Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
- Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share information as if I am an information processing machine but to discuss and debate and learn. I of course have my own explanation for why Marxists such as Carrol, Jim D, and Paul Phillips get into arguments with me and themselves resort freely to ad hominem arguments. At any rate, I certainly can't be accused of laying into Phillips first! And the whole idea that debates among Marxists should not be disputatious is just--well--so not like Marx himself. Rakesh === Disputing and discussing ideas and strategies is one thing but you *still* aren't winning friends and influencing people. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Debating and learning are at the core of what we are trying to do. Personal attacks get in the way. No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share information as if I am an information processing machine but to discuss and debate and learn. I of course have my own explanation for why Marxists such as Carrol, Jim D, and Paul Phillips get into arguments with me and themselves resort freely to ad hominem arguments. At any rate, I certainly can't be accused of laying into Phillips first! And the whole idea that debates among Marxists should not be disputatious is just--well--so not like Marx himself. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fault is in the PEN-L listserv software; it is the only list in which I participate that adds an extra re: when I reply to a post. It has to do with the fact that every message header is automatically changed by the software with a new number that eliminates the re: in front of the previous header, thereby fooling software into thinking the header subject has changed. I wish Michael would look into having the numbering of posts removed for that reason, but it is too valuable then we will just have to live with the multiplying re:s. Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15277] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nathan is correct that it is the software, which, as far as the school is concerned, is fixed in stone. However, what I thought Michael was suggesting was that people manually remove the re's before they send the message. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:04:46AM -0400, Nathan Newman wrote: The fault is in the PEN-L listserv software; it is the only list in which I participate that adds an extra re: when I reply to a post. It has to do with the fact that every message header is automatically changed by the software with a new number that eliminates the re: in front of the previous header, thereby fooling software into thinking the header subject has changed. I wish Michael would look into having the numbering of posts removed for that reason, but it is too valuable then we will just have to live with the multiplying re:s. Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15277] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re:Re:Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
Mark, Is it not also true that Marx had a stroke in the early 1870s that slowed him down greatly after that (and also did not exactly uplift his spirits)? I stand to be corrected on this, if not correct, as on so many other matters. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19410] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re:Re:Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd) Rob Schaap wrote: if memory serves, Marx held out hope for revolution by constitutional means within monarchies during his 1873 speech Memory serves you poorly. By 1873 Marx had already given up any hope or expectation of proletarian revolution anywhere. He'd based his life on the great throw of a dice: staked it on the belief that a newly-emergent social class, the working-class, would become a class-for-itself, with its own political culture, leadership and trajectory to power - a naïve belief based probably in an overestimation of Rousseau's conception of a civil society, in which 'classes' of people succeed one another in a kind of stately historical minuet; the fact that Marx's own conception of the w/c was protean, apocalyptic etc, that this was not a class so much as a furnace consuming history and reforging the world, was in contradiction with his optimistic Enlightenment core beliefs. When it became clear to him that this proletariat did not exist, and the one which DID exist was and would ALWAYS be quite incapable of reshaping the world, he turned to ethnography and begun blindly clutching at anthropological straws, in other words he abandoned the western European political field aka actually-existing Capitalism in toto, along with all its classes, cultural impedimenta etc. Right at the end one of the straws he clutched had Russia written on it and, poignantly, beside his death-bed was a large box stuffed with various pamphlets and writings about or from Russia. But this was just piling pain onto grief. It had all been the forlorn pursuit of will o'the wisps. Marx's political ideas were driven, as he was driven, by a burning desire, lust, for POWER (the next person on the scene to be similarly motivated was Lenin; Engels, that genial old duffer, had no such yearnings and by the time his life-juices ran into the sands of the latter-day 2nd International, his personal accommodation to the world had also, tragically or bathetically, become his political accommodation to late-Victorian politics, an accommodation to which he, fondly but quite impermissibly, assimilated his old friend Karl, whose days of incandescent political passion he no doubt remembered sentimentally. The sheer extent of Marx's despair at the end, his absolute repudiation of events as they'd turned out, his remorseless cynicism about the everyday world of labour-bureaucracies, with their time-serving placemen and greasy little deals -- this is something we barely know and can hardly guess at, but in fact his latter writings, as do his latter SILENCES, his failure to complete any of Capital after vol I (pub 1867) speak eloquently enough, once you understand what's going on. This was a man who had not expected to end his days in Bournemouth watching young governesses push prams and ply their trade; he'd expected volcanoes to erupt and to transfigure the geology of human civilisation, let alone its routine history. He'd expected to win power, to be a statesman for his elective class, and to begin epochal processes of change. It was not to be. He was a man who above all others had relentless and self-sacrificially sought after the truth, JUST BECAUSE he sought after power, and who had always striven to interrogate the world in the way which was MOST inimical to himself, in order not to hide from the truth, had therefore indulged himself as a thinker less than almost any scientist; one thinks of Plato, Newton (who also went mad, for the same kinds of reasons), Darwin, maybe Godel and a few mathematicians, but there are precious few others in the entire unfolding of western civilisation and none whose devotion to the unyielding perverse malice of facticity was more true, than Karl Marx's. Yet at the end of his life he was obliged to face the unyielding facts of absolute failure, absolute seeming-miscomprehension of the world he'd striven so hard to deconstruct. It is hard to imagine a more profound personal tragedy, a sense of a life completely wasted, than this, than must have afflicted him. The man's life was a tragedy consumed by terrible poverty and personal disaster. What sustained him through all of that, and made him hope that the bourgeoisie would rue his painful illnesses, was an incorrigible belief in the certain outcome of events, but it was not to be. He was not justified by events, and died painfully, in despair, defeated and in obscurity. Mark Jones
