Re: Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method,history and revolution

2000-06-28 Thread Carrol Cox
Jim Devine wrote: > At 12:17 AM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote: > >That leaves what I take to be the true dialectician, who is never wrong, > >because s/he's always content with the useless (by natural scientific > >standards of proof and prediction). > > a dialectician might never be wrong in terms

Re: Re: Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method,history and revolution

2000-06-28 Thread Joanna Sheldon
Hi Rob, >Just that most Marxists seem to agree that the development of a class for >itself would have to occur outside extant institutions. The theory being >that those extant institutions (including unions) are complicit in the >perpetuation of capitalist hegemony, and that any policy to advanc

Re: Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method,history and revolution

2000-06-28 Thread Rob Schaap
>How do you mean self-institutionalising? Just that most Marxists seem to agree that the development of a class for itself would have to occur outside extant institutions. The theory being that those extant institutions (including unions) are complicit in the perpetuation of capitalist hegemony

Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution

2000-06-27 Thread Joanna Sheldon
>Or is the central question to do with that self-institutionalising >dissenting movement? Human agency - the self-conscious drive to become the >subject of our history, if you like. I have no idea why these movements pop >up when they do - and why they don't when they don't. Neither the >hideo

Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution

2000-06-27 Thread Jim Devine
At 12:17 AM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote: >That leaves what I take to be the true dialectician, who is never wrong, >because s/he's always content with the useless (by natural scientific >standards of proof and prediction). a dialectician might never be wrong in terms of abstract theory, but when th

Re: Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution

2000-06-27 Thread Jim Devine
Justin wrote: >Jim, although his own work is more or less pure analytical Marxism as I >conceive it, is allergic to the particular prejudices and approaches of >the former AMs. Je ne suis pas un Marxiste analytique. (I'm sorry if my grammar is bad. It's been more than 30 years since high schoo

Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution

2000-06-27 Thread JKSCHW
Rob said: > Unlike Justin, I was actually enjoying his run-in with Jim (and Rod's apposite intervention) . . . Well, someone should, I guess. > Justin's impatience with debates about methodology might be the product of living in an intellectual environment where one finds oneself confonted w