[Marxism-Thaxis] The theologicalization of Marx.
The theologicalization of Marx. Saying something is true does not make it so. Tearing a quote from Marx to prove a proposition, rather than using common sense based on thinking things out; pondering the issue, and at least trying to grasp the logic of his method, is not only boring after several years, but reveals extremely dogmatic thinking. Marx challenged the workers to think and Capital is written for the workers. With study what leaps from the pages of Capital Vol. 1 is an incredible moving story of the history of property forms, wealth, conquest, poverty, riches and the story of humanity fighting to "get behind" the historical process by thinking things out. The approach to an issue is never "whose wrong" but "what wrong." What is wrong with some of these discussions is treating Marx as some kind of God like infallible entity. There is nothing wrong with quoting Marx, but one must recognize that many people have studied Marx for years and also may have strong opinions. Taking a position that does not admit the possibility of an incorrect reading of Marx is the road to dogmatism. . WL. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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] underconsumptionism; (refutation by Marx and Lenin)
Apologies for the length of this, but I was challenged to produce some quotes ... --- On Tue, 1/20/09, Charles Brown <_charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) > wrote: You quoted the quote from Lenin. If you'd turned the page and read on, you would have found the following: 'These propositions all speak of the contradiction we have mentioned, namely, the contradiction between the unrestricted drive to expand production and limited consumption—and of nothing else. Nothing could be more senseless than to conclude from these passages in Capital that Marx did not admit the possibility of surplus-value being realised in capitalist society, that he attributed crises to under-consumption, and so forth.' This should serve as an alert on this issue. Here is Marx in Book 2, Chapter 20: 'It is sheer tautology to say that crises are caused by the scarcity of effective consumption, or of effective consumers. The capitalist system does not know any other modes of consumption than effective ones, except that of sub forma pauperis or of the swindler. That commodities are unsaleable means only that no effective purchasers have been found for them, i.e., consumers (since commodities are bought in the final analysis for productive or individual consumption). But if one were to attempt to give this tautology the semblance of a profounder justification by saying that the working-class receives too small a portion of its own product and the evil would be remedied as soon as it receives a larger share of it and its wages increase in consequence, one could only remark that crises are always prepared by precisely a period in which wages rise generally and the working-class actually gets a larger share of that part of the annual product which is intended for consumption. From the point of view of these advocates of sound and “simple” (!) common sense, such a period should rather remove the crisis. It appears, then, that capitalist production comprises conditions independent of good or bad will, conditions which permit the working-class to enjoy that relative prosperity only momentarily, and at that always only as the harbinger of a coming crisis.' In a footnote to this passage, Engels remarked: 'Ad notam for possible followers of the Rodbertian theory of crises'. Rodbertus had argued that: 'capital accumulates and production increases without there being a sufficient number of purchasers for the products, for the capitalists do not wish to consume more and the workmen are not able to do so.' In Anti-Duhring: 'unfortunately the under-consumption of the masses, the restriction of the consumption of the masses to what is necessary for their maintenance and reproduction, is not a new phenomenon. It has existed as long as there have been exploiting and exploited classes. Even in those periods of history when the situation of the masses was particularly favourable, as for example in England in the fifteenth century, they under-consumed. They were very far from having their own annual total product at their disposal to be consumed by them. Therefore, while under-consumption has been a constant feature in history for thousands of years, the general shrinkage of the market which breaks out in crises as the result of a surplus of production is a phenomenon only of the last fifty years; and so Herr Dühring's whole superficial vulgar economics is necessary in order to explain the new collision not by the new phenomenon of over-production but by the thousand-year-old phenomenon of under-consumption. ... The under-consumption of the masses is a necessary condition of all forms of society based on exploitation, consequently also of the capitalist form; but it is the capitalist form of production which first gives rise to crises. The under-consumption of the masses is therefore also a prerequisite condition of crises, and plays in them a role which has long been recognised. But it tells us just as little why crises exist today as why they did not exist before.' The problem which devotees of underconsumptionism have is explaining how capitalism works at all, since the workers can NEVER buy back the full value of what they produce. The entire system should die at birth because the workers won't be able to buy everything. The trick for getting out of this problem is to postulate 'third parties' who manage to buy the unsold goods. Luxemburg, Baran and Sweezy etc take this route. Malthus gives this kind of explanation, which Marx discusses in Theories of Surplus Value Let's look at the quote in context. Here is the whole paragraph: 'Let us suppose that the whole of society is composed only of industrial capitalists and wage-workers. Let us furthermore disregard price fluctuations, which prevent large portions of the total capital from replacing themselves in their
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
> Complete nonsense. The rednecks are still out for blood. And Beyonce shits. A shallow floozy who can't sing < Comment There is no significance to Obama being president? I do recall your amazement with his victory over Hillary and McCain . . . yes? Those still out for blood are irrelevant as an abstraction. Politics deals with real people; a real disposition of forces and fighting for real and perceived interests. I cannot predict the future but people are out in the street in a battle over ideas. Where are those out for blood? The streets belong to the masses this day. On this one I do believe you are mistaken. Dismissing the millions and millions of folks taking part into today's festivities have more in common with "sour grapes" than critical outlook. Now that I think of it, there is politics involved in why Obama's victory does not signify the "End of the Civil War." Perhaps, this will become a discussion issue as the year unfolds. And the girl can sing. Perhaps not to your liking. And she is a stunningly beautiful your women. OK? WL **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
Complete nonsense. The rednecks are still out for blood. And Beyonce shits. A shallow floozy who can't sing and isn't fit to lick out Etta James' asshole. -Original Message- >From: waistli...@aol.com >Sent: Jan 20, 2009 8:54 PM >To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win... > > >Beyonce singing Etta James shaped "At Last," with Obama and Michelle on >staging providing the first dance. > >"At Last, >my love has come along. >My lonely nights are over.." > >You could knock my ass over with a feather. > >Some are calling the historical marker that is Obama, "the ending of the >Civil War in America." > >I had not thought out this moment in time in those word/concepts. > >"The ending of the Civil War in America." > >Damn. > >As an advocate of the Third Edition of the American Revolution, . . . > >Wait a minute. > >"The ending of the Civil War in America." > >Bush W. administration was long ago dubbed as the Southern takeover of >American politics. A characterization I strongly agreed with. And brilliantly >written about in "Made In Texas" by Michael Lind. >Bush W. as the defeated Confederacy personified? > >"The ending of the Civil War in America." > >Talk about being caught flat footed. I simply lack concept frameworks to >have been inspired to equate Obama's election as "The ending of the Civil War >in >America." > >Now some "Marxists" see all of this as so much bourgeois adulation. >Generally, the Marxists - most American Marxists, have ben wrong on every >single >question of importance in our history and in the main can claim no >contribution >to the treasure house of Marx, with few exception. > >I am so glad to follow my heart's song and mind's pictures. > >What a day. Like Denzel in Training Day > >"What a day." > >"The ending of the Civil War in America." > >I thought the war ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Laws in the >1960 and 1970's. But then again I am generally wrong all the time anyway. >Being >wrong has never prevented a fight, over right and wrong. . > >"At Last." > >Wow. > >WL > > > > > >**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's >capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) > >___ >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] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
Beyonce singing Etta James shaped "At Last," with Obama and Michelle on staging providing the first dance. "At Last, my love has come along. My lonely nights are over.." You could knock my ass over with a feather. Some are calling the historical marker that is Obama, "the ending of the Civil War in America." I had not thought out this moment in time in those word/concepts. "The ending of the Civil War in America." Damn. As an advocate of the Third Edition of the American Revolution, . . . Wait a minute. "The ending of the Civil War in America." Bush W. administration was long ago dubbed as the Southern takeover of American politics. A characterization I strongly agreed with. And brilliantly written about in "Made In Texas" by Michael Lind. Bush W. as the defeated Confederacy personified? "The ending of the Civil War in America." Talk about being caught flat footed. I simply lack concept frameworks to have been inspired to equate Obama's election as "The ending of the Civil War in America." Now some "Marxists" see all of this as so much bourgeois adulation. Generally, the Marxists - most American Marxists, have ben wrong on every single question of importance in our history and in the main can claim no contribution to the treasure house of Marx, with few exception. I am so glad to follow my heart's song and mind's pictures. What a day. Like Denzel in Training Day "What a day." "The ending of the Civil War in America." I thought the war ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Laws in the 1960 and 1970's. But then again I am generally wrong all the time anyway. Being wrong has never prevented a fight, over right and wrong. . "At Last." Wow. WL **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
To be brutally honest I actual thought and felt the same thing about Colin Powell, rather than Al Sharpton or an Al Sharpton figure. But I did not think his election was possible back then. I am experiencing some odd and profound emotions. Remember some of Obama's christianizing black men and lecturing them on their responsibility as men? Today, his inaugural address shifted and placed responsibility on every single individual, which it so say that the race card had to be played during the campaigning phase of the nomination process. Anytime the black guys are pulled up front, about anything in America, everybody is getting ready to be screwed, real bad. My idea of freedom and emancipation is not making some other smuck suffer or feel my pain. Spreading the pain is not my idea of a good time. I do have a knee jerk kind of reaction to any politician suggesting "I" have to do more and sacrifice. Yet, Obama grasped the moment. I am to old for ideas of saviors and all knowing Gods, but the movements of millions of Americans have created an enormous space for politics that did not exist under the Bush regime. I would say this political space is the result of the Bush W. regime and Obama's ability to grasp the moment as real politics. If $800 million is a stimulus opening shot for Obama, as the opening act, then lets look at big things like perhaps $5 - 7 trillion. Its only money and never has to be "paid back" unless one subscribes to a monetary theory bound up with "paying back." In the new brave world of valueless wealth, profits without surplus value extraction, and increasingly valueless paper wealth, . . . . like paper for real, PAPER, one should be "paid back" with paper. I just don't know right know. Too many emotions. Am I dying or being born. Or neither. It's like when Ingrid told Bogart in Casablanca, that he had to do the thinking for the both of them. Right now I just don't know. WL. In a message dated 1/20/2009 7:24:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shm...@pipeline.com writes: On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:59 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > ...If the truth be told I did not think that I would live long > enough to see a > black president in America... For a few years now I've expected that the Dumbocrats would install a black president this year. But until the ascension of Obama I thought his name would be Powell. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:59 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > ...If the truth be told I did not think that I would live long > enough to see a > black president in America... For a few years now I've expected that the Dumbocrats would install a black president this year. But until the ascension of Obama I thought his name would be Powell. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ 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] Historical Markers (was Re: =?win...
At the pace events are moving, and given demographics, it might just be 20 - 30 years before Israel have an Arab Prime minister. I don't know. But the implications of such an event is mind boggling. I do feel that American policy towards Israel must shift dramatically. If the truth be told I did not think that I would live long enough to see a black president in America. Being 400 years behind the English could be worse. We could have been 1,000 years behind. I honestly would like to also see a women as President. Maybe in the next 50 years? or 12? 8? 4? History? I can't figure it out. WL. In a message dated 1/20/2009 6:49:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shm...@pipeline.com writes: On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:00 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > A black guy as president is just > . . . different. Obama is a historical marker in our history. This > is a > great moment in American history. Historical Markers: Four hundred years ago the English chose a Scotsman as their King Two Hundred years ago the French chose a Corsican as their Emperor Now the Americans have chosen a Black as their President Two Hundred years from now the Jews will choose an Arab as Prime Minister of Israel You should live so long! Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Historical Markers (was Re: Obama’s inauguration address)
On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:00 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > A black guy as president is just > . . . different. Obama is a historical marker in our history. This > is a > great moment in American history. Historical Markers: Four hundred years ago the English chose a Scotsman as their King Two Hundred years ago the French chose a Corsican as their Emperor Now the Americans have chosen a Black as their President Two Hundred years from now the Jews will choose an Arab as Prime Minister of Israel You should live so long! Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ 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] Disagreeing with Marx
One can of course disagree with Marx and not be anti-Marxism, or rather anti- his method of inquiry. I believe that history has confirmed that Marx and Engel's were optimistic concerning the prospect of world revolution. They were "historically incorrect." Hell, I strongly disagree with the idea that the industrial proletariat was or is the vanguard of the communist revolution, although generations of communists proclaimed this as a god given truth. History, real history have proven such champions wrong for the past 150 years. Now that society is leaving the industrial form of society, it is pretty obvious that the industrial proletariat could never overthrow the industrial system. I disagree with the concept that one of the two basic classes of a social system can overthrow the system of which they constitute and this is most certainly Marx approach, or rather this seems to be his approach. The serf did not overthrow the feudal system. New classes must be formed by changes in the productive forces to overthrow, (as an absolute law of society), an existing system of producing, or, in the case of the agrarian society, the political institutions called feudalism. Why could the serf not overthrow the system he constituted? Capitalist as production logic (class) and proletarians as production logic (class) overthrew the system of "serfdom." Why on earth would one think that the working class birthed at the dawn of industrial production can overthrow the system of which they constitute and make operational? The idea that the working class formed as the expression of the industrial revolution, can overthrow the industrial system of which it forms, is today ridiculous. The serf did not overthrow the system of production on which political feudalism was erected and comrade need to think out this proposition. But Marx said . . . . Why not replace Marx with God in the above? New class must be formed as the result of qualitative changes in the productive forces; and these new classes are birthed in antagonism with the existing social relations of production, and this is always the cause of social revolution. Marx did not say this, or did he? Society moves in class antagonism not simply in contradiction. The serf as serf is not an antagonistic class in the system of which he constitutes. He exists in contradiction with the dominating class. The wonderful thing about being able to think out a process, that has evolved over the last 150 years, is being able to think for ones self. Nor does Marx give clear and precise meaning of concepts like contradiction or antagonism. Hell. I disagree with the concept of socialism being the negation of capitalism. Not because I am disagreeable or a wise guy, but because of the lived experience of the Soviets as a value producing society. This is not to say that Marx wrote something stating "socialism negates capitalism." I also disagree that a world market existed during the time of Marx. Marx speaks of a world market. I say there was not a world market in the meaning of capitalist commodity production, but only an outline of what we TODAY know is a world market existed in the 1800's. today there is a world wide infrastructure making a real world market possible. Anyone at any time can pull a quote from Marx to prove anything and this is no different than religious zealots with some standard quote from a scared text. Quoting Marx as some kind of God like entity is plain old theology. WL. . **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Obama’s inauguration address
In a message dated 1/20/2009 5:28:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org) writes: It's as much a load of shit to read it as to see and hear it. Comment There is demagogy involved in all politics. A black guy as president is just . . . different. Obama is a historical marker in our history. This is a great moment in American history. Makes me want to play some Donald Byrd. "Women of the World" would sound real good right now. And yes, shit happens. :-) And has happened. WL. -- -- A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] underconsumptionism (not the ultimate cause ofcrisis)
Every single regular crisis of capital, in particular, is the direct result of the bourgeois property form. Allow me to emphasize "regular" as meaning cyclical - not the revolutionary transformation (more accurately transition) from one mode of production to anther. Actually, "regular crisis" or cyclical crisis of capital means bourgeois property as the mode of producing commodities. The appearance of crisis in the financial, agricultural or industrial sectors, at any given point in time, always have its peculiar cause, which in the first and last instance is a break in circulation or in laypersons terms, crisis due to the character of bourgeois production. Bourgeois property is the cause of crisis in a system of capitalist commodity production. Sorry if I wrote in a manner to lead one to believe I was not speaking of crisis. Adding "not the ultimate cause of crisis" to the thread was meant to indicate I was speaking of crisis. I am not talking of "revolutionary transformation" but the source of crisis. Under consumption is not the source, root cause or taproot, of the crisis of bourgeois property or the bourgeois mode of production or commodity production on the basis of bourgeois property relations. The conflict immanent in the bourgeois form of property is expressed in the commodity form, with all its implications, and the commodity form of bourgeois mode of producing is the cause - direct and ultimate, source of all crisis expressed as breach in circulation and most certainly regular crisis. In my reading of Chapter 30 in Vol. 3, I take Marx to be speaking in a specific context. If Marx means that the ultimate source of all crisis - regular and cyclical, in the bourgeois mode of commodity production or the conflict inherent to the bourgeois property form, is under consumption of the masses, then I disagree with Marx. Marx is not God. Or to be treated as a God whose every utterances is to be clung to, or quoted out of context. . Its no big thing. WL. In a message dated 1/20/2009 5:09:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) writes: In this quote, Marx is not talking about revolutionary transformation necessarily, but rather about the regular crises within capitalism still. Such crises may be involved in a revolutionary transformation as a sort of trigger, but Marx is not claiming that underconsumption is the ultimate cause of revolution. Of course, poverty does contribute to revolution, but that's not the point in this particular quote. _http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis_ (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis) This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Obama’s inauguration address
It's as much a load of shit to read it as to see and hear it. -Original Message- >From: waistli...@aol.com >Sent: Jan 20, 2009 5:21 PM >To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama’s inauguration address > >Excerpt: Inaugural address. >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28751183/ > > >That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at >war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is >badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of >some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the >nation >for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our >health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings >further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and >threaten our planet. > >These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less >measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — >a >nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next >generation must lower its sights. > >Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious >and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. >But >know this, America — they will be met. > >On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of >purpose over conflict and discord. > >This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from >http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > >**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De >cemailfooterNO62) > >___ >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] Obama’s inauguration address
Excerpt: Inaugural address. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28751183/ That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Obama’s inauguration
>>> 01/19/2009 11:56 PM >>> Obama’s inauguration has generated and revealed profound emotions of mass support for his presidency unlike anything I have ever experience. I actually feel good about him being sworn into office tomorrow. Obama as president is the damnest thing to happen in my life, and none of the power of all the dialecticians predicted him winning the election eight - twelve months out of voting day. ^^^ CB: Speaking on MLK Day celebration , Gloria House, long time activist and professor in Detroit, made this same reference to the dialectic , the cunning and unexpectedness that history can have . Who would have thunk it would it ? ^^^ Comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan feels like a brutal mental and emotional violation to me. Reagan was a rat playing to not only the racist aspects of our history, but an ingrained anti-communism used to break unions and cover up imperialist intrigue. Reagan proclaimed his self a counterrevolutionary (contra) in a world where revolutionary wars had been waged for a running two hundred years in attempts to escape imperialist exploitation. Reagan was a "uniter" in the meaning of uniting a more than less reactionary mass of Americans seeking to restore America to its immediate post WW II standing. It is easy to forget that the 1980s under Reagan was a period of Japan bashing and China hatred backed up by "Star War" militarism. Obama is nothing like Reagan in his expressed political and social posture. Obama brings a new level of openness and real faith in the ability of the individual to make change happen in concert with others. Reagan brought greed and selfishness to the White House and ultimately help shape the greed and "more money" symbolism of many rap videos and the reality of Wall Street greed. Obama has pledged to end the war in Iraq and political pressuring is building in the ideological realm to withdraw from Afghanistan. The armed forces under Reagan invaded one of the smallest nation/states in the world, the island of Grenada; overthrew its government and murdered its "President," Maurice Bishop. No matter what the future holds Obama is already a historical figure in Americas history. People - individuals, are funny creatures and often turn out to be different from what most folks think of them. King turned out to not be the man the ruling class thought he was, although I did not know this at the time of his murder. I have reason to believe we are on the threshold of a major shift in foreign policy. Not less imperialism, just different. After all, there are literally trillions to be made from infrastructure development across continental Africa. Plus, "Middle East policy" is in need of a shift away from knee jerk support of Israel. Millions of Americans are in motion. I shall take part in this celebration. Change comes from the bottom up. Bottom up ! WL. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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 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] underconsumptionism (not the ultimate cause ofcrisis)
In this quote, Marx is not talking about revolutionary transformation necessarily, but rather about the regular crises within capitalism still. Such crises may be involved in a revolutionary transformation as a sort of trigger, but Marx is not claiming that underconsumption is the ultimate cause of revolution. Of course, poverty does contribute to revolution, but that's not the point in this particular quote. >>> 01/20/2009 4:45 PM >>> In a message dated 1/20/2009 11:02:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) writes: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of captialist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit " (Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 472-73) ; quoted in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. WL Capital can never employed all the proletarians, all the time or (ALL OF THE PROLETARIAN) most of the time, and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during period of expanding consumption. This mass of non-producing consumers allows the capitalist to set wages. (Non-producing classes is what Marx calls it is the top portion of the material quoted above). Reply Sorry, but the first sentence needed correction. Why can the capitalists (bourgeois property) NOT employ all the proletarians all of the time or all of the proletarian most of the time? The answer cannot be because of the restricted consumption of the masses. What brings our society to revolution (the ultimate crisis of all crisis) is not the restricted consumption of the masses, but rather bourgeois private property, or rather revolution in the mode of production, beginning with a revolution in the productive forces of society. New classes are formed by the introduction of new productive equipment, that compels society to reorganize itself around the expanding new means of production. The productive forces come into conflict with the existing social relations of production, then a period of revolution unfolds. Here is the ultimate source of all crisis, in all societies founded on the private property form. Stated another way, crisis of overproduction or the crisis embodied in the falling rate of production as a tendency of capitalist production are simply the face - an expression of something else. That something else is the meaning of bourgeois private property. All crisis have as their ultimate source property; private ownership of the means of production, not the restricted consumption of the masses. This statement runs counter to the quote above. Anyone familiar with Marx knows that his outline of the science of society states in no uncertain terms that revolution is always the result of change - qualitative changes, in the means of production. However, one cannot explain any crisis on the basic "changes in the means of production." One has to study the peculiar crisis one is addressing. The ultimate cause of crisis is not the restricted consumption of the masses. Is this statement proof of anti-communism and anti-Marxism? Of course not. WL This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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 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] underconsumptionism (not the ultimate cause of crisis)
In a message dated 1/20/2009 11:02:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) writes: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of captialist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit " (Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 472-73) ; quoted in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. WL Capital can never employed all the proletarians, all the time or (ALL OF THE PROLETARIAN) most of the time, and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during period of expanding consumption. This mass of non-producing consumers allows the capitalist to set wages. (Non-producing classes is what Marx calls it is the top portion of the material quoted above). Reply Sorry, but the first sentence needed correction. Why can the capitalists (bourgeois property) NOT employ all the proletarians all of the time or all of the proletarian most of the time? The answer cannot be because of the restricted consumption of the masses. What brings our society to revolution (the ultimate crisis of all crisis) is not the restricted consumption of the masses, but rather bourgeois private property, or rather revolution in the mode of production, beginning with a revolution in the productive forces of society. New classes are formed by the introduction of new productive equipment, that compels society to reorganize itself around the expanding new means of production. The productive forces come into conflict with the existing social relations of production, then a period of revolution unfolds. Here is the ultimate source of all crisis, in all societies founded on the private property form. Stated another way, crisis of overproduction or the crisis embodied in the falling rate of production as a tendency of capitalist production are simply the face - an expression of something else. That something else is the meaning of bourgeois private property. All crisis have as their ultimate source property; private ownership of the means of production, not the restricted consumption of the masses. This statement runs counter to the quote above. Anyone familiar with Marx knows that his outline of the science of society states in no uncertain terms that revolution is always the result of change - qualitative changes, in the means of production. However, one cannot explain any crisis on the basic "changes in the means of production." One has to study the peculiar crisis one is addressing. The ultimate cause of crisis is not the restricted consumption of the masses. Is this statement proof of anti-communism and anti-Marxism? Of course not. WL This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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] Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition
Re: [Marxism] Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition From: Rod Holt Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:30:26 -0800 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 I only questioned your second sentence: " Marx and Engels are looking for _necessity_ to put historical materialism on a scientific basis. I question whether M & E put biological necessity in their thinking regarding the scientific nature of their general social/political theory. You haven't addressed this question, or I have missed your point. --rod Charles Brown wrote: Rod Holt I question that necessity is the basis for the scientific nature of historical materialism. M & E strove to extract laws from an examination of history. These laws they believed could be verified (or falsified) by further examination of history, and in particular, by searching out and indentifying the forces producing the history (and the forces producing the changes in those forces, and the changes in those changes, etc.) It was this process -- most distinctly a process -- that justified the use of the words "scientific socialism." CB; I'm thinking that these laws, yes empirically found and confirmed, are explained by finding necessary human activities, or the laws are rooted in , but not entirely shaped by, physical necessities, natural necessity. In _The German Ideology_, Marx and Engels asserted an elementary anthropological or "human nature" rationale for this conception. In a section titled "History: Fundamental Condtions" they say: ... life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation , clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life." Production and economic classes are the starting point of Marxist analysis of human society, including in the Manifesto, because human life, like all plant and animal life must fulfill biological needs to exist as life at all. ^^ As far as biological necessity goes, Darwin opened the door to the notion that when the necessary collapses for one life form, it often is the opportunity for another life form. I can't imagine M & E questioning this line of thinking. --rod In a message dated 26/03/2006 21:02:38 GMT Daylight Time, yavuztuylo...@x writes: > Charles Brown wrote: Do you agree or disagree > with the following proposition: > > Production and economic classes are the starting point of Marxist analysis > of human society, including in the Manifesto, because human life, like all > plant and animal life must fulfill biological needs to exist as life at all. > Marx and Engels are looking for _necessity_ to put historical materialism > on a scientific basis. In human biology there is necessity, things that must > be done. > Reply: Production and the social relations which result are the starting point...because human life, like all plant and animal life, must fulfill material needs to exist as life at all. Material instead of biological in line with materialist conception of matter and motion as constituting basis of nature and all animal, human and plant life. JD 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] Materialist critique
[Marxism-Thaxis] Materialist critique Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sun Jun 22 18:03:39 MDT 2008 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fear him ! Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Binational indigenous front meets in Oaxaca Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] For Women's Liberation: A Comradely Critique of _The Manifesto_ and Historical Materialism (For Angela Y. Davis) By Charles Brown "Because exploited classes are coerced into producing surpluses for exploiting classes by making supply of the physiological necessities of life to the exploited classes conditional upon their producing those surpluses. Not only do exploited classes produce the physiological and derivative material necessities of life for society , but they are denied the fruits of their labor unless they supply the bosses, the ruling classes with super fruits." To me _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ remains extraordinarily persuasive of the historical epoch of which we are today still a part. The argument of the Manifesto is convincing in part because it is consistently courageous in intelligently critiquing the order of the powers that be. Then, as now, the ruling class ruins and murders those who so take them on. Famous examples in our country are Nat Turner, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, Paul Robeson and the Communist Party en masse. However, _The Manifesto_ shows cowardice , and more bourgeois than communist finesse in dealing with marriage, the family, patriarchy and monogamy. Marx and Engels say the bourgeoisie accuse the communists of wanting to abolish the monogamous family when the bourgeoisie have already in fact done so. Then they cleverly, artfully, correctly show how the bourgeois, male chauvinist practices of adultery, prostitution and related activities have already in actual fact abolished the monogamous family, although it hypocritically remains the law and custom. Marx and Engels dodge the dialectical requirement that they present an affirmative, not just negative aspect, to their critique of bourgeois society's form of the family. They defer to the taboo against even discussing sex positively, affirmatively, fulfillingly. What is the Communist proposal for the next forms of the family ? Given Marx and Engels'' dialectical, evolutionary-revolutionary perspective on every other institution, presumably for them, the mode of the family changes along with the mode of production and the state. But they mention in the Manifesto no family equivalent in reproduction to the formula "abolition of private property" in production or "working class as the ruling class" in politics and the state. We would not expect them to speculate a full utopian idea of the family, but at least give us a hint as they do in political economy. To me this all demonstrates the European taboo on public (and much private), revolutionary discussion and critique of reproductive institutions and practices ( the mode of reproduction) is even stronger than that on revolutionary criticism of productive institutions and practices, that is the mode of production. Freud's breaking of this taboo has continuing value today, with all of his faults. Marx and Engels did creep up on telling the truth about the revolutionary direction of the development of the family. Many years after the Manifesto, in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ , Engels gained a lot of courage that had been lacking. Engels also published many years after they had been written by Marx the "Theses on Feuerbach", the fourth of which says: " Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be exploited by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionised in practice. Thus, for instance, _after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and practice_" (emphasis added, C.B) So, Marx knew that monogamy would be revolutionised and "destroyed". He just did not shout it, the way he did "expropriate the expropriators" and the like. Let us examine the issue a little more deeply. By the Manifesto ev
[Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
[Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Steve Gabosch bebop101 at comcast.net Thu Jun 2 18:45:46 MDT 2005 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Charles, your logic below unsuccessfully explains the relationship between human biology and human society. You merely repeat something no one disputes. All animals reproduce, just as they all breathe, and would die without doing so. But only humans produce - and probably would not even survive as animals anymore if they did not do so. The key question in my opinion is to address just what humans do that is new and different from other species. What makes humans "human"? Clearly, the answer begins with production and related activities. What is it about production and related activities, such as intergenerational transmission of culture, language, etc., that allows human collectives to continually transform both nature and themselves (including their methods of reproduction, family systems etc.)? A dialectical analysis of this continual process requires, in my opinion, a grasp of the fundamental "logic" of how human social labor and production creates an entirely new domain of life-existence unknown in non-human species. To see how little your paragraphs below contribute to this kind of understanding - I am not saying this about you, just the passages you offer below - substitute the term "respiration" for "reproduction" below - or for that matter, substitute any essential biological function. Humans would die from the lack of any of them (digestion, excretion, etc. etc.). You make this point yourself explicitly. But this point that humans absolutely require a successful biological existence to become the historical creatures we have become is certainly true, but unenlightening - even, if you will allow me to put this sharply, trivial, if that is as far as one goes. Who would dispute you? The challenge is to explain how we grew from being once upon a time *just* mammals to the sociological humans we are today - and the communists we aspire to be in the future. This line of inquiry is what Marx and Engels invented, and which I encourage all to continue developing. Again to put it bluntly, simply placing an equal sign between biology and sociology does not seem to contribute anything of much value that I can see. On the other hand, showing how the biological becomes sociological is very helpful. How did humanoid primates became historical beings? For example, a study into the role cultural transmission plays in production and socio-historical development, the investigation you suggested yesterday - based, I would urge, on the classical Marxist insights into the role of production in history as the motor force of the creation of humanity - could well qualify as such a helpful piece. That is my motivation for encouraging you to pursue your insights and studies on this - I believe this kind of study enhances Marxism and human science. On the rich question of reproduction that you raise below, much study is needed there, too - on how modes of reproduction have originated and developed in history, and how forms of reproduction, family systems, etc. have been major motor forces in the development (forward, backward, sideways and other ways) of human society and human psychology. Perhaps this is another formal piece of writing you could work on. Good luck! - Steve At 11:32 AM 6/2/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: >Actually , this essay ( rough copy here) is not on the issue that Steve >suggested I develop. But it does deal with the anthropological passages at >the beginning of _The German Ideology_ that are close to the one Steve first >adduced for discussion. > >As I read this essay, I am claiming that M and E are not materialist enough >in the GI. I don't have the part here, but in _The Origin of the Family, >Private Property and the State_ Engels has much more advanced anthro >knowledge than in _The G I_ , and in the Preface , he says production AND >the family are cofundamental in determining _history_. > > I sent this to Thaxis several years ago > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-April/008694.html > >Charles > > >For Women's Liberation : Whoever heard of a one genearation species ? > > > Every Marxist knows the A,B,C's of historical >materialism or the materialist conception of history. >The history of all hitherto existing society, since the >breaking up of the ancient communes, is a >history of class struggles between oppressor and >oppressed. > In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels >asserted an elementary anthropological or >"human nature" rationale for this conception. >In a section titled (in one translation) >"History: Fundamental Conditions" , they say: >
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Feminism
Marxist Feminism http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/marxist_fem.html The following discussion seeking to define/explain Marxist feminism took place on WMST-L in August 1994. For additional WMST-L files now available on the Web, see the WMST-L File List. === Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 21:30:16 CDT From: Lisa Auanger Subject: question: marxist feminism? Please excuse the apparent basicness of this question. Although I have seen and heard the term `marxist feminism' or `marxist feminist' used, I have never been satisfied with explanations of its meaning. How would or do list members define these? How closely connected are marxist feminists with the fundamental texts of Marxism? Thanks, Lisa Auanger c513024 @ mizzou1.missouri.edu = Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 00:54:19 -0700 From: DENISE M DALAIMO Subject: Re: Marxist Feminism [Introductory remarks deleted] I'll try to be brief and relay to you what I interpret Marxist Feminism to be. As for the connection to Marx and his writings, the main connection I have seen is to Friedrich Engels' (Marx's collaborator and friend, AND one of the "fathers of Marxism") *The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State* (1845). This book addressed what many "Marxists" had not, (they were more interested in workers' oppression, not women's oppression). It showed how changes in the material conditions of people affect the organization of their family relations. Engels argued that monogamous marriage is a social institution that has nothing to do with love and everything to do with private property ($). He wrote that if women are to be truly emancipated from men, they must be economically independent. Contemporary Marxists Feminists, as I have seen it, don't usually deal directly with reproductive or sexual concerns, i.e. contraception, sterilization, abortion, pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment, rape, and woman battering, like, say a radical feminist might. They seem to be more focused on things like the concerns of working women. They help us to understand how the institution of family is related to capitalism; how women's domestic work is trivialized and not considered "real work"; and basically how women are given the most unfulfilling, boring, and/or low-paying jobs. These are all offered as partial explanations for gender oppression. Please forgive the brief, necessarily partial, and definitely personal and subjective perception of Marxist Feminism. If you're really interested in a discussion of Marxist, as well as Liberal, Radical, Socialist, Psychoanalytic, Existentialist and Postmodern Feminism, take a look at Rosemarie Tong's *Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction* (1989 Boulder: Westview Press). It's a few years old now, but in my humble opinion, the best of it's kind. Best, Denise - Denise M. DalaimoOffice Phone: (702) 895-3322 Univ of Nevada LV E-mail Address: Dept of Sociology neese @ pioneer.nevada.edu 4505 Maryland Pkwy Las Vegas, NV 89154-5033 Jean Nidetch Women's Center (702) 895-0605 "Forget the night, my sisters, take back your minds" -Elena Featherston - = Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:57:09 -0500 From: Linda Coleman Subject: marxist feminism For a sampling of marxist feminist texts, you might take a look at either the 1st, 2nd, or latest edition of the textbook Feminist Frameworks (McGrawHill pub.). The argument there, I think, is that for marxist feminists the intersection of class and gender is the primary starting point for critical/political action and analysis. -- Linda S. Coleman Eastern Illinois University cflsc @ eiu.edu = Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:17:52 -0500 From: Benay Blend Subject: Re: marxist feminism Carolyn Merchant also offers a good definition of Marxist feminism in _Death of Nature_, as well as in several of her other works. Benay Blend blend @ alpha.nsula.edy = Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:03:36 CST From: Rebecca Hill Subject: Re: question: marxist feminism? It all depends on which "Marxist Feminist" you read/talk to. Some Marxist feminists base their discussion on the relationship of women to production, others use a Marxist theory to develope an analysis of women as a class, which seems to me to go above and beyond the "narrow economism" of more orthodox Marxist feminists.
[Marxism-Thaxis] Being determines consciousness.
Being determines consciousness.
However, being determines
consciousness discontinuously.
("primarily and ultirmately").
Meanwhile, in between time,
being and consciousness are
reciprocally determiining.
Being , in the form of class struggle,
determines consciousness in history.
However, the revolutions
which are the points of
determination or change
by class struggle are
intermittent and rare.
Most of the time consciousness
or ideology is not changing,
is not in a revolutionary
state of transformation.
Most of the time society is
in a status quo, a relative
equilibrium , is not changing
fundamentally.
This is somewhat analogous
to the punctuated equilibrium
of Stephen Jay Gould in natural
history, with the punctuations
being the revolutions when being
determines, asserts itself, like the
roof falling in periodically asserts
the law of gravity, when
contradictions reach a crisis.
It is the long equilibria that
cause the confusion and make
people think that consciousness
has determined being in history,
or the idealist error.
Also, there is a sense in which
consciousness as a system of
ideas does determine people's
conduct. When an idea grips
the masses , it becomes a material
force; and lots of ideas grip the
masses. In fact , the masses
only act based on ideas that
grip them. What revolutions do
is change the system of ideas
that determines peoples' conduct.
And only class struggles change
systems of ideas or ideologies.
This is the fundamental sense
of being determines consciousness
or the theory of historical materialsim.
Thus, the most practically
reasonable and rational course
is for the working class of our
era to overthrow capitalism and
establish socialism. This would
be the optimum for the class
self-interest of the working class ,
collectively and individually
in its billions of people. Yet, we
are in a lag time, the long lag
time of the "equilibrium" before
the punctuation of revolution.
Irrational ideas of many types
compete with the rational idea
of revolutionary class struggle
for gripping the working masses.
False consciousness is
determining being, keeping it
stuck in capitalist relations of production.
Do any of the fancy Marxist theories
which interrogate the principle
of being determines consciousness
have solutions to the riddles of the
irrational, anti-class self-interest
ideologies, systems of ideas and
images which are gripping the
masses and blinding them to
their historic revolutionary mission ?
That is a question on c
onsciousness for today's challengers to materialism who also claim to
be Marxist in some sense.
An even more fundamental
understanding of consciousness
must come through an augmented
Marxist feminism. As the historically
constituted class of oppressed
and exploited reproductive or c
aring laborers, the creators of
subjects en masse, women have
been the uncredited makers of
consiousness in history. This is
not just in childrearing , although that is obviously important, but in all
caring labor which is critical in
shaping and repairing the self.
This includes housework, for the
house or the home is that shelter
where the adult self is itself away
from work in the capitalist daily
geography of the person.Thus,
women's liberation and recovery
of women's history is fundamental
to the science of consciousness.
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/m-fem/1998m07/msg6.htm
Charles Brown
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] Second Industrial Revolution
Second Industrial Revolution >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Second Industrial Revolution (1871-1914) involved significant developments for society and the world. End of the second phase The end of the second industrial revolution or second phase of the industrial revolution has not been properly defined, since it would mean that the beginning of the third phase of the industrial revolution would also have to be considered. This is a difficult problem for the core of the industrial revolution is often linked to power sources and power usage. The first phase of the industrial revolution had coal or wood-generated steam power at its core. The second phase of the industrial revolution had the internal combustion engine and electrical motors and generators at its core. While some might surmise that the rise of nuclear power should mark the start of the third phase, it would clash with the fact that, with the exception of France, industrial economies depend less and less on nuclear power for their energy, and that, again with the exception of France, power from a nuclear reactor was never the primary source of energy 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] http://www.womenandprison.org/contributors.html
http://www.womenandprison.org/contributors.html Contributing Authors and Interview Participants Sheryl Abel Sheryl interview. Annette Anderson since taking part in the film “Turning A Corner”, I have in much amazement been approached by people that I have never seen come up to me and tell me how they enjoyed watching it. I just celebrated 5 years clean and sober. I feel great. I still do some service work and I work for Circle Management. I take care of my mom who just turned 80 years old. I really enjoy helping those who are less fortunate than myself. My relationship with my husband is great. We have excellent communication with each other and spend a lot of quality time together. My family and I have grown closer. They are so proud of the positive changes I have made in my life. I want to thank the staff from “Beyondmedia Education” for all that they have done to help me stay and be inspired. Annette's interview. Joanne Archibald is the Associate Director at Beyondmedia. She worked at Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers (CLAIM) for 14 years, beginning as Advocacy Coordinator, and then working as Advocacy Project Director and Associate Director. She serves on the Advisory Board of Grace House, a transitional program for women exiting the prison system. Joanne's interview. Gina Autrey was born in a small town in South Carolina. She grew up in a loving home, with her parents and her sister. Throughout her childhood, she was never problematic or in any trouble; she was an honor student at a private Christian school from grades six through twelve. She got married at eighteen and started her family soon after. So, how did this good, wholesome, caring mother of two end up in prison? this is the story of one woman's painful journey from the lowest depths of imprisonment to a life of renewed determination and independence. She found within herself the strength to overcome the betrayal and abandonment by those whom she thought she could love and trust. she rose from the depths of imprisonment to become an independent, hard working, loving mother who still takes the time to help and encourage those who are incarcerated. She has become an advocate for those who are too afraid to speak up for themselves and a friend to those in need. "Excerpt from Banished Pride." top Barrilee Bannister was one of seventy-eight women sent to a male prison in Arizona run by the Corrections Corporation of America, where they were sexually assaulted and harassed by male staff. Barrilee organized the women, contacted the media and launched a lawsuit, which resulted in their return to Oregon, a public apology and the firing and disciplining of many of the involved guards. She has been released from Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, Oregon's only women's prison. She is the founder and co-editor of the quarterly zine "Tenacious: Writings from Women in Prison." Read Barrilee's article, "The Harassment Continues." top Donnie Belcher is a senior at DePaul University, majoring in Education. A published poet, Donnie also writes for the DePaula, the school newspaper, and Melanin, a new teen magazine written for and by African American young women. She serves on the executive board of Black Student Union, an umbrella organization for all of the Black organizations on campus. Donnie's mother was imprisoned from the time she was in preschool until she was eight years old. Read her "Letter to a Formerly Incarcerated Mother." top Mary Field Belenky, Ed.D. is an educator, researcher, and writer who focuses her work on women's intellectual and ethical development. She studies projects and organizations that enable marginalized and silenced women to gain a voice, claim the powers of the mind, and have a fuller say in the way their families and communities are being run. A co-founder of the Vermont Women's Prison Project, she is a co-author of Women's Ways of Knowing and, more recently, A Tradition That Has No Name. She also co-edited Knowledge, Difference, and Power: Essays Inspired by Women's Ways of Knowing. Read the article she co-authored on The Vermont Women's Prison Project top Hilda Berghammer Hilda's interview. top Diana Block is a member of the planning committee of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and part of the editorial collective, which produces its newsletter, The Fire Inside. She is also a member of the steering committee of the California Coalition for Battered Women in Prison. Her writings about women prisoners have appeared in various journals and papers, including Sojourner, Off Our Backs and The San Francisco Bay View, and she has been a presenter at numerous conferences and workshops about women prisoners and the issue of incarcerated survivors. She is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Women's Building and was a founding member of San Francisco Women Against Rape in the early seventies. Read her article, "A Case of Battered Justice: Theresa Cruz, fighting do
[Marxism-Thaxis] Finding necessary determinations in human affairs is social science
Necessity is a main form of determination. When science discovers necessary connections, it finds determinations. These are also objective conditions and natural laws. Marx claims that there are necessary connections in human society and affairs. But some of those necessary connections are maintained only by the force of state power behind private property relations, the laws of private property, exploiter/ exploited relations. These necessary connections are abolished in the Realm of Freedom. The other two levels of necessary connections - meeting physiological necessaries and "obeying" the necessities of "physics" in general, natural laws, persist in communism, as does the materialist epistemological principle that practice is the test of theory (2nd Thesis on Feuerbach; central thesis of the book _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ by Lenin) persist in communism. CB Finding necessary determinations in human affairs is social science Charles Brown Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Second Thesis on Feuerbach as Mother wit Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] _Capital_ as science The interesting thing to me is that on the sort of fundamental issue in dispute - are human activities subject to scientific investigation and understanding - Jerry agrees with the thinkers who he uses the denigrating terminology to refer to. Jerry and the post/structuralists and postmodernists are philosophical idealists, in terms of the Marxist philosophical analytical categories. Those who say there is and can be no social _science_ are philosophical idealists; because they claim that there are no objective or necessary determinations of human history. The real dispute here is between idealists and materialists. Foucault , Butler and Monaco are on the same side in that dispute. The claim that politics, history, law, literature et al can only be understood "humanistically" is philosophical idealism, in the sense that Marx and Engels use that analytical category. By the way, positivism reduces to philosophical idealism, as Lenin demonstrates in _ Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ Charles 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] Third level of materialism
Third level of materialism Third level of materialism Let me suggest a third level of materialist determination, derived from the struggle between the Marxists and the structuralists/post-moderns, et. al. The superstructure is _determined_ when it is changed. It is changed only rarely, in revolutions. Revolutions are rare, by definition; in "punctuations". Most of the time of history, society is in convention or "equilibrium", not revolution. In conventional times, it is the superstructure of ideas that determines individual people's conduct. There is determination by ideas, ideology. Thought the _system_ of ideas, "cultural grammar" determines the actions by individual "beings". Only when practice of ideas comes into such crisis as to create a system changing contradiction in the system of ideas ( the cultural "grammar" in Levi-Straussian structural anthropology) does a revolution arise. This system and convention changing crisis and contradiction between practice and ideas systems is what Marx describes in his famous passage below (as well as in miniature in the Theses on Feuerbach , mostly succinctly the 2nd Thesis.) "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. " Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm 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] underconsumptionism
>>> 01/20/2009 6:32 AM >>> "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of captialist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit " (Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 472-73) ; quoted in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Comment Capital can never employed all the proletarians, all the time or most of the time, and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during period of expanding consumption. This mass of non-producing consumers allows the capitalist to set wages. (Non-producing classes is what Marx calls it is the top portion of the material quoted above). Lets try and get behind under consumption as an "ism." "Under consumption" as an "ism" is a distinct body of politics. The calling card of every Social Democrat has always been and remains the battle cry of "raise the consuming capacity of the masses." It is the ideology of under consumption of the masses, as an "ism," that establishes the political unity between capital and its various production units being strangled by a break in circulation; the social democrats and their efforts to win the masses to preservation of capitalism. ^^^ CB: Agree. The Keynesian Social Democrats, who come to dominate Social Democracy after the Russian Revolution ( Before the Russian Revolution, the Social Democrats were the Marxists, in Germany in the first place, where the Kautsky led Social Democratic Labor Party had had Engels as a member, had lots of members of Parlianment. Then most Social Dems became renegades from Marxism around WWI. After the Russian Revolution, the next wave of Social Democracy was based on Keynes' theory which was based on the part of the truth of capitalism which is expressed in the Marxist theory of under-consumptionism, or literally from the quote from Marx, "restricted consumptionism". The social democrats American brand, are neatly lining up behind President Obama, demanding to raise the consuming capacity of the masses, with an $800 million spending package promising jobs. Under consumption as an "ism" is actually a coherent thought and ideology. Under consumption as an "ism" is pure social democratic ideology and politics. One ought not raise concession battles to the level of an "ism." For one to say for instance, the financial crisis of 2008 is ultimately related to "restricted consumption of the masses" is just silly. Capital can never continuously employed all the proletarians and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during boom times or during periods of expanding consumption. Society faces a permanent, unrelenting crisis in/of fixed capital, which can no longer be mitigated by market expansion or deepening by credit extension. Unlike during the time of Marx the falling rate of profit cannot today be overcome on the basis of quantitative market expansion. During Marx crisis could be mitigated through market expansion and the creation of a real world market with colonies. Marx use of the term "world market" meant an outline of a world market. Today there is a "for real" world market. In 1850 and 1860 there was not. Dead labor consumes living labor in the absolute sense. During the time of Marx dead labor consumption of living labor was mitigated through conversion of a sea of humanity from serfs to modern proletarians and the employed working class expanded in absolute terms. The entire system expanded. Advanced robotics and computerized production process introduces a new quality in to the game. Capital is hitting the historical wall Permanent overcapacity in virtually every industry and not just overproduction or under consumption is the new reality and this did not exist in 1870. Permanent overcapacity finds capital feeding on itself in search of profits. Not surplus value but profits or valueless wealth. Valueless wealth is impossible and cannot stand for long. WL. "Let us suppose that the whole of society is composed only of industrial capitalists and wage-workers. Let us furthermore disregard price fluctuations, which prevent large portions of the total capital from replacing themselves in their average proportions and which, owing to the general interrelations of the entire reproduction process as developed in particular by credit, must always call forth general stoppages of a transient nature. Let us also disregard the sham transactions and speculations, which the credit system favours. Then, a crisis could only be explained as the result of a disproportion of production in various branches of the economy, and as a result of a disproportion between the consumption of the capitalists and their accumulation. But as matters stand, the replacement of the capita
[Marxism-Thaxis] SPECIES-BEING AND HUMAN EVOLUTION
SPECIES-BEING AND HUMAN EVOLUTION: REMARKS ON HARRELL'S "MARX AND CRITICAL THOUGHT" Jeremy J. Shapiro https://people.sunyit.edu/~harrell/billyjack/marx_crt_shapiro.htm return to contents [1] From its origins, the critical theory of society has operated with a conception, or at least a preunderstanding, of human nature or the human "essence" in relation to which it has criticized the alienation and inhumanity of industrial society. Although critical theory has always tried to make its critique "immanent" it has always supported its immanent critique on a quasi-"transcendent" notion of the potentialities of human beings that are deformed and disfigured in capitalist (and "socialist") society. At the same time, it has attempted to delimit its conception of human nature from metaphysics and "philosophical anthropology" and derive it materialistically from the concrete genesis of the human species. [2] Bill Harrell's discussion of Marx and critical theory is, with regard to both content and style, in the best tradition of enlightened Marxian humanism. His focus on the notions of rational labor and the essence of human nature certainly are in accord with Marx's own deepest intentions, and he is correct in pointing to the ambivalence of the Frankfurt School with regard to the notion of an "essential, " cross-cultural "human nature." Agreeing with Harrell that "the full critical potentiality of Marx requires the development of a conception of man which is substantive and unambiguous", I should like, in what follows, to pursue the tendency of his own argument and add more substance to the critical conception of human nature or "essence" that he has proposed. For he is certainly right in insisting that critical social theory is bound to suffer from contradictions and weaknesses as long as it has not clarified this fundamental question. [3] The main problem for critical theory posed by the idea of an "essence" of human nature is the origin of the contradiction between the human essence and its distortion in concrete human societies. Socialist theory assumes that the capacities that enable human beings to bring about socialism, such as rationality, freedom, undistorted communication, and what Harrell calls "rational labor" are part of the inventory of human nature: that is, they are part of what Marx called the human "species-being." If this Is so, that is, if these capacities are not fortuitous products of a particular historical stage (that has, in any case, been left behind us) then we must assume that they appertain to the species homo sapiens per se. This leads to two questions, the first for the theory of evolution, paleontology, and anthropology, the second for critical social theory. The first question is, what is the evolutionary origin of the basic human capacities for rationality and freedom that, under the conditions of advanced industrial civilization (or any other conditions) make socialism possible? The second is, how can we account for the evolutionary emergence of these capacities at the origin of history as potentialities, which nevertheless have been suppressed and distorted for the entirety of history? How in other words, can we account for homo sapiens being rational for at least a quarter of a million years, in the sense of having the cognitive, communicative, and existential capacity to live in and create a rational society, and yet have conducted the entire course of its history up through the present in irrational, oppressive, mystified, and mystifying social structures and institutions? It is the real intellectual difficulty presented by this second question that has deterred critical social theorists from developing a theory of the human essence. [4] This difficulty arises from the practical impossibility of answering the question within the conceptual framework within which evolution and history have been considered since the middle of the nineteenth century. According to our intellectual tradition, there are at root two alternative explanations of the origin of species characteristics: Divine or Darwinian -- that is, either through a momentary, supernatural act of creation, or through the emergence of a species out of its ancestors through variation and natural selection. Since the first explanation is excluded, we are left only with the second: that the human species emerged from homo erectus around 250,000 years ago (much longer by some estimates), since which time we have had a basically fixed human species, which has not undergone any further significant biological evolution. There is no place in this explanation for the emergence of a potential or essence that evolves as suppressed potential disfigured essence, only to re-emerge aeons later as a more urgent potential at a more favorable time. That is why the theory of evolution, as it has been elaborated by anthropologists and social theorists, divides the genesis of rationality into two stages. The first is the biologi
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx's theory of species-being
Marx's theory of human nature Marx's theory of human nature occupies an important place in his critique of capitalism, his conception of communism, and his 'materialist conception of history'. Marx, however, does not refer to "human nature" as such, but to Gattungswesen, which is generally translated as 'species-being' or 'species-essence'. What Marx meant by this is that humans are capable of making or shaping their own nature to some extent. According to a note from the young Marx in the Manuscripts of 1844, the term is derived from Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophy, in which it refers both to the nature of each human and of humanity as a whole [1]. However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, on behalf of a conception of human nature as formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determinated in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being of course biological. Contents [hide] 1 The sixth thesis on Feuerbach, and the determination of human nature by social relations 2 Needs and drives 3 Productive activity, the objects of humans and actualisation 3.1 Humans as free, purposive producers 3.2 Life and the species as the objects of humans 3.3 Humans as homo faber? 4 Human nature and historical materialism 4.1 Human nature and the expansion of the productive forces 4.2 Human nature, developing needs, and class struggle 5 Human nature, Marx's ethical thought and alienation 5.1 Alienation 6 Gerald Cohen's criticism 7 References and further reading 7.1 Primary texts 7.2 Accounts prior to 1978 7.3 Recent general accounts 7.4 The debate over human nature and historical materialism 8 Footnotes 9 See also [edit] The sixth thesis on Feuerbach, and the determination of human nature by social relations Norman Geras claimed in Marx's theory of human nature (1983) that although many Marxists denied that there was a "human nature" to be found in Marx's words [1], there is in fact a Marxist conception of human nature which remains, to some degree, constant throughout history and across social boundaries. The sixth of the Theses on Feuerbach provided the basics for this interpretation of Marx according to which there was no eternal human nature to be found in his works. It states: Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = ‘human nature’]. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged: 1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract - isolated - human individual. 2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way. [2] Thus, Marx appears to say that human nature is no more than what is made by the 'social relations'. Norman Geras's Marx's Theory of Human Nature, however, offers an extremely detailed argument against this position [2]. In outline, Geras shows that, while the social relations are held to 'determine' the nature of people, they are not the only such determinant. In fact, Marx makes statements where he specifically refers to a human nature which is more than what is conditioned by the circumstances of one's life. In Capital, in a footnote critiquing utilitarianism, he says that utilitarians must reckon with 'human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch' [3]. Marx is arguing against an abstract conception of human nature, offering instead an account rooted in sensuous life. While he is quite explicit that '[a]s individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production' [4], he also believes that human nature will condition (against the background of the productive forces and relations of production) the way in which individuals express their life. History involves 'a continuous transformation of human nature' [5], though this does not mean that every aspect of human nature is wholly variable; what is transformed need not be wholly transformed. Marx did criticise the tendency to 'transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property' [6], a process sometimes called "reification". For this reason, he would likely have wanted to criticise certain aspects of some accounts of human nature. Some people believe, for example, that humans are naturally selfish - Kant [7] and Hobbes [8] [9], for example. (Both Hobbes and Kant t
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx's primary feminism:From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of
>"From this relationship (that between women and men in a given society- CB) one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development "( in a given society-CB) - Karl Max Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Here Marx enunciates an extremely high standard of feminism for Marxism Br'er Rabbit ^^^ See passage from Marx here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm ...In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature - his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. >From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence - the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need - the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being. The first positive annulment of private property - crude communism - is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system. 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] Sexual instinct and the social
As sexual instinct is an instinct that shapes a _social_ relationship it is different than some other instincts. Since culture or symbolic systems or social structures or_social_ construction by symbol systems constitute socialities or social relations, the social feature of biological sexuality impinges on that social structure in a way that other instincts like thirst or hunger do not. Thirst and hunger relate body and object. Sex relates body and body, i.e. is social. This why sexual instinct impinges on _social _structure in a way that other instincts do not. It is directly and immediately social. As humans are a uniquely social species, the social , and therefore the cultural (which is essentially social; the symbolic is founded in sociality) has much more pervasive importance in our lives than it does in other species. This is the underlying truth of the cultural anthropology schools like Levi-Straussian structuralism. It is this principle that Butler is correctly championing. Ironically, the exception to this principle in her area of emphasis, sexuality. On sex uniting the natural and the social, see quote from Marx from Econ and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 previously posted. Br'er Rabbit 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] Symbolic
Does this mean you are defending the concept that the social is built upon the exchange of women amongst men? robert wood CB: No . This passage from Marx is not on that topic. By and large this is referring to a one-on-one, an intimate one-on-one. ( As an aside, on that topic, note that in one-to-one correspondence between women and men , isomorphism/ group theory algebra _Les Structure Elementaire de la Parente ; between the groups, from one angle the men might be seen as exchange the women, from another angle the women might be seen as exchanging the men, peu t'etre; but I'm not talking about that here.) The vast human social is mainly built out of the symbolic, language, culture. It's critical use and uniqueness in origin was the exchange of messages between dead and living generations ( although of course there is a lot of symbolic exchange within the living generation. ). 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] underconsumptionism
"The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of captialist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit " (Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 472-73) ; quoted in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Comment Capital can never employed all the proletarians, all the time or most of the time, and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during period of expanding consumption. This mass of non-producing consumers allows the capitalist to set wages. (Non-producing classes is what Marx calls it is the top portion of the material quoted above). Lets try and get behind under consumption as an "ism." "Under consumption" as an "ism" is a distinct body of politics. The calling card of every Social Democrat has always been and remains the battle cry of "raise the consuming capacity of the masses." It is the ideology of under consumption of the masses, as an "ism," that establishes the political unity between capital and its various production units being strangled by a break in circulation; the social democrats and their efforts to win the masses to preservation of capitalism. The social democrats American brand, are neatly lining up behind President Obama, demanding to raise the consuming capacity of the masses, with an $800 million spending package promising jobs. Under consumption as an "ism" is actually a coherent thought and ideology. Under consumption as an "ism" is pure social democratic ideology and politics. One ought not raise concession battles to the level of an "ism." For one to say for instance, the financial crisis of 2008 is ultimately related to "restricted consumption of the masses" is just silly. Capital can never continuously employed all the proletarians and this is a built in restriction on consumption, even during boom times or during periods of expanding consumption. Society faces a permanent, unrelenting crisis in/of fixed capital, which can no longer be mitigated by market expansion or deepening by credit extension. Unlike during the time of Marx the falling rate of profit cannot today be overcome on the basis of quantitative market expansion. During Marx crisis could be mitigated through market expansion and the creation of a real world market with colonies. Marx use of the term "world market" meant an outline of a world market. Today there is a "for real" world market. In 1850 and 1860 there was not. Dead labor consumes living labor in the absolute sense. During the time of Marx dead labor consumption of living labor was mitigated through conversion of a sea of humanity from serfs to modern proletarians and the employed working class expanded in absolute terms. The entire system expanded. Advanced robotics and computerized production process introduces a new quality in to the game. Capital is hitting the historical wall Permanent overcapacity in virtually every industry and not just overproduction or under consumption is the new reality and this did not exist in 1870. Permanent overcapacity finds capital feeding on itself in search of profits. Not surplus value but profits or valueless wealth. Valueless wealth is impossible and cannot stand for long. WL. "Let us suppose that the whole of society is composed only of industrial capitalists and wage-workers. Let us furthermore disregard price fluctuations, which prevent large portions of the total capital from replacing themselves in their average proportions and which, owing to the general interrelations of the entire reproduction process as developed in particular by credit, must always call forth general stoppages of a transient nature. Let us also disregard the sham transactions and speculations, which the credit system favours. Then, a crisis could only be explained as the result of a disproportion of production in various branches of the economy, and as a result of a disproportion between the consumption of the capitalists and their accumulation. But as matters stand, the replacement of the capital invested in production depends largely upon the consuming power of the non-producing classes; while the consuming power of the workers is limited partly by the laws of wages, partly by the fact that they are used only as long as they can be profitably employed by the capitalist class. The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch30.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch30.htm) Vol 3 Chapter 30.
[Marxism-Thaxis] Musin’ on the Motown Review
« Standing in the Light of Detroit Waiting for Steveland » Musin’ on the Motown Review With the exception of a squabble over a siblings gift, or later years of toppled trees from too much paternal drink - traumatic then, now fading into the place where, if one is lucky, unpleasant memories go - our Christmases were idyllic indeed. But few of my holiday memories are better than the Motown, aka Motortown, Revue. *** In an annual Christmas week ritual of the 60’s, for a few years Motown’s “ Cavalcade of Stars” staged shows for throngs of Detroiters, black and white, but mostly black, who lined up around the Fox Theatre. It was better than the movies, the circus and Ice Capades wrapped up in one. Standing in line we shook with cold and anticipation as we waited in our new coats and dresses, crinolines starched tutu stiff and quivering like antennae. Excited boys pulled loose from grown-ups, finger-poppin’ and Temptation Walkin’, imitating their favorite singers on the icy sidewalk. Finally the doors burst open and the show began. Some of the artists were famous, some new; grueling bus tours, concerts and the Motown machine were molding them all into professionals. The Contours, one of the earliest Motown groups, clowned and sang in the old soul way, a doo-wop vaudeville that was smoothed out of Motown’s newer acts though we loved them just the same. The Marvelettes were fine with hair piled high, fringes shimmering in the lights. They sang “Mr. Postman” with the counterpoint claps and we thought they were as good as the Supremes - though of course there was no use arguing, the Supremes were the Supremes. There was light eyed, light skinned, light voiced Smokey, he and his Miracles made the girls swoon and scream, though I shared my Momma’s judgment, that he could neither really dance nor sing so well, but was still a genius, that was easy to see. “Just like Pagliacci did, I try to keep my sadness hid”, a cultured if ungrammatical lyric, one line out of thousands that Smokey inscribed. We danced to his intellect, sang to his rhymes; each new record proof he was a gifted urban bard. Then there was the moment when the incredible 4-Headed Microphone appeared onstage, heralding the coming of the Temptations. The medley of their songs began and they took the stage: sleek, dark archangels of cool, archetypal urban Black men, symbols of the Motor City. Marvin Gaye and Mary Wells, Velvelettes and Vandellas, took and shook the stage. We applauded the “stars”, though they performed at local clubs and high schools and could always be seen outside the headquarters of Motown, or driving around town in pastel Cadillacs. full _http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/musin-on-the-motown-review/_ (http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/musin-on-the-motown-review/) This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ 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
