Re: [Marxism] The Logic of Anti-Muslim Racism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Richard wrote: It's hard to see a racist depiction of Muslims today that doesn't at least bear some similarities to certain aspects of antisemitic caricature. Anti-Semitism works with the characterization of Jews being cosmopolitan, rootless, manipulative, super-intelligent, not belonging to any culture, and personifying all negative characteristics of capitalism. Anti-Muslim Racism is more of a classical racism, in that, at least here in Germany, you don't see characterizations of Muslims as a super smart devious race controlling financial markets, but rather as inferior, shiftless, baby-producing demographic danger that threatens to undermine our superior culture. They aren't painted as rootless cosmopolitans. They have a culture, but it is distinctly not ours. The article rightly says that the role of Islamist political movements have to be taken seriously. But how can they be incorporated without understanding the context that produced them? Fair enough, though keep in mind that this is Germany, and the GSK intervention is meant more to attack the culturalization of political discourse in this country than offer a comprehensive history of Islam. It's difficult to convey how poisonous the political atmosphere here has become. The prominence and public applause for Thilo Sarrazin, combined with a quiescent trade union bureaucracy that subscribes to the neo-mercantile export strategy of the last few governments 100%, and finally an all-out communist witchhunt against DIE LINKE unleashed in the last week. Things are nasty. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Chicago in charge
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/01/hbc-90007944 A Country with Chicago in Charge By John R. MacArthur John R. MacArthur is publisher of Harper’s Magazine and author of the book You Can’t Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America. This column originally appeared in the January 19, 2010 Providence Journal. Back in the summer of 2008, when Barack Obama was still the bright new hope of liberals, I found myself chastised for raining on the future president’s parade. My essential point — that an administration incubated and hatched in Chicago would never break with the autocratic, anti-reformist, reactionary traditions of the city’s Democratic machine — was unwelcome among Democrats desperate for a savior after eight dark years of Bush. Obama admirer John K. Wilson wrote in the Huffington Post, “I don’t understand why . . . [MacArthur needs] to viciously attack the most progressive candidate of a major political party in American history.” Moreover, my repetition of what Wilson termed “right-wing lies and smears” moved him to ask why the “left” had a “death wish for progressive politics.” Indeed, after I noted on a New York radio show that Goldman Sachs was Obama’s No. 1 corporate donor (in bundled contributions), a tearful woman caller accused me of being a “right-winger” sowing discord among Democrats. I figured it was pointless to respond directly to Wilson and his ilk. Obama worship was rampant, and few liberals wanted to hear such a pessimistic view of the power structure and funding of American political parties. But despite Wilson’s ignorance of American history and Chicago politics, I felt guilty about these desperate Democrats, and I sometimes wondered whether my critics didn’t have a point after all. Maybe I was being skeptical to the point of cynicism; maybe, as one leading liberal editor argued to me, the Chicago machine itself had changed, that Mayor Richard M. Daley was significantly different from his thuggish father, Richard J. Daley. Maybe Obama was in the machine, not of it, and would use its power in the cause of peace and good government. Now it seems I wasn’t skeptical enough. The appointment of the Chicago-trained liberal-baiter Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff confirmed my fundamental point that the machine’s political apparatus was moving to the White House, not some fresh-faced parvenu with an African name. I also correctly predicted that after the mid-term election, Obama would cave on extending Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. The over-$250,000-a-year crowd shoulders a big part of the Democrats’ fund-raising, directly and through K Street lobbyists, so the president may be relieved to give in to the GOP. But even I didn’t think that Chicago and the Democratic Party were so boss-ruled that Emanuel could simply be installed by the party leadership as mayor of the Second City, or that the machine could so easily send the current mayor’s brother, Bill, to replace Emanuel in the post. I thought, and wrote here, that the local Irish-Catholic barons would probably revolt against an outsider raised in the suburbs who was never a ward committeeman. That much democracy I would expect in a city that has rarely had self-government. Evidently, however, the fix is really in. Richard Daley and his brothers, Bill, John and Michael, apparently persuaded all the major potential Irish candidates — Tom Dart, Lisa Madigan and Ed Burke — not to challenge Emanuel in next month’s primary, leaving him the only white candidate and thus the favorite to succeed Richard Daley. Meanwhile, brother Bill, Rahm’s ally and Richie’s closest adviser, gets to be, in effect, deputy president without having got a single vote. Whether Bill ever wanted to occupy City Hall himself, he now seems to prefer the allure and power of Washington, where he served as Bill Clinton’s commerce secretary. Sadly, this is no ordinary story about intra-party politics; it’s a bad thing for America, liberal Democrats and organized labor, which is in its death throes. With Chicago in charge of the country, reform becomes all but impossible. Foolish things have been said about “pro-business” Bill Daley moving Obama “to the center,” as if the president remotely resembled a left-winger. Obama began in the center and has been moving right ever since. The main thing to understand is that Daley and Emanuel are all about self-interest, not the public interest. As the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass puts it, “To the Daleys, the political center is Chicago, their ancestral home.” Nevertheless, there is a destructive ideological part of the Daley appointment and Emanuel’s ascent, despite their non-ideological devotion to power. Emanuel and Daley were two of the three principal Clinton lobbyists in the
Re: [Marxism] HTML versus plain text?
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On 21 January 2011 23:49, Les Schaffer schaf...@optonline.net wrote:
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On 1/21/11 7:39 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
Any thoughts on this from comrades?
Count me as generally against. I don't see the advantage.
i've been thinking for a while we could start allowing html ... if
enough people are annoyed by it, its easy to turn off again.
another issue: at the moment, we have it set up so that if a post
contains BOTH plain text and html, we forward only the plain text. i can
turn that off, but the byte count will go up by roughly double for posts
that include both ... and we may have to adjust the max size parameter
if people are going to post large emails with both plain text and html
included.
so, does byte count matter to anyone anymore??
Byte count is no big deal for me personally, but even as someone who
has never touched emacs in his life, I do still frequently find myself
confined to using a terminal, and in that context HTML-alone can be
really inconvenient. IMO comrades having to express themselves in
text is less inconvenient and is not a bad discipline. There are
other accessibility considerations which don't (yet) apply to me, but
I try to think of others, and my future self.
-AA.
--
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambr...@vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambr...@jabber.fsfe.org
skype:znalo7
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8 3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WSWS warns against infiltrated rump SSP, post-Sheridan
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Stuart Munckton: Let's not forget what the whole sorry tale is about: a libel case between an individual and the Murdoch press about whether or not they visited a swingers club. Sheridan brought it himself against advice, that is his right but it is not a fundamental class line to defend an individual socialist over some allegation about their sex life - whatever the rights or wrongs of either side in the case. While we're at it, let's not forget that it was most of the SSP leadership (sans Sheridan) that campaigned relentlessly, after his victory over the Murdoch press in the libel case, for the state to prosecute Sheridan for perjury -- which the state gladly did, and in this case won. They even went to the point of secretly setting Sheridan up in a secret sting operation, then selling the alleged tape recording to the Murdoch media. I don't think this serious breach of proletarian ethics (and betrayal of class politics) makes the entire SSP gusano scum, but it certainly did a lot to discredit the SSP, and the socialist movement in Scotland, among ordinary working people. Richard Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] A loveless presidency
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://www.usaction.org/site/apps/nlnet/mar04-rebuild-renew.html Chuck Loveless, Legislative Director, AFSCME: “Make no mistake: the Obama budget is real change – the change that Americans voted for in November. As we were during the economic recovery plan, AFSCME will be a leader in the fight to pass the Obama agenda. Our members make America happen. And America deserves nothing less.” --- NY Times January 20, 2011 Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers. Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign. But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid. Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides. Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors. “All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration. For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month. House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate. It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse. Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975. Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers. “They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We’re taking this very seriously.” full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Isolation is torture
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Hey, I just signed a letter to the Commanding Officer at Quantico Brig to end the inhumane conditions of Private Bradley Manning's detention as he awaits trial. Please join me in signing this important letter, and pass it on to your friends and family when you're done: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/bradleymanning?source=sharesubsource=email Thanks! ---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE--- Hey Firedoglake Activist, Bradley Manning spent his 23rd birthday on Friday completely isolated, just as he has every day for the last 5 months months in his cell at the Quantico Marine Base. Manning is the Marine Private accused of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks. Since July, he has been held in cruel and inhumane conditions like violent, dangerous criminals in a Supermax prison. He spends each day completely isolated, with severe restrictions placed on basic activities like sleep and exercise. Yet he has not been convicted of any crime. The extreme isolation in which Manning has spent every day of the last 5 months is grueling. It's already taking its toll: Bradley Manning's physical and mental health are suffering, according to his attorney and friend who have seen him in prison. Bradley Manning deserves humane treatment while he awaits trial. Can you please add your name to our letter urging Commanding Officer of Quantico Marine Corp Base to lift the heavy restrictions of Manning's detention? http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/bradleymanning?source=sharesubsource=email Bradley's friend, David House, will deliver your letter to the Commanding Officer at the Quantico Marine Base brig when he visits Bradley next month. While Manning is held in maximum custody, the military's most severe detention policy, he is also under a longstanding Prevention of Injury (POI) order that adds additional restrictions beyond those of other prisoners. While POI orders typically last a week or two, Manning has been held under a POI order for more than five months. A day in the life of Bradley Manning is isolating, lonely, and frustrating. - Manning stays in his cell for 23 hours a day - Guards must check on him every 5 minutes, and he must respond each time - He is not allowed to sleep between 5am and 8pm - Substantive exercise is not allowed beyond walking, potentially in chains - Communication with other people in the brig is banned, and he cannot write to people outside beyond the few a list approved by the brig commander; any unapproved letters he receives are destroyed. - He has not been allowed to read newspapers or watch international news during TV time - Comfortable sleep is impossible; he must surrender his clothes each night, has only a heavy suicide blanket akin to an x-ray vest, and guards must be able to see his face at all times. - A psychologist has said Manning isn't a danger to himself or others, and the POI order is unnecessary. His lawyer has also been unable to remove the POI order. But it is clear that Bradley Manning has been subjected to undue, inhumane, and unnecessary punishment, and it must stop now. Stop the inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning. Please add your name to our letter urging the Marine Commander in charge of Manning lift the unnecessary POI order. http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/bradleymanning?source=sharesubsource=email No matter what you think of Manning's alleged acts, there is no reason to subject him to these extreme conditions. Thank you for standing up for human rights. Michael Whitney Firedoglake.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Sandy Pope talks about her campaign for President of the Teamsters Union
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Thanks for sharing this post about Sandy Pope, Louis. I was impressed by her statement, but I am wondering if there are any teamster members here on Marxmail (or others who follow this area) who can shed light on the current situation within the union, the overall politics of Sandy Pope and others that may influence the IBT presidential elections?thanks,Manuel Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Why Duvalier Returned to Haiti: He needs more money
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:03 PM, MARGARET WYLES kaliy...@wildblue.net wrote: This makes NO SENSE AT ALL!!! Has anyone observed that he returned to Haiti on Martin Luther King Day. Was there a message? Whose to say he returned voluntarily? If not voluntarily, who returned him? It does make sense. Duvalier is back in Haiti. Erik Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Tunisia's Deposed President - Corrupt, Anti-Democratic, and One of America's Close Friends
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Tunisia's Deposed President -- Corrupt, Anti-Democratic, and One of America's Close Friends Across the Middle East and Central Asia, U.S. allies are invariably corrupt dictators, maintained in power by lavish patronage and the military. clip – Officially, the Obama administration greeted Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution”—named after that country’s national flower—with open arms, calling for free and fair elections as the United States scrambled to get aboard the democratic bandwagon. However, celebration is restrained in Washington. There’s serious concern about who will take the place of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, the corrupt, 74-year-old dictator, who, until the end, was considered an important American ally in the war against terror. Assuming the Tunisian military actually agrees to hold free elections (not at all a sure thing), will the generals really throw open the doors to all political groups? Nationalists? Islamists? Marxists? Anti-militarists? What forces will roil to the surface after decades of political repression? Will they throw in their lot with America’s war against terror, or join the ranks of those in the Middle East who increasingly see what’s going on as America’s war against Islam? Full - http://www.alternet.org/story/149566/tunisia%27s_deposed_president_--_corrupt%2C_anti-democratic%2C_and_one_of_america%27s_close_friends?page=entire Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Sins of South Beach
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I return to NYC tomorrow after a wonderful time in South Beach, especially the time spent with Alex Daoud, the author of the must-read Sins of South Beach. I plan to write a longer and more analytical review but this amazon.com review I wrote should be sufficient to persuade you to get your own copy. http://www.amazon.com/South-Corruption-Violence-Murder-Making/dp/1424310784/ If Sins of South Beach accomplished one and only one thing, namely to show how corruption works in politics, then author Alex Douad would have performed an enormous service to our country. There is hardly a week that passes by without someone like Tom DeLay being sentenced for money laundering. Americans really need to know how and why such a thing happens. As someone who spent 18 months in a federal prison for bribes taken while mayor of Miami Beach, Douad is uniquely positioned to describe his own sins and those who he came in contact with, including some of the area's most powerful politicians, real estate developers and bankers. Given the power of some of these individuals, it is something of a miracle that the book was ever published. It is also all the more remarkable given that it is likely the very first book ever written by a politician who has fallen from grace. In light of the state of American governance, this honest, insightful, courageous and beautifully written memoir is worth all the self-serving memoirs of public officials put together, including that of George W. Bush. But Sins of South Beach is more than this. It is also a spell-binding tale that is written with a experienced novelist's touch, one in which the reader can't wait to get to the next chapter to find out what happens to the tarnished hero Alex Daoud. Indeed, this is the kind of book that would have made me miss a subway stop in my hometown New York City. But here in South Beach, where I am vacationing, the same thing happened. I took the book down to the beach with me with the intention of spending two hours under the sun while getting the low-down on what was happening here in the roaring 80s. But I became so riveted by the action that I lost track of the time and got myself a good sunburn! Oh well, that's a small price to pay for getting immersed in such a gripping tale. As someone with a background in politics and law, Alex Daoud is a remarkably gifted writer. Sins of South Beach has a cinematic quality, evoking The Godfather in some ways as well as classic tales of an honest man seduced into doing wrong, like Double Indemnity or Body Heat. In Alex Daoud's case, the seducer was not a beautiful woman but a wealthy establishment in Miami Beach that bought and sold politicians like they were condominiums. Although the author is unsparing with himself, one cannot but note that the bribes he took harmed nobody except the rich men who were buying favors, and for whom such monies were almost pocket change. By comparison, Jack Abramoff hurt Indian tribes and non-unionized sweatshop workers in his quest to achieve wealth and power. It should be understood, however, that Alex Daoud does not try to whitewash his career here. Despite being mayor at a time when Miami Beach was making great strides forward as an art deco cultural center and a fabulous place to spend a vacation, the book is focused almost totally on his sins. They say that Catholics are great both at sinning and at confessing. When a Catholic (a Lebanese Catholic in Daoud's case) has a talent with the pen, such as St. Augustine's Confessions, the result can be a classic of literature. While it would be a bit much to compare Alex Daoud to St. Augustine, I can say with conviction that this is the finest memoir by a public official that I have ever read and a book that I will recommend to friends and associates for the rest of my life. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Russell Jacoby mugs Erik Olin Wright
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I greatly admire Wright's writings about class, but this book does sound tiresome. md --- On Fri, 1/21/11, Louis Proyect unrepentantmarx...@gmail.com wrote: From: Louis Proyect unrepentantmarx...@gmail.com Subject: [Marxism] Russell Jacoby mugs Erik Olin Wright Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] HTML versus plain text?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 21.01.2011 13:39, Louis Proyect wrote: (God! How I wish Louis would get with the program and allow the rest of us to post HTML instead of text-only, even if he continues to insist on using emacs or whatever). Any thoughts on this from comrades? I prefer plain text for email - I understand there are security issues with HTML - even if HTML is enabled I'll probably set things so that the text is displayed only as plain text. I see no particular advantage in HTML email. Einde O'Callaghan Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Reader comments on Immelt appointment article in NYT
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sometimes I wonder if the NYT would be better off the readers wrote the paper and the idiot reporters were allowed to comment on what they wrote. Here's a comment by a reader on an article that had absolutely no information on GE's rotten record. --- I don't know, this guy sounds perfect for the Obama administration. I mean, his company, G.E., is listed as the 4th largest corporate prodocer of air pollution in the United States, and has dumped more toxic PCB's into our rivers than any company in history. From a profit standpoint, in the last 10 years or so, they have transformed into a financial firm, with over half of their revenue derived from financial services. Obama loves those guys. The Washington Post reported in December that G.E. was one of the primary corporate beneficiaries of taxpayer bailout money. Most people didn't know that at the time because the government tried to keep it secret. CNN reported that on $10.3 billion in pretax income, G.E. paid ZERO dollars in U.S. taxes in 2009. Jeffery Immelt's total compensation in 2009 was almost $10 million and Forbes ranked him as the 13th most powerful person in the world. Like I said, he sounds perfect. Change we can believe in. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] HTML versus plain text?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I prefer plain text. I think it turns the focus from the presentation to the information. Mark On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Einde O'Callaghan eind...@freenet.dewrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 21.01.2011 13:39, Louis Proyect wrote: (God! How I wish Louis would get with the program and allow the rest of us to post HTML instead of text-only, even if he continues to insist on using emacs or whatever). Any thoughts on this from comrades? I prefer plain text for email - I understand there are security issues with HTML - even if HTML is enabled I'll probably set things so that the text is displayed only as plain text. I see no particular advantage in HTML email. Einde O'Callaghan Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/linksgerichtet%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] HTML versus plain text?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == what a load o' . . .hooey. seriously, there is no reason why you can't keep established rules for trimming, and thinking, while allowing it to be easier to write (and trim, and whatever else needs to be done). Why exactly does every response have to look like a blackbox manual typewriter? And, if we are interested in focusing on the information, maybe we should be telling everybody what they should write as well?As my 16 year old is wont to say, wow Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Venezuela: The imperialist threat - PSUV Red Book
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://venezuelatranslatingtherevolution.blogspot.com/2011/01/imperialist-threat.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Rammstein
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Thanks for the many intelligent comments. Yes, I also dislike the fatuous Euro-nationalist song We're all Living in America. More important I agree with those who, like Dave, emphasized that we need a certain recognition and tolerance for ambiguity at the expense of clear statements. If I didn't have such a tolerance I wouildn't love listening to Rammstein. But to tolerate it is not the same as to say it's always good enough. We are talking about a very, very popular band whose work is very, very ambigiouis and has been borrowed by the far right. If youi're in that situation you have responsibilities. And I feel it's a bit precious to doubt we can discharge them without damaging the sanctity of art. An on-going series of interviews ought to do it. My 3-volume book on Abba will appear in June. (Joke!) Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Translation (Cuba): Continuity and political change (2)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == From new Cuba blog Cuba's Socialist Renewal http://cubasocialistrenewal.blogspot.com To sign up as a follower or receive email updates click link above Here is the second instalment of my translation of Cuba fifty years on: Continuity and political change by Havana University's Carlos Alzugaray Treto. The first instalment is here: http://cubasocialistrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/translation-cuba-continuity-and.html. The Spanish footnotes follow the translation. Link to translation: http://cubasocialistrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/translation-continuity-and-political.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism-Thaxis] Killing Joke
A lot of music watchers have argued that Jaz Coleman, the frontman of Killing Joke, is over the deepend in paranoia and conspiracy, but when he shouts stuff like 'Fuck the bankers' and 'take back your country' at a concert in Greece, he seems pretty sane to me. He uses the mass rock concert platform to provoke and antagonize. But I would bet it was music like Killing Joke the kids in the UK were listening to when they tried to do something about the government. And The Blood on Your Hands video will never make it to US TV. Over on Marxmail, they were having a discussion about metal and Rammstein and politics and it seems to me that Killing Joke largely invented the sort of artistic spaces Rage Against the Machine and Rammstein would inhabit. It might seem ironic that Killing Joke had to go towards a metal sound to find a new audience, but in a way that takes them back to their beginnings 30 years ago, when they sounded like they were from another planet. The conclusion on Marxmail about Rammstein seems to be that because they are ambiguous, they are not real left. But I think ambiguously is the only way using popular forms of music to provoke political thinking work. It starts with the reaction like: what the f- do they actually mean with those lyrics, with that music, with those images in their video or at their concert? http://thequietus.com/articles/04796-jaz-coleman-on-killing-joke-and-absolute-dissent Jaz: I'm more concerned with food supply. Yes, there must be change. But staples are going up so fast. Food prices are predicted to go up 40% in the next couple of years. People's wages are being slashed. Where is it leading to? You don't have to be Einstein to work it out. It mustn't be allowed to get to that. What is required is a sweeping green communism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T869Obl03oEfeature=related Killing Joke 'In Excelsis' In Excelsis lyrics Liberty is ours to protect The glorious pursuit of happiness The rights of free speech by consent The right to express discontent The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis Liberty our common goal Smash the cabals that control This world is ours We won't be sold No profit, interest or loans The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-YDG7GG0sfeature=related Killing Joke 'Here Comes the Singularity' Here Comes The Singularity lyrics World population mass has reached the critical Humanity shall function as a single cell Machines design and clone a different race of man Who is the architect, who is the hidden hand? Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Military industrial complex on the rise Let new Pearl Harbours take no-one by surprise One million people marched against a traitor’s war No weapons found and no-one heard their call Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Foundations and shareholders identified on lists Big corporations dismantled brick by brick Investment bankers crushed like lilies under feet Let Baboeuf and Saint-Just pass judgement from the street Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Kneel down and freedom’s gone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cbc_EDQxk Killing Joke (live in Greece) 'Absolute Dissent' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4v66x7nXCsfeature=related Killing Joke 'Blood on Your Hands' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQbgqRTvI4feature=related Killing Joke 'Total Invasion' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naUAuptzUb4feature=related Killing Joke 'European Super State' ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Tunisia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbMKsVVwstUNR=1 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] revolutionary situation
The Tunisian revolution was sparked , according to one report, by an act of self-burning by an unemployed college graduate who was selling fruit on the street and had his carts taken away by the police. Lenin said a revolutionary situation exists when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way and the masses no longer want to live in the old way ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Straight shooters
http://metrotimes.com/columns/straight-shooters-1.1092038 Politics Prejudices Straight shooters All I want is a weapon of mass destruction By Jack Lessenberry Published: January 19, 2011 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Those are the actual words of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, held sacred by our nation's gun nuts. They are powerful words indeed, regardless of the fact the clause is poorly written, and clearly means something different than almost everyone thinks it does. No matter that many of its fervent defenders don't even know what the Second Amendment really says. True, others have memorized and can unthinkingly recite these words, sort of like Roman Catholics in the old days repeating Latin incantations they didn't understand. Language and the meanings of words change over time, but it is clear that what adoption of the Second Amendment really meant was that people should be allowed to have weapons (arms) in case the government had to quickly throw together a militia to drive off marauders, or put down some local illegal uprising, like the Pennsylvania farmers who rebelled over whiskey taxes a couple of years later. Naturally, it logically follows that the citizens ought to be able to keep these arms in their homes, as in, on two hooks over the fireplace, since most people didn't have anywhere else to put them to begin with, and many used their rifles to go hunt dinner, much of the time. Bear in mind too that the nation in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written was a collection of small, rural states, with a total population of slightly less than four million people about the size of metropolitan Detroit today. High-tech arms meant a single-shot musket, accurate to within a hundred yards or so, maybe. Once you fired it, it took close to a minute to reload. If you shot it more than a few times in a row, it was apt to overheat and misfire or blow up in your face. This was not seen as a weapon of mass destruction, but more like a household appliance one could use for defense. So it was logical to stipulate that the citizens had the right to keep and bear arms, when these were the arms. What's crazy is that these words, written for practical reasons in a primitive, largely rural world, are today being used to justify making it legal for a mentally troubled person to buy a high-tech weapon of mass destruction and turn it on helpless civilians. Anyone who thinks the framers of the Constitution intended that is, to put it politely, crazier than a shithouse rat. Nobody I know has remarked on this, but what's going on here isn't a problem of rights so much as a problem, first of all, of language, specifically, the word arms. Throughout much of history, arms meant bows and arrows and pieces of metal that men whacked away at each other with, at close quarters. Then came gunpowder. The Founding Fathers may have expected continued improvements in weaponry. But none of them could have imagined anything like Jared Loughner's Glock, a weapon of mass destruction good for one thing only: killing. There is more difference between a Glock and a Revolutionary War-era musket than between a musket and a stone club. Maybe even between a musket and the pistol Sirhan Sirhan used to shoot Bobby Kennedy in a hotel in 1968. Had Loughner had a normal pistol, he might have gotten five or six shots off before being subdued. Instead, he killed or wounded 19 people within seconds, and might easily have got even more, if he could have gotten a second clip into his gun. Nobody in their right mind thinks the Founding Fathers would have wanted to make it possible for this sick young man to spray a peaceful crowd with lethal ammunition. Yet that's what all sorts of ideologues and ignorant fools, some of them on the nation's highest courts, claim. All this really stems from a problem of semantics. Specifically, allowing the term arms to be applied to anything that kills people. Someone, somewhere, needs to come up with some way of defining arms in a common sense way. We also need, I think, to stop using the term gun control, which immediately polarizes everyone, and ends anything like rational give-and-take. These two steps may make it easier to move on and enact some sensible regulations. This won't be easy; someone has to stand up and defy the political power of the National Rifle Association, a group run by fanatics who are determined to block any limitations on weapons. Otherwise, we are going to continue to be doomed. More than 10,000 of us a year, anyway; the number killed, like little Christina Greene, by gun violence. Another 85,000 or so are shot and survive, like Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. If that's the world we are willing to settle for, very well. If you are young and poor, you are probably more vulnerable than I am. But even so, if
[Marxism-Thaxis] Crisis on the corner
http://metrotimes.com/columns/crisis-on-the-corner-1.1092036 Crisis on the corner Should we legalize drugs to save the hood? By Larry Gabriel Published: January 19, 2011 Print Email Twitter Facebook MySpace Stumble Digg More Destinations The War on Drugs has been fought from corner to corner in black communities across the United States. Although African-Americans make up only 13 percent of the general population, 40 percent of drug offenders in federal prisons and 45 percent of offenders in state prisons are black. It's not that blacks make up 40 or 45 percent of American drug users. A study of New York drug arrests from 1997 to 2006 by sociologist Harry Levine and drug policy activist Deborah Small found that 18-to-25-year-old whites are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to smoke marijuana, yet blacks were five times and Hispanics three times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. Similar statistics can be found in all kinds of studies out there. All of it leads to black and brown communities where young men committing victimless offenses get criminal records, get sent to jail, lose their families, and enter a system wherein a life of crime is more likely than getting an education and a job. So it's amazing that the drug war and civil rights haven't been more closely tied together the way linguist and conservative political pundit John McWhorter links them in a recent column for the The New Republic's website titled Getting Darnell Off the Corners: Why America Should Ride the Anti-Drug-War Wave. I don't know what that guy on the corner is named, Pookie or Tyrone or whatever, but McWhorter wrote ... with no War on Drugs there would be, within one generation, no 'black problem' in the United States. Poverty in general, yes. An education problem in general — probably. But the idea that black America had a particular crisis would rapidly become history, requiring explanation to young people. The end of the War on Drugs is, in fact, what all people genuinely concerned with black uplift should be focused on. ... And, in fact, he says all drugs should be legalized. Some civil rights groups have nibbled at the edges of the drug war, sometimes suggesting that marijuana is not as bad as other drugs. The California NAACP went that route last year when it came out in support of Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana in the state. Proposition 19 lost by a 53.5 to 46.5 percent vote in November. But California NAACP President Alice Huffman threw down the gauntlet in saying marijuana law reform is a civil rights issue. Neil Franklin, president of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who worked with Huffman in creating the NAACP policy, casts some wisdom on the roiling waters of drug policy debate. We went to a prison here in Baltimore with a section for juveniles; it's a high school in prison for them, says Franklin, an African-American with more than 30 years policing experience in Maryland. We did a workshop with 12. I think 10 were there for drug violations. We asked them what your neighborhood would be like if drugs were legal tomorrow. The number one answer was that they would have no money. There would pretty much be no money in their households. The drug market provides more money into those communities than anything else. The second answer was that the police would no longer harass us if drugs were legal in the community. The kids focused in on two important issues: economics and police-community relations. Legalizing drugs would cut the economic legs out from under the drug business because legal drugs would be cheaper and easily obtainable. Drug dealers would no longer be able to finance terrorizing neighborhoods, and drug addicts would be a public health issue not a law enforcement problem. Regarding community relations, growing up without an adversarial relationship with the police goes a long way in creating citizens who would rather cooperate with law enforcement than fight it. Despite the failure of the drug war to reduce the use of illicit drugs, support for prohibition remains strong among many African-Americans. Carl Taylor, a sociology professor at Michigan State University who focuses on crime and other urban issues, takes a hard line against legalization. I contend strongly that illegal drugs, legal drugs and alcohol are truly the barbed wire around the neck of the black community. I see not one serious plus in my life experiences professionally or personally from illicit narcotics. ... I don't agree with McWhorter. I don't think he knows what he's talking about. If you put the black market out of business, the fellas out on the street are still going to find deeper and better drugs. Just because I don't know what to do doesn't mean you do something that you've got to be out your mind to do from where I'm sitting. The ignorance of very distorted socialization, the racism, the discrimination is not going to go away, the failure of the family structure,
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental difference
US lawyers in establishing the legal fiction of the personhood of the corporation or the Personhood of Capital make a nice representation of the deep bourgeois ideological illusory concept of Individual Determinism. Capital is a profoundly determining _social_ institution in capitalism, natch. By making Capital fictional individuals, the story, i.e. Lie, of Individual determinism is internally consistent. CB On 1/5/2011 10:13 AM, c b wrote: “In community, the individual is, crucial as the prior condition for forming a community. … Every individual in the community guarantees the community; the public is a chimera, numerality is everything…” – Søren Kierkegaard, Journals Pace Kierkegaard, of course , for we social determinists , this is absolutely backward, fundamentally wrong. The social, the communal, the community is prior to individuals. Kierkegaard's statement is a basic maxim of bourgeois ideology, whether as existentialism, libertarianism, Social Darwinism, positivism, Reaganism, Tea Parting et al. In all , the individual is primary over and determinative of the social. It is an error in the understanding of the levels of organization of reality, and specifically of human life. Human culture, society and history constitute an emergent level of reality, in which the whole is more than the some of its parts, and is determinative of the parts. It is a philosophical error concerning the relationship of the whole and the parts. The human individual is a social individual. Even Kierkegaard was; he just didn't know it. So, is the most radical libertarian; they just don't know it. Our species name should be, not homo sapiens, but homo communis. Our high level of sociality is the differentia specifica of our species. But no-one lives in a vacuum. ^^^ CB: Hello ! Exactly. No _individual_, no ONE, lives in a social vaccum. No one is an isolated individual. This is the fundamental bourgeols ideological trick, foolishness. It is rife among the intelligencia of bourgeois society. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental Difference: bourgeois' myth of individual determination of society
the larger human community is predicated upon the pre-existence of individuals. With due respect, this is the crux. Social determinists r saying that the community is not predicated on pre-existing , independent, isolated individuals, or “selves”. Rather the opposite: Society preexists the individuals. There have never been a bunch of preexisting individual persons who then got together and made the group. Robinson Crusoe is a myth so to speak. Even more an individual ideas are all rooted in their culture. Take remarkably unique individuals like Mozart , Newton or any genius. Their ideas are developments of socially generated topics. Newton understood this and said he stood on the shoulders of giants, most of them dead when he lived, by the way. This is a key point. Human Society includes dead generations. Maybe this makes it clearer how society preexists individuals. Ironically, the word itself gives the message. Individuals are not divisiable, or can’t be divided out from society. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental Difference: Personhood of Capital
(The Myth of the Wizard of Oz) [lbo-talk] Mommy, can a corporation be embarrassed? Eubulides paraconsistent at comcast.net [Mereological mayhem for methodological individualism] http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-citizens-united-turns-1-u.s.-supreme-court-considers-corporate-personhoo As Citizens United Turns 1, U.S. Supreme Court Considers Corporate Personhood Again by Marian Wang ProPublica, Jan. 19, 2011, 1:37 p.m. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on a case between ATT and the Federal Communications Commission, revisiting the legal concept of “corporate personhood” last strengthened under the court’s Citizen United ruling on corporate campaign spending. (That controversial ruling has its first anniversary this week.) The case before the court focuses on whether ATT, a corporation, can stop government agencies from releasing information obtained for law enforcement purposes by claiming such disclosures would violate the company’s “personal privacy.” The phrase is included as an exemption in the text of the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law that instructs government agencies on what information to make public. As the SCOTUS blog notes, however, there’s no specific definition of the words “personal privacy,” so it’s not clear whether a corporation can qualify as a person in this case. The lower court, the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, sided with ATT in an earlier ruling, stating that corporations are capable of being embarrassed, harassed and stigmatized by public disclosures. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could limit how much information federal agencies are able to release about the companies they've investigated. (Here's Bloomberg, with more background.) In the appeal before the high court, a review of the briefs in support of each side shows a number of news organizations and government openness and watchdog groups backing up the FCC. Major business groups—namely the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable—have filed briefs in support of ATT. Justice Elena Kagan, it’s worth noting, was solicitor general at the time when the FCC and U.S. government petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ATT case. She has had to recuse herself from considering it, and should the court split 4-4 without her, the lower court’s decision would stand. Kagan’s successor as solicitor general, Neal Katyal, has argued that “a corporation itself can no more be embarrassed, harassed, or stigmatized than a stone.” According to early reports on the day’s proceedings, the high court showed signs that it agreed. A transcript [PDF] of the oral arguments has also been made available. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental Difference: Mommy, can a corporation be embarrassed?
, Eubulides wrote: [Mereological mayhem for methodological individualism] ^^^ CB: Yes indeed US lawyers in establishing the legal fiction of the personhood of the corporation or the Personhood of Capital make a nice representation of the deep bourgeois ideological mythical concept of Individual Determinism. Capital in the form of Capital enterprises is a profoundly determining _social_ institution in capitalism, natch. By making Capital, which is obviously a social institution, into fictional individuals or persons, the story, i.e. Lie, of Individual determinism is made internally consistent. CB from another discussion of methodological individualism : c b wrote: “In community, the individual is, crucial as the prior condition for forming a community. … Every individual in the community guarantees the community; the public is a chimera, numerality is everything…” – Søren Kierkegaard, Journals Pace Kierkegaard, of course , for we social determinists , this is absolutely backward, fundamentally wrong. The social, the communal, the community is prior to individuals. Kierkegaard's statement is a basic maxim of bourgeois ideology, whether as existentialism, libertarianism, Social Darwinism, positivism, Reaganism, Tea Partying, personal responsibility of the poor for their poverty, psychologism and phenomenology in social science, Margaret Thatcher's there is no such thing as society, Robinsonades, rational/reasonable man in law and economics, et al. (Personhood of the Corporation). In all , the individual is primary over, prior to and determinative of the social. Society is a collection of sovereign individuals, It is an error in the understanding of the levels of organization of reality, and specifically of human life. Human culture, society and history constitute an emergent level of reality, in which the whole is more than the some of its parts, and is determinative of the parts. It is a philosophical error concerning the relationship of the whole and the parts. The human individual is a social individual. Even Kierkegaard was; he just didn't know it. So, is the most radical libertarian; they just don't know it. Our species name should be, not homo sapiens, but homo communis. Our high level of sociality is the differentia specifica of our species. But no-one lives in a vacuum. ^^^ CB: Hello ! Exactly. No _individual_, no ONE, lives in a social vaccum. No one is an isolated individual. This is the fundamental bourgeols ideological trick, foolishness. It is rife among the intelligencia of bourgeois society. http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-citizens-united-turns-1-u.s.-supreme-court-considers-corporate-personhoo As Citizens United Turns 1, U.S. Supreme Court Considers Corporate Personhood Again by Marian Wang ProPublica, Jan. 19, 2011, 1:37 p.m. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental difference: Menu of choices presented to a free will is socially determined
Bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own chosen goal or project. The claim holds that individuals cannot escape this freedom, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance, even an empire's colonized victims possess choices: to submit to rule, to negotiate, to act in complicity, to resist nonviolently, or to counter-attack. Although circumstances may limit individuals (facticity), they cannot force persons as radically free beings to follow one course over another. For this reason, individuals choose in anguish: they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. For Sartre, to claim that one amongst many conscious possibilities takes undeniable precedence (for instance, I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family) is to assume the role of an object in the world, merely at the mercy of circumstance—a being-in-itself that is only its own facticity ^ CB: Well yes, Comrade Sartre, Ye Olde problem of free will and determinism. Humans do have free will; so do dogs. But a human individual still exercises her choices among alternatives that are given to her _by society_. The alternatives or menu from which she chooses do not originate and well up from within her individual being or person. The feelings and emotions that determine her choices are learned from her society and culture; their genesis is not in her individual infinite soul or psyche or Mind. Valuing supporting one's family is learned and socially determined. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental difference: Menu of choices presented to a free will is socially determined
In other words: Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. — Karl Marx (The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte) Bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own chosen goal or project. The claim holds that individuals cannot escape this freedom, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance, even an empire's colonized victims possess choices: to submit to rule, to negotiate, to act in complicity, to resist nonviolently, or to counter-attack. Although circumstances may limit individuals (facticity), they cannot force persons as radically free beings to follow one course over another. For this reason, individuals choose in anguish: they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. For Sartre, to claim that one amongst many conscious possibilities takes undeniable precedence (for instance, I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family) is to assume the role of an object in the world, merely at the mercy of circumstance—a being-in-itself that is only its own facticity ^ CB: Well yes, Comrade Sartre, Ye Olde problem of free will and determinism. Humans do have free will; so do dogs. But a human individual still exercises her choices among alternatives that are given to her _by society_. The alternatives or menu from which she chooses do not originate and well up from within her individual being or person. The feelings and emotions that determine her choices are learned from her society and culture; their genesis is not in her individual infinite soul or psyche or Mind. Valuing supporting one's family is learned and socially determined. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental difference: Ressentiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment Ressentiment Question book-new.svg This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) In philosophy and psychology, ressentiment (pronounced /rəsɑ̃tiˈmɑ̃/) is a particular form of resentment or hostility. Ressentiment is the French word for resentment (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentire' to feel). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the cause generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability. A term imported by many languages for its philosophical and psychological connotations, ressentiment is not to be considered interchangeable with the normal English word resentment, or even the French ressentiment. While the normal words both speak to a feeling of frustration directed at a perceived source, neither speaks to the special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality. Thus, the term 'Ressentiment' as used here always maintains a distinction. Contents [hide] * 1 History * 2 Perspectives o 2.1 Kierkegaard and Nietzsche o 2.2 Scheler o 2.3 Weber o 2.4 Sartre * 3 References * 4 See also [edit] History Ressentiment was first introduced as a philosophical/psychological term by the 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard[1][2][3]. Friedrich Nietzsche later independently expanded the concept; Walter Kaufmann ascribes Nietzsche's use of the term in part to the absence of a proper equivalent term in the German language, contending that said absence alone would be sufficient excuse for Nietzsche, if not for a translator.[4] The term came to form a key part of his ideas concerning the psychology of the 'master-slave' question (articulated in Beyond Good and Evil), and the resultant birth of morality. Nietzsche's first use and chief development of Ressentiment came in his book On The Genealogy of Morals; see esp §§ 10–11).[1] [2]. The term was also put to good use by Max Scheler in his book Ressentiment, published in 1912, and later suppressed by the Nazis. Currently of great import as a term widely used in Psychology and Existentialism, Ressentiment is viewed as an effective force for the creation of identities, moral frameworks and value systems. [edit] Perspectives [edit] Kierkegaard and Nietzsche The ressentiment which is establishing itself is the process of levelling, and while a passionate age storms ahead setting up new things and tearing down old, razing and demolishing as it goes, a reflective and passionless age does exactly the contrary: it hinders and stifles all action; it levels. Levelling is a silent, mathematical, and abstract occupation which shuns upheavals. ... If the jewel which every one desired to possess lay far out on a frozen lake where the ice was very thin, watched over by the danger of death, while, closer in, the ice was perfectly safe, then in a passionate age the crowds would applaud the courage of the man who ventured out, they would tremble for him and with him in the danger of his decisive action, they would grieve over him if he were drowned, they would make a god of him if he secured the prize. But in an age without passion, in a reflective age, it would be otherwise. People would think each other clever in agreeing that it was unreasonable and not even worth while to venture so far out. And in this way they would transform daring and enthusiasm into a feat of skill, so as 'to do something, for something must be done.' Søren Kierkegaard, Two Ages: A Literary Review (T)he problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has thought it out for himself, demands some conclusion. It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good? then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fundamental difference : objectivity of human consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Nothingness Analysis While a prisoner of war in 1940/1941 Sartre read Martin Heidegger's Being and Time, an ontological investigation through the lens and method of Husserlian phenomenology (Husserl was Heidegger's teacher). Reading Being and Time initiated Sartre's own enquiry leading to the publication in 1943 of Being and Nothingness whose subtitle is 'A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology'. Sartre's essay is clearly influenced by Heidegger though Sartre was profoundly skeptical of any measure by which humanity could achieve a kind of personal state of fulfillment comparable to the hypothetical Heideggerian re-encounter with Being. In his much gloomier account in Being and Nothingness, man is a creature haunted by a vision of completion, what Sartre calls the ens causa sui, and which religions identify as God. Born into the material reality of one's body, in an all-too-material universe, one finds oneself inserted into being (with a lower case b). Consciousness is in a state of cohabitation with its material body, but has no objective reality; it is nothing (no thing). Consciousness has the ability to conceptualize possibilities, and to make them appear, or to annihilate them. ^^^ CB: Conscious _is_ overwhelmingly created by objective _social_ reality, by culture. This is fundamentally wrong. Individual human consciousness is a thing, a socially made thing. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
