Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
This apparent piece of nonsense of mine is the key issue in a nutshell. It embodies almost all the issues of our discussion, our differences (and I might add our concordances): the determination of rationality, of objectivity and of men's relation to nature and nature's to men. These issues are all very interrelated in so many different ways it's somewhat difficult to consider where best to start. I'll begin with the issue of 'rationality' since you directly challenge the proposition that "dialectics is a universal property of all life activity no matter how primitive", by asking if "an amoeba a being-for-itself in addition to a being-in-itself". 1. Rationality: First, note that I described the subject of the universal dialectical property to be 'life activity' and not the life form itself. Second, I did not here suggest anything specific about the awareness of the life form of his own activity. The reference for the assertion of rationality as essence of life activity comes directly from the passage the Grundrisse where Marx describes the essence of life activity as self-perpetuation [the projection of being into the future through reproduction - the appropriation of nature's goods and their transformation into the forms of one's own organic body and, in the case of man and other tool making life forms, one's own inorganic body: "When the narrow bourgeois form has been peeled away, what is wealth, if not the universality of needs, capacities, enjoyments, productive powers, etc., of individuals, produced in universal exchange? What, if not the full development of human control over the forces of nature--those of his own nature as well as those of so-called 'nature'? What, if not the absolute elaboration of his creative dispositions, without any preconditions other than antecedent historical evolution which makes the totality of this evolution--i.e., the evolution of all human powers as such, unmeasured by any PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED YARDSTICK--an end in itself? What is this, if not a situation where man does not reproduce himself in any determined form, but produces his totality? Where he does not seek to remain something formed by the past, but is in theabsolute movement of becoming" (Marx 1857 Grundrisse) The fact that life forms activities are directed to concrete future states, they are, no matter how simple or mechanical, exercises in reason. This why, if you will permit a reference to an earlier thread, I regard the investigation into biosemiology to be a vitally important exploration of the roots of reason. The most primitive forms of self reproduction are a totally mechanical process yet they are at the very root of the rational process. We are not here proposing that nature has a rational aspect, a la Spinoza. As I wrote earlier I really have no idea what nature or Nature is. What I am proposing is that the roots of rationality are in the mechanical purposive activity of life forms and that whatever life forms "know" [including ourselves of course] is a function of our practical activities in nature FROM THE VERY ORIGINS OF THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE in whatever form it may be acquired, stored, recovered etc. As I see it abstract life activity has for Marx the same relation to his theory of human activity and human history that the abstract concept of being has for Hegel's theory of science. Much as Hegel derives virtually his whole system of science from the contradictions implicit in the theory of being (in quality or determinateness to be exact) so too one can see the whole development of first humanness and then the concrete development of human sociality in his abstract description of the essence of life and of life activity. It is this more than all else that makes Marx's theory a materialist or natural science theory of humanity in all its aspects. 2. Objectivity: In its essence objectivity refers to conscious reflection on something rather than the reflection of something in consciousness. That is to say that objectivity is the function of a activity and not something we passively assimilate as we confront the daily world. Some of the things or, better, activities we objectify (very few in my opinion) are those of our own subjective consciousness. Most are not. Most of our objectifying involves activities that are the preconditions for our own subjectivities, either the activities that emerge out of the collective subjective activities of men learned or developed in the course of collaborative activities while others involve activities that are preconditions for consciousness in all its aspects. Hegel, for example, divides his system of logic into two parts, objective logic and subjective logic or notional logic where the former is that logic which we enact without subjective reflection. Objective logic is objective because the only way we can deal with it intellectually in any other fashion than just doing it is as an object of reflection [I e
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
My full response is in the prior message. So here I'll just make a couple of short responses (see below). - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:24 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Your reasoning is fine up until the braking point I note below. At 03:10 PM 5/29/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: Steve, Well, now I know what comes after the . First paragraph: Oudeyis is saying nothing about what nature is, but rather is writing that whatever understandings man has of nature are a function primarily of his active interaction (his labour) with the natural conditions of his existence. The difference between knowing what nature is (i.e. its essential being or "nature" if you will) and having a working knowledge of world conditions is all the difference between the treatment of nature in Marxist and classical materialist theory. Now then, the only part of nature humanity can know is that part of it with which he has some sort of contact, and at least for Marxism, the only part of nature about which man can develop theories of practice is that which he can or has changed in some fashion. When it comes to explaining the practical foundation scientific cosmology we argue that the theories regarding the behaviour of huge masses of material over barely conceivable periods of time and spatial dimensions are projections based more often as not on experimentation with some of the very smallest of the universe's components; atoms, quarks, and so on). Anyway, its hard to imagine how men would know things about which they have absolutely no experience and how they would know how things work without a working experience with them or with things like them. Divine revelation perhaps? Finally, there is no doubt that nature must also include that which is beyond the observed and acted upon and that its existence is important for the creation of a materialist ideology. There are three ways the "unknown" makes itself felt in material human experience: 1.The fact that human practice and the science that represents it in thought is open ended or, better yet, appears to have no outward limits is a clear indication of the existence of more to nature than that which is treated by our current state of knowledge and practice. 2. The classic observations by Marx in the first chapter of German Ideology (1845) and the Critique of Hegelian Philosophy (1844) that the physical and sensual interface between man a nature in human labour is far more concrete than can ever be represented by even the most developed dialectics. The rational representation of men's activity in the world is then an inherently uncompletable task. 3. Hegel in his discussion of being makes the point that the logical formula A = A has no demonstrable correspondence with actual experience; diversity is an inherent property of identity (Andy B. presents a pretty thorough discussion on this in his The Meaning of Hegel, Chapter iv section, " Diversity(essential Identity )" ). The whole basis of all rational activity, all dialectics, conscious and unconscious, deliberated and automatic, is the unity between the essential transitoriness of experienced moments and the determination of identities; qualities, quantities, measure and all the other things we have to "know" to develop a working model of the world. It's the unity of logical categorization and the essential temporality of immediate experience that fuels the dialectic and makes it so important a tool for exploration of the unknown. Second paragraph: The clarification of what exactly is the significance of the *objective* nature of nature is probably Ilyenkov's most important contributions to Scientific Marxism. Indeed for orthodox Marxists, including Lenin in his earlier writings (prior at very least to his readings in Hegel in 1914 and possibly as early as his article on Emprio-positivism), did indeed inherit the classical materialist concept of the objectivity of nature in the metaphysical sense of the essential being of nature; known, unknown, whatever. Ilyenkov in the last paragraphs of chapter 8 of Dialectical Logic summarizes the reasoning that is the basis of the concept of nature as prior to and independently of humankind. So far so good. Here he distinguishes between Marx and Engel's theories of human activity and Hegel's idealism by recapitulating their description of man as a product and force of nature that transforms nature into the instruments of his activity in appropriating nature's goods and producing from them the means for the perpetuation of his body organic and inorganic. Fine, except that with the diversification of human expertise, the self-reproduction of society's cognitive and practical interests means that some investigations by some individuals may not necessarily be directed towards the ends of instrumental self-preservation, though
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
The problem here is simply that I'm not sure of the ground of our discussion. If this is tautological to you, then we share at very least the point of view that science is at root a product of men's response to their needs and not simply a reflection of the universe in consciousness. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:15 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Well, my reaction here re-invokes my sense of the tautology of all such arguments. That is, there can be no meaningful claims about the universe apart from our interaction with the universe since we can't make any claims about anything without interacting with the phenomena about which we are making claims. Your claim that all our knowledge claims about the universe from the Big Bang on, are expressions of human need, is tautologically true, and hence not very interesting or revealing. At 11:51 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! > > but what about history of nature? I mean before there wasn't anything that > can be qualified as man's interaction withthe world. does in your view > dialectics start with the appearance of a species that does not simply adjust > itself to nature like other animals but starts changibng it more or > less > conscioulsy by labour? > > NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN HISTORY > IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION > WITH THE > WORLD Whether or not nature has a history is a question for nature, of little relevance for the practical realization of human needs. Man, in order to better determine his needs and the means necessary to realize them investigates through reason and practice (experimentation and informed search) the development of the relevant (essential) incohoate features of the natural world, including those of his own activities. The result is the objective determinations of past events in the natural world and of their relevance to the form and substance of our current needs and to the realization of these in practical activity. The laws and principles as well as the developmental schemas produced by our research into what is called Natural History are a product of and the means for realization of strictly human objectives. Is this a history of nature? Well, we are ourselves an integral part and force of the natural world and the massive array of objects we depend on for perpetuation of our life activity have their ultimate origin in nature, but that's a far cry from arguing that human beings and their essential equipage is identical with the totality of nature or that our activity in nature involves nature as a whole. Regards, Oudeyis ___ 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 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I've inteleaved my comments in the foliage of your commentary. - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:51 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Interleaved comments on further fragments of your post: At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: .. I see your not going to let me deal with the dogmatics of classical materialism briefly. The kernel of my argument is that in general, discourse segregated from practice can only be theological, i.e. concerning articles of faith rather than descriptions of demonstrable practice. I say in general, since scientists usually discuss their findings with only minimal reference to the practicalities that are the origins and ultimate objects of their work. This is mostly a manifestation of the extreme division of labour that isolates professional researchers from all but the immediate subjects of their work. In any case, I've yet to see a monograph or article of a natural scientist that presents his work as having universal significance. There are exceptions to this rule such as Hawkins in physics and Dawkins in population genetics, and the result is invariably utter nonsense. I'm referring here to Hawkins conviction that unified field theory will provide an ultimate theory of the physical world and to Dawkin's projection of the mechanics of population genetics to the science of culture (memics and all that). Science as the theory of practice is implicitly restricted in relevance to the conditions of the moment (even when the problems it is designed to treat are projected into the near or far future). The discoveries of this kind of science are inevitably relevant only to the particular circumstances of their production, and to the specific subjects of their focus and have no claim as eternal truths. Einstein, Newton and Galileo will never acquire the sainthood of the revealers of final truths. On the contrary, their ideas will only remain significant so long as they are relevant to the practices and technologies that we men need to perpetuate ourselves, "ourselves" here meaning the entire complex of organic and inorganic components of our individual and collective life activities. Thus, science as the theory of practice is an inherently revolutionary activity. This is interesting as a vantage point, i.e. beginning from the scope of praxis and explaining why scientists can be blockheads when they venture beyond the specific praxis that enabled them to achieve what they did. But I find this approach more credible when it is re-routed back to objectivity. Come again? Discussion on the nature of being, on the substance of nature, and so on is from the point of view of historical materialism no less restricted to the conditions of its production than is practical science. However, the inherent object of such discussions is the determination of the absolute and final nature of things at all places and in all times. The ostensible object of the advocates of such metaphysical finalities is the expression of ultimate truths regarding the universe and its parts, the absolute contradiction to the objects of practice and the science of practice. Anyway, it is one thing to develop theories concerning particularities of that grand everything we call nature, it's quite another to present particular results as universals about the universe. The former can be demonstrated, proved if you will, the latter extends beyond all possibilities of human experience, hence it can only be a product either of divine revelation or of normative practice, i.e. ethos. I prefer ethos to divine revelation. I'm afraid I don't quite grasp this. You are suggesting, I think, that general ontological pronouncements not tied to some current concerns of praxis become fruitless or even retrograde metaphysics. I don't quite agree with this, but I do agree that these traditional philosophical concerns become more dynamic and fruitful when connected to specific problems of the present. The utility of general ontological pronouncements is not in question. Undoubtedly they are useful otherwise they would never be made. I'm arguing that ontological pronouncements are retrograde metaphysics and bad science. .. > I think you're right. The question then is--how to put this?--the line > of > demarcation between nature in itself and . . . nature for us . . . and > science. I've been cautious about making claims about the 'dialectics > of > nature' in se, i.e. apart from our methods of analysis (which I guess > you > might call 'contemplative'. This is the old problem, as traditional > terminology puts it, of the relation between (or very existence of) > subjective (dialectical logic as subject of debate) and objective > dialectics (which, with respect to nature, is the focus of positive and > negative engagements with dialectical thought). It'
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
to Dawkin's projection of the mechanics of >population genetics to the science of culture (memics and all that). CB: Interestingly this "memics" thing reminds of both Levi-Strauss and Marvin Harris who analogized to the idea in phoneme, with the emphasis on "eme", from phonetics and linguistics. Phonemes are meaningful sound units, i.e. those that can make a difference in meaning between two words ,like the difference between voiced and unvoiced between "big" and "pig". Anyway, Harris and L-S use this to define cultural units , socalled, so it sound like it converges with Dawkins , but coming from another direction than biology. ___ 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] O, Dialectics!
Charles Brown Victor victor Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx, Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved philosophical being. Just the reverse is true objective reality is only known through what Lenin calls "revolutionary practice", the transformation of one object into another through labour. It is only when we know how and under what conditions (including of course our own activities) an object becomes something else that we cognize its real character. This is as true of the child knocking about a gewgaw hanging over his crib as it is for the physicist smashing atoms. There is virtually no aspect of human knowledge (not human activity) that is truly a priori. Oudeyis ^^ CB: Yes,in saying that objective reality exists, I did NOT indicate any break with The Theses on Feuerbach ,esp. 1, 2 and 11 here. Marx distinguishes his materialism from all those hitherto existing by by making the subject active not contemplative, like Feuerbach. Practice is the test of theory, otherwise it's scholastic. Philosophers have interpreted the world, the thing is to change it. Lenin's _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ is thoroughly infused with Engels' elaboration of these principles in _Anti-Duhring_. ^^^ CB: There should be a "not" above (capitalized), "I did NOT indicate, etc." Marx terms the activity of the active subject practical-critical, or revolutionary activity. Engels defines practice as experimentation and industry. Through practice we turn Kant's things-in-themselves into things-for-us, hopefully, though that's harder said than done. Even Einstein's discoveries are problematic as to whether they turn some things into "for us" or "agin us". General Relativity's main impact in most people's lives has ben as premise for nuclear fission, I think. Nuclear weapons are things-against-us. What about influence at a distance ? Fields of energy and humans being influenced by the world at a distance :>) ___ 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] a world not tied to oil
We could have a world not tied to oil
http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.2005.6/PT.2005.6.6.html
This column is a place for revolutionaries to debate why a cooperative
society is a practical solution to the problems people are fighting out. We
welcome
your thoughts about the articles we are running and we welcome your articles.
Future articles will be on jobs and a new society; culture and a new society;
and more. You can view all articles at
http://www.lrna.org/speakers/vision.html. E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or write:
People's Tribune, P.O. Box 3524, Chicago,
IL 60654
By Sandra Reid
Millions of people are realizing that war today is in large part about oil.
The world economy is fueled by oil. Oil affects every aspect of our
lives‹from
fertilizers upon which world agriculture rests, to transportation, warfare,
plastics, chemicals, and other building blocks of industrial society. However,
it is becoming clear that fossil fuels are affecting the air that we breathe,
dirtying our water, spewing toxins everywhere, and contributing to global
warming, which is setting conditions for a collapse of the environment. Equally
frightening is the reality that a major war today will likely be nuclear,
threatening the future of humanity. Although oil is plentiful ("shortages" are
artificially created to keep the price high*), there are many forms of safe,
life-sustaining, renewable energy sources that could be used. The earth itself
is
energy. Why can't we get away from oil?
The capitalists can't and won't stop investing in oil. They have billions
invested in an oil-based global infrastructure from with they derive huge
profits. Exxon, for example, garnered a 44 percent increase or almost $8
billion in
first quarter profits. There are projections that the price of a barrel of oil
could shoot up to $100. Imagine the profits. If you were a capitalist, could
you stop investing in oil? The capitalists cannot turn away from oil. Nor will
they develop renewable energy on the scale that is urgently needed to save the
earth. Oil companies are actually preparing for an increase in oil production
globally. Billions more in taxpayers' money will be spent for regional
security (i.e. military control) to protect those investments. The nature of
capitalism demands it. Capitalism is based on private property of the few at
the
expense of humanity.
The only way to stop the cycle of destruction is to break away from
capitalism and create a totally new society based on public ownership of not
only
energy, but of every industry that produces the means of life. If the people
gain
control of the tools for producing the things we need, and run them in the
interests of humanity, plentiful sources of life-sustaining energy could be
unleashed. Totally new cities that nurture human relations could be built
around
free, clean energy. In such a society, everyone would have heat in the winter,
air-conditioning in the summer, clean water, safe parks for their kids, etc.
The
smog-filled mega-cities organized around the gas-guzzling automobile, the
pollution-spewing industrial plants, pipelines and refineries, toxic waste
dumps‹
and poverty‹would be relics of the past. New transportation systems could
transport people from small communities centered around people's needs to
anywhere
in the country or world. Anything is possible if the material conditions
allow for it. Today, the advances in science and technology make a new
cooperative
world possible and necessary.
Michio Kaku, author of the book, "Visions," discusses the astonishing
advances of science and the possibilities of mastering all forms of energy on
the
planet (eventually harnessing stellar power.) His book confirms that energy is
everywhere‹there are no shortages‹and that new technology can harness it in
the
interests of humanity. He says future societies could "modify the weather,
mine the oceans, or extract energy from the center of their planet." He warns,
however, that "harnessing and managing resources on this gigantic scale
requires a sophisticated degree of cooperation." He says, "this means [such
societies
must] have attained a truly planetary civilization, one that has put to rest
most of the factional religious, sectarian, and nationalistic struggles."
A cooperative society can be achieved, a society where people have what they
need simply because they are human beings. That someone should have the right
to own public resources and profit from their sale would be considered
immoral. The question is how do we get there? An organization of
revolutionaries is
needed that can take the message to the people that we must take over the
society, save humanity, and sweep capitalism off of the face of the earth in
favor
of something new.
The notion of so-called oil shortages and depletions is used by the U.S.
capitalists to justify high oil prices and war. According to an article
entitled,
"The Bottomless
[Marxism-Thaxis] Maureen Taylor, Detroit's grassroots City Council candidate: real world stuff
An interview with Maureen Taylor, Detroit's grassroots City Council candidate http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.2005.6/PT.2005.6.4.html By People's Tribune Staff Editor's note: The People's Tribune recently interviewed Maureen Taylor, who is a candidate for the Detroit City Council. Excerpts from the interview are below. People's Tribune: Why are you a candidate for City Council? How many city councilors are to be elected? Maureen Taylor: Detroit is in trouble, reeling from the epochal changes inherent in the economy moving away from industrial production to a hi-tech protocol. Machines for years used to aid and support the hands of laborers, but this new circumstance finds labor being replaced, resulting in millions of American workers and hundreds of thousands in Michigan being separated from lifetime jobs that fed their families. The fires of change are scorching Detroit, so revolutionaries run into the building carrying buckets of truth and understanding to save lives. I am a revolutionary, so my role is to step into the middle of this race pointing out why we are in the shape we are in. From the 149 residents who submitted signed petitions, the top 18 vote getters in the Aug. 2 primary will go on to vie to be the top nine vote getters in the Nov. 8 general election. Nine persons make up the Detroit City Council. PT: Detroit is known as the "Motor Capital" of the world, and Detroit was also known as a city with decent homes for workers. Is this still true? What is the economy looking like in Detroit? MT: Detroit is still known as the "Motor City," even though that term is largely ceremonial because other cities may manufacture more cars than what are made in Detroit, since technology has taken over many of the tasks once performed by Detroit workers. However, while there has not been any significant reduction here in the numbers of cars built, there has been a devastating reduction of hired workers who used to build these cars, now put together using advanced technological robots. Almost the same number of automobiles is being built by one tenth, or even less, of the workforce. This change has ushered in all levels of attacks against our standard of living. Michigan ties Alaska with the highest unemployment. In places like Flint, Saginaw, Taylor, River Rouge and Detroit, unemployment estimates are as high as 50 percent, and these might be conservative figures. The elimination of income maintenance programs that Detroit has always had access to, like General Assistance, was the opening shot signaling war against Detroit workers. Since then, every safety net program that at least kept our heads above water has had reductions so that many residents are under water, or in our case, without water! The Detroit economy is in shambles. PT: You are chairperson of Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO).What is the purpose of the MWRO? MT: I began serving as state chairperson of the MWRO shortly after our beloved Diane Bernard started to get sick some nine years ago. Diane was the rock of leadership, skilled and steeled in her commitment to see poverty end. She was unbiased and unbought, and her untimely, premature death on Easter in 1999 remains one of the turning points in my life. My focus was forever shaped and I have been a re-committed soldier to MWRO since that day. MWRO is the advocate union for disenfranchised persons who need conflict resolution and support. We are a non-violent organization that uses the courts, legislation and civil disobedience in the streets as organizing tools. PT: MWRO is part of a coalition of organizations in the Detroit metropolitan area that believe that "utilities is a human right." What were the conditions that gave rise to this belief and the formation of the coalition? MT: Between June 2001 and June 2002, the low-down, back-stabbing Detroit Water Dept. shut off water at 40,752 separate households‹in one year! Welfare Rights only found out about this Human Rights violation two years later, and quickly moved to form a coalition to fight water shut offs. Residents in Detroit, from the city of Highland Park, and from the city of Hamtramck met for weeks before forming the Highland Park Human Rights Coalition. This group has picketed, demonstrated, written letters and made phone calls, and has led the fight to expose the local terrorism involved with turning off water in our community. This fight is a national fight. Other residents across the country not yet affected are already rallying to understand the dynamic of efforts to privatize public resources, and are coming on-line in new formations like the Water Warriors, a national group that focuses on exposing attempts to privatize water anywhere in the world. Water Warriors are based in America, and I am a member! The next step in the coalition is to move the fight to make access to fresh drinking water non-negotiable! We ar
[Marxism-Thaxis] African Americans and the Politics of Class
Cover Story: June-teenth 2005: African Americans and the Politics of Class http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.2005.6/PT.2005.6.1.html Slavery was abolished in all Federal territories on June 19, 1862. That date, commonly referred to as "June-teenth", is celebrated as the beginning of the destruction of slavery in the United States. One hundred forty three years have passed. Still, we find the African American working masses socially isolated, economically impoverished and politically impotent. Those who might point to the difficulty of integrating an enslaved, black, one-tenth of the American population into the free 90 percent should study the history of Mexico in this regard. Mexico achieved her independence in 1821. As in the United States, African slaves constituted 10 percent of its population. In 1829, slavery was abolished and laws forbidding discrimination were enforced. Consequently, Mexico has never had the racial problems that characterize the United States. It should be clear that the reluctance or inability of the United States to put an end to the so-called "race question" lies in the realm of politics rather than arising from society. As we examine the conditions of Black America this June-teenth and indicate the path to full freedom, we remember that politics is the faithful expression of economics. First of all, how do we characterize the African Americans? They no longer fit the category of "a people." With the lifting of legal segregation, there was nothing in common to hold them together. The Black bourgeoisie joined its white counterpart as part of the American capitalist class. To a lesser degree the various sectors of Black society merged into their respective sectors. Black doctors treat white patients in prestigious hospitals, Black men and women constitute an integrated and important sector of the military officer corps. The list goes on. Why is it then that when we leave the upper strata, we are confronted with economic statistics reminiscent of the worst days of segregation and discrimination? Only one of ten Black teen-agers is able to find a job in Chicago. One of every eight Black males between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison. The other diseases of poverty, AIDS, cancer and cardiovascular diseases are devastating the Black community. How do we rationalize a Black, female US secretary of state on the one hand, and this nearly indescribable social destruction on the other? The answer lies not in the economics and politics of yesteryear, but in the economics and politics of capitalism in the age of electronics. The segregation and discrimination of the past period guaranteed that the African American worker would become a major part of the most economically unstable sector of the industrial working class. This was precisely the sector that was hit first and hardest by the conversion from human labor to electronic production. Not just the African Americans, but anyone in that sector was cast into the ranks of a new class formed by the elimination of many jobs and the pauperization of much of the work that remained. The Carter administration attempted to bring white poverty to the attention of the American people. Reagan reasserted poverty as a Black issue and his thinking has influenced the political Left. They have become accustomed to thinking that racism is the cause of the difficult problems facing the African American poor today. There is plenty of racism left in America. The point is that the politics of class has so merged into the question that none of these problems can be solved on a racial basis. For the first time American revolutionaries can strategize on the basis of class. >From this point of view we celebrate June-teenth as one of the most important days in American labor history. The emancipation of the slaves meant emancipation of almost a fifth of the work force. The destruction of chattel slavery will, in our time, be followed by the destruction of wage slavery. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Yes, I have this book somewhere. So are you going to forward your review to this list? At 03:31 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: Unfortunately, the mainstay of Western interpretations of Ilyenkov's works is the absolutely wierd product of a Brit academic who represents them as a sort of sociologically oriented form of Neo-positivism (itself a contradiction!). I wrote a first draft on his work that was totally unsatisfactory (too lacking in focus), and am now finishing up the outline of a revision which hopefully will be the basis of a more accurate presentation than was my first effort. I don't quite get this. But my first question is: who is this Brit neo-positivist academic? Dave Bakhurst of Queens College Ontario and author of Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. 1991 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Very interesting post. Just a few isolated comments to begin . . . At 03:10 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: .. The fact that life forms activities are directed to concrete future states, they are, no matter how simple or mechanical, exercises in reason. This why, if you will permit a reference to an earlier thread, I regard the investigation into biosemiology to be a vitally important exploration of the roots of reason. The most primitive forms of self reproduction are a totally mechanical process yet they are at the very root of the rational process. We are not here proposing that nature has a rational aspect, a la Spinoza. As I wrote earlier I really have no idea what nature or Nature is. What I am proposing is that the roots of rationality are in the mechanical purposive activity of life forms and that whatever life forms "know" [including ourselves of course] is a function of our practical activities in nature FROM THE VERY ORIGINS OF THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE in whatever form it may be acquired, stored, recovered etc. But biosemiology itself seems to be rather obscurantist, more akin to Whitehead's philosophy of organism than to Marx. 2. Objectivity: In its essence objectivity refers to conscious reflection on something rather than the reflection of something in consciousness. That is to say that objectivity is the function of a activity and not something we passively assimilate as we confront the daily world. Some of the things or, better, activities we objectify (very few in my opinion) are those of our own subjective consciousness. Most are not. Most of our objectifying involves activities that are the preconditions for our own subjectivities, either the activities that emerge out of the collective subjective activities of men learned or developed in the course of collaborative activities while others involve activities that are preconditions for consciousness in all its aspects. Hegel, for example, divides his system of logic into two parts, objective logic and subjective logic or notional logic where the former is that logic which we enact without subjective reflection. Objective logic is objective because the only way we can deal with it intellectually in any other fashion than just doing it is as an object of reflection [I expect AB to come down on me like a ton of bricks on this one]. In its many concrete manifestations in human activity, intellectual and material, the principle of self-perpetuation, at least for men, is as subjective an issue as is the concept of self; the idea of property, of individual interests and even of "family values" are directly related to the activity of primitive self-perpetuation, though highly charged with many concrete connections to the complexities of human social existence. These slogans of superficial individualism of Social Darwinism and its inheritors, the bio-sociologists and others like them, only scratch the surface of things. Regarded objectively, the self-perpetuating activity of life forms is sublated in virtually all forms of human activity from eating and intercourse to social labour, wage slavery, and social revolution. Sounds like some version of Lenin's (or the Soviets' in general) theory of reflection. Life activity is a form of reflection. However, the 'roots of reason' strike me as no more than roots, not reason. ... The natural sciences reflect exactly this relation between intellect and practice. There are no real ontological truths in science. Nothing is holy or beyond question and the only real proof is a sort of abstracted form of practice, experimentation. Whatever ontologising scientists do, and some do, is tolerated by the scientific community only insofar as it remains speculation and does not interfere with the scientific process. Great scientists have had "ideas"; Newton philosophized that the world was a clock wound up by the creator and then left to its own devices, Einstein was sure that "God does not play dice", and Hawkins was until a few years ago sure that unified field theory would answer all the questions of physics. Most of these and many more are, fortunately, either forgotten or on the way to being forgotten, though the scientific contributions of their makers remain important, even vital, components of the giant artefactual system men have built to enable their persistence in the world. The Royal Society started this practice, to keep metaphysics and theology out of empirical science. Finally, the natural science of human activity and history, and this is what Historical Materialism, should be and sometimes is, can least afford the ontologising forays that occasionally crop up in fields such as physics, chemistry and organic sciences. The very abstractness of the subjects of these sciences renders the prononciamentos of important scientists fairly harmless in the long run. The natural science of human a
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] the Politics of Class - Is Unity Possible?
>>TONC also takes the Millions More Movement’s march on Wash. DC on October 15 very seriously and we are already beginning to strategize as to how we can best unite the struggle against the war with that effort. We don’t want the two dates, October 15, and Sept. 24, just three weeks apart, to compete with each other. Central to TONC’s strategy will be to utilize Sept. 24 to build the Millions More Movement events in mid Oct. << (and also . . . . ) >>An important part of forging any meaningful unity will, of necessity, require that the anti-war movement both acknowledges and unites with the struggle of people of color and the events that carry their message. The call for a "Millions More March" on the tenth anniversary of the "Million Man March" has gone out far and wide. The Millions More March will extend over 3 days next fall, October 14, 15 and 16, including a massive march on Washington DC. It goes without saying that many of us will be pre-occupied with this important mobilization. This is something that needs to be respected. << Comment Marxism and the National Factor - June 2005 Juneteenth is June 19. Part 1 The Millions More Movement celebrates the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March. The Million Man March set in motion - trek, and brought to Washington, DC the better part of 2 million men, overwhelmingly proletarian in their economic facts of life and outlook. The better part of 2 million men means well over 1.5 million folks. The Million Man March and the Million More Movement is the face of the proletarian social revolution in America. What are the concrete demands of the Millions More Movement? The answer reveals the logic of the movement. I watched the "Call" issued from the Millions More Movement "organizing committee" on C-Span. Everyone/anyone oppressed and exploited by imperial bourgeois relations, without regard to color, nationality, gender, sexual preference or class station was invited to participate. "Working class," "Proletarian revolution," "trade union movement" and concepts like "labor movement," has more often than not meant white people and white workers in our history and this kind of thinking is fraught with danger and no longer express the economic and social reality of American society. Yet, it is a fact of our lives that our industrial working was formed from successive waves of European immigrants and it was only after the 1920s that the American family farmers - (European immigrants forming and coalescing into the Anglo American People), began a social process roughly equivalent to the destruction of the agriculture population as serf and their transformation into proletarians during an earlier phase of "European history" or the transition from agriculture to industry. Marxism and the National Question has never faired well in America. A dynamic section of the African American Liberation Movement, galvanized on the basis of the battle against the state; with a huge section of insurgents won over to the brilliance of Marxism and the National Question, stepped forward and re-articulated this burning social question on the basis of American history and in the image of the proletariat. This happened in the late 1960 and early 1970s. The period of the National Question (roughly the period of the First and Second Communist International), then the era of National-Colonial Question (corresponding and forming the political and theory basis of the Third Communist International) have exhausted themselves in history. What stands before us is the National Factor, having shed its previous class and segregated institutional framework that cast it simply as a question of those colonized by imperialism on the basis of the closed colonial system. In the past the program of the left and the Marx sector of communism assigned the industrial proletariat in the imperial centers the task of liberating the oppressed peoples on the basis of the overthrow of their own imperial bourgeoisie. Having sustained a 30 year defeat on the Leninist presentation of the National Factor in America and having entered a new era of history, we communists workers generated on the wave of rebellion and direct combat with the state authority expressed in first Birmingham, Alabama 1963, then the political juncture that was Watts 1965; and then the Detroit 1967 (at the time the greatest uprising against the state authority since the Civil War in America), took to heart the 1992 Los Angeles uprising and took note of its distinct multinational character as the descendants of the Chicano Moratorium cemented our material political alignment through Mexico and into "Central" and "South" "America" and added (expressed) something new to the social equation. Then there was Cincinnati 2000 and Battle Creek Michigan 2002. The Millions More Movement proves conclusively that the day of the black leader as black leader rather tha
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it will probably be a little while after that before I can reengage. I will think about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship of the brain to the origins of humanity. I think Engels' argument about how labor created the human hand applies also to the brain, language organs, bipedalism, etc. so I will try to make a case for that. And I have been enjoying the exchanges between Ralph and Victor, especially on the issues of the role of practice in science, the nature of scientific thought, and the big question, just what is nature - and can humans really "know" what nature is in any fundamental ontological sense. I recently read the book by Bakhurst that Victor mentions, and have a different take on it. Briefly put, I disagree with Bakhurst's negative assessment of Leninist politics, his tendency to see Stalinism as a form of Bolshevism, and his general opinion of dialectics. But I agree with many of his insights into Ilyenkov and Vygotsky. Oops, got to get packing. See you all again soon. - Steve ___ 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
