Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Louis Proyect wrote: > > THIS IS WRONG, CARROL. IT IS NOT "PRACTICAL". IT IS "THEORETICAL". LET ME > REPEAT IT WITH EMPHASIS: IT IS A THEORETICAL QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH Lou, I followed with great interest the debate you and Mark had with Jim Heartfield some years ago and you convinced me pretty completely. I said at that time -- forget Jim Heartfield, and let's get on with it. In other words, you and Mark, so far as I can tell, have actually persuaded just one person -- Me! You haven't had the tiniest effect on anyone else as far as I can see. So what are you going to do with your one single solitary convert -- you are going to swear at him for saying, let's see how we can do something about it. It's pretty clear that you and Mark are no longer interested in socialist revolution. You much prefer to stand at the edge of the abyss and scream. I had enough of that shit with the Weathermen 30 years ago. You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark really seriously can only conclude that further political theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over. Forget it. Let's go to the movies. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Carrol Cox wrote: > you and Mark, so far as I can tell, have actually persuaded > just one person -- Me! You haven't had the tiniest effect on anyone else > as far as I can see. So what are you going to do with your one single > solitary convert -- you are going to swear at him for saying, let's see > how we can do something about it. Well, we reserve the right to cuss you in all circs. But you are wrong to say we didn't change anyone else. Even the 5 cats in my house are now deeply aware of what means an eco-footprint. You should see the way they tiptoe around me when I'm reading Brad's posts for eg. BTW, you were a weatherman? Interesting? Mark 'Sisyphus' Jones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Carrol Cox wrote: >You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost >deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark >really seriously can only conclude that further political >theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over. >Forget it. Let's go to the movies. That's not fair. As far as I can tell, Lou thinks that we need a socialist revolution; I'm not sure what Mark thinks these days. What I'm not clear on is what exactly this socialist revolution would mean for industrial and agricultural practice, energy sources, the transformation of the built environment, living arrangements, etc. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 02:06PM >>> Carrol Cox wrote: >You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost >deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark >really seriously can only conclude that further political >theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over. >Forget it. Let's go to the movies. That's not fair. As far as I can tell, Lou thinks that we need a socialist revolution; I'm not sure what Mark thinks these days. What I'm not clear on is what exactly this socialist revolution would mean for industrial and agricultural practice, energy sources, the transformation of the built environment, living arrangements, etc. )) CB: To derive these answers, lets start with Marx's species-being, and the fundamentals of historical materialism. Roughly, humans before anything else must eat, sleep and fulfill basic physiological needs. Given that, and given the claims being raised about threats to human survival by the current mode of production, an imperative of world socialist revolution today must be concentrating enormous intellectual and engineering resources in modifying the world's mode of production, relations of production and technique, to solve the problems of pollution and resource depletion. This includes the entire plan of classical communism to abolish private property, but must add more drastic modifications of some elements of capitalist technique than classical Marxism anticipated. Continuingly and especially central is the abolition of the private profiteering as the determining motive of the whole mode of production.
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Doug wrote: >What > I'm not clear on is what exactly this socialist revolution would mean > for industrial and agricultural practice, energy sources, the > transformation of the built environment, living arrangements, etc. > This is exactly the issue. The point is not to be original, the point is to be a kind if selfless subeditor and assembel and collate the stuff that's already been done, and spread it around. But you have to be directional to do it. You ARE directional, but in politically solipsistic ways. It would be so easy for you to lead debate in these directions, just as it would be easy fro Jim Devine to facilitate the discussion. But neither of you do it. You each prefer to be a primum diva in your chosen circle, and Michaelus Maximus is angry with me for pointing it out. Shame on all 3 of you. Mark
