Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Steve On Alfred Rosenberg: (Born January 12, 1893- Executed October 16, 1946) Alfred Rosenberg was a Nazi ideologist and politician. Rosenberg was one of the earliest members of the German Workers Party (later better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party), joining in January 1919; Hitler did not join until October 1919 Rosenberg became editor of the Völkischer Beobachter (National Observer), the Nazi party newspaper, in 1921. In 1923 after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler appointed Rosenberg leader of the Nazi Party, a position the latter occupied until Hitler was released from prison. In 1929, Rosenberg founded the Militant League for German Culture. He became a Reichstag deputy in 1930 and published his book on racial theory The Myth of the Twentieth Century (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts). He was named leader of the foreign political office of the NSDAP in 1933 but played little actual part in office. In January 1934 he was deputized by Hitler with responsibility for the spiritual and philosophical education of the NSDAP and all related organizations. In 1940 he was made head of the Hohe Schule (literally high school), the Centre of National Socialistic Ideological and Educational Research. Following the invasion of the USSR Rosenberg was appointed head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Alfred Meyer was his deputy and represented him at the Wannsee conference. Rosenberg was captured by Allied troops at the end of the war. He was tried at Nuremberg and found guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death and executed with other guilty co-defendants at Nuremberg on the morning of October 16, 1946. He is considered the main author of key Nazi ideological screeds, including its racial theory, Lebensraum, abolition of the Versailles Treaty, and persecution of the Jews and of Christian churches. This article is about race as an intraspecies classification. Just another intellectual grotesque become monster. To separate the beasts from the confused. About Bakhurst: Bakhurst is not only a liberal social-democrat, he's also is a representative of exactly the kind of Logical Positivism, Neo-Kantianism, Neo-positivism, Machism, Empirio-criticism or what have you (the precise name of the movement is more a function of the provenience of the theorist than of his ideas) that motivated Lenin to write Materialism and Emperio-criticism (1908). The irony of Bakhurst's current stature as the interpreter of Ilyenkov is that his kind of thinking is receives more criticism from Ilyenkov than even the objective idealism of Plato and Hegel. Bakhurst, like D. Dubrovsky who Bakhurst wrongly calls a mechanist, just cannot comprehend the essence of dialectical synthesis. Where Ilyenkov describes the essence of ideality as the unity of consciousness (the subjectively imaged object of labour) and material formations (the material symbolic representations that embody and thereby enable transmission of ideal objects), Bakhurst argues that the material objects themselves are ideal. Material objects certainly acquire significance from their resemblance (perhaps correspondence is a better word) to the ideal, but material objects, i.e. physically and sensually perceived objects, as concrete objects are far to diversified to be regarded as ideal forms. After all, diversity is a basic property of being for both Hegelian and Marxist theories of knowledge [check out Hegel's criticism of the identity of A = A for this]. Dubrovsky, like Bakhurst, does not know how to handle dialectical synthesis, and his solution of the ideal/material antinomy is to identify the ideal as pure subjective consciousness. While Bakhurst's identification of the ideal with the material goes beyond idealist hypostasy and takes idealist reification to ridiculous extremes, Dubrovsky's restriction of the ideal to pure subjectivity compels him to regard all conceptualisation as a product of some internal transcendental features common to all human thought processes, i.e. a purely subjectivist non-social theory of thought. Both Bakhurst and Dubrovsky's work are only the most recent examples of the sheer incapacity of non-dialectical methods of analysis to provide a rational and practical foundation for a natural science of culture and history. Dubrovsky's theories are more or less a continuation of Machist Marxism after Bogdanov (See Ilyenkov's Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Postivism (1979) http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/index.htm for a digestible summary and analysis of Lenin's interminable work Materialism and Emperio-criticism) and Bakhunin. Bakhurst's product is simply a mistake, a wierd and obfuscated representation of one of the most profound and brilliant of Historical
[Marxism-Thaxis] Economics and Politics: The State and Revolution (ESSAY) by Lil Joe
June 1, 2005 Economics and Politics: The State and Revolution by Lil Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Introduction In this short essay, I will argue that the essence of the State flows from or is a product of human sociology. In other words, what I here call the State at the same time embodies and mediates the technological divisions of labor, economies of exchange, the subsequent class formations with mutually exclusive economic interests, and the resultant and mutually opposed political factions representing classes. Every class struggle is a political struggle, both relative and absolute. I. The Origins Of The State The divisions of labor with their corresponding property forms produce conflicts of interests between the economic categories of proprietors. For instance, pastoral tribes or classes conflict with agricultural tribes or classes. The origins of the conflict in Southern Sudan exemplify the conflicts among pastoral and agricultural classes regarding land usage. These pastoral/agricultural class conflicts center on whether fertile lands will be allowed to remain as natural grazing lands to provide pastures for cattle, sheep, camels, etc., or will they be transformed by human labor into farm lands to grow crop in subsistence agriculture and commercial crops for sale. (Note: the conflict in Southern Sudan has grown to be more complex, but its origins can be traced back to a conflict between pastoral and agricultural classes, as well as conflicts between individual proprietors of cattle, sheep, camels, etc. for exclusive sway and ownership of grazing lands.) Within civil society, the State arises as a public power based in a military capacity to mediate the conflicts between property formations, and to regulate these conflicts through laws. Additionally, in civil society the State is used by the propertied classes to press their will on the property-less working classes and toiling masses. The political factions in the State represent class interests. Within these divisions and conflicts of interests arise further divisions and antagonisms. To regulate these proprietary conflicts and class antagonisms, the State arises to mediate conflict. Max Weber wrote, Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be. * Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. * Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state-nobody says that-but force is a means specific to the state. (Max weber's definition of the modern state 1918, see http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xweb.htm.) Keeping with the earlier example of pastoral and agricultural classes, conflicts between the various forms of property resulting from the sub-divisions engenders conflicts. For instance, among farmers arose antagonisms between farmers who want to, for example, raise fields of vegetables for consumption and/or commerce, and, say, commercial farmers that want to produce cash crops for local and/or distant markets. The function of the state is to mediate conflicts between and among classes, to establish rules of equation, property rights, and privileges, and to legislate laws that are enforced by armed men. Read Article at: http://laborpartypraxis.org/Economics.html ___ 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!: domains
CB said: However, analogizing to chemistry and biology, biology does not reduce to chemistry. Human psychology does not reduce to individual physiological psychology. Absolutely. On the first point, yes, biology cannot be reduced to chemistry. On the second point, I also completely agree: in the same way that biology does not reduce to chemistry, psychology does not reduce to physiology. These points, common among anti-reductionist thinkers such as Marxists, fits into a larger framework, in my opinion. I believe that comprehending and explaining the relations between, the structures of, and the functions of domains - and doing so in terms of their real genetic-historical development - are among the great challenges of modern science that I believe dialectical materialism can play a leading role in moving forward. In fact, differences in theoretical outlooks may be explainable by seeing conflicting views as conceptualizing domains differently - seeing the relations, structures, and functions of various domains in different, often opposite, ways. Hence, ontology remains a hot area of dispute and always will as long as different class outlooks remain in mortal struggle and conceptualize the domains of reality in incompatible ways. This argument of course begs for a clear explanation of what a domain is. Very good question! - 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor, Thanks for the refresher course on Rosenburg, which becomes a history of the Nazi party from 1921. It is always good to be reminded of what happened in Germany. Your comments on Dubrovsky are very interesting, as is your analysis of Bakhurst. I also read your descriptions of ideality with great interest. It would help me if, to start out, (when you have a chance), you would locate some specific quotes from David Bakhurst that illustrate these observations that you make: Bakhurst argues that the material objects themselves are ideal. Bakhurst's identification of the ideal with the material goes beyond idealist hypostasy and takes idealist reification to ridiculous extremes ... Thanks, - Steve At 07:08 PM 6/14/2005 +0200, you wrote: Steve On Alfred Rosenberg: (Born January 12, 1893- Executed October 16, 1946) Alfred Rosenberg was a Nazi ideologist and politician. Rosenberg was one of the earliest members of the German Workers Party (later better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party), joining in January 1919; Hitler did not join until October 1919 Rosenberg became editor of the Völkischer Beobachter (National Observer), the Nazi party newspaper, in 1921. In 1923 after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler appointed Rosenberg leader of the Nazi Party, a position the latter occupied until Hitler was released from prison. In 1929, Rosenberg founded the Militant League for German Culture. He became a Reichstag deputy in 1930 and published his book on racial theory The Myth of the Twentieth Century (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts). He was named leader of the foreign political office of the NSDAP in 1933 but played little actual part in office. In January 1934 he was deputized by Hitler with responsibility for the spiritual and philosophical education of the NSDAP and all related organizations. In 1940 he was made head of the Hohe Schule (literally high school), the Centre of National Socialistic Ideological and Educational Research. Following the invasion of the USSR Rosenberg was appointed head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Alfred Meyer was his deputy and represented him at the Wannsee conference. Rosenberg was captured by Allied troops at the end of the war. He was tried at Nuremberg and found guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death and executed with other guilty co-defendants at Nuremberg on the morning of October 16, 1946. He is considered the main author of key Nazi ideological screeds, including its racial theory, Lebensraum, abolition of the Versailles Treaty, and persecution of the Jews and of Christian churches. This article is about race as an intraspecies classification. Just another intellectual grotesque become monster. To separate the beasts from the confused. About Bakhurst: Bakhurst is not only a liberal social-democrat, he's also is a representative of exactly the kind of Logical Positivism, Neo-Kantianism, Neo-positivism, Machism, Empirio-criticism or what have you (the precise name of the movement is more a function of the provenience of the theorist than of his ideas) that motivated Lenin to write Materialism and Emperio-criticism (1908). The irony of Bakhurst's current stature as the interpreter of Ilyenkov is that his kind of thinking is receives more criticism from Ilyenkov than even the objective idealism of Plato and Hegel. Bakhurst, like D. Dubrovsky who Bakhurst wrongly calls a mechanist, just cannot comprehend the essence of dialectical synthesis. Where Ilyenkov describes the essence of ideality as the unity of consciousness (the subjectively imaged object of labour) and material formations (the material symbolic representations that embody and thereby enable transmission of ideal objects), Bakhurst argues that the material objects themselves are ideal. Material objects certainly acquire significance from their resemblance (perhaps correspondence is a better word) to the ideal, but material objects, i.e. physically and sensually perceived objects, as concrete objects are far to diversified to be regarded as ideal forms. After all, diversity is a basic property of being for both Hegelian and Marxist theories of knowledge [check out Hegel's criticism of the identity of A = A for this]. Dubrovsky, like Bakhurst, does not know how to handle dialectical synthesis, and his solution of the ideal/material antinomy is to identify the ideal as pure subjective consciousness. While Bakhurst's identification of the ideal with the material goes beyond idealist hypostasy and takes idealist reification to ridiculous extremes, Dubrovsky's restriction of the ideal to pure subjectivity compels him to regard all conceptualisation as a product of some internal transcendental features common to all human thought processes, i.e. a
[Marxism-Thaxis] just testing, please ignore
just testing, please ignore ___ 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
