Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. Why did Wittgenstein not view himself as a logical positivist? What, if any, the principal difference(s) between their philosophies in these early days. I can see why there is a difference between Popper and Logical Positivism --the question of verfiability over falsifiablity. Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. Interesting. I wonder if I should put this or similar items into my bibliography. This is a Marxist advocating the Popperian approach as a way of circumventing doctrinal rigidification. Can you think of other Marxists who have taken this road? ___ 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] Marx on the credit crunch?
Chris Doss I think this depends on how you define "science." Cosmology, paleontology, and many forms of geology are all really varieties of history and all normally considered sciences. Unless one wants to say that "history" only refers to that story of the development of human beings, and that for some reason human beings, unlike everything else, cannot be described by such a science. CB: There are roughly two branches of science-history: Natural history ( Darwinism, cosmology) and human history ( Marxism). Or we can say it's all natural history,with human history a branch of natural history of special interest to we humans. By the way, in the Soviet Union all degrees were in history for this reason, I believe. Does Angelus have trouble conceiving of natural history as science ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history The point I think Marx and Engels make when they say " there is only one science, the science of history" is that science must be conceived of dialectically, that is in terms of development, change. _Everything_ changes, develops, has a history. Even the physical universe ( "physics") changes. Engels notes ( in _Anti-Duhring_) that Kant initiated a dialectical understanding of the solar system in saying that it has a history. --- Angelus Novus > > Charles, how on earth is a "science" of history even > possible? Please do not take this as a rhetorical > question. I think one can do useful analytical, > scholarly historical work, but there are no "laws" > of > history. Using the word "science" makes exaggerated > claims for scholarly historical analysis. > CB: In a way Angelus is thinking of this backwards. Marx and Engels are saying all "science" must be conceived of in terms of the history of its subject matter, that is dialectically. I'm gonna go with Marx and Engels over Angel as to whether there are scientific laws of history. As Engels says at Marx's graveside. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/death/burial.htm Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark Angelus Novus Carrol is absolutely 100% correct here. While it may be difficult to distinguish between Marx the scientist and Marx the revolutionary at the level of personality, I think it is entirely possible to distinguish between the scientifically meaningful parts of Marx's analysis versus historical-philosophical prophesies that are an expression of revolutionary hope. The prospect for communist revolution has no bearing upon the validity of Marx's analysis of capitalism. Some would even argue that Marx's analysis of the fetishistic relations of bourgeois society demonstrates the impossibility of revolution. I don't share this perspective, but I do not think it is nonsense. ^ CB: This gives new meaning to "Marx was not a Maxist" . Fortunately, we have Carrol and Angel who understand Marx better than he understood himself. ___ 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] More O debate
Puuhlease. They don't need you to be "dignified". >>> Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/2008 2:13 AM >>> This inbred and rather unintelligent leftist breastbeating reminds me why I have quit so many groups. I wouldn't dignify this drivel with the notion of "debate". At 01:47 PM 4/1/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/026094.html > >my "obsessive opposition" to Obama >Dbachmozart > > > >Joaquin Bustelo writes - > >What makes Dbachmozart include in a comment about the speech, >"Somebody >writes a clever bit of cliched rhetoric for him," without spending 5 >minutes >googling to see if there is any reporting on whether Obama or a ghost >writer >wrote that speech. Given the nature of the speech, it was obviously >relevant, which is WHY Dbachmozart found it worth asserting that it >was >written "for him" and not "by him. OK, in Dbachmozart's individual >case we >can speculate it is his obsessive opposition to this particular >bourgeois >politician. But the same meme is all over the internet and with no >foundation at all, which is where Dbachmozart picked it up > > > > >reply - > > >Re: my "obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician" >- as >if Obama is the only bourgeois politician that I and other comrades >oppose! On >a Marxism list, I wouldn't expect much time to be devoted to debunking >the >promises of a McCain or Clinton or even a Kucinich - I don't sense any > >illusions about their campaign rhetoric from comrades. But there are >some obvious >flirtations being made here towards Obama, and if they can't be >criticized on >THIS list without the demagogic accusation of white supremacy being >used as a >cudgel to stifle that criticism, then the political situation in the >US is >even worse than I thought . I could understand and even partially >sympathize >with such a flirtation if Obama's campaign had HALF the clear left >wing thrust >that Jackson's Rainbow campaigns certainly did, but someone who >articulates >nothing more than the mealy-mouthed centrist drivel of "there is no >Black >America"/ giving Bush every penny he's asked for to destroy Iraq and >Afghanistan/ >blank check support to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Israel wants to do >to >the Palestinians/ "excesses of the 60s and 70s" praise for the Reagan >years - >program of the DLC - Democrats for the Leisure Class - THAT'S the >candidate >that we should stifle our critique of to appease those in the Black >community >who will settle for nothing more than "a Black face in a high place"?? >This >isn't leadership, it's tailism - opportunism, dressed up as being >"sensitive" >to the hopes and dreams of a cruelly oppressed people. It is a >reflection of >a pessimistic view of Black America as being hopelessly naive and >politically >unsophisticated. And what happens if and when he's elected and does >everything we know he'll do to protect the Empire's interests, what do >we tell people >who've listened and followed our advice to support him - even if >"critically"? We'd be in the same boat that a discredited Hillary is in >today as she >tries in vain to explain to anti war Democrats why she supported the >war in 2002 >- "I didn't really support actually going to war". > >There are those on the left who are supporting Obama with the >expectation >that once he gets into office and starts carrying out the DLC program, >his >supporters, invigorated by the promises and hopes of his campaign, >will turn >against him and create a powerful opposition from the left and if we >don't >antagonize them with our criticisms, we can be part of a new mass >radicalization! >The reality is that mass movements just don't spring up overnight. An >Obama >candidacy would de-mobilize the left as the Kerry candidacy did to the >anti >war movement in '04, and his DLC program would more likely demoralize >rather >than energize the forces that are so enthusiastically supporting him >today. >Where would that leave Black America and the left? > >Maybe comrade Bustelo feels that ALL critics of Obama are contaminated >by >white supremacy? And the Black critics from Black Agenda Report and >The Black >Commentary - AND MALCOLM X IF HE WAS STILL WITH US!! - must be ultra >left >"self-hating" Blacks! It seems that comrade Bustelo may have been >contaminated by >the demonizing tactics employed by Zionists against their critics. > >I have found myself in agreement with the valuable insights that this > >comrade has contributed here with respect to the struggle against all >forms of >white privilege including when it raises its head within the left, as >well as >with party building and the nationalist aspect of the combined >revolution in >South America. I also agree with him that if Obama does get the >nomination, the >non Democratic Party left must take a certain approach that we >wouldn't ha
[Marxism-Thaxis] A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path
CeJ jannuzi Well Obama's up from the ashes story just never sat very well with me. ^^^ CB: When I read part of O's biography, I never got the impression he was telling an "up from ashes story". He was in a middle class white family. His mother was not a typical single mom. She remarried an Indonesian at some point. And Barack (Barry) lived with his grandparents for a significant time. His grandfather was a salesman( travelling ?) and his grandmother was an executive in a local bank. Obama sort of describes his life as middle class, and actually middle class white, not Black. His father is a high level government minister in Kenya, with whom he corresponds, though only meets briefly. His father chastises the white grandparents when O is allowed to watch television after doing homework during the brief visit. In other words, the father has a very strict standard. ^ Sure, it's a typical pattern of single moms of all races that they end up working for the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. Geraldine Ferraro got it so wrong. Obama is where he is because his mother was white and of fairly privileged background. His humble pie myth isn't even as convincing as Bill Clinton's. But I don't think all that background will keep him from being a categorically different president. So far though his relations with the Democratic Party elite are not indicating much good. If McCain could coax Colin Powell out of his shame-faced retirement from politics, the Dems are in big trouble. Would the Dems call him out for being guilty of what most of what they themselves are guilty of? That is, of going along with the 'WMD lies' and related intel apparatus misinformation in order to create future deniability. CJ ___ 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] Marx on the credit crunch? (Science, History, Freedom)
This is stimulating but wrong--stimulatingly wrong--I think. Marx
speculates that all epochs have their own law of population, for
example. He was only ('only'!) studying capitalism and what went
before. There are surely laws of history in communism but we don't
know
what they are yet. Communism is a realm of more freedom, and certainly
freedom from the laws of capitalism you mention, but there is still
necessity to recognize and work with, the underlying necessity of
interacting with nature, our existence as biological beings.
^^^
CB:
Yes, I agree. We will still have to eat and sleep etc. We will still be
earthly beings. The word "necessity" in the phrase "realm of
necessity" is a somewhat specific usage. Check here:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2006w13/msg00105.htm
The "realm of freedom" does not mean that there will be nothing people
must do in order to survive materially. It means the peculiar
necessities ( your unnecessary necessities) imposed by class divided
society will no longer be imposed on people.
What I say usually is there will be new contradictions. The
contradictions of class divided society, those irreconcilable
antagonisms will be gone. But , as you imply, there will still be
contradictions with nature. There will still be challenges to physical
survival that we will have to meet. As an example that has come up
since Marx died, fossils fuels will eventually be depleted, so we will
have to find new mass energy sources. I mean fossil fuels weren't even
the main source of energy in Marx's lifetime. That adventure is a big
new contradiction.
^
(And
there's a feminist dispute with Engels footnote you mention--Marx
doesn't make an exception, that word 'all' again, "The history of all
hitherto existing society..." There is still struggle, a history of
struggle probably going back before we were human, due to the
reproductive division of labor.)
CB: There is a struggle and _unity_ of opposites ,yea.
In that sentence, the "class" of "class struggle" is used to refer
specifically to antagonistic contradictions in the productive division
of labor between exploiting and exploited classes. In _The German
Ideology_, they also see this as between predominantly mental and
predominantly physical labor. The evidence is those don't exist in the
original human societies. Marx was alive when Engels put the footnote in
, I think. Marx was studying ethnography heavily at the end of his life
( See _Precapitalist Formations_ ; International). Didn't even finish
_Capital_. Engels says he wrote _The Origin of the Family , Private
Property and the State_ as a kind of bequest from Marx ( I think that
was the usage). In 1848, they didn't have much anthropology ( see my
crtique of their anthropology in _The German Ideology_ in "For Women's
Liberation)
Which was the exploiting group in the ancient reproductive division of
labor ? (smile). Of course, the "division of labor" between who gets
pregnant and who doesn't was biological ,not cultural. However, a
division of labor doesn't necessarily have to be an antagonistic
contradiction. For example, the division of labor between a pilot and a
navigator is not inherently antagonistic. The division of labor in "the
sex act" is not inherently antagonistic. Can be a non-antagonistic unity
and "struggle" ( wiggle) of opposites (!). A couple dancing is a
harmonious unity and struggle of opposites.
^
The goal would be to get down to the
necessary necessities, if you will, and not be controlled by the
unnecessary necessities, the necessities imposed by the laws of
capitalism--maybe that's what you're getting at here. I think Lenin
says something about humanity's asymptotic historical relationship with
freedom--getting closer but never quite there.
^
CB: There's the old Hegelian trope that freedom is the mastery of
necessity. The "realm of necessity" and the "realm of freedom" use
freedom and necessity in this sense. With class divided society,
including capitalism, there is enormous mastery of nature with much
technology, but the vast majority don't get the full benefit of the
technological control of nature because they are forced to jump through
so many artificial hoops to get their necessary necessities , as you
put it.
^^^
I'm just back from Venezuela where they're trying to build
socialism--through participatory democracy--in the middle of a
capitalist stew. Whew! It's a daily confrontation between democracy
and capitalism. Chavez says, "Yes, it is important to end poverty, to
end misery, but the most important thing is to offer power to the poor
so that they can fight for themselves."
Jenny Brown
CB: Viva , Chavez and the V Rev ! Self-determination ! The working
class as subjects of history.
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.ec
[Marxism-Thaxis] NEW WINE FOR SENIORS
enjoy in solidarity jim Subject: NEW WINE FOR SENIORs Aussie vintners, in the Barossa area, which primarily produces Pinot Blanc, Pinot Noir and Pinot Grigio wines, have developed a new hybrid grape that acts as an anti-diuretic. It is expected to reduce the number of trips older people have to make to the bathroom during the night. The new wine will be marketed as... PINO MORE ___ 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] Vienna Circle etc.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a > circle > that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was > in my > late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary > group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. > Why did Wittgenstein not view himself as a logical positivist? The Circle admired Wittgenstein, but he was not inclined to reciprocate. He thought that they misunderstood what he was attempting to do. He was willing to meet with individual members of the Circle, with people like Schlick, Carnap, Feigl etc. but he refused to meet with the Circle as a whole. > What, if > any, the principal difference(s) between their philosophies in these > early > days. I can see why there is a difference between Popper and Logical > > Positivism --the question of verfiability over falsifiablity. There were differences with in the Circle over such issues as physicalist realism versus phenonomenalism, coherence theories of truth versus correspondence theories of truth. Later on there were somewhat different understandings of what was entailed by the unity of science. Did that mean that a straight forward reductionist program was possible with everything being ultimately reduced to the laws of chemistry and physics, or did it simply mean that all meaningul propositions about the world, whether those propositions be from the natural sciences, or the behavioral and social sciences, were expressible in terms of physicalist language? Neurath tended to champion holistic conceptions of truth and knowledge and he shied away from extreme reductionism. His positions were thus akin to those that many Marxists have held over the years. Jim F. > > Paddy Hackett > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. > > > Interesting. I wonder if I should put this or similar items into > my > bibliography. This is a Marxist advocating the Popperian approach > as > a way of circumventing doctrinal rigidification. Can you think of > other Marxists who have taken this road? > > > > ___ > 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] Vienna Circle etc.
I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: > >On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: > > Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a > > circle > > that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was > > in my > > late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary > > group. > >The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the >Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, >who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ 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] Vienna Circle etc.
Ralph you say that you are "not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications." I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend for me to be politically progressive figures. I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically progressive individuals to be fruitful? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: > >On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: > > Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a > > circle > > that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was > > in my > > late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary > > group. > >The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the >Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, >who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ 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] Vienna Circle etc.
Bad grammar aside, I thought my point was non-mysterious. If, after I've given a detailed argument as to why some philosophy is false and harmful, someone retorts that philosopher X actually had politically progressive views, why should I then be more favorably disposed towards said bullshit? Your question is the reverse: what individuals (thinkers, presumably) do I find fruitful though not politically progressive? I would imagine there must be thousands, but why is this even a question? The more important question in either of these scenarios is: is there an intrinsic connection between a body of thought and a politics, and what is its nature? The case of Heidegger is a particularly apt example, though there are countless others. At 01:36 AM 4/3/2008, Phil Walden wrote: >Ralph you say that you are "not terribly impressed to show a favorable >attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were >political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial >approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological >implications." I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of >philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend >for me to be politically progressive figures. > >I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically >progressive individuals to be fruitful? > >Phil Walden > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph >Dumain >Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 >To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. > >I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For >sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against >positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the >neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to >specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s >I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with >Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. > >I would like to point out for the general purpose of such >discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude >towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were >political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial >approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological >implications. > >At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: > > > >On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >writes: > > > Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a > > > circle > > > that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was > > > in my > > > late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary > > > group. > > > >The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the > >Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, > >who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ 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
