[Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested
Dear Fellow-Subscribers: I've recently subscribed and am receiving a variety articles. However I'm looking for something specific pertaining to the following: I am currently beginning a study of 'liberation theology'. Marx and his 'dialectic' keep coming up in a way presupposing the reader has some understanding of what this is. I'm pretty clueless and need some help trying to understand what an atheist is doing (albeit not by his own direct actions) in the realm of theology. There have been some indications that this is somehow compatible with or a natural consequence of the confidence human kind has been led to place in 'science'... I'm not seeing a clear connection. I am lacking in the presuppositions to jump into the conversation with much understanding. Anyone care to respond to the issue of Marxism and 'reductionism'? Any help is appreciated. Many thanks, Susan Dane ___ 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] specific help requested
Concerning Marxism and theology, while I am no expert on liberation theology, I am quite aware that many leading 20th century theologians took an interest in old Chuck (along with Feuerbach, Nietzsche and Freud), including such figures as Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebhur, and Paul Tillich, to name just a few names. The old social democrat, Michael Harrington, was pretty good on this in his book, *The Politics at God's Funeral*. Mark Lindley and I discussed Harrington in our essay, Six Prominent American Freethinkers, which is available online at: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/fl161208.html. One of our later posters. Ralph Dumain, has discussed the issues of reductionism and emergence on a special blog at: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog.html Jim Farmelant -- Susan F Dane susanfd...@mac.com wrote: Dear Fellow-Subscribers: I've recently subscribed and am receiving a variety articles. However I'm looking for something specific pertaining to the following: I am currently beginning a study of 'liberation theology'. Marx and his 'dialectic' keep coming up in a way presupposing the reader has some understanding of what this is. I'm pretty clueless and need some help trying to understand what an atheist is doing (albeit not by his own direct actions) in the realm of theology. There have been some indications that this is somehow compatible with or a natural consequence of the confidence human kind has been led to place in 'science'... I'm not seeing a clear connection. I am lacking in the presuppositions to jump into the conversation with much understanding. Anyone care to respond to the issue of Marxism and 'reductionism'? Any help is appreciated. Many thanks, Susan Dane ___ 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 Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD! Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL1141/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007 ___ 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] Living Under the Trees
Living Under the Trees A photoessay by David Bacon From Contexts, journal of the American Sociological Association p p h o t o e s s a y living under the trees by david bacon About 30 million Mexicans survive on less than 30 pesos per day-not quite $3. The minimum wage is 45 pesos per day. The Mexican federal government estimates that 37.7 percent of its 106 million citizens-40 million people-live in poverty. Some 25 million, or 23.6 percent, live in extreme poverty. In rural Mexico, more than 10 million people have a daily income of less than 12 pesos-a little more than one dollar. It's no accident the state of Oaxaca is one of the main starting points for the current stream of Mexican migrants coming to the United States. Extreme poverty encompasses 75 percent of its 3.4 million residents, according to EDUCA, a Mexican education and development organization. Thousands of indigenous people leave Oaxaca's hillside villages for the United States every year, not only for economic reasons but also because a repressive political system thwarts the kind of economic development that could lift incomes in the poorest rural areas. Lack of development pushes people off the land. The majority of Oaxacans are indigenous people-that is, they belong to communities and ethnic groups that existed long before Columbus landed in the Caribbean. They speak 23 different languages. Migration is a necessity, not a choice, explained Romualdo Juan Gutierrez Cortez, a teacher in Santiago Juxtlahuaca, in Oaxaca's rural Mixteca region. It is disheartening to see a student go through many hardships to get an education here in Mexico and become a professional, and then later in the United States do manual labor. Sometimes those with an education are working side-by-side with others who do not even know how to read. In California, migrants have become the majority of people working in the fields. Settlements of Triquis, Mixtecs, Chatinos, and other indigenous groups are dispersed in a Oaxacan diaspora. This movement of people has created larger transnational communities, bound together by shared culture and language, and the social organizations people bring with them from place to place. Living Under the Trees is a project that documents the experiences and conditions of indigenous farm worker communities. It focuses on social movements in indigenous communities and how indigenous culture helps communities survive and enjoy life. The project's purpose is to win public support for policies to help those communities by putting a human face on conditions and providing a forum in which people speak for themselves. It is a joint effort of California Rural Legal Assistance, its Indigenous Farm Worker Project, and the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations. An exhibition of photographs and oral history panels from this project has been touring throughout California for two years. These particular photographs highlight the relationship between community residents and their surroundings, as well as their relations with each other. They show situations of extreme poverty, but are also intended to depict people who are capable of changing conditions, by organizing themselves and creating social change. David Bacon is a documentary photographer and journalist. He is the author of IllegalPeople How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. All photos and text are © David Bacon. For more articles and images on immigration, see http://dbacon.igc.org/Imgrants/imgrants.htm Just out from Beacon Press: Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2002 See also the photodocumentary on indigenous migration to the US Communities Without Borders (Cornell University/ILR Press, 2006) http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4575 See also The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border (University of California, 2004) http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9989.html -- __ David Bacon, Photographs and Stories http://dbacon.igc.org This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.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] specific help requested
Dear Jim: Thank you so, so much for the references. I'll track them down. I appreciate your help. On Dec 23, 2008, at 7:50 AM, farmela...@juno.com wrote: Concerning Marxism and theology, while I am no expert on liberation theology, I am quite aware that many leading 20th century theologians took an interest in old Chuck (along with Feuerbach, Nietzsche and Freud), including such figures as Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebhur, and Paul Tillich, to name just a few names. The old social democrat, Michael Harrington, was pretty good on this in his book, *The Politics at God's Funeral*. Mark Lindley and I discussed Harrington in our essay, Six Prominent American Freethinkers, which is available online at: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/fl161208.html. One of our later posters. Ralph Dumain, has discussed the issues of reductionism and emergence on a special blog at: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog.html Jim Farmelant -- Susan F Dane susanfd...@mac.com wrote: Dear Fellow-Subscribers: I've recently subscribed and am receiving a variety articles. However I'm looking for something specific pertaining to the following: I am currently beginning a study of 'liberation theology'. Marx and his 'dialectic' keep coming up in a way presupposing the reader has some understanding of what this is. I'm pretty clueless and need some help trying to understand what an atheist is doing (albeit not by his own direct actions) in the realm of theology. There have been some indications that this is somehow compatible with or a natural consequence of the confidence human kind has been led to place in 'science'... I'm not seeing a clear connection. I am lacking in the presuppositions to jump into the conversation with much understanding. Anyone care to respond to the issue of Marxism and 'reductionism'? Any help is appreciated. Many thanks, Susan Dane ___ 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 Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD! Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL1141/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007 ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism
The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch03.htm The years of preparation for revolution (1903-05) The approach of a great storm was sensed everywhere. All classes were in a state of ferment and preparation. Abroad, the press of the political exiles discussed the theoretical aspects of all the fundamental problems of the revolution. Representatives of the three main classes, of the three principal political trends -- the liberal-bourgeois, the petty-bourgeois-democratic (concealed behind social-democratic and social-revolutionary labels [2]), and the proletarian-revolutionary—anticipated and prepared the impending open class struggle by waging a most bitter struggle on issues of programme and tactics. All the issues on which the masses waged an armed struggle in 1905-07 and 1917-20 can (and should) be studied, in their embryonic form, in the press of the period. Among these three main trends there were, of course, a host of intermediate, transitional or half-hearted forms. It would be more correct to say that those political and ideological trends which were genuinely of a class nature crystallised in the struggle of press organs, parties, factions and groups; the classes were forging the requisite political and ideological weapons for the impending battles. The years of revolution (1905-07). All classes came out into the open. All programmatical and tactical views were tested by the action of the masses. In its extent and acuteness, the strike struggle had no parallel anywhere in the world. The economic strike developed into a political strike, and the latter into insurrection. The relations between the proletariat, as the leader, and the vacillating and unstable peasantry, as the led, were tested in practice. The Soviet form of organisation came into being in the spontaneous development of the struggle. The controversies of that period over the significance of the Soviets anticipated the great struggle of 1917-20. The alternation of parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle, of the tactics of boycotting parliament and that of participating in parliament, of legal and illegal forms of struggle, and likewise their interrelations and connections—all this was marked by an extraordinary wealth of content. As for teaching the fundamentals of political science to masses and leaders, to classes and parties alike, each month of this period was equivalent to an entire year of peaceful and constitutional development. Without the dress rehearsal of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible. The years of reaction (1907-10). Tsarism was victorious. All the revolutionary and opposition parties were smashed. Depression’ demoralisation, splits, discord, defection, and pornography took the place of politics. There was an ever greater drift towards philosophical idealism; mysticism became the garb of counter-revolutionary sentiments. At the same time, however, it was this great defeat that taught the revolutionary parties and the revolutionary class a real and very useful lesson, a lesson in historical dialectics, a lesson in an understanding of the political struggle, and in the art and science of waging that struggle. It is at moments of need that one learns who one’s friends are. Defeated armies learn their lesson. Victorious tsarism was compelled to speed up the destruction of the remnants of the pre-bourgeois, patriarchal mode of life in Russia. The country’s development along bourgeois lines proceeded apace. Illusions that stood outside and above class distinctions, illusions concerning the possibility of avoiding capitalism, were scattered to the winds. The class struggle manifested itself in a quite new and more distinct way. The revolutionary parties had to complete their education. They were learning how to attack. Now they had to realise that such knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge of how to retreat in good order. They had to realise—and it is from bitter experience that the revolutionary class learns to realise this—that victory is impossible unless one has learned how to attack and retreat properly. Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their army, with its core best preserved, with the least significant splits (in point of depth and incurability), with the least demoralisation, and in the best condition to resume work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner. The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlessly exposed and expelled the revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to understand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had absolutely to learn how to work legally in the most reactionary of parliaments, in the most
[Marxism-Thaxis] We charge socialism
We charge socialism To: a-l...@xxx, marxism-tha...@xxx Subject: [A-List] We charge socialism From: Charles Brown charl...@x Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:13:29 -0500 From all that has been said in this book on the economic essence of imperialism, it follows that we must define it as capitalism in transition, or, more precisely, as moribund capitalism. It is very instructive in this respect to note that bourgeois economists, in describing modern capitalism, frequently employ catchwords and phrases like âinterlockingâ, âabsence of isolationâ, etc.; âin conformity with their functions and course of developmentâ, banks are ânot purely private business enterprises: they are more and more outgrowing the sphere of purely private business regulationâ. And this very Riesser, whose words I have just quoted, declares with all seriousness that the âprophecyâ of the Marxists concerning âsocialisationâ has ânot come trueâ! ^^^ CB: Most of this Lenin could have written with substantial currency in 2008. One group of the US bourgeoisie was charging other parts of the US bourgeoisie with socialism just a few weeks ago. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.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
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Struggle Against Which Enemies Within the Working-Class Movement
The Struggle Against Which Enemies Within the Working-Class Movement Helped Bolshevism Develop, Gain Strength, and Become Steeled First and foremost, the struggle against opportunism which in 1914 definitely developed into social-chauvinism and definitely sided with the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat. Naturally, this was Bolshevism’s principal enemy within the working-class movement. It still remains the principal enemy on an international scale. The Bolsheviks have been devoting the greatest attention to this enemy. This aspect of Bolshevik activities is now fairly well known abroad too. It was, however, different with Bolshevism’s other enemy within the working-class movement. Little is known in other countries of the fact that Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled in the long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle. Marxist theory has established—and the experience of all European revolutions and revolutionary movements has fully confirmed—that the petty proprietor, the small master (a social type existing on a very extensive and even mass scale in many European countries), who, under capitalism, always suffers oppression and very frequently a most acute and rapid deterioration in his conditions of life, and even ruin, easily goes to revolutionary extremes, but is incapable of perseverance, organisation, discipline and steadfastness. A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms, and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another—all this is common knowledge. However, a theoretical or abstract recognition of these truths does not at all rid revolutionary parties of old errors, which always crop up at unexpected occasions, in somewhat new forms, in a hitherto unfamiliar garb or surroundings, in an unusual—a more or less unusual—situation. Anarchism was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement. The two monstrosities complemented each other. And if in Russia—despite the more petty-bourgeois composition of her population as compared with the other European countries—anarchism’s influence was negligible during the two revolutions (of 1905 and 1917) and the preparations for them, this should no doubt stand partly to the credit of Bolshevism, which has always waged a most ruthless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism. I say partly, since of still greater importance in weakening anarchism’s influence in Russia was the circumstance that in the past (the seventies of the nineteenth century) it was able to develop inordinately and to reveal its absolute erroneousness, its unfitness to serve the revolutionary class as a guiding theory. When it came into being in 1903, Bolshevism took over the tradition of a ruthless struggle against petty-bourgeois, semi-anarchist (or dilettante-anarchist) revolutionism, a tradition which had always existed in revolutionary Social-Democracy and had become particularly strong in our country during the years 1900-03, when the foundations for a mass party of the revolutionary proletariat were being laid in Russia. Bolshevism took over and carried on the struggle against a party which, more than any other, expressed the tendencies of petty-bourgeois revolutionism, namely, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and waged that struggle on three main issues. First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly revolutionary, or Left, because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected. It was, of course, only on grounds of expediency that we rejected individual terrorism, whereas people who were capable of condemning on principle the terror of the Great French Revolution, or, in general, the terror employed by a victorious revolutionary party which is besieged by the bourgeoisie of the whole world, were ridiculed and laughed to scorn by Plekhanov in 1900-03, when he was a Marxist and a revolutionary. Third, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, thought it very Left to sneer at the comparatively insignificant opportunist sins of the German Social-Democratic Party, while they themselves imitated the extreme opportunists of that party, for example, on the agrarian question, or on
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested
Ralph Dumain posted a response which bounced to me. I approved it for the list, but it seems that it has gotten lost in cyberspace. So, I would suggest that Ralph either try posting it again, or send it directly to me, so I can post it. Jim Farmelant -- Susan F Dane susanfd...@mac.com wrote: Dear Jim: Thank you so, so much for the references. I'll track them down. I appreciate your help. Develop a fitness program that works for you. Click here for free info and revolutionary products. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2aeoIc78l6B3dKqm8v3ghGf9bmgus0WG3ki018wmwOmQ7ap/ ___ 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] The time for a revolution
http://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=smenu=76twindow=Defaultmad=Nosdetail=6815wpage=1skeyword=sidate=ccat=ccatm=restate=restatus=reoption=retype=repmin=repmax=rebed=rebath=subname=pform=sc=1070hn=michigancitizenhe=.com The time for a revolution By Ron Walters NNPA Columnist It struck me while analyzing the current victory of Barack Obama that the last time there had been such a formidable Democratic landslide was in 1964 and the election of Lyndon Johnson made possible the mandate he used to create the Great Society. At that time, the racial progress of Blacks was at the center of the ‘64 election, but today the fears and anxiety of Americans for their own economic viability drove the 2008 election. Given the difference, the great question that Blacks must face now is whether they yield their own needs for change entirely, in light of the fact that they have been the most damaged recipients of both the inhumane policies of the past 30 years of conservative government and have doubly suffered disproportionally in the current economic crisis. The answer to that question may be that in binding up the wounds of the nation, the Obama administration should be demanded to consider the truth of the previous statement and find a way to attend to the Black community simultaneously. Blacks may benefit from ratcheting down spending for the war in Iraq, or from universal health care, or creating jobs from the stimulus package. But while it may be obvious that they are conjoined, many analysts also feel that although occasionally strong patterns of general economic growth have lifted Blacks too, they have not lifted them sufficiently to overcome the inequalities that persist without targeted policies. In the last 30 years, legislators have pulled back from policies that favored disadvantaged adults, leaving them to the vagaries of the demand and supply of capitalism. They have also eliminated policies that appeared to favor racial or ethnic groups of color, viewing that as “preferential treatment.” Yet, there were few Blacks who have profited from the tax cuts or no-bid contracts; instead they fought the wars, filled the jails and survived on their “personal responsibility.” I believe that a revolutionary approach to the current crises is absolutely necessary, since what has happened to America is not just the fault of a few bad decisions, but a structural crisis, produced by a way of thinking about privilege and the use of power. Events from Katrina to the present have uncovered the inability of government institutions to address the needs of people because they were not fundamentally structured for that purpose, but to serve powerful interests. Bayard Rustin, an associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in a 1965 Commentary article that the movement from protest to politics could affect American institutions. Rustin felt that the participation of Civil Rights leaders in the 1964 election proved their capacity to promote such a project to launch a new revolution that would transform American institutions that served human needs. By 1967, Dr. King was convinced that political and moral corruption had led to the Vietnam War and what was needed to restore American morality was “a true revolution of values.” In his speech, “A Time To Break Silence,” he said that this kind of revolution would “look uneasily” and say “this is not just,” to the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth, to capitalists who invest but care little for the people whose profits they take out, to Western arrogance which has everything to teach people and nothing to learn, to people who believe that war is the only way settling human differences, to those who inject the poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of normally humane people. With a strong election mandate, an equally strengthened political party in government, the wealth of the resources from his campaign, his positive personal appeal in the U.S. and around the world and the abilities of those around him, Obama is in an important posture for historically significant change. His approach has been not just been focused on immediate fixes, but to embed in them the seeds of long-term change as well. Furthermore, the depth, severity and comprehensive nature of these crises should lead any logical observer to conclude that they cannot be fixed by merely returning to business as usual, Obama must go beyond that, he must affect a “true revolution of values” that affects the structure and mission of American governmental institutions. If this project is done right — and if it includes and is sensitive to — the relevant leadership of those communities who have the most to gain from a new American revolution, then perhaps many of the problems that African American people face could be addressed. Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Center and Professor of Government and Politics at the University
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested
Ralph Dumain wrote the following: I am puzzled as to how the question of reductionism is related to the question of liberation theology. Perhaps these were intended as separate questions. Re reductionism: note that the current location of my Emergence blog is: http://www.autodidactproject.org/blog/emergence/ If you read my introduction, you will see the main purpose of this blog: http://autodidactproject.org/blog/emergence/index.php/about/ I am attempting to track the divergent interpretations of emergence and their ideological and social motivations, some of which are quiter suspect. Does this at all relate to liberation theology? Perhaps there are links. For example, the obscurantist mystical-religious emergentism that comprises one strand of emergentism relates to the crisis of bourgeois society and its reversion to irrationalism. This strand of emergentism is financed in the millions of dollars by the reactionary Templeton Foundation. There have been linkages, affrimative linkages, between Marxism and religionism prior to the current epoch in which liberation theology was labeled as a trend. I will only single out one that points to one source of mystification: “Love Is the Fulfilling of the Law” by Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury (http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/HJ-SP1.html) This is a chapter from the Red Dean Johnson's 1940 pro-Stalinist apologia The Soviet Power. Note his sophistical argument allying dialectical materialism with Christianity and opposing both to materialism. Presumably the latter is inter alia implicitly condemned as reductionist while diamat is consonant with a religious point of view. This, however, is not what we think of in the past decades as liberation theology. Formally, there is a trend in Latin America known as liberation theology. But of course there are various liberation theologies of various individuals, religions, dominations, and populations. Cornel West's prophetic pragmatism is one example, perhaps not as obnoxious as the black liberation theology that developed in the late '60s, but just as dishonest and retrograde in its intellectual content. On the Marxist side, attachment to liberation theology is either opportunistic or self-deceiving. Radical religionists attach themselves to various desired aspects of Marxism, but amalgamating class analysis with the obscurantist metaphysics of their religions, suitably sanitized to render them revolutionary. Aside from philosophical falsification, there is the deeper issue of the relation of social development to forms of consciousness, suitably repressed by both Stalinism and liberation theology. The deeper issue of dialectic is not simply one of materialism vs idealism, but the dialectical relation between consciousness and the state of society. -Original Message- From: farmela...@juno.com Sent: Dec 23, 2008 6:50 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested Concerning Marxism and theology, while I am no expert on liberation theology, I am quite aware that many leading 20th century theologians took an interest in old Chuck (along with Feuerbach, Nietzsche and Freud), including such figures as Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebhur, and Paul Tillich, to name just a few names. The old social democrat, Michael Harrington, was pretty good on this in his book, *The Politics at God's Funeral*. Mark Lindley and I discussed Harrington in our essay, Six Prominent American Freethinkers, which is available online at: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/fl161208.html. One of our later posters. Ralph Dumain, has discussed the issues of reductionism and emergence on a special blog at: http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog.html Jim Farmelant -- Susan F Dane wrote: Dear Fellow-Subscribers: I've recently subscribed and am receiving a variety articles. However I'm looking for something specific pertaining to the following: I am currently beginning a study of 'liberation theology'. Marx and his 'dialectic' keep coming up in a way presupposing the reader has some understanding of what this is. I'm pretty clueless and need some help trying to understand what an atheist is doing (albeit not by his own direct actions) in the realm of theology. There have been some indications that this is somehow compatible with or a natural consequence of the confidence human kind has been led to place in 'science'... I'm not seeing a clear connection. I am lacking in the presuppositions to jump into the conversation with much understanding. Anyone care to respond to the issue of Marxism and 'reductionism'? Any help is appreciated. Many thanks, Susan Dane -Original Message- From: Ralph Dumain Sent: Dec 23, 2008 8:45 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] specific help requested I am puzzled as to how the question of reductionism is related to the
[Marxism-Thaxis] Korsch revisited (from Ralph Dumain)
Well, revisited only briefly, but I will have to make a careful study of Karl Korsch’s 1923 book Marxism and Philosophy when I can squeeze it into my reading schedule. These issues are all old now, but they were new then, and they continue to resurface in our milieu. I’ve just read a few essays by Korsch on the Marxist Internet Archive and I just want to relate a few impressions. I have mixed reactions. On the one hand, Korsch laudably attempts to relate philosophies as forms of consciousness to moments in social and political development, opposing the tendency, also purportedly rife within Marxism, as treating philosophies as detached abstractions at war with one another, such as the struggle between idealism and materialism. At the same time, Korsch seems to avoid politicizing philosophy in a way that would suppress its intellectual content in favor of purely pragmatic political exigencies. It seems that Korsch consciously opposes both tendencies in order to restore what he considers to be the original Marxian approach, which finds its precedent in Hegel. For example, in a section reproduced from Marxism and Philosophy, Korsch states: Hegel wrote that in the philosophic systems of this fundamentally revolutionary epoch, ‘revolution was lodged and expressed as if in the very form of their thought’. Hegel’s accompanying statements make it quite clear that he was not talking of what contemporary bourgeois historians of philosophy like to call a revolution in thought – a nice, quiet process that takes place in the pure realm of the study and far away from the crude realm of real struggles. The greatest thinker produced by bourgeois society in its revolutionary period regarded a ‘revolution in the form of thought’ as an objective component of the total social process of a real revolution. Only two peoples, the German and the French – despite or precisely because of their contrasts – took part in this great epoch of world history, whose deepest essence is grasped by the philosophy of history. Click to get free information on Pigeon Forge vacations. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2hpWzMrlKb8K5omGKsWiVZm9KnB1Vg5U8Nq0xPJR1RjnbCB/ ___ 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] GM nationalization
December 23, 2008 http://www.freep.com/article/20081223/BUSINESS01/812230364 U.S. gets big bite of GM Government can buy stock equal to all outstanding shares BY KATIE MERX FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER As GM goes, so goes the nation. That saying has never been more true than now, as the government stands to become a big owner of General Motors Corp., with its new stock warrants for a financial rescue package worth nearly as much as all of the automaker's outstanding stock. The warrants allow the government to buy about 20% of the value of the loans to GM in nonvoting shares. If GM receives $9.4 billion in federal loans, the U.S. Treasury is entitled to buy $1.88 billion worth of stock. If GM receives $13.4 billion, the U.S. Treasury is entitled to $2.68 billion. On Monday, GM's market capitalization -- the value of all of its outstanding shares -- was $2.15 billion. And the U.S. government isn't the only one obtaining warrants. Canadian provincial and federal governments also have obtained warrants to acquire nonvoting shares as a condition of a $3-billion package of loans for GM. That entitles Canada to $600 million in stock. And Germany and Sweden also have signaled they might make loans. The warrants are intended to allow the governments to profit if GM makes a successful turnaround, and provides them seniority over most of the automaker's other debt if it fails. In 1983, the U.S. government made a profit of about $125 million on warrants it acquired in exchange for aiding Chrysler. But this time, analysts remain skeptical that warrants could lead to profit and instead believe they will simply lead to a significant decrease in value for unsecured debt holders in the event of a bankruptcy or payment default. Analyst Chris Ceraso of Credit Suisse wrote Monday that guarantees for the government loans are expected to dilute or eliminate the value to existing equity holders. In light of the complete overhaul of GM's capital structure that will likely be required to turn the company into a viable entity and to comply with the government's requirements, Ceraso wrote, we think existing equity holders will be largely, if not entirely, wiped out. Contact KATIE MERX at 313-222-8762 or km...@freepress.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.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
[Marxism-Thaxis] America cares little about fate of Detroit's Big Three
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 Daniel Howes Commentary: America cares little about fate of Detroit's Big Three Forget the politicians and their calculated rescue of Detroit's automakers. They won't be the ones who save, or kill, the Big Three where it matters most -- in the marketplace. It'll be the real people, would-be customers who decide to give General Motors Corp. metal another look or who credit Ford's Blue Oval for trying to make it without federal help. Or it'll be the people who long ago gave up on Detroit, who conflate bad experiences of a generation ago into sweeping condemnations of the companies today. I bring this up now because the bailout debate, punctuated by President George W. Bush's decision to throw the automakers a $17.4 billion lifeline, is delivering Detroit more attention than it wants or needs. And government largesse for GM and Chrysler LLC will keep this complex, politicized restructuring in front of taxpayers for months to come. Which means those inside the Detroit Bubble eager to remind folks on the outside that the automakers were FDR's Arsenal of Democracy, that Detroit created the middle class, and that an independent, U.S.-owned auto industry is an economic cornerstone may find most of the Bigger America doesn't agree and doesn't much care. Yes, federal officials are lending GM and Chrysler help, but they are clearly doing so while holding their collective noses with one hand and wagging their fingers with the other. Could it be that the politicians know their constituents are as fatigued by Detroit's troubles as the rest of us mired in this morass? Readers periodically e-mail objections to suggestions (from me and others) of an anti-Detroit Auto bias around the country. After the inquisitions called congressional hearings, the misinformed sanctimony from members of the California, New York and Massachusetts delegations and the snide slaps of Senate Republicans from the South, I'm not at all sure the e-mailers have much (if any?) evidence to buttress their point. Then, in today's e-mail, arrives more data to bolster mine: A CNN-Opinion Research poll reports that 70 percent of 1,013 Americans polled over the weekend said they opposed extending any additional aid to Detroit's automakers beyond March 31. Even as two-thirds said a bankruptcy of one or more automakers would be a crisis or would cause major problems, more than 80 percent said an automaker bankruptcy would cause minor problems or no problems at all for their personal financial situation. And 65 percent said they would not be likely to consider buying a car from a bankrupt automaker. Translation: Detroit, you're on your own, though I'm not at all sure the message is resonating where it matters most. 'A way of life' under siege Over the weekend, I ran into a prominent, thoughtful and recently retired Detroit auto executive out with his family for a holiday dinner. Amid the handshakes he looked at me and matter-of-factly said, We're dismantling a way of life. He's right. But how many people in your workplace or neighborhood or school district realize it? Do they understand that the culture defined by Big Three salaries, benefits, expectations, vacation schedules -- where else in the country do people get a four-day weekend around Easter? -- will be torn apart over the next three months because it has to be? And if it isn't -- if United Auto Workers brass can call in enough political chits with congressional Democrats and Team Obama to keep from having to ask their members to vote on wage cuts and work rule changes next year -- what guarantee is there that it won't happen in bankruptcy anyway? None. On Sunday, an e-mail landed from Robert F. in Marin County, Calif. Hello from the Left Coast, he began. Here in California we don't much care about Ford, GM, Chrysler. We gave up on them years ago, (and) the rest of the country is following California's lead. A view from the 'Left Coast' I read on, marveling (but not surprised) that decades-old experiences with a '67 Olds Cutlass, an '81 Dodge Omni, a '91 Jeep and a '99 Ford Contour shaped a mind-set that Detroit probably could not break, no matter what it does. Add, too, his self-described gold standard -- the '98 Camry LE I sold with 226,000 miles, with only a starter motor replacement at 180,000. Quite honestly, it does not matter to the Left Coast if they all go bankrupt and take that greedy UAW with their incessant petty work-rule nonsense with them, he wrote. Those idiots shut down GM in the summer over some ridiculous issues totally oblivious to the disaster upcoming. Yes, Robert, they did. Good luck, he added. You will need it. Yes, that too. A more contemporary understanding of Detroit's new metal also would help, but that's probably too much to expect when generalizations rooted in personal experience can suffice -- and show Detroit, yet again, just how problematic its revival truly will be
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Korsch revisited (from Ralph Dumain)
This is only a fragment of my post. Furthermore, I'm tired of each of my posts bouncing. Perhaps I should just unsubscribe. -Original Message- From: farmela...@juno.com farmela...@juno.com Sent: Dec 23, 2008 12:14 PM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Korsch revisited (from Ralph Dumain) Well, revisited only briefly, but I will have to make a careful study of Karl Korsch’s 1923 book Marxism and Philosophy when I can squeeze it into my reading schedule. These issues are all old now, but they were new then, and they continue to resurface in our milieu. I’ve just read a few essays by Korsch on the Marxist Internet Archive and I just want to relate a few impressions. I have mixed reactions. On the one hand, Korsch laudably attempts to relate philosophies as forms of consciousness to moments in social and political development, opposing the tendency, also purportedly rife within Marxism, as treating philosophies as detached abstractions at war with one another, such as the struggle between idealism and materialism. At the same time, Korsch seems to avoid politicizing philosophy in a way that would suppress its intellectual content in favor of purely pragmatic political exigencies. It seems that Korsch consciously opposes both tendencies in order to restore what he considers to be the original Marxian approach, which finds its precedent in Hegel. For example, in a section reproduced from Marxism and Philosophy, Korsch states: Hegel wrote that in the philosophic systems of this fundamentally revolutionary epoch, ‘revolution was lodged and expressed as if in the very form of their thought’. Hegel’s accompanying statements make it quite clear that he was not talking of what contemporary bourgeois historians of philosophy like to call a revolution in thought – a nice, quiet process that takes place in the pure realm of the study and far away from the crude realm of real struggles. The greatest thinker produced by bourgeois society in its revolutionary period regarded a ‘revolution in the form of thought’ as an objective component of the total social process of a real revolution. Only two peoples, the German and the French – despite or precisely because of their contrasts – took part in this great epoch of world history, whose deepest essence is grasped by the philosophy of history. Click to get free information on Pigeon Forge vacations. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2hpWzMrlKb8K5omGKsWiVZm9KnB1Vg5U8Nq0xPJR1RjnbCB/ ___ 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] Korsch revisited (from Ralph Dumain)
Ralph, I think I need to email Hans about this issue, since it seems that you're practically the only poster here that runs into this problem on a regular basis. Jim Farmelant -- Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: This is only a fragment of my post. Furthermore, I'm tired of each of my posts bouncing. Perhaps I should just unsubscribe. -Original Message- From: farmela...@juno.com farmela...@juno.com Sent: Dec 23, 2008 12:14 PM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Korsch revisited (from Ralph Dumain) Well, revisited only briefly, but I will have to make a careful study of Karl Korsch’s 1923 book Marxism and Philosophy when I can squeeze it into my reading schedule. These issues are all old now, but they were new then, and they continue to resurface in our milieu. I’ve just read a few essays by Korsch on the Marxist Internet Archive and I just want to relate a few impressions. I have mixed reactions. On the one hand, Korsch laudably attempts to relate philosophies as forms of consciousness to moments in social and political development, opposing the tendency, also purportedly rife within Marxism, as treating philosophies as detached abstractions at war with one another, such as the struggle between idealism and materialism. At the same time, Korsch seems to avoid politicizing philosophy in a way that would suppress its intellectual content in favor of purely pragmatic political exigencies. It seems that Korsch consciously opposes both tendencies in order to restore what he considers to be the original Marxian approach, which finds its precedent in Hegel. For example, in a section reproduced from Marxism and Philosophy, Korsch states: Hegel wrote that in the philosophic systems of this fundamentally revolutionary epoch, ‘revolution was lodged and expressed as if in the very form of their thought’. Hegel’s accompanying statements make it quite clear that he was not talking of what contemporary bourgeois historians of philosophy like to call a revolution in thought – a nice, quiet process that takes place in the pure realm of the study and far away from the crude realm of real struggles. The greatest thinker produced by bourgeois society in its revolutionary period regarded a ‘revolution in the form of thought’ as an objective component of the total social process of a real revolution. Only two peoples, the German and the French – despite or precisely because of their contrasts – took part in this great epoch of world history, whose deepest essence is grasped by the philosophy of history. Click to get free information on Pigeon Forge vacations. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2hpWzMrlKb8K5omGKsWiVZm9KnB1Vg5U8Nq0xPJR1RjnbCB/ ___ 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 Get the shot you need with a discreet new spy camera. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2NoOALia1zxW7ZqeHRsaJqKp0dFLqfoTpJxZXVvLj2Cd0lD/ ___ 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
