Well, I used to work for a big union Litigation Department, which was at the
time 10 or so years ago about 50 yards to the left to the of rest of the union.
(Shh, don't tell anyone.) And we, or some of us, would discuss this at lunch or
after work. What are we doing in this place? (It wasn't a v
Now that's an ugly word, Charles. Did you make it up yourself?
--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Charles Brown wrote:
> From: Charles Brown
> Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The theologicalization of Marx.
> To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 4:07 PM
> Waistline2 9
>
>
You are correct. FYI the present IP edition of Vol. II "makes extensive use" of
the 1893 Kerr edition but names no translator. The MECWE identifies the
translator as Charles Untermann. MECW uses the Moore and Aveling translation of
vol I (approved by Engels, Aveling was his son-in-law) but not
It's not a Nobel Prize. It's Nobel MEMORIAL Prize. Not sure the point of the
question about the creation of the Prize (?) in a context of the fear of the
success of socialism, idea is that the Prize was meant to shore up capitalism
by honoring its apologists? (Not all NMP have been capitalist
Leontiff also won the Nobel Memorial prize in economics -- not for work he did
in the USSR, though. He had great respect for Marx, I believe contributed a
paper to an MR anthology on Marxist Economics put together by David Horowitz
(!) in the old days.
Oskar Lange, later like Kantoworitz a hand
The spell checker replaced Kantorovich with Kantorowtz, and I didn't catch it.
Please insert the correct name. Sorry.
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> From: andie nachgeborenen
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
issues raised by Karl Marx and
> the thinkers he inspired"
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 3:34 PM
> On 9/22/09, andie nachgeborenen
> No state exists anymore that even
> aspires to a nonmarket system, and none is likely to
> emerge.
>
>
> CB: I know
I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of
abstract consideration of "dialectics," particularly
where they are (it is?) discussed as a "method." Here
Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought that dialectics
was a "method" or at least a heuristic for producing
hypotheses. I have never seen any
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't speak to THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST, as I
> haven't read it, though it
> is gathering dust somewhere. The Dialectics of
> Biology group produced a
> couple of interesting books, mostly without mumbo
> jumbo, as I recall. I
> assume you mea
I actually met Goedel 30 years ago while a Princeton
undergraduate philosophy major. I looked up across the
table at the Student Center and saw him eating a
cheesesteak, a truly disgusting NJ/Philly concoction.
I was eating one too. I stammered and said, uh er, Dr,
Goedel, your work has given mea
"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been
experience" -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common
Law
No shit.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralph Dumain
> I'm not aware that he was a social critic, but
> according to Rebecca
> Goldstein, he was a first class metaphys
> > >
> > > VFR Was thinking of Hegel, not Gödel. From his
> biography, Gödel sounds
> > like he belongs to the same cloud-9, right-wing,
> mathematician category as
> > Nash.
I think just apolitical
> >
> > ^
> >
> > CB: Heisenberg was on good terms with the Nazis.
Good enough, though there
>
> In the case of Mach, he was insistent that
> scientific concepts must be definable in
> observational terms. By doing so, he maintained
> that physics could be purged of all extraneous
> metaphysical and theological notions.
> Thus, in his *The Science of Mechanics*,
> he delivered his famou
>CB: One thinks of Marx's comments about the need for
abstraction to
make up
>for inability to directly observe in certain aspects
of science.
Empiricists, hard-boiled phenomenalists, Berkleyean
idealists, etc., don't object to the use of sbatrction
in science. They wouldn't do science any diff
As Reisch describes it, the Unity of Science
> movement was
> committed to demonstrating the fundamental unity of
> the sciences
> including the natural sciences, the behavioral
> sciences and the social
> sciences, and the Unity of Science movement was
> interested in using
> social science to ex
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this particular
> work by Cornforth was
> later incorporated into his SCIENCE AGAINST
> IDEALISM.
>
> I'm still trying to process the fact that this
> person apparently trained in
> some sophisticated philosoph
> >
> > Lost it's hold? Recall whom Quine quotes in his
> > epigraph to Word and Object -- Quine was a
> > right-winger. In fact, Neurath's dialetical holism
> is
> > central to the internal deconstruction of LP by
> > Hempel, Carnap, and others, and corew to the
> emerginge
> > neopragmatism that
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with presentations of diamat is not the
> ontology,
Well Hegelian and neo-Hegelian "logic" is really an
ontology. People can disagree about whether it is of
more than historical interest; some of the Soviet
philosophers who worked in t
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You aren't jks, are you?
Yes
>
> All this info is fascinating indeed. In the final
> analysis, what are your
> or Jim arguing? Surely you're not judging the value
> of the Unity of
> Science movement by the politics of their adherents,
> are y
Charles, I think you do not have to be a Stalinist,
Trotkyist, or Maoist to differ with the position you
attribute to Ralph. Or eveb, necessaryy, a Marxist. I
say "attribute to" because I don't think Ralph
believes that philosophy should (is is be insulated
from politics in the way that Jim says (
This is, or was, an area of semi-expertise of mine
(ignorant as I am of the relevant languages) -- I
actually studied History and Phil of Science and
worked on the Galileo case. (a) Bellarmine was a
brilliant inquisitor and an able scientifiuc (as we'd
say) analyst; he had plausible criticism of Ga
Phil Gasper's an old friend of mind, very smart. This
is worth buying. jks
New from Haymarket Books
http://haymarketbooks.org/
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
A Road Map to History's Most Important Political
Document
by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
edited by Phil Gasper
Here, at last, is an authori
The degree of technological advancement in the middle
ages is also underestimated. These are the people who
built those cathedrals, invented three-field crop
rotation, and a good many technological advances.
Years ago I read a book by Lynn White on medieval
technology. True, technological developme
>
> The Science of Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois By Dr. Anthony
> Monteiro
>
> MONTEIRO: Pragmatism as articulated by James
> and later John Dewey held that human knowledge was
> severely
> limited to immediate experience.
Totally false. Ridiculously ignorant. Only an
illiterate or someone who ha
I never got anything out of Cornforth.
Maybe I should make another pass at him.
Maybe the reason that the exposition of the diamat is
awful i=has to do with the subject matter . . . .
jks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: andie nachgeborenen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Typically shallow.
> > Hook tried to drag Dewey into Marxism but failed.
Possibly. But Towards The Understanding Of Karl Marx
is the only book by an American Marxist one can
seriously compare to, e.g., Lukacs' History and Class
Consciousness. If it is a failure, it is magnificant
one -- a f
Marx rejected philosophy as ideology; I don'tthink he
paid special attention to metaphysics. Engels' piece
of Feuerbach is really limited to Marxism as the end
of German idealism. (As such he's probably right about
that, even if his idea that revolutionary practice
will replace philosophical anlys
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Brown :
> I have to admit that I speak about 1/5 tongue in
> cheek on the end of philo, but I do think that
> Engels is correct in the long run, and that much of
> those doing philo now are going over old issues that
> were settled a while a
Since when was materialism (the doctrine that all
there is, is matter) other than a metaphysical thesis?
It is true that Marxism has had litle to say about
metaphysics and most of what little it has had to say,
e.g., in Engels' Dialectics of Nature, has not been
very good.
--- Charles Brown <[EMA
> andie nachgeborenen
>
>
> Settled?
>
> ^^^
> CB: From the standpoint of Marxism, settled, or
> obsolete. Marxism holds that
> there is progress in human knowledge.
I dond't disagree. It seem to me, though, that
philosophy is defined by the big questions
Is quoting Rorty per se expressing oneself badly,
Ralph?
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JKS expressed himself rather badly for a
> professional philosopher, esp. quoting Rorty,
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the b
--- Jim Farmelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:01:01 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Ralph
> Dumain
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > JKS expressed himself rather badly for a
> professional philosopher,
Excuse _me_, Jim. Don't be a typical philosophical
snob. (Ralph is just being
So far as this goes I don't have much disagreement if
any. Marx thought that his turn away from Hegelian
philosophy. which he regardrd as the pinnacle of
philosophy up to that point, was the natural next
step, Hegelian philosophy having accomplished what it
could within the realm of thought and hav
quot;Philosophy" is a good old word, I see
no reasons to let it be hijacked by someone with a
specialized agenda.
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:10 AM 12/10/2005 -0800, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> >So far as this goes I don't have much disagreement
>
> One might well ask, what does it even have to do
> with the needs of Marxism?
> The mistaken idea of Marxism sequested off as a
> separate branch of knowledge
> and a special approach to science and even
> philosophy--where did it come
> from?
>
>
> CB: Marx
>
>
Where does Marx m
My point was just that this was a task that 2d and 3d
Int'l Marxism set for itself -- contrary to what Shane
says, it wasn't created by von B who in fact offered
a solution that works based on certain abastract and
unrealistic conditions. (That solution was adopted by
Sweezy in his Theory of Capit
Charles, M& E did not have, nor prestend to have, all
the answers. Circumstances have changed, new analysis
are needed of the changed circumstances, old ideas
were left half-developed and in any case need testing
and extension -- this is totally obvious,unless you
are a fundamentalist who thinks, "
.
>
> ^
> CB: It sems possible that Heisenberg may have had
> some rightwing political
> conscoiusness, I believe.
Heisenberg was fairly right wing. In his autobiography
he recalls serving in the militai that helped put down
the Spartakus rebellion, and of course, though no
Nazi, he later st
> ^^
> CB: The reason I say that is that Frank uses the
> term "thing-in-itself",
> which is pretty much associated with Kant. And Frank
> criticizes it as an
> idealist concept , which is the same thing that
> Engels and Lenin do.
Although Kant was a "transcendental idealist" and and
an "empi
>
> Engels terms Kant a angnostic
Clearly wrong, Kant is no agnostic about either the
empirical world we know or about the TII we can't
know. _Hume_ might be an agnostic, but Kant considers
himself to have answered Hume and Berkeley -- see his
secion in the CPR on the Refutation of Idealsim.
o
I've done what I can to explain why this is wrong.
Kant rejects the position you attribute to him, he
sxpressly argues against it, and he offers an
alternative. It is not what he'd called a
transcendental realist" alternative, which is sort of
what you want, the idea that we can have knowledge of
t
>
> ^^^
> CB: The definition of materialism I am using is the
> one Lenin gives in
> _Materialism and EmpCrit_. The existence of
> objective reality.
And objective reality is:
maybe
> realism about the "external world," that is, the
> claim
> that there are some things that are independent of
>
> results.
Absolutely. And some people think you can dispense
with the complicated stuff altogether.
>
> At 01:03 PM 1/10/2006 -0800, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> >You really must stop repeating the words of Engels
> and
> >Marx and Lenin as if they were gospel and requi
Well, "spirit" and "nature" are not transparent terms
either, not is "primacy," so it's not much help to say
that idealists make spirit primary to nature and
materialists vice versa. This is a Hegelian-flavored
formula that is highly specific to a narrow
philosophical tradition.
Moreover, Engels
Sort of up against the wall with two deadlines, so
very briefly
1) With Kant the issue is, the correct
characterization of his views (which is very hard),
and the incorrect characterization, as a sort of
Berkeleyean (which is easy). This matters for lots of
reasons, undewrstanding the context of
8:22 AM 1/11/2006 -0800, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> >Well, "spirit" and "nature" are not transparent
> terms
> >either, not is "primacy," so it's not much help to
> say
> >that idealists make spirit primary to nature and
> >mat
them what is this materialist
> realism
> >you are defending? What is the significance of
> >defending it?
>
> What have Quine and Rorty done to your mind?
Taught me how to think . . . .
Or is
> it the legal
> profession? Surely you know what emergent
> materialism is--of which
> dialectical
Fuck this shamefaced vacillation shit. Coming up with
an account of what realism might be that is not
vacuous and is reasonably coheremnt scientific is
really hard, also I am somewhat unclear on the point.
(I don't believe Charles' ide that it promotes atheism
or Ralph's idea that it fights irrati
d ended up at Hume, of
> course, but Kant arrived back
> at Hume UNKNOWINGLY !
>
> And then there's the great Kantian swallowing
> ontology up in epistemology
> question. How do ve know ve know ? Is it possible to
> know anything? Vell ,
> Kant, of course, I don
I'm also a moderate fan of sociobiology. A lot of it
is misused ideologically and involves bad science, but
you could say the same for Marxism in spades. Within
its limits, an especially in connection with sexual
behavior where you'd expect it to have most bite
anyway, I find a lot of the good work
That Esotonian fellow whose
> name I can't remember
> also wrote a book on what remains of historical
> materialism after a
> thorough analytical going-over.
>
>
Yewah, I have that book, forget the author's name. So
did Erik Wright, Andrew Levine, and Elliot Sobor,
Reconstructing Marxism, very
The concepts are not hard and I can't recall any
free-standing discussion of them. "Internalism" is the
ide athat scientific change is driven by factors
"internal" to science itself -- problems posed by the
consistency of theories with observation, the
coherence of the theories themselves, whether
An interesting idea, but it's a stretch. Internalism
emphasizes the thoughts of scientists, externalism
puts more emphasis on the broader social community.
But the thoughts of scientists are those of the
scientific community, and in Kuhn's standard version,
revolutionary science is a response to t
Kuhn said in his later years that he was sorry he ever
gave currency to the word.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andie: An interesting idea, but it's a stretch.
>
> ^
> CB: Yea, I saw your post after I posted.
>
> By the way, "paradigm" has gained remarkable
> currency in
Miles, bebop? I don't think so. He did play with
Parker for bit but that was before be made himself
into Miles. Bebop is high-voltage variations on chord
changes, set up the melody with eight or 12 or 16 bars
played in unison, then rapid fire solos, often
escalating to flurries of 32d notes, often
Bernal, in his Black Athena, has a scholarly version
of this argument.
This is dumb stuff, anachronistic and plain stupid.
Importing modern notions of "Black" and "white" into
the ancient world is anachronism, apart from the fact
that the Egyptians were not "black" in anything like
the sense inte
Political felinology, of course. Althusser, Hegel, and
Marx were deficient in this. It is Charles'
contribution to Marxist theory, where it goes by the
name of the study of Brownian Movement.
--- Phil Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reply to CB below:
>
> First of all, it makes
> the transf
I don't think that there is anything wrong with
biological explanations of social behavior if they're
sensible done with proper methodological standards.
One thing that has to be remembered in this context is
that a "biological" explanation --a proper one -- is
ipso facto an environmental explan
Without taking credit where it it isn't due, I made
this point (better) in a 1991 paper, Reduction,
Elimintaion, and the Mental (Phil of Science). But I'm
not importtant enough for anyone to read my stuff.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
I agree that any claim of reduction, whatever that may
mean in a particular context, has to be examined for
each case. I say this in the paper.
I argued (and I'm adding a bit here):
1) People regularly confuse reduction with
elimination, the demonstration that, e.g., genes are
DNA (this is puttin
>
> in the U.S. Smith Act prosecutions were initiated
> under Truman , a Democrat
> .
Roosevelt, actually. Against the SWP. The CPUSA
cheered them on. Sang a different tune when their own
leadership faced prison under the Act.
>
>
> The Palmer Raids were under Wilson ( I think)
1919. Sort
> As for critiques of Engels and diamat, there's
> little original left to
> say. Two sources that immediately come to mind are:
>
> James Scanlan, Marxism in the USSR (1985)
>
> Richard Norman (good) and Sean Sayers (bad), HEGEL,
> MARX, AND DIALECTIC.
Both excellent. See also:
Gustav Wetter
thanks for the ref, I'll get this book.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Soviet economic success
>
> http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7611.html
> Co-Winner of the 2005 Ranki Prize, Economic History
> Association
> Farm to Factory:
> A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Indus
Gbgkrxksnkphl? Mphlmp!
Brtzm.
jks
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Soviet economic success
>
> andie :
>
> thanks for the ref, I'll get this book.
>
>
>
>
> CB:
>
> welcome
> 1) ïðèâåòñòâèå
> * you are welcome to *INF*
> * welcome!
> 2) æåëàííûé
> ïðèÿòíûé
> 3) ïðèâåòñò
--- Paddy Hackett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paddy Hackett: I dont see how any serious marxist
> can forge an argument by
> using Kant's categorical imperative.
It's talk like this that helped persaude mt that the
term "Marxist" is merely an impediment to clear
thinking and socialist practic
>
> I suspect that when people argue that Marxism is
> incompatible with Kantianism they have in mind
> such people as Eduard Bernstein or Nicolas Berdyaev
> who started out as Marxists but who over time
> drifted
> away from Marxism.
So the Bolsheviks said about Bernstein, but why think
they had
It's true that Israel has an imperfect democracy which
privileges Jews on a racial basis(your mother has to
be Jewish), but which accords Israeli Arabs some but
not equal rights. It is in this respect better than
South Africa. Iran also has an imperfect democracy --
one where the guy with the most
The last thing W wanted ro be was a major philosopher.
The point of his whole later work was to "shew (Brit
sp.) the fly the way out of the fly bottle," and
reveal that philosophy was a sort of mistake. Of
course, if he felt that way he might just have stopped
doing philosophy and done something e
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All this is rather superficial, however. I think
> Ernest Gellner nailed the
> essentially conservative nature of Wittgenstein's
> philosophy.
Oh, agreed. W thought that philosophy done right
"leaves everything as it is." That is a quote or at
lea
These anti-Nietzsche remarks are childish. As I have
said there is a lot in to criticize, also to learn
from, but this Nietzsche the inspirer of Nazis and
racists is just stupid, I mean, idiotic, and I m not
using this in the Ralph Dumain "I'm pissed" sense,
it's really dumb and uninformed. This cr
equivalent of calling Marx
a proto-Stalinist. Don't take up bandwidth with that
moronic shit any more. That doesn't mean: don't
criticize N. Or Marx. It means: criticize them
intelligently.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen :
> These anti
Some short answers for misunderstandings:
N is not a racist, despite his talk of races. He
doesn't, e.g., think that whites are superior to
blacks because of "blood" or "race" or a lot of the
common 19th C & subsequent lies. He's such an elitist
that he thinks that most Europeans are pretty infer
Very scholarly, careful, state-of-the-art research.
Not terrifically sympathetic, to say the least. But if
you are interested in Soviet Russia, you MUST read
Service.
--- paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Robert Services book on Lenin any good. Also the
> ones on Stalin and
> Russia.
>
> Pa
I don't know if the BB wants racial harmony -- I
believe that there is somerthing to the divide and
conquer theory of the persistence of racism (John
Roemer has a theorem on this, FWIT!) -- although they
surely don't want race riots. But the BB has always
liked Affirmative Action. (It was urged by
WSS is coming to Chicago on tour, as a degenerate
Sondheim fan, I await this with considerable
eagerness. I am also a hopeless fan of gangster movies
and stories, and an occasional client. But the gangs
romanticized in WSS are so abstract and stylized it is
difficult to think of them in the same
The real hoods like their neighborhoods nice and crime
free. Youth gangs learn early, fast, and the hard way
not to fuck with the Mafia. I have sories, but later.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> As for the relationship between youth gangs and
> underworld crime, I
> guess th
The story about Joe K as a bootlegger is romantic but
untrue. The Kennedy money was from Rose F's dad, Honey
Fitz, Mayor of Boston, big time Mass politician, and
hand over first crook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Fitzgerald
Joe himself made his money as a successful stock
speculator and
extortion, bribery, and after
1970, RICO. But Daley p was never caight and Dalet F
probably won't be.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen
> The story about Joe K as a bootlegger is romantic
> but
> untrue. The Kennedy money was from
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> As originally posted to the Marxism International
> list:
>
Point of this blast from the past?
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of
It's a joke. How can it be an urban legend?
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Turns out this is an urban legend too.
>
>
>
> A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the
> airplane when the
> stranger turned to her and said, "Let's talk". I've
> heard that flights
I am not sure about what is wrong with staying close
to the intuitive judgments of science.
It is only partly accurate to say that falsifiability
has not received any interest among philosophers of
science. First, things are more complicated. The
question to which Popper posed the falsifiability
Never give this info on the phone unless you have
absolute certainty of the identity of the other party.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is this a suburban legend ?
>
> ^^^
>
> Jury Duty Scam
>
> DO NOT DELETE WITHOUT READING!
>
> This has been verified by the FBI (their
I didn't realize, altough I am not surprised, that Scott-Heron, whom I saw a
few years ago, was doin drug time. Art Pepper and Frank Morgan both did real
hard time. Art Pepper wrote a book about it, Straight Life, that is quite good.
Drug abuse among musicians is commonplace, unfortunately, not
lins Brass/Trio", as these were two of the only
> albums my uncle
> ever played out of his jazz collection. (The third was
> Earl Garner's
> "Closeup in Swing"--you gotta hear "El Papa
> Grande", baby, my
> all-time favorite.)
>
> I met Heron
Jacoby is really out of touch here. "Linguistic analysis" is at least a
generation dead. We are at least two generations from the last of the LPs; I
had the honor of being taught briefly by Carl Hempel, one of the last of and
greatest of the lot.
Hegel is off the untouchables list, at least s
Little in the training of analytical philosophers prepares them to do
historical scholarship. In this respect they are like lawyers who write legal
history, at best inspired amateurs. Sometimes inspired amateurs can be quite
good or better. Kuhn was a physicists who taught himself history of sc
--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Studying philosophy at the New School
> To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 4:20 PM
> Logical Positivism was a relic even when
> ^^^
> CB: I really don't have a dog in this hunt, and I
> appreciate the general survey of the state of philo, but I
> thought Jacoby said that Marx, Freud and Hegel aren't
> taught much. I didn't read what you said as majorly
> contradicting that. ??
Sop far as he's saying that, yes. So far a
ow argues that Marxian VT presages the triumph of
capitalism. The Chinese would love that.
>
>
> At 11:08 AM 8/13/2008, Charles Brown wrote:
> > >>> andie nachgeborenen
> >
> >If there are they aren't contributing much to a
> theoretical renaissance
>
n.utah.edu
> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 10:08 AM
> >>> andie nachgeborenen
>
> If there are they aren't contributing much to a
> theoretical renaissance
> of Marxism visible from the Anglo-American-European world.
>
>
> CB: Maybe we can dis
I used to have Anti-Oedipus, even taught some of it once many years ago, but in
accord with my current philosophy of selling anything I haven't used in 10 and
don't see using in another 10, I sold it on Amazon. I recall its been sort of
fun.
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ivel, and the guest of honor was Dick Gregory, who
> spouted more
> ignorant crackpot gibberish this time than I've ever
> heard him
> speak--and that's saying quite a mouthful. Apparently
> his illiterate
> grandma represents the sum total of human knowledge and
> CB: Ok, but the "theory" needed is more some kind
> of extraordinary
> strategy to get around the extraordinary viciousness and
> material power
> of the capitalists.it's not abstract theory,
> philosophy or critique
> of political economy.
Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden i
There is a different explanation that had some currency in Sovietological
circles. It is that Stalin's nationalities policies deliberately encouraged the
cultivation of national identities and differences, in part attempting to
secure central power by cultivation of local elites (often creation
Call me a Kantian liberal then.
I acknowledge the "linguistic division of labor," as Hilary Putnam (then in PL)
called the need to defer to real expertise that any given person necessarily
lacks. If I want to learn about medicine, I consult a doctor, if something is
wrong with my car, I take i
I have no intention of defending BHO's idea of taking the "war on terror" of
Afghanistan and, if he deems it necessary, to Pakistan. I'm a knee-jerk, US Out
Of ___ anti-interventionist, and even if I were not, the Afghan war is even
more lost than the Iraq war, if possible. I think the depar
96 matches
Mail list logo
