At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow
>from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to be
free. But one of his points, I believe, is that _a
Ricardo wrote:
He {i.e, Marx] also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of
social relations, and that humans can be re-constructed,
To which Justin responded., so this protest is unfounded.
Rod
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> On 17 May 00, at 10:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 May 00, at 13:20, Rod Hay wrote:
> Ricardo wrote:
>
> He {i.e, Marx] also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of
>social relations,
and that humans can be re-constructed,
>
> To which Justin responded., so this protest is unfounded.
>
> Rod
yea, and why do you sto
Jim Devine is doing an excellent job explaining this problem. I dealt with
it a bit in my new book, Transforming the Economy. Marx felt that it could
take generations for people to become ready to live in a cooperative society
without ANY outside authority. The word Dictatorship was an ancient
>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/17/00 05:25PM >>>
Jim,
Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
slightly. I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
one in most of his writings, the one for free devel
Marx was well aware that the political system of capitalism was a dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie, with bourgeois democratic republican forms shaped so much in favor of
the bourgeoisie ( see The U.S. Constitution and _The Federalist Papers_ for some of
the construction of U.S. bourgeois democr
>CB: Does Draper recognize that Engels is also a source on the Marxist view
>of democracy ( etc.) ?
Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements. For him,
"Marx" is sometimes used as short-hand for Marx
Marx feared the damage that Bakunin would do. They would make fierce
statements, just calling for repression, without organizing any base to resist
the state. I believe that they declared a revolution in Lyon without doing
anything to back it up. The police broke up workers' organizations that
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 01:08PM >>>
>CB: Does Draper recognize that Engels is also a source on the Marxist view
>of democracy ( etc.) ?
Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements.
What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
>My god. Where did he say that?
>
>Doug
_Monopoly Capital_, pp. 138-9. He also takes after slums and cars
with big fins, where he has more of a point...
>>
Brad De Long wrote:
>>Brad De Long wrote:
>>
>>>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
>>>Why was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that
>>>"One need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical
>>>composition, to recognize that the... the rock-
>K
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>on 19/5/00 4:16 am, Brad De Long at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Brad De Long wrote:
>>>
So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
Why was the world afflicted with, say, Paul
>CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
I've never sent a bunch of troops to suppress the beginnings of democracy
in Czechoslovakia. In fact, I've never killed _anyone_. So I guess that I'm
holier than the Soviets, though not necessarily holier than thou.
BTW, it's wrong to blame "th
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 05:05PM >>>
>CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
I've never sent a bunch of troops to suppress the beginnings of democracy
in Czechoslovakia.
CB: Democracy "began" when there when the Nazis were removed by the Red Army.
CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
>>
Sure, we have no right to condemn people who send artists whose work they didn't like
to die in labor camps, or, in palmier days, to have their thoughts corrected in
psychiatric hospitals. Now, why didn't that occur to me? --jks
>At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>>Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not
>>follow from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
>
>Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to
>be free. But one of his points, I believe, is t
>yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
>aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
>democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.
A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one
who believes in the free development of each and the
at
is a very surreal place in that far corner with all those overblown
statues on the graves of the CPF leaders.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:
>Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
>Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements. For him,
>"Marx" is sometimes used as short-hand for Marx-and-Engels, though in
>citations he is always clear about which said what.
>
>
>
>CB: Br
democracy, but his
personal conduct does not suggest that he practiced it.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:12 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19219] Re: Marx and Malleabil
>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 01:30PM >>>
The bottom line remains that once
things did not go his way, Marx did not respect whatever
rules of conduct there were in the organization and ended it.
He verbally supported some form of democracy, but his
personal conduct d
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 01:28PM >>>
>Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
>Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements. For him,
>"Marx" is sometimes used as short-hand for Marx-and-Engels, though in
>citations he is alw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
Aside from the fact that they were rather ugly, they were
also rather mean if one backed into you. If I remeber
correctly, there was a handful of news items on the
grisly effects of that.
Secondary effect: they prov
Charles,
Frankly, I see the "withering away of the state" as
a millennial vision, like the second coming in Christianity.
When John the Baptist met Yeshua bin Miriam he
declared that he was the messiah and the "end is near."
At various points over the last 2000 years, various folks
have decl
At 10:43 AM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
>What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
if a horse falls against a 1959 Cadillac, it can die.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 11:07AM >>>
Charles,
Frankly, I see the "withering away of the state" as
a millennial vision, like the second coming in Christianity.
When John the Baptist met Yeshua bin Miriam he
declared that he was the messiah and the "end is ne
Brad De Long wrote:
>I think that the line between Sweezy's attitude toward rock-and-roll
>and the suppression of the Czechoslovakian Jazz Section, or the
>bulldozing of Moscow modern art exhibits, is pretty clear. The point
>is not the "discrediting" of Sweezy, but how it came to be that
>pe
Brad raises an important question about the cultural development of Soviet-style
socialism. It has been noted that there are parallels between "socialist realism" and
the sort of art promoted under Nazism. This suggests that there is something in the
way totalitarian, or would-be totalitarian,
Brad, pen-l's resident contrarian, writes:
>I think that the line between Sweezy's attitude toward rock-and-roll and
>the suppression of the Czechoslovakian Jazz Section, or the bulldozing of
>Moscow modern art exhibits, is pretty clear.
Actually, the (disgusting) quote from MONOPOLY CAPITAL wa
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 02:45PM >>>
Brad, pen-l's resident contrarian, writes:
>I think that the line between Sweezy's attitude toward rock-and-roll and
>the suppression of the Czechoslovakian Jazz Section, or the bulldozing of
>Moscow modern art exhibits, is pretty clear.
> >CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
sez me:
>I've never sent a bunch of troops to suppress the beginnings of democracy
>in Czechoslovakia.
in response:
>CB: Democracy "began" when there when the Nazis were removed by the Red Army.
I guess we disagree about the meaning of the wor
1 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19343] Re: Marx and Malleability
>
>
>>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 05:05PM >>>
>
>>CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
>
>I've never sent a bunch of troops to suppress the beginnings of democracy
>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/21/00 03:02PM >>>
Charles,
Actually, Czechoslovakia was the only Central
European state to have a functioning parliamentary
democracy throughout the interwar period. Arguably
democracy thus began with independence at the end
of WW I. It
Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
Brad De Long wrote:
> >yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
> >aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
> >democratic and t
Brad writes:
>... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of
>each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the
>people have one single general will that the dictatorship of the
>proletariat expresses...
There are clearly two traditions in _Marx
At 12:25 PM 5/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow
>>>from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
>>
>>Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to be
>>
Not only that, but she came to Chico to visit Ivan Svitak. A lot happens up here in
the big city.
Charles Brown wrote:
> Yes, indeedy. Raya D. lived in Detroit for a while, and there is a Marxist-Humanist
>chapter here. I attended a number of their meetings a few years ago, and read a
>numbe
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> Bakunin
> and his allies had come to control a majority of the
> national groups that were in the First International.
> At that point, when they demanded to take control of it,
> Marx shut it down.
Actually, he moved it to the U.S., where Sorge shut it down, I
Yeah, I know, those old cars are fragile. I would never let a horse fall on mine. --jks
<< At 10:43 AM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
>What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
if a horse falls against a 1959 Cadillac, it can die.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~
> Brad raises an important question about the cultural development
> of Soviet-style socialism. It has been noted that there are
> parallels between "socialist realism" and the sort of art
> promoted under Nazism. This suggests that there is something in
> the way totalitarian, or would-be tot
CB: >Don't you think that as a genre, rock'n'roll is a failure, like the
Soviet Union, and hoola hoops ? Isn't rock'n'roll a sort of dystopia ?<
I don't think that rock'n'roll and the hula hoop were failures. Even if the
current crap is worthless (and I'm listening to Western-folk like Robert
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:18PM >>
>Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
anti-communist political aim ? <
that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
__
CB: I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for anti-commu
I'm a bit sceptical of using opinions on art as arguing points. I
wondered about this also with reference to Ted Winslow's
quoting of Marx's "man also produces in accordance with the
laws of beauty." By coincidence just before I read Ted's post
Yeats's lines
Solider Aristotle play
I think Brad is right that Marx didn't think much about political sociology from the
perspective of institutional design, or about how group dynamics might work in a
postrevolutionary society. I do not think that supportds the "two Marx" thesis, one
democratic and one dictatorisl. Marx was ent
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:58 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19152] Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>Brad writes:
>>... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of
>>each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the
>Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
>temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
>
>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>> >yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
>> >aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
>> >democ
Jim Devine wrote:
> >Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
> >Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements. For him,
> >"Marx" is sometimes used as short-hand for Marx-and-Engels, though in
> >citations he is always clear about which said what.
I met her several times in the 1960s. Detroit being not so far from here. (I used to
visit Fredy Perlman as well, another Detroit character). She was a wonderful woman,
but totally obsessive on Hegel. She liked Lenin, but primarily the Philosophical
Notebooks.
Rod
Michael Perelman wrote:
> N
>>> Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 02:21PM >>>
Jim Devine wrote:
> >Draper follows a somewhat controversial position, since he treats Marx and
> >Engels totally as a team, with no significant disagreements. For him,
> >"Marx" is sometimes used as short-hand for Marx-and-Engels, though
CB wrote:
> >Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
> anti-communist political aim ? <
I replied:
>that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
CB now replies:
>I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for
>anti-communist purposes, "good or bad".
arkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19327] Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>
>>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:18P
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:52PM >>>
So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
>___
CB: More than you deserve to be tweaked by art ?
Carrol wrote:
>
> I'm a bit sceptical of using opinions on art as arguing points. I
> wondered about this also with reference to Ted Winslow's
> quoting of Marx's "man also produces in accordance with the
> laws of beauty." By coincidence just before I read Ted's post
> Yeats's lines
>
> Solide
>Jim,
> Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
> Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
>slightly. I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
>one in most of his writings, the one for free development of
>people. But he did at certain points issue some rathe
In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< But he did at certain points issue some rather
sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourgeois
democracy and also painted a not so nice picture of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as well in
Brad writes:
>Or, in other words: "Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy! We
>directly express the general will!"
That's the perspective of many utopian socialists, Stalinists, and the IMF,
which sees its policies as Good For Humanity in the Long Run, so that it
doesn't matter if demo
G'day Charles,
You say "Materialist dialectics was Engels' , and not Marx's."
I rteckon we have to be very explicit and specific here.
I thought, for instance, that you and I had come to agree that materialism
is not the same as physicalism? Social
*relations* are material for Marx, and, i
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 11:42PM >>>
G'day Charles,
You say "Materialist dialectics was Engels' , and not Marx's."
_
CB: I don't say that. I said that one anti-Engels school says that. You remember the
big debate on Thaxis. Andy et al. vs. me, et al. Andy holds
Doug Henwood wrote:
> [snip] Ernest Mandel criticized in this passage
> from Late Capitalism:
>
> >[snip] (the actual extension of cultural needs, to the extent
> >to which they are not trivialized or deprived of their human content
> >by capitalist commercialization).
This whole passage from
At 04:26 PM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:52PM >>>
>So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
>equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
>
> >___
>
>CB: More than you deserve to
In a message dated 5/17/00 10:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
Yes, Marx was distrustful of the ideas of utopians, who laid out plans
for the future. He thought that people should organize such things on
their own when the time came.
Brad De Long wrote:
> I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
> how systems of self-rule and pe
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
might decide things that he could not imagine.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
>
>
> I susp
ED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19168] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>>Jim,
>> Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
>> Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
>>slightly. I agree that the first
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19169] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
><< But he did at certain points issue some rather
>
Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that "One
>need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical composition,
>to recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares at us
>exem
In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities
and poss
The problem with the "Dialectics of Nature" is that Engels tries to turn
dialectics into a formal system, and thus destroys the meaning of the word.
This synthesis-antithesis-synthesis crap does not appear in Hegel or in Marx.
Rod
Rob Schaap wrote:
> G'day Charles,
>
> You say "Materialist dial
I recall the week after J. Kennedy was killed, the bars did not have bands
as some sort of patriotic gesture. I still remember fondly how nice the
conversations were.
Carrol Cox wrote:
> One effect of rock music (quite aside from its excellence or lack of
> excellence as music) has been the dimi
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> I think that
> it is worth keeping in mind that his own daughter and son-in-
> law were gunned down at le mur des Communards in the Pere
> Lachaise cemetary at the end of that sad episode,
As I recall, they had a hairy time of it, but they lived to commit
sui
In a message dated 5/17/00 11:28:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class di
In The Closing of the American Mind, of course. ;) --jks
In a message dated Thu, 18 May 2000 12:16:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with,
Justin writes:
>I would add to this analysis that I think the democratic Marx was a lot
>more popular until the rise of the USSR; you see this in people like Rosa
>Luxemburg ... But the Soviet Unuion claimed the mantle of Marx and
>squelched democracy, So in the shadow of its prestige, the demo
Barkley wrote:
>BTW, in his personal political dealings Marx was not known for democratic
>tolerance. When Bakunin and the anarchists threatened to take control of
>the First International, Marx closed it, shut down the shop, took his
>marbles and went home and pouted.
this a partial picture
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of the most
"realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German
social democratic movement.
>In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
>with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
>critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
>naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities a
Jim Devine wrote:.
>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property
>ownership.
in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism of Hobbes in
_On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what is social
(property) onto human nature, to say that
sday, May 17, 2000 6:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19162] Marx's Daughter & Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx and
Malleability
>
>
>"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
>> I think that
>> it is worth keeping in mind that his own daughter and son-in-
>> law were
t the site in question.
> Barkley
> -Original Message-
> From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 6:26 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:19162] Marx's Daughter & Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx a
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Tussy committed suicide. The daughter in Paris, Laura, died early of
> natural causes, I believe.
Eleanor (Tussy) committed suicide in London in 1898. Laura married
Paul Lafargue. She and her husband both committed suicide sometime
after 1910. I have (long ago) read
e: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19221] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of
I wrote:
>>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize"
property ownership.<<
Mine writes: >in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism
of Hobbes in _On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what
is social (property) onto human nature, to sa
Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
reflected >Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
capitalist >competition.
Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
circumstances. He was also *normatively* endorsing ca
Barkley Rosser:
> The utopianism came
> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
> away of the state and "from each according to his
> ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice,
> but also very utopian, especially t
>Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
>reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
>capitalist competition. <
Mine writes:
>Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
>circumstances. He was also *norma
I would add one more thing.Weber's definition of state is quite
misleading. If state is defined in terms of monopolization of power,I
don't think this is unique to capitalist state. If you carefully read
Weber's _Sociology of Ancient Civilizations_, where he analyzes
pre-capitalist states, you wi
2 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19239] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
(fwd)
>Barkley Rosser:
>
>> The utopianism came
>> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
>> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
>> away of the state and
87 matches
Mail list logo
