Re: [Marxism] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I'll contribute $100.00 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:14 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == But the fact is that James Madison and the American founders were very big on the idea of checking power. It's remarkable that, in this day and age, that very crucial aspect of their thought is simply neglected across the respectable political spectrum. ML Comment Madison was the man and father of the Bill of Rights, which I understand to mean the Bill of Rights of Citizens, counterpoised to serfs, slaves and colonial subjects, willing to assert their rights as citizens. All of us in our past 10 generations have experienced at least two of these categories if not all three. I understand Madison to have written about a third of the Federalist Papers - which I have still to read, but from what I do understand and believe, the Bill of Rights in America express what Marx called the struggle of the bourgeois and proletariat takes place in the democratic Republic. We - revolutionaries, can champion the Bill of Rights as a specialty group cause established for that purpose from a collectivist lens of public property. In our representative form of government where the President is head of government and head of state, concentrating political authority in the executive branch is at the expense of the legislative and judicial branch. This means an added impulse to the police state or as it is called, political fascism. Not being funny or anything, your self sacrifice and years of training, study and writings on these matters is a benefit to all. Ever think about a pamphlet from a Marxist lens? I would raise money for such, featuring Madison and the meaning of political democracy. Ain't nobody in this country a damn serf or slave. We free proletarian citizens. I commit to an initial donation toward such a pamphlet $300 in the here and now. I would love something under the heading: Third American Revolution. This is of course your call, and the donation stands period. WL. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/pegdobbins%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] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mr. Hodge glorifies James Madison. The majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. Federalist No. 10 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] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Of course, he does... But the fact is that James Madison and the American founders were very big on the idea of checking power. It's remarkable that, in this day and age, that very crucial aspect of their thought is simply neglected across the respectable political spectrum. ML 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] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == But the fact is that James Madison and the American founders were very big on the idea of checking power. It's remarkable that, in this day and age, that very crucial aspect of their thought is simply neglected across the respectable political spectrum. ML Comment Madison was the man and father of the Bill of Rights, which I understand to mean the Bill of Rights of Citizens, counterpoised to serfs, slaves and colonial subjects, willing to assert their rights as citizens. All of us in our past 10 generations have experienced at least two of these categories if not all three. I understand Madison to have written about a third of the Federalist Papers - which I have still to read, but from what I do understand and believe, the Bill of Rights in America express what Marx called the struggle of the bourgeois and proletariat takes place in the democratic Republic. We - revolutionaries, can champion the Bill of Rights as a specialty group cause established for that purpose from a collectivist lens of public property. In our representative form of government where the President is head of government and head of state, concentrating political authority in the executive branch is at the expense of the legislative and judicial branch. This means an added impulse to the police state or as it is called, political fascism. Not being funny or anything, your self sacrifice and years of training, study and writings on these matters is a benefit to all. Ever think about a pamphlet from a Marxist lens? I would raise money for such, featuring Madison and the meaning of political democracy. Ain't nobody in this country a damn serf or slave. We free proletarian citizens. I commit to an initial donation toward such a pamphlet $300 in the here and now. I would love something under the heading: Third American Revolution. This is of course your call, and the donation stands period. WL. 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] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mark L. wrote: James Madison and the American founders were very big on the idea of checking power. It's remarkable that, in this day and age, that very crucial aspect of their thought is simply neglected across the respectable political spectrum. Shouldn't we sort out two strands in Madison's political theory? - One is that the common people must not be allowed political power. - The other is that power should be distributed among the various business interests so that no one interest dominates. The first strand remains a given for the ruling class. You observe that the second theme does not matter much to them today. Isn't that because sharp lines between business interests have nearly disappeared at the top, and because the distribution of economic power among capitalists has polarized, marginalizing middle and small capital to an unprecedented degree? There are relatively minor conflicts among capitals that develop into political and regulatory skirmishes: Wal-Mart has grievances against MasterCard and VISA; the entertainment content providers and the cable and other dissemination channels sometimes have trouble dividing the revenue stream. At the financial top, though, capital seems much more labile and undifferentiated, nothing like the classic antagonisms of agriculture versus transportation, industry versus merchants, industry versus finance, heavy industry versus light industry, middle-sized firms versus monopolies, etc. Some of these antagonisms helped divide the ruling class on FDR in the 1930s (to the point of support him or mount a coup against him), but what is a similar material basis today? (Plug: See my No Rich, No Poor for more.) Mr. Hodge would like to smudge the two themes in Madison. 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] The Mendacity of Hope
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 10/5/10 8:38 PM, Charlie wrote: At the financial top, though, capital seems much more labile and undifferentiated, nothing like the classic antagonisms of agriculture versus transportation, industry versus merchants, industry versus finance, heavy industry versus light industry, middle-sized firms versus monopolies, etc. Some of these antagonisms helped divide the ruling class on FDR in the 1930s (to the point of support him or mount a coup against him), but what is a similar material basis today? (Plug: See my No Rich, No Poor for more.) Mr. Hodge would like to smudge the two themes in Madison. Keep in mind that Harpers is not exactly a Marxist magazine. I would describe it as patrician radical, especially given the mindset of Lewis Lapham, its former long-term editor Lewis Lapham, who has a lot in common with Gore Vidal. In the latest issue, there's a really totally fucking stupid article by a character named Patrick Symmes about going to Cuba and trying to live for a month on Cuban wages. Symmes is the author of a book that is based on interviews with Fidel's schoolmates. Needless to say, they don't like him and neither does Symmes. But by and large, the magazine is much more tolerable than The Nation Magazine. 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
