[PEN-L:12582] re: Civil War
I am joining this midstream--so, sorry if this point has already been made. I think that the extension of slavery to new territory was favored not only by plantationers as such, who may have neede more fresh soil, but also by Eastern Southeners who did not plan to have plantations but who had seen in the expansion of slavery as a mode of production an increase in the demand for slaves: a commodity they sold to the plantationers. So, there was both a question of the soil and a question of the market for slaves. (just a quick note from some recent reading) Antonio Callari >** Reply to note from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) > >Marx's own analysis of the Civil War (written during the early stages) is >very much worth reading and cannot be condensed into a short post, but he >shows how the issue of extension of slavery was critical for Southern >slavery as its soil was getting depleted by cotton and tobacco production. >Thus, blocking the extension of slavery would actually be a death blow >to slavery, and the major battle lines leading up to the Civil War were >fought on that issue. > >Paul > > > >* >Paul Zarembka, supporting the RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY Web site at >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka and using OS/2 Warp. >********* Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:9807] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
There we go again! One of the points Steve Cullenberg made was that we can hardly afford to be fighting about these things. For example, we in RM, both personally and as a group notice when other conferences exclude us, or are not balanced in their plenaries, etc. Yet, as far as I know, none of us has ever attacked them for this, certainly not publicly, and not even privately--Doug Henwood knows that, for example, we discussed the socialist scholars conference in these terms. If there are mistakes made, on all sides, they should be occasions for discussions, not threats, public condemnations, and demonizing strategies. But I see signs of this type of stuff emerging again, in the context of this latest round of postings. A plea: stop this. The left has a tendency to behave as a group of Hyper people who, unable to find ways of putting their energies into productive and effective social change practices, turn their frustation inward and take up the favorite sport of sectarianism. This is not very productive. (Steve Cullenberg was speaking for himself, not for the organizing group as a whole, just as I speak for myself; the views about RM, etc. expressed by people are individual views, and a group, a project, a journal is always more than the positions, the merits, the mistakes, etc. of any one individual, steve cullenberg, or me, or anyone else. Doug, your reaction to Steve, in addition to being unfair to him--for I don't think he wrote what he did in the sectarian spirit you imputed to him--is unfair and problematic in that it turns into an attack on the journal as a whole. And the level of your critique is simplistic. There is both thinking and rethinking in the journal. For you to use the example of the plenaries to typecast the journal is simply to give free reign to the instincts you, and orthers, to attack! attack! attack! Attack who? us? for not having had balanced plenaries? Where is the public attack on other conferences that also do not have balanced plenaries, or even as balanced programs as the RM conference had? Not that I want to see this happen--but it seems to me that the criticism that the RM conference was bad because the plenaries were not balanced is more a cover for an attack on RM than a criticism about the lack of balance itself. And by the way, one simple reason for the lack of balance that I don't think anybody has yet explained, is the quite simple fact that we had some organizational difficulties. I would think people would appreciate the amount of work we did to have this, and other, conferences, and not use a disagreement with us, or a mistake by us, as a jumping basis for attacking us--or worse!) So: let's be kind, let's be friends, let's build together instead of tearing each other apart. Please! Antonio Callari >Stephen Cullenberg wrote: > >>Yet, we are not, and never have pretended to be, as ecumenical as say URPE >>and the RRPE. > >This then is Rethinking? My first reaction to the conference was too much >Re, not enough thinking, but now I'm even questioning the Re. > >A nonecumenical group of people who agree on fundamental things and view >plenaries as a form of preaching to a mixed crowd of converted and >unconverted? Did the presence of a large critical minority seem something >worthy of ackknowledging as something other than a personal attack? This is >exactly what I meant by the plenaries having shown signs of hardening into >orthodoxy, which as the postmodernists have taught us well, is defined >through exclusion. Is the devotion to polyvocality just another empty >signifier? > > >Doug > >-- > >Doug Henwood >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 USA >+1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax >email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html> Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:9771] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
I was at the conference (in fact, I was one of the organizers). There were some conflicts. Most of the conflicts were around the question of postmodernism. I don't want to enter again into the merits and demerits of postmodernism. The positions are somewhat known about that. I would like to say, however, that the impression that the conference did not address the question of "what is to be done" that is of interest to activists is, in my view, wrong. One of the plenaries was on the experiences of Latin American socialism. Again, one might quarrel with whether postmodernist forms of activism are valid, (and the discussion about a sociaslist strategy in Latin America, including a glorifying and moving representation of the Zapatista movement, did have a postmodernist tone), but that is quite different from saying that activism was not part of the conference. I think the gist of Blair Sandler's message was correct: that traditional, orthodox, views of activism were not the dominant ones in the plenaries, and in fact were not very welkl represented in the plenaries, and that those who held those views mistook the non-dominance/presence of these views as an absence of activism itself: which is simply incorrect. One other point to be made is that, perhaps, the distinction between academics and activists is sometimes overdrawn. The proper distinction should be between activist academics and non-activist academics. Most of the people who talk a lot about activism are themselves either academics (either students or professors) or enmeshed in a network of academic discourses and processes; just as people who are academics are often enmeshed in activist discourses and practices, even if they do not advertise it=themselves, or glamorize it=themselves, or romanticize it=themselves. Antonio Callari >I just heard a description of the "Rethinking Marxism" conference that >occurred in Amherst late last year. The reporter (Olga Celle de Bowman, a >sociologist from Peru) said that there was a tremendous amount of (verbal) >conflict between the audience and the speakers at the plenaries, something >I hadn't heard about before. She said that the activists in the audience >were objecting to the lack of answers to the key "what is to be done?" >question and the lack of any kind of orientation toward people outside of >academe. Was anyone on pen-l at the conference and has a different >perspective on the conflict? > > > > >in pen-l solidarity, > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. >7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA >310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 >"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:9771] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
I was at the conference (in fact, I was one of the organizers). There were some conflicts. Most of the conflicts were around the question of postmodernism. I don't want to enter again into the merits and demerits of postmodernism. The positions are somewhat known about that. I would like to say, however, that the impression that the conference did not address the question of "what is to be done" that is of interest to activists is, in my view, wrong. One of the plenaries was on the experiences of Latin American socialism. Again, one might quarrel with whether postmodernist forms of activism are valid, (and the discussion about a sociaslist strategy in Latin America, including a glorifying and moving representation of the Zapatista movement, did have a postmodernist tone), but that is quite different from saying that activism was not part of the conference. I think the gist of Blair Sandler's message was correct: that traditional, orthodox, views of activism were not the dominant ones in the plenaries, and in fact were not very welkl represented in the plenaries, and that those who held those views mistook the non-dominance/presence of these views as an absence of activism itself: which is simply incorrect. One other point to be made is that, perhaps, the distinction between academics and activists is sometimes overdrawn. The proper distinction should be between activist academics and non-activist academics. Most of the people who talk a lot about activism are themselves either academics (either students or professors) or enmeshed in a network of academic discourses and processes; just as people who are academics are often enmeshed in activist discourses and practices, even if they do not advertise it=themselves, or glamorize it=themselves, or romanticize it=themselves. Antonio Callari >I just heard a description of the "Rethinking Marxism" conference that >occurred in Amherst late last year. The reporter (Olga Celle de Bowman, a >sociologist from Peru) said that there was a tremendous amount of (verbal) >conflict between the audience and the speakers at the plenaries, something >I hadn't heard about before. She said that the activists in the audience >were objecting to the lack of answers to the key "what is to be done?" >question and the lack of any kind of orientation toward people outside of >academe. Was anyone on pen-l at the conference and has a different >perspective on the conflict? > > > > >in pen-l solidarity, > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. >7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA >310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 >"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:9405] Re: Max and the Social Democrats
Doug Henwood wrote: (Hi Doug). >There is something of a - and please forgive me for sounding like a >financial economist in service to the rentier class - principal-agent >problem in SD leadership, and in union leadership too. At the top level, >people find it easy to get seduced into being the junior partners of the >bourgeoisie, going to conferences with the bosses and their intellectuals, >having the perks and often the salaries of the elite, etc. And in America, >we have those damned foundations, the "third sector," the ruling class' >private semi-state, to seduce the leaders of rebellious oppressed classes >and groups. This is a problem I have come to know personally (and it's a problem of the ruling culture even more than the ruling class, or at least I think that's a viable formulation) and so I would like to say something about it. I think Doug is right to speak of the third sector as an agent for a transformation of society along lines pleasing to the ruling culture/class: it's a way the ruling culture/class has to manage things; and it's a way the ruling culture/class has to coopt leadership. Gransci's Southern Question, by the way, is about this last question: how the ruling culture/class absorbs the potential leaders of the opposition. There is not a too subtle logic at work. As I said, I see it personally. BUT, having said this, this is where the interesting problem lies: why does it happen that way? and what to do about it? what are the political/cultural lessons to be drawn from it. As I see them, the options are two. Either you think that the whole thing is a ruse of the ruling class (thus endowing this class with even more powers than it has: this is the danger of thinking of capitalism as a totality, etc. etc.), or you think that there are processes at work that have a logic of their own (communities, needs, etc. etc.) but that the ruling culture/class intervenes to manage--and, perhaps, the ruling class/culture can keep on being ruling only if it is able to manage these excesses of needs and communities it does not directly control, as in e.g., labor-power. These two ways of layering the ground for popular initiatives, as problems for and conditions to be managed by the ruling culture/class, lead to two different political attitudes. The first option, which is where I suspect Doug is [Doug, you can correct me if I am wrong], is that, since these initiatives are ruses of the bourgeoisie, they are to be resisted and avoided; they are to be branded for what they are, exposed to the world as such, etc. etc.. But, if the second understanding (that these are sites, with independent centers, that the ruling class/culture intervenes to manage) is correct, then the proper political attitude is that the left should get in there to fight it out, that these sites become places of struggle between the bourgeois way of addressing problems, responding to needs, etc, and a progressive/left way of doing it--a way of competing with the bourgeoisie. The danger of following the first strategy/response (renounce and denounce these efforts) if the second understanding is correct is grave: it makes of the left an irrelevant force, and it forces people, communities, to negotiate their dreams (for dignity, for liberty, etc. etc.) exclusively with bourgeois images, models, etc.. [Of course, the danger of the opposite type is that the left would waste its time trying to work in this area: but any more than trying to work in any other area? So in the end, if the bourgeoisie is really so much in control, why engage in any struggles whatsoever other than just at the workplace--but, what an empovireshed left that would be]. I say this with all the due respect. Perhaps I am wrong; since I am politically engaged, I ask myself these question quite often. I have no lock on the truth of the matter; just some knowledge and some intuition. But I do think the problem is extremely important for the left. I'd love to hear Doug's and others' reactions. Antonio Callari Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7509] Re: On Marxism
Doug, you ask: >Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a >particular direction? > Yes!, of course! but by transgressing the boundaries of philosophy (certitudes that always betray a conservativism of one form or another); or better, that in order to transform the world he found it necessary to challenge philosophy, etc.. The question here is whether Marx's critique of Pol. Econ. and philosophy aimed at replacing one "system" (of pol. econ, or of philo.) with "another," or rather aimed at a permanent critique mode. My answer is that the latter is the case, not the former; and I was applauding Craven's citation and recommending Balibar's book because, it seems to me, that they support this view. Marx did call for transforming the world in a certain direction; but his intervention was political, not philosophical, and one can read the whole of his work (i was about to write ouvre, but thought that perhaps that would sound too french) as a monument to the the act of taking political responsibility for one's choices and not hide behind the veil of philosophy (including science)--but N.B.: don't anybody, please, transform this into a statement that one can be ignorant about philosophy or science. Hope this helps clarify things. >At 9:54 AM 11/20/96, Antonio Callari wrote: > >>Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" >>(i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or >>the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; >>that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question >>the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either >>canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. > >Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a >particular direction? > >Doug > >-- > >Doug Henwood >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >USA >+1-212-874-4020 voice >+1-212-874-3137 fax >email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html> Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7497] Re: On Marxism
Jim Craven's quotation is quite apropos; i have always thought that this was a side of Marx that was underrated by classical Marxism--and necessarily so to the extent that "it" thought of itself as a "system." Balibar's recent "The Philosophy of Marx," I think, initiates a new period of opening up of Marxism that can reemphasize this critical side (without making the criticism of all things existing eventually rest on some abstract philosophical humanism, something that western marxism had practically already done in counterposition to the economism of "official" marxism.) Balibar's thesis--I highly recommend the book, and Balibar will be a plenary speaker, together with Cornel west at the coming Rethinking Marxism conference--is that Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" (i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. The only thing I would add (now, after not being able to resist the temptation to write the above) is that Marx wrote the sentences Jim quotes in a letter to arnold Ruge, in 1844. >In light of this whole pomo/anti-pomo discussion, I am reminded of >one of my favorite quotes of Marx I believe from a from letter to >Kugelmann in 1871: > > "If the construction of the future and its completion > for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what > we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless > criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being > ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results > nor fears conflict with the powers that be." > > Jim Craven > >*--* >* James Craven * "The envelope is only defined--and * >* Dept of Economics* expanded--by the test pilot who dares* >* Clark College* to push it." * >* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot) * >* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * >* (360) 992-2283 * "For those who have fought for it, * >* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * freedom has a taste the protected* >* * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) * >* * * >* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION * Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7482] Re: Fwd: Zapatistas
Hi Fikret it was nice to meet you in Montreal. I'll get in touch with Cindy Cotter; I may be able to help her. One of the plenary speakers at the conference Rethinking Marxism is organizing (Politics and Languages of Contemporary marxism) will know the scoop. I'll ask and pass the information on. Antonio >>I thought someone here might be able to help this person. >> >>Cindy Cotter >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>- >>Forwarded message: >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Talya Tibbon) >>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Computer-assisted Reporting & Research) >>Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Computer-assisted Reporting & >>Research) >>Date: 96-11-18 19:08:23 EST >> >>Hi, >> >>I'm looking for information about the Zapatistas movement in Chiapas, >>Mexico and particularly on their online activity. Does anyone know if they >>have an e-mail address in the jungle? >> >>Talya Tibbon >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Contact Harry Cleaver: >"Harry M. Cleaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >+Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + >+Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + >+Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + >+University Station, Box 8369 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + >+Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA + > Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7246] Re: Fwd: pomo and opera
Maggie, who are you? I think I like you. Antonio >No, opera is opera and pomo is pomo. I was merely observing my own reasons >for loving opera -- I'm sure there are many (hmmm, now that I've said that, I >suppose that's a very pomo statement). > >I still read pomo work, in fact, there have been persons, still alive, who >have pointed out some of the pomo content in my own work. One of my graduate >school professors said that my writing style would have to change -- writing >for rank and file rags had ruined my academic work. I took this to mean that >my work was not pomo enough. In fact, I feel I must read pomo work in self >defense -- so that I can understand these references to my own work -- is it >pomo enough or not enough or at all? > >Did you ever notice that someone is always trying to categorize academic work >into the latest trend? I think people do this because they don't actually >want to waste all that energy on truly understanding everything they read. > >If you understand this message in its entirety -- you have not been >completely won over to pomoism, you still have an open mind. > >maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >p.s. In all of this, no one has actually attempted a definition of post >modernism. When did it begin? Who started it? I mean, we know when Marxism >began and who started it, but who the hell is pomo anyhow? Even though I >recognize the helpfulness of SOME post modern theory, I feel that discussions >on pomo tend to be a little like waiting for godot. > >maggie >- >Forwarded message: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 96-11-03 22:46:45 EST > >Maggie, > Are you really saying that when you really found out what >the pomos were saying that you gave up reading them entirely? >Don't blame you, but the music is still beautiful! > Paul Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7242] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
>Sorry this bores you, but these are extremely important issues. And I think >there's something of a historical turn going on, with the pomo forces on >the defensive for the first time since their rise 20 years ago. Doug, I must say that this sounds like you had "us pomos" classified already on the enemy camp. The military metaphor in unmistakable. I shutter to think of the implications; I shutter more at my realization that perhaps I was naive in thinking that we were having a discussion within the left, rather than a "war" of positioning (Gramsci's term, I think, to refer to class war) or an "attack while they are down" mentality. Please reassure me to the contrary if I am wrong. But if that's really the way you feel, you can confirm that too. Antonio > >This discussion inspired me to pull off the shelf a copy of Materialist >Feminisms, a book by my old grad school friends Donna Landry and Gerald >"Mac" MacLean. Here, I think, is the nub of the political problem with the >entire pomo/deconstructive mode. Here's a quote from their discussion of >decon & politics (pp. 79-80): > >"Deconstruction can help us remain vigilant against the freezing into >orthodoxy of the strategic, self-reflexive politics desirable, and even >necessary, for a materialist feminist practice. As [Gayatri] Spivak has so >often insisted, 'Deconstruction cannot found a political proram of any >kind.' Deconstruction is rather a tool to be used within practical >politics, a critical movement that prevents the settling and fixing of >foundations and totalities. In order to conduct an argument, we rely on >certain premises, and these premises 'obliterate or finesse certain >possbilities' [Spivak] that question the very grounds of these premises, >their availability and vailidity. This might be undertood as the necessary >theoretical conditions and limitation of all practice. Above all, >deconstruction teaches us to pay attention to those moments when the limits >and constructedness of our arguments and positions may otherwise seem to >disappear" > >Yes, we should always question our premises, and avoid freezing into rigid >orthodoxies, but to quote the fellow whom a lot of this is directed, it >makes it virtually impossible to answer the "What is to be done?" question. >While it may have been appropriate 20 or 30 years ago to foreground >difference and premise-questioning, and to focus on the aspects of culture >as material practice (and as Mr Orthodoxy himself said, when an ideology >grips the minds of the masses it becomes a material force), I think quite >the opposite move is crucial now: to devise strategies for linking culture >and what we used to call the "base"; to see once again, in Volosinov's >famous formulation, the sign as an arena of class struggle; and to figure >out how to forge some unity among all the disparate actors that make up the >"working class." As Kim Moody has said, we have the opportunity to do class >right this time - now that we are full conscious of all the "articulations" >of race, sex, and nation. > >There's a temptation among some practical types to dismiss this all as >intellectual wanking. But I'm old-fashioned enough to think that what >intellectuals do matters a lot. The deconstructive turn - with its >attention to difference and reflexive self-questioning - has left a >tremendous vaccuum in political life. As the ruling class has been >consolidating itself on a global level - across the lines of cleavage like >nation, race, and gender - intellectuals who profess an attachment to the >egalitarian project of "the left" have contributed little to the formation >of an institutional or intellectual opposition. > >Michele Barrett has written: "[P]ost-modernism is not something that you >can be for or against: the reiteration of old knowledges will not make it >vanish. For it is a cultural climate as well as an intellectual position, a >political reality as well as an academic fashion." That reads to me like >surrender. Underneath it, I read a despair that any radical change is >possible. From that position, the temptation of playing games with signs >instead of playing politics seems fairly irresistible. Me, I'll reiterate >an old knowledge - the ruthless criticism of all that exists. > >Doug > >-- > >Doug Henwood >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >USA >+1-212-874-4020 voice >+1-212-874-3137 fax >email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html> Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7241] Re: A note form Michael Albert
retical apparatus many still hold today, by and large was contaminated with the tradition you bravely criticized; what is also true is that there has not been as much rereading and reconstructing, in a sustained and systematic way of the Marxian categories, as is needed to replace the old texts (i.e., the old ways of reading); but it is also true that this task of showing that there can in fact be a non totalizing Marxism, a Marxism that is nuanced towards democratic practices rather than toward bureaucratic planning, etc.. IS EXACTLY THE TASK WE POMO MARXISTS HAVE GIVEN OURSELVES--it is certainly the task I have given myself. It is a task that has evolved over time, beginning with my work with Rick Wolff and Bruce Roberts on Value, through my work with Jack on fetishism, and through my current work (which is finally both political/practical and theoretical). Again, I have tried to explain some of this in my other postings; but, since I was speaking to people who were attacking pomo from a traditional Marxist position, I have had to concentrate on explaining why I thought pomo does not contradict Marxism; with you, I would need to explain how Marxism is not a ruling class discourse. I have said it, but I can see that i haven't said enough to show/argue the point; but I will not go into it more in detail both because it would start a whole new discussion and because I have already spent hours and hours on this. > >I have to admit, all that said, the sentence that screams out at me in your >comments, Antonio, is the one about my being quite proud of being a >modernist, with the explanation that I was in physics before being in math. >(a) I could not define modernist if my life depended on it and I honestly >believe that other than in the phrase post modernist, used critically, I >have never used the label for myself or anyone else. I have to admit that I >wouldn't know how to. (b) If paying attention to physics or any other "hard >science" makes one a "modernist" (then yes, I am) and if "post modernists" >think one should transcend being a modernist to get on about something >superior, wouldn't that mean post modernists are saying that no one who >wants to be "with it" should clutter their minds or distort their >perceptions by learning anything like a hard science, or the methods of >hard sciences, for that matter? > >Quite remarkable. Now, now, Mike. Yor message had so far been a model of substantive argument; did you have to switch to this type of argument? You are a smarter person than that! I know it; and I know that you are careful and read enough (you are more careful than I am, by training, and probably read more than me, you always had high levels of energy) to know that it is not necessary to claim what you claim about hard sciences in order to be a postmodernist? You had made a similar type of argument in your write up in Z on the Sokal affair. It was, parenthetically, that piece that provoked me into the (half serious, but, I admit, half jousting) characterization of you as being proud of being a modernist. But, if you are smart and sensitive enough to see that, I can't figure out how you can honestly believe that pomo means you don't engage (and hence learn) the methods of science. I just think the issues are much more subtle than that; and that it is not one of the approved etiquettes of academic, including scientific work, to proceed by mocking one's adversaries, directly or indirectly, lest the discussion be transformed into enmity. Michael, it's been nice talking, so to say, with you. I am sure I haven't answered all your questions/points, perhaps I haven't even understood some of them. I don't know that we should continue this on this network; i know i can't keep up the pace of the last few days. But I'd be happy to continue a more private and leisurely conversation with you about all of this. Now, maybe that's remarkable. Antonio Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7235] Re: post modern courtesy
>Based on Norwegian experience, It seems obvious to me that our PoMo
>gang has one important unmentionable motive for what
>they do, the trivial and well-known academic motive of showing off. The
>H.C. Andersen story about "The Emperor's New Clothes" very often comes
>to mind.
>
>So far, a biased report from a simple-minded Norwegian marxist.
You sound anything but simple-minded. I don't doubt that some of the
criticisms you level may have validity (I don't know, not having first hand
knowledge of what you report); pomo may express itself in ways I would not
like either. It may even be a movement through which not very productive
traits and practices find new openings; but we could probably point to much
trash in traditional Marxists newspapers; in neither case does the trashy
(often, only simple minded and mechanically thought out) manifestation of
ideas and insights serve as the arbiter of the worth of the movememnt to
which they are affiliated. And a process of change is always messy. The
problem you describe seems to me to be more of a political/editorial
nature.
>
>Now to Antonio Callari who say(s)
>
>> ... And besides, if listening, as a prelude to
>> organizing, is not hardly new for the left, how come we (i hope there is
>> still a "we") have done such a miserable job?
>
>There is of course an alternative explanation for that, especially in
>the U.S. but also here in Norway: The total capitalist
>in-a-thousand-direct-and-more-subtle-ways dominance over the mass
>media/commercial culture/entertainment/consumerism.
Well of course. the question is what cultural arsenals the left has with
which to oppose this hegemony effectively. For every thousand ways in which
human impulses can be guided culturally towards the acceptance and
celebration of a bourgeois culture, surely there can/should be a counter
thousand ways to guide/nurture a different type of culture. The question is
about the theoretical framework that would facilitate a recognition of
these counter ways (I am beginning to sound a bit Adorneske, perhaps). It
does little good to recognize to affirm, by excessive concentration, the
totalizing powers of capital to hegemonize (totally), while not recognizing
the many subtle ways in which capital canb be resisted. On this point (on
how the left, by attributing to "capital" such totalizing powers, can
effectively debilitate itself) may I suggest: Gibson-Graham, The End of
Capitalism as We Knew It. And, by the way, it is in the postmodernist
inspiration that one can find all sorts of interesting suggestions on how
to theorize processes and things (consumption, desire, etc..) that
"capital" (to use the traditional term) has gotten to know well enough to
influence and effect but the left has not recognized and, consequently,
known how to effect.
>
>This is the Chomsky type of analysis which i subscribe to, and
>which of course is an alternative to the battery of post-modernist,
>post-structuralist, deconstructivist theories, which seem to believe
>that the problem somehow is in language itself, and in people being unable to
>accept, absorb and identify with the special traits of different subcultures
>("discourses").
It may not surprise you to hear that I find this to be a caricature of
postmodernism, certainly as we have been discussing it.
>
>IMO, you can do ANY sort of advanced analysis and identification with
>the language, fixations, value-system of a subculture you wish to
>mobilize - but the fundamental and decisive reason that it is difficult
>to reach results EVEN when you are good at this (which you of course
>may be even if you haven't read one word of PoMo theory, this is very
>much a question of your personality), is the extreme dominance over
>everybody's minds (our own, too) because of the daily
>commmercial/ideological/right-wing values bombardment from the media
>system. I see NO WAY out of this based on a pomo-angled strategy. It is
>now as before a question of "the ruling thoughts are the thoughts of
>the rulers", ALSO in oppressed sub-cultures, and EVEN if they consider
>themselves very "outside" mainstream society (gays, f.inst.).
>
>This does not mean i am a complete pessimist.
Yea! actually, I'd say that it's a theoretically produced pessimism, and
the book I suggested above (Gibson-Graham, the end of capitalism as we knew
it) may be a good antidote.
But the road to progress
>must build more on the Chomsky type of analysis than PoMo. IMHO.
>
>And, btw, Chomsky is merciless against f.inst. Lacan and Focault. What have
>the PoMo adherents to say this interesting conflict?
I don't know.
Antonio callari
Antonio Callari
Professor and Chair, Economics
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POST MAIL: Department of Economics
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
PHONE: 717/291-3947
FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7225] Re: pen-l courtesy
Jim Devine, > Sure, I'll absolutely condemn the personal attacks on leftist > professors that have shown up on pen-l. Such attacks don't > belong on pen-l. Thank you. That is the best way to keep any old battles and other problems, which you mention as worrisome in the rest of your remarks, out. > That said, I have a comment. I notice something in the above > quote and in other things that Antonio (and Steve) have said. > Perhaps it's my own inability to do literary analysis (;-)), > but I sure get the feeling that rather than being a discussion > of the pros and cons of postmodern Marxism (which is what I > had been thinking it was), it's only a small piece of a larger > totality. There's some sort of war that's been going on for a > long time. It's not just about postmodern Marxism vs. the > other types of Marxism and leftist thought that are in > circulation. It's not just about stereotyped pomo vs. > stereotyped "traditional Marxism" (which should be plural, > shouldn't it?) Rather, there's a large amount of personal > animosity that's accumulated over the years, linked to old > battles at U.Mass-Amherst (the nature of which I have just the > barest inkling). I don't really understand that animosity, but > that's one of my blindspots. I don't harbor any animosity; I like some theories and politics, and ways of doing theory and politics, more than others; i have agreements and disagreements, but i have never attacked anyone but have, in my understanding, only ever responded to what I have perceived to be attacks (not disagreements) on me and/or my friends. If I have ever done otherwise, my sincere regrets; but I don't think I have. This does not mean that there are no threads between my current position on postmodernism and Marxism and some of the older theoretical differences between me and others (although, it might surprise you, the links are not the obvious ones you suspect: my toying with pomo is a way of addressing what I think and thought were valid critiques of the more orthodox Marxism I was defending, although i always strongly rejected what I perceived to be exaggerated rejections of Marxism, both substantively and methodologically; my postmodernist leanings are, for those who will see this, a way of bridging the hithersto existing gaps between different traditions within Marxism: they are an attempt to resolve differences, a far cry from holding grudges). > > This hypothesis explains why Rhon B.'s cavalier and seemingly > off-the-wall comments provoked more heat than required. Or why > my efforts to get a handle on what "postmodern Marxism" is > exactly are ignored. Far from the case! I believe "we", certainly I believe "I", have tried to be very concrete on offering ways of getting a handle on pomo; and, in the process, i have consciously not used pomo language itself, but have tried to speak in very practical terms. I really don't have much time to spend on the internet; I have spent quite a bit of time exactly to respond to your and other questions. Or why my profession of ignorance (not > knowing "Derrida from dogfood") gets interpreted as an > _attack_, seemingly justifying skipping over the rest of my > missive. Or why Doug's silly reposting of an article about > identity politics was not interpreted as an effort to be > humorous. Or why the quote from Antonio above (and some of his > recent messages) suggests that the anti-pomotistas (or those > who have doubts about postmodern Marxism) are some sort of > unified force. But again, I may be over-interpreting. Yes you are! (And, as I said in my post to Henwood, I appreciate all leftists) > > Or maybe the problem is simply that e-mail makes > communications more difficult, so that we have to use > emoticons (smileys) as much as possible. Perhaps!' Or maybe we should > avoid all humor, sarcasm, irony, etc. I hope not! Antonio Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7100] Pomo: Swimming or drawning
nt (I am sorry, I do think there is a tradition of arrogance; there may even be a few arrogant actual people), then perhaps we can stop trying to define how to swim and bgin to learn how actually to do it. Antonio Callari Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6259] URPE
dear everyone, I need a fax number for the URPE office in Somerville MA--and I need it quickly. If any of you have it, assuming it exists, I would appreciate it if you could send it to me. Thank you. Antonio Callari Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6069] re: rethinking overdetermination
My! My! (If that is the correct idiomatic expression) Does all this talk about music and dance mean that there is something to overdetermination (the complex and open operations of displacement and condensation across processes--class and non-class) after all? Antonio Callari Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6068] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Michael, in Italy, opera was very much an arena of political action during the Risorgimento (a decades long struggle for italian independence from a number of 'foreign' powers.) Verdi and others were political figures as well as artists. It's true, of course, that italy was eventually unified as a bourgeois state: but the effect was not immanent in the cause/process (I hope I am not irking any Hegelians out there), and the process of unification was coalesced with a popular movement (Garibaldi, Mazzini) which was historically significant for its socialist (at least in its pre-marxian garb) tendencies. I too used to think that opera has a uniquely bourgeois connotation. A little history thought me otherwise. That some forms of music have served as the medium of elitism does not imply anything about their alternative potential; we certainly know that socialism itself has served as such a medium. In this country, it still does. Antonio Callari to>bill mitchell wrote about classical music. In Italy, the opera seems to >have been popular among more common people. Am I wrong? Were there >inexpensive opera tickets. > >With classical music, I do not think that it is only the music, but the >mileiu. No talking, just sitting quietly. > >In Wilenz's Chants Democratic, he describes how the working class plays >produced in the Bowery in New York during the mid 19th C. mocked the more >elite productions from Broadway. > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6013] re: re: overdetermination redux
tation, more so than it is in line with the reflective mirror
metaphor. [This, I think, is a very reasonable assumption. It certainly
seems to me to be more realistic than the "science" reflective model when
it comes to how societies and communities operate.] This approach to
texts/statements, etc. them almost naturally leads to a way of talking that
is characteristic of the AS school. Just like when unpacking a dream, those
in the school of overdetermination are aware that the reading of a
situation, a text, an analysis, is always contingent and open ended, that
there are twists and turns in the representation of what's out there that
are not unlike the twists and turns that the unpacking of condensed and
displaced dream images produces.
Now, this does not address directly the question of the eventuating factors
for these twists, this discursive openness. Certainly, it is possible to
explain this openness as itself a response either to the fluidity of what's
out there itself, or to the dialogic character of human (including
academic, and certainly political) conversation, or some combination of the
two. The AS school, I think, is groping with exactly this question with its
statements about how everything out there determines (or can) everything
else. I am a part of this school. I will admit that I am not fully
satisfied with how things are represented at this level; but I do buy into
the whole project ON ITS TERMS, so that the indication of problems, by
critics and sceptics, is a welcomed prod for us to get the story better,
but not, in itself, a reason for getting rid of the whole enterprise, of
the premises of the AS school.
Why? because I think the concept of overdetermination, as I have described
here, holds the key to a political problem and to the classic problem of
ideology in Marxist theory. With overdetermination, and with the structure
of human thought and communicative action it implies, I can visualize ways
of doing politics that are very different from those of the old left. For
one, one can give more, or a different, importance (theoretically
certainly, and in practice too) to cultural and political processes that
the old left strategy could, privileging as it did (does?) some tansparent
set of economic relations. Even if class were a purely economic phenomenon
(i.e, even if it were so read by us--which I no longer do), it would still
be the case that the cultural and political discourses of communities out
there would be in relations of condensation and displacement with class.
Whereas the old framework (of the reality of class interests either
reflected in true theory or misrepresented in false consciousness) led the
left to preach its truth to the misguided and misinforned masses out there,
the approach of the overdeterminist would be to engage in a dialogue, with
the proper tools of political discourse resembling more those of the
dialogue than of dictation or revelation. My preference for the
overdetermination perspective derives from my conclsion that these
dialoging tools are more effective as well as more preferable in themselves
(which is itself a left value). {N.B.; this does not mean that I would say
to everyone; hey, let's talk. I am talking about talking with those with
whom we want to organize in struggle).
Just to conclude: from within the overdeterminist perspective, there is no
more and no less of a difficulty with justifying one's option for a
socialism than there is from within the still traditional left perspective.
But, hey, if that's what works for you, that's ok with me. And, I presume,
that if trhat's what works for me, that's fine with you too. no?
Antonio Callari
Antonio Callari
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POST MAIL: Department of Economics
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
PHONE: 717/291-3947
FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6012] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
The answers to Eric's question (below) are: no with respect to the first
point, and a qualified yes w.r.t. the second.
[But, of course, my saying so will not necessarily resolve anything,
because a lot of Eric's retorts seem, to me, to insist on sifting
statements (at least mine, but I would presume other statements made from
an overdeterminist perspectiv) through the lenses of the very different
positivist (a la positivist science) perspective.]
On the first point, again, my statement said nothing about effects, and
certainly nothing about knowing an effect before the fact (the traditional
cause ---> predictable effect of positivist science), but only said
something about "conditions." i.e., a socialist societal structures will
create certain conditions--"I believe"--for a more humane world (but notice
that this does not speak to the question of the content of such
structures).
On the second point: my yes is qualified because Eric's formulation, again,
is in itself a bit of a problem. But, if I understand him correctly, he's
only trying to say that we think that producing a socio-economic
transformation will have more effect than introducing a new dance. Well,
yes, I believe that. But this is not inconsistent with overdetermination at
all. It is quite possible that people could get to desire a socialist
society because/through their emotive/intellectual connection to dance.
Funny, Tim Brennan wrote a wonderful article, soon to be published in
Rethinking Marxism, exploring the notion of a socialist mass culture in
Cuba to the role that salsa played in the reproduction communal
anti-imperialist identity of Cubans, thus linking the construction of
socialism, as a political and mass based process [and this is the key to
the usefulness of overdetermination] exactly to Dance. Now, I ask you,
isn't this an examople of a cultural processes which seizes the masses (or,
perhaps better, which the masses seize) and to that extent becomes a
material force, a precondition for the construction of socialism as
important as any economic plan. Now, I ask you, if you imagine, just for a
moment, being a political leader, a Gramsci or a Castro (and I am not
equating the two), rather than "an economist", would you underestimate the
importance of culture and insist on the primacy of the economic plan?
[After all, remember, that it was the bourgeoisie that created the
"objectivity of the economic calculus" and placed it at the center of
social life, and there is a rich intellectual tradition that links the
application of the facade of scientifici objectivity on social discourse to
the technological and cultural ascendancy of the bourgeoisie).
I posted a long message sometime ago about "overdetermination" as a
paradigm for the practice and theory of socio-political movements, not as
an ontological position.
>Antonio Callari wrote:
> > I did not write that a change to socialism would guarantee certain
> > outcomes (have predictable results), only that it would create
> > the conditions for some desirable outcomes--generally, a more
> > just and humane economic and social order, etc. etc. etc.
>
>This suggests that the transition to socialism will have an effect
>known before the fact ("would create the conditions . . "). I agree.
>
>This statement implies that the move to socialism creates more
>of these conditions than do changes in other parts of society. I agree.
>
>That is, Antonio is saying that he knows:
>a) the direction of effect of the transition to socialism and
>b) that the magnitude of this effect is larger than that caused
>by other changes in society. (Why else desire a change
>to socialism instead of a change in the way that people
>dance?)
>
>Are these two things consistent with overdetermination?
>
>Eric
>Eric Nilsson
>Department of Economics
>California State University
>San Bernardino, CA 92407
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Antonio Callari
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POST MAIL: Department of Economics
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
PHONE: 717/291-3947
FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:5995] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Back in August, Eric Nilson had written: > >RE Antonio Callari's comments: > > I have no problem . . . being called a humanist AS LONG AS THIS IS > > NOT MEANT ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL. My reasons for the > > option for socialism is that, indeed, I think capitalism treats people > > inhumanely and that socialism contains in it the conditions for escaping > > the inhumane tracks of capitalism. >I think that Antonio and I share the same sort of humanism. Yet, my >question is, is there any inconsistency between the theory of the >Amherst School and Antonio's ex-theory statements? He seems >to be suggesting that 1) the switch to socialism will have predictable >effects and 2) these effects are good. (Although I know he would >say that a switch to socialism might be necessary, but it certainly >isn't sufficient to improve things). > >Aren't these ex-theory statements directly contradictory of the >basic notions of overdetermination? Or, does the Amherst >School recognize/accept an apparent contradiction between >the Theory and the personal justification for using this theory >and for socialism? > >Or, if one thinks the switch to socialism will have predictable >and good effects, why not just use a theory that has this built >into it? > It's been a while, but i have not had the time to reply earlier. I am puzzled by Eric's comments. I did not write that a change to socialism would guarantee certain outcomes (have predictable results), only that it would create the conditions for some desirable outcomes--generally, a more just and humane economic and social order, etc. etc. etc. More than that I don't believe I said, or implied. So I have to ask myself why Eric read me the way he did. I suspect that he did this because he insists on reading things within a "science" context. And this is one of the key points of dispute around the question of overdetermination. So, I would like to recast the question as a question about the scientific versus the ethical character of the expression of a preference for socialism (which still leaves out a discussion of the content of "socialism"--and it is possible only to get so far in this discussion without addressing this content). A rejection of foundationalism (theoretical certainty, essentialism, etc.: the "belief" that one has "the" truth of things, in some objective and interpersonal or intertheoretical sense) does not imply not being able to have a preference, not having or expressing beliefs about social systems, or not taking ethical stands. In fact, taking a stand for socialism can only really be said to involve one in an ethical pose IF there is no ultimate scientific foundation that would guarantee socialism; after all, there is a difference between ethics and science (or, really, the meanings assigned to these two words). So, an expression of a preference for socialism does not have to carry with it the implications of a "scientific move," with the predictability of results, etc. [Steve Cullenberg has a piece in Rethinking Marxism on how a given economic system, socialism or capitalism, can be linked with a variety of possible outcomes on the scales of democracy, humanity, etc. etc.]. What type of socialism one would end up having would be the overdetermined outcome of a continuity of processes; it would never be guaranteed by a given structural transformation. So, the standpoint of overdetermination is not anthitetical to expressing a desire for socialism. It is only antithetical to thinking that we can have guarantees that things will turn out right; and it is an argument for the necessity of ongoing practices and processes to effect the creation and survival of a good society beyond any "act" of structural/economic transformation. [Finally, Eric, does your suggestion that we, you and I, share a humanism imply that you agree that we do not need a philosophical foundation?] Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:5648] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
and turns in the representation of what's out there that
are not unlike the twists and turns that the unpacking of condensed and
displaced dream images produces.
Now, this does not address directly the question of the eventuating factors
for these twists, this discursive openness. Certainly, it is possible to
explain this openness as itself a response either to the fluidity of what's
out there itself, or to the dialogic character of human (including
academic, and certainly political) conversation, or some combination of the
two. The AS school, I think, is groping with exactly this question with its
statements about how everything out there determines (or can) everything
else. I am a part of this school. I will admit that I am not fully
satisfied with how things are represented at this level; but I do buy into
the whole project ON ITS TERMS, so that the indication of problems, by
critics and sceptics, is a welcomed prod for us to get the story better,
but not, in itself, a reason for getting rid of the whole enterprise, of
the premises of the AS school.
Why? because I think the concept of overdetermination, as I have described
here, holds the key to a political problem and to the classic problem of
ideology in Marxist theory. With overdetermination, and with the structure
of human thought and communicative action it implies, I can visualize ways
of doing politics that are very different from those of the old left. For
one, one can give more, or a different, importance (theoretically
certainly, and in practice too) to cultural and political processes that
the old left strategy could, privileging as it did (does?) some tansparent
set of economic relations. Even if class were a purely economic phenomenon
(i.e, even if it were so read by us--which I no longer do), it would still
be the case that the cultural and political discourses of communities out
there would be in relations of condensation and displacement with class.
Whereas the old framework (of the reality of class interests either
reflected in true theory or misrepresented in false consciousness) led the
left to preach its truth to the misguided and misinforned masses out there,
the approach of the overdeterminist would be to engage in a dialogue, with
the proper tools of political discourse resembling more those of the
dialogue than of dictation or revelation. My preference for the
overdetermination perspective derives from my conclsion that these
dialoging tools are more effective as well as more preferable in themselves
(which is itself a left value). {N.B.; this does not mean that I would say
to everyone; hey, let's talk. I am talking about talking with those with
whom we want to organize in struggle).
Just to conclude: from within the overdeterminist perspective, there is no
more and no less of a difficulty with justifying one's option for a
socialism than there is from within the still traditional left perspective.
But, hey, if that's what works for you, that's ok with me. And, I presume,
that if trhat's what works for me, that's fine with you too. no?
Antonio Callari
>I saw Steve Cullenberg's posting on overdetermination and see
>that he is now a subsciber to pen-l. So:
>
>Steve Cullenberg writes,
>> Overdetermination . . . is a theory of existence which states that
>> nothing exists in and of itself, prior to and independent from
>> everything else. . .
>I understand (and 75% accept) the post-modernist claim that there
>is no "reality" out there. All we have are different knowledges
>of what we call "reality." (Skipping lots of steps), this then implies
>a two-way relationship between our knowledge of reality and
>what's out there: K and R are mutually constituting.
>
>Yet, I've always wondered where the notion of overdetermination
>comes from. This notion posits not only a two-way relationship
>between K and R but also many-fold relationships between
>ALL aspects of SOCIETY: all aspects of society mutually
>constitute all other aspects of society. This is a step that is not
>implied by post-modernist thinking (as far as my imperfect
>knowledge of it goes) , but takes the metaphor of the K-R
>mutual relationship and applies it to all aspects of reality/society
>without clear rationale.
>
>Further, the notion of overdetermination has a second side: it
>posits that all aspects of society have "equal" weight in that all
>processes play a part in constituting all other processes. This
>claim of "equal weight" also has no clear justification. We
>certainly could have an essentialist version of overdetermination
>in which all things affect everything else, but some things are
>"more important."
>
>That is, while the Amherst School notion of overdetermination
>certainly can be placed within the post-modernist framework,
>it is me
[PEN-L:5646] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
I can't resist: why is shawgi tell participating in this "purely academic" discussion? [not that I see it as such; but just to take it on his terms]. Antonio callari >Thanks for the input Paul, but you left one question sort of unanswered: >is this notion of "economic determinism" part of yet another purely academic >debate? > >Clarification: is the road to science a hard one to climb for workers >only, or others as well? And does this mean that the notion of "economic >determinism" falls under the umbrella of science? In my experience, for >example, worker-specific discussions are always more progressive and >scientific than discussion with academics. > >I have heard many use the term Marxist-Leninist besides J.V. Stalin. For >example, our mutual friend (in the philosophy dept.) is one of the editors >of a journal which calls itself Marxist-Leninist. In my estimation though, >it differs greatly from other Marxist-Leninist literature I have >examined. Numerous communist parties (e.g., CGPI, RCPB, CPC, CPB, >etc.) continue to develop Marxist-Leninism. They have produced what is >referred to as Contemporary Marxist-Leninist Thought. One of the >many features of Contemporary Marxist-Leninist Thought is the absence of any >kind of academic debate and a focus on the concrete analysis of concrete >conditions. > > >Shawgi Tell >University at Buffalo >Graduate School of Education >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
