>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/04 10:19 AM >>>
> (By "professional revolutionaries" Lenin did NOT mean fulltime
> revolutionaries. He meant ordinary people who were working for a
living
> but in what time they had for politics they trained themselves as we
> (By "professional revolutionaries" Lenin did NOT mean fulltime
> revolutionaries. He meant ordinary people who were working for a living
> but in what time they had for politics they trained themselves as well
> as possible.)
I think Carrol is basically correct,
CC: "4. If a real fascist (or some new kind authoritarian populism) were to arise in
the U.S. it could not be defeated by DP politicians. It could
only be defeated by the unity of a _real_ social democratic party _and_ the 21st c.
equivalent of a communist movement. But those urging us to
support
Carrol wrote:
> the concept of "stealing" a girlfriend turns the girlfriend into portable
property.
The same applies to men. Indeed, these days a problem for some busy men is
how you can get other men to screw the women under their care. But the
concept of stealing is ill-defined
there are at least two definitions of "original accumulation":
1) the forcible creation of capital as a social relationship between capitalists and
the direct producers, where the latter are separated from direct access to the means
of production and subsistence and so must submit to the former'
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
>However, arguing about definitions is a waste of time. Instead of saying "my
>definition is the true one" people should say "this is what I mean my this term" and
>"this is why this definition is useful."
>
This is correct, & my intervention in this thread should have b
litically with economic instruments
and threats to do what you want, then what forms of extra-economic coercion
can you use to maintain the stability of bourgeois class society ? The
science of extra-economic coercion gets an enormous boost and becomes a
highly profitable and lucrative area. I have men
Hi Joanne:
I agree with what I take to be your drift - the term "American" uttered
in some circles with a hatred, can be mis-used to 'blame all Americans",
for what the USA system has done. Point taken.
Agreed!
Hi Carrol:
I am not sure why you ask such a "pointed question&
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Louis Proyect wrote: I don't know whether Lysenko's reputation revolved
around quick,
technical solutions. I was under the impression that he was infamous
for quackery
> under pressure from Stalin.
-reply from Carrol Cox:
Lou, you've referred off and on to
Re: >Carrol:
by Rakesh Bhandari
16 January 2002
>
>^^^
>
>Rakesh, this post kind of undercuts your claim to understand Marx's
>theory and ideas more deeply than others here. Marx's theory of the
>business cycle was not a particularly important expression
I missed that. Obviously, I should have noted it.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:32:53PM -0800, michael pugliese wrote:
>
>Does that apply to Carrol, too? He said Rakesh was not interesting.
> Rakesh, is always interesting.
>Even handedness in the disciplining of list
Does that apply to Carrol, too? He said Rakesh was not interesting.
Rakesh, is always interesting.
Even handedness in the disciplining of list ecology, plz.
Michael Pugliese
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
All you have to say is, "my interpretation is ..." Others can decide for
themselves who is correct.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:53:53PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> >Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
>
> OK. Carrol is not only wrong but egregio
>Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
OK. Carrol is not only wrong but egregiously wrong that Marx's
accomplishment is best understood as the denaturalization or
historicization of both categories of political economy and the
bourgeois economy itself.
Rakesh
Rakesh, please leave the personal out of the discussions.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
business cycle is involved in 2)
>,but is not its only aspect.
Charles, did I say the business cycle was its only or main aspect?
And did I say that I understand Marx more deeply than Fred Moseley?
No, I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox.
rb
__
This reduction of
god technology) is
probably why on the whole Rakesh is so uninteresting to read.
Carrol
>Carrol:
What is the political importance of understanding the economics of a
>particular recession (or boom)?
>
>Marx's concern with crises, as with other features of capitalism, was
>primarily, it seems to me, focused on the question of whether capitalism
>was a "n
>Think it won't happen?
>It will. It is.
>
>Mark Jones
>http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
While I'm not against thinking about the future, I think it
inadvisable for socialists to portray an emergency in the future
tense. To paraphrase Walter Benjamin, "The tradition of the
oppressed tea
>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>Socialism will collapse in a few years, or else, in an even more
>>unlikely event of the Japanese victory, the battered socialist
>>government will have to build everything back up from scratch
>>amidst ruins, _who knows how_.
>>
>>And this if America doesn't bomb R
Dennis R Redmond wrote:
>An embargo which is lifted approximately one millisecond after Japan
>threatens to call in the 150 billion euros of the US current account
>deficit it's been funding for well over a decade, thus pulling the plug on
>the Wall Street Bubble.
How do you propose Japan would
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>the Japanese working class rise up &
> make a socialist revolution (of some kind). ... The US...
The Japs would bomb NY with MIRV'ed Citizen watches and other precision
objects until the Yanks gave up, surely, which is more or less what's
happening anyway.
The questi
>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.
>&
>>> [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 organiz
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 i
Tolerated disagreement would have to be within narrow bounds. I went outside them in
academia, and was cast out. I am now a lawyer. My experience is that intellectuals do
not enjoy disagreement on fundamentals. Chomsky is right that they are herd animals.
--jks
Short of mass working-class mo
t system, they will
> > continue to encounter frustration.
>
>This is wholly arbitrary. Until the working class is in motion, the
>intelligentsia in any numbers simply do not even recognize the existence
>of marxists, so you can hardly be having much influence on an audience
>
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
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
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 2:09 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:20795] Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
> Yes I agree the house is on fire. So what do we do?
stop discussing rock music, wat
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 y
Carrol:
>This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish" in my pen-l post. The
>problem posed by the four alleged "schools of thought" is not theoretical but
>practical, and your belief that any such theoretical work can be or needs to
>be carried out is as
gt; that the ecological crisis is rooted in the capitalist system, they will
> continue to encounter frustration.
This is wholly arbitrary. Until the working class is in motion, the
intelligentsia
in any numbers simply do not even recognize the existence of marxists, so
you can hardly be having much
be wage within
>marxism to bring marxists to recognize that the house was burning.
>Carrol
Actually, this is what I wrote in reply, but apparently it didn't register
on you.
>Neither you nor Lou has made the tiniest gesture towards working out
>how this makes the least practical differe
34 matches
Mail list logo
