynard Keynes, 
which, to my amazement, is still in print after sixty years. I also like 
Hyman Minsky and Paul Davidson's guidebooks to Keynes. But you've got to 
read Robert Skidelsky's three-volume biography of Keynes, Hopes 
Betrayed, The Economist as Savior, and Fighting for Freedom (also now 
available in an abridged one-volume edition). Believe me, this is one of 
the great biographies. The way he brings together Keynes, the gay 
aesthete of Bloomsbury, and Keynes, the economist and man of worldly 
affairs, is something to behold. Skidelsky's second volume is also the 
best introduction to Keynes's economics, because you learn that exactly 
those ideas you found mystifying or most difficult in Keynes were hotly 
debated between him and his colleagues.

3. The Great Depression. There have been a lot of books on this subject, 
but most of what I read I read decades ago, so I'm sure I'm going to 
overlook worthy choices. Still, there are two older books that continue 
to stand up. George Soule was an editor of The New Republic during the 
1930s. He was also an economist and in 1947 published a study of the 
American economy from 1917 to 1929 entitled Prosperity Decade. Soule 
shows that well before 1929, there were rumblings of trouble in the 
American economy--not only in the stock market bubble, but in 
overcapacity in key industries like auto, and in the rise of 
technological unemployment. You'll see the surprising resemblance to our 
own decade, including an anticipatory recession in 1926 like the one in 
2001. On the international crisis of the 1930s, I like Charles P. 
Kindleberger's The World in Depression, which I reread two months ago 
when I was writing about the current international imbroglio. I want 
also to mention an essay by Sklar in The United States as a Developing 
Country. In chapter five, "Some Political and Cultural Consequences of 
the Disaccumulation of Capital," Sklar puts forward the idea that during 
the 1920s, capitalism shifted from the accumulation to disaccumulation 
of capital. That's Marxist jargon, but what it means is that goods 
production began to expand as a function of the reduction rather than 
increase in labor-time and in the labor force. That created an enormous 
opportunity, but also a potential crisis. The depression of the 1930s, 
Sklar argues, was the first "disaccumulationist" depression. One of his 
former students, historian Jim Livingston from Rutgers, has put forward 
a similar analysis of the current recession.

4. Marx and Marxism. Marx, like Keynes, is best read in his own words. 
There are a lot of brilliant shorter works, but I'd put the first volume 
of Capital up there with The Origin of Species, The Interpretation of 
Dreams, and The Philosophical Investigations on my list of great books 
of the last two hundred years. It's not a guide to starting your own 
business and really doesn't have a theory of crises. Some of that is in 
the other unfinished volumes. What volume one does is establish 
capitalism as a phase, and perhaps a passing phase, in world history 
whose very nature has consisted in disguising that fact from worker and 
capitalist alike. You read Capital to understand the historical 
underpinnings, not the mechanics of capitalism. Marx's theory of history 
has obvious deficiencies--he didn't foresee, certainly, the rise of 
corporate capitalism and of corporate liberalism. His trademark theory 
of the falling rate of profit, which you can find in volume three, is 
also unpersuasive. But these failings pale beside his portrayal of 
capitalism as mode of production based upon labor power as a commodity 
and on the accumulation of capital. I wish I could recommend guides to 
Marx's thought. The economic guides often err by trying to justify his 
works as modern economics. G. A. Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory of 
History, is a little academic, but of all the books I've read in the 
last twenty or thirty years, it's the best.

Have a good, if grim, read of these books--if you have some better 
ideas, include them in the comments below--and let's hope that the next 
year brings some better economic news than this one.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  9 16:55:37 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:55:37 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history
Message-ID: <cdc.412cc4ff.36993df9@aol.com>

Necessity as the outcome of a law system, means examining those things  
peculiar to the "system" one is examining. And the basis upon which the system  
becomes self perpetuating. The progressive accumulation of productive forces  
operates as law of consequence - necessity, or the law of consequence of the  
interactions of human beings with themselves, (re)production and their  
surroundings. How this consequence is expressed is one thing, but there is no  doubt, 
that accumulation of changes - qualitative and quantitative, in the  productive 
forces will and must take place as a law system of human -  biological, 
existence. 

That real human beings, who are biological and  express a self contained 
biological law system, are compelled by their existence  to organize themselves 
around the means of reproducing themselves; a given set  of productive forces in 
existence and a certain mode of distributions of what is  produced. This 
activity operates as a law system and gives meaning to  necessity. Necessity and 
consequence are not philosophic concepts in the  hands of Marx and Engels, in 
my estimate. 
 
Today, the revolution in the productive forces expresses an aspect of the  
law of society change and humanity, against the will of the individual, must  
re-adjust and reorganize their social life around the new means of production;  
new forms and modes of transportation and distribution. This reorganization  
around the new means of production does not make economic communism  
inevitable.  Human beings fight out forms of organizations in the sense of  property. 
The capitalist mode of production is the result of human will, rather  than the 
result of the law machine and tool development. The capitalist mode of  
production does not rise to prominence and stand on its feet as a universal mode  of 
production outside of human will, passion and aspiration. We have to make  
things happen. 
 
WL 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

I  do think that with respect to law in human history, necessity in  human
history, at the stage of the transition to socialism, the issue of the  unity
of subject and object is to some extent, well vulgar, a street  hussle,
theatre even. I'd say that Marx and Engels were vulgar enough to  realize
that they had to _sell_ socialism to the masses , including people  from all
classes. Historical objective necessity can take the masses of human  up to
the water of socialism, but it cannot make them drink. The  socialist
revolution will not occur without working class consciousness and  purposeful
aim to win it, make it so.  However, the workers are more  likely to take the
tremendous effort involved in making socialism if they  think it is
"necessary",  a historical necessity, in line with the laws  of history. A
lot of middle strata people are more likely to aim for it if it  is an
"historical necessity" too. Even many bourgeoisie will go for it if  they
think , somehow, the "have" to do it, that the "Must" !

To the  extent that there are laws, objective laws, of human history , they
do tend  toward socialism, as a more rational way to organize society.  So,
in  that regard , Marx and Engels are not selling snake oil. 

But that last ,  critical, and qualitatively different little/big leap at the
end, must take  place in the subjective consciousness of each individual
human, or the great  mass of them. There is no objective factor that _forces_
people, workers and  middle strata workers, to want and aim for socialism,
ending capitalism.  

On the other hand, as Chavez says, in this era after Marx and Engels,  after
Lenin, there are certain objective factors, such as nuclear weapons  and
capitalisticgenic ecological pollution , which now threaten our species  in a
qualitatively new way, and begin to constitute objective necessities  for
ending capitalism everywhere on earth and starting worldwide  socialism.
There is developing greater objective necessity for socialism now  than in
the eras Marx or Lenin. 

Of course, a given individual can  respond to these "necessities" with
resentment or nihilism or misanthropy,  indifference or malice toward the
continuation of the human species. Given  the many inhumanities of man toward
man , there is not guaranteed dissuasion  of this any given soul.  At any
rate, there is a tremendous component of  persuasion involved in building
revolutionary elan and spirit, even leaving  aside those who are in extreme
despair about the whole world.  Declaring  that history's laws require
socialism is in an important sense a strategy for  persuading  ( "selling")
those who were thinking in terms of "laws" of  science in the 1800's. 

Within capitalism, not so much in history in the  larger sense, Marx did
discover certain strong tendencies or patterns of  motion, cyclical patterns,
given the basic rules that capitalists and workers  follow in their
relations, that is given the property relations.  There  will , in a lawlike
manner, be a large mass of poor people. The absolute  general law of
capitalist accumulation. There is a tendency or law of  monopolization, one
capitalist swallows a few. There is a law or tendency of  socialization of
labor or production. These laws do not directly derive from  meeting
physiological requirements. 

Historical necessity , such as it  is, derives from the requirements society
puts on individuals to meet their  physiological and reproductive
requirements. The key realm of modern society  which sets the requirements
for getting physiological and reproductive  requirements met is the economy.
The process of getting these physiological  and reproductive requirements met
is mixed in with getting many other needs  or wants met in this economy. But
Marx and Engels focus on the economy, and  class relations, as the main
source of necessity and law in human affairs  (objectively determining
individual will), because it is where biological  necessity impinges. 

There is a profound historical contradiction here in  that a main aim of
human progress or accumulation of knowledge has been to  _free_ us from this
very determining effect of biological necessity !   Culture and tradition of
science have had the aim of making us literally  "supernatural" . I mean this
in  a non-religious sense, non-mystical  sense. Merely, masters and
mistresses of nature. For the mastery of necessity  is freedom. This freedom
is in a sense above nature. Certainly beyond the  limitations that nature put
on humans 200,000 years ago at our origin.  

So, the contradiction is that the advance of science and  technology
potentially frees us more than ever from the necessity deriving  from
physiological requirements of which I speak above.  Yet,   capitalism and all
class society substitutes an artificial scarcity or  inability to meet
physiological requirements for the many in order to control  them. It denies
most people the immediate and easy access to freedom from the  demands of
physiological necessity (or easily meeting them) that society is  now capable
of providing. It denies them  . It thereby creates or  maintains an
artificial "necessity or law"into human affairs by artificially  bringing
people close to failing to meet their physiological and  reproductive
requirements. Or allowing them to exist in a state such that  they are in
jeopardy of not meeting their natural requirements, when everyone  could be
easily and certainly free from such jeopardy by the level of  our
technological development. This artificial return to threat or jeopardy  of
failing to meet natural requirments is in the form of class,  wage-labor
today.

I think this is the sense in which Engels uses "law"  in human affairs and
history.

Peace in  !


CB






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




In  a message dated 1/9/2009 4:38:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
Ralph Dumain 

There are two  senses of necessity here: one in the sense of 
determinism, the other in the  sense of what is needed, or else.  If 
only the first followed from the  second.

^^^
CB: Nice thought.  I'll think about it over the  weekend.  I think there is 
third sense of necessity as in logical _modus  ponens_

^^^

As for the workers' seeing necessity in the first  sense as a spur to 
action, this was an argument justifying the Second  International on 
the part of Stephen Eric Bronner, I forget in which  book.

^^^
CB: Yes, there is a problem with "inevitability of  socialism" and socialism 
being objectively determined leading to quietism  because there is no need for 
anybody to do anything - socialism will just  "happen".   This is a problem 
with the notion of "general crisis" as  developed by "Stalinists" (smile).  In 
other words, arguing "inevitability"  or objective inclination to socialism 
can have the opposite effect that I  speculate Marx and Engels had for 
"inevitability" -helping to sell workers on  the idea.





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
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Jan  9 18:42:19 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:42:19 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Communism and Welfare: expand Welfare
Message-ID: <d56.18c2613a.369956fb@aol.com>

Will the Obama stimulus plan simply concentrate on "Middle America" and  
create jobs for "them" while ignoring the roughly 40% of the working class that  
constitutes the poorest workers? I am not against middle America, but they are  
not the only suffering section of America. The expansion of the food stamp  
program, housing (section 8) and shelters for the homeless is urgently   
needed. Most certainly libraries and schools and the public education   sector 
needed to be expanded, rather than shut down. 
 
American communism/Marxism remains a middle class movement in my  mind, until 
it becomes one of the most vocal champions of the cause of  welfare; or  what 
in front of our eyes is crystallizing as the most poverty  stricken sections 
of American society; the real proletariat in America. This  section of America 
is visible, growing and no longer can be portrayed as simply  black. 
Statistically, the welfare roll is one third white, brown and black. 
 
The tradition of focusing on the organized sector of the labor movement,  
specifically those workers in heavy industry - auto, rubber, steel, airplane  
production, construction, transport including dock workers, etc., reveals  
American communism as a middle class movement once one compares the wages of  these 
workers to the wages of the  majority of America's working class. 
 
To be a communist and within  Marxism and state the obvious is of  course to 
be charged with all kinds of  deviations, anti-Leninism and face  all kinds of 
ideological charges; that one is  really hostile to communism  and 
anti-Marxism; doesn't understand that under  socialism only "parasites"  don't have a 
9-5, and so on.  At the extreme,  one is charged with  wanting to give 
"parasites" a "free ride." Generally  any concept of  historical accumulation of labor 
and wealth is tossed out of  the window  and the worse of bourgeois ideology 
promoting jobs as a  solution, becomes  the banner of the middle class 
communists. As if everyone  is to become  "workers." 
 
But with facts being stubborn things to  ignore, to champion the  concept of 
the industrial proletariat in America,  or what was in fact not  the 
industrial proletariat as some abstractions but the  unionized workers;  as the leading 
edge to be won to the cause of communism and  the means to  achieve communism 
in America, has proven itself in real life to be   bankrupt. This is not to 
suggest that any section of the working class should  be  ignored, but given 
our history, without the defense of the bottom of  the social  ladder - (the 
poorest proletarians), the upper rungs of the  ladder cannot be  defended. If 
capital pushes sections of the working class  lower and lower then  common sense 
would suggest defense of the bottom rung  and fighting for a floor  beneath 
which no group of workers can fall. 
 
During the late 1950's  and early 1960's, when dad was laid off from  Ford 
Motor Company, our family  qualified for welfare and government food -  "called 
commodities." We lived in  the Jefferies Project's at the time and  also 
qualified for a housing  allowance. 
 
One can subscribe to a theory of bribery of the  working class as the  reason 
for the passivity and hostility of these formerly  bribed workers to  
communism and the plight of the less paid workers. Subscribing  to such an  outlook 
merely proves the obvious; that these workers were in fact  not the  cutting 
edge of the social movement to achieve communism. 
 
The point is, welfare and the welfare system in America and the   reluctance 
of communists to vocally support this system and its expansion,   cannot be 
justified if one really fights on the side of the poor. What  explains  American 
communism/Marxism refusal to be the most vocal champions  of welfare is  
their middle class ideology. Full employment is impossible  under capitalism, 
according to Marxism. The problem is that too much of American  Marxism does not 
support the right of the individual to be lazy or the right of  the individual  
not to aspire to a 9 - 5 job. Although 90% of the real  people on welfare and 
who benefit from it are children, these children are  thrown under the  
ideological bus in favor of ideological prostitution on  behave of the  middle 
class and the better paid workers, who felt the  solution to welfare was  "to get 
a job." 
 
During president elect campaign, I do not recall any comments about welfare  
one way or another, which might not be a bad thing given the historic attitude 
 towards the most poverty stricken  in America. 
 
Welfare must be fought for and not  simply jobs. In the last period  some 
fought for Jobs or income but defined  income as primarily  unemployment 
compensation, while the individual stayed in  line for a Job.  Full employment should 
mean employment for those looking for  work/jobs.  Doctrines of communism 
generally do not require a specific labor   contribution as the basis or 
precondition for gaining access to socially   necessary means of life. The assumption 
is that people will contribute  their  labor in millions of different way once 
society is unfettered by  capital and  bourgeois ideology. Further, society 
has evolved to a point of  a permanent glut  - abundance of labor. Even trying 
to put everyone to work  would be destructive  to society. 
 
 

WL 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Sat Jan 10 00:46:09 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:09 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Communism and Welfare: expand Welfare
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901092346l26b45f0eob61eda63005a7327@mail.gmail.com>

I think those two words 'communism' and 'welfare' will scare some
people away. However, I think if Americans could see how much freer
they would be if they had guaranteed access to health care, retirement
and income (such as a guaranteed income when unemployed, a living
minimum wage etc.), they would embrace any party and politicians who
wanted to work to get these. However, the idiotic popular culture,
issues and lifestyle politics (as taken up by the two-party political
monopoly), and militaristic nationalism are used very effectively to
distract the majority working class from what the potential is. Add a
non-parliamentary strong executive government system with a very
big-money two party monopoly (addicted to militarism) on politics, and
you see a mission that seems impossible.

CJ


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Jan 10 09:52:41 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:52:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] When Thaxis was saved
Message-ID: <49688C09.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Sharpening class contradictions
Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us 
Mon Jan 21 09:35:01 MST 2002 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sharpening class contradictions 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] From the Philosophical Society of England 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thaxis was the first list I was on. So, I want to express a word of virtual thanks to this cybersection as it goes the way of all virtual flesh. Thanks to Rob and my other Thaxis comrades :>)

Workers of the World , go for it ! Peace in !

Charles 

>>> farmelantj at juno.com 01/21/02 05:41AM >>>


On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:28:40 +0000 bantam at dingoblue.net.au writes:
> G'day all,
> 
> I'd written,
> 
> > Or shall we wrap the old list up and slip her quietly into the
> > dustbin?
> 
> Well, I think the eloquent silence with which this was greeted can't 
> be
> ignored.  If no-one on the list nominates for the position of list
> moderator within the week, I shall have to let Hans know Thaxis is 
> sans
> moderator and, very possibly, sans raison d'etre.

That raises the issue lie this once thriving list has seemed to have
slipped into senescence and may well be ready to die a natural
death.  Long time subscribers may recall that this list is a continuation
of the old Marxism-2 list which was founded by Lisa Rogers in reaction
to the takeover of the original Spoon Collective's Marxism List by
Maoists in 1995.  About a year later, the Spoon Collective decided
to break up its Marxism space into several lists including a
Marxism-International List, Marxism-Thaxis, and a Marxism-and-
Sciences List, as well as a Marxism-General List,  a Marxism-
Feminism List and I think a Marxism-News List as well.  This
situation lasted until 1998 when the Spoon Collective decided
that it no longer wished to host any of the Marxism lists and
they were spun off to their respective moderators, who generally
sought and obtained hosting privelages elsewhere.

The fates of these various lists has been quite diverse.  One
of the then most active lists was the Marxism-International List
which was turned over to Louis Godena (who was probably
the most articulate and erudite of the Maoists that had originally
"invaded" the old Marxism List back in 1995).  For quite a while
that list retained its original vitality, until Godena and his
co-moderator Adolfo Olaechea began to purge it of various
ideological opponents.  As a result many of its most active
and interesting participants, if not purged, left on their
own accord.  As a result two new lists were formed,
Louis Proyect's Marxmail List, and Doug Henwood's
LBO-Talk List both of which continue to thrive to this
day.  In the mean time other list were formed as well.
Jerry Levy who used to be quite active on Thaxis created
his own specialized list that is devoted mainly to rather
abstruse discussions of value theory.  There is also
the Progressive Economists List, which retains a
certain vitality.

So what happened to this list?  This one too used
to be quite lively, and for a long time it seemed to
carry on more or less in the original spirit of the
Marxism-2 list but in more recent times, it has
become evident that list traffic has gone way down,
and the list simply seems rather lifeless now.
Why?  I suspect the reason is simply that so many
of the people who used to participate here are now
most active on the other lists that I have mentioned.
Levy used to be quite active here.  I can't remember
when the last time he ever posted here.  And
the same is true for most of the other former regulars
here.  Would different moderators have made a difference?
Possibly, Proyect for whatever else one might say about
him has been quite aggressive about promoting his
list with the result that it has several hundred subscribers.
The same can be said about Henwood's LBO-Talk,
which also had the advantage of being associated
with Henwood's well-known (in leftist circles) newsletter
Left Business Observer.  And there is also the sad
example of Marxism-International which continues with
no discernable purpose since the only people who
post on it now a days is Godena and Olaechea, and
then only at very infrequent intervals.  On the other
hand it may be that there was little that any moderator
or group of moderator could have done about this
situation.  Back when Thaxis was founded there were
only a bare handful of Marxist or left-oriented lists
in cyberspace, now there are literally dozens if not
hundreds of such lists.  This is of course a good thing,
since it suggests that there has been indeed a revival
of interest in Marxism (after having been declared dead
and buried in 1991).  At the same time this makes it
harder for any one list to thrive since there is now so
many competing lists to which people can now choose
to participate in.

Jim F.

> 
> All the best to all,
> Rob.
> 
> 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Jan 10 09:55:26 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:55:26 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply
Message-ID: <49688CAE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply
Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us 
Wed Feb 20 07:44:50 MST 2002 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: Monty Python on "Bombing for Peace" 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> farmelantj at juno.com 02/20/02 04:55AM >>>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alan Carling <a.h.carling at Bradford.ac.uk> 

Carling says:
The final set of questions you pose seem to me the central ones for any
21st Century egalitarian.  My worry is essentially this: if  Competitive
Primacy is true (as I now think may be the case), do there exist
egalitarian alternatives to capitalism which are capable of competitive
survival against it?  If the answer to this question is 'No', then
(successful) Marxist theory has (ironically, or tragically) ruled out
Marxian politics, and the Marxist/socialist/enlightenment egalitarian
project is dead in the water. So I have a considerable personal and
intellectual investment in the answer being 'Yes', and I regard the
various
market socialist  proposals as promising candidates in this respect. But
even if one or other of these proposed solutions could survive in the
globally-competitive environment created by contemporary capitalism, can
it
be brought into existence by intentional political action?  



^^^^^^^^^

Charles B: This competition with capitalism is the reason that the state cannot whither away in socialism until there are no more capitalist states.

On the issue of intentional politics, the general answer is that with Marxism the question of intentionally shaping society turns into its opposite, i.e.it becomes possible to consciously guide the development of society, contra Carling's general proposition against Intentional Primacy or "Human Intention" in his four ways that the appearance of design can come about. In other words, Marxism is an objective understanding of human society. Once one has an objective science of human society ( as no previous society did) it becomes possible to consciously and intentionally guide its development. In other words, Marx and Engels's discovery allows the overcoming of one of their propositions concerning all previous society. To apply Engels approach on science in general, to know something is to be able to make it. Once we know society , we can make it. 

So socialism can intentionally compete with capitalism.

cc: Alan Carling



To: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:30:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Selectionism:  Me, Popper, and Hayek
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk>
Received: from mx6.boston.juno.com (mx6.boston.juno.com [64.136.24.38])
        by m11.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAZYQPLJ
        for <farmelantj at juno.com> (sender <a.h.carling at Bradford.ac.uk>);
        Wed,  2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk
[143.53.238.3])
        by mx6.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAUHFBLJ
        for <farmelantj at juno.com> (sender <a.h.carling at Bradford.ac.uk>);
        Wed,  2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acarling.brad.ac.uk (max-33.dial.brad.ac.uk
[143.53.239.33])
        by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id
g02IUBY05895
        for <farmelantj at juno.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:30:11 GMT
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Return-Path: <a.h.carling at Bradford.ac.uk>
X-Sender: ahcarlin at pop.brad.ac.uk 
In-Reply-To: <20011225.091555.-517799.0.farmelantj at juno.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk>

Dear Jim,

I was very pleased to receive your perceptive message, especially as it
was
apparently sent on Christmas morning (Maybe you were trying sensibly to
escape from the festivities!). The questions you pose are very pertinent
ones, to which I don't have any very satisfactory answers. 

As you will have gathered, I reached the position that the only
plausible
version of historical materialism is a selectionist one through an
engagement with Jerry Cohen's work, and Analytical Marxism more
generally.
It was only subsequent to that realisation/discovery that I saw a
parallel
with the work of the 'bourgeois' social selectionists you mention.  I
think
Dennett is wonderful on the general power of the selectionist paradigm,
Dawkins is always interesting, and Blackmore is slightly derivative. The
'meme' idea I do not find especially persuasive however, and by far the
most impressive of the bourgeois selectionists in my view is
W.G.Runciman.
I'm in the middle of writing a critique of his Treatise on Social
Theory,
and I'd be happy to send you a copy when it's finished if you are
interested. 

Although I've obviously known about Popper and Hayek in general terms
for
a
long time, I've only  recently appreciated their direct relevance, and I
don't know enough about them to answer your question. It may be that my
gardening is not all that different from Popper's piecemeal social
engineering, and I will no doubt have to give this issue serious
attention
in any book that appears.

The final set of questions you pose seem to me the central ones for any
21st Century egalitarian.  My worry is essentially this: if  Competitive
Primacy is true (as I now think may be the case), do there exist
egalitarian alternatives to capitalism which are capable of competitive
survival against it?  If the answer to this question is 'No', then
(successful) Marxist theory has (ironically, or tragically) ruled out
Marxian politics, and the Marxist/socialist/enlightenment egalitarian
project is dead in the water. So I have a considerable personal and
intellectual investment in the answer being 'Yes', and I regard the
various
market socialist  proposals as promising candidates in this respect. But
even if one or other of these proposed solutions could survive in the
globally-competitive environment created by contemporary capitalism, can
it
be brought into existence by intentional political action?  

My impression is that the exponents of market socialism do not generally
engage with this crucial question of transition (which brings Popper
back
into the frame). The problem is that revolutionary socialists had (a few
still have!) a dogmatically-held and ultimately indefensible (though
personally sustaining) set of answers to this question, centred around
the
proletariat, the  party apparatus, and their favourite version of
Leninism
(or Trotskyism). Analytical Marxists and others have rightly abandoned
the
dogmatism and Leninism, but they haven't elaborated any alternative
theory
of political agency. Neither have I, but this is the problem on which my
sights are now set firmly. I would hope to say something useful about it
in
the book. The fundamental point is that the theory of political agency
(whatever it is) must be woven from the same cloth as the theory of
social
evolution, since to act politically is to intervene in the reproduction
of
social structures.

Perhaps I could close by asking some questions of you. You are obviously
very knowledgeable about the debates. Do you work in an academic
context?
If so (or even if not), where are you located? And how did your own
interest in all this arise?

Happy New Year

Alan 

PS. Do you know about the journal Imprints, in which these issues are
debated from time to time? (www.imprints.org.uk)





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Jan 10 09:56:16 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:56:16 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the
	Pudding: Reason	and Value in Social Evolution*
Message-ID: <49688CE0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution*
Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us 
Wed Feb 20 07:55:49 MST 2002 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dear Mr Carling. 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Carling,

If I might comment further on your thesis, I think you ignore the first clause of Marx and Engels famous aphorism below in your development of a sort of absolute "unintentionality" in the development of human society. M and E say people "make their own history...". This implies some intention. This is in unity and contradiction with the statement "but they do not make it just as they please."  As they are dialecticians, we should not be surprised that their statement contains a contradiction. But my point here is that they are saying that the development of society is both intentional and unintentional.

The important issue for your thesis is that you do not have to discard all impact of human intention in the development of social forms. 

So when you say:

"It seemed appropriate to call this mechanism Competitive Primacy (of the forces of production) and to support its claims against alternative conceptions, especially Intentional Primacy (of the forces of production).[30] The latter conception envisages the deliberate creation of relations of production of a type that will enhance the development of the forces of production. It says essentially that relations attached to superior forces prevail because people have taken successful collective action designed to bring about this result, motivated by the economic and social benefits superior productivity brings in its train. But this requires the intentional creation of social structure, which has been ruled out by the arguments of Chapter 4. So the only theoretically defensible version of historical materialism is the one that centres on the concept of Competitive Primacy. "

Arguments by intention should not be absolutely ruled out. They can play a role in contradictory unity with arguments by unintentional selection. In other words, there is something of a "LaMarckian" mechanism at this level as well.

Charles Brown






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Jan 10 10:03:54 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:03:54 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
Message-ID: <49688EA9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-May/017666.html
Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
Jim Farmelant  
Sat May 11 08:58:49 MDT 2002 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thaxis topic 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Einstein did call himself a Zionist but his brand of Zionism
which was shared with such people like Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt,
and Hebrew University founder Judah Magnes embraced the
notion of a secular bi-national state in which Jews and
Arabs would be equals.  Einstein feared that if Palestine
was partitioned (as the UN proposed in 1948 into separate
Jewish and Arab states) then the resulting Jewish state
would fall prey to a narrow chauvinist nationalism which
would betray fundamental Jewis ideals.  I'd dare say
that history has vindicated Einstein on these points.

Now a days when someone like Noam Chomsky embraces
what was essentially the position of Einstein, Arendt, Buber etc.,
he gets slammed as an "anti-Semite" and a "self-hating Jew".

On Fri, 10 May 2002 09:45:09 -0400 "Charles Brown"
<CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
> Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
> 
> By William Loren Katz
> 
> At a moment when so much of the world decries the shockingly 
> senseless, destructive militarism of the Israeli state and 
> demands protection of the sacred human rights of Palestinian 
> people, the historic relationship between Jewish people and 
> Zionism requires re-examination.   Even when most popular
> immediately after World War II, Zionist ideas never enjoyed 
> unanimous support from the world Jewish community.   In the 
> United States where he had taken refuge from Hitlers Germany, 
> the greatest scientific genius of the century and noted world 
> philosopher, Dr. Albert Einstein, favored not a Zionist state 
> but one in which Jews and Arabs shared political power.
> 
> As the most admired Jewish American of the day, Einstein did 
> not hesitate to express his political views.  On the 
> contrary, he tended to be an outspoken foe of fascism and 
> racial discrimination, and he had struck up a friendship
> with Paul Robeson, African American peace and justice 
> advocate and activist, a foe of fascism and anti-Semitism.   
> In 1946 Robeson and Einstein served as co-chairs of a 
> nationwide anti-lynching petition campaign, and Robeson
> delivered their collected petitions to President Harry Truman 
> at the White House. Two years later Einstein and Robeson 
> united to support Henry Wallace's Progressive party that 
> opposed US government cold war policies that tolerated 
> violations of civil liberties and repression of dissenters.
> Master of more than a dozen languages, Robesons musical 
> concerts and records celebrated the gallant contributions of 
> African Americans and other minorities, the heroism of union 
> organizers such as Joe Hill, and paid homage to those who 
> bravely fought fascism -- as in his powerful Yiddish rendition
> of the Song of the Warsaw Ghetto.
> 
> In 1948 Einstein publicly announced his political preference 
> for a socialist over capitalist system in the United States.* 
> By then Robeson had been the worlds most admired American for 
> more than ten years, surpassing even President Franklin D. 
> Roosevelt.   But in 1952 though the fanatical anti-Communists 
> of the McCarthy era hesitated to challenge Einstein, they
> waged a war against Robeson.   His career was upended by 
> government-sponsored hysteria: he was blacklisted, denied 
> concert appearances, his income fell by 90%, the state 
> department lifted his passport so he could neither leave the 
> country nor make a living abroad, FBI agents tracked him
> and vacuumed his life.
> 
> In a stinging public rebuke to this Cold War era mentality, 
> in October, 1952 Dr. Albert Einstein asked his old friend to 
> visit him at Princeton University. Robeson brought along a 
> young friend, writer Lloyd Brown, who vividly remembers the 
> meeting.** It was a momentous time for Einstein because he 
> had been invited to serve as president for the new state of
> Israel.  The request weighed heavily on his mind when Robeson 
> and Brown sat down to talk at his home. Einstein told them 
> that while he had seen some merit in Zionism and wished the 
> new state good luck, he had long opposed a Zionist state.   
> 
> Instead, he had always favored a reasonable agreement
> between Palestinians and Jews to share power in any state 
> carved out of British-controlled Palestine. He brought out 
> his book, Out of My Later Years [New York: Philosophical 
> Library, 1950] and read aloud from an article he wrote in 1938
> that asked that power be divided between the two peoples.
> Einstein was worried that once in their own state his people, 
> like others, would abandon their idealism and spirituality, 
> slavishly follow a narrow nationalism, and capitulate to a 
> state apparatus concerned with its borders, building an army, 
> demanding conformity and exerting repressive power.   He
> could not encourage this course, so Einstein denied the new 
> state his enormous prestige and declined its presidential 
> office.
> 
> In the course of the conversation Einstein told Robeson he 
> would love to attend any concert he gave near Princeton. 
> Brown pointed out that Robeson was getting few concert 
> invitations, and the last time he sang in Boston police 
> officers took down the license plates of attendees. That wont
> bother us, Einstein said with a twinkle, We dont have a car. 
> When Robeson briefly left the room, Brown told Einstein it 
> was an honor to meet a great man. Einstein sharply fired 
> back, You came here with a great man.
> 
> Einstein died in 1955 the sage of Princeton, committed to his 
> people, still skeptical of the state of Israel, and like 
> Robeson, still an advocate of justice and peace for the 
> worlds people.   Robeson died in 1975, still hounded by the 
> FBI and other government agencies, and remains known to the
> world largely through his recordings, movie roles and a few 
> books.
> 
> One can only speculate about how Albert Einstein, who feared 
> an aggressiveness Jewish state, would have reacted to the 
> Israeli occupation and invasion of Palestinian territories in 
> violation of United Nations resolutions.  One can only 
> speculate about how Robeson, who sang the praises of anti-
> fascist freedom-fighters such as the Jews of the Warsaw 
> Ghetto, would have reacted to the Israeli armys savagery 
> against largely unarmed Palestinian civilians seeking 
> liberty, sovereignty and justice.
> ________________________________________________
> Copyright William Loren Katz. His website is: 
> http://www.williamlkatz.com 
> 
> *In 1955 Einstein, in an open letter to a New York City 
> teacher who refused to kowtow to the House UnAmerican 
> Activities committee, urged that others ought to refuse to 
> testify [and] to be prepared for jail. He added that if
> enough people are prepared to take this step, such red-hunts 
> might be cease, and sanity and democracy be restored.
> 
> ** Conversation with Lloyd Brown, April 24 and 26, 2002. 
> Brown, author of The Young Paul Robeson: On My Journey Now 
> [Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998] also is novelist 
> whose books has been translated into many languages, 
> including Hebrew.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Distributed By: THE PAN-AFRICAN RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION CENTER
>                 211 SCB BOX 47, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
>                 DETROIT, MI 48202-- E MAIL: ac6123 at wayne.edu 
> ======================================================================
> *********   Related Web Sites                                        
>     **************
> http://www.africahomepage.org/tips.html 
> http://talkingafrica.szs.net/news/ 
> http://www.freemumia.org 
> http://www.afrikan.net 
> http://www.nalfnationtime.com 
> http://theherald.mweb.co.zw  
> http://www.zbc.co.zw 
> http://www.anc.org.za/index.html 
> http://www.panafbooks.com 
> http://www.amebo.com 
> http://www.wbai.org                   
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sat Jan 10 10:18:13 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:18:13 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Red Obit
Message-ID: <49689205.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Howard Fast, Best-Selling Novelist, Dies at 88
Jim Farmelant farmelantj  
Thu Mar 13 05:51:11 MST 2003 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sidney Hook's *Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx: A Revolutionary Interpretation* 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sanford's originality came through to the end (LA Times) 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howard Fast, Best-Selling Novelist, Dies at 88

March 13, 2003
By MERVYN ROTHSTEIN 

Howard Fast, whose best-selling historical fiction often
featured the themes of freedom and human rights, elements
in his own tumultuous political journey through the
blacklisting of the 1950's, died yesterday at his home in
Old Greenwich, Conn. He was 88. 

Mr. Fast was one of the 20th century's busiest writers,
turning out more than 80 books - plus short stories,
journalism, screenplays and poetry - in a career that began
in the early 1930's. 

With novels like "Citizen Tom Paine" (1943), "Freedom Road"
(1944) and "Spartacus" (1953), Mr. Fast won popular acclaim
for authenticity and detail, creating stories that even his
critics admired as page-turners. 

Mr. Fast's fiction was always didactic to a degree, opposed
to modernism, engaged in social struggle and insistent on
taking sides and teaching lessons of life's moral
significance, and he liked it that way. 

"Since I believe that a person's philosophical point of
view has little meaning if it is not matched by being and
action, I found myself willingly wed to an endless series
of unpopular causes, experiences which I feel enriched my
writing as much as they depleted other aspects of my life,"
he said in a 1972 interview. 

Despite the international popularity of historical novels
like "Paine," which glorified the professional
revolutionary, and the huge commercial success that Mr.
Fast's well-paced narratives achieved, his work tended to
succeed or fail as art to the extent that he distanced
himself from ideology. 

At his best, in a novel like "The Last Frontier" (1941),
about the flight in 1878 of the Cheyenne Indians to their
Powder River home in Wyoming, he achieved powerful effects
through imaginative objectivity. At his less successful, in
novels like "Clarkton" (1947), about a textile-mill strike,
and "Silas Timberman" (1954), about an academic victim of
McCarthyism, he was sometimes faulted as being drawn toward
propagandistic sentimentality. 

His output was slowed but not entirely interrupted by the
blacklisting he endured in the 1950's after it became known
that he had been a member of the Communist Party and then
refused to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities
Committee. He served three months in a federal prison in
1950 for contempt of Congress, a charge arising from his
refusal to produce the records of the Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee. 

Mr. Fast joined the party in 1943, a decision he often said
was made at least in part because of the poverty he
experienced as a child growing up in Upper Manhattan. He
left the party in 1956, disillusioned by the Soviet Union's
own stunning revelations of Stalin's terror and the spread
of anti-Semitism there. 

He wrote a book about his political experiences, "The Naked
God" (1957). "I was part of a generation that believed in
socialism and finally found that belief corroded and
destroyed," he said in an interview in 1981. "That is not
renouncing Communism or socialism. It's reaching a certain
degree of enlightenment about what the Soviet Union
practices. To be dogmatic about a cause you believe in at
the age of 20 or 30 is not unusual. But to be dogmatic at
age 55 or 60 shows a lack of any learning capacity." 

Howard Melvin Fast was born Nov. 11, 1914, in Manhattan,
one of four children of a working-class couple. His father,
Barney, was first an ironworker, then a cable-car
conductor, then a garment worker. His mother, Ida, died
when he was a child. He often worked part-time jobs to help
make ends meet, and graduated from George Washington High
School. 

He sold his first story to Amazing Stories magazine when he
was 17. The next year he sold his first novel, a historical
romance called "Two Villages," to the Dial Press for a $100
advance. 

In 1939, after he had published two more books, Simon &
Schuster published "Conceived in Liberty," a novel about
Valley Forge, which has sold about a million copies and has
been translated into more than a dozen languages. That was
followed by "The Last Frontier" and then "The Unvanquished"
(1942), about George Washington during the bleakest months
of the Revolution. The critic Carl Van Doren said "The
Unvanquished" was "the next thing to having been on the
scene at the time." 

But Mr. Fast's breakthrough came in 1943 with "Citizen Tom
Paine," which the playwright Elmer Rice called, in a highly
favorable front-page review in The New York Times Book
Review, "a vivid portrait of one of the most extraordinary
figures of the 18th century." 

Many critics and historians agreed that the book played a
significant role in restoring the reputation of Paine, the
pamphleteer who had been "greatly neglected and greatly
misunderstood," Rice wrote, "the victim both of a
conspiracy of silence and of a campaign of calumny." 

In 1944 came the best-selling "Freedom Road," about a
former slave in the post-Civil War South who becomes a
United States senator and then fights for his life against
the Ku Klux Klan. In 1979 "Freedom Road" was made into a
television mini-series starring Muhammad Ali and Kris
Kristofferson. 

>From the start, Mr. Fast said, "Freedom Road" was more than
a book with a black as the central character. "Its
viewpoint," he said, "was considered a shocking one for
either popular fiction or for history. In it, the
Reconstruction was seen as a time of black renaissance. The
carpetbaggers were not raping the South, as in the then
popularly held view, but were helping the blacks to
education and economic achievement." 

During those years, Mr. Fast won the Stalin International
Peace Prize, in 1953, and "Spartacus," about a slave revolt
in ancient Rome, was published. Because of the blacklist,
the manuscript went from publisher to publisher without
success. Finally, a Doubleday executive said that Mr. Fast
should publish it himself but that Doubleday would order
600 copies for its bookstores. It became a best seller. 

The stigma of the blacklist gradually faded after Mr.
Fast's repudiation of Communism. "Spartacus" was reprinted
as a paperback and in 1960 was made into a successful movie
starring Kirk Douglas. Many other successful novels
followed, including "April Morning" (1961) and a
best-selling multigenerational saga of the Lavette family
that began with "The Immigrants" (1977) and included
"Second Generation" (1978), "The Establishment" (1979) and
"The Legacy" (1981). 

Mr. Fast's first wife, the former Bette Cohen, died in
1994. He is survived by their children, the novelist
Jonathan Fast of Greenwich and Rachel Ben Avi of Sarasota,
Fla., and three grandchildren. He is also survived by his
second wife, Mercedes O'Connor, whom he married in 1999,
and by her three sons, Connor Denis, of Old Greenwich,
Augustus Denis, of New Orleans, and James Denis, of Old
Greenwich. 

Mr. Fast also wrote a popular series of detective stories
under the name E. V. Cunningham. His hero was a nisei
detective, Masao Masuto, a member of the Beverly Hills
police force. Masuto was a Zen Buddhist, and Mr. Fast
himself was very much involved in Zen, "as a form of
meditation and a very nice way of looking at the world," as
he put it. 

Mr. Fast continued to write into his 80's. His last novel,
"Greenwich," a story of a high-society dinner party in
Greenwich, Conn., and an exploration of guilt and
redemption in American society, was published in 2000. 

"The only thing that infuriates me," he once commented, "is
that I have more unwritten stories in me than I can
conceivably write in a lifetime."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/obituaries/13FAST.html?ex=1048559187&ei 
=1&en=96209294dcb58326

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Jan 10 10:22:41 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:22:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Red dust-bite
Message-ID: <49689311.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I had extensive letter correspondence with Herbert . I have about 100 letters or morre back and forth.

Long live Aptheker !

CB

[Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: Death of Herbert Aptheker
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com 
Tue Mar 18 14:21:08 MST 2003 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: URGENT: Keep the Inspectors in Iraq 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Petras on Perry Anderson on antiwar movement 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*****   Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:45:20 -0500
From: Alan Wald <awald at umich.edu>
Subject: Death of Herbert Apthecker
Sender: owner-mlg-ics at lists.andrew.cmu.edu
To: mlg <mlg-ics+ at andrew.cmu.edu>

Dear Friends,

Wanted to let you know that Herbert Aptheker passed away this 
morning, surrounded by family and friends; he would have celebrated 
his 88th birthday this summer.

Herbert's health had been fragile for some time--especially for the 
last couple of years--and he'd been in and out of the hospital a 
number of times since last August, with a series of incidents (from 
falls, to a minor heart attack and, more recently, some minor 
strokes).  Last week, as he seemed again to weaken dramatically, 
Herbert and the family decided to forego any further medical 
interventions, and to focus on making Herbert as comfortable as 
possible.

He was at many points remarkably lucid these last few days, 
periodically speaking of--and with pleasure listening to conversation 
about--some of the matters closest to his heart, including 
African-American history, politics, and culture; hopes and chances 
for peace; and Major League Baseball.

When plans are made for a memorial service in the Bay Area, I'll 
forward that information to you.

Always,

Rob

-- 

Alan Wald, Director, Program in American Culture, University of Michigan.
Mailing address: 3700 Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, Mi.  48109-1045.
Office address: Room 3703 Haven Hall.
Office phone: 734-763-1460.
Home phone: 734-995-1499.
e-mail: awald at umich.edu
Faxes can be received at AC office: 734-936-1967   *****



________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: URGENT: Keep the Inspectors in Iraq 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Petras on Perry Anderson on antiwar movement 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Marxism-Thaxis mailing list

Marxism-Thaxis] Herbert Aptheker, 87, Prolific Marxist Historian, Is Dead (NY Times)
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com 
Thu Mar 20 06:51:00 MST 2003 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Petras on Perry Anderson on antiwar movement 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Russian view of the war 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herbert Aptheker, 87, Prolific Marxist Historian, Is Dead

March 20, 2003
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT 

Herbert Aptheker, the prolific Marxist historian best known
for his three-volume "Documentary History of the Negro
People in the United States" and for editing the
correspondence and writing of his mentor, W. E. B. DuBois,
died on Monday in Mountain View, Calif. He was 87. 

Along with his work on black history and his outspoken
defense of civil rights, he was known as a dominant voice
on the American left in the 1950's and 60's and as one of
the first scholars to denounce American military
involvement in Vietnam. His political views, and
particularly a fact-finding trip to Hanoi and Beijing in
1966, resulted in threats by Washington to revoke his
passport, a move that provoked a high-profile debate about
the legality of State Department travel restrictions. 

In another public feud, Mr. Aptheker took on the author
William Styron, after the publication of his best-selling
1967 novel "The Confessions of Nat Turner," a re-creation
of the 1831 Virginia slave insurrection. Mr. Aptheker, as
well as some black writers and historians, accused Mr.
Styron of distorting the record and promoting racial
stereotypes. Mr. Styron, who called his book a "meditation
on history," hotly rejected Mr. Aptheker's view, saying it
was tainted by politics. 

Although he wrote, taught and lectured widely on his
political views, his only major attempt at elective office
was an unsuccessful campaign for the House of
Representatives from Brooklyn in 1966 on the Peace and
Freedom ticket. 

Among his lasting contributions was the editing of the
DuBois letters. Writing in The New York Times Sunday Book
Review, the historian Eric Foner called "The Correspondence
of W. E. B. DuBois" (Massachusetts, 1973-1978) "a landmark
in Afro-American history." Yet when DuBois appointed Mr.
Aptheker (pronounced AP-tek-er) his literary executor in
1946 and subsequently turned over to him his vast
correspondence shortly before his death in 1963, the move
was vocally criticized in the black intellectual community.


Some felt that as a white man Mr. Aptheker could not truly
identify with the black American experience. Others thought
that for DuBois to have chosen an avowed Marxist to edit
his papers was to make him vulnerable to the accusation,
often voiced in the McCarthy era, that he himself was
opposed to the American way of life. 

Yet Mr. Aptheker's editing was greeted with wide praise.
Reviewers said that his own extensive writing on
African-American history had clearly prepared him for the
task. Jay Saunders Redding, the black author and teacher,
wrote in Phylon, a journal founded by DuBois, that "what
gives a special importance to the letters it contains is
the light they shed on the why and how of this history and
on the men and women who made it." 

Herbert Aptheker was born on July 31, 1915, in Brooklyn,
the youngest of five children of Benjamin Aptheker, a
successful manufacturer of women's underwear, and Rebecca
Komar Aptheker. He graduated from Columbia University in
1936, completed a master's degree there in 1937 and a
doctorate in history in 1943. His dissertation was
published under the title "Black Slave Revolts" (Columbia,
1942). 

In September 1939, just after he began working toward his
doctorate, he joined the Communist Party, because, he said,
he saw it as an anti-fascist force and a progressive voice
for race relations. He was a hostile witness before the
House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1951, and
throughout the 1950's he remained on the defensive for his
radical views, experiencing violent threats and close
federal surveillance. 

In 1942, he married Fay Philippa Aptheker, his first
cousin. She died in 1999. They had one child, a daughter,
Bettina, a leader of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement who
is a professor and the chairwoman of Women's Studies at the
University of California at Santa Cruz. He is also survived
by two grandchildren. 

>From 1942 until 1946, Mr. Aptheker served in the Army,
seeing action as an artillery officer in Europe and rising
to the rank of major. 

His first published work was a pamphlet, "The Negro in the
Civil War" (1938), later compiled with other pamphlets
under the title "To Be Free: Studies in American Negro
History" (International Publishers, 1948). After the
publication of his dissertation in 1942, he produced books
almost yearly. Among his more notable works, in addition to
his "Documentary History" (Citadel, 1951-1975) were his
multivolume "History of the American People"
(International, 1959-1976) and "Anti-Racism in U.S.
History" (Greenwood, 1992). In "Anti-Racism," he traced the
thread of opposition to black racism that he saw running
throughout American history. 

After he returned to New York after World War II, he
applied for a teaching position at Columbia and was advised
that because of his politics he would never be hired. In
fact he was excluded from academic life until 1969, when
student demands for a course on black history led to an
invitation to teach at Bryn Mawr College, where he remained
until 1973. 

Yet throughout his long career he lectured informally on
black history. He was also DuBois lecturer at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst from 1971 to 1972,
as a professor at Hostos Community College of the City
University of New York from 1971 to 1977 and as a visiting
lecturer at Yale, the University of California at Berkeley
Law School and Humboldt University in Berlin. 

He was an associate editor at Masses and Mainstream from
1948 to 1953 and an editor at Political Affairs from 1953
to 1963. In 1964, he founded the American Institute of
Marxist Studies in New York. 

Mr. Aptheker's trip to Hanoi and Beijing in January 1966
stirred a whirlwind of debate over Washington's travel
restrictions to certain countries. Mr. Aptheker made the
trip with Staughton Lynd, then a history professor at Yale,
and Tom Hayden, a founder of Students for a Democratic
Society. 

The widely publicized visit was billed as a mission to
sound out the government of North Vietnam about the
possibility of a negotiated end to the Vietnam War. Federal
law on the broadly drawn State Department rules was
unsettled. In one case that seemed to put Mr. Aptheker in
the clear, the Supreme Court had held unconstitutionally
broad a regulation that barred all Communists from
traveling in all countries where passports are required. 

But when the three men returned, the State Department,
which viewed their trip as meddlesome, took steps to
restrict their travel, though it eventually backed down. 

To the end of his life, Mr. Aptheker saw his friendship
with DuBois as formative. He recalled how in the late 40's
they shared an office on 40th Street in Manhattan when
DuBois was director of publicity and research for the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
One day, Mr. Aptheker recalled, DuBois "said to me,
`Herbert, any time you have a problem, don't hesitate, just
ask me." This meant, he said, having access to one of
America's most dynamic minds. "Imagine what that meant to
me. I had it right here, and I had the New York Public
Library across the street."

www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/obituaries/20APTH.html?ex=1049167496&ei=1&en=d 
430622666ad78d9

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Petras on Perry Anderson on antiwar movement 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Russian view of the war 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Marxism-Thaxis mailing list




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Jan 10 11:59:22 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:59:22 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] [A-List] Albert Einstein,
	Paul Robeson and Israel
Message-ID: <20090110.135923.3512.1.farmelantj@juno.com>


On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:35:45 -0500 "Paul Wright"
<pwright at prisonlegalnews.org> writes:
> This is hardly new or unexpected. Vladimir jabotinsky was one of the 
> leading
> Zionists of the 1930s and no crime was too vile (including 
> collaboration
> with the Nazis) if it meant a Zionist homeland. 

Actually, Jabotinsky never advocated collaboration
with Nazi Germany, although he was more than
willing to accept assistance from Mussolini, who
for a time provided a naval college in Italy where
the Betar could do their training.

With the outbreak of the Second World War,
Jabotinsky called upon the Zionists to support
the Allies, including Great Britain.  During the
war, however, the Revisionist Zionists underwent
a split, with the LEHI, founded by Avraham Stern
and Yitzhak Shamir, opposing support for the
Allies on the grounds that Great Britain was
the greatest obstacle to independence for
a Jewish state in Palestine. And they indeed,
attempted to negotiate an arrangment with
the Third Reich.

> And lets not forget 
> the
> zionist congress that approved Uganda as the Jewish homeland, Herzl 
> had to
> fight that one back on his own. When god is your real estate agent 
> you need
> to nail down the particulars.
> 
> But other Zionists, like Ben Gurion were socialists. An Israeli 
> friend of
> mine has Ben Gurion's may day messages to Stalin framed on his 
> office wall.

Back during the 1920s and 1930s, Ben-Gurion would
often preface his speeches with references to Comrade Lenin
and Comrade Stalin.  Later on, he and the other Labor Zionists
looked mainly towards Great Britain for support for the creation
of a Jewish state.

> It was soviet guns and support that made Israel a reality. 

Mostly, indirectly via Czechoslovakia.  The Soviet Union,
however, did much to make the creation of Israel possible.
They had backed the 1947 plan for the partition of Palestine.
They early on recognized the new state when it was created
in 1948.  Stalin, I believe, did allow a limited number of
Jewish veterans from the Red Army to come to Israel to
assist the IDF.

> There is 
> a broad
> ideological range within Zionism. But that is common (i.e., the 
> Irish
> liberation movement has everything from M-Ls to right wing 
> Catholics). I
> find it interesting that Israel has gone through 3 patrons to date 
> (USSR,
> France and now the US) which would seem to prove Benjamin Disraeli's 
> axiom
> that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. The 
> strategic
> vision and determination of Zionist leaders over the past 100 years 
> has
> certainly been impressive as they seized every historic opportunity 
> to make
> Israel a reality. Getting the Palestinians to pay for atrocities 
> committed
> by the Germans is simply brilliant.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Wright, Editor
> Prison Legal News
> P.O. Box 2420
> West Brattleboro, VT 05303
> 802-257-1342
> pwright at prisonlegalnews.org
> www.prisonlegalnews.org
>  
> Seattle Office:
> 2400 NW 80th St. # 148
> Seattle, WA 98117
> 206-246-1022
____________________________________________________________
Click for free information on obtaining a second mortgage.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2QcDWcvVR0Aj9ACcAzd6XeEh1FjhdqNvqASoM6HN0CeXIpL/


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan 10 12:23:41 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:23:41 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Communism and Welfare: expand Welfare
Message-ID: <d36.3958cd0d.369a4fbd@aol.com>

The word communism scared me at first, but not for a very long time. What  
attracted me to the communists and Marxists, a distinction I would learn of much 
 later, was the real people behind the label. The continuing attraction is 
that  Marxist makes more sense than others in grappling with and trying to make 
sense  of a world, that often seems to make no sense. 
 
Let's back up a minute, because a very real ideological struggle has to  take 
place within our working class. Most of us are old enough to remember that  
women, often had to struggle and fight with men on the jobs and in real life, 
on  behalf of themselves. At another point in history the black workers had to 
spend  99% of their time fighting with white workers over material 
discrimination. The  social process is often unpleasant. 
 
Anti-communism is no longer hinged on the color factor - white chauvinism,  
just raw national chauvinism, with its anti-immigrant rhetoric. And 
anti-welfare  sentiment. There is also the class component to modern anti-communism with 
its  underlying hate of poor whites - "trailer trash." 
 
Our bourgeoisie has always skillfully utilized the energy of communists and  
the Marxist currents as a whole, because their ranks are composed of 
hardworking  individuals striving for organization of meaningful change. This gives us  
breathing space and opportunity to be effective. A huge section of American  
society is in motion and open to new ideas and new articulation of old ideas. 
We  have to struggle with our class over new ideas and there is no getting 
around  this. Victory of the workers is not inevitable and can result in the 
mutual  destruction of contending classes. However, history suggests victory of 
the  rising class personifying new changes in the productive forces. 
 
Today, it seems the individual is able to openly speak more and more about  
communism or the collective reorganization of society by real human beings. Its 
 pretty hard not to listen when one is losing their shirt. I am one that uses 
the  word communism but one is not obligated to use any specific word. In the 
case of  expansion of the welfare system, things only get worse from now on 
and recovery  of the economy is impossible without reorganization of society 
and defeating  bourgeois property. Recovery of profits can take place and will 
take place. 
 
Clinton buried the welfare debate and cast more folks into poverty than all  
his Republican predecessors. NAFTA and welfare reform lowered the bottom to  
which the entire working class could be pushed down. Without defense of the  
bottom - being my brothers keeper, the working class sinks lower and lower. 
 
In my mind capital has hit a historical wall and a repeat of WW II is not  
probable. WW II meant the destruction of 60 million and Europe laying in  
rumbles. Further, WW II completed the destruction of political feudalism, a long  
drawn out process whose ending was bound up with the first imperialist war. The  
bourgeoisie has tactical outlets - like attempting to rebuild continental  
Africa's entire infrastructure, but no strategic outlets. An increasing large  
sector of American society is never going to find employment of a degree to 
keep  it above water. Our working class is basically literate, unlike the Russian 
 peasants of the days of Lenin. Millions have run into communists ideas on 
the  Internet. We have yet to create a coherent vision of the word of tomorrow 
and do  not yet know our own historical forms of struggle - in birth. . 
 
I simply see no strategic way out for capital at this specific stage of  
history.This does not make it so, but I see no way out. 
 
WL 
 
 
 

In a message dated 1/10/2009 2:46:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_jannuzi at gmail.com_ (mailto:jannuzi at gmail.com)  writes:
 
I think those two words 'communism' and 'welfare' will scare some people  
away. However, I think if Americans could see how much freer they would be if  
they had guaranteed access to health care, retirement and income (such as a  
guaranteed income when unemployed, a living minimum wage etc.), they would  
embrace any party and politicians who wanted to work to get these. However, the  
idiotic popular culture, issues and lifestyle politics (as taken up by the  
two-party political monopoly), and militaristic nationalism are used very  
effectively to distract the majority working class from what the potential is.  Add a 
non-parliamentary strong executive government system with a very big-money  
two party monopoly (addicted to militarism) on politics, and you see a mission  
that seems impossible. 
 
CJ
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan 10 21:14:42 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:14:42 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Workers gain as Havana rethinks its ideological
	focus
Message-ID: <c4a.4452d2ca.369acc32@aol.com>

FINANCIAL TIMES Workers gain as Havana rethinks its ideological focus 
 
By Marc Frank 
 
Published: January 9 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 9 2009 02:00 
 
Cuba is putting less emphasis on social spending and more on rewarding  
individual workers and cutting gratuities as it moves away from decades-old  
policies aimed at undermining individualism and promoting collectivism, even as  it 
marks the 50th anniversary of the revolution. 
 
In a series of speeches and interviews dedicated to the anniversary on  
January 
1, Raul Castro, the president, hammered away at the theme that  workers did 
not appreciate gratuities and should, therefore, receive higher  wages instead. 
Exceptions included free health, education and subsidised  culture. 
 
"It is well known that the vast majority of people do not appreciate a  
gratuity or generally high subsidies of goods and services as part of the return  
for their labour, for which they look only at wages," he told parliament in 
late  December. 
 
Mr Castro announced that subsidised holidays at tourism resorts were being  
abolished, along with 50 per cent of government travel abroad and other unnamed 
 gratuities. 
 
Transport and utilities in Cuba are heavily subsidised, as are many  
workplace rewards, even though money sent home by relatives abroad has long  since 
undermined income equality. 
 
Cuba reports yearly per capita income, including gratuities and subsidies,  
as $6,000 (???4,3800, ??4,000), although the average yearly wage is the  
equivalent of just $240 at the official exchange rate. 
 
An estimated 40 per cent of the population receives some money from abroad  
and 
15 per cent of workers earn hard currency on their jobs. 
 
Mr Castro has already lifted caps on wages and on what farmers may earn as  
the country struggles with mounting deficits, low productivity and the need to  
import some 70 per cent of the food it consumes. 
 
He has also decentralised agriculture, leased vacant land to those  
interested in tilling it, announced he will reorganise and downsize government  and 
freed up sales of computers, mobile phones and other consumer goods since  taking 
over from his ailing brother, Fidel, last February. 
 
In an interview carried by the official media to mark the anniversary of  the 
revolution, Mr Castro said that wages should reflect the real value of one's  
work and those who did not work should feel economic pressure to do so. 
 
"If we do not take measures . . . we will not get out of the hole we are  in, 
and we are going to get out of it," the president said, without elaborating. 
 
Many Cubans applaud the new policy, though they worry that wages will not  
rise as quickly as gratuities disappear. 
 
"Why, after working 24 years, is my ration the same as people who have  never 
worked?" said Nancy Artigas, a resident of Havana. 
 
"What's more, their rights and benefits are the same as mine. That doesn't  
seem fair, nor is it a way to get people to work." 
 
Cuba's trade and budget deficits soared and its current account balance  
deteriorated in 2008, despite a 4.3 per cent increase in gross domestic product. 
 
The figures cast a cloud over the anniversary celebrations that wound up  
yesterday. 
 
The communist nation reported a foreign debt of $17.8bn in 2007. The US  
Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean said this grew by $1bn  
last year. 
 
Over the last few years Havana has helped pay for its trade deficit through  
revenue from tourism and service exports - mainly for health and education to  
oil-rich Venezuela. 
 
However, its regional ally is facing a dramatic drop in oil earnings. 
 
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009 
 
=========================================
WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba  Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews 
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/)   "Cuba - Un 
Para?so bajo el bloqueo"  
=========================================
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Jan 10 21:51:54 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:51:54 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Workers gain as Havana rethinks its
	ideological focus
Message-ID: <c6f.30271a82.369ad4ea@aol.com>

Cuba is a poor country. America is not. 
 
Modern communism - economic communism, does not seek to make members of our  
society the same, but rather establishes an economic bottom by which no  
individual can fall, due to actions outside the control of the individual. Wages  
in all probability will vary in a communist  America. 
 
However, no amount of money will allow the individual to convert their  
wealth into ownership of primary means of production. I personally advocate the  
ability and right of an individual to open say a pizza parlor or night club. I  
do not advocate individual ownership of food supplies, distribution routes,  
educational institutions, mass transit systems, Internet search engines,  
hospitals or hospital supplies, etc.. I do not oppose individual ownership of  
houses, with strict limitations that prevent speculation. 
 
Various doctrines of egalitarianism, under the banner of communism (moral  
vs. material incentives) seems to have more in common with Catholicism and  
doctrines concerning the love of the flesh, rather than a vision of economic  
communism. Given that the communist idea expressed as governments and  states took 
root in the less developed countries, doctrines of egalitarianism  are 
perhaps justifiable.  
 
The economic problems in Cuba have their roots in America as an imperialist  
power. Cuba cannot leap to economic communism on the basis of itself. Cuba is  
suck for the foreseeable future in the value relations. The class struggle 
did  in fact intensify under socialism. 
 
WL
 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 09:37:10 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:37:10 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thread on Dialectics of Nature
Message-ID: <4969D9E5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

[Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thread: Dialectics of Nature 
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Fri Feb 18 16:09:36 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sickle Cell 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thread: Dialectics of Nature 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dialectics of Nature 

ROSSERJB at jmu.edu ROSSERJB at jmu.edu <mailto:ROSSERJB%40jmu.edu> Fri, 14 Jun
1996 05:10:59 -0500 (EST) 

*	Previous message: Labor Party platform
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/001068.html> 
*	Next message: Dialectics of Nature
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/001067.html> 
*	Messages sorted by: [ date ]
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/date.html#106 
6>  [ thread ]
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/thread.html#1 
066>  [ subject ]
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/subject.html# 
1066>  [ author ]
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1996-June/author.html#1 
066>  

________________________________

To Lisa:
     Of course much of the physics in DN is antique.  Hey, the book was
written in the nineteenth century!
     Note that many of his examples date from earlier and are actually
directly taken from Hegel himself.
Barkley Rosser


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



Dialectics of Nature
Chris M. Sciabarra sciabrrc at is2.NYU.EDU Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:46:51 -0400
(EDT) 

Previous message: Dialectics of Nature
Next message: Dialectics of Nature
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 ROSSERJB at jmu.edu wrote:
> To Lisa:
>      Of course much of the physics in DN is antique.  Hey, the book 
> was written in the nineteenth century!
>      Note that many of his examples date from earlier and are actually 
> directly taken from Hegel himself.
> Barkley Rosser
Barkley is right of course... actually, Hegel's PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE (all 3
vols.) is filled with such musings, and Hegel himself, takes much
>from Aristotle's organicist analogies.  
- Chris
==================================================
Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra, Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc at is2.nyu.edu
http://pages.nyu.edu/~sciabrrc 
==================================================

Dialectics of Nature
Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.apc.org
Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:34:44 -0700 (PDT) 

Previous message: Dialectics of Nature
Next message: Labor Party platform
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

However amateurish Engels's unpublished writings on the natural sciences may
have been, he doesn't deserve to be equated with pomo analogical word magic.
That is insulting and I won't stand for it.  At the time when DIALECTICS OF
NATURE was published, people were still struggling, especially in the
English-speaking world, to figure out what dialectics really meant, in the
absence of a tradition and with only the Russians to follow.  I would
suggest that you look for a good historical article that explains what
Engels was trying to do in the context of his time, and also remember that
Engels wasn't the one who made his exploratory work into a finished,
dogmatic philosophy.  Remember too that it is not only Western Marxism that
challenged Engels: Lenin criticized Engels's examples of dialectics in
nature, so it was not he who froze Engels in stone either.  To be
scandalized that others worshipped at the throne of Engels disregarding his
imperfections is one thing, but to be scandalized at Engels himself is to
read him through the lenses of Stalinism and thereby to compound the
problem.

I do not have the time to explore this matter, or to respond to DIALECTICS
OF NATURE specifically, but I would at least like to raise some issues that
might make the context more understandable.
I'm basing these remarks on general considerations, not on a reading of this
text in particular.

These are some of the battles that needed to be fought at the
time:

1.  The battle against naive empiricism and mechanical materialism and a
disconnected, atomistic view of reality.

2.  The need for a unified, coherent world-picture, that would connect all
phenomena, which was already under way within physics itself in the
understanding of thermodynamics, motion, electromagnetism in their various
manifestations.

3.  The need to show that the universe undergoes development, qualitative
change, that it is not static and eternally fixeed in the state in which it
is now found.

4.  The need for a non-reductive materialism that recognized qualitative
differences within in the material universe and a stratified conception of
the organization of matter, not merely unity of the universe, which itself
had been rendered in a mystical holist or reductive fashion, but also
qualitative difference, so that the natural sciences -- physics interpreted
in a purely quantitative manner -- could not be misused to explain social
processes.  Before ideas of emergent evolution, emergent properties, general
systems, the theory of integrative levels, and related notions gained
currency, there was Engels.

A final note: to approach the world in a piecemeal fashion is always to fill
in the inevitable gaps with ideology.  Engels too was aware of this and knew
what blockheads petty bourgeois minds were outside of their narrow
specialties.  Only the working class movement sought to create a unified yet
non-mystical world-picture, neither mechanical materialist (i.e. reducing
our scientific ambition to mere measurement), nor holist nor
lebensphilosophie.  Self-educated workers kept their Dietzgen in their
living rooms in place of the Bible.  The significance of dialectical
materialism lies in the general world-picture of the universe organized on
several qualitative levels, from the physical to the chemical to the organic
to the social, and not in spurious examples of dialectical processes in
nature.


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


Dialectics of Nature
lisa rogers lrogers at burgoyne.com
Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:50:24 +0000 

Previous message: Dialectics of Nature
Next message: Labor Party platform
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Adam: 
> The Dialectics of Nature isn't a book or a pamphlet, but a series of 
> strung together notes, sometimes properly worked small essays, 
> sometimes just jottings in margins.

Lisa:  I know that.

Adam:
> And I don't see that you can critisize Engel's for only knowing the 
> physics of his time.

Lisa: I'm not.
 
[Adam remembers]... a longish article about
> how scientists who start off as materialists end up as mystics, 
> because>
without dialectics they are unable to see their particular 
specialism> as part of a whole. A contribution to the sociology of
science ?

Lisa:  Good point, regarding the connections of everything in general.  
I'm just not sure that the word "dialectics" is required to discuss 
this or point it out.  I think that Engels was observing the state of 
science at the time, and could see these things happening.  Physicists 
were figuring out that various forms of energy were not immutably 
separate different things, but were able to be converted into other 
forms of energy, into each other, but not because Engels told them so.  

Part of what DN seems to do is to look at the fascinating developments 
in physics, an on-going, un-finished revolution in the understanding of 
matter, energy, motion, the scales of things from planetary motion, to 
earthly mechanics, the molecular motion of heat, to chemical reactions 
between atoms - Engels looked at this work in progress and said 'Wow, 
that's an example of dialectics!'

One of my questions was 'what's the point of calling it that?'  Ralph's 
post gave me some ideas, which I'll get to later.

I wonder if comparisons of Kant and Helmholtz and such were common at 
the time - should that be called philosophy of science?  I don't see 
what it adds to science, in terms of furthering the solving of the 
puzzles of physics.  It _looks_ like a spurious parallel to me, but I'd 
welcome any attempt to explain why it is not.

Adam: 
> In general though, Lisa, you say you are a Marxist, or that you see
Marxist> thought as a useful set of ideas to work within. Well . . . I 
haven't seen> any evidence at all of this, ever.

Lisa:  I'm not very concerned with meeting your standards in this area, 
whatever they are.  I intend to remain thoroughly hard-headed and to 
require some logical persuasion before pouncing upon "quantity into 
quality" or anything else as some kind of generally useful idea, or core 
principle of marxism.  Calling me "not a marxist" is not helpful.  

Engel's DN uses the evaporation of water as an example of "quantity into 
quality" [which you cite] - this does not establish Q/Q as a generally 
useful principle in my mind.


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


Dialectics of Nature 
Adam Rose adam at pmel.com 
Mon, 17 Jun 96 10:26:04 GMT 

Previous message: ..cat 
Next message: Dialectics of Nature 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Lisa writes:
> 
> One of my questions was 'what's the point of calling it that?'  Ralph's 
> post gave me some ideas, which I'll get to later.
> 
> I wonder if comparisons of Kant and Helmholtz and such were common at 
> the time - should that be called philosophy of science?  I don't see 
> what it adds to science, in terms of furthering the solving of the 
> puzzles of physics.  It _looks_ like a spurious parallel to me, but I'd 
> welcome any attempt to explain why it is not.
> 

Well, I think that any one particular analysis from a dialectical
materialist
point of view could be arrived at without that formal framework. A framework
which is useful, however, guides and helps organise investigation. I think
that dialectical materialism is such a useful framework for both social and
natural phenomena. I think the reason it is a useful framework is that
reality
really is, firstly material, and secondly a dynamic, changing whole made
up of many interacting parts. Many scientists, trapped within a more
classical
approach, seem surprised each time they rediscover this. Dialectical
materialism
would lead us to expect it.




> Adam: 
> > In general though, Lisa, you say you are a Marxist, or that you see
Marxist> thought as a useful set of ideas to work within. Well . . . I 
> haven't seen> any evidence at all of this, ever.
> 
> 
> Lisa:
> Engel's DN uses the evaporation of water as an example of "quantity into 
> quality" [which you cite] - this does not establish Q/Q as a generally 
> useful principle in my mind.
> 

Of course that example wouldn't convince you of it in general. It's just one
aspect of a general phenomenon. Surely evolution in general would supply
countless
examples.

> Lisa:  I'm not very concerned with meeting your standards in this area, 
> whatever they are.  I intend to remain thoroughly hard-headed and to 
> require some logical persuasion before pouncing upon "quantity into 
> quality" or anything else as some kind of generally useful idea, or core 
> principle of marxism.  Calling me "not a marxist" is not helpful

I didn't mean it as abuse. Some of my best friends are non Marxist radicals
!

It's just that I think you can approach any of the Marxist classics,
especially
those which rely on specialist knowledge which has become outdated, as
something
you can learn from, or something you can just slag off. So, you can ask,
what is 
Engels trying to say here about the transformation of quantity into quality
? Or,
you can just dismiss it, saying "I can understand water boiling without
dialectics,
so what's the point ?"

And, I don't think it's such an outrageous thing to ask, "What do you mean
by
Marxism ? Do you consider yourself to be a Marxist, in the sense you choose
to define it ?"

Do you ?

I actually asked this question in order to establish some shared point of
reference,
which up till now any conversation between us lacked. It's a simple
statement of fact :
so far, nothing you have said about anything has shown any point of contact
between
Marxism and your ideas. [ Of course, this in itself does not invalidate any
single one
of them ]. Do you not think this observation is true ?

Adam.

Dialectics of Nature 
lisa rogers lrogers at burgoyne.com 
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:03:59 +0000 

Previous message: Dialectics of Nature 
Next message: Sri Lanka: Police raids NSSP headquarters 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Well, Adam, I thought I _was_ asking just what it is that I can get from 
DN.  I'm asking you what is Engels saying about Q/Q and what is it based 
on?  No, I cannot produce examples from evolution, because I don't think 
that way.  But no matter how many "examples" one lists, that would not 
constitute a demonstration of its general usefulness or validity, or 
show how it is a better way to understand what is going on than some 
other way of thinking.  Examples alone do not explain things.

When I ask "so what?" that is not just to "dismiss it", I really want to 
know.

Adam wrote:  A framework
> which is useful, however, guides and helps organise investigation. I
think> that dialectical materialism is such a useful framework for both 
social and> natural phenomena. I think the reason it is a useful 
framework is that reality> really is, firstly material, and secondly a 
dynamic, changing whole made> up of many interacting parts. Many 
scientists, trapped within a more classical> approach, seem surprised 
each time they rediscover this. Dialectical materialism> would lead us 
to expect it.

Lisa:  How does dialectics "organise investigation" ?  I am familiar 
with something called a "research strategy", (I think Marvin Harris 
[cultural materialist anthropologist] does a pretty good job of 
explaining what that is and comparing several different strategies 
within anthropology.)  If DMat is a useful method of thinking and 
learning stuff in physics and biology, this scientist wants to know!

Also, where does this view of "classical" science come from?  I don't 
recognize it from actually growing up with it, studying science since I 
was about 12.  Many scientists?  Which ones?  Of course nature is 
material, dynamic and interconnected.  What is more to the point of 
trying to appreciate DN is the question of what "classical" science and 
its method were at the time that Engels wrote, in the 1870's.  According 
to his own account, physicists of that time were finding 
interconnectedness and such, but not by a priori philosophy, by hard 
work.  They figured out and _demonstrated_ by the methods of whatever 
"classical" science they had at the time, that mechanical [kinetic] 
energy could be converted into electricity, then into heat, etc.  That 
they had been previously wrong and were making advances in understanding 
is a standard example of the progress of normal science, isn't it?  [Not 
that I believe any pure myths of pure science or anything silly like 
that, but I'm asking, _how_ would dialectics have helped the development 
of physics, as Engels at least hints that it would?] 

I appreciate your story of the Green critique of science, but I think it 
gets even worse.  Not only did Engels and others make the same 
"critique" over a hundred years ago, not only has science possibly 
changed, it is also a diverse collection of methods and such, and I'm 
not sure that the earlier critique of science was entirely on the mark 
in the first place!   

Lisa earlier wrote:
> > Engel's DN uses the evaporation of water as an example of "quantity
into> > quality" [which you cite] - this does not establish Q/Q as a 
generally> > useful principle in my mind.
Adam replied: 
> Of course that example wouldn't convince you of it in general. It's just
one> aspect of a general phenomenon. Surely evolution in general 
would supply countless> examples.

Adam also wrote: 
> It's just that I think you can approach any of the Marxist classics,
especially> those which rely on specialist knowledge which has become 
outdated, as something> you can learn from, or something you can just 
slag off. So, you can ask, what is> Engels trying to say here about the 
transformation of quantity into quality ? Or,> you can just dismiss it, 
saying "I can understand water boiling without dialectics,> so what's 
the point ?"

Adam: 
"What do you mean by> Marxism ? Do you consider yourself to be a 
Marxist, in the sense you choose> to define it ?"
... 
> so far, nothing you have said about anything has shown any point of
contact between> Marxism and your ideas. [ Of course, this in itself 
does not invalidate any single one> of them ]. Do you not think this 
observation is true ?

Lisa:  I don't know.  I suppose that your "observation" is based upon 
your own definition, but I'm more interested in discussing Engels, 
science and dialectics than definitions of marxism right now, or 
definitions of me or you. 


Finally, Engels, recommending a method of investigative, scientific 
thought:

In order to understand the separate phenomena, we have to tear them out 
of the general inter-connection and consider them in isolation, and 
there the changing motions appear, one as cause and the other as effect.

_Dialectics of Nature_ Internat. Pub. 1940 page 174 [from notes for DN]


Best wishes,
Lisa



Dialectics of Nature 
Rahul Mahajan rahul at peaches.ph.utexas.edu 
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:05:18 -0500 

Previous message: science, paradigm 
Next message: ..cat 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Lisa:

Finally, Engels, recommending a method of investigative, scientific
thought:

In order to understand the separate phenomena, we have to tear them out
of the general inter-connection and consider them in isolation, and
there the changing motions appear, one as cause and the other as effect.

_Dialectics of Nature_ Internat. Pub. 1940 page 174 [from notes for DN]

Rahul: This is about on the level of a small boy coming up to Einstein
after he's published the general theory of relativity and saying, "Think
really hard about apples." Well, duh. What do scientists do? They use this
method, and any other that works, to arrive at an understanding of the
phenomena they're investigating. They may do it well or badly, but this
doesn't mean that throwing a few vague words like crumbs to them is
suddenly going to revolutionize scientific thought.

Funny. What Engels recommends is the kind of mode that supposedly works
extremely well for physics, but not for other things. Many people call it
"reductionism" and say it's horribly "undialectical." Not only does it
often work well, you can, if you do it right, even get around what would
seem to be its inherent limitation, that the identities of the objects of
study change when you "tear them out of the general interconnection."

Rahul


ENGELS & DIALECTICS 
Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.apc.org 
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:04:48 -0700 (PDT) 

Previous message: ..cat 
Next message: delinquency gene? (fwd) 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

I'm going to make a few brief remarks which may help divert this
discussion from blind allies:

1.  I don't believe Engels was providing advice to scientists on
how to do better science, i.e. in whatever particular specialty
they happened to find themselves.  One: I think he was combatting
the limitations of the simple-minded empiricism that flooded the
cultural environment at that time, which was entirely consonant
with spiritualism as it was with the billiard-ball conception of
the cosmos.  Two: Engels was concerned with what happens when
scientists jump out of their narrow specialties and try to make
more general pronouncements about the universe, physical, and
especially social, especially when they use a faulty
interpretation of their own methods to justify the distortion of
social reality.  Tell me Lisa, how many sociobiologists have the
slightest understanding of cultural and social phenomena in
complex societies like ours?  Do you think religion can be
explained as a computer virus of the brain?

2.  There is a philosopher of science, Gerald Holton, who has
written at least one book on the role of themata in science.  I
don't recall him ever mentioning a dialectical thema, but I do
remember reading a few of his articles long long ago.  Themata are
guiding general principles by which one approaches phenomena.
With respect to physics, Holton cites two contrasting styles of
contemporary physicists, one who is interested in the fundamental
building blocks, presumably the search for fundamental particles,
and another, who prefers the study of relationships rather than
building blocks.  I wish I could remember more.

There are many scientists, both in the physical and social
sciences, who have claimed that dialectical thinking helped to
organize their thinking on some problem.  Many of them were Soviet
scientists, and from what I read, I have no reason to think they
were just making it up to please the party bosses.  As for the
sciences that involve humans and society, I think the case is
pretty obvious.  Can anyone deny that Vygotsky's psychology as
opposed to Piaget's involves a certain way of looking at things,
and that the dialectical view is relevant?  How about Marxist
criticisms of Freud?  It is precisely where dealing with complex
systems that involve the sorting out or interpenetration of
various categories where the simple-minded and naive thinking of
petty bourgeois ideologues with their graphs and charts falls
apart.

One final note: it has been known at least since Kant that it is
impossible to deduce specific empirical matters of fact from
general philosophical categories.  Therefore, the only relevance
dialectical thinking could have to the sciences is a way of
organizing one's general approach to one's subject matter, as with
themata.

3.  The notion of dialectics dos not just involve universal
interconnection, or the interaction of opposing forces or
disequilibria.  There is something more: contradiction and the
interpenetration of opposites, to use the terminology that is
usually employed.  I'd rather put it another way.  To me these
notions apply when one has to use two complementary but opposing
categories, categories which cannot exist one without the other
but have contrasting and incompatible meanings, such as chance and
necessity, or free will and determinism.

The second salient feature of dialectical thinking is to take
apart an indivisible phenomenon and see distinct forces operating
within it, though inextricably tied together. It is the art of
taking apart some phenomenon which cannot be separated into
distinct objects and putting it back together conceptually,
recognizing distinctions and interpenetration of different forces
within the indissoluble object of investigation.  This obviously
applies to social phenomena.  Let's take the arguments over
science and its objectivity.  In society at one place and time,
the scientific enterprise may be driven by economics, empire,
personal ambition, in some of its manifestations embody various
biases or ideological constructions, may be symbolically tied to
other mythologies, etc.  Well, as a cultural system, you can't
take it apart and put one piece of a social enterprise over here,
another over there, and sort them out like pieces of a watch.  But
within one physically indissoluble phenomenon, you can distinguish
various forces operating, whether it be the forces and relations
of production, the objective vs. subjective factors, etc.
Dialectics is the art of analyzing and reconstructing the
concrete.  It can be done more or less spontaneously with simpler
objects of investigation, but on the level of social phenomena,
scientists only exhibit their philistinism and utter naivete if
they are not operating at least implicitly with some conception of
how to deal with the concrete totality.  I think Lenin does a
better job of explaining this than Engels, but in his better
moments Engels is aiming at this, too.

4.  Precisely when one deals with problems of sufficient
generality, questions of ontology and world view come into play,
and that is when naivete and ideology show up.  When Sir John
Eccles, not content with brain research, tried to tackle the
mind-body problem, he fell apart, not to mention the political
questionability of some of his associations.  I have personally
tangled with biologists who base their reactionary views of
society on inappropriate analogies with biological models.  And
physicists over a whole century have shown their intellectual
ineptitude when turning to philosophy.  And I lived through the
zen and motorcycle maintenance period, too.  Though I will defend
science against anti-science, please be advised that I do not
trust scientists, either.  If you don't want people taking
potshots at you, then be responsible, for you too will be held
accountable for your crimes.


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



Dialectics of Nature 
ROSSERJB at jmu.edu ROSSERJB at jmu.edu 
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:09:47 -0500 (EST) 

Previous message: reeducation of physicists 
Next message: Dialectics of Nature 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     Just to really muddy the waters, let me note that a
mathematical analogue for the dialectical transformation
of quantity into quality is the structural bifurcation in
catastrophe theory, a point made by Rene Thom, the main
developer of cat theory (actually it had been around earlier
under a different name in the form of work by Hassler Whitney
and Marston Morse).
     I have not yet read the infamous piece by Sokal in _Social
Text_, but in one of the discussions of it (a sneering column by
George Will) it was mentioned that in his conclusion Sokal went
on about dialectics and cat (not Schrodinger's (btw, to Jeff
Johnson: I started that thread)) theory.  I am now curious to
see what he said.  He may have been mocking, but he may also at
that point not have been utterly ridiculous.
     To Lisa and Adam:  Yeah, one can do physics without DM.  It just 
provides a broader framework that can put things together.  The
real problem arises, as I noted a long time ago to much moaning
on the old unbifurcated marxism list, when one gets a political
agenda for control of science going justified according to DM.
The canonical case was the Lysenko episode under Stalin and Khrushchev.
Barkley Rosser


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




Dialectics of Nature 
Adam Rose adam at pmel.com 
Tue, 18 Jun 96 17:31:20 GMT 

Previous message: Schrodinger's Cat 
Next message: Schrodinger's Cat 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> 
> Well, Adam, I thought I _was_ asking just what it is that I can get from 
> DN.  I'm asking you what is Engels saying about Q/Q and what is it based 
> on?  No, I cannot produce examples from evolution, because I don't think 
> that way.  But no matter how many "examples" one lists, that would not 
> constitute a demonstration of its general usefulness or validity, or 
> show how it is a better way to understand what is going on than some 
> other way of thinking.  Examples alone do not explain things.
> 
> When I ask "so what?" that is not just to "dismiss it", I really want to 
> know.
> 

When I think about the question "dialectical materialism : so what ?" , all
my
answers are basically political : dialectics helps us to understand the
Labo(u)r party, for instance. For me, it is interesting that there is
a dialectic in nature, but not actually that crucial, since if there
weren't, there would still be a dialectic in society, and between society
and nature, and the whole of Marxism would still stand. It's just a 
pleasant confirmation, as it probably was for Engels.

If I try to look at it from a scientists point of view, I can only really 
repeat what I've already said about a "classical" ( "Newtonian" ?
"Cartesian" ? ) point of view.
 
> Also, where does this view of "classical" science come from?  I don't 
> recognize it from actually growing up with it, studying science since I 
> was about 12.  Many scientists?  Which ones?  Of course nature is 
> material, dynamic and interconnected.

I don't believe that you don't know what I'm talking about. For instance,
the deep consternation that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle caused
amongst physicists. Or, the flurry of surprise around chaos theory
( even forgetting about the hype + bullshit which surrounded it ).
I think if you asked any scientist "Is nature material, dynamic and
interconnected"
they'd reply "of course it is" and then go back to using a paradigm which
does not
reflect those things.

> 
> 
> Finally, Engels, recommending a method of investigative, scientific 
> thought:
> 
> In order to understand the separate phenomena, we have to tear them out 
> of the general inter-connection and consider them in isolation, and 
> there the changing motions appear, one as cause and the other as effect.
> 
> _Dialectics of Nature_ Internat. Pub. 1940 page 174 [from notes for DN]
> 
> 

Sure - and I bet he goes on to say you've then got to reintegrate them,
and reconsider your fragmented findings in terms of their definite 
interrelationships.

And if he doesn't, this is Marx's method anyway.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK
Dialectics of Nature 
jajohnso at interserv.com jajohnso at interserv.com 
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:53:02 -0700 

Previous message: Dialectics of Nature 
Next message: Schrodinger's Cat 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Barkley:

"(not Schrodinger's (btw, to Jeff Johnson: I started that thread))"

Thanks, I think.  At this point, I think it should be banished permanently.
If 
I can secure Rahul's cooperation, I intend to make it so.

Yours &c.,

Jeff Johnson				  "Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato,
Graduate Student, Political Science		sed magis amica veritas."
University of Wisconsin--Madison	 	              --Aristotle



     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---






evolutionary dialectics (fwd) 
ROSSERJB at jmu.edu ROSSERJB at jmu.edu 
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:17:38 -0500 (EST) 

Previous message: this list 
Next message: Science and philosophy 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Lisa:
     The point is that while on the one hand there
really is not all that much difference in the hardware
between us and chimps, there is a lot of difference in
the software which may in turn be the result of a gradual
accumulation of changes in the mode of production (toolmaking,
organizing hunting and gathering leading to language and culture,
blah blah) to the point that we are now able to threaten the
very existence of life on earth while chimps are barely able
to threaten each other.
     Surely a quantitative change has become a qualitatie one
here.
Barkley Rosser

evolutionary dialectics (fwd) 
Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.apc.org 
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:20:22 -0700 (PDT) 

Previous message: Science and philosophy 
Next message: Thomas Kuhn 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

And who says there is no appreciable differnce in hardware?  Sure,
we can now teach chimps the rudiemtnes of linguistic symbolic
manupualtion with differnt shaped objects and he like, but they do
not have our native linguistic capacoty at all.  You cant stop a
humanfrom learning language unless his brain is destroyed or you
lock him in a closet for 7 years.  There is no question that this
differnce exists, and it is the differnce that makes a difference
in cognitive capacty -- the capacity to think.  Lisa's
prevarications on this point show that she is the one who is
idealist -- by ignoring the qualitative differences in the
material world, i.e. between the demonstrated cogitive capacities
of humans and the lack of same beyond a rudiemanary elevel in the
other monkeys.


     --- from list marxism2 at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

evolutionary dialectics 
Chris M. Sciabarra sciabrrc at is2.NYU.EDU 
Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:13:25 -0400 (EDT) 

Previous message: evolutionary dialectics 
Next message: social - (relational) (fwd) 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Zeynep Tufekcioglu wrote:
> I think the greatest strength of "dialectical" outlook is not the
> "interconnections". That's but a part of it. Understanding contradiction
as
> the force of movement and change, continuity in otherwise discrete jumps
> -those are the most important basics for me. 
> What I have problem accepting is "negation of negation". I've never been
> convinced of that. 
> I think Hegel's dialectic is necessarily idealistic - can't turn it on its
> head and make it materialistic, as Marx thinks he did. "Negation of
> negation"? Either this is a tautology, used to denote continuous change,
> thus useless;  or meaningless.
> Zeynep
	Just as an aside, re Hegel's idealism -- I am also persuaded that
he's an idealist, but a very provocative case for his realism is made in
Kenneth Westphal's HEGEL'S EPISTEMOLOGICAL REALISM.  Check it out.
					- Chris


evolutionary dialectics 
Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se 
Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:58:49 +0100 

Previous message: Thomas Kuhn 
Next message: evolutionary dialectics 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Zeynep writes:

>I think using the term "transcend" instead of qualitative change would
clear
>the argument up a bit. (Transcend is a poor translation - the original
>German word I can't remember for the life of me means - to become something
>else in continuation. That's the word Marx often used).

'Aufheben' -- cancel, raise, resolve.

A contradiction is resolved by being raised to a higher level where there
is no contradiction, thus it is cancelled at a higher level even though it
may remain at a lower level. Ice and water (or water and steam) are in
contradiction as far as their states (solid, liquid, gas) are concerned,
H2O gives a non-contradictory representation of all three states of the
substance. The negation involved in the contradiction is negated by the
unifying concept at the higher level.

Hegel starts his logic off with a bang -- in my opinion a bigger bang than
the Big Bang itself -- by negating the negation involved in the
contradiction of Being and Nothing by unifying them in the higher-level
concept of Becoming.

The negation of the negation in this sense is at the very heart of Marx's
view of the prospects for human society. The contradictions between classes
in human society which have provided the motor for developing production
and social wealth through history attain their highest expression in the
contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class in
capitalist society (let's not forget the landowning class, just leave it to
one side for the moment). The contradiction can only be resolved (and we
can also leave the collapse into barbarism aside for the moment) by
abolishing this antagonistic polarity and raising the material processes
involved to the higher plane of socialist relations of production and
distribution


>We are not that different from our ancesters of 50,000 years ago hardware
>wise. The human being as a social being through reproduction of conditions
>and relations of production- That's Q/Q.

Good.

>I think the greatest strength of "dialectical" outlook is not the
>"interconnections". That's but a part of it. Understanding contradiction as
>the force of movement and change, continuity in otherwise discrete jumps
>-those are the most important basics for me.

In other words, Becoming as the resolution of the antinomy of Being and
Nothing. Hegel is really very good on movement, change, continuity,
discreteness, infinity and so on.

>What I have problem accepting is "negation of negation". I've never been
>convinced of that.
>
>I think Hegel's dialectic is necessarily idealistic - can't turn it on its
>head and make it materialistic, as Marx thinks he did. "Negation of
>negation"? Either this is a tautology, used to denote continuous change,
>thus useless;  or meaningless.

You see, Marx didn't just turn it upside down and leave it as it was, he
cancelled the contradiction involved in its fundamental idealism, and
raised the whole thing to a higher level where the polar contradiction of
being and thought was resolved NOT on an idealist foundation, but a
materialist one. Hegel negated Kant's dualism, but on an idealist basis.
Marx used Hegel's dialectical method to negate Kant's dualism, this time on
a materialist basis. Hegel was still tied to Kant's idealist agenda (I
originally wrote 'gender' but just caught it in time!), and thus trapped in
the contradictions of the existential priority of Spirit and Thought.
Hegel's idealist, reified principles were in monstrous contradiction to his
method (fundamentally scientific and materialist, explaining empirically
observed phenomena). Marx brought the method and the principles into
harmony.


Cheers,

Hugh
evolutionary dialectics 
Zeynep Tufekcioglu zeynept at turk.net 
Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:00:55 +0300 

Previous message: evolutionary dialectics 
Next message: Thomas Kuhn 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

>'Aufheben' -- cancel, raise, resolve.

Yes, "Aufheben". You know, when I tried and couldn't remember the world, I
thought, if my favorite adversary Hugh wasn't so busy, he'd definitely come
up with the word. Thanks.

Hugh:
>Hegel starts his logic off with a bang -- in my opinion a bigger bang than
>the Big Bang itself -- by negating the negation involved in the
>contradiction of Being and Nothing by unifying them in the higher-level
>concept of Becoming.

Hugh, help a bit more. I've forgotten what little German I knew. What was
the "becoming" word as used in German? German seems to have the ability to
express "a thing" and "a process" in one word. No such luck in English. It
is often not necessary just arrogant to use foreign words when speaking
English, but when it comes to Hegel, English is so poor. 

Also, the above quote is exactly where I start to think Hegel's method is
inherently and necessarily idealistic. From there on, one, two, three and he
removes the world - He negates existence. 

What you describe as negation of negation, is movement through
contradiction. Fine. Why's that "negation of negation"? I said, "negation of
negation" is either meant to mean what you describe it means and hence a
redundant term, or is idealistic. Why do we need include that in the method
of dialectical thought? 

>In other words, Becoming as the resolution of the antinomy of Being and
>Nothing. Hegel is really very good on movement, change, continuity,
>discreteness, infinity and so on.

Yes, Hegel is good as such. That's why I thought of Hegel in this thread,
when Lisa was discussing discreteness and continuity without naming the
words, in terms of biology and physics. 

The Marxist method of thinking starts from the empirical. The concrete is
reproduced in thought as a concrete-in-thought. A never complete process of
successive approximations as the subject moves and acts in the real world.
An inherent limitation to epistomology that can never be overcome. Is this
not contrary to Hegel? 

>You see, Marx didn't just turn it upside down and leave it as it was, he
>cancelled the contradiction involved in its fundamental idealism, and
>raised the whole thing to a higher level where the polar contradiction of
>being and thought was resolved NOT on an idealist foundation, but a
>materialist one. 

Yes, I think so too. That' why I said Marx didn't turn it upside down, just
place it on its feet. Maybe, turned it inside out would be a better
description.

Zeynep
Waiting for Goedel 
Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se 
Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:21:10 +0100 

Previous message: Bhaskar 
Next message: India 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Zeynep wrote:

>Godel's famous theorem (as paraphrased into English by Douglas Hofstadter)
is :
>"All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable
>propositions".
>
>Which means, that within each -closed- system, one may make a claim, that
>can not be proven to be true or false *within* that system.
>
>I think one may believably claim that human brain does not work in a way
>different than computers, but is a much more complicated network, resulting
>in associative thinking yet unknown to computers. (Something like an ever
>intertwined hypertext, to draw an anology from the internet).
>
>I don't know what the original quote was related to.
>
>To make it clearer, let me confess I'm lying. Am I? If so, I'm not. If I'm
>not lying then I am.


Well, our brain operates as a biological machine to help us in

1) orientation (which is really an aspect of

2) goal satisfaction

An interesting thing about it is that it's utterly insensitive, while the
rest of us is very sensitive, responding to environmental and hormonal
signals with the appropriate (!) reaction.

It's a single-user computer, purpose-developed (teleology rules, OK!) to
help satisfy a biological individual's social (food, shelter) and sexual
needs in a species framework. This is not what desktop computers were
designed for originally. Of course, they did represent extensions of our
biological capabilities, and the extensions they and their descendants will
provide will fit more and more naturally into our way of solving individual
and species needs.

One of the brain's tasks is thinking, both as a routine operation (2+2=4)
and in the sense of a search for valid axioms, first principles and such
(what is a number? what is =?). Now, what Zeynep is pointing out is that
you can't apply the rules for the routine operations (what Aristotle called
analytical logic, didn't he?) to the creative search for principles
(dialectical logic) without getting into trouble. Goedel's theorem
formalizes this.

I think there's a parallel to Marx's aphorism about each epoch only setting
itself problems it can solve. If you like, each epoch has its own
principles which are thrashed out in practice and eventually formalized
(bit like the Reformation and the Enlightenment, for instance). The
concrete advances and solutions fall within this practical-theoretical
framework. (I should imagine this is roughly what Sartre is saying in his
Critique of Dialectical Reason, but I haven't read it, so I'm probably way
off target.) And the working out of the various aspects of practice in the
epoch can more and more be left to routine operations as it more and more
'runs itself'.

We are in the final stages of the Capitalist Age, and the earliest stages
of the  Socialist Age, and our present epoch of transition from the one to
the other offers the new spectacle of a necessary fusion of principles and
practice.

One question which arises given this fusion, is whether logic will see a
breakthrough in the sense of finally arriving at a formalization of the
search for and evaluation of first principles -- values, priorities and
all. Hegel talks somewhere of Apodeictic Logic, the logic of demonstration.
My guess is that it won't come anywhere near it in general terms -- though
it might get very close in one or two specialized areas -- until socialism
is established as the dominant mode of production worldwide, removing the
antagonistic class interests that bedevil all discussion of (and based on)
principles in the biological (nature/nurture) and social sciences
(economics and sociology).

Another guess is that the removal of capitalism and its antagonisms will
remove a lot more obstacles in the way of really human development of
'hard' science (maths, including its foundations, physics etc) than most of
us thought existed. For starters, the universal mastery of maths
fundamentals (including calculus of course) that will follow on the freeing
of education from fear ('mind-forged manacles' that a lot of us
internalize) and compartmentalization, will make possible a completely new
level and relevance of public debate in relation to selecting alternative
courses of action. And this discourse in turn will sharpen the questions
being investigated in front-line research.

Most people know the amazing impact on the depth and breadth of knowledge
in a subject that can be made if it is studied in the company of even a
single kindred spirit. Just imagine a world of kindred spirits!

Finally, all the Goedel stuff is very self-reflective, and capitalism
cannot tolerate anything self-reflective. So a lot of the investigations
being pursued in basic maths and natural science today are in fact
transcending the bounds of capitalist society. Behaviourism (capitalist
science par excellence) dogmatically proclaims an invisible, abstract,
unknowable Thing-In-Itself subject. Socialist science takes the real, live,
flesh-and-blood human subject as its starting point.

My friend and teacher, Goeran Printz-Paahlson, wrote a poem in Swedish
about this kind of thing in the early sixties, called Turing Machine.
(Might well have been when he was at Berkeley). There's a good translation
he did himself, but I haven't got it to hand right now, so I'll hack one.
It ends:

        De imiterar i spraaket. I oaendliga
        slingor, laengre and laengre tillbaka i sin retraett
           mot subtilare
        algoritmer, mera rekursiva funktioner.

        De aer konsekventa och beskriver sig sjaelva.
        Som naer en man med en handspegel tryckt mot sin naesa
           framfoer en spegel
        ser i oaendlig rad samma bild maangfaldigas

        i en krympande, moerknande korridor av glas.
        Det aer en Goedel-teorem lika gott som naagot.
           Han ser oaendlig-
        heten, men det han inte ser aer sitt ansikte.


        (They imitate in language. In endless
        loops, farther and farther back, retreating
           towards more subtle
        algorithms, more recursive functions.

        They are consistent and describe themselves.
        As when a man with a handmirror pressed to his nose
           in front of a mirror
        sees the same image multiplied in a row without end

        in a shrinking, darkening corridor of glass.
        That's a Goedel theorem as good as any.
           He sees eternity,
        but what he doesn't see is his own face.)


Anyone read (reread?) Phenomenology of the Spirit recently?

Cheers,

Hugh












This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 09:46:34 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:46:34 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Imperialism: critique of "core-periphery" as
	Kautskyist
Message-ID: <4969DC1A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-January/013151.html

>>> Andrew Wayne Austin  12/31 11:49 AM >>>
Rob,

Several things must be considered. Imperialism in the history of Marxist
thought is a scientific theory, or, more accurately, a set of scientific
theories, that refers to international activity and relations in the era
of monopoly capitalism, and a method for periodizing history. If one
accepts Lenin's theory of imperialism, for example, one must hold to the
view that world-capitalism is an abstraction that is concretely divided
into national units whose bourgeoisie use the state to advance their
interests against the interests of other bourgeoisie and their national
states. Lenin was talking about the major territories, with the periphery
considered more in terms of regions or zones of conquest and exploitation. 
If one accepts Kautsky's theory of imperialism one must agree to the
premise that imperial relations are to be understood in terms of the
relation between the economic core and the periphery. Kautsky's theory is
problematic in that the relation between core and periphery is a general
relation that exists throughout history. Thus the term imperialism is not
specific to capitalist development. Lenin's theory is much more accurate
in this regard since it nails down the characteristics of a stage in
capitalist development. Imperialism does not exist anymore according to
Lenin's theory because the situation of the national bourgeoisie using
their states against other national bourgeoisie is not the present
situation, and probably isn't conceivable in the present situation. Rather
the present situation is one in which the transnational capitalist class
uses the bourgeois state to contain and control labor pools and to secure
environments conducive to the extension of production and commodity chains
globally. The development of capitalism in the post-World War II period
has undermined the material basis for, and transformed the imperatives of,
the bourgeois state as it existed under imperialist arrangements. Of
course, there are other theories and they have their problems. But the
question before us is this, and it is a question of basic scientific
procedure: do we remove concepts to the history of science when they no
longer fit empirical reality as defined by the scientific system being
used, or do we change the concept to fit the new empirical reality. I
submit to you that the latter course is the course of rationalization and
ad hoc conceptualization and results in sloppy theoretical work, which
also leads to incorrect practice. The concept "imperialism" is too
concrete to be applicable to the present global situation. This is not to
say that imperialistic relations do not still exist. But, overall,
imperialism has passed as period of capitalist development (unless you are
a Kautskyite, of course).

Btw, the term "globalism" is an ideological term used by organic
intellectuals of the transnational elite or a derogatory expression used
by Stalinists, Leninists and Trotskyites who wish to maintain the rhetoric
of imperialism in face of contrary evidence. Historical materialists like
Stephen Gill, Bill Robinson, Robert Cox and others are using the term
"globalization" and "transnationalization" to describe the new stage of
capitalist development.

Andy






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 10:00:51 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:00:51 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Natural Science and the Spirit World[1]
Message-ID: <4969DF73.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Engels? Dialectics of Nature

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm

Natural Science and the Spirit World[1] 

THE dialectics that has found its way into popular consciousness finds
expression in the old saying that extremes meet. In accordance with this
we should hardly err in looking for the most extreme degree of fantasy,
credulity, and superstition, not in that trend of natural science which,
like the German philosophy of nature, tries to force the objective world
into the framework of its subjective thought, but rather in the opposite
trend, which, relying on mere experience, treats thought with sovereign
disdain and really has gone to the furthest extreme in emptiness of
thought. This school prevails in England. Its father, the much lauded
Francis Bacon, already advanced the demand that his new
empirical-inductive method should be pursued to attain by its means,
above all, longer life, rejuvenation - to a certain extent, alteration
of stature and features, transformation of one body into another, the
production of new species, power over the air and the production of
storms. He complains that such investigations have been abandoned, and
in his natural history he actually gives recipes for making gold and
performing various miracles. Similarly Isaac Newton in his old age
greatly busied himself with expounding the revelation of St. John. So it
is not to be wondered at if in recent years English empiricism in the
person of some of its representatives - and not the worst of them -
should seem to have fallen a hopeless victim to the spirit-rapping and
spirit-seeing imported from America.

The first natural scientist belonging here is the very eminent
zoologist and botanist, Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who
simultaneously with Darwin put forward the theory of the evolution of
species by natural selection. In his little work, On Miracles and Modern
Spiritualism, London, Burns, 1875, he relates that his first experiences
in this branch of natural knowledge date from 1844, when he attended the
lectures of Mr. Spencer Hall on mesmerism and as a result carried out
similar experiments on his pupils. ?I was extremely interested in the
subject and pursued it with ardour.? He not only produced magnetic
sleep together with the phenomena of articular rigidity, and local loss
of sensation, he also confirmed the correctness of Gall?s map of the
skull, because on touching any one of Gall?s organs the corresponding
activity was aroused in the magnetised patient and exhibited by
appropriate and lively gestures. Further, he established that his
patient, merely by being touched, partook of all the sensations of the
operator; he made him drunk with a glass of water as soon as he told him
that it was brandy. He could make one of the young men so stupid, even
in the waking condition, that he no longer knew his own name, a feat,
however, that other schoolmasters are capable of accomplishing without
any mesmerism. And so on.

Now it happens that I also saw this Mr. Spencer Hall in the winter of
1843-4 in Manchester. He was a very mediocre charlatan, who travelled
the country under the patronage of some parsons and undertook
magnetico-phrenological performances with a young girl in order to prove
thereby the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the
incorrectness of the materialism that was being preached at that time by
the Owenites in all big towns. The lady was sent into a magnetico-sleep
and then, as soon as the operator touched any part of the skull
corresponding to one of Gall?s organs, she gave a bountiful display of
theatrical, demonstrative gestures and poses representing the activity
of the organ concerned; for instance, for the organ of
philoprogenitiveness she fondled and kissed an imaginary baby, etc.
Moreover, the good Mr. Hall had enriched Gall?s geography of the skull
with a new island of Barataria: right at the top of the skull he had
discovered an organ of veneration, on touching which his hypnotic miss
sank on to her knees, folded her hands in prayer, and depicted to the
astonished, philistine audience an angel wrapt in veneration. That was
the climax and conclusion of the exhibition. The existence of God had
been proved.

The effect on me and one of my acquaintances was exactly the same as on
Mr. Wallace; the phenomena interested us and we tried to find out how
far we could reproduce them. A wideawake young boy of 12 years old
offered himself as subject. Gently gazing into his eyes, or stroking,
sent him without difficulty into the hypnotic condition. But since we
were rather less credulous than Mr. Wallace and set to work with rather
less fervour, we arrived at quite different results. Apart from muscular
rigidity and loss of sensation, which were easy to produce, we found
also a state of complete passivity of the will bound up with a peculiar
hypersensitivity of sensation. The patient, when aroused from his
lethargy by any external stimulus, exhibited very much greater
liveliness than in the waking condition. There was no trace of any
mysterious relation to the operator; anyone else could just as easily
set the sleeper into activity. To set Gall?s cranial organs into
action was the least that we achieved; we went much further, we could
not only exchange them for one another, or make their seat anywhere in
the whole body, but we also fabricated any amount of other organs,
organs of singing, whistling, piping, dancing, boxing, sewing, cobbling,
tobacco-smoking, etc., and we could make their seat wherever we wanted.
Wallace made his patients drunk on water, but we discovered in the great
toe an organ of drunkenness which only had to be touched in order to
cause the finest drunken comedy to be enacted. But it must be well
understood, no organ showed a trace of action until the patient was
given to understand what was expected of him; the boy soon perfected
himself by practice to such an extent that the merest indication
sufficed. The organs produced in this way then retained their validity
for later occasions of putting to sleep, as long as they were not
altered in the same way. The patient had even a double memory, one for
the waking state and a second quite separate one for the hypnotic
condition., As regards the passivity of the will and its absolute
subjection to the will of a third person, this loses all its miraculous
appearance when we bear in mind that the whole condition began with the
subjection of the will of the patient to that of the operator, and
cannot be restored without it. The most powerful magician of a
magnetiser in the world will come to the end of his resources as soon as
his patient laughs him in the face.

While we with our frivolous scepticism thus found that the basis of
magnetico- phrenological charlatanry lay in a series of phenomena which
for the most part differ only in degree from those of the waking state
and require no mystical interpretation, Mr. Wallace?s ?ardour? led
him into a series of self-deceptions, in virtue of which he confirmed
Gall?s map of the skull in all its details and noted a mysterious
relation between operator and patient.[2] Everywhere in Mr. Wallace?s
account, the sincerity of which reaches the degree of naiv?t?, it
becomes apparent that he was much less concerned in investigating the
factual background of charlatanry than in reproducing all the phenomena
at all costs. Only this frame of mind is needed for the man who was
originally a scientist to be quickly converted into an ?adept? by
means of simple and facile self-deception. Mr. Wallace ended up with
faith in magnetico-phrenological miracles and so already stood with one
foot in the world of spirits.

He drew the other foot after him in 1865. On returning from his twelve
years of travel in the tropical zone, experiments in table-turning
introduced him to the society of various ?mediums.? How rapid his
progress was, and how complete his mastery of the subject, is testified
to by the above-mentioned booklet. He expects us to take for good coin
not only all the alleged miracles of Home, the brothers Davenport, and
other ?mediums? who all more or less exhibit themselves for money
and who have for the most part been frequently exposed as impostors, but
also a whole series of allegedly authentic spirit histories from early
times. The Pythonesses of the Greek oracle, the witches of the Middle
Ages, were all ?mediums,? and Iamblichus[3] in his De divinatione
already described quite accurately ?the most astonishing phenomena of
modern spiritualism."

Just one example to show how lightly Mr. Wallace deals with the
scientific corroboration and authentication of these miracles. It is
certainly a strong assumption that we should believe that the aforesaid
spirits should allow themselves to be photographed, and we have surely
the right to demand that such spirit photographs should be authenticated
in the most indubitable manner before we accept them as genuine. Now Mr.
Wallace recounts on p.187 that in March, 1872, a leading medium, Mrs.
Guppy, n?e Nicholls, had herself photographed together with her husband
and small boy at Mr. Hudson?s in Notting Hill, and on two different
photographs a tall female figure, finely draped in white gauze robes,
with somewhat Eastern features, was to be seen behind her in a pose as
if giving a benediction. ?Here, then, one of two things are absolutely
certain.[4] Either there was a living intelligent, but invisible being
present, or Mr. and Mrs. Guppy, the photographer, and some fourth person
planned a wicked imposture and have maintained it ever since. Knowing
Mr. and Mrs. Guppy so well as I do, I feel an absolute conviction that
they are as incapable of an imposture of this kind as any earnest
inquirer after truth in the department of natural science."[5]

Consequently, either deception or spirit photography. Quite so. And, if
deception, either the spirit was already on the photographic plates, or
four persons must have been concerned, or three if we leave out as
weak-minded or duped old Mr. Guppy who died in January, 1875, at the age
of 84 (it only needed that he should be sent behind the Spanish screen
of the background). That a photographer could obtain a ?model? for
the spirit without difficulty does not need to be argued. But the
photographer Hudson, shortly afterwards, was publicly prosecuted for
habitual falsification of spirit photographs, so Mr. Wallace remarks in
mitigation: ?One thing is clear, if an imposture has occurred, it was
at once detected by spiritualists themselves.? Hence there is not much
reliance to be placed on the photographer. Remains Mrs. Guppy, and for
her there is only the ?absolute conviction? of our friend Wallace
and nothing more. Nothing more? Not at all. The absolute trustworthiness
of Mrs. Guppy is evidenced by her assertion that one evening, early in
June, 1871, she was carried through the air in a state of
unconsciousness from her house in Highbury Hill Park to 69, Lamb?s
Conduit Street - three English miles as the crow flies - and deposited
in the said house of No. 69 on the table in the midst of a
spiritualistic s?ance. The doors of the room were closed, and although
Mrs. Guppy was one of the stoutest women in London, which is certainly
saying a good deal, nevertheless her sudden incursion did not leave
behind the slightest hole either in the doors or in the ceiling.
(Reported in the London .Echo, June 8, 1871.) And if anyone still does
not believe in the genuineness of spirit photography, there?s no
helping him.

The second eminent adept among English natural scientists is Mr.
William Crookes, the discoverer of the chemical element thallium and of
the radiometer (in Germany also called ?Lichtm?hle? [light-mill] ).
Mr. Crookes began to investigate spiritualistic manifestations about
1871, and employed for this purpose a number of physical and mechanical
appliances, spring balances, electric batteries, etc. Whether he brought
to his task the main apparatus required, a sceptically critical mind, or
whether he remained to the end in a fit state for working, we shall see.
At any rate, within a not very long period, Mr. Crookes was just as
completely captivated as Mr. Wallace. ?For some years,? he relates,
?a young lady, Miss Florence Cook, has exhibited remarkable
mediumship, which latterly culminated in the production of an entire
female form purporting to be of spiritual origin, and which appeared
barefooted and in white flowing robes while she lay entranced in dark
clothing and securely bound in a cabinet or adjoining room.? This
spirit, which called itself Katie, and which looked remarkably like Miss
Cook, was one evening suddenly seized round the waist by Mr. Volckmann -
the present husband of Mrs. Guppy - and held fast in order to see
whether it was not indeed Miss Cook in another edition. The spirit
proved to be a quite sturdy damsel, it defended itself vigorously, the
onlookers intervened, the gas was turned out, and when, after some
scuffling, peace was reestablished and the room re-lit, the spirit had
vanished and Miss Cook lay bound and unconscious in her corner.
Nevertheless, Mr. Volckmann is said to maintain up to the present day
that he had seized hold of Miss Cook and nobody else. In order to
establish this scientifically, Mr. Varley, a well-known electrician, on
the occasion of a new experiment, arranged for the current from a
battery to flow through the medium, Miss Cook, in such a way that she
could not play the part of the spirit without interrupting the current.
Nevertheless, the spirit made its appearance. It was, therefore, indeed
a being different from Miss Cook. To establish this further was the task
of Mr. Crookes. His first step was to win the confidence of the
spiritualistic lady. This confidence, so he says himself in the
Spiritualist, June 5, 1874, ?increased gradually to such an extent
that she refused to give a s?ance unless I made the arrangements. She
said that she always wanted me to be near her and in the neighbourhood
of the cabinet; I found that - when this confidence had been established
and she was sure that I would not break any promise made to her - the
phenomena increased considerably in strength and there was freely
forthcoming evidence that would have been unobtainable in any other way.
She frequently consulted me in regard to the persons present at the
s?ances and the places to be given them, for she had recently become
very nervous as a result of certain ill-advised suggestions that,
besides other more scientific methods of investigation, force also
should be applied.?

The spirit lady rewarded this confidence, which was as kind as it was
scientific, in the highest measure. She even made her appearance - which
can no longer surprise us - in Mr. Crookes? house, played with his
children and told them ?anecdotes from her adventures in India,?
treated Mr. Crookes to an account of ?some of the bitter experiences
of her past life,? allowed him to take her by the arm so that he could
convince himself of her evident materiality, allowed him to take her
pulse and count the number of her respirations per minute, and finally
allowed herself to be photographed next to Mr. Crookes. ?This
figure,? says Mr. Wallace, ?after she had been seen, touched,
photographed, and conversed with, vanished absolutely out of a small
room from which there was no other exit than an adjoining room filled
with spectators? - which was not such a great feat, provided that the
spectators were polite enough to show as much faith in Mr. Crookes, in
whose house this happened, as Mr. Crookes did in the spirit.

Unfortunately these ?fully authenticated phenomena? are not
immediately credible even for spiritualists. We saw above how the very
spiritualistic Mr. Volckmann permitted himself to make a very material
grab. And now a clergyman, a member of the committee of the ?British
National Association of Spiritualists,? has also been present at a
s?ance with Miss Cook, and he established the fact without difficulty
that the room through the door of which the spirit came and disappeared
communicated with the outer world by a second door. The behaviour of Mr.
Crookes, who was also present, gave ?the final death blow to my belief
that there might be something in the manifestations.? (Mystic London,
by the Rev. C. Maurice Davies, London, Tinsley Brothers).[6] And, over
and above that, it came to light in America how ?Katies? were
?materialised.? A married couple named Holmes held s?ances in
Philadelphia in which likewise a ?Katie? appeared and received
bountiful presents from the believers. However, one sceptic refused to
rest until he got on the track of the said Katie, who, anyway, had
already gone on strike once because of lack of pay; he discovered her in
a boarding-house as a young lady of unquestionable flesh and bone, and
in possession of all the presents that had been given to the spirit.

Meanwhile the Continent also had its scientific spiritseers. A
scientific association at St. Petersburg - I do not know exactly whether
the University or even the Academy itself - charged the Councillor of
State, Aksakov, and the chemist, Butlerov, to examine the basis of the
spiritualistic phenomena, but it dbes not seem that very much came of
this. On the other hand - if the noisy announcements of the
spiritualists are to be believed - Germany has now also put forward its
man in the person of Professor Z?llner in Leipzig.

For years, as is well known, Herr Z?llner has been hard at work on the
?fourth dimension? of space, and has discovered that many things
that are impossible in a space of three dimensions, are a simple matter
of course in a space of four dimensions. Thus, in the latter kind of
space, a closed metal sphere can be turned inside out like a glove,
without making a hole in it; similarly a knot can be tied in an endless
string or one which has both ends fastened, and two separate closed
rings can be interlinked without opening either of them, and many more
such feats. According to the recent triumphant reports from the spirit
world, it is said now that Professor Z?llner has addressed himself to
one or more mediums in order with their aid to determine more details of
the locality of the fourth dimension. The success is said to have been
surprising. After the session the arm of the chair, on which he rested
his arm while his hand never left the table, was found to have become
interlocked with his arm, a string that had both ends sealed to the
table was found tied into four knots, and so on. In short, all the
miracles of the fourth dimension are said to have been performed by the
spirits with the utmost ease. It must be borne in mind: relata refero, I
do not vouch for the correctness of the spirit bulletin, and if it
should contain any inaccuracy, Herr Z?llner ought to be thankful that I
am giving him the opportunity to make a correction. If, however, it
reproduces the experiences of Herr Z?llner without falsification, then
it obviously signifies a new era both in the science of spiritualism and
that of mathematics. The spirits prove the existence of the fourth
dimension, just as the fourth dimension vouches for the existence of
spirits. And this once established, an entirely new, immeasurable field
is opened to science. All previous mathematics and natural science will
be only a preparatory school for the mathematics of the fourth and still
higher dimensions, and for the mechanics, physics, chemistry, and
physiology of the spirits dwelling in these higher dimensions. Has not
Mr. Crookes scientifically determined how much weight is lost by tables
and other articles of furniture on their passage into the fourth
dimension - as we may now well be permitted to call it - and does not
Mr. Wallace declare it proven that fire there does no harm to the human
body? And now we have even the physiology of the spirit bodies! They
breathe, they have a pulse, therefore lungs, heart, and a circulatory
apparatus, and in consequence are at least as admirably equipped as our
own in regard to the other bodily organs. For breathing requires
carbohydrates which undergo combustion in the lungs, and these
carbohydrates can only be supplied from without; hence, stomach,
intestines, and their accessories - and if we have once established so
much, the rest follows without difficulty. The existence of such organs,
however, implies the possibility of their falling a prey to disease,
hence it may still come to pass that Herr Virchow will have to compile a
cellular pathology of the spirit world. And since most of these spirits
are very handsome young ladies, who are not to be distinguished in any
respect whatsoever from terrestrial damsels, other than by their
supra-mundane beauty, it could not be very long before they come into
contact with ?men who feel the passion of love"; and since, as
established by Mr. Crookes from the beat of the pulse, ?the female
heart is not absent,? natural selection also has opened before it the
prospect of a fourth dimension, one in which it has no longer any need
to fear of being confused with wicked social-democracy.

 

Enough. Here it becomes palpably evident which is the most certain path
from natural science to mysticism. It is not the extravagant theorising
of the philosophy of nature, but the shallowest empiricism that spurns
all theory and distrusts all thought. It is not a priori necessity that
proves the existence .of spirits, but the empirical observations of
Messrs. Wallace, Crookes, and Co. If we trust the spectrum-analysis
observations of Crookes, which led to the discovery of the metal
thallium, or the rich zoological discoveries of Wallace in the Malay
Archipelago, we are asked to place the same trust in the spiritualistic
experiences and discoveries of these two scientists. And if we express
the opinion that, after all, there is a little difference between the
two, namely, that we can verify the one but not the other, then the
spirit-seers retort that this is not the case, and that they are ready
to give us the opportunity of verifying also the spirit phenomena.

Indeed, dialectics cannot be despised with impunity. However great
one?s contempt for all theoretical thought, nevertheless one cannot
bring two natural facts into relation with one another, or understand
the connection existing between them, without theoretical thought. The
only question is whether one?s thinking is correct or not, and
contempt of theory is evidently the most certain way to think
naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old
and well-known dialectic law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical
conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of
departure. Hence, the empirical contempt of dialectics on the part of
some of the most sober empiricists is punished by their being led into
the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism.

It is the same with mathematics. The ordinary metaphysical
mathematicians boast with enormous pride of the absolute irrefutability
of the results of their science. But these results include also
imaginary magnitudes, which thereby acquire a certain reality. When one
has once become accustomed to ascribe some kind of reality outside of
our minds to ?-1, or to the fourth dimension, then it is not a matter of
much importance if one goes a step further and also accepts the spirit
world of the mediums. It is as Ketteler said about D?llinger[7]: ?The
man has defended so much nonsense in his life, he really could have
accepted infallibility into the bargain!? 

In fact, mere empiricism is incapable of refuting the spiritualists. In
the first place, the ?higher? phenomena always show themselves only
when the ?investigator? concerned is already so far in the toils
that he now only sees what he is meant to see or wants to see - as
Crookes himself describes with such inimitable naiv?t?. In the second
place, however, the spiritualist cares nothing that hundreds of alleged
facts are exposed as imposture and dozens of alleged mediums as ordinary
tricksters. As long as every single alleged miracle has not been
explained away, they have still room enough to carry on, as indeed
Wallace says clearly enough in connection with the falsified spirit
photographs. The existence of falsifications proves the genuineness of
the genuine ones.

And so empiricism finds itself compelled to refute the importunate
spirit-seers not by means of empirical experiments, but by theoretical
considerations, and to say, with Huxley[8]: ?The only good that I can
see in the demonstration of the truth of ?spiritualism? is to
furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a
crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ?medium?
hired at a guinea a s?ance!"

Notes
1. From a manuscript of Engels probably written in 1878, and first
published in the ?Illustrierter Neue Welt-Kalender f?r das Jahr
1898.? 

2. As already said, the patients perfect themselves by practice. It is
therefore quite possible that, when the subjection of the will has
become habitual, the relation of the participants becomes more intimate,
individual phenomena are intensified and are reflected weakly even in
the waking state. [Note by F. Engels.]

3. See Appendix II, p. 368.

4. The spirit world is superior to grammar. A joker once caused the
spirit of the grammarian Lindley Murray to testify. To the question
whether he was there, he answered: ?I are.? (American for I am.) The
medium was from America. [Note by F. Engels.]

5. See Appendix II, p. 369.

6. See Appendix II, p. 370.

7. A catholic scholar who did not accept the dogma of papal
infallibility.

8. See Appendix II, p. 370.

Transcribed in 2001 for MEIA by jjazz at hwcn.org 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents | Marx Engels Archive




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 10:08:12 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:08:12 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx on Robinsonades
Message-ID: <4969E12B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx on Robinsonades
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Thu Jun 30 08:09:49 MDT 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Marx has good anthropology. Russell and the logical positivists , et al
suffer from the Robinsonade ( after Robinson Crusoe as an isolated
individual "starting" an economy)fallacy.

Charles

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm 

Karl Marx's Outline of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse)


1. Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange (Circulation)


(1) PRODUCTION


Independent Individuals. Eighteenth-century Ideas.


The object before us, to begin with, material production.

Individuals producing in Society-hence socially determined individual
production-is, of course, the point of departure. The individual and
isolated hunter and fisherman, with whom Smith and Ricardo begin, belongs
among the unimaginative conceits of the eighteenth-century Robinsonades, [1]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#1>
which in no way express merely a reaction against over-sophistication and a
return to a misunderstood natural life, as cultural historians imagine. As
little as Rousseau's contrat social, which brings naturally independent,
autonomous subjects into relation and connection by contract, rests on such
naturalism. This is the semblance, the merely aesthetic semblance, of the
Robinsonades, great and small. It is, rather, the anticipation of 'civil
society', in preparation since the sixteenth century and making giant
strides towards maturity in the eighteenth. In this society of free
competition, the individual appears detached from the natural bonds etc.
which in earlier historical periods make him the accessory of a definite and
limited human conglomerate. Smith and Ricardo still stand with both feet on
the shoulders of the eighteenth-century prophets, in whose imaginations this
eighteenth-century individual-the product on one side of the dissolution of
the feudal forms of society, on the other side of the new forces of
production developed since the sixteenth century-appears as an ideal, whose
existence they project into the past. Not as a historic result but as
history's point of departure. As the Natural Individual appropriate to their
notion of human nature, not arising historically, but posited by nature.
This illusion has been common to each new epoch to this day. Steuart [2]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#2>
avoided this simple-mindedness because as an aristocrat and in antithesis to
the eighteenth century, he had in some respects a more historical footing.

The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and
hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a
greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the family
expanded into the clan [Stamm]; then later in the various forms of communal
society arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in the
eighteenth century, in 'civil society', do the various forms of social
connectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his private
purposes, as external necessity. But the epoch which produces this
standpoint, that of the isolated individual, is also precisely that of the
hitherto most developed social (from this standpoint, general) relations.
The human being is in the most literal sense a Zwon politikon[3]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#3>
not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself
only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside
society-a rare exception which may well occur when a civilized person in
whom the social forces are already dynamically present is cast by accident
into the wilderness-is as much of an absurdity as is the development of
language without individuals living together and talking to each other.
There is no point in dwelling on this any longer. The point could go
entirely unmentioned if this twaddle, which had sense and reason for the
eighteenth-century characters, had not been earnestly pulled back into the
centre of the most modern economics by Bastiat, [4]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#4>
Carey, [5]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#5>
Proudhon etc. Of course it is a convenience for Proudhon et al. to be able
to give a historico-philosophic account of the source of an economic
relation, of whose historic origins he is ignorant, by inventing the myth
that Adam or Prometheus stumbled on the idea ready-made, and then it was
adopted, etc. Nothing is more dry and boring than the fantasies of a locus
communis.[6]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/intro-f.htm#6> 







This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 10:25:57 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:25:57 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx on gender
Message-ID: <4969E554.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marx and gender
Hans G. Ehrbar ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu 
Thu Dec 2 02:35:59 MST 2004 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx and gender 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] "The FBI and Science & Society" 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris,

I have a pdf version of Marx's Notes on Wagner with German
and English text side by side (and a few scattered
annotations) on my web site at

http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/wagner.pdf 

Unfortunately it is formatted for screen reading, therefore
not very good for printing.  I know that the Marxists
Internet Archive has a html version somewhere too.

Hans.









This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sun Jan 11 14:57:32 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:57:32 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Imperialism: critique of "core-periphery" as
	Kautskyist
Message-ID: <be2.407c039d.369bc54c@aol.com>

This critique of imperialism from the standpoint of core-periphery and its  
conclusions, may have had a certain validity when it was written - 1999. What  
appears to be crystallizing on a world scale is regional economic and 
political  blocks.  
 
It is true that in the immediate post WW II period up until today's  tendency 
towards regional blocks one cannot really speak of inner and  
inter-imperialist conflict as imperial states being hurled against each other in  war. The 
Second World Imperialist War not only spelt historic defeat and the  epochal 
ending of political feudalism; defeated European led German  imperialist/fascism 
but opened the flood gates of colonial revolts and political  revolution. The 
Peoples Republic of China was declared on October 1, 1949. The  Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam was declared on July 2, 1976.  Victory of the  Vietnamese 
Revolution brought to an end 200 years of modern colonial revolutions  that had 
begun in America and was crowned 1776. 
 
Imperialism did undermine the"material basis" - (to say the least), of a  
pre-existing form of imperialism, leaving the American and Soviet states as the  
two major imperial states structures, in the post WW II period. 
 
II. There are numerous theoretical divergence amongst Marxists in  describing 
imperialism during the epoch of industrial production and domination  of the 
bourgeois mode of production.  Some of this divergence rests upon  wanting to 
adhere to a political conclusion and stringing together  theoretical 
justification for an already determined body of politics. 
 
Lenin "nails down the characteristics of a stage in capitalist development"  
and it is precisely this "nailing down" that defines his world of imperialism 
as  the export of capital resting on monopoly or the domination of a financial 
 oligarchy writing the agenda for world capital; intensified colonial  
exploitation, bribery of the upper strata of the working class in the imperial  
centers and the existence of direct colonies and semi-colonies. Lenin describes  
WWI as an inter-imperialist conflict for re-division of an already divided  
world. 
 
America exists as a multinational state system and its imperial ambitions  
are most certainly real. But, this is not the imperialism of the world of Lenin. 
 The world of Lenin and the form of imperialism characteristic of Lenin's 
world  no longer exist as modern expressions of capital. "But, overall, 
imperialism has  passed as period of capitalist development (unless you are a 
Kautskyite, of  course). " 
 
Will the trend towards regional economic and political blocks consolidate  in 
the next ten years or so? Will Russia/China emerge as an "Eastern Block," and 
 South America as a regional block? A decade from now our description of  
imperialism will be a tad bit different than that of today.  
 
The word imperialism does not adequately explain the world of today, when  
this word is wedded to Lenin's conception of imperialism , almost 100 years ago. 
 
WL. 
 

In a message dated 1/11/2009 11:47:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us)   writes: 
_http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-January/013151.html_ 
(http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-January/013151.html)  
 
Andrew Wayne Austin  12/31 11:49 AM >>> Rob, 
 
Several things must be considered. Imperialism in the history of Marxist  
thought is a scientific theory, or, more accurately, a set of scientific  
theories, that refers to international activity and relations in the era of  monopoly 
capitalism, and a method for periodizing history. If one accepts  Lenin's 
theory of imperialism, for example, one must hold to the view that  
world-capitalism is an abstraction that is concretely divided into national  units whose 
bourgeoisie use the state to advance their interests against the  interests of 
other bourgeoisie and their national states. Lenin was talking  about the major 
territories, with the periphery considered more in terms of  regions or zones 
of conquest and exploitation. If one accepts Kautsky's theory  of imperialism 
one must agree to the premise that imperial relations are to be  understood 
in terms of the relation between the economic core and the periphery.  
Kautsky's theory is problematic in that the relation between core and periphery  is a 
general relation that exists throughout history. Thus the term imperialism  is 
not specific to capitalist development. Lenin's theory is much more accurate  
in this regard since it nails down the characteristics of a stage in 
capitalist  development. Imperialism does not exist anymore according to Lenin's 
theory  because the situation of the national bourgeoisie using their states 
against  other national bourgeoisie is not the present situation, and probably isn't 
 conceivable in the present situation. Rather the present situation is one in 
 which the transnational capitalist class uses the bourgeois state to contain 
and  control labor pools and to secure environments conducive to the 
extension of  production and commodity chains globally. The development of capitalism 
in the  post-World War II period has undermined the material basis for, and 
transformed  the imperatives of, the bourgeois state as it existed under 
imperialist  arrangements. Of course, there are other theories and they have their 
problems.  But the question before us is this, and it is a question of basic 
scientific  procedure: do we remove concepts to the history of science when they 
no longer  fit empirical reality as defined by the scientific system being 
used, or do we  change the concept to fit the new empirical reality. I submit to 
you that the  latter course is the course of rationalization and ad hoc 
conceptualization and  results in sloppy theoretical work, which also leads to 
incorrect practice. The  concept "imperialism" is too concrete to be applicable to 
the present global  situation. This is not to say that imperialistic relations 
do not still exist.  But, overall, imperialism has passed as period of 
capitalist development (unless  you are a Kautskyite, of course). 
 
Btw, the term "globalism" is an ideological term used by organic  
intellectuals of the transnational elite or a derogatory expression used by  Stalinists, 
Leninists and Trotskyites who wish to maintain the rhetoric of  imperialism in 
face of contrary evidence. Historical materialists like Stephen  Gill, Bill 
Robinson, Robert Cox and others are using the term "globalization"  and 
"transnationalization" to describe the new stage of capitalist development. 
 
Andy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 15:04:47 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:04:47 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Study Guide: Sugrue, Origins of the Urban Crisis
Message-ID: <496A26AE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Study Guide
Sugrue, Origins of the Urban Crisis 
  
This study guide is intended to help you understand The Origins of the Urban Crisis. As you begin each chapter, look at the questions and terms listed here for that chapter; then, as you read, be on the alert for these issues and terms. You do not have to turn in a set of answers to all of these questions, but I suggest that you make notes as you go along, answering the questions and defining the terms for yourself.  
  
Chapter 1: Arsenal of Democracy 
  
Questions: 
1. What did Detroit look like in 1940? (Web strand: place) 

2. What was the condition of manufacturing in Detroit in the 1940s? (Web strand: econ. entity) 

3. What happened to African Americans' employment possibilities during World War II? (Web strands: economic and sociological) 

4. What is the nature of Detroit's residential housing stock? (Web strands: place, sociology) 

5. By the 1940s, what were the bases for residential segregation? (Web strand: sociology) 

6. What does Sugrue point to as the underlying causes of racial inequality in Detroit? (Web strand: sociology) 

Terms: 

River Rouge 

Great Migration 

Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) 

Mayor's Interracial Committee 
 
  
Chapter 2: Detroit's Time Bomb: Race and Housing in the 1940s 
  
Questions:1. On p. 36, Sugrue offers a paragraph summarizing what he intends to do in this chapter: 
"To understand the processes of black occupancy, impoverishment, disinvestment, and decline, this chapter will look at the housing patterns in segregated Detroit and the role that homeowners and institutions played in maintaining racial barriers and perpetuating the social, economic, and political marginalization of African Americans." 

So Sugrue intends to explain the problem of residential segregation faced by black Americans as they migrated to northern cities in terms of two sets of factors: a) "the role of homeowners" and b) the role of "institutions." By the "role of homeowners," Sugrue is talking about the actions and attitudes of potential and actual white neighbors. By "institutions" he means private market institutions like banks, real estate brokerage practices, as well as practices and policies of government that helped create residential segregation. While I agree with Sugrue that private market practices and government policies are very much intertwined, separating these analytically helps us to understand how Detroit in particular (and by extension, U.S. cities generally) became so racially segregated. 


So - as you read this chapter, please think about these sets of factors: 

1. The role of homeowners, that is attitudes and actions of individuals who were the potential and actual neighbors of African-Americans who wanted to move into neighborhoods 

2. Institutional practices in the private market 

3. Government's role: practices, policies, programs 

As you read, you may want to list the factors that fall into each category. 

Terms: 

Black enclaves 

Restrictive covenants 

Neighborhood improvement associations 
 
  
Ch 3: "The Coffin of Peace": The Containment of Public Housing 
  
Questions: 
Several groups in wartime and post-World War II Detroit worked hard to get public housing projects built that would be available for black Detroiters. These groups included some black organizations and businesspeople, some labor unions, city planning groups like the City Plan Commission and Detroit Housing Commission, and various other progressive organizations. These public housing advocates hoped that public housing would help alleviate the extreme housing problems in the overcrowded black ghettoes, and help resolve social problems more generally through integration. 


In this chapter, Sugrue describes several specific public housing projects planned for Detroit, and the controversies that ensued. You may skim this chapter. Do not get hung up on learning the details of these particular projects. But look at it closely enough to answer these two questions briefly. 


1) Were the groups advocating public housing in Detroit successful in achieving development of public housing? Were they successful in achieving racially integrated public housing? 

2) What does Sugrue mean when he says that there is a conflict between the two strains in New Deal Housing policy? 
 
  
Ch 4: "The Meanest & Dirtiest Jobs": The Structures of Employment Discrimination 
  
Questions: 
1. What is the central argument of the chapter?
 
  
Ch 5: "The Damning Mark of False Prosperities": The Deindustrialization of Detroit 
  
Questions 
1. What happened to manufacturing employment in Detroit beginning in the late 1940s and into the early 1960s? 

2. Where did manufacturing jobs go as they left Detroit? 

3. What are some of the reasons that manufacturing employment declined?
 
  
Ch 6: "Forget about Your Inalienable Right to Work": Responses to Industrial Decline and Discrimination 
  
Questions 
1. Early in the chapter, on p. 156, Sugrue says that there was a "trend against a structural understanding of poverty and unemployment." Explain what it would mean to view unemployment for black Americans in Detroit as a "structural" problem. Contrast the structural view with the alternative, that unemployment results from individuals' deficiencies. 

Terms 

UAW Local 600 

Detroit Urban League 

Detroit NAACP
 
  
Ch 7: Class, Status and Residency: The Changing Geography of Black Detroit 
  
Questions: 
1. What was the purpose of "restrictive covenants?" What happened to restrictive covenants in 1948? 

2. What was the effect, in Detroit, of the Supreme Court's decision declaring restrictive covenants unenforceable [Shelley v. Kramer (1948)]? 

3. How did the way some people and firms practiced real estate brokerage encourage white flight, thereby opening up neighborhoods for black home ownership? 

4. What argument is Sugrue making in this chapter about the African-American community in Detroit? How is Sugrue's analysis different from that of William Julius Wilson (summarized in the chapter)? 

Terms: 

"race" businesses 

redlining 

land contract 

open housing 

blockbusting 

"testers" 

Thurgood Marshall 

Detroit Mayor's Inter-racial Committee (MIC) 

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) 
 
  
Ch 8: "Homeowners' Rights": White Resistance and the Rise of Antiliberalism 
  
Questions: 
1. What were homeowners' associations? (Also called "civic associations," "neighborhood improvement associations," "civic associations") 

2. How did homeowners' associations respond to growing advocacy for open housing? 

3. What does Sugrue mean when he says, on the closing page of the chapter, that the ghetto is not simply a physical construct, but also an ideological construct? That urban space became a metaphor for perceived racial differences? 

Terms: 

Homeowners' Rights Ordinance (pp. 226-227)
 
  
Ch 9: "United Communities are Impregnable": Violence and the Color Line 
  
Questions: 
1. What does Sugrue mean by "defended" versus "undefended" neighborhoods? 

2. What was the nature of the organized harassment against black pioneers, whites who sold to blacks, real estate people who dealt with blacks? 

3. What forms did violence against black home purchasers in defended neighborhoods take? 

Terms: 

defended neighborhoods 

undefended neighborhoods 
 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 15:07:34 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:07:34 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Review of The Origins of the Urban Crisis:
Message-ID: <496A2756.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Review of
The Origins of the Urban Crisis:
Race and Inequality in postwar Detroit
By Thomas J. Sugrue
Araceli Jacobs
PSC 129
April 26, 2005


"The desire and ability to move without the right to move is refined slavery (258)," 
The social, political and economic conditions of Black people living in urban environments is in a state of emergency. The reality that many Black Americans have struggled to live in environments which negatively impact their health and the health of their offspring is not a mistake. The dynamics of race, class and politics in America manifested through institutions of power has privileged habitable spaces for the rich and left inhabitable spaces for the Africans. In his book, Sugrue attempts to challenge American politics by shedding light on the conditions of poverty, poor living conditions and racial discrimination in urban communities. Specifically, Sugrue looks at Detroit's postwar urban crisis. According to Sugrue, this urban crisis emerged as the consequence of two of the most important problems in American history: capitalism generates economic inequality and African Americans have disproportionately borne the impact of that inequality (5). 
"The Coffin of Peace": The Containment of Public Housing 

In this section, Sugrue talks about New Deal programs developing from 1930s through the early 1950s. Sugrue tells the reader how the federal government, city officials, and housing reformers recognized Detroit's housing crisis and began setting in motions the plans for public housing. Public housing would eliminate the city's overcrowded and dangerous slums. Evidently, public housing was suppose to provide clean affordable shelter to workers. Also, public housing would overcome the hostility that arose as Blacks and whites competed for scarce private housing (60). New Deal liberalism set the framework for public housing. The passage of the Wagner-Steagall Housing Act provided for the construction of public housing under the United States Housing Authority and in 1949 Congress and the Truman administration reaffirmed the goal in the Taft-Ellender-Wagner Act.This act provided millions of dollars for the construction of new public housing nationally.At the same time, the government would also provide subsidies for the purchases of private homes and loans for new single family home construction.When this power (money) was given to state and local governments, policy goals were changed. City officials were particularly sensitive to the demands of the local electorate,therefore, the fate of public housing, as described by Sugrue,"was shaped by a contest between liberal pro-housing advocates and homeowners, both whom lobbied and attempted to influence local and federal officials" Real estate brokers, housing developers, and homeowners all wanted to benefit from New Deal subsidies. These people openly opposed public housing for different reasons, for example homeowners believed it was a taxpayer subsidized handout for the "feckless" and real estate officials believed it threaten the private enterprise. While the policies seem to be beneficial to the city of Detriot, the actual results were not. Public housing deepened racial inequality in the city. Thousands of Blacks were relocated for urban renewal and highway construction projects into highly concentrated inner-city neighborhoods.All public housing was not open to Blacks at this time. There were specific projects that were virtually all white. Therefore, segregation was naturally created and even sanctioned by officials. A lawsuit brought by the NAACP allowed for token integration of public housing. 

"The Damning Mark of False Prosperities": The Deindustrialization of Detroit

The deindustrialization of Detriot created massive unemployment and economic distress. This process was projected as a restructuring of Detroit's industrial economy. Sugrue describes the processes; first, there was a loss of manufacturing jobs so the unskilled and uneducated poor workers became unemployment and without an alternative. Some of these workers had worked in the same factory for 30 years and were thrown out of their jobs with no more than a pink slip, if even that. According to Sugrue, African Americans faced the largest impact of this deindustrialization. In the book, he provides data from 1960 census which shows 15.9 percent of Blacks were out of work while only 5.8 percent of whites were. In the motor vehicle industry, the black-white gap was greater with 19.7 percent of Blacks out of work and 5.8 percent of whites. White workers who had established themselves in the industries were given job protection while Black workers found their jobs eliminated altogether(144). The process of industrial decline had other consequences.As jobs left the city, so did white workers with the means. They moved to suburbs or small towns where factories were relocated. The result, according to Sugrue, is the Detriot population shrank in size and "grew poorer and blacker(149)". The city, "became the home of the dispossessed, those marginalized in the housing market, in greater peril of unemployment, subject to the vagaries of a troubled economy (149). 

"United Communities Are Impregnable": Violence and the Color Line

At this point of the book, Sugrue begins to talk more about the violence that rose out of racism. According to Sugrue,the frequency of racial conflicts in postwar Detriot's violent past remains hidden from history. The social ecology of white resistance, as described by Sugrue, was fight or flight. White homeowners violently attacked any slight changes in the racial demographics of their neighborhoods. When a Black family moved into the neighborhood, white residents would moblize, creating petitions, protesting, threatening the family through phone calls or writing the infamous "We hate niggers" or "Niggers- go home" slogans on houses and pitched up signs. Sugrue includes a quote from a white woman resident about this situation. "My home is my castle, I will die defending it; the Lord separated the races, why should Constable Brock mix them?" (250) Racial violence left Black people marginalized in every sector of public and private life. The results of housing segregation, persistant workplace discrimination and deindustrialization fostered Blacks retaliation in many forms from nonviolent resistance to vandalism. Race riots broke out throughout the city, the discontent of the Black people of Detriot spawned a brutal rebellion. Also emerging from this discontent was grassroots racial politics, taking the black demands to the legislative. According to Sugrue, the legacy of Detroit's economic and social history still weighed heavily for the last three decades of 20th century.

In his review, Robin Boyle comments that Origins is a "fine piece of urban research" with the minor criticism that those familiar with some of the examples in the book might find fault. I believe that Sugrue created a very comprehensive and important book. Sugrue's research mirrors other situations in cities in New York and throughout the country. It is not only an important book for urban research but an important text for public policy and political science overall.

Link to Review 

Sugrue, Thomas. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1996


This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 15:22:59 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:22:59 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Aronson's guide for the godless
Message-ID: <496A2AF3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Spirituality 

Aronson's guide for the godless 
A WSU prof contemplates America as a not-so-religious nation  
 MT Photo: Kim Heron 

http://www.metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13588#comments
 
SEE ALSO 
More Spirituality Stories 
City mission (7/30/2008)
Young Mormons on the move 

Alms & Tithe (5/28/2008)
At Zakat, Big Brother's the enemy and there's an escape from despair

Wright and the truth (4/30/2008)
Controversial pastor is warm, smart as hell and deeply intellectual.
 
 
By W. Kim Heron & Curt Guyette

Editor's note: Readers can discuss this interview and the questions it raises in the comment section at the end of this article. Author Ron Aronson will be checking our comment board for a dialogue with readers in the coming days.

It began seriously with publication of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, which became a best-seller for a previously obscure neuroscience grad student named Sam Harris. And it's grown into what Wayne State University professor Ron Aronson calls "a remarkable intellectual wave." What "it" is doesn't have a simple name, but involves questioning and sometimes attacking religion; it especially involves a questioning of the increasing role that religion has taken in American public life in recent decades. The wave includes philosopher Daniel C. Dennett calling for the scientific investigation of religion in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. It includes the acerbic journo Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). Bill Maher recently added his two cents with the film Religulous.

Living Without God (Counterpoint), Aronson's contribution to the wave, was published late last year. It brooks no argument with religion as religion, but it challenges how the religious right has warped our politics in recent times. Mostly it considers how folks on the liberal left who aren't religious can nonetheless root their politics and passions in something larger themselves. It's a book that's won blurb-praise from both the activist-theologian Cornel West and the aforementioned Hitchens, as well as from author Barbara Ehrenreich.

http://www.metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13588#comments 
 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Jan 11 15:46:03 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:46:03 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] =?utf-8?q?Ecuadoran_President_Correa_Calls_Cuban?=
 =?utf-8?q?_Revolution_the_20th_Century=E2=80=99s_Most_Important_Event?=
Message-ID: <496A305B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Ecuadoran President Correa Calls Cuban Revolution the 20th Century?s
Most Important Event
By Cuban News Agency
  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

click here for related stories: Cuba solidarity  1-11-09, 9:41 am 

HAVANA, Cuba, Jan 10 (acn) Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa described
the Cuban Revolution as the most important event of the 20th century,
during a keynote speech at the Main Hall of Havana University on Friday
night. 

In his speech on Latin American integration and the current
international crisis, the Ecuadorian leader added that Fidel Castro was
a beacon to the world, especially to the new leftist generation, while
he expressed his thanks for the brilliant examples made by the leaders
of the island?s January 1, 1959 revolution. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #90 - Depression Economics and Fundamental Change




PA Editors Blog

Books Review: Rankin, Leon and Todd
QUIZ TIME
Oakland residents speak out on the police shooting of Oscar Grant
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
Correa underscored that over the past 50 years the Cuban Revolution has
consolidated itself as a process of equity, solidarity and social
justice, and has served as an everlasting example of what a country can
do ? despite more than four decades of the brutal and inhuman US
blockade. 

The Ecuadorian president condemned Israel?s acts of aggression
against the Palestinian people, as well as the unjust imprisonment in
the US of five Cubans for defending their country from terrorist
attacks. 

Correa criticized the neo-liberal policies that outcast men and women
all over the world from the best human values, and called for the Latin
American integration as transforming element with concrete and tangible
actions in favor of the people. 

He pointed out that the capitalist system is in crisis because it
defends capital instead of human beings. 

Several times in his speech, Correa insisted that ?Socialism of the
21st century? is a system superior to capitalism from every point of
view, stressing that the Cuban people have demonstrated their limitless
capacity to offer friendship, solidarity and resistance, while
maintaining their ethical stance. 

At the conclusion of the keynote address, Correa received an award from
the university for his outstanding contribution to the economic,
political and social development of Latin America, and for being a
renowned economist and professor. 


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sun Jan 11 20:45:34 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:45:34 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] 2 paragraphs;
	seven sentence explanation of financial crisis
Message-ID: <c03.21638a7d.369c16de@aol.com>


1). Structured finance allows general risk in all debts to be unbundled  into 
tranches in a hierarchy of credit rating, 
 
2). allowing even the most conservative to participate in the debt bubble  by 
holding the supposing safe low-risk tranches. 
 
3). But the safety of these low-risk tranches is merely derived from an  
expected low default rate of the riskier tranches. 
 
4). As default rate of the high-risk tranches rises, the safety of the  
supposedly low-risk tranches vanishes. 
 
5). With runaway ?supply-side? voodoo economics keeping wage income in  
check during the boom phase in corporate profits, 
 
6). the resultant overcapacity from demand lag resulting from low wages  
shuts off investment opportunities for productive expansion and forces the  excess 
money supply into speculative manipulation of debt, giving birth to  
restructured finance and sophisticated, circular hedging of risk. 
 
7). A decade of excess money had produced a credit overcapacity 
 
8). which was solved by a systemic under-pricing of risk and a lowering of  
credit standards for so-called sub-prime borrowers. 
 
9). While sub-prime mortgage was at first mostly a housing sector problem,  
the derivative effects of sub-prime failure quickly infested the entire global  
financial system. 
 
10.) These interconnected factors that fueled the spectacular process of  
serial bubble formation at unprecedented rate and on unprecedented scale to  
support the false claim of neoliberal finance capitalism as the most effective  
and efficient economic system in history 
 
11).  turned out to be the same factors that brought the entire global  
capitalist financial system built on debt crashing down in July 2007. 
 
 
 
(The rest, as it is said, "is history.") 
 
WL. 
 
 
Structured finance allows general risk in all debts to be unbundled into  
tranches in a hierarchy of credit rating, allowing even the most conservative to  
participate in the debt bubble by holding the supposing safe low-risk 
tranches.  But the safety of these low-risk tranches is merely derived from an 
expected low  default rate of the riskier tranches. As default rate of the high-risk 
tranches  rises, the safety of the supposedly low-risk tranches vanishes. 
With runaway  ?supply-side? voodoo economics keeping wage income in check during 
the boom  phase in corporate profits, the resultant overcapacity from demand 
lag resulting  from low wages shuts off investment opportunities for 
productive expansion and  forces the excess money supply into speculative manipulation 
of debt, giving  birth to restructured finance and sophisticated, circular 
hedging of risk. 
 
A decade of excess money had produced a credit overcapacity which was  solved 
by a systemic under-pricing of risk and a lowering of credit standards  for 
so-called sub-prime borrowers. While sub-prime mortgage was at first mostly  a 
housing sector problem, the derivative effects of sub-prime failure quickly  
infested the entire global financial system. These interconnected factors that  
fueled the spectacular process of serial bubble formation at unprecedented 
rate  and on unprecedented scale to support the false claim of neoliberal 
finance  capitalism as the most effective and efficient economic system in history 
turned  out to be the same factors that brought the entire global capitalist 
financial  system built on debt crashing down in July 2007.  
_http://henryckliu.com/page178.html_ (http://henryckliu.com/page178.html)  
 
 
. 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sun Jan 11 21:07:59 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:07:59 EST
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Saving the Chinese Economy from the Global
	Financial Crisis
Message-ID: <c4a.4462743b.369c1c1f@aol.com>

Saving the Chinese Economy from the Global Financial Crisis 


The structural problem of the Chinese economy can be described in one  
sentence: China produces from plants financed by foreign investment that operate  
with low domestic wages for foreign markets that pay with dollars that cannot be 
 used in the domestic economy. 

The solution to this structural  problem can also be summed up in one 
sentence: China must finance plants with  sovereign credit to produce for the 
domestic market where consumer purchasing  power will come from high wages, with 
sovereign credit repaid from increased tax  revenue from a vibrant domestic 
economy. 

The adverse impact from  the current global financial crisis on the Chinese 
economy originates from the  export sector financed by foreign capital. Foreign 
markets have abruptly  contracted since mid 2007 to cause massive closure of 
ten of thousands of  foreign joint-ventures or wholly-owned enterprises, big, 
medium and small, in  the Chinese export sector located along the coastal 
regions. Many of these  enterprises normally repatriate their profit continually, 
leaving little or no  reserve funds to keep operating in slow periods. At the 
first sign of financial  distress, the absentee owners of these enterprises 
find it expedient to simply  shut down operations and vanish from the local 
scene, leaving millions of  Chinese migrant workers suddenly unemployed with no 
severance pay or  unemployment insurance payments, not even train fare to return 
home. The foreign  investors just abandon their money-losing factories, in 
which they hold little  equity, for foreclosure by lending institutions.  These 
bankrupt export  enterprises are not likely to reopen as few expect the global 
financial crisis  to recover soon. 

Five years earlier, in 2003, Premier Wen Jiabao  drew national attention by 
personally demanding back wages owed to a migrant  worker by his abusive 
employer to be paid. In February 2008, the National  People?s Congress (NPC) 
accredited the qualification of three rural migrant  workers as newly-elected 
deputies, making them the first group of  ?spokespersons? for migrant laborers all 
over the country in the national  legislature. This development is a historic 
breakthrough that will help  normalize the gap between urban and rural 
development and the oppression of  migrant workers by unsavory employers, domestic and 
foreign. 

The  Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) issued a 
landmark policy  document on rural reform and development in October 2008, vowing to 
enhance  safeguard of the rights of migrant workers, ensuring them equal wages 
and  benefits, including their children?s education, public health and 
affordable  housing as those received by resident citizens. Since China adopted the 
reforms  and opening-up policy in 1978, the number of migrant workers to the 
coastal  export regions has grown to ever 200 million. China has been improving 
rules and  laws to cope with the new changes and ensure migrant workers? 
rights. The unjust  condition of migrant workers has become a microcosm of worker 
conditions in the  socialist market economy in general. We need to remember 
that to eliminate such  unjust conditions for workers was the driving force of 
the Socialist Revolution  that began in China in 1921.
 
full: _http://henryckliu.com/page177.html_ 
(http://henryckliu.com/page177.html) 



**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 01:34:00 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:34:00 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901120034p5385fce6w9d3fc49e6121335@mail.gmail.com>

>> It was soviet guns and support that made Israel a reality.
Mostly, indirectly via Czechoslovakia.  The Soviet Union,
however, did much to make the creation of Israel possible.
They had backed the 1947 plan for the partition of Palestine.
They early on recognized the new state when it was created
in 1948.  Stalin, I believe, did allow a limited number of
Jewish veterans from the Red Army to come to Israel to
assist the IDF.<<

That makes sense because the Czechs had long been the center of
European arms industry, supplying Germany and then the Soviet Union ,
as the political map was re-written.
I think the Soviet material support came in the early 1950s, to better
arm and get ready for even more fighting.

BTW, revisionist historians now emphasize the duplicitous role the
British played in all this. While the British might have hated the
terrorist types of zionists who had plagued them so much between the
wars, they also proved rather passive in allowing the zionists to get
organized to fight prior to 1948. Perhaps they thought that by
acquiescing to the zionists, it would eliminate the problem--the
zionists would get their chunk of Palestine and allow Britain a late
colonial role of influence in the region (an influence they were still
trying to assert while helping Israel by the time of the Suez
conflict). And of course the British had other problems to worry
about, such as the independence of India and the final collapse of
their empire.

By 1948 in effect you had two well organized and well armed forces
ready to square off: the zionists and those parts of the British-Arab
army that did fight in WW II and was still intact.

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 01:45:39 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:45:39 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901120034p5385fce6w9d3fc49e6121335@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901120034p5385fce6w9d3fc49e6121335@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901120045x58415d27l6c99c48360f70972@mail.gmail.com>

> I think the Soviet material support came in the early 1950s, to better
> arm and get ready for even more fighting

Better correct myself on that. For example, see this (the site even
has a photo of a Messerschmidt that went to Israel). It seems like a
fairly pro-Israeli source at that. The aid was cut off by 1953.

http://www.tamilnation.org/books/International/israel_soviet.htm


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 01:51:22 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:51:22 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] 2 paragraphs;
	seven sentence explanation of financial crisis
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901120051v1d052502o6949d60dc08b1d62@mail.gmail.com>

>>2 paragraphs; seven sentence explanation of financial crisis<<

I said back in 2001 that so-called risk diversification and management
just meant the crash would be big next around (that was on Duff
Henwood's hostile LBO Talk list). Some wanted to believe that risk had
been eliminated. Duff himself seemed to think recessions were merely
orchestrated by interest rate policies of the fed. He also said the
regular business press had covered the .com and Enron bubbles well.
Right, they did such a good job we find ourselves in 2008 being led by
the same clueless people who  managed those crises.

However, it's interesting to see that we had a huge run-up in the
speculative 'price of oil' until July 2008. So the explanations here
look simplistic. What is the connection between the stock markets and
futures markets doing what they did after July 2007 to July 2008?

CJ


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 01:55:48 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:55:48 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901120045x58415d27l6c99c48360f70972@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901120034p5385fce6w9d3fc49e6121335@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901120045x58415d27l6c99c48360f70972@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901120055g3295b103j13de6f4b404c645a@mail.gmail.com>

See also

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/921/ee2.htm

excerpt:

 After Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic and Slovakia, was
liberated from the Nazis by the Red Army, it became a socialist
republic, and its relations with the Middle East lurched in an even
stranger direction. In 1948 Stalin ordered it to sell arms to the new
state of Israel, a policy which was lauded by David Ben-Gurion himself
as key to Israel's survival. At the time the West was refusing to send
arms to either the Jews or the Arabs, hoping to force them to settle
the issue of dividing Palestine peacefully.

This fateful aid to Israel 60 years ago is also being celebrated this
year with an exhibit, curated by the Israeli historian Shosh Dagan, at
the Military Museum in Prague. Ironically, given charges against the
Communists for airbrushing inconvenient events out of pictures, Dagan
admits she is also doing some airbrushing. It is no longer acceptable
to acknowledge that it was Stalin who ordered the help, or that the
Czech government was not acting on its own initiative. The war planes
and arms which the Czechs provided played a very important role in
halting the Egyptian army's advance south of Ashdod, at a place now
called the Ad Halom Junction. Even less to cheer Egyptians in this
historical reminder.

When Israel turned to the West, shunning the socialist bloc,
Czechoslovakia embraced the Arab, in particular, Egyptian cause. A
watershed event in Middle East history was when Czech arms arrived in
Egypt in September 1955, which allowed Egypt to stare down the British
and French during the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. Following the
Arab defeat of 1967, Czechoslovakia again came to Egypt's aid. This
period was the high point in Czech-Egyptian relations according to
Czech Cultural Attach? Andrea Kucerova. The stunning Czech Embassy is
a legacy of this, with its handsome architecture and beautiful
gardens. Though relations cooled when President Anwar El-Sadat ended
friendship agreements with the socialist bloc in the 1970s, he was
nonetheless beholden to those countries for military aid that let
Egypt defeat Israel in the 1973 War. Kucerova admitted that
Czech-Egyptian relations hit a low point after that, but was happy to
say they are "flourishing today".

After more than 40 years when historical events were filtered through
a pro-Soviet lens, it is natural that events of the past would be
given a fresh perspective. As the three events mentioned here show,
there is not much yet which might spark Egyptians' interest. Perhaps
Marhoul might want to reflect on how his hero, Johnny Lieberman,
probably slipped away from the Czech army when it was stationed in
Palestine in 1942, joined the Irgun as a terrorist, and then became a
pilot of one of the Czech planes in 1948, killing and driving hundreds
of thousands of Arabs into exile. "Living under the shadow of the
Holocaust" took on a whole different meaning for the Palestinians and
Egyptians when Czech arms helped defeat them in that decisive year.

In any case, Kucerova insisted that the republic no longer exports
arms to anyone here. At least that page in Czech history is closed.
And Marhoul, for all his apparent lack of awareness of Arab
sensitivities, was clearly motivated by a deep antipathy to war,
commenting in the discussion: "One day you may be a hero and the next
a coward. I tried to show the horror of war, how the poor soldiers
were mostly waiting -- waiting for death."

Cairenes can visit the embassy near the Urman Gardens in Giza for
concerts throughout the year and the annual Czech film festival in
March. Let's hope that as the republic rediscovers more lost pages in
its history, it will be able to celebrate Czech support for Egypt and
the Middle East in their struggle to achieve a worthy place among the
family of nations.


From jannuzi at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 02:16:37 2009
From: jannuzi at gmail.com (CeJ)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:16:37 +0900
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0901120055g3295b103j13de6f4b404c645a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0901120034p5385fce6w9d3fc49e6121335@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901120045x58415d27l6c99c48360f70972@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffbe0f7e0901120055g3295b103j13de6f4b404c645a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe0f7e0901120116x3e312c97y38ec223f2097d62b@mail.gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel)

Eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was signed,
President Truman de facto recognized the State of Israel, followed by
Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala,
Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the
first nation to recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland and South Africa.[11] The
United States extended official recognition on 31 January 1949.[12]

The declaration was followed by an invasion of the new state by troops
from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, starting the 1948 Arab?Israeli
War, known in Israel as the War of Independence (Hebrew: ?????
????????, Milhamat HaAtzma'ut). Although a truce began on 11 June,
fighting resumed on 8 July and stopped again on 18 July, before
restarting in mid-October and finally ending on 24 July 1949 with the
signing of the armistice agreement with Syria. By then Israel had
retained its independence and increased its land area by almost 50%
compared to the partition plan.



http://www.al-awda.org/zionists2.html

The British role was significant in facilitating the Zionist project.
Chaim Weizmann, the architect of the Zionist-British relationship, got
acquainted with C. P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian.
On 12 November 1914, Weizman wrote a letter to Scott stating, "?should
Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should
Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency,
we could have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out there,
perhaps more.  They would develop the country, bring back civilization
to it and form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal".

According to Weizmann, Herbert H. Asquith, then British Prime
Minister, wrote the following in his diary on January 28, 1915.  "I
received from Herbert Samuel (who was later appointed as the first
British High Commissioner for Palestine) a memorandum headed 'The
Future of Palestine'.  He goes on to argue at considerable length and
with some vehemence in favor of the British annexation of Palestine?
He thinks we might plant in this not very promising territory about
three or four million European Jews and that this would have a good
effect on those who are left behind?  I confess I am not attracted to
this proposed addition to our responsibilities?"  Asquith later added,
"Curiously enough, the only other partisan of this proposal is Lloyd
George.  And I need not say he does not care a damn for the Jews or
their past or their future, but thinks it will be an outrage to let
the Holy Places pass into the possession or under the protectorate of
'agnostic and atheistic' France". (A detailed account of the Zionist
activities and contacts leading to the Balfour Declaration was given
in: Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, Chapters 7-18, pp. 93-208)

The Balfour Declaration, promising support for a "Jewish National Home
in Palestine", which was issued on 2 November 1917, resuscitated the
"Zionist Dream" and launched a state of cooperation between the World
Zionist Organization and the Imperialist powers.  This close
cooperation was enhanced following WWII under U.S. patronage.

U.S. relationship with the Zionist-Arab conflict started as early as
WWI.  Its position began as a neutral power interested in the
application of self-determination to all ethnic groups as advocated by
President Woodrow Wilson.  This relationship developed into supporting
Britain in its designs for control and hegemony in the Middle East as
a result of the discovery of oil in the area. It was further developed
into supporting Zionist plans in Palestine that gradually enhanced
into a strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel..

Palestine was not an empty land waiting for the Zionists to build up
their contemplated state.  Dispossessing the Palestinian Arabs of
their lands and driving them out of their country provoked the
inevitable reaction of a people attached to their land.  The
Palestinians realized the implications of the combined
Zionist-Imperialist invasion and began a long and unrelenting
resistance against the colonial settlers and their Imperialist
supporters.

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:04:45 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:04:45 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Aronson's guide for the godless ( comments)
Message-ID: <496B07AC.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Aronson's guide for the godless 
A WSU prof contemplates America as a not-so-religious nation  
 MT Photo: Kim Heron 

http://www.metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13588#comments
 
 

Comments On 1/7/2009 7:36:55 PM, jazzbutcher said:
As I look at the scientific revolution I am disgusted on how nowhere is
science applied to human behavior. We have scientific psychology. It
goes against societal presuppositions so it is rejected. Conditioning is
the only way to explain this. Rejection validates behaviorism, but
evidence is ignored while superstition is reinforced. That is
predictable. That is tragic. That is irony. We continue to hold people
responsible for their behavior instead of realizing we have to
responsibly make changes in the environment to change people. People are
not stupid, lazy, perverted, violent, etc... People are people. People
develop a repertoire of behavior based on the contingencies of
reinforcement. We must change the contingencies to change the people. We
have to move beyond judgement and move towards understanding in order to
actually improve the world. Unfortunately the science of human behavior
isn?t being learned and superstition continues to be reinforced. I
therefore hope people will be responsible and read About Behaviorism by
B.F. Skinner. Of course they won?t because people only read what
reinforces their world view, but anyone that wants personal
responsibility will only find ways of perpetuating it by reading this
book. Understanding the science of human behavior and other sciences is
the only way we will get a better world. Scott Colby 
 On 1/8/2009 8:52:14 AM, Bumpadrum said:
Satan has tools everywhere, and this self important hippie is just
another narcissist staring at his reflection in a mud puddle. So what?
but he ceases being a harmless fool when he states that the seperation
of church/ state is clear in the U.S. Constitution. Where? Just because
you don't believe in God doesn't mean you can just make stuff up. I will
pray for your enlightment. Bumpadrum 
 On 1/8/2009 1:43:52 PM, shinealight said:
I'm shocked, shocked to find a university professor who is inclined
toward atheism/agnoticism/secularism. Really, yet another book on the
subject? Methinks Aronson stuck his finger in the air and decided he
better jump on this bandwagon and make some money on a book while the
political mood was still in his favor. I thought for a histroy
professor, his thoughts and comments on this movement had huge gaping
holes historically that left a lot to be explained. How do we go from
Sam ingersoll in the 1880's to a 1966 Time cover to "Imagine" as if they
all sort of have some connectedness? As for the so-called optimism of
his youth and the optimism he spoke of in the early 60's do you really
think it was because we as a society were becoming MORE secular? Where
do you pull this assertion out of? Where's the evidence? Just admit
you're trying to cash in on a movement that's already passing you by and
soon to flicker out like most academic trends. Why not address the
question why so many of the athiest/agnostic/secularist
authors/spokespeople/notables are white males? I think the article and
author mention Cornel West and Susan Jacoby as a sort of preemptive
defelction of that criticism, but the question is there. And as cliche
as it sounds why not also address the question as to why so many
athiests are people who have had little or bad relationships with their
fathers? Granted I'm no academic, but how about a little self-analysis
of your own "movement" before you go around criticising and lableing
those who do believe in a God. Lastly(I promise), why is it always when
athiests talk or write a book or have a discussion, they essentially
argue against the Christian concept or belief in God. Funny, I never see
these types taking their arguments to a black church, synagogue or
mosque, or anyone of those beliefs. I'd love to see you take on someone
other than your ususal straw man, especially islam. 
 On 1/8/2009 2:41:37 PM, Mark T said:
If you want to continue this discussion in real life. The Center for
Inquiry Michigan is hosting Dr. Aronson at the Redford public library on
January 21 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Details can be found at
http://www.cfimichigan.org/events/event/living-without-god-se/ Mark
Thompson Southeast Michigan Coordinator Center for Inquiry Michigan 
 On 1/8/2009 2:56:08 PM, skarris said:
This is in response to "Aronson's guide for the godless." I think
Aronson's argument is full of holes, which makes his "prowess" as a
seasoned university professor questionable. I feel that he fails to make
the distinction between being religious and belief in God, which any
true believer or even any "godless intellectual" will tell you is
distinct. This clear distinction is what makes believing, nurturing and
fulfilling to 92% percent of the population who may or may not prescribe
to any ritualistic worship or political power-mongering. His meager
attempt to pinpoint the small percentage that consider their lives
dictated by religion, only further refutes his point that believers in
God are akin to the authoritative religious right. Somehow, alongside
this movement of non-belief that according to Aronson is only in its
infancy, believers still enjoy their own belief systems and attempting
to answer life's unanswerable without pounding their fists in fury
against adversity. On that note, he makes the argument that the way to
deal with life's unanswerable questions is to simply stop attempting to
answer them by as he puts it "sticking to the questions you can answer."
How can he, as a history professor, attempt to explain away humankind's
struggle with philosophy? His contribution to the movement is to insist,
in such a crude and uneducated way, that those who have difficulty with
philosophic truths simply stop attempting to educate themselves. They
should be doing so in favor of such intangible and fallible things as
scientific discovery and biased historical accounts. I fear if humankind
stops trying to answer the difficult questions in favor of the "easier"
ones the direction he is supplying for the Atheists, Agnostics,
Secularists, the Undecided, etc., will have them continuing to go in
circles. 
 On 1/9/2009 11:34:22 AM, kdaubs93 said:
Hello Mr. Aronson- I just read your article, and one main point that I
did like about your journey/testimony/beliefs, is that you appear to be
very interested in giving money, time, and energy to the poor. You also
believe that we are all connected to eachother, and we long for
community. You also believe that we are on this Earth to make this a
better place, and you also believe that we are to have hope in our
lives, no matter what the ups and downs. The 'interesting'thing about
all these points is that Jesus Christ was for these exact same things
over 2,000 years ago. I agree that this country is far from being a
"religious" country, and in a lot of ways we are religiously confused.
The awesome thing that I've learned from Jesus is that he "did not come
to condemn the world, but that through Him the world would be saved"
John 3:17. We both agree that there has been a lot of 'mess' in this
world due to religious causes (racism, wars) but that should not cause
one to become an atheist. You also had mentioned above about struggles
in life. Paul the Apostle, who was once a murderer of Jews, was
converted to Christianity. He also saw Jesus Christ face to face after
Jesus was resurrected. He ended up living and dying a completely
martyred lifestyle and was rejected and imprisoned many times. The only
hope he had in life was in the fact that he had seen Jesus Christ
resurrected, and because of that he had no other choice but to serve
him....... And that's where I get my HOPE 
 On 1/9/2009 11:53:56 AM, Doc d20 said:
To: shinealight. Good post! You'll never see the atheists use Islam as
their straw man. More than anything, the atheist fears death: This is
because their faith excludes the hope of an afterlife and poo-poos the
idea of eternal consequence to present action. Moreover, it is well
documented that Muslims kill (or, at least, fervently call for the death
of) those who insult Islam. Thus, the Christians, most of whom adhere
strongly to tenets of peaceful prosylitizing, will continue to be the
punching bag of choice for these miserable jerks. 
 On 1/9/2009 1:45:04 PM, jacklattie said:
For me, some of these comments (so far) are part of what make such
issues so hard to get into. How can we have a rational discussion of
these issues when the first thing out of everyone's mouth is an attack.
Attack the secularists (miserable jerks), attack the writer
(self-important hippie), attack those not being attacked enough
(Muslims). The ideas presented here aren't "God is Dead" or "Religion
will kill us all". Why such a defensive posture? What I take from this
is a call for tolerance and understanding; a desire for mediation
between these factions so that some progress can be made, some
betterment. No wonder the secular/agnostic/atheists are so quiet and
disconnected when even the most even-handed thinking is ferociously
pounced upon. And as for Christians always being the focus, polls
reported by CBS and ABC news say nearly 83% of Americans count
themselves as Christian. If we're talking about religion and its affect
in the United States, we're talking about Christians. It's as simple as
that. At 83% that's white or black, hispanic or asian, male or female. 
 On 1/9/2009 10:08:36 PM, diagoras said:
Granted I'm no academic, but how about a little self-analysis of your
own "movement" before you go around criticising and lableing those who
do believe in a God. Lastly(I promise), why is it always when athiests
talk or write a book or have a discussion, they essentially argue
against the Christian concept or belief in God. 
 On 1/9/2009 10:09:28 PM, diagoras said:
the hypocrisy... 
 On 1/9/2009 10:12:27 PM, diagoras said:
The steps to being a hypocrit 1. Tell people they shouldn't criticize
or label people who believe in god 2. Label atheists, and criticize them
for only writing books on christianity. Try reading Ayan Hirshi Ali's,
or Christopher Hitchens book. Atheists aren't soft on islam. They write
what they are familiar with - what they have knowledge about. If they
grew up in a country that is predominantly christian - then christianity
is the religion they know thoroughly enough to critique. 
 On 1/10/2009 11:20:09 AM, Ron.Aronson said:
The most interesting fact about some of these comments is that they
resemble what happens in a Rorschach Inkblot Test - they?re not
interested at all in the actual interview, not engaging with what I
said, but rather seize the opportunity to go off - wherever the writer
was predisposed to go by whatever inclination. Still, I?d like to
respond to a few points. First, I agree with the main point maid by
Jazzbutcher (Scott Colby) about the ways in which environment affects,
even shapes behavior, and the need to make real changes in the world. I
discuss this at length in my book. But as I say there, there?s another
side to this, namely holding people responsible for what they make of
what is made of them. In the final analysis, however profoundly
conditioned, we are not cabbages or widgets, wholly shaped by the
environment, but we make ourselves beyond all of the conditioning. The
environment may give us our possibilities and our tools, but it
doesn?t make our choices for us and it doesn?t form our
responses. So ?understanding the science of human behavior and other
sciences? is not ?the only way we will get a better world.? That
will also take politics, and it will take human will and hope. Bumpadrum
should read the Constitution. Not only is it completely Godless,
beginning with ?We the people of the United States . . .? but it
also prohibits any ?religious test?for public office and declares,
in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that ?Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.? Thomas
Jefferson, commenting later, declared that this set up a ?wall of
separation? between church and state. To some of the other writers
I?d simply like to say that they might consider doing a little
reading and thinking before commenting. To take one example, I don?t
argue against religion in my book, and I didn?t in the interview. I am
not interested in disproving the existence of God. My goal, in the
interview and in the book, is to answer life?s important questions for
myself and other secularists, nonbelievers, atheists, agnostics,
humanists, skeptics, and freethinkers. I?m trying to explain the ways
in which life has purpose, order, meaning, and hope without God.
Believers may disagree, but it?s not a very good advertisement for
their religion that they fall back on attacks and insults rather than
making the case for their beliefs. To skarris on which questions we
might be trying to answer. I?d suggest he/she read my chapter five:
?Choosing to Know,? which takes this up in detail. To put it most
simply, my choice is to turn towards the questions of this life and this
world, which most of philosophy has historically tried to answer, rather
than focusing on unanswerable questions about . If others make a
different choice, so be it, but I?ll continue to argue for putting our
priority on solving the world?s problems. Finally, to kdaubs93:
You?ve invited a civil, respectful conversation over what we have
in common and where we disagree. As Obama says, in one of his best
sentences: ?No one is exempt from the call to find common ground.?
One of my keenest desires is to explore where we agree and where we
diverge, but to do so as you?ve done, without name-calling, insult,
and disrespect. Thanks. 
 On 1/10/2009 11:38:42 AM, Barb said:
Checking my user name 
 On 1/10/2009 12:25:25 PM, Barb said:
I have read the comments and find that most of them show the
intolerance of the right wing fundamentalist culture. It is something
that I find on almost every site that has to do with science and
religion. I have spent years reading text books to educate myself even
though I could not attend college. I grew up a Southern Baptist, but
long ago decided the bible was a book of stories written by ignorant men
who wanted to control everyone. Most of my peer group are also, at most
high school graduates. Most of them were satisfied with their knowledge
and most of them are nominal christians, with a few fundamentalist
thrown in. I would never try to take away their belief in this mystical
god they need in their lives, but I do have a problem with rabid
fundamentals who are for the most part not highly educated and have no
way of addressing a philosophical question beyond attacking the writer.
It is the intolerance and disrespect for opinions other than the one
they adhere to that calls me to question their "christian morals". Some
of our younger family members have had the opportunity to attend college
and most of them are skeptics, unbelievers, or totally non-religious. By
the way, I am 65, so I have had a long time to think about this. 
 On 1/10/2009 4:43:40 PM, seathanaich said:
Paul Buckman wrote a good book for religious people who aren't afraid
to ask questions, called "Can We Be Good Without God?" It is not very
confrontational, and is a good read for theists who want to respect
their non-religious friends and family, but have been scared off
Hitchens or Dawkins by reviews from religious sources. I agree with Mr
Aronson that most of the critical comments here do not actually address
what he has written; but if theists actually addressed logical,
reasonable criticism of their faith, they would discard it. Your
pessimism about change is an insular Americanism. Outside of your
country, then entire advanced world is rapidly reducing its religiosity
to less harmful levels, and then discarding it entirely. Atheism is the
majority view in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the UK, Netherlands,
Belgium, France, Cechy, and Japan. 33% are atheist in Australia and New
Zealand, 25% in Canada. All of these nations outscore the US on almost
all social indicators, not coincidentally. Atheists in the United States
discuss Christianity as their example (not their straw man, their
example) because - SURPRISE - that's the religion of most people around
them. It takes either ignorance or dishonesty to not be able to figure
this out. The person who claims that the US Constitution doesn't
separate church and state is a prime of example of the religious mind
set, which has two components: ignorance and dishonesty. When a
religious person offers an opinion, it can only be based on one of these
two bases. The claim that it is atheists who fear death is Orwellian
double-speak at its classic best by theists. Atheists don't make up
afterlife mythologies. That's theists who do that, because they fear
death. Quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck - it's a duck. Keep up
the good work sir. Young people will chose better ideas when they get
the chance to contrast and compare. 
 On 1/10/2009 11:28:19 PM, rodneykingofhearts said:
Can't we all just get along? No? Well, then...off with their heads!
Entertaining discussion- I would contribute something more substantial,
but I'm dyslexic. The book sounds intriguing because I'm certainly
curious about what life would be like without dogs. Great...now somebody
from People With Learning Disabilities Of America(?) is going to post a
large-worded attack on me because I've contradicted my initial plea for
tolerance. Mr. Aronson sounds like a nice man that makes some very good
points. Other people on this list make some good points, but they don't
all seem as nice. I would make a real attempt to ask people to "lighten
up", but I forgot-this is the internet. People can communicate things
without witnessing the emotional consequence it has on that human being.
If feelings were hurt on the message board, and nobody knew that
feelings were hurt, did feelings really get hurt? Heck- I might even buy
Mr. Aronson's book and have my extremely literate dog read it to me...so
he can tell me what life is like without...him...or attend the meeting
in Redford and just to make wild guesses at who might be "diagoras" or
"shinealight". Maybe Mr. Aronson is god, and this is just a test. 
 On 1/11/2009 1:08:23 PM, -Spiritually Inclined- said:
I would just like to say R.A. I am totally intune with the whole idea
of analyzing ones morality. Who is trully in charge of our religious
reasoning,and our daily life experiences. Which one of Noahs sons
between Ham, Shem, and Japhet, our known great great great great elders
and first forefathers should be examined and analyazed under and
american telescope? Since everyone wants to blame the other look closely
into the historical events process and values of those who look to
convert and economically obstruct our progression. They hide from the
eyes of "the america" Looking to convert or annexation us by controlling
our economy. The Germans vs THE FRENCH, See Revolutionary WAR! And what
evolved from this see Calvinism, The Geneva Covention, Huegunot, who
opposed annexation by the duke of savoy, from swiss german eidgenosse
the confederates from high german and middle german annexation-to add by
force or to make one bind threw war consequences or making one CONVERT!
The mixing of people and doctrines not by choice. JAPHET the migratory
cimmerians of equestrian nomads that inhabited the region of the caucus
mountains Ukraine,Russia, mongolia, eastern europe,SEE also those who
domesticated the horse see calvary and chariots."the horse people" See
also Germanic Pagan and neomidevalisim culture Romanticism see the Goths
and Vikings Vulcae. See also Byronics or the romantic ideals elevated by
the French who laid the background from which romanticism emerged. Neo.
If you want to blame someone blame Them! for keeping a foul ass MYSTERY,
BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH!
And the Beast she rides The red scarlett and the one who sinfully stops
our progress! So if you want to blame some one blame these Two for
getting the nations drunk and fornicating with all the inhabitant that
she tricked into be with wine and music see the slut and her beast
Lilith and samael, The Queen of England, and The catholic church, See
Ish of Esfahan, Isfahan Iran, From ENGLISH, Swedish, Flemish, German,
Norweigian, Iceland. European, English London finacial inerest groups
control the OCC of International affairs of London is called an
independent bureau of the United States Department of Treasury which
fosters competition or rivalary between individuals or GROUPS nations or
people for territory or resources Example of a group who looks to take
over american economy SEE CITIGROUP, and its Ivy School leaders. of
Columbia Institute for Tele information. Metonyming-WALLSTREET Ivy
Schools "Citicorp" wallstreet used in metonymy a figure of speech in
which IDEA is evoked or named by means of a term designating some
associated notion "substituting naming" or trickery these nomadic
wanderes are going down! Any way america belongs to the 12 tribes in
which there are 4444 thousand in each x 12 = 4 million of " the America
" anyway not some English nit wits! Cant wait to meet you R. A. I
totally understand ANALYZE! and you will Find the TRUTH! 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:13:05 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:13:05 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Natural Science and the Spirit World[1]
Message-ID: <496B09A1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Engels? Dialectics of Nature
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm
Natural Science and the Spirit World[1] 
THE dialectics that has found its way into popular consciousness finds
expression in the old saying that extremes meet. In accordance with this
we should hardly err in looking for the most extreme degree of fantasy,
credulity, and superstition, not in that trend of natural science which,
like the German philosophy of nature, tries to force the objective world
into the framework of its subjective thought, but rather in the opposite
trend, which, relying on mere experience, treats thought with sovereign
disdain and really has gone to the furthest extreme in emptiness of
thought. This school prevails in England. Its father, the much lauded
Francis Bacon, already advanced the demand that his new
empirical-inductive method should be pursued to attain by its means,
above all, longer life, rejuvenation - to a certain extent, alteration
of stature and features, transformation of one body into another, the
production of new species, power over the air and the production of
storms. He complains that such investigations have been abandoned, and
in his natural history he actually gives recipes for making gold and
performing various miracles. Similarly Isaac Newton in his old age
greatly busied himself with expounding the revelation of St. John. So it
is not to be wondered at if in recent years English empiricism in the
person of some of its representatives - and not the worst of them -
should seem to have fallen a hopeless victim to the spirit-rapping and
spirit-seeing imported from America.

The first natural scientist belonging here is the very eminent
zoologist and botanist, Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who
simultaneously with Darwin put forward the theory of the evolution of
species by natural selection. In his little work, On Miracles and Modern
Spiritualism, London, Burns, 1875, he relates that his first experiences
in this branch of natural knowledge date from 1844, when he attended the
lectures of Mr. Spencer Hall on mesmerism and as a result carried out
similar experiments on his pupils. ?I was extremely interested in the
subject and pursued it with ardour.? He not only produced magnetic
sleep together with the phenomena of articular rigidity, and local loss
of sensation, he also confirmed the correctness of Gall?s map of the
skull, because on touching any one of Gall?s organs the corresponding
activity was aroused in the magnetised patient and exhibited by
appropriate and lively gestures. Further, he established that his
patient, merely by being touched, partook of all the sensations of the
operator; he made him drunk with a glass of water as soon as he told him
that it was brandy. He could make one of the young men so stupid, even
in the waking condition, that he no longer knew his own name, a feat,
however, that other schoolmasters are capable of accomplishing without
any mesmerism. And so on.

Now it happens that I also saw this Mr. Spencer Hall in the winter of
1843-4 in Manchester. He was a very mediocre charlatan, who travelled
the country under the patronage of some parsons and undertook
magnetico-phrenological performances with a young girl in order to prove
thereby the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the
incorrectness of the materialism that was being preached at that time by
the Owenites in all big towns. The lady was sent into a magnetico-sleep
and then, as soon as the operator touched any part of the skull
corresponding to one of Gall?s organs, she gave a bountiful display of
theatrical, demonstrative gestures and poses representing the activity
of the organ concerned; for instance, for the organ of
philoprogenitiveness she fondled and kissed an imaginary baby, etc.
Moreover, the good Mr. Hall had enriched Gall?s geography of the skull
with a new island of Barataria: right at the top of the skull he had
discovered an organ of veneration, on touching which his hypnotic miss
sank on to her knees, folded her hands in prayer, and depicted to the
astonished, philistine audience an angel wrapt in veneration. That was
the climax and conclusion of the exhibition. The existence of God had
been proved.

The effect on me and one of my acquaintances was exactly the same as on
Mr. Wallace; the phenomena interested us and we tried to find out how
far we could reproduce them. A wideawake young boy of 12 years old
offered himself as subject. Gently gazing into his eyes, or stroking,
sent him without difficulty into the hypnotic condition. But since we
were rather less credulous than Mr. Wallace and set to work with rather
less fervour, we arrived at quite different results. Apart from muscular
rigidity and loss of sensation, which were easy to produce, we found
also a state of complete passivity of the will bound up with a peculiar
hypersensitivity of sensation. The patient, when aroused from his
lethargy by any external stimulus, exhibited very much greater
liveliness than in the waking condition. There was no trace of any
mysterious relation to the operator; anyone else could just as easily
set the sleeper into activity. To set Gall?s cranial organs into
action was the least that we achieved; we went much further, we could
not only exchange them for one another, or make their seat anywhere in
the whole body, but we also fabricated any amount of other organs,
organs of singing, whistling, piping, dancing, boxing, sewing, cobbling,
tobacco-smoking, etc., and we could make their seat wherever we wanted.
Wallace made his patients drunk on water, but we discovered in the great
toe an organ of drunkenness which only had to be touched in order to
cause the finest drunken comedy to be enacted. But it must be well
understood, no organ showed a trace of action until the patient was
given to understand what was expected of him; the boy soon perfected
himself by practice to such an extent that the merest indication
sufficed. The organs produced in this way then retained their validity
for later occasions of putting to sleep, as long as they were not
altered in the same way. The patient had even a double memory, one for
the waking state and a second quite separate one for the hypnotic
condition., As regards the passivity of the will and its absolute
subjection to the will of a third person, this loses all its miraculous
appearance when we bear in mind that the whole condition began with the
subjection of the will of the patient to that of the operator, and
cannot be restored without it. The most powerful magician of a
magnetiser in the world will come to the end of his resources as soon as
his patient laughs him in the face.

While we with our frivolous scepticism thus found that the basis of
magnetico- phrenological charlatanry lay in a series of phenomena which
for the most part differ only in degree from those of the waking state
and require no mystical interpretation, Mr. Wallace?s ?ardour? led
him into a series of self-deceptions, in virtue of which he confirmed
Gall?s map of the skull in all its details and noted a mysterious
relation between operator and patient.[2] Everywhere in Mr. Wallace?s
account, the sincerity of which reaches the degree of naiv?t?, it
becomes apparent that he was much less concerned in investigating the
factual background of charlatanry than in reproducing all the phenomena
at all costs. Only this frame of mind is needed for the man who was
originally a scientist to be quickly converted into an ?adept? by
means of simple and facile self-deception. Mr. Wallace ended up with
faith in magnetico-phrenological miracles and so already stood with one
foot in the world of spirits.

He drew the other foot after him in 1865. On returning from his twelve
years of travel in the tropical zone, experiments in table-turning
introduced him to the society of various ?mediums.? How rapid his
progress was, and how complete his mastery of the subject, is testified
to by the above-mentioned booklet. He expects us to take for good coin
not only all the alleged miracles of Home, the brothers Davenport, and
other ?mediums? who all more or less exhibit themselves for money
and who have for the most part been frequently exposed as impostors, but
also a whole series of allegedly authentic spirit histories from early
times. The Pythonesses of the Greek oracle, the witches of the Middle
Ages, were all ?mediums,? and Iamblichus[3] in his De divinatione
already described quite accurately ?the most astonishing phenomena of
modern spiritualism."

Just one example to show how lightly Mr. Wallace deals with the
scientific corroboration and authentication of these miracles. It is
certainly a strong assumption that we should believe that the aforesaid
spirits should allow themselves to be photographed, and we have surely
the right to demand that such spirit photographs should be authenticated
in the most indubitable manner before we accept them as genuine. Now Mr.
Wallace recounts on p.187 that in March, 1872, a leading medium, Mrs.
Guppy, n?e Nicholls, had herself photographed together with her husband
and small boy at Mr. Hudson?s in Notting Hill, and on two different
photographs a tall female figure, finely draped in white gauze robes,
with somewhat Eastern features, was to be seen behind her in a pose as
if giving a benediction. ?Here, then, one of two things are absolutely
certain.[4] Either there was a living intelligent, but invisible being
present, or Mr. and Mrs. Guppy, the photographer, and some fourth person
planned a wicked imposture and have maintained it ever since. Knowing
Mr. and Mrs. Guppy so well as I do, I feel an absolute conviction that
they are as incapable of an imposture of this kind as any earnest
inquirer after truth in the department of natural science."[5]

Consequently, either deception or spirit photography. Quite so. And, if
deception, either the spirit was already on the photographic plates, or
four persons must have been concerned, or three if we leave out as
weak-minded or duped old Mr. Guppy who died in January, 1875, at the age
of 84 (it only needed that he should be sent behind the Spanish screen
of the background). That a photographer could obtain a ?model? for
the spirit without difficulty does not need to be argued. But the
photographer Hudson, shortly afterwards, was publicly prosecuted for
habitual falsification of spirit photographs, so Mr. Wallace remarks in
mitigation: ?One thing is clear, if an imposture has occurred, it was
at once detected by spiritualists themselves.? Hence there is not much
reliance to be placed on the photographer. Remains Mrs. Guppy, and for
her there is only the ?absolute conviction? of our friend Wallace
and nothing more. Nothing more? Not at all. The absolute trustworthiness
of Mrs. Guppy is evidenced by her assertion that one evening, early in
June, 1871, she was carried through the air in a state of
unconsciousness from her house in Highbury Hill Park to 69, Lamb?s
Conduit Street - three English miles as the crow flies - and deposited
in the said house of No. 69 on the table in the midst of a
spiritualistic s?ance. The doors of the room were closed, and although
Mrs. Guppy was one of the stoutest women in London, which is certainly
saying a good deal, nevertheless her sudden incursion did not leave
behind the slightest hole either in the doors or in the ceiling.
(Reported in the London .Echo, June 8, 1871.) And if anyone still does
not believe in the genuineness of spirit photography, there?s no
helping him.

The second eminent adept among English natural scientists is Mr.
William Crookes, the discoverer of the chemical element thallium and of
the radiometer (in Germany also called ?Lichtm?hle? [light-mill] ).
Mr. Crookes began to investigate spiritualistic manifestations about
1871, and employed for this purpose a number of physical and mechanical
appliances, spring balances, electric batteries, etc. Whether he brought
to his task the main apparatus required, a sceptically critical mind, or
whether he remained to the end in a fit state for working, we shall see.
At any rate, within a not very long period, Mr. Crookes was just as
completely captivated as Mr. Wallace. ?For some years,? he relates,
?a young lady, Miss Florence Cook, has exhibited remarkable
mediumship, which latterly culminated in the production of an entire
female form purporting to be of spiritual origin, and which appeared
barefooted and in white flowing robes while she lay entranced in dark
clothing and securely bound in a cabinet or adjoining room.? This
spirit, which called itself Katie, and which looked remarkably like Miss
Cook, was one evening suddenly seized round the waist by Mr. Volckmann -
the present husband of Mrs. Guppy - and held fast in order to see
whether it was not indeed Miss Cook in another edition. The spirit
proved to be a quite sturdy damsel, it defended itself vigorously, the
onlookers intervened, the gas was turned out, and when, after some
scuffling, peace was reestablished and the room re-lit, the spirit had
vanished and Miss Cook lay bound and unconscious in her corner.
Nevertheless, Mr. Volckmann is said to maintain up to the present day
that he had seized hold of Miss Cook and nobody else. In order to
establish this scientifically, Mr. Varley, a well-known electrician, on
the occasion of a new experiment, arranged for the current from a
battery to flow through the medium, Miss Cook, in such a way that she
could not play the part of the spirit without interrupting the current.
Nevertheless, the spirit made its appearance. It was, therefore, indeed
a being different from Miss Cook. To establish this further was the task
of Mr. Crookes. His first step was to win the confidence of the
spiritualistic lady. This confidence, so he says himself in the
Spiritualist, June 5, 1874, ?increased gradually to such an extent
that she refused to give a s?ance unless I made the arrangements. She
said that she always wanted me to be near her and in the neighbourhood
of the cabinet; I found that - when this confidence had been established
and she was sure that I would not break any promise made to her - the
phenomena increased considerably in strength and there was freely
forthcoming evidence that would have been unobtainable in any other way.
She frequently consulted me in regard to the persons present at the
s?ances and the places to be given them, for she had recently become
very nervous as a result of certain ill-advised suggestions that,
besides other more scientific methods of investigation, force also
should be applied.?

The spirit lady rewarded this confidence, which was as kind as it was
scientific, in the highest measure. She even made her appearance - which
can no longer surprise us - in Mr. Crookes? house, played with his
children and told them ?anecdotes from her adventures in India,?
treated Mr. Crookes to an account of ?some of the bitter experiences
of her past life,? allowed him to take her by the arm so that he could
convince himself of her evident materiality, allowed him to take her
pulse and count the number of her respirations per minute, and finally
allowed herself to be photographed next to Mr. Crookes. ?This
figure,? says Mr. Wallace, ?after she had been seen, touched,
photographed, and conversed with, vanished absolutely out of a small
room from which there was no other exit than an adjoining room filled
with spectators? - which was not such a great feat, provided that the
spectators were polite enough to show as much faith in Mr. Crookes, in
whose house this happened, as Mr. Crookes did in the spirit.

Unfortunately these ?fully authenticated phenomena? are not
immediately credible even for spiritualists. We saw above how the very
spiritualistic Mr. Volckmann permitted himself to make a very material
grab. And now a clergyman, a member of the committee of the ?British
National Association of Spiritualists,? has also been present at a
s?ance with Miss Cook, and he established the fact without difficulty
that the room through the door of which the spirit came and disappeared
communicated with the outer world by a second door. The behaviour of Mr.
Crookes, who was also present, gave ?the final death blow to my belief
that there might be something in the manifestations.? (Mystic London,
by the Rev. C. Maurice Davies, London, Tinsley Brothers).[6] And, over
and above that, it came to light in America how ?Katies? were
?materialised.? A married couple named Holmes held s?ances in
Philadelphia in which likewise a ?Katie? appeared and received
bountiful presents from the believers. However, one sceptic refused to
rest until he got on the track of the said Katie, who, anyway, had
already gone on strike once because of lack of pay; he discovered her in
a boarding-house as a young lady of unquestionable flesh and bone, and
in possession of all the presents that had been given to the spirit.

Meanwhile the Continent also had its scientific spiritseers. A
scientific association at St. Petersburg - I do not know exactly whether
the University or even the Academy itself - charged the Councillor of
State, Aksakov, and the chemist, Butlerov, to examine the basis of the
spiritualistic phenomena, but it dbes not seem that very much came of
this. On the other hand - if the noisy announcements of the
spiritualists are to be believed - Germany has now also put forward its
man in the person of Professor Z?llner in Leipzig.

For years, as is well known, Herr Z?llner has been hard at work on the
?fourth dimension? of space, and has discovered that many things
that are impossible in a space of three dimensions, are a simple matter
of course in a space of four dimensions. Thus, in the latter kind of
space, a closed metal sphere can be turned inside out like a glove,
without making a hole in it; similarly a knot can be tied in an endless
string or one which has both ends fastened, and two separate closed
rings can be interlinked without opening either of them, and many more
such feats. According to the recent triumphant reports from the spirit
world, it is said now that Professor Z?llner has addressed himself to
one or more mediums in order with their aid to determine more details of
the locality of the fourth dimension. The success is said to have been
surprising. After the session the arm of the chair, on which he rested
his arm while his hand never left the table, was found to have become
interlocked with his arm, a string that had both ends sealed to the
table was found tied into four knots, and so on. In short, all the
miracles of the fourth dimension are said to have been performed by the
spirits with the utmost ease. It must be borne in mind: relata refero, I
do not vouch for the correctness of the spirit bulletin, and if it
should contain any inaccuracy, Herr Z?llner ought to be thankful that I
am giving him the opportunity to make a correction. If, however, it
reproduces the experiences of Herr Z?llner without falsification, then
it obviously signifies a new era both in the science of spiritualism and
that of mathematics. The spirits prove the existence of the fourth
dimension, just as the fourth dimension vouches for the existence of
spirits. And this once established, an entirely new, immeasurable field
is opened to science. All previous mathematics and natural science will
be only a preparatory school for the mathematics of the fourth and still
higher dimensions, and for the mechanics, physics, chemistry, and
physiology of the spirits dwelling in these higher dimensions. Has not
Mr. Crookes scientifically determined how much weight is lost by tables
and other articles of furniture on their passage into the fourth
dimension - as we may now well be permitted to call it - and does not
Mr. Wallace declare it proven that fire there does no harm to the human
body? And now we have even the physiology of the spirit bodies! They
breathe, they have a pulse, therefore lungs, heart, and a circulatory
apparatus, and in consequence are at least as admirably equipped as our
own in regard to the other bodily organs. For breathing requires
carbohydrates which undergo combustion in the lungs, and these
carbohydrates can only be supplied from without; hence, stomach,
intestines, and their accessories - and if we have once established so
much, the rest follows without difficulty. The existence of such organs,
however, implies the possibility of their falling a prey to disease,
hence it may still come to pass that Herr Virchow will have to compile a
cellular pathology of the spirit world. And since most of these spirits
are very handsome young ladies, who are not to be distinguished in any
respect whatsoever from terrestrial damsels, other than by their
supra-mundane beauty, it could not be very long before they come into
contact with ?men who feel the passion of love"; and since, as
established by Mr. Crookes from the beat of the pulse, ?the female
heart is not absent,? natural selection also has opened before it the
prospect of a fourth dimension, one in which it has no longer any need
to fear of being confused with wicked social-democracy.

 

Enough. Here it becomes palpably evident which is the most certain path
from natural science to mysticism. It is not the extravagant theorising
of the philosophy of nature, but the shallowest empiricism that spurns
all theory and distrusts all thought. It is not a priori necessity that
proves the existence .of spirits, but the empirical observations of
Messrs. Wallace, Crookes, and Co. If we trust the spectrum-analysis
observations of Crookes, which led to the discovery of the metal
thallium, or the rich zoological discoveries of Wallace in the Malay
Archipelago, we are asked to place the same trust in the spiritualistic
experiences and discoveries of these two scientists. And if we express
the opinion that, after all, there is a little difference between the
two, namely, that we can verify the one but not the other, then the
spirit-seers retort that this is not the case, and that they are ready
to give us the opportunity of verifying also the spirit phenomena.

Indeed, dialectics cannot be despised with impunity. However great
one?s contempt for all theoretical thought, nevertheless one cannot
bring two natural facts into relation with one another, or understand
the connection existing between them, without theoretical thought. The
only question is whether one?s thinking is correct or not, and
contempt of theory is evidently the most certain way to think
naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old
and well-known dialectic law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical
conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of
departure. Hence, the empirical contempt of dialectics on the part of
some of the most sober empiricists is punished by their being led into
the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism.

It is the same with mathematics. The ordinary metaphysical
mathematicians boast with enormous pride of the absolute irrefutability
of the results of their science. But these results include also
imaginary magnitudes, which thereby acquire a certain reality. When one
has once become accustomed to ascribe some kind of reality outside of
our minds to ?-1, or to the fourth dimension, then it is not a matter of
much importance if one goes a step further and also accepts the spirit
world of the mediums. It is as Ketteler said about D?llinger[7]: ?The
man has defended so much nonsense in his life, he really could have
accepted infallibility into the bargain!? 

In fact, mere empiricism is incapable of refuting the spiritualists. In
the first place, the ?higher? phenomena always show themselves only
when the ?investigator? concerned is already so far in the toils
that he now only sees what he is meant to see or wants to see - as
Crookes himself describes with such inimitable naiv?t?. In the second
place, however, the spiritualist cares nothing that hundreds of alleged
facts are exposed as imposture and dozens of alleged mediums as ordinary
tricksters. As long as every single alleged miracle has not been
explained away, they have still room enough to carry on, as indeed
Wallace says clearly enough in connection with the falsified spirit
photographs. The existence of falsifications proves the genuineness of
the genuine ones.

And so empiricism finds itself compelled to refute the importunate
spirit-seers not by means of empirical experiments, but by theoretical
considerations, and to say, with Huxley[8]: ?The only good that I can
see in the demonstration of the truth of ?spiritualism? is to
furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a
crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ?medium?
hired at a guinea a s?ance!"

Notes
1. From a manuscript of Engels probably written in 1878, and first
published in the ?Illustrierter Neue Welt-Kalender f?r das Jahr
1898.? 

2. As already said, the patients perfect themselves by practice. It is
therefore quite possible that, when the subjection of the will has
become habitual, the relation of the participants becomes more intimate,
individual phenomena are intensified and are reflected weakly even in
the waking state. [Note by F. Engels.]

3. See Appendix II, p. 368.

4. The spirit world is superior to grammar. A joker once caused the
spirit of the grammarian Lindley Murray to testify. To the question
whether he was there, he answered: ?I are.? (American for I am.) The
medium was from America. [Note by F. Engels.]

5. See Appendix II, p. 369.

6. See Appendix II, p. 370.

7. A catholic scholar who did not accept the dogma of papal
infallibility.

8. See Appendix II, p. 370.

Transcribed in 2001 for MEIA by jjazz at hwcn.org 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents | Marx Engels Archive




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:35:17 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:35:17 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] =?utf-8?q?_The_Legacy_of_Vicente_Guerrero=2C_Mex?=
 =?utf-8?q?ico=E2=80=99s_First_Black_Indian_President?=
Message-ID: <496B0ED4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://www.williamlkatz.com/Essays/BookReviews/LegacyGuerrero.php 


Essays | Book Review
 The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero, Mexico?s First Black Indian
President
Author: Theodore G. Vincent
Publisher: University of Florida Press, 2001
Reviewed by William Loren Katz

Vicente Guerrero has been a towering figure in the Americas,
masterfully commanding Mexico?s liberation army during much of its
independence movement in the early 19th century, and in 1829 assuming
his country?s presidency where he again fought off foreign invaders.
Born poor to a Black Indian family and growing up without formal
schooling, he taught himself to read and write as he trained his troops
in the Sierra Madre mountains. He was able to help write Mexico?s
constitution, free its slaves, take steps to educate and elevate its
poor and people of color, and serve as his country?s first president
of African and Native American descent.

Guerrero at 27 was a hard-working mule driver until the spirit of
freedom moved him to action along with tens of thousands of other men
and women of his racial and economic background. In 1810 he cast his
skills and offered his sacred honor in the struggle against a Spain that
dominated his country and most of Latin America.

African American historian J.A. Rogers called Guerrero the George
Washington and Abraham Lincoln of Mexico an assessment that indicates
the man?s stature. Now, Theodore G. Vincent, no stranger to Mexican
cultural development or the African American experience, has written a
thorough study of this important figure, The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero,
Mexico?s First Black Indian President. More than just the biography of
a public figure, Vincent weaves an inspiring addition to the
freedom-fighting heritage of the Americas and uncovers the untold story
of "Mexican cultural nationalism."

In 1810 Guerrero joined the struggle in which he would fight in "491
battles without a defeat" and began his rise from the ranks of other
"pardos" or people of mixed races. His attributes included an ability to
speak many indigenous languages and a command of military tactics. When
first given command, Guerrero had 500 unarmed troops, but he soon
remedied this with a midnight cavalry attack on a Spanish fortification
that gained his men, guns and ammunition. In his first year when he was
elevated to Captain, he was able to convince many Indian men of military
age to support the revolution.

The Mexican Independence war was one of the first modern guerrilla wars
against an imperialist army that burned villages. It was also one of the
first instances where guerrilla fighters without an urban base
maintained a political base. The revolutionaries lacked enough guns and
ammunition, and had to battle against local militias determined to
settle old scores. Roadsides were marked by crucifixes bearing the
rotting bodies of bandits and insurgents. Guerrero had to make it up as
it came along.

Guerrero?s humanitarian impulses, close identification with his
soldiers and public speaking skills helped cement a relationship with
his "pardo" army. When he won a victory he would claim he was a soldier
in the ranks and, "It wasn?t me . . . but the people who fought and
triumphed." He appointed Pedro Ascencio Alquisiras to be the first
Native American General in Mexico?s army-and this when more citizens
considered not Africans but Indians as the lowest rung of the social and
political ladder.

Vincent is carefully tuned to the complicated racial structure of
Mexico caused by the Spanish invasion, and he paints a vivid and sharp
picture of the changing social relations caused by the revolution. He
points out that the great liberator, Jose Maria Morelos y Pavon who
mentored Guerrero, was also a Black Indian as were many other high
officers. By 1800 Africans were a majority of settlers in Durango,
Sinaloa, Sonora, and California and Acapulco was 95% pardo. By 1820 the
Independence movement boasted only one standing army, the dark
freedom-fighters under the command of Guerrero.

Spain?s obsession with race led to laws that denied people of color
advancement, but permitted many to bribe their way up the caste ladder.
Even the first revolutionary Constitution of 1812 included article #22
that excluded African Americans from benefiting from many reforms such
as political rights and freedoms. But this only mobilized Guerrero and
others to see that the overthrow of Spanish officials also included an
agenda of freedom and equality for all.

Guerrero also had to defeat efforts of the white elite of Mexico to
highjack the revolution won by his dark-skinned soldiers. Terms such as
pardo, zambo, mulatto lobo were erased from the Mexican language. In
1823 he declared, "We have defeated the colossus, and we bathe in the
glow of new found happiness." True freedom, he declared is "living with
a knowledge that no one is above anyone else, and that there is no title
more honored than that of the citizen" and this applies equally to
soldier, worker, official, cleric, landowner, laborer, writer and
craftsman.

On April first, 1829 Vicente Guerrero assumed the presidency of Mexico
and his partisans riotously celebrated this "father of his people."
Decades before Abraham Lincoln?s Gettysburg Address spoke of a
democracy of, by and for the people, Guerrero promised to be guided
always by "that important truth that those in office are for the people,
and not the people for those in office." In his first address to the
Mexican Congress, Guerrero said: 

The administration is obliged to procure the widest possible benefits
and apply them from the palace of the rich to the wooden shack of the
humble laborer. If one can succeed in spreading the guarantees of the
individual, if the equality before the law destroys the efforts of power
and of gold, if the highest title between us is that of citizen, of the
rewards we bestow are exclusively for talent and virtue, we have a
republic, and she will be conserved by the universal suffrage of a
people solid, free and happy.

On his third day in office, the president invited people of all races
to his 47th birthday party, a fiesta held on the city outskirts. On the
fourth day he addressed a letter to his constituents in the "land of the
pintos" meaning darker people, commending their 33 martyrs in the fight
for liberty. At the same moment, Guerrero was being roundly denounced by
conservative and liberal politicians for being of a lower class and
lower caste and was snidely called "the commoner" as though this made
him unable to lead. He rejoiced in his own common touch. In Oaxaca he
was supported by a 23-year old Indian campaign worker, Benito Juarez,
who would become the first Indian president and drive out the last
foreign invasion of Mexico in the 1860s. Guerrero sought out the wisdom
of his wife Maria Guadalupe Hernendez de Guerrero who became an
important advisor known as "la Generala." She later became the leader of
his movement.

Guerrero began his term by ending the death penalty by edict, and also
commuted all death sentences. Next he raised taxes to pay for
improvements in the lives of the poor. Then he proclaimed "Slavery is
abolished in the Republic" on Independence Day, September 16, 1829.

However, Guerrero, concerned with the plight of his people rather than
distant investors, did not repay foreign loans and little investment
capital reached Mexico from abroad. The rich staged a tax rebellion
against his policies and as his army went unpaid units became muntinous.
Some of Guerrero?s officials were assassinated, and army desertions
rose. The Mexican Congress finally declared by a vote of 23 to 17 he had
abused his presidential power and had provided funds for revolutionaries
in Haiti. His foes wanted to have him declared morally unfit and "crazy"
but this did not happen.

However, his foes had him kidnapped at a dinner party aboard an Italian
ship in Acapulco and executed by a firing squad in February, 1831.

Vincent relates Guerrero?s story with verve and style. He also
modernizes it, using phrases such as "funky neighborhoods," "closet
white bigots" and "affirmative action" unknown in the nineteenth century
and hardly useful to understanding old Mexico. However, his fine,
detailed study restores one of the great figures of the Americas, and
places him along with others of his class and color in the limelight of
history they earned through daring, courage and sacrifice.
 




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:42:46 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:42:46 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vicente Guerro
Message-ID: <496B1095.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

The US war against Mexico soon after Guerro's Presidency makes more sense now from the logic of Gringo imperialism and colonialism

CB

http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/famous%20people/vincenteguerrero.htm

Vicente Guerro
Mexican Liberator and Mulatto  
 
President (1782-1831)  
     
 
 
  
 
   

 
 

 

Vicente Guerrero 
 

a mulatto ex-slave, was the George Washington and Abraham Lincoln combined of Mexico.

He freed his country and then freed its slaves. Guerrerowas born an Ixtla, Mexico, in 1782 of mixed white and Negro parentage with an Indian strain. His father, Juan Pedro Guerrero, and his mother, Guadelupe Saldena, were both of humble origin, the lowest of the low, degraded by law, custom, and prejudice. No Negro woman could wear any kind of ornamentation, jewels, trinkets, or linen. 

Guerrero started life as mule driver. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, he hadn't the slightest opportunity to learn to read or write. He was nearly forty before he knew a letter of the alphabet. But within his breast was an unquenchable desire for freedom and a spirit of love and justice for his fellow man. 

Therefore when the struggle for Mexican Independence began in 1810, led by a valiant, Hidalgo, he was one of the first to enlist. The upper-class Mexicans who oppressed by Spain. They could not trade with foreign countries and Mexican manufacture was forbidden.

When Hidalgo planted grapevines to make his own wine, government officials tore them up. Wine had to be imported from Spain, with a high tax. At this time, also, Mexico was ordered to pay a tribute of an additional $45 million to Spain. The grievances of the American colonists against George III were insignificant compared to those of Mexico against the King of Spain.

Declaring Mexican independence, hidalgo had called upon all his countrymen to follow him. Guerrero distinguished himself so well in the first battle that he was made a captain. In the first stage of the struggle the Mexicans were successful, but Spain, sending reinforcements from home, soon crushed the insurgents. One by one the leading Mexicans - Hidalgo, Allende, Aldama, Jiminez, Mina - were slain or made prisoner. The remainder accepted the king's pardon - all except Guerrero, who fought on.

Villasenor says of him, "Forsaken by fortune, betrayed, without money, without arms, with only his willl-power left, he was at this time of desolation and despair, the only supporter of the cause of independence, displaying valor, prudence, profound sagacity, indefatigable activity and heroic constancy." "Even in the darkest days of the long revolution," says Rives, "he was the leader of a little body of unconquered men, who kept alive the cause of independence."

The government, in an effort to win Guerrero, sent his father Pedro to offer him lands and wealth. But Guerrero scorned the offer. He had pledged himself no rest until the hated Spaniard had been driven into the sea.

 
 

Spain sent her best general, Iturbide, against him. Guerrero defeated him in two battles. Itubide, who secretly had resolved to desert Spain and make himself master of Mexico and had been winning over the army to himself by bribes, now made overtures to Guerrero, promising to revolt against Spain provided he had Guerrero's support. The latter, not seeing through his duplicity, consented. Joining hands, the two defeated General Santa Ana, Spanish commander. Iturbide was named President of Mexico, Guerrero stepping aside though he was the more popular of the two.

As ruler, Iturbide showed his true colors. He proclaimed himself emperor and with the landed classes continued the exploitation of the masses of ignorant natives who had born the brunt of the struggle for independence.

Guerrero thereupon declared war against Iturbide, captured him, and had him shot. Another was elected president with Guerrero as vice president. But the struggle between the landed classes and the masses went on. The opposing sides carried on their activities through freemasonry, which had lately been introduced into Mexico. 

The rich were in the Scottish rite; the poor, the York rite. Guerrero was head of the Yorks. At the next presidential election the candidates were Guerrero and Pedraza, the former bakced by the common people, the latter by the rich. Pedraza won, ten electors declaring for him against eight for Guerrero.

Revolt over the nation followed. The York's issued a proclamation naming Guerrero president. It said, "The name of the hero of the South is echoed with indescribable enthusiasm everywhere. His valor and constancy combined have engraved themselves upon the hearts of the Mexican people. He is the image of their of their felicity. They wish to confide to him the delicate and sacred task of the executive power." Finally the government surrendered and Guerrero became president in April, 1825.

Guerrero at once set about improving the conditions of the masses, composed of Indians, half-breeds, and Negroes. He ordered schools to be built, established free libraries - reading had been forbidden - proclaimed religious liberty, established a coinage system, suspended the death penalty, and took other steps far in advance of his time.

His most important act was the abolition of slavery. Though inspired by the Constitution of the United States, he went further than that document. He ordered the immediate release of every slave in Mexico. The estimated number of Negro slaves was 10, 595 blacks and 1050 mulattoes, with Guerrero's native state containing the largest number . The remainder were Indians and half-breeds, some of whom had a Negro strain.

 

The Mexican constitution, which is as liberal a document as has ever been penned, was much of it the work of Guerrero. One of its clauses read, "All inhabitants, whether White, African, or Indian, are qualified to hold office." Guerrero's emanicipation proclamation was put into effect almost without resistance because it did not entail great economic loss to the rich, except in one state, namely Texas.

The Texans were chiefly Americans who had migrated into mexico with their slaves to escape antislavery agitation in the United States. They made it clear that they would not give up their slaves without a struggle and Guerrero, who was busy fighting his enemies in Mexico City, was forced to leave them alone. Later Texas revolted and joined the American Union partly because of the emancipation decree of this Negro president. The Texans knew that the temper of the Mexican masses was against slavery and that they would be forced to give in sooner or later.

Guerrero's rise to the presidency increased the position of the wealthy and the landed classes and they used every means in their power to pull him down. Bancroft says, "They could not bear the power to pull him down.

Bancroft says, "They could not bear the sight of one of Guerrero's race occupying the presidential chair and ruthlessly destroyed a government whose only faults were excessive clemency and liberalism." Strode says, "Because of his lack of education, his country manners and his reputed Negro blood, he was held in contempt by the upper-class society of the capital. The conservatives chose to regard him as a triple-blooded outsider."

He might have won their approval, however, had he been willing to become their tool and give them a free hand with the masses. This he would not do and tried to win them over to his side by liberal arguments and generous dealing, which proved a total failure. Uniting against him, they drove him from office.

Guerrero, as in the days when he was fighting for independence, took once more to the mountains, where for the next four years he defeated every force sent against him even though his strength had been determined by a bullet that had lodged in his chest while fighting Iturbide.

Finally his rival, General Bustamente, took him by treachery. He gave a ship captain, Pucaluga, a friend of Guerrero, $13,000 to lure Guerrero to his ship. There Guerrero was made prisoner and executed after a mock trial. His death was followed by nationwide revolt. Bustamente was driven from the presidency and saved his life only by flight. Picaluga was executed.

A pension was paid Guerrero's window; honors were conferred on other members of his family; and cities and a state were named in his honor. In 1842 his body was removed to Mexico City and interred there. Parkes says, "Guerrero was an uneducated man of mixed Spanish, Indian and Negro descent of a singularly generous and kindly disposition."

"Guerrero," says Bancroft, was possessed of a gentleness and magnetism that inspired love among his adherents; while his swarthy face, resonant voice, and flashing eye made him an object of profound respect even among his enemies."


World's Great Men of Color
Volume II
by J.A. Rogers
 
   
 
 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:46:55 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:46:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] JP Morgan,
	finance capitalist: corporate finance and	industrial consolidation
	during his time.
Message-ID: <496B118E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 P. Morgan

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:47:57 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:47:57 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] JD
Message-ID: <496B11CD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

John D. Rockefeller

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 07:52:41 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:52:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Thousands Expected to Protest NATO Summit
Message-ID: <496B12E8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8710210833 


Fars News Agency
January 10, 2009


Thousands Expected to Protest NATO Summit


TEHRAN - More than 20,000 people are expected to take
to the streets of the German town of Baden-Baden and
the French city of Strasbourg, both of them being
venues for hosting NATO's 60th anniversary, to
demonstrate against the western military alliance.


The aim is to prevent the summit which is slated for
April 3 and 4, organizers of the protest camps
announced Friday in the southwestern German city of
Offenburg.


There are plans for mass protests and blockade,
according to German press reports.


According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, two
major camps, hosting up to 18,500 protesters, will be
set up in Strasbourg and its neighboring German town
of Kehl.


A broad spectrum of demonstrators, ranging from
Christian to radical leftist groups, will take part in
the anti-NATO demos.


More than 20,000 police are to protect the NATO summit
amid mounting fears of riots and terror attacks, press
reports said earlier.


German police will closely coordinate its security
measures with their French counterparts to ensure a
peaceful NATO summit as around 3,500 political
representatives from 35 countries are expected to take
part in the high-profile event.
....


===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato 


To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
stopnato-subscribe at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages 


http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read 






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 08:00:40 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:00:40 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Speculation
Message-ID: <496B14C8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market dominates
the policies of businesses.

by Lawrence E Mitchell

AlterNet (December 22 2008)

Editor's Note: The following is an edited excerpt from The Speculation
Economy:  How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007), Lawrence
Mitchell's definitive history of the rise of American finance and
analysis of how it shaped corporate behavior in the modern era.


During the rise of the "speculation economy" in the early years of the
20th century, business' focus on production was replaced with business
management's focus on stock prices.

That goal might be consistent with healthy, sustainable and responsible
business practices, but it also might not be. Understanding the complex
development of American corporate capitalism can help us better improve
and sustain the strength of the American economy.

While our current economic crisis is frequently compared to that of the
Great Depression, its roots and causes go further back in history - to
the development of the modern American stock market at the turn of the
20th century.

Contrary to popular belief, the public market for industrial securities
didn't finance industrialization - industrialization had already taken
place. Instead, it exploded into existence as a result of trust
promoters and investment bankers trying to restrain competition through
the creation of giant combinations of corporations and at the same time
getting rich quick by dumping the overvalued securities of these giant
corporate behemoths onto an emerging middle class eager to share the wealth.

The first major industrial stock market crash followed fast on the heels
of its birth.

The formative era of American corporate capitalism took place between
1897 and 1919. The American business landscape of the late 19th century
had been characterized by independent factories. No matter what their
size, they typically were owned by entrepreneur industrialists, their
families and perhaps a few business associates.

But in the first decades of the 20th century, American business
transformed into a vista of giant combinations of industrial plants
owned directly and indirectly by widely dispersed shareholders.

Business reasons sometimes justified these combinations. But they might
never have come into being if financiers and promoters had not
discovered that they could be used to create and sell massive amounts of
stock for their own gain.

The result is a form of capitalism in which a speculative stock market
dominated the policies of American business. The result is the
speculation economy.

Historians have studied virtually every aspect of the Progressive Era,
including the social and philosophical changes that took place in
Americans' ways of living and thinking about their world, the dramatic
technological and economic developments that occurred, the rise of big
business, the growth in importance of the federal government, the fitful
creation of American industrial policy, the establishment of the bargain
between labor and capital, the changes in political relations between
government and big business, the development of new styles of regulation
and America's assumption of its turn as the world's dominant economic
power. Many have provided rich pictures of different aspects of the
dramatic and related economic, social and political transformations that
occurred during that period.

The story I tell in The Speculation Economy:  How Finance Triumphed Over
Industry (2007) is the economic equivalent of the political creation of
the republic. It is a story that needs to be told for many reasons, not
least of which is that the corporate economy that emerged during this
era has been beset with problems ranging from short-term management
horizons that can damage the long-term health of business to the
increasing willingness of corporate managers to "externalize" the costs
of production for the benefit of their stockholders.

A recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations revealed
that almost eighty percent would have at least moderately mutilated
their businesses in order to meet financial analysts' quarterly profit
estimates.

Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising and
maintenance, and delaying hiring and new projects are some of the
long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations. Why?
Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to meet
quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to the
corporation's stock price.

One lesson of the formative period is that meaningful reform can be
achieved only by reforming the market, by reforming finance itself to
create the incentives for stockholders, and through them the market, to
re-learn the lesson that profits come from industrial production, not
from the breeze that blows toward tomorrow. It is a lesson that was
often forgotten during these early years, and many times since.

Finally, the story of the creation of American corporate capitalism
illustrates the possibilities of capitalism and the variety of forms it
can take. Some of these were present in the American corporate economy
of the late 19th century.

Closely held industrial capitalism, bank-finance capitalism, capitalism
in which publicly held permanent investments like bonds characterized
the principal source of corporate finance, even a heavily regulated
state-guided capitalism, all were possibilities before the election of
Warren Harding. Many of these different forms of capitalism have
appeared successfully in different regions, cultures and countries
during the 20th century. American corporate capitalism - stock market
capitalism - was neither the necessary nor inevitable form of the
American economy.

The story of the formative period is a story of problems misperceived,
transformations not yet understood and misguided regulation. One lesson
of this story is that modern American corporate capitalism is the result
of human choices. It is a system we maintain out of choice. It is a
system that has ramifications beyond the economic that have helped to
embed the kind of "hyper-individualism" that interferes with the
cooperation necessary for a successful economy and a thriving society.
It is within our power either to change it, to modify its rough edges or
to accept it as it is. But these choices can only be made with
understanding.

Several years into my research on the rise of the speculation economy, I
began to see in the formation of American corporate capitalism the
reasons for a number of contemporary economic and social problems,
problems which so many are trying to solve today without grasping some
of the important causes that this history helps to identify. Perhaps as
important, I started to see the way our speculation economy affects the
norms of American society, how it has pushed American social norms from
a vision of collective life that achieved some currency during the
Progressive Era to a more atomistic form of individualism that has both
recalled an earlier American ideal and driven the future. Nowhere in
American society is violent, competitive individualism more rampant than
in the modern stock market.

Finally, the story holds important lessons for citizens of other
nations, even as the American form of corporate capitalism has affected
the different ways many other countries do business. For somewhat over a
decade now, many countries have been at a decision point as to whether
they will adopt the American way or pursue their own, or even whether
they have much choice in the matter.

_____

Lawrence E Mitchell is Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law at
George Washington University.

(c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/ 






This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 08:59:00 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:59:00 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Gus Hall
Message-ID: <496B2273.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://reds.linefeed.org/bios/gushall.html

Gus Hall
(1910-2000)
Long-time American Communist Party leader. Hall was born Arvo Gus
Halberg on October 8, 1910, in the Mesabi Iron Range of Minnesota. His
parents were Finnish immigrants who were involved in the IWW and would
later be charter members of the Communist Party in 1919. His father,
Matt Halberg, recruited him into the Young Communist League (YCL) when
he was 17. Working for the YCL, young Arvo traveled to mining towns in
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. In 1931, he spent two years at the
Lenin Institute in Moscow, learning the political ideology of Joseph
Stalin and other Soviet leaders of that period. In the 1934 Minneapolis
Teamsters strike (led by Trotskyist Farrell Dobbs), Hall was one of the
young activists involved. During this period, he became blacklisted and
could not find a job, forcing him to change his name to Gus Hall. 

The YCL moved Hall to Ohio where he led the 1937 "Little Steel" strike
of Warren-Youngstown. He became a staff member of the Steel Workers of
America, and ran for mayor of Youngstown, Ohio, on the Communist Party
ticket. He volunteered for the US Navy during World War II and was
elected to the Communist Party's National Committee while in the Pacific
in 1944. He became a close aide to Eugene Dennis and was consequently
elected to the National Executive Board in 1946. 

Under the anti-communist Smith Act, Hall was indicted in 1948 and
convicted one year later to a five-year prison term. He fled to Mexico
and was elected the Communist Party's National Secretary in 1950. In
Mexico City, US authorities apprehended Hall in 1951 and was given three
additional years of prison time. Upon his release in the 1960's, he
became the General Secretary of the Communist Party and worked to
rebuild the party after years of devestating decline. He ran for
President in 1968 with Charlene Mitchell, but received only 1,075 votes.


As he rebuilt the Communist Party, Hall retained many characteristics
of the Party's Stalinist past, and entered the New Left to gain young
activists with the YCL (now known as the "W.E.B. DuBois Clubs"). He
managed to draw in many young militants with the help of the likes of
Charlene Mitchell and Angela Davis. 

Hall ran again four more times. The highest number of votes he received
was when he was paired with Jarvis Tyner in 1976. In the '76 election,
he received 58,992 votes. During his Presidential campaigns, Hall made
familiar the slogan "People Before Profits." He took part in the last CP
Presidential campaign in 1984 (gaining 36,386 votes). In 1988, he
steered the CP into full support for the Democratic Party when he
suspected left-Democrat Jesse Jackson would win the Presidential
primaries. 

In 1991, he led the anti-Gorbachev, pro-CPSU establishment in the
Communist Party ? parting ways with former allies (such as Angela
Davis and Charlene Mitchell). Hall continued to lead the Party until the
end of his life, maintaining the popular front with the Democrats
against the right ? even as Democrat Bill Clinton pushed Free Trade
and Wellfare reform. He passed away on October 13, 2000, and was
replaced as General Secretary by his lieutenant, Sam Webb. Hall's wife
and family received condolences from as far away as the Communist Party
of Vietnam. 

Hall was a prolific writer, publishing numerous books for the layman
worker, including: The Energy Rip-Off: Cause & Cure (1974) ; Basics for
Peace, Democracy & Social Progress (1980); Fighting Racism (1985); and
Working Class USA: The Power and the Movement (1987). 


Gus Hall

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:02:51 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:02:51 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Several Conclusions
Message-ID: <496B235B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Vladimir Lenin?s
Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several Conclusions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905 revealed a highly original
turn in world history: in one of the most backward capitalist countries,
the strike movement attained a scope and power unprecedented anywhere in
the world. In the first month of 1905 alone, the number of strikers was
ten times the annual average for the previous decade (1895-1904); from
January to October 1905, strikes grew all the time and reached enormous
proportions. Under the influence of a number of unique historical
conditions, backward Russia was the first to show the world, not only
the growth, by leaps and bounds, of the independent activity of the
oppressed masses in time of revolution (this had occurred in all great
revolutions), but also that the significance of the proletariat is
infinitely greater than its proportion in the total population; it
showed a combination of the economic strike and the political strike,
with the latter developing into an armed uprising, and the birth of the
Soviets, a new form of mass struggle and mass organisation of the
classes oppressed by capitalism. 

The revolutions of February and October 1917 led to the all-round
development of the Soviets on a nation-wide scale and to their victory
in the proletarian socialist revolution. In less than two years, the
international character of the Soviets, the spread of this form of
struggle and organisation to the world working-class movement and the
historical mission of the Soviets as the grave-digger, heir and
successor of bourgeois parliamentarianism and of bourgeois democracy in
general, all became clear. 

But that is not all. The history of the working-class movement now
shows that, in all countries, it is about to go through (and is already
going through) a struggle waged by communism ? emergent, gaining
strength and advancing towards victory ? against, primarily,
Menshevism, i.e., opportunism and social-chauvinism (the home brand in
each particular country), and then as a complement, so to say, Left-wing
communism. The former struggle has developed in all countries,
apparently without any exception, as a duel between the Second
International (already virtually dead) and the Third International The
latter struggle is to be seen in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, America
(at any rate, a certain section of the Industrial Workers of the World
and of the anarcho-syndicalist trends uphold the errors of Left-wing
communism alongside of an almost universal and almost unreserved
acceptance of the Soviet system), and in France (the attitude of a
section of the former syndicalists towards the political party and
parliamentarianism, also alongside of the acceptance of the Soviet
system); in other words, the struggle is undoubtedly being waged, not
only on an international, but even on a worldwide scale. 

But while the working-class movement is everywhere going through what
is actually the same kind of preparatory school for victory over the
bourgeoisie, it is achieving that development in its own way in each
country. The big and advanced capitalist countries are travelling this
road far more rapidly than did Bolshevism, to which history granted
fifteen years to prepare itself for victory, as an organised political
trend. In the brief space of a year, the Third International has already
scored a decisive victory; it has defeated the yellow, social-chauvinist
Second International, which only a few months ago was incomparably
stronger than the Third International, seemed stable and powerful, and
enjoyed every possible support?direct and indirect, material (Cabinet
posts, passports, the press) and ideological ? from the world
bourgeoisie. 

It is now essential that Communists of every country should quite
consciously take into account both the fundamental objectives of the
struggle against opportunism and "Left" doctrinairism, and the concrete
features which this struggle assumes and must inevitably assume in each
country, in conformity with the specific character of its economics,
politics, culture, and national composition (Ireland, etc.), its
colonies, religious divisions, and so on and so forth. Dissatisfaction
with the Second International is felt everywhere and is spreading and
growing, both because of its opportunism and because of its inability or
incapacity to create a really centralised and really leading centre
capable of directing the international tactics of the revolutionary
proletariat in its struggle for a world Soviet republic. It should be
clearly realised that such a leading centre can never be built up on
stereotyped, mechanically equated, and identical tactical rules of
struggle. As long as national and state distinctions exist among peoples
and countries?and these will continue to exist for a very long time to
come, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been
established on a world-wide scale?the unity of the international
tactics of the communist working-class movement in all countries
demands, not the elimination of variety of the suppression of national
distinctions (which is a pipe dream at present), but an application of
the fundamental principles of communism (Soviet power and the
dictatorship of the proletariat), which will correctly modify these
principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to
national and national-state distinctions. To seek out, investigate,
predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally
distinctive, in the concrete manner in which each country should tackle
a single international task: victory over opportunism and Left
doctrinarism within the working-class movement; the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie; the establishment of a Soviet republic and a proletarian
dictatorship?such is the basic task in the historical period that all
the advanced countries (and not they alone) are going through. The chief
thing?though, of course, far from everything?the chief thing, has
already been achieved: the vanguard of the working class has been won
over, has ranged itself on the side of Soviet government and against
parliamentarianism, on the side of the dictatorship of the proletariat
and against bourgeois democracy. All efforts and all attention should
now be concentrated on the next step, which may seem?and from a
certain viewpoint actually is ?less fundamental, but, on the other
hand, is actually closer to a practical accomplishment of the task. That
step is: the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the
proletarian revolution. 

The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the
main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be
made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be
won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive
battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a
position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of
sympathetic neutrality towards it and of precluded support for the
enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and
agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of
the working people, those oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand.
For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is
the fundamental law of all great revolutions, which has been confirmed
with compelling force and vividness, not only in Russia but in Germany
as well. To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary, not
only for the ignorant and often illiterate masses of Russia, but also
for the literate and well-educated masses of Germany, to realise from
their own bitter experience the absolute impotence and spinelessness,
the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie, and the
utter vileness of the government of the paladins of the Second
International; they had to realise that a dictatorship of the extreme
reactionaries (Kornilov [37] in Russia; Kapp [38] and Co. in Germany) is
inevitably the only alternative to a dictatorship of the proletariat. 

The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the
international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties,
groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are
still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and
convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to
lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance
and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective
(that of winning over the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to
the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class)
could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political
victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, the second and immediate
objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new
position ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot
be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a
full elimination of its errors. 

As long as it was (and inasmuch as it still is) a question of winning
the proletariat?s vanguard over to the side of communism, priority
went and still goes to propaganda work; even propaganda circles, with
all their parochial limitations, are useful under these conditions, and
produce good results. But when it is a question of practical action by
the masses, of the disposition, if one may so put it, of vast armies, of
the alignment of all the class forces in a given society for the final
and decisive battle, then propagandist methods alone, the mere
repetition of the truths of "pure" communism, are of no avail. In these
circumstances, one must not count in thousands, like the propagandist
belonging to a small group that has not yet given leadership to the
masses; in these circumstances one must count in millions and tens of
millions. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only
whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but
also whether the historically effective forces of all
classes?positively of all the classes in a given society, without
exception?are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at
hand?in such a way that: (1) all the class forces hostile to us have
become sufficiently entangled, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each
other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle which is
beyond their strength; (2) all the vacillating and unstable,
intermediate elements?the petty bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois
democrats, as distinct from the bourgeoisie ?have sufficiently exposed
themselves in the eyes of the people, have sufficiently disgraced
themselves through their practical bankruptcy, and (3) among the
proletariat, a mass sentiment favouring the most determined, bold and
dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie has emerged and
begun to grow vigorously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed,
if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarised
above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured. 

The differences between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges ?with
insignificant national distinctions, these political types exist in all
countries?on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd
Georges on the other, are quite minor and unimportant from the
standpoint of pure (i.e., abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has
not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the
masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the
masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of
these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable
conflicts between these "friends", which weaken and enfeeble all the
"friends" taken together, will have come to a head?that is the
concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a
class-conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical
leader of the masses in the revolution. It is necessary to link the
strictest devotion to the ideas of communism with the ability to effect
all the necessary practical compromises, tacks, conciliatory manoeuvres,
zigzags, retreats and so on, in order to speed up the achievement and
then loss of political power by the Hendersons (the heroes of the Second
International, if we are not to name individual representatives of
petty-bourgeois democracy who call themselves socialists); to accelerate
their inevitable bankruptcy in practice, which will enlighten the masses
in the spirit of our ideas, in the direction of communism; to accelerate
the inevitable friction, quarrels, conflicts and complete disintegration
among the Hendersons, the Lloyd Georges and the Churchills (the
Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Constitutional-Democrats,
the monarchists; the Scheidemanns, the bourgeoisie and the Kappists,
etc.); to select the proper moment when the discord among these "pillars
of sacrosanct private property" is at its height, so that, through a
decisive offensive, the proletariat will defeat them all and capture
political power. 

History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is
always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and
ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most
class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily
be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the
class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands,
whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human
capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will,
passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute
struggle of classes. Two very important practical conclusions follow
from this: first, that in order to accomplish its task the revolutionary
class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity
without exception (completing after the capture of political power ?
sometimes at great risk and with very great danger?what it did not
complete before the capture of power); second, that the revolutionary
class must be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one
form by another. 

One will readily agree that any army which does not train to use all
the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy
possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal
manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of
war. In politics it is even harder to know in advance which methods of
struggle will be applicable and to our advantage in certain future
conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may
suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our
control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a
form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, we learn
to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we
represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary
class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons
that are most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest
mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal
methods of struggle are opportunist because, in this field, the
bourgeoisie has most frequently deceived and duped the workers
(particularly in "peaceful" and non-revolutionary times), while illegal
methods of struggle are revolutionary. That, however, is wrong. The
truth is that those parties and leaders are opportunists and traitors to
the working class that are unable or unwilling (do not say, "I can?t";
say, "I shan?t") to use illegal methods of struggle in conditions such
as those which prevailed, for example, during the imperialist war of
1914-18, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries most
brazenly and brutally deceived the workers, and smothered the truth
about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who are
incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form of
legal struggle are poor revolutionaries indeed. It is not difficult to
be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in
spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are
carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist
motives. After its victory, the proletariat has to make most strenuous
efforts, even the most painful, so as to "liberate" itself from such
pseudo-revolutionaries. It is far more difficult?and far more
precious?to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open,
really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist, to be
able to champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda,
agitation and organisation) in non-revolutionary bodies, and quite often
in downright reactionary bodies, in a non-revolutionary situation, among
the masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for
revolutionary methods of action. To be able to seek, find and correctly
determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will
lead the masses to the real, decisive and final revolutionary
struggle?such is the main objective of communism in Western Europe
and in America today. 

Britain is an example. We cannot tell?no one can tell in
advance?how soon a real proletarian revolution will flare up there,
and what immediate cause will most serve to rouse, kindle, and impel
into the struggle the very wide masses, who are still dormant. Hence, it
is our duty to carry on all our preparatory work in such a way as to be
"well shod on all four feet" (as the late Plekhanov, when he was a
Marxist and revolutionary, was fond of saying). It is possible that the
breach will be forced, the ice broken, by a parliamentary crisis, or by
a crisis arising from colonial and imperialist contradictions, which are
hopelessly entangled and are becoming increasingly painful and acute, or
perhaps by some third cause, etc. We are not discussing the kind of
struggle that will determine the fate of the proletarian revolution in
Great Britain (no Communist has any doubt on that score; for all of us
this is a foregone conclusion): what we are discussing is the immediate
cause that will bring into motion the now dormant proletarian masses,
and lead them right up to revolution. Let us not forget that in the
French bourgeois republic, for example, in a situation which, from both
the international and the national viewpoints, was a hundred times less
revolutionary than it is today, such an "unexpected" and "petty" cause
as one of the many thousands of fraudulent machinations of the
reactionary military caste (the Dreyfus case [39]) was enough to bring
the people to the brink of civil war! 

In Great Britain the Communists should constantly, unremittingly and
unswervingly utilise parliamentary elections and all the vicissitudes of
the Irish, colonial and world-imperialist policy of the British
Government, and all other fields, spheres and aspects of public life,
and work in all of them in a new way, in a communist way, in the spirit
of the Third, not the Second, International. I have neither the time nor
the space here to describe the "Russian" "Bolshevik" methods of
participation in parliamentary elections and in the parliamentary
struggle; I can, however, assure foreign Communists that they were quite
unlike the usual West-European parliamentary campaigns. From this the
conclusion is often drawn: "Well, that was in Russia, in our country
parliamentarianism is different." This is a false conclusion.
Communists, adherents of the Third International in all countries, exist
for the purpose of changing ? all along the line, in all spheres of
life?the old socialist, trade unionist, syndicalist, and parliamentary
type of work into a new type of work, the communist. In Russia, too,
there was always an abundance of opportunism, purely bourgeois sharp
practices and capitalist rigging in the elections. In Western Europe and
in America, the Communist must learn to create a new, uncustomary,
non-opportunist, and non-careerist parliamentarianism; the Communist
parties must issue their slogans; true proletarians, with the help of
the unorganised and downtrodden poor, should distribute leaflets,
canvass workers? houses and cottages of the rural proletarians and
peasants in the remote villages (fortunately there are many times fewer
remote villages in Europe than in Russia, and in Britain the number is
very small); they should go into the public houses, penetrate into
unions, societies and chance gatherings of the common people, and speak
to the people, not in learned (or very parliamentary) language, they
should not at all strive to "get seats" in parliament, but should
everywhere try to get people to think, and draw the masses into the
struggle, to take the bourgeoisie at its word and utilise the machinery
it has set up, the elections it has appointed, and the appeals it has
made to the people; they should try to explain to the people what
Bolshevism is, in a way that was never possible (under bourgeois rule)
outside of election times (exclusive, of course, of times of big
strikes, when in Russia a similar apparatus for widespread popular
agitation worked even more intensively). It is very difficult to do this
in Western Europe and extremely difficult in America, but it can and
must be done, for the objectives of communism cannot be achieved without
effort. We must work to accomplish practical tasks, ever more varied and
ever more closely connected with all branches of social life, winning
branch after branch, and sphere after sphere from the bourgeoisie. 

In Great Britain, further, the work of propaganda, agitation and
organisation among the armed forces and among the oppressed and
underprivileged nationalities in their "own" state (Ireland, the
colonies) must also be tackled in a new fashion (one that is not
socialist, but communist not reformist, but revolutionary). That is
because, in the era of imperialism in general and especially today after
a war that was a sore trial to the peoples and has quickly opened their
eyes to the truth (i.e., the fact that tens of millions were killed and
maimed for the sole purpose of deciding whether the British or the
German robbers should plunder the largest number of countries), all
these spheres of social life and heavily charged with inflammable
material and are creating numerous causes of conflicts, crises and an
intensification of the class struggle. We do not and cannot know which
spark?of the innumerable sparks that are flying about in all countries
as a result of the world economic and political crisis?will kindle the
conflagration, in the sense of raising up the masses; we must,
therefore, with our new and communist principles, set to work to stir up
all and sundry, even the oldest, mustiest and seemingly hopeless
spheres, for otherwise we shall not be able to cope with our tasks,
shall not be comprehensively prepared, shall not be in possession of all
the weapons and shall not prepare ourselves either to gain victory over
the bourgeoisie (which arranged all aspects of social life?and has now
disarranged them?in its bourgeois fashion), or to bring about the
impending communist reorganisation of every sphere of life, following
that victory. 

Since the proletarian revolution in Russia and its victories on an
international scale, expected neither by the bourgeoisie nor the
philistines, the entire world has become different, and the bourgeoisie
everywhere has become different too. It is terrified of "Bolshevism",
exasperated by it almost to the point of frenzy, and for that very
reason it is, on the one hand, precipitating the progress of events and,
on the other, concentrating on the forcible suppression of Bolshevism,
thereby weakening its own position in a number of other fields. In their
tactics the Communists in all the advanced countries must take both
these circumstances into account. 

When the Russian Cadets and Kerensky began furiously to hound the
Bolsheviks?especially since April 1917, and more particularly in June
and July 1917?they overdid things. Millions of copies of bourgeois
papers, clamouring in every key against the Bolsheviks, helped the
masses to make an appraisal of Bolshevism, apart from the newspapers,
all public life was full of discussions about Bolshevism, as a result of
the bourgeoisie?s "zeal". Today the millionaires of all countries are
behaving on an international scale in a way that deserves our heartiest
thanks. They are hounding Bolshevism with the same zeal as Kerensky and
Co. did; they, too, are overdoing things and helping us just as Kerensky
did. When the French bourgeoisie makes Bolshevism the central issue in
the elections, and accuses the comparatively moderate or vacillating
socialists of being Bolsheviks; when the American bourgeoisie, which has
completely lost its head, seizes thousands and thousands of people on
suspicion of Bolshevism, creates an atmosphere of panic, and broadcasts
stories of Bolshevik plots; when, despite all its wisdom and experience,
the British bourgeoisie?the most "solid" in the world?makes
incredible blunders, founds richly endowed "anti-Bolshevik societies",
creates a special literature on Bolshevism, and recruits an extra number
of scientists, agitators and clergymen to combat it, we must salute and
thank the capitalists. They are working for us. They are helping us to
get the masses interested in the essence and significance of Bolshevism,
and they cannot do otherwise, for they have already failed to ignore
Bolshevism and stifle it. 

But at the same time, the bourgeoisie sees practically only one aspect
of Bolshevism?insurrection, violence, and terror, it therefore strives
to prepare itself for resistance and opposition primarily in this field.
It is possible that, in certain instances, in certain countries, and for
certain brief periods, it will succeed in this. We must reckon with such
an eventuality, and we have absolutely nothing to fear if it does
succeed. Communism is emerging in positively every sphere of public
life; its beginnings are to be seen literally on all sides. The
"contagion" (to use the favourite metaphor of the bourgeoisie and the
bourgeois police, the one mostly to their liking) has very thoroughly
penetrated the organism and has completely permeated it. If special
efforts are made to block one of the channels, the "contagion" will find
another one, sometimes very unexpectedly. Life will assert itself. Let
the bourgeoisie rave, work itself into a frenzy, go to extremes, commit
follies, take vengeance on the Bolsheviks in advance, and endeavour to
kill off (as in India, Hungary, Germany, etc.) more hundreds, thousands,
and hundreds of thousands of yesterday?s and tomorrow?s Bolsheviks.
In acting thus, the bourgeoisie is acting as all historically doomed
classes have done. Communists should know that, in any case, the future
belongs to them; therefore, we can (and must) combine the most intense
passion in the great revolutionary struggle, with the coolest and most
sober appraisal of the frenzied ravings of the bourgeoisie. The Russian
revolution was cruelly defeated in 1905; the Russian Bolsheviks were
defeated in July 1917; over 15,000 German Communists were killed as a
result of the wily provocation and cunning manoeuvres of Scheidemann and
Noske, who were working hand in glove with the bourgeoisie and the
monarchist generals, White terror is raging in Finland and Hungary. But
in all cases in all countries, communism is becoming steeled and is
growing; its roots are so deep that persecution does not weaken or
debilitate it but only strengthens it. Only one thing is lacking to
enable us to march forward more confidently and firmly to victory,
namely, the universal and thorough awareness of all Communists in all
countries of the necessity to display the utmost flexibility in their
tactics. The communist movement, which is developing magnificently, now
lacks, especially in the advanced countries, this awareness and the
ability to apply it in practice. 

That which happened to such leaders of the Second International, such
highly erudite Marxists devoted to socialism as Kautsky, Otto Bauer and
others, could (and should) provide a useful lesson. They fully
appreciated the need for flexible tactics; they themselves learned
Marxist dialectic and taught it to others (and much of what they have
done in this field will always remain a valuable contribution to
socialist literature); however, in the application of this dialectic
they committed such an error, or proved to be so undialectical in
practice, so incapable of taking into account the rapid change of forms
and the rapid acquisition of new content by the old forms, that their
fate is not much more enviable than that of Hyndman, Guesde and
Plekhanov. The principal reason for their bankruptcy was that they were
hypnotised by a definite form of growth of the working-class movement
and socialism, forgot all about the one-sidedness of that form, were
afraid to see the break-up which objective conditions made inevitable,
and continued to repeat simple and, at first glance, incontestable
axioms that had been learned by rote, like: "three is more than two".
But politics is more like algebra than like higher than elementary
arithmetic, and still more like higher than elementary mathematics. In
reality, all the old form of the socialist movement have acquired a new
content, and, consequently, a new symbol, the "minus" sign, has appeared
in front of all the figures; our wiseacres, however, have stubbornly
continued (and still continue) to persuade themselves and others that
"minus three" is more than "minus two". 

We must see to it that Communists do not make a similar mistake, only
in the opposite sense, or rather, we must see to it that a similar
mistake, only made in the opposite sense by the "Left" Communists is
corrected as soon as possible and eliminated as rapidly and painlessly
as possible. It is not only Right doctrinairism that is erroneous; Left
doctrinairism is erroneous too. Of course, the mistake of Left
doctrinairism in communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous
and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism (i.e.,
social-chauvinism and Kautskyism); but, after all, that is only due to
the fact that Left communism is a very young trend, is only just coming
into being. It is only for this reason that, under certain conditions,
the disease can be easily eradicated, and we must set to work with the
utmost energy to eradicate it. 

The old forms burst asunder, for it turned out that their new
content?anti-proletarian and reactionary?had attained an
inordinate development. From the standpoint of the development of
international communism, our work today has such a durable and powerful
content (for Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat) that
it can and must manifest itself in any form, both new and old; it can
and must regenerate, conquer and subjugate all forms, not only the new,
but also the old?not for the purpose of reconciling itself with the
old, but for the purpose of making all and every form?new and old?a
weapon for the complete and irrevocable victory of communism. 

The Communists must exert every effort to direct the working-class
movement and social development in general along the straightest and
shortest road to the victory of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the
proletariat on a world-wide scale. That is an incontestable truth. But
it is enough to take one little step farther?a step that might seem to
be in the same direction?and truth turns into error. We have only to
say, as the German and British Left Communists do, that we recognise
only one road, only the direct road, and that we will not permit
tacking, conciliatory manoeuvres, or compromising?and it will be a
mistake which may cause, and in part has already caused and is causing,
very grave prejudices to communism. Right doctrinairism persisted in
recognising only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did
not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the
unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the
new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is
our duty as Communists to master all forms to learn how, with the
maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one
for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change that does not
come from our class or from our efforts. 

World revolution has been so powerfully stimulated and accelerated by
the horrors, vileness and abominations of the world imperialist war and
by the hopelessness of the situation created by it, this revolution is
developing in scope and depth with such splendid rapidity, with such a
wonderful variety of changing forms, with such an instructive practical
refutation of all doctrinairism, that there is every reason to hope for
a rapid and complete recovery of the international communist movement
from the infantile disorder of "Left-wing" communism. 

April 27, 1920


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
[37] This refers to the counter-revolutionary mutiny organised in
August 1917 by the bourgeoisie and the landowners, under the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief, the tsarist general Kornilov. The conspirators hoped
to seize Petrograd, smash the Bolshevik Party, break up the Soviets,
establish a military dictatorship in the country, and prepare the
restoration of the monarchy. 

The mutiny began on August 25 (September 7), Kornilov sending the 3rd
Cavalry Corps against Petrograd, where Kornilov counter-revolutionary
organisations were ready to act. 

The Kornilov mutiny was crushed by the workers and peasants led by the
Bolshevik Party. Under pressure from the masses, the Provisional
Government was forced to order that Kornilov and his accomplices be
arrested and brought to trial. 




[38] The reference is to the military-monarchist coup d?tat, the
so-called Kapp putsch organised by the German reactionary militarists.
It was headed by the monarchist landowner Kapp and Generals Ludendorff,
Seeckt and Luttwitz. The conspirators prepared the coup with the
connivance of the Social-Democratic government. On March 13, 1920, the
mutinous generals moved troops against Berlin and, meeting with no
resistance from the government, proclaimed a military dictatorship. The
German workers replied with a general strike. Under pressure from the
proletariat the KaDT, Rovernment was overthrown on March 17, and the
Social-Democrats again took power. 




[39] The Dreyfus case?a provocative trial organised in 1894 by the
reactionary-monarchist circles of the French militarists. On trial was
Dreyfus, a Jewish officer of the French General Staff, falsely accused
of espionage and high treason. Dreyfus?s conviction?he was condemned
to life imprisonment?was used by the French reactionaries to rouse
anti-Semitism and to attack the republican regime and democratic
liberties. When, in 1898, socialists and progressive bourgeois democrats
such as Emile Zola, Jean Jaures, and Anatole France launched a campaign
for Dreyfus?s re-trial, the case became a major political issue and
split the country into two camps?the republicans and democrats on the
one hand, and a bloc of monarchists, clericals, anti-Semites and
nationalists, on the other. Under the pressure of public opinion,
Dreyfus was released in 1899, and in 1906 was acquitted by the Court of
Cassation and reinstated in the Army. 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From farmelantj at juno.com  Mon Jan 12 09:06:28 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:06:28 GMT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] [A-List] Natural Science and the Spirit
	World[1]
Message-ID: <20090112.110628.27296.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>


Engels was, course, quite right to debunk belief
in ghosts and mediums.  In fact there were some
political reasons behind this.  At the time that
Engels wrote this, spiritualism was quite popular
within the IWMA, especially in the US and UK.
In the US, one of the leading figures in the IWMA,
Victoria Woodhull, was also a famous medium, whom
both Marx & Engels very much disapproved of (perhaps
unfairly).

On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that
Engels does go off the rails on a few points in his
essay.  Engels poked fun of the idea of a fourth
dimension.  But even in his day, n-dimensional
geometries were already quite well established
and respectable.  Later on, physicists like
Albert Einstein would show that such geometries
could be useful for understanding aspects of
physical reality.  Engels poked fun of the notion
of imaginary numbers, that is numbers that were
derived from the square root of -1.  But both
imaginary numbers and complex numbers were already,
in Engels's time, a quite respectable part of
mathematics.  And physicists and engineers were
already using them in analyzing such things as
wave phenomena, for instance.

While Engels generally had a good grasp of the
science of his day, he was behind the times in
his understanding of mathematics (he was also
deficient in his understanding of the latest
work on the foundations of the calculus) 
and that led him to making a few whoppers 
in his writings.

His assertion that empiricism was lacking
the intellectual resources for battling
belief in the paranormal is open to question too.
Probably the most important critique of belief
in miracles ever written was David Hume's
essay, "Of Miracles," 
(http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html).
Hume, of course, was an empiricist philosopher.
If Engels wished to show the inadequacies of
empiricism as a basis for refuting the paranormal,
then he should have discussed Hume's essay and 
showed where Hume went wrong.

Jim Farmelant

-- "Charles Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
Engels? Dialectics of Nature
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm
Natural Science and the Spirit World[1] 
T

____________________________________________________________
Click here to find the right business program for you and take your career to the next level. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1UFte6Gs1QHlNzmzloOuJ9Ur0FG1ThDK2aLQMJDl716W3AV/


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Mon Jan 12 09:18:07 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:18:07 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] [A-List] Natural Science and the Spirit
 World[1]
In-Reply-To: <20090112.110628.27296.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20090112.110628.27296.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <E1LMPVZ-0003Gk-MJ@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

I think that Engels was overall quite 
perspicacious in the passage cited, one of my favorites from Engels.

The 4th dimension was quite a fad in the late 
19th century, in addition to its strictly 
mathematical function.  I'm not sure whether 
anyone dreamed of applying it to natural reality, 
but to fantasy and supernaturalism, yes. Zoellner 
was quite famous in attempting to use the fourth 
dimension in his apology for spiritualism.  I 
first learned of this as a teenager in a column 
by Martin Gardner anthologized in one of his 
books, maybe his fourth book on mathematical 
recreations.  I think the article was called "The 
Church of the Fourth Dimension".

On a more benign and entertaining level, Edwin 
Abbott and Charles Howard Hinton wrote fantasies 
(still available from Dover Books, I'm sure), 
about two-dimensional universes, manifesting the 
contemporaneous interest in the subject.

It would be interesting to see how Engels would 
have incorporated Hume's essay on miracles.  But 
note that Hume's position was essentially 
agnostic, not materialist, and it never helped 
Hume develop a decent theory of history or 
disabuse him of his prejudices. There is 
something conservative as well as radical about 
Hume.  Furthermore, Engels is correct about the 
naivete of empiricism as an ideology in practice.

At 11:06 AM 1/12/2009, farmelantj at juno.com wrote:
>Engels was, course, quite right to debunk belief 
>in ghosts and mediums.  In fact there were some 
>political reasons behind this.  At the time that 
>Engels wrote this, spiritualism was quite 
>popular within the IWMA, especially in the US 
>and UK. In the US, one of the leading figures in 
>the IWMA, Victoria Woodhull, was also a famous 
>medium, whom both Marx & Engels very much 
>disapproved of (perhaps unfairly). On the other 
>hand, it should also be pointed out that Engels 
>does go off the rails on a few points in his 
>essay.  Engels poked fun of the idea of a fourth 
>dimension.  But even in his day, n-dimensional 
>geometries were already quite well established 
>and respectable.  Later on, physicists like 
>Albert Einstein would show that such geometries 
>could be useful for understanding aspects of 
>physical reality.  Engels poked fun of the 
>notion of imaginary numbers, that is numbers 
>that were derived from the square root of 
>-1.  But both imaginary numbers and complex 
>numbers were already, in Engels's time, a quite 
>respectable part of mathematics.  And physicists 
>and engineers were already using them in 
>analyzing such things as wave phenomena, for 
>instance. While Engels generally had a good 
>grasp of the science of his day, he was behind 
>the times in his understanding of mathematics 
>(he was also deficient in his understanding of 
>the latest work on the foundations of the 
>calculus) and that led him to making a few 
>whoppers in his writings. His assertion that 
>empiricism was lacking the intellectual 
>resources for battling belief in the paranormal 
>is open to question too. Probably the most 
>important critique of belief in miracles ever 
>written was David Hume's essay, "Of Miracles," 
>(http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html). Hume, of 
>course, was an empiricist philosopher. If Engels 
>wished to show the inadequacies of empiricism as 
>a basis for refuting the paranormal, then he 
>should have discussed Hume's essay and showed 
>where Hume went wrong. Jim Farmelant -- "Charles 
>Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote: 
>Engels??? Dialectics of Nature 
>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm 
>Natural Science and the Spirit World[1]



From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:27:23 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:27:23 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Imaginary numbers
Message-ID: <496B291B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Engels poked fun of the 
>notion of imaginary numbers, that is numbers 
>that were derived from the square root of 
>-1.  But both imaginary numbers and complex 
>numbers were already, in Engels's time, a quite 
>respectable part of mathematics.  And physicists 
>and engineers were already using them in 
>analyzing such things as wave phenomena, for 
>instance. While Engels generally had a good 
>grasp of the science of his day, he was behind 
>the times in his understanding of mathematics 
>(he was also deficient in his understanding of 
>the latest work on the foundations of the 
>calculus) and that led him to making a few 
>whoppers in his writings.

^^^^
CB: It's still not clear to me that saying that imaginary numbers involves a dialectical contradiction is a "whopper". Most of the mathematicians who made the later advances were "deficient" in dialectical logic or used unconsciously. 

I'll forward the thread where we discussed this before.

CB



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:39:20 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:39:20 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Russell vs Hooks
Message-ID: <496B2BE8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Second Phase of Moral Response:  Above-Ground Tests of Hydrogen Bomb
In the second phase of philosophical response, debate on the extinction
thesis received increased attention and participants included several
philosophical luminaries.  During the 1950s, the earlier hope for
international control of atomic weapons was displaced by the harsh
realities of the Cold War: the Baruch Plan had been rejected, the
hydrogen bomb had been developed, the Chinese Revolution had succeeded,
and the Korean War had begun.  Against this backdrop, in 1958 Bertrand
Russell and Sidney Hook carried on a heated exchange with each arguing
from opposite extreme positions.  Russell argued nuclear war would
destroy all humanity, and Hook argued Soviet communism would destroy all
freedom.  In the heat of their political fervor, Russell lost sight of
the fact that not all of humanity would surely perish in a nuclear war,
while Hook lost sight of the fact that no society, not even in the
Soviet Union, was completely devoid of freedom.  Nevertheless, their
extreme, though untenable premises, made arguing for their conclusions
rather easy.  Russell, of course, was the philosopher who spoke most
extensively about the nuclear war throughout this period.  He made a
dramatic broadcast against the hydrogen bomb for the BBC, initiated the
anti-nuclear Pugwash movement, contributed to the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament, and in 1959 published his classic Common Sense and Nuclear
Warfare.

William Gay, ?Nuclear Warfare and Morality,? Global Studies
Encyclopedia, eds. I.I. Mazour, A.N. Chumakov, and W.C. Gay (Moscow: 
Raduga, 2003), pp. 3740377.

 

 

Nuclear Warfare and Morality

 

William Gay
UNC Charlotte

http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/wcgay/pubnucwarandmoral.htm



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:42:26 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:26 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Imaginary numbers ? Van Heijenoort
Message-ID: <496B2CA2.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Van Heijenoort critiques Engels on imaginary numbers , I believe.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-February/018295.html

Marxism-Thaxis] Novack vs. Van Heijenoort on dialectics, 1943
Steve Gabosch bebop101 at comcast.net 
Fri Feb 25 19:01:33 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Novack vs. Van Heijenoort on dialectics, 1943 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Novack vs. Van Heijenoort on dialectics, 1943 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, that would be an interesting discussion to read.  Where does one get 
SWP internal bulletins from the 1940's?

I notice, Ralph, the occasional disparaging remark about Engels and the one 
below about Novack.  I think I can make a case that while one may disagree 
with their views, their writings and thinking emanated from world views 
that were based on a scientific methodology, not on idiosyncratic 
intellectual inventions, muddled thinking, or just plain subjectivism.  I 
think I can also make a case, even more controversial for some, that Marx 
and Engels were consistent, and, furthermore, Novack was reasonably 
consistent with them.  That last one is especially controversial, of 
course.  And as for the problem of "dialectical laws," I think Novack 
explains or defends the concept pretty well, along the lines that Engels 
used it.  But of course, these are just opinions subject to critique and 
debate, which I hope we get some time down the road to explore some.  I am 
sure I would learn from that.  But not right now!  Gotta get back to these 
other matters ....

And thanks again for the rich supply of references and ideas and urls you 
have been offering, very much appreciated.

Best,
~ Steve


At 03:33 AM 2/25/2005 -0500, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>I have stumbled onto some long sought material in my files, i.e. my notes 
>from 1991 on debates on dialectics conducted under pseudonyms, featuring 
>William Warde (George Novack) and Marc Loris (Jean Van Heijenoort), with 
>interventions by John G. Wright, J. Weber, George Sanders, Irwin Hyper & 
>Buddy Lens, and Ben Maxson.  (I haven't checked my pseudonyms lists to 
>determine who's who).  It turns out that I even have a text file of my 
>notes.  I can't remember whether these e-mail lists allow attachments, but 
>one way or another I could easily send my file.  The question is: would 
>anyone be able to understand my fragmentary notes?
>
>I had assumed that this material came from the very rare international 
>bulletins of the 4th International (which I believe I also checked), but 
>rather it's in the relatively (and I mean only relatively) more accessible 
>SWP internal bulletins.  I guess I was too cheap to have all this stuff 
>photocopied when I researched it in New York 14 years ago.
>
>I was hoping to put the articles by Van Heijenoort online, but 
>unfortunately I only have a photocopy of a relatively trivial piece:
>
>SURPLUS VALUE AND EXCHANGE OF EQUIVALENTS (NOTE ON AN EXAMPLE IN WILLIAM 
>F. WARDE'S INTRODUCTION TO THE LOGIC OF MARXISM)  by Marc Loris, SWP 
>Internal Bulletin, vol. V, no. 5, Dec. 1943: p. 31-35.
>
>I also have a photocopy of two pages by George Sanders on the dialectics 
>of tonality in music (Vol. V, no. 4, Oct. 1943: p. 14-15). Why I don't know.
>
>All of this discussion was a reaction to Novack's (Warde)  DIALECTICAL 
>MATERIALISM, OUTLINE COURSE #3 (National Education Dept., SWP (1943), 52 pp.).
>
>The debates that matter are found in:
>
>SWP.  Internal Bulletin,
>vol. 5, no. 2, July 1943. 28 pp.
>Vol. V, no. 4, Oct. 1943. 15 pp.
>vol. V, no. 5, Dec. 1943. 35 pp.
>
>I don't have the wherewithal at the moment to track down this material 
>(the repositories I know are in New York or Berkeley/S.F.) and get it 
>photocopied, but if anyone else is game, let me know.
>
>My general evaluation is that Van Heijenoort had something important to 
>say about the distinction and evaluation of the notions of subjective and 
>objective dialectics, and Novack had his finger up his ass as usual.  The 
>other commentators took sides and there may be something interested in 
>whoever backed Van Heijenoort.
>
>Van Hiejenoort used antoerh pseudonym, Gerland, and there's at least one 
>relevant article in THE NEW INTERNATIONAL.  It may have been "The Algebra 
>of Revolution".  I thought I had a photocopy somewhere, but damned if I 
>know where.
>
>Anyway, this is Van Heijenoort's prehistory, which is why I would like to 
>find the material.  As Irving Anellis reports, Van Heijenoort does not 
>report discussing dialectics in WITH TROTSKY IN EXILE, probably because 
>Trotsky was such a dogmatic prick Van Heijenoort didn't want to make 
>trouble for himself.
>
>I'll upload my notes if anyone's interested.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:42:36 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:36 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Message-ID: <496B2CAB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Hans G. Ehrbar ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu 
Thu Mar 3 12:21:52 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Abraham Robinson's nonstandard analysis adds more numbers,
infinite numbers and infinitesimal numbers, to the numbers
line.  Just as Margaret Thatcher says that society does not
exist, modern mainstream mathematics is based on the dogma
that infinitesimals do not exist.  Robinson showed, by
contrast, that one can use infinitesimals without getting
into mathematical contradictions.  He demonstrated that
mathematics becomes much more intuitive this way, not only
its elementary proofs, but especially the deeper results.  I
understand that the so-called "renormalization problem" in
physics, according to which certain physically relevant
integrals become infinite and somehow have to be made finite
again, has a much more satisfactory solution in nonstandard
analysis than in standard analysis.

The well-know logician Kurt Goedel said about Robinson's
work: ``I think, in coming years it will be considered a
great oddity in the history of mathematics that the first
exact theory of infinitesimals was developed 300 years after
the invention of the differential calculus.''

When I looked at Robinson I had the impression that he
shares the following error with the ``standard''
mathematicians whom he criticizes: they consider numbers
only in a static way, without allowing them to move.  It
would be beneficial to expand on the intuition of the
inventors of differential calculus, who talked about
``fluxions,'' i.e., quantities in flux, in motion.  Modern
mathematicians even use arrows in their symbol for limits,
but they are not calculating with moving quantities, only
with static quantities.  Robinson does not explicitly use
moving quantities, he uses more static quantities, and many
mathematicians criticize nonstandard mathematics because it
simply has too many numbers.

The Chinese manuscript you just sent to the list seems to
have a much more dialectical view of nonstandard analysis
than Robinson himself, and in addition it makes a bridge
between Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts and nonstandard
Analysis.  This is very exciting News to me.  Can we find
out more about this?

Hans.

-- 
Hans G. Ehrbar   http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar   ehrbar at economics.utah.edu
Economics Department, University of Utah     (801) 581 7797 (my office)
1645 Campus Center Dr., Rm 308               (801) 581 7481 (econ office)
Salt Lake City    UT 84112-9300              (801) 585 5649 (FAX)








This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:43:29 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:43:29 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Message-ID: <496B2CE1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

[Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com 
Thu Mar 3 11:52:44 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Power to the People ! 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is an interesting abstract I found concerning the
reactions of Chinese mathematicians, during the
period of the Cultural Revolution, to publication of
Marx's mathematical manuscripts.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

DOCUMENTA MATHEMATICA, Extra Volume ICM III (1998), 799-809
Joseph W. Dauben 
Title: Marx, Mao and Mathematics: The Politics of Infinitesimals 
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/documenta/xvol-icm/19/Dauben.MAN.html 

The ``Mathematical Manuscripts'' of Karl Marx were first published (in
part) in Russian in 1933, along with an analysis by S.~A. Yanovskaya.
Friedrich Engels was the first to call attention to the existence of
these manuscripts in the preface to his Anti-D\"uhring [1885]. A more
definitive edition of the ``Manuscripts'' was eventually published, under
the direction of Yanovskaya, in 1968, and subsequently numerous
translations have also appeared. Marx was interested in mathematics
primarily because of its relation to his ideas on political economy, but
he also saw the idea of variable magnitude as directly related to
dialectical processes in nature. He regarded questions about the
foundations of the differential calculus as a ``touchstone of the
application of the method of materialist dialectics to mathematics.''
Nearly a century later, Chinese mathematicians explicitly linked Marxist
ideology and the foundations of mathematics through a new program
interpreting calculus in terms of nonstandard analysis. During the
Cultural Revolution (1966--1976), mathematics was suspect for being too
abstract, aloof from the concerns of the common man and the struggle to
meet the basic needs of daily life in a still largely agrarian society.
But during the Cultural Revolution, when Chinese mathematicians
discovered the mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx, these seemed to
offer fresh grounds for justifying abstract mathematics, especially
concern for foundations and critical evaluation of the calculus. At least
one study group in the Department of Mathematics at Chekiang Teachers
College issued its own account of ``The Brilliant Victory of Dialectics -
Notes on Studying Marx's `Mathematical Manuscripts'.'' Inspired by
nonstandard analysis, introduced by Abraham Robinson only a few years
previously, some Chinese mathematicians adapted the model Marx had laid
down a century earlier in analyzing the calculus, and especially the
nature of infinitesimals in mathematics, from a Marxist perspective. But
they did so with new technical tools available thanks to Robinson but
unknown to Marx when he began to study the calculus in the 1860s. As a
result, considerable interest in nonstandard analysis has developed
subsequently in China, and almost immediately after the Cultural
Revolution was officially over in 1976, the first all-China conference on
nonstandard analysis was held in Xinxiang, Henan Province, in 1978









This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:50:02 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:50:02 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barkley Rosser's Home Page: Aspects of Dialectics
	and	Nonlinear Dynamics
Message-ID: <496B2E6A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Barkley Rosser's Home Page: Aspects of Dialectics and
Nonlinear Dynamics 
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Thu Mar 3 15:14:44 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels

Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Power to the People ! 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Rosser used to be on this list.


http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/ 

CB




Barkley Rosser's Home Page

Barkley Rosser CV <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Barkley%20VITA.doc>  

 

COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS IN A TRANSFORMING WORLD ECONOMY
<ftp://ftp.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/DESIGN/Emily/Rosser4.jpg> 

 

	
Research papers for view: click on the title


Chaotic Hysteresis and Systemic  Economic Transformation
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/chaohys.2.doc> 

State-Space Estimation of Rational Bubbles in the Yen/Deutschemark
Exchange
Rate <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Papaer1(BUBBLE)%2010-8-98%20WA1.doc>


Aspects of Dialectics and Nonlinear Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/DIANONL.DYN.doc> 

Divergent Distributional Dynamics in Transitional Economies
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/DIVYDYN.WRD.doc> 

On the Complexities of Complex Economic Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/GENERIC.CPX.doc> 

The New Traditional Economy: A New Perspective in Comparative
Economics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/NEWTRAD.IJS.doc> 

Self-Fulfilling Chaotic Mistakes: Some Examples and Implications
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/SELFCHAO.ISR.doc> 

Volatility via Social Flaring
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/VOLATILE.FLR.doc>


Alternative Keynesian and Post Keynesian Perspectives on Uncertainty
and
Expectation <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/UNCRTEXP.ECT.doc> s

Implications for Teaching Macroeconomics of Complex Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/TEACHCM.PLX.doc> 

Integrating the Complexity Vision into Mathematical Economics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/mathecon.doc> 

Forms of Complex Dynamics in Transforming Economies
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/CMPLXFRM.TRN.doc> 

Evidence of Nonlinear Speculative Bubbles in Pacific-Rim Stock Markets
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/qref%20revised%20draft%20May%204,%201998.doc>


The Mathematics of Discontinuity (book chapter)
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/CHAP2.CCG.doc> 

Everything I Might Say Will Already Have Passed Through Your Mind
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/ecophil2.wpd> 

The Risky Business of New Austrian Business Cycle Theory
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/austrian.rsk> 

Consistent Expectations Equilibria and Complex Dynamics in Renewable
Resource Markets <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/homros.pdf> 

Book Review of The Economy as a Complex Evolving System II
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/ARTDURLN.REV.doc> 

References: From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic
Discontinuities, 2nd Edition  (incomplete)
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/REFS.CCG.doc> 

Income Inequality and the Informal Economy in Transition Economies
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/jceineq.doc> 

Book Review of Economics of Space and Time: Scientific Papers of T?nu
Puu
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Puupapers.bkrev.doc> 

India: The Elephant Walks (from Comparative Economics in a
Transforming
World Economy) <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/India,Elephant.Walks.doc> 

Complex Ecological-Economic Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/probecoecoglob.dyn.doc>  and
Environmental
Policy

Nonlinear Bubbles in Chinese Stock Markets in the 1990s
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/chinabub.doc> 

The Transition between the Old and New Traditional Economies in India
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/oldnewtransindia.doc> 

Multiple Unofficial Economy Equilibria and Income Distribution Dynamics
in
Systemic Transition
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/multunoffinc.trans.doc> 

Emergent Volatility in Asset Markets with Heterogeneous Agents
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Investor3.dat> 

Between Cambridge and Vienna: The Risky Business of New Austrian
Business
Cycle Theory <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/austrian.rsk> 

Failure of the Washington Consensus on Inequality and the Underground
Economy in the Transition Economies
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Failure%20of%20the%20Washington%20Consensus%20o

n.doc> 

Complex Coupled System Dynamics and the Global Warming Policy Problem
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/ecoleconcmpxdyn.doc> 

Implications for Fisheries Policy of Complex Ecologic-Economic
Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/cmplxecolecon.doc> 

Fisheries Management and Complex Dynamics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/fishcomplx.doc> 

Between Cambridge and Vienna: The Risky Business of New Austrian
Business
Cycle Theory [corrected version]
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Cambridge.Vienna.doc> 

A New Perspective on Economic Discontinuity
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/A%20NEW%20PERSPECTIVE.doc> 

Paradigm Lost: The Transformation of Comparative Economics (Part I)
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/PARADIGM%20LOST.1.doc> 

Emergent Volatility in Asset Markets with Heterogeneous Agents
(corrected
version) <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Investor3.doc> 

The Development of Complex Oligopoly Dynamics Theory
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/complexoligopy.doc> 

The Cutting Edge of Economics, Chapter 1
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/The%20Cut3.doc> 

All That I Have to Say Has Already Crossed Your Mind
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/MetroRevised%20LBS2.doc> 

Book Review of Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology: Methods and
Applications <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Clark-Mangel.bk.rev.doc> 

Complex Dynamics of Macroeconomic Collapse and its Aftermath in
Transition
Economies
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/transition.collapse.aftermath.doc> 

Economics at the Edge, Chapter 1 (May 1, 2002 version)
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/00Economics%20at%20the%20Edge2.doc> 

A Nobel Prize for Asymmetric Information: The Economic Contributions
of
George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Nobel%20Prize.%20Akerlof-Spence-Stiglitz.doc>


Complexity in Economics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/COMPLEXITY%20IN%20ECONOMICS.doc> 

Weintraub on the Development of Mathematical Economics: A Review Essay
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Weintraub.Mathecon..doc> 

The Rise and Fall of Catastrophe Theory Applications in Economics: Was
the
Baby Thrown Out with the Bathwater?
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/cat.rise.and.fall.doc> 

A reconsideration of the role of discontinuity in regional economic
models
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/reconsider.reg.discont.galley> 

Complexities of Dynamic Forestry Management Policy
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/FORESTRY.MANAGEMENT.comp.dyn.doc>  

Income Inequality, Corruption, and the Non-Observed Economy: A Global
Perspective <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/NOE.Inequality.Global.doc>  

Book Review of Keynes, Post-Keynesianism and Political Economy: Essays
in
honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume three
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Harcourt.bk.rev.doc>  

Complex Dynamics and Post Keynesian Economics
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Complex.Dyn,PKecon..doc>  

Epistemological Implications of Economic Complexity
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/EPISTEMOLOGy.eco.complex.doc>  

The Road to Serfdom and the World Economy: 60 Years Later
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20SERFDOM%20AND%20THE%20WORLD%2

0ECONOMY.doc>  

Market Dynamics and Stock Price Volatility
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/volatility%20(1).pdf>  

Book Review of The Shadow Economy: An International Survey
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/book.rev.schneider&enste.doc>  

Foreword to Foundations for a Disequilibrium Theory of the Business
Cycle:
Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Assessment
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Foreword%20to%20Chiarella%20and%20Flaschel.doc>


Book Review of Sociodynamics: A Systematic Approach to Mathematical
Modelling in the Social Sciences
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Weidlich.book.rev.doc>  

Problems with Proposed Social Security Reforms, 2005
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/social.security.reform.column.doc>  

Book Review of Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Islam.and.Mammon.Kuran.bk.rev..doc>  

Book Review of Unholy Trinity: Labor, capital, and land in the new
economy
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Unholy%20Trinity.Foley.book.rev..doc> 

	
ECON 201 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Econ%20201%20syl-s03.doc>  

ECON 475 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Econ%20475%20syl-s03.doc> 

ECON 305 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/syl-f01.doc> 

ECON 382 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/382%20syl-s01.html>  

 

	
Econ 431 Problems
<http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/Advanced%20Theory%20431%20Homework%20Problems%2

0Fall%201998.html> 	
	
GECON 200 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/syl-f01%20(1).doc>  

syllabus

	
ECON 431 <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/syl-431-f98.html>  

syllabus

	







This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:55:16 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:55:16 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin on Dialectics
Message-ID: <496B2FA4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

[Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin on Dialectics
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Wed Mar 9 07:53:10 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectics of Nature 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin on Dialectics 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




KARL MARX


A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition on Marxism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm#s2 

By Vladimir Lenin

-clip-
 



Dialectics


As the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and the
richest in content, Hegelian dialectics was considered by Marx and Engels
the greatest achievement of classical German philosophy. They thought that
any other formulation of the principle of development, of evolution, was
one-sided and poor in content, and could only distort and mutilate the
actual course of development (which often proceeds by leaps, and via
catastrophes and revolutions) in Nature and in society. "Marx and I were
pretty well the only people to rescue conscious dialectics [from the
destruction of idealism, including Hegelianism] and apply it in the
materialist conception of Nature.... Nature is the proof of dialectics, and
it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely
rich [this was written before the discovery of radium, electrons, the
transmutation of elements, etc.!] and daily increasing materials for this
test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis Nature's process is
dialectical and not metaphysical. [6]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm#n6> 

"The great basic thought," Engels writes, "that the world is not to be
comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of
processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind
images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of
coming into being and passing away... this great fundamental thought has,
especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary
consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in
reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different
things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It
reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing
can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of
passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And
dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of
this process in the thinking brain." Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is
"the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and
of human thought." [7]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm#n7> 

This revolutionary aspect of Hegel's philosophy was adopted and developed by
Marx. Dialectical materialism "does not need any philosophy standing above
the other sciences." From previous philosophy there remains "the science of
thought and its laws -- formal logic and dialectics." [8]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm#n8>
Dialectics, as understood by Marx, and also in conformity with Hegel,
includes what is now called the theory of knowledge, or epistemology,
studying and generalizing the original and development of knowledge, the
transition from non-knowledge to knowledge.

In our times, the idea of development, of evolution, has almost completely
penetrated social consciousness, only in other ways, and not through
Hegelian philosophy. Still, this idea, as formulated by Marx and Engels on
the basis of Hegels' philosophy, is far more comprehensive and far richer in
content than the current idea of evolution is. A development that repeats,
as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a
different way, on a higher basis ("the negation of the negation"), a
development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line;
a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in
continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses
towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the
various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given
phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest
and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history
constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a
uniform, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite
laws-these are some of the features of dialectics as a doctrine of
development that is richer than the conventional one. (Cf. Marx's letter to
Engels of January 8, 1868, in which he ridicules Stein's "wooden
trichotomies," which it would be absurd to confuse with materialist
dialectics.) 
 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 09:59:03 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:59:03 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] MIA searches
Message-ID: <496B3087.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Robert Cymbala rcymbala at marxists.org 
Thu Mar 10 14:23:53 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waistline2 wrote:

>I don't recall Lenin stating that the Russian October Socialist Revolution 
>constituted a leap or change in the mode of production - however one defines it. 

For your information:

By the end of this year (I hope), all 45 volumes will be digitized in
two formats:

 - HTML (.htm files)
 - plain ASCII text (.tgz files)

This should facilitate searching.  Instead of trying to remember
whether or not Lenin stated something, one will be able to do an
electronic search and scan the results.  More to come.

-- 
REFERENCES: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/index.htm 

 Who said that? http://marx.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/rcymbala.htm 








This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 10:02:43 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:02:43 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Practicing physicist on Goedel
Message-ID: <496B3162.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-March/018429.html

[Marxism-Thaxis] Les Shaffer on Kurt G?del
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com 
Wed Mar 16 11:40:48 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Does G?del Matter? 
Next message: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Les Shaffer on Kurt G?del 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Les Schaffer <schaffer at optonline.net>
To: Marxmail <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:37:41 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Re: godel etc (was ...)


Carlos A. Rivera wrote:

> I argue that  incompleteness in mathematics and uncertainity in
quantum

> mechanics actually point to materialist dialectics. As dynamic, 
> never-ending systems, they exhibit the same continous struggle that 
> dialectics call, while firmly footed on a materialist grasp on
reality.
> 
> Yeah, postmodernists eat your heart out!!!


the thing that impresses me this time around is expressed nicely by R
B
Braithwaite in his Introduction in the Dover edition of Godel's paper:

"... Godel, in this paper which established his two great theorems by
methods which are constructive in a precise sense, on the one hand
showed the essential limitations imposed upon constructivist formal
systems (which include all systems basing a calculus for arithmetic
upon
"mathematical induction"), and on the other hand displayed the power
of
constructivist methods for establishing metamathematical truths."

Godel's efforts in 1930 depended on a clever arithmetization of
metamathematical statements (so-called Godel numbering), which
Braithwaite likens to Descartes handling of problems in geometry by
the
introduction of coordinate systems and a reduction to algebra. by
(crudely speaking) mirroring arithmetic in statements about
arithmetic,
he was able to establish limitations in the formal program of Hilbert
and others. In some fundamental sense human (mathematical) activity
cannot be reduced to formalism alone, such  formal systems are
incomplete.

Somehow this incompleteness was interpreted by philosophers and
popularizers as a fundamental attack on the structure of mathematics
itself. but is any marxist here surprised to learn there is more to
sensuous (mathematical) activity than formal reasoning? i doubt it. in
some way what Godel really demonstrated was that the formal
metamathematical systems created at the turn of the 20-th century were
not so meta and outside of the system they were judging, so-to-speak,
as
had been supposed. it takes more than arithmetic to practice true
arithmetic.

> "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human 
> thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man

> must prove the truth - i.e. the reality and power, the
this-sidedness
of 
> his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or
non-reality
of 
> thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic
question."

one of the intriguiging aspects of Godel's paper was the construction
of
a __formally__ undecidable proposition that was demonstrably __true__.
Braithwaite again:

"The undecidability of some arithmetical propositions within the
deductive system S may be classed among the syntactical
metamathematical
characteristics of the system S (represented by the calculus P [Les:
the
formal system P]) for the reason that this undecidability derives from
the undecidability of some formulae within the calculus which
represents
S. Deductive systems, unlike calculi [Les: formal systems] have also
semantical metamathematical characteristics; in particular their
propositions have or lack the semantical property of being true --
what
Godel in his introductory Section 1 calls being "correct as regards
content" (inhaltlich richtig). Connecting the syntactical property of
being provable with the semantical property of being true ... gives an
additional kick to the undecidability in S of g {Les: g is the
formally
undecidable but true proposition] -- by adding that g is true.  ...
This
metamathematical argument, which combines semantical with syntactical
considerations, establishes the truth  of an arithmetical proposition
which cannot be proved within S.

In his introductory Section 1 Godel intermingles semantical with
syntactical considerations in sketching a proof of the undecidability
of
g ... The distinction between what is syntactical and what semantical
was not made explictly until a year or two later (by Tarski, whose
work
included rigorously establishing unprovability theorems that were
semantical) ... "

while thinking about Godel's work this afternoon i was reminded of
long
lunches i had with a computer science professor at Cornell back in the
mid-80's. he had a ton of $$$$$ from the US military for investigating
programming systems that could be proven errorless via machine. this
was
at the time of Reagan's Star Wars and the (rather mushy) criticism
that
it could never work in practice because it was too complex a system to
be trusted to work without testing, but almost by definition could
never
be properly tested short of a real nuclear attack, an event the system
purportedly was designed to prevent. I checked recently and it seems
my
former lunchtime companion is still receiving millions of military
dollars to develop automated procedures for producing error-free and
secure software/firmware for military applications.

if you think Godel should have put a stop to all this, think again.

The military-industrial complex aside, far from undermining the
foundations of mathematics, Godel succeeding in opening a whole new
avenue of investigation. via the work of Tarski, Barkeley Rosser
(father
of marxmail alumni J Barkeley Rosser), Church/Turing, and Gregory
Chaitin, we now have deep connections between mathematics,
computational
systems, and, more recently, physics.

Les Schaffer





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Jan 12 10:09:07 2009
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:09:07 -0500
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx conceiving of nature dialectically: debate
Message-ID: <496B32E3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Marxism-Thaxis] Another Old Thread: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org 
Sat Feb 19 14:54:39 MST 2005 

Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thread: Dialectics of Nature 
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Applied Dialectics of Change 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here's some of the later thread debating the dialectics of nature.

CB

^^^^^^^


M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s 

Charles Brown marxism-thaxis 
Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:57:08 -0500 

*
>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/06 7:22 PM >>>
List,

I don't know what is relevant about Godena expelling people on
Marxism-Sciences. He didn't expel me, anyway. As I recall people were
expelled because they broke the rules. But, again, who cares about this. I
left the list because people were advancing absurd theories employing
dialectics to explain astronomical phenomena
________

Charles: Everyone is familiar with the term
the "fixed stars" in the sky. It is interesting
to me how the develop of astronomical
science recently has demonstrated
less and less fixity to the stars. This
is a development in the direction
of a dialectical structure.
________



Second, as Bhaskar and others have pointed out, while the concept of
contradiction might be used as a metaphor for any sort of tension or
strain, its specific meaning, not only for Marx, but generally, refers to
human action and human things. Why muddy the water by creating a
self-sealing line of reasoning?
_________

Charles: I am trying to figure our whether you
are saying that Marx and Engels have a 
different position on this issue .
Are you ?


In his Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, Bhaskar notes four broad
sorts of contradictions (I think it is found in here, but it has been a
while since I read this book): (1) logical inconsistencies (traditional
logic only recognizes contradiction in logical operation) (2) oppositions
between tendencies inherent in social forces of relatively independent
origins (3) historical/temporal contradictions, oppositionals that emerge
from the operation of some thing or situation (such as class struggle) and
(4) structural/systemic contradictions, involving contradictions between
things that exist at two different levels of reality. The latter two are
dialectical. These are all present in Marx's work, and they possess two
features generally: (a) they are real oppositions and (b) they can be
described in terms of oppositions. While I have my problems with Bhaskar's
own theory of society (it is too subjective), his interpretation of Marx's
work is pretty good. Bhaskar has been an important figure in stressing the
fact that what was unique about Marx's theory was what concerned with
history and society. 
_________

Charles: For a contrary view see.

_Dialectical Contradictions: Contemporary
Marxist Discussions_ Marxist Educational
Press 1982

and Lenin's Philosophical Notes On Dialectics.

________________



Third, following Carver's argument, while Marx admired Darwin's argument,
particularly because it showed how biological science could advance a
process of change non-teleologically, he did not adopt this logic for his
own study of society (except for metaphorically in some places in
Capital), nor did he appear to think that his method had much to help with
Darwin's argument.Indeed, it was *Engels* who made the parallel after
Marx's death. 
_______

Charles: No, we discussed this on LBO.
I believe Marx wrote a letter
that directly contradicts you.

For now in the Afterword to the
Second German Edition to Vol.I
of Capital Marx, quotes a Russian
reviewer of Capital who said

"in his (Marx's) opinion ever 
historical period has laws of its own...
As soon as soiciety has outlived a given
period of development, and is passing
over from one given stage to another, it
begins to be subject also to other laws.
In a word, economic life offers us a phenomena
analogous to the history of evolution in 
other branches of biology..."

Marx says, "Whilst the writer pictures
what he takes to be actually my
method, in this striking and
[as far as my own application of 
it] generous way, what else is he
picturing but th dialecical method ? "

See also, "Karl Marx's Study of
Science and Technology" by Pradip
Baksi in Nature, Society and Thought"
Vol. 9, No. 3  (Believe I saw a brief
article of Andy's in that journal once) 


The importance of understanding this is that it shows that
Marx held that an evolutionary theory that operated on a logic different
from the logic of historical development in the social realm was
completely (or nearly completely) valid.
________

Charles: Don't see this demonstrated.


______

Charles: The dialectics in both is that they
see the world as changing rather than
fixed. The basis of change ,the contradiction, is
different in each.



Had Marx believed that the
dialectic was a universal principal, one found in the natural world, then
he would have admonished Darwin's theory not praised it. 
________

Charles: Darwin's theory is not fully dialectical

Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated 
equilibrium makes Darwinism more fully
dialectical,as it adds revolutions to 
the evolution. However, Darwin's theory
was welcomed by Marx as relatively dialectical
compared to creationism with no change. 
And of course , Darwin was materialist.
The big thing Marx and Engels liked
about Darwin is that it was a big victory
for materialism and it had some motion 
(dialectics) too.
__________


________


The fact that he
did not adopt natural selection for his study of society, but approved of
it - indeed, thought of it as a breakthrough - in the study of the natural
world demonstrates clearly that Marx did not hold the view that Engels and
the dialectical materialists do about the matter. 
___________

Charles: Dialectics as different forms in
different sciences. Your conclusion
does not follow from your premises.

______




Fourth, and this is one thing that was made clear in the debate so long
ago on M-S, is that it is Engels and Lenin's take on the dialectic that
extends it to the natural world is not Marx's view. Lenin's reflection
theory of knowledge is particularly important here, since his view that
the dialectic in the universe could be reflected in consciousness and that
therefore it existed independently of cognition and praxis - a position of
passive, contemplative materialism - was eventually dropped by him. Lenin,
after studying Hegel, repudiated the reflection theory and moved to a
position - at least in his notebooks - that pushes Engels' view aside and
reasserts (to a degree) Marx's historical materialism. This is why Lenin
always quotes Engels instead of Marx in his earlier work because Marx's
views tends to run contrary to Engels, and Lenin favored the simplicity of
Engels. Lenin remarked after studying Hegel, and I have noted this several
times, that he regards Marxists since Marx to have been ignorant of what
into their ideology the fact that Lenin himself, after studying
dialectics, came to a different conclusion than Engels. 
__________

Charles: Engels studied Hegel when he
and Marx were young Hegelians. I find
it funny all these people who think
they know Hegel better than Engels. 
Engels demonstrated his understanding
of Hegel and dialectics in 
_Ludwig Feuerbach_ .






The Engels case is particularly disappointing, since his work was so
brilliant in the earlier years of his life. But towards the end, in my
view, without the constraining force of Marx's presence, Engels slipped
back into a positivism and vulgar materialism. Engels thus takes the
dialectic as a mechanical method and imposes it over everything with the
result of believing he finds the dialectic in everything. As Avineri
pointed out decades ago, Engels does not understand the dialectic as a
thing immanent in the thing itself, and thus his sledgehammer method of
applying dialectics as a logical method leads him to produce a science
inferior to the mainstream science of its day.
_________

Charles: This is not the opinion of
Stephen Jay Gould, Levins , Lewontin
or JBS Haldane.

__________




Fifth, to take Mary Hesse' brilliant line of discourse on this, the
pragmatic criterion demonstrates the utility of modern natural science.
Dialectical materialism, by contrast, has been a failure. There is no need
to reformulate modern science method in terms of dialectical materialism.
It is a superficial exercise, anyway.
________

Charles: This is obscure. What is the name
of the essay ?

______


Dialectical materialists believe they can grasp the dialectics that
allegedly exists independent of history. This is objectivist idealism and
is explicitly rejected by Marx. 
_________

Charles: I would describe your error as
a dualist. You are half dialectician
half metaphysician. Of course,
metaphysics reduces to idealism ultimately.
Marx contradicts you directly, as in the quote
above. I'll find some more. 


Charles Brown


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
 
 

M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s 

Charles Brown marxism-thaxis  <mailto:marxism-thaxis> 
Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:05:29 -0500 
I am substantially in agreement
with what Chris says below.
Of course, this debate has
gone on other places besides
Marxism-and-Sciences. I gave
some references for other sources
in my post in response to Andy.

I know Andy's style is to use
extremely derogatory language
to describe opposing views.
But he's one of us anyway,
Guess we just have to live
with it. Of course, it doesn't
add any substance to Andy's
arguments. We all know that.



Charles Brown

Detroit

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 12/06 5:02 PM >>>
>>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/05 3:28 PM >>>
>On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote:
>
>>Charles: I guess I vaguely remember that. Let me ask you this. Do you
>>then mean that "things", society would stop changing ? Doesn't this
>>contradict fundamental Marxism ? It's fundamental dialectical
>>understanding of the universe ? Everything changes eventually, There are
>>no eternal constants. AND change is rooted in contradiction.
>>Therefore..... 
>
>I don't think that things will stop changing, no. But I think we have to
>be careful when we apply the word contradiction to everything. If
>everything is contradicted, then the word is meaningless. 

I doubt if Andy will change his position and I am broadly in agreement with
Charles.

As a result of the polemic on Marxism-and-Sciences I modified my position
slightly. 

The orthodox "Marxist-Leninist" position of the Third International and its
loyal descendants is that dialectical materialism is universally applicable
and contradictions are to be found everywhere in the universe.

Strictly speaking though I would now say it is an assertion that
contradictions can be found everywhere. And I would prefer to say this,
that that they "are" everwhere.

The best way I understand this, is that reality, including very much
inanimate reality, consists of swirling patterns of matter in motion. The
patterns that stay around long enough to be observed are usually
self-organising in some form or other. These can be best analysed from a
number of different perspectives to appreciate the different forces going
into the dynamic. 

There are not necessarily only two (which is sometimes rather strongly
suggested by  "contradiction")

The German word used for contradiction is "Gegensatz", not "Gegenteil".
Gegensatz suggests not an absolute logical absurdity but a contrasting
aspect. It occurs many times in the first volume of Capital but gets
translated away in English. 

Andy is firmly against using the term contradiction for anything other than
human affairs and I see no necessity to, or possibility of, making him
think otherwise, just because he may express lack of respect for his
opponents on this matter. One of those got expelled by Louis Godena for
creating a hostile atmosphere. (But some of Louis Godena's remarks suggest
that he may think Engels, who is more associated with "dialectical
materialism" than is Marx, was also weak on reformism). 

Water is precisely one of the examples of inanimate contradiction taken by
Engels and Lenin. Not only can qualitative phase changes be observed with
changes of temperature, but its liquid structure at normal temperatures for
our environment, despite its light molecular mass (lighter than carbon
dioxide) is the result of the contradictory interaction between its
molecules, which can form links in a dozen different ways, but most often
forms long hydroxyl chains ("water"). 

A stone has a contradiction between its hardness and immobility on the one
hand and the vibration of its atoms at molecular level. Under certain
external forces, such as a blow, or ice expanding in a crevice, this
internal contradiction may change in quality, and the stone will apparently
miraculously shatter.

The ability of early hominids to master this contradiction (beautiful axes
can be found that are 1/2 a million years old, way before Homo Sapiens
Sapiens) was indispensible to our evolutionary development.  

Our brains developed the ability to master contradiction far earlier than
they were able to master what passes as scientific reasoning nowadays.

Andy seems to regard the finding of contradiction in the inanimate world as
about as sophisticated as the thinking of pre-Neanderthals. Which could
literally be the case, but he writes as if it is an affront to Reason.


Chris Burford

London.





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
 
 

M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 

Charles Brown marxism-thaxis  <mailto:marxism-thaxis> 
Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:55:09 -0500 

*Andy and List,

The following is quoted in "Marx's
study of Science and Technology"
by Pradip Baksi in Nature, Society
and Thought vol9, no.3

Marx in a letter dated 22 June , 1867
to Engels.

"You are quite right about Hoffman.
Incidentally, you will see from the
conclusion to my chapter III, where
I outline a transformation of the master of 
a trade into a capitalist as a result of
purely _quantitative_ changes -
that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's
discovery of the _law of the transformation
of a merely quantitative change into a 
qualitative one_ as being attested
by history and natural science alike."


Charles Brown

Detroit



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


________________________________



M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s 
Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis 


Charles,

By contradiction Marx means some pretty specific things. But it needs to
be pointed out that in a preface or afterword to Capital Marx refers to
capitalism as a contradicted mode of production implying that there are
modes of productions which are not contradicted. Communism is such a mode
of production posited by Marx. That contradiction (or noncontradiction) in
production modalities is specific to particular forms of social formation
is the core of Marxian theorizing. For Marx, there are only specific
contradictions and particular laws of development in historical systems,
not suprahistorical contradictions or laws. Marx emphasizes in the
Grundrisse that to speak of general contradictions, general production,
and so forth, independent of historical context, and failing to recognize
that these abstractions are only mental events, is idealism. Laws are
applied to the understanding of social forms only after the laws have been
abstracted from concrete social formations through comparative analysis
(either among historical system or within the division of labor of a
historical system). It would not be possible under Marx's system to posit
any universal laws of dialectics. This is antithetical to core of the Marx
method.

Andy


Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis 
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:41:58 -0500 (EST) 

Previous message: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Next message: M-TH: THE AFTERMATH OF L 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote:

>"You are quite right about Hoffman.  Incidentally, you will see from the
>conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the
>master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_
>changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law
>of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative
>one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." 

Quantitative and qualitative changes are descriptions of transformations of
matter and energy, of structure and content. I am quite familiar with the
quote. Qualitative change is found in the natural world. In chemistry when
two substances are mixed together they may form a qualitatively different
entity. So H2O is different than the sum of its parts (2 Hs and 1 O). What
Marx is saying here is that the observation of qualitative change is
common in all science. The claim you and others make is that contradiction
of fundamental. What is the fundamental contradiction between H and O?
Moreover, Marx discusses Hegel's "law of the transformation of a merely
quantitative change into a qualitative one," but does not say that this is
a universal dialectic or part of a universal dialectic.

Andy





M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
marxism-thaxis marxism-thaxis 
Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:19:50 EST 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Re: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
 
 On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Brown quotes Marx:
 
 >"You are quite right about Hoffman.  Incidentally, you will see from the
 >conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the
 >master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_
 >changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law
 >of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative
 >one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." 
 
11/12/98, Andy  writes:
 Quantitative and qualitative changes are descriptions of transformations of
 matter and energy, of structure and content. I am quite familiar with the
 quote. Qualitative change is found in the natural world. In chemistry when
 two substances are mixed together they may form a qualitatively different
 entity. So H2O is different than the sum of its parts (2 Hs and 1 O). What
 Marx is saying here is that the observation of qualitative change is
 common in all science. The claim you and others make is that contradiction
 of fundamental. What is the fundamental contradiction between H and O?
 Moreover, Marx discusses Hegel's "law of the transformation of a merely
 quantitative change into a qualitative one," but does not say that this is
 a universal dialectic or part of a universal dialectic.
 
 Andy
      --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
 

Steve responds:

Andy, dialectical laws are fundamental and universal, they are about self-
change, the inner life if you like, that which animates matter itself - all
things, all phenomena, including its higher forms in chemistry (H + 0), life
and society.

The fundamental/universal the laws of dialectics serve to animate a human
understanding (at this stage of our development) of how ALL matter SELF-
CHANGES, and evolves. At a lower level of philosophical understanding comes
the simple mixing of things - of H and O - but which itself operates all the
laws of dialectics anyway. H+O is a description of a thing not an
explanation,
a simple, mechanical (chemical) process. Dialectics sees the central driving
force, the life of all phenomena, of all things, of all matter, of nature,
society and thought; as operating in CONTRADICTION, as a unity of opposites
'within' each thing. But when any 'thing' is under investigation, besides
the
key question of empirical study of the thing, we are looking at the parts of
a
seemingly separate TOTALITY. A dialectical approach would see how the part
makes the whole and the whole makes the parts - and how they mutually
condition, or MEDIATE, each other.

It really is seeing totality, change, contradiction and mediation as the
principles or key terms of the dialectic. But then we go on to the three
laws
of dialectics which I'm sure you've come across before, and described many
times in classic works: the unity of opposites (really another way of saying
contradiction), the transformation of quantity into quality, and the
negation
of the negation.

By the way, there is a very good book recently out by John Rees, a leading
member of the SWP (IS) in Britain: it is called 'The Algebra of Revolution -
the Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition'. I would highly recommend
it as probably the best all-rounded explanation of the dialectic that I
know.
This is not a plug for a group I am in - I most certainly have differences
with that political tradition. However this book is good - perhaps because
it
is so separated from their general politics. But if anyone out there knows
why
a major book by a leading SWP theoretician should be published by the
commercial Routledge, and not by the SWP house-publishers, Bookmarks, I'd
like
to know?

Yours for Communism - Steve Myers



Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis 
Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:58:12 -0500 (EST) 



Steve,

I understand the position of objective idealism that many Marxist take up
about dialectics. I am not saying that Engels did not take up this view.
My point is simply that this is not Marx's position, and it is contrary to
what Marx argues. Marx's dialectical method of investigation is not a
religion in disguise.

Andy



M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
marxism-thaxis marxism-thaxis 
Sun, 13 Dec 1998 06:24:34 EST 



In a message dated 12/12/98 16:27:06 GMT,  aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu
writes:

 Steve,
 
I understand the position of objective idealism that many Marxist take up
about dialectics. I am not saying that Engels did not take up this view. My
point is simply that this is not Marx's position, and it is contrary to what
Marx argues. Marx's dialectical method of investigation is not a religion in
disguise.
 
 Andy
 
Gerry D writes:

Andy,

This assertion of yours 'My point is simply that this is not Marx's
position,
and it is contrary to what Marx argues'  needs a bit of proving. It is, in
fact, the central theme of all those who have attacked Marxism
philosophically, beginning with Lukacs and going through the likes of
Sartre,
Althusser and so-called 'Modern Philosophers'. The notion that the division
of
labour between Marx and Engels represented the difference between the
dialectical method and 'a religion' is ludicrous. How was it that Marx never
spotted what Engels was up to? Anyone who has bothered to study Engels'
dialectics will be aware that he is fully in accord with Marx's views.

Even the minimal task of reading the small pamphlet by Engels 'Ludwig
Feuerbach and the End of classical German Idealism' will be obliged to read
Marx's 'Thesis on Feuerbach' at the back and see their complete unity on
this
vital question. To suggest otherwise is usually the basis of a full
onslaught
on Marxism itself. Next to attacking Engels, comes the attack on Plekhanov,
then on Lenin, Trotsky and the Russian Revolution.

I do not say that you are doing this but we have just experienced just this
familiar trajectory from our ex-comrades in Workers Action. First Jonathan
Joseph put forward his attack on dialectical materialism, then Nick Davies
proceeded to thrash the Lenin, Trotsky and post-Trotsky Trotskyists. So your
path is well trodden. 

If thinking and being are two separate things then we are free to think and
do
as we will. Idealism and not dialectical materialism is the guiding factor.
The subject becomes the object and the object becomes the subject and the
world cannot be changed at all, or it will change anyway - either way we do
not need to fight to give revolutionary leadership to the masses because
that
is a 'objective' factor.

Is dialectical materialism a religion? In a way you have identified your
real
antipathy to the subject. Religion is a complete, integrated world outlook.
The philosophical rational of the bourgeoisie cannot really be called an
ideology at all. Bourgeois nationalism preaches defence or your own nation
and
ruling class is implicitly chauvinists and racist. All  serious philosophy
since Marx must attack dialectical materialism from within, must bowdlerise
it
and confuse the left intellectuals drawn to the side of the working class in
struggle. 

Religion is always a necessary ideological prop for the bourgeoisie and they
cannot abolish it - witness the failure of the French Revolution in this
regard and Napoleon's reinstatement of religion as a weapon of control and
reaction. Marxism also is an integrated world outlook, like religion. It
claims there  is an integrated unity in conflict between humanity and
nature,
that we are part of nature, its conscious part, that we are in fact nature
conscious of itself. Only Marxism can replace religion as a world outlook
and
hence the antipathy of the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie to dialectical
materialism. No matter that its modern day proponents are small and
scattered
nonetheless this is OUR MOST POWERFUL IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON and we need to
learn,
develop and educate others and ourselves in it.

This is integral to the Trotskyist Group's orientation on Marxist Renewal.
It
is so important that those in different groups and those in none who
understand the importance of this should collaborate in a 'Friends of the
Dialectic' or some such as Trotsky proposed in 1939. Any takers?

Gerry Downing




M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Rob Schaap marxism-thaxis 


G'day Thaxists,

I'm with Andy!

It's been a while ...

Marx's 'materialist method', as he called it, necessarily depends on 'real,
active men' and their 'ideological reflexes'.  This is because, as Marx
says in his attack on Feuerbach, 'The chief defect of all materialism up to
now is that the object, reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is
understood only in the form of the object ... NOT AS SENSUOUS HUMAN
ACTIVITY, AS PRACTICE ... '

Without Marx's humanism (I'm with Fromm in seeing this proposition as an
instance of humanism), there's no Marxist materialism.

SeeyaTuesdee,
Rob.


M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Charles Brown marxism-thaxis 
Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:28:21 -0500 

Previous message: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Next message: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>>> Rob Schaap <rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au> 12/13 6:24 AM >>>
G'day Thaxists,

I'm with Andy!

It's been a while ...

Marx's 'materialist method', as he called it, necessarily depends on 'real,
active men' and their 'ideological reflexes'.  This is because, as Marx
says in his attack on Feuerbach, 'The chief defect of all materialism up to
now is that the object, reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is
understood only in the form of the object ... NOT AS SENSUOUS HUMAN
ACTIVITY, AS PRACTICE ... '
_________

Charles: And the thing is to
change the world and practice (experimentation
and industry)
is the ultimately test of truth (epistemological
test) for
Marxism (. I say that's the unity of
ethics and epistemology). 

But what about before
humans existed ?  It was not human
practice that made the sun, n'est-ce pas ?
The changing of the world that
went on in the age of dinosaurs
was based on a different dialectic,
not historical materialist contradictions.
_________

Without Marx's humanism (I'm with Fromm in seeing this proposition as an
instance of humanism), there's no Marxist materialism.
________

Charles: My position is humanist. In fact,
I am ultimately anthropocentric. Ultimately,
I don't care about the changes in
the natural world , the dinosaurs or
the sun, EXCEPT AS HOW IT
IMPACTS HUMANITY. To me the
heart of Marxism is species-being.
Humans can only CHANGE THE 
WORLD THROUGH PRACTICE by
knowing the laws of nature, which
are dialectical.

The issue of the non-teleology or
non-direction of natures dialectics
came up before in this on another
list ( Jim Heartfield there ?) I answered
that. The teleology of the change of
nature is "imposed" by we humans.
We only care about the direction
of change in the natural world IN
RELATION HUMANITY. In other words,
the natural universes changes and
dialectics only gain teleology 
or a purpose IN RELATION TO
HUMANS. We have to fit into
that movement. That's the famous
"mastery of nature as key to
freedom". But nature's movement
only gains meaning in relation to
humanity.

Charles





M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s 
Charles Brown marxism-thaxis 
Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:33:24 -0500 

Previous message: M-TH: Russia news 
Next message: M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/11 4:31 PM >>>
Charles,

By contradiction Marx means some pretty specific things.
_________

Charles: I'm not sure what you mean.
The truth and reality are always
concrete. But that doesn't mean
Marx doesn't have a general concept
of contradiction.
__________



 But it needs to
be pointed out that in a preface or afterword to Capital Marx refers to
capitalism as a contradicted mode of production implying that there are
modes of productions which are not contradicted. 
________

Charles: Capitalism has antagonistic