Re: Re: RE: tompaine.com
Attacking people you haven't read and/or barely understand isn't my idea of what intellectuals are supposed to do ... Doug Unless, that is, what is not understood is not understandable. The following is from volume three of Robert Skidelsky's bio of John Maynard Keynes: Keynes's 'blind spot' about Marxism remained. A few days' holiday gave him time to read Joan Robinson's short book An Essay on Marxian Economics. 'I found it fascinating,' he wrote to her. 'This in spite of the fact that there is something intrinsically boring in an attempt to make sense of what is in fact not sense I am left with the feeling ... that he [Marx] had a penetrating and original flair but was a very poor thinker indeed' Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: Re: RE: tompaine.com
Carl Remick wrote: Attacking people you haven't read and/or barely understand isn't my idea of what intellectuals are supposed to do ... Unless, that is, what is not understood is not understandable. by which token sokal is as much a fool as those he ridicules, for i am sure i will find his papers in theoretical physics forever incomprehensible, whatever preparation i might undergo. chomsky, in these matters, sincerely suggests that in the hard sciences he can ultimately learn how to understand a theory - there are people who can teach him how to do that (presumably starting from some simple rational axioms that chomsky comprehends). chomsky of course is being too kind in assuming the same is true for all humans. even if every human being, in theory, can understand and accept the results of quantum physics, in reality the complexity of the process, the years of preparation needed for it, makes it possible only for a select few. until sokal and chomsky are willing to subject themselves to that sort of training (that the layperson would need to understand theoretical physics or linguistics) their comments, based on this particular line of reasoning, are premature (at best). of course sokal will respond that he understands and refutes the theories of the postmodernists. i understand neither, and as a lay person all i see is a turf war, with the confusions of the postmodernists matched by the childishness of sokal, and note the anti-democratic nature of sokal and levitt's defense of their particular brand of activity from outside criticism (i started my life on pen-l with a response to a post on these matters, pointing out levitt's opinion that democracy had outlived its use and your regular joe is not equipped to participate in making decisions, that activity now being best performed by utilizing the results of complex science. michael pugliese responded to my post with a set of links, one of which was a page that reported levitt to have said that he was being facetious, or something of that sort). --ravi
Re: Re: Re: RE: tompaine.com
Robinson, along with Meek, did to Marx what Samuelson did to Keynes -- show how his work could be interpreted in terms of respectable economics by removing much that is valuable. I doubt that either felt that they were violating the work that they were interpreting. I spent an afternoon with Robinson in the late 60s. She seemed like a wonderful woman, enthusiastic about Mao, disdainful of some of the profs. in the Berkeley econ dept. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
Kuttner, tompaine.com, and Moyers are political comrades. How much more 'left' one is than the other is a trivial question. How left they all are compared to your ideal, or to what you think is defensible, is more to the point. By the way, Paul Starr, TAP co-editor, is notably less liberal than Kuttner. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26772] RE: RE: tompaine.com also, is it true that Kuttner is pretending to be leftist by being associated with tompaine.com? or is he a tompaine.com-type leftist who is pretending to be more moderate in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT? or is he trying to build a coalition with the lefists? in any event, I don't think it's useful to attach a label to Kuttner and reject him. He says some interesting things, even though I don't like his focus on the wonderful[*] Democratic Party. The key is he a logical thinker who bases his conclusions on fact and doesn't leave important things (such as class relations) out? or does he provide an incomplete picture that can complement others' incomplete pictures to allow us to develop a more complete understanding and a guide for political practice? [*] irony intended. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26774] RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com Like Max, I really don't care how left someone is. It's not like there's a way of measuring such things along some hard-and-fast and objective spectrum. Besides, what's left changes over time. Back in the 1940s, supporting the state of Israel was quite a leftist thing to do. Now it isn't. Recently, I heard on pen-l that Noam Chomsky isn't as leftist as people think. He also can't walk on water. Similarly, I heard on pen-l that Alan Sokal was a social democrat. Who cares? Does his status as a social democrat imply that he's worse than some creep who runs a small sect of five people which claims to have the correct line (or program)? should we shun Sokal and reject everything he says out of hand? Just as Michael Perelman says we shouldn't characterize each others' politics, we should down-play the characterization of the politics of those outside the list. The content of their politics is more important than the label. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26774] RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com Kuttner, tompaine.com, and Moyers are political comrades. How much more 'left' one is than the other is a trivial question. How left they all are compared to your ideal, or to what you think is defensible, is more to the point. By the way, Paul Starr, TAP co-editor, is notably less liberal than Kuttner. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26772] RE: RE: tompaine.com also, is it true that Kuttner is pretending to be leftist by being associated with tompaine.com? or is he a tompaine.com-type leftist who is pretending to be more moderate in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT? or is he trying to build a coalition with the lefists? in any event, I don't think it's useful to attach a label to Kuttner and reject him. He says some interesting things, even though I don't like his focus on the wonderful[*] Democratic Party. The key is he a logical thinker who bases his conclusions on fact and doesn't leave important things (such as class relations) out? or does he provide an incomplete picture that can complement others' incomplete pictures to allow us to develop a more complete understanding and a guide for political practice? [*] irony intended. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
I largely agree with Jim. There are times when it is important to understand a person's politics; other times, you can do just as well to take what they have to offer. Chomsky is a perfect example for me. I don't agree with all of his politics or all of his analysis. But the vast majority of what he says has a wonderful influence. I wish that I could do as much good in the world. I sometimes listen to RadioNation with Marc Cooper. He was a horrible influence in the Pacifica wars in my opinion, yet sometimes he has interesting guests and even has some worthwhile things to say. I think of Marx. He could say positive things about, say, Malthus when he found something of value -- for example, when Malthus attributed greater productivity in England to a longer working day. He could also say negative things about allies when they were wrong. On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 01:34:15PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Like Max, I really don't care how left someone is. It's not like there's a way of measuring such things along some hard-and-fast and objective spectrum. Besides, what's left changes over time. Back in the 1940s, supporting the state of Israel was quite a leftist thing to do. Now it isn't. Recently, I heard on pen-l that Noam Chomsky isn't as leftist as people think. He also can't walk on water. Similarly, I heard on pen-l that Alan Sokal was a social democrat. Who cares? Does his status as a social democrat imply that he's worse than some creep who runs a small sect of five people which claims to have the correct line (or program)? should we shun Sokal and reject everything he says out of hand? Just as Michael Perelman says we shouldn't characterize each others' politics, we should down-play the characterization of the politics of those outside the list. The content of their politics is more important than the label. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26774] RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com Kuttner, tompaine.com, and Moyers are political comrades. How much more 'left' one is than the other is a trivial question. How left they all are compared to your ideal, or to what you think is defensible, is more to the point. By the way, Paul Starr, TAP co-editor, is notably less liberal than Kuttner. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26772] RE: RE: tompaine.com also, is it true that Kuttner is pretending to be leftist by being associated with tompaine.com? or is he a tompaine.com-type leftist who is pretending to be more moderate in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT? or is he trying to build a coalition with the lefists? in any event, I don't think it's useful to attach a label to Kuttner and reject him. He says some interesting things, even though I don't like his focus on the wonderful[*] Democratic Party. The key is he a logical thinker who bases his conclusions on fact and doesn't leave important things (such as class relations) out? or does he provide an incomplete picture that can complement others' incomplete pictures to allow us to develop a more complete understanding and a guide for political practice? [*] irony intended. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: tompaine.com
Yup. I talked with someone who recently interviewed for a job at DLC, and it was made clear that they *hate* Kuttner, and would love to see TAP vaporize. Which, if the rumors are correct, may be about to happen. Doug Kuttner's opposition to Clinton--the quintessential DLC'er--could certainly not be based on any questions of principle. Instead, it would appear that he grew hostile to Clinton only after the Arkansas politician went way overboard in pursuing his corporate agenda. In the beginning, however, Kuttner fawned over Clinton as did everybody else at the New Republic. Financial Times (London), December 17, 1992, Thursday Big deal at Little Rock: Economic summit solved no problems but it was a tour de force by Clinton By MICHAEL PROWSE THE two-day economic 'summit' in Little Rock that many feared would be a public relations disaster was a personal triumph for Mr Clinton. In 19 hours of televised debate he demonstrated his mastery of an extraordinary range of complex issues; indeed, as the tireless moderator, he seemed to have a better grasp of the minutiae of most topics than many of the invited experts. As one participant put it, Mr Clinton combined 'the leadership qualities of the class president with the expertise of the class nerd'. He also showed a keen wit. When Mr Robert Kuttner, an economics columnist for New Republic Magazine, lapsed into almost obsequious praise, describing the conference as 'magical' - the 'defining moment' of his presidency, Mr Clinton shot back: 'I hope it is not all downhill from here. ' -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/12/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
Devine, James wrote: Similarly, I heard on pen-l that Alan Sokal was a social democrat. Who cares? Does his status as a social democrat imply that he's worse than some creep who runs a small sect of five people which claims to have the correct line (or program)? should we shun Sokal and reject everything he says out of hand? Of course, he didn't really say much about the literature he parodied, in part because he's never really read it. Doug
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26794] Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com Doug, I wasn't defending Sokal. Instead, I was arguing against indiscriminate use of political labels, as if we should assume that someone is wrong on all counts just because they're a social democrat. It's probably true he didn't read the literature he lampooned very seriously, but he must have read it well enough to get published in that journal. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26794] Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com Devine, James wrote: Similarly, I heard on pen-l that Alan Sokal was a social democrat. Who cares? Does his status as a social democrat imply that he's worse than some creep who runs a small sect of five people which claims to have the correct line (or program)? should we shun Sokal and reject everything he says out of hand? Of course, he didn't really say much about the literature he parodied, in part because he's never really read it. Doug
Re: Re: Re: RE: tompaine.com
Speaking of the glorious days of Clinton, I was just reminded yesterday that Ira Magaziner was behind the ICANN mess as well as Hilary's health care fiasco. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
