[Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa Lichtenstein responds to Ralph
Rosa cites Bukharin as giving the best summary of Dialectical Marxism. Ironically, at one point Lenin called Bukharin the Party's favorite , but criticized him for lack of dialectics in his work. I guess it makes sense that if Rosa is a critic of dialectics ,a weak dialectician would be the best at summarizing dialectical marxism. I'm sorry Ralph took a hit, but some debate might not be all bad. Charles http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm May 2006 Latest 25/06/06: Several readers new to Marxism and/or Philosophy have found some of my Essays rather difficult. I intend to publish absolute beginners guides to all my ideas over the next few months. 12/05/06: I have just received a copy of Bukharin's 'Philosophical Arabesques' (Monthly Review Press, 2005). Based on initial reading, it is easily the best summary of Dialectical Marxism yet produced by a genuine revolutionary (other than that written by John Rees, the main target of this site -- even if both still fail to make their case, and by a wide margin). Several of the Essays posted here will need to be updated because of Bukharin's book; indeed, I might have to devote an entire Essay to it. However, in view of the circumstances surrounding its writing, and the fate of its author, criticism of this remarkable work will not be at all easy; indeed, it will leave a bitter taste in my mouth. oOo ___ 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] Rosa Lichtenstein responds to Ralph
Charles, I agree with you entirely. After Gramsci's profound critique of Bucharin's mechanist approach to dialectics, Bucharin's works must be read very carefully and only for historical reasons rather than to understand what dialectics are about. Dogan -Original Message- From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 25 May 2006 08:54:45 -0400 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa Lichtenstein responds to Ralph X-INFO: INVALID TO LINE Rosa cites Bukharin as giving the best summary of Dialectical Marxism. Ironically, at one point Lenin called Bukharin the Party's favorite , but criticized him for lack of dialectics in his work. I guess it makes sense that if Rosa is a critic of dialectics ,a weak dialectician would be the best at summarizing dialectical marxism. I'm sorry Ralph took a hit, but some debate might not be all bad. Charles http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm May 2006 Latest 25/06/06: Several readers new to Marxism and/or Philosophy have found some of my Essays rather difficult. I intend to publish absolute beginners guides to all my ideas over the next few months. 12/05/06: I have just received a copy of Bukharin's 'Philosophical Arabesques' (Monthly Review Press, 2005). Based on initial reading, it is easily the best summary of Dialectical Marxism yet produced by a genuine revolutionary (other than that written by John Rees, the main target of this site -- even if both still fail to make their case, and by a wide margin). Several of the Essays posted here will need to be updated because of Bukharin's book; indeed, I might have to devote an entire Essay to it. However, in view of the circumstances surrounding its writing, and the fate of its author, criticism of this remarkable work will not be at all easy; indeed, it will leave a bitter taste in my mouth. oOo ___ 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] Kant Bhaskar
Paddy Hackett: I dont see how any serious marxist can forge an argument by using Kant's categorical imperative. Charles Brown: I am presently preparing/reworking the chapter in which I put forward my case for egalitarianism (my thesis is a critique of the New Classical Model and Liberal Capitalist orthodoxy - in particular the way in which both legitimise inequality) and I am trying to forge my argument by using Kant's categorical imperative and especially his deontology in contrast to utilitarianism, and consequentialism... Still trying, need a lot of help... runing late on deadline. Paddy Hackett ___ 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] Brown and philosophy
Charles Brown: Moreover, the moral injunction of the categorical imperative, namely act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Paddy Hackett: I cannot see how the struggle for the abolition of wages through the struggle for real increases in the price of labour power can have anything to do with the categorical imperative. This is struggle entailing both the defence and advance of living standards. It is dictated by the specific limits of a specific capitalist society and the necessity to transcend those limits through communism. This is both a bread and butter issue and an issue of human realisation. Consequently it has nothing to do with the categorical imperative with its subjectivist limitations. Paddy Hackett ___ 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] Brown and philosophy
Paddy: That was written by the people named in the post. You are going to have them charging me with plagerism. A materialist categorical imperative would be to save the world from capitalism. Charles ^^ Paddy Hackett Charles Brown ( posting something somebody else wrote): Moreover, the moral injunction of the categorical imperative, namely act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Paddy Hackett: I cannot see how the struggle for the abolition of wages through the struggle for real increases in the price of labour power can have anything to do with the categorical imperative. This is struggle entailing both the defence and advance of living standards. It is dictated by the specific limits of a specific capitalist society and the necessity to transcend those limits through communism. This is both a bread and butter issue and an issue of human realisation. Consequently it has nothing to do with the categorical imperative with its subjectivist limitations. Paddy Hackett ___ 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] Kant Serious Marxism (Was Bhaskar)
--- Paddy Hackett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paddy Hackett: I dont see how any serious marxist can forge an argument by using Kant's categorical imperative. It's talk like this that helped persaude mt that the term Marxist is merely an impediment to clear thinking and socialist practice. But see Harry Van Der Linden, Kantian Ethics and Socialism http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0872200280/sr=8-1/qid=1148589079/ref=sr_1_1/104-9543287-2544746?%5Fencoding=UTF8 The Amazon review is helpful: 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: Kingdom of ends, February 2, 2003 Reviewer: John Landon nemonemini (NYC, NY United States) - See all my reviews Interesting work, back in print. The political perspective of Kantianism tends to reflect the legacy of classical liberalism(e.g. the Kantian Hayek), revolutionary for its time, but the inherent dialectic of the Kantian ethics proceeds to its universality as a social conundrum, which produced a most significant commentary on the socialist idea in the period of the 'back to Kant' movement at the end of the nineteenth century. This fascinating work reviews the logic and tells the history of this period and initiative, and its outcome in the era of Social Democracy leading up to the period of the Weimar collapse. These Kantians, e.g. Cohen, Vorlander, and the Marburg school,are of great historical interest still, as we forget that many of the critiques of the original Marxism now brandished by conservatives found their source in these Kantians. If only the history had been different! This corner of history was eliminated in the later stages of madness (the twenties, Eisner was assinated by early Nazis). The book is filled with all sorts of curious discussions, e.g. a critique of Hegelian teleology, Rawlsian implications, etc. It should be of interest as it will keep both left and right honest, on their, your, toes. See also Willey's Back to Kant * * * * The Austro-Marxists tended to be Kantian in lots of ways. I don't really care if anyone thinks they ere not serious Marxists -- they were, in fact, part of a vibrant living self-identified Marxist worker's movement, as we are not. That said, I think there is a point to saying that materialists ought to be somewhat skeptical of any supposed a priori principles of practical reason. For my money, I think Hegel's critique of the universalizability version of the Categorical Imperative that Charles likes is quite powerful -- H regards universalizability as a merely negative and empty criterion. The version of the CI that appeals to me is the one that says that we are to treat people as ends, and not as means only. I think materialists can accept this without buying into the Kantian transcendental a priori apparatus or treating the imperative as categorical in Kant's sense, as a somehow absolute and self-validating principle of (practical) reason. It is possible to say in a pragmatist manner that this version of the CI is one we'd hold in reflective equilibrium, accepting its consequences, which it explains as a sensible principle of action. But,a s with every pragmatic principle, it is up for revision. And accepting it in this way does not commit us to the Kantian ideas that only moral action in accord with the CI is rational, thus free -- in some transcendental sense. I don't know what subjectivism means as a charge leveled against Kant and the CI. jks Charles Brown: I am presently preparing/reworking the chapter in which I put forward my case for egalitarianism (my thesis is a critique of the New Classical Model and Liberal Capitalist orthodoxy - in particular the way in which both legitimise inequality) and I am trying to forge my argument by using Kant's categorical imperative and especially his deontology in contrast to utilitarianism, and consequentialism... Still trying, need a lot of help... runing late on deadline. Paddy Hackett ___ 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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] Kant Bhaskar
It is just an idea. I could just as easily say the idea of humans as not ends in themselves. Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:29 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Kant Bhaskar That's somebody else whose writing on Kant's categorical imperative. Is the idea of humans as ends in themselves alien to Marxism ? What is the idealist error in that. Charles Paddy Hackett: I dont see how any serious marxist can forge an argument by using Kant's categorical imperative. Charles Brown: I am presently preparing/reworking the chapter in which I put forward my case for egalitarianism (my thesis is a critique of the New Classical Model and Liberal Capitalist orthodoxy - in particular the way in which both legitimise inequality) and I am trying to forge my argument by using Kant's categorical imperative and especially his deontology in contrast to utilitarianism, and consequentialism... Still trying, need a lot of help...runing late on deadline. Paddy Hackett ___ 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
