🚀 go-pugleaf

revolution magazine wrote:
> 
> WHERE IS SOCIETY GOING?
> developing a marxist critique
>
Not a critique, more an agenda. A "critique" implies no action, whereas
an "agenda" does. 
 
> 
> POSTMODERNISM: THE CULTURAL LOGIC OF SLUMP CAPITALISM
> How is the slump and decay of society reflected at the intellectual
> level?  What is postmodernism and why has it arisen at this point in
> time?  Can we free ourselves through alternative discourses or is
> something more needed?
>
Everything that describes itself or is described as "post-modern" is
misnamed. At the instant that it is denoted as "post-modern" it 
immediately become merely "modern" and is displaced by the next
"post-modern" idea. And so the cycle goes on. Post-modern is not a
state, it's a transition.
 
> CULTURAL INVENTION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
> What is culture and how does it arise?  Can cultures be preserved or
> invented?  How does cultural invention amount to a form of social
> control?  Do we need to respect �cultural diversity� or defend
> universalism as the way to liberation?
>
Marxism is "cultural invention". In its purest form it has never been
tried (except, perhaps by early Christians). It is an *untried*
philosophy, and probably incompatible with human nature. But that is
also an untried philosophy!
 
> SCIENCE AND THE RISE OF IRRATIONALISM
> The rise of irrationalism is another of the �morbid symptoms� of the
> decay of society.  What forms does irrationalism take and why do so
> many, including people on the left, embrace it?  Why is science
> important to human liberation?
>
Gramsci also talked about "hegemony". The hegemony of science has led
to the rise of the reaction "irrationalism". There is a dialectic
between the "rational" and the "irrational" which is swinging favour
of the irrational.
   
Cliff

-- 
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke.

Any sufficiently advanced virtual reality is indistinguishable from
the real thing. Cliff Pratt.

In article <62ero4$6k2$2@clarion.carno.net.au>, j.stokes@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) says:
>
>In article <344AE498.5872@pophost.canterbury.ac.nz>, revolution magazine
><plf13@pophost.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>WHERE IS SOCIETY GOING?
>>developing a marxist critique
>

>
>Socialists have long used a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism
>to argue for their own particular cause -- I am as anti-capitalism (as it
>operates in practice) as any socialist, yet I am _not_ a socialist, nor do I
>think Marx got it right in any significant part of his theory (nor have his
>"followers" got it right with their patched-up Marxisms and Socialisms.)

Your thinking seems confused, as if you regard 'socialism' as something 
connected very closely with what most people think of as Marxism. In fact,
Marx and his ideas were just one strand in the vast historic interwoven
currents of socialism. Of course one has to 'patch up' what Marx thought
to make it relevant to the world as it is today, because Marx has for so
long been dead and silent; but to imply that socialism is also something
that 'died' in its original form a long time ago and has to be 'revived'
in a patching-up operation just shows you have succumbed to the New Right
propaganda against socialism.
>
>>SCIENCE AND THE RISE OF IRRATIONALISM
>>The rise of irrationalism is another of the �morbid symptoms� of the
>>decay of society.  What forms does irrationalism take and why do so
>>many, including people on the left, embrace it?  Why is science
>>important to human liberation?
>
>Karl Popper argues in "The Poverty of Historicism" that Marxism is a deeply
>anti-intellectual doctrine -- as well as its "predictions" being nothing
>more than nonfalsifiable psuedoscience, it endorses a number of very flawed
>philosophical ideas without perceiving their flaws.

Karl Popper was good as a philosopher of scientific theories that have 
little to do with the behaviour of people and the currents of history. He's
not so good when trying to apply his strictures to sociology, psychology
and politics. (In fact he was such a bad psychologist he caused a dreadful
happening here in Christchurch.) Sure enough, Marx would be more 'in tune'
than Popper with people who aren't intellectuals. And Marx in some of his
enthusiasm made philosophical errors. But he had a huge area of investigation
to cover in his intellectual endeavours, and many pratical handicaps when 
trying to set down his ideas in writing. He is not consistent. There's an
earlier Marx and a later Marx, and you can take things out of what he says
one way or another rather like the Bible. He had strong disputes with 
other socialist or left wing thinkers; and had he gone on living and working
some decades he probably would have become critical of a lot of his own ideas
and modified them. He would have seen the dangers of the successes of socialism
being aborted because they took place in the wrong kinds of society for his
brand of socialism: namely in fairly primitive non-industrial peasant-
predominating societies, instead of in the post-industrial-revolution 
capitalistic societies. We neo-Marxists are still waiting and expecting
and working for the revolution that must happen sooner or later in those
kinds of societies that Marx would have expected were more ripe for it.
>
>
'No man is good enough to be another man's master.' (George Bernard Shaw)

Brian

No, I think it is more  that the fat Marxist despots that run most African
nations consume what wealth is generated to build monuments in their honour.
They all seem well fed, whilst the "proletariat" suffer inhuman conditions,
all in the name of Socialism.

Bob
>
>In reality the technological and scientific progress made already shows
>that we could all have much better lives.  Even at the most basic level,
>take the example of hunger.  The technological capacity exists to turn
>Africa into a continent capable of producing enough food to feed 35
>billion people - about 7 times the current world population!  But this
>is not done, because under capitalism profitability overrides human need
>and the general improvement of human life.  Things only get produced if
>more profits can be made through such activity than anywhere else.  The
>profit drive actually acts as a barrier to growth and human progress.
>

revolution magazine <plf13@pophost.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in article
<344AE498.5872@pophost.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> WHERE IS SOCIETY GOING?
> developing a marxist critique

<snip>
 
> SLUMP CAPITALISM AND THE END OF HISTORY
> Why does society appear to have come to a standstill?  Why have the
> elite not been able to find solutions to the slump?  Are we at the end
> of history?  Is this as good as it gets?  
> 

Why has not communism (i.e. Marxism) been able to find solutions either?
after all they had 70 years in Russia to prove their point

-- 
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, New Zealand
Email Name: pdunford
Email Server:xtra.co.nz

Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
> 
> Where there has been any improvement in the living-conditions and prospects
> of the ordinary people of africa, it has almost always been within the
> framework of the socialist tradition; even tho some help from the capitalist
> West has had to be accepted by those who see some form of socialism as the
> only way out of the mess the continent is in. I suppose Mandela would be
> one of those.

Readers should know that the so-called capitalist countries have played
their part in fostering despotism by denying African countries markets
for their goods. A couple of years ago France vetoed a proposed South
Africa-European Union Free Trade Agreement, because it would upset their
farmers. It is the products of greatest interest to developing countries
face the highest trade barriers: agricultural products and textiles.
There is nothing capitalist about these barriers to trade. 

-- 
Market solutions for social problems
Market solutions for environmental problems
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/9856

In article <62flrf$eo8$2@clarion.carno.net.au>, j.stokes@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) says:
>
>In article <a147cd$142527.25a@MARLI>, Brian Paul Lilburn
><sambas@lynx.spambuster.co.nz> wrote:
>

>
>Nonsense.  I've never even heard of the New Right propoganda against
>socialism,

Well, you must have heard of it now, because you yourself are spouting it.

 I formed this opinion of it independently through my extensive
>contact with people in the Resistance campus socialist group.  Socialists
>have been taught not to think, it's as simple as that.  Suppressing your
>reasion is the only way that allows you to argue with any integrity that
>racism is solely a product of capitalist modes of production.

So you turn your back on socialism (altho you say you don't go along with
capitalism as it is operating at the present time) because some 'socialists'
you know have silly simplistic ideas! You're quite right. I despair sometimes.
But what brings them up to grasp at silly simplistic ideas? Why, the bland,
McDonalds-hamburger model of education they are brought up in, in this 
non-socialist country: "Keep your mind on sport, trivialities, and training
for your meal-ticket in the capitalist-run economy - stay off any profundity
or controversial, disturbing questioning of the 'status quo' ..." I think 
Karl Popper would agree with me on that, and advocate the teaching of 
philosophy (and historical scholarship) starting at a pretty young age. 
>

>>Karl Popper was good as a philosopher of scientific theories that have 
>>little to do with the behaviour of people and the currents of history. He's
>>not so good when trying to apply his strictures to sociology, psychology
>>and politics. (In fact he was such a bad psychologist he caused a dreadful
>>happening here in Christchurch.)
>
>Oh, please tell me.  I seem to remember you didn't want to have him -- he
>thought in a way that displeased you.

I don't follow your reference to what you "seem to remember". I don't feel 
like going into details about my reference to Popper in brackets, just to 
satisfy your curiosity. It may not be very honorable to some persons still
alive to do so. What I know I know thru hearsay, but from a person I think
could be trusted, as he wasn't directly involved, and he was head of the 
Philosophy department at Canty. He was Professor Prior. To say Popper 
caused a dreadful happening is probably too strong. It's certainly true 
tho, that he was part of the cause.

'To be possessed of an energetic mind is not enough; the first requirement
is to use it correctly.' (Descartes. - IMHO, neither Descartes himself nor
Popper succeeded in following this advice 'in toto'.)

Brian

 


>
>-- 
>Jason Stokes: j.stokes (at) bohm.anu.edu.au
> 
> I use a spam block.  Replace (at) with @ to discover my email address.
>

Patrick Dunford <noname@spammers.go.away> wrote:

>Why has not communism (i.e. Marxism) been able to find solutions either?
>after all they had 70 years in Russia to prove their point

Socialism actually predates Marxism by a good margin.  There are quite a
number of socialist thinkers (such as Bertrand Russell) who wouldn't have a 
bar of Marxism as it was practised in Soviet Russia.

I think one major difficulty with Marx is that he prophesied revolution but
didn't offer any model for post-revolutionary society.  Lenin attempted to
fill that gap and bred a disaster.

Another difficulty with Marx is that he assumed capitalism couldn't be
moderated to make it more civilised and acceptable to the bulk of society.
It followed that revolution was historically inevitable due to the inexorable
rise of popular discontent with capitalism.  It's hard for me to see how this
position can be maintained post-Keynes.

In short, I think it's time we discarded Marx and took a fresh look at
socialism.

TM

In article <62gr32$2ek$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Bob Bryan" <bobbryan@thewritstuff.com.au> says:
>
>No, I think it is more  that the fat Marxist despots that run most African
>nations consume what wealth is generated to build monuments in their honour.
>They all seem well fed, whilst the "proletariat" suffer inhuman conditions,
>all in the name of Socialism.
>
>Bob
>>
So Mobutu and Ahmeen (sp.) and the 'Emperor' Boccassa are (or were) 'fat 
Marxist despots?

Some despots (very few, actually) used Marxism as a leg up into power, and
then betrayed the working and and peasant people who put them there more
or less deliberately. The majority did their best but were overcome by 
the difficulties of the colonial heritage and post-colonialist economic
imperialism that they invited in for 'progress' but then couldn't control.
Some of them then turned bad on the principle "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Where there has been any improvement in the living-conditions and prospects
of the ordinary people of africa, it has almost always been within the
framework of the socialist tradition; even tho some help from the capitalist
West has had to be accepted by those who see some form of socialism as the
only way out of the mess the continent is in. I suppose Mandela would be
one of those.

'Progress imposes not only new possibilities for the future, but new restrictions.'
(Weiner)

Brian

South Africa and Mandela are a totally different kettle of fish. On a recent
visit to RSA, I found the market economy vibrant and strong, with more
opportunities than here in the "lucky country."

It's also well known that Mandela repeatedly turned down earlier offers of
release from prison because he feared assassination by the commos aligned
with the ANC.

You can't deny the atrocities by past and present leaders in Ethiopia,
Sudan, Mozambique et al, the majority of whom aligned themselves with
socialist policy and the evil empire.


Brian Paul Lilburn wrote in message ...
>In article <62gr32$2ek$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Bob Bryan"
<bobbryan@thewritstuff.com.au> says:
>>
>>No, I think it is more  that the fat Marxist despots that run most African
>>nations consume what wealth is generated to build monuments in their
honour.
>>They all seem well fed, whilst the "proletariat" suffer inhuman
conditions,
>>all in the name of Socialism.
>>
>>Bob
>>>
>So Mobutu and Ahmeen (sp.) and the 'Emperor' Boccassa are (or were) 'fat
>Marxist despots?
>
>Some despots (very few, actually) used Marxism as a leg up into power, and
>then betrayed the working and and peasant people who put them there more
>or less deliberately. The majority did their best but were overcome by
>the difficulties of the colonial heritage and post-colonialist economic
>imperialism that they invited in for 'progress' but then couldn't control.
>Some of them then turned bad on the principle "If you can't beat 'em, join
'em."
>
>Where there has been any improvement in the living-conditions and prospects
>of the ordinary people of africa, it has almost always been within the
>framework of the socialist tradition; even tho some help from the
capitalist
>West has had to be accepted by those who see some form of socialism as the
>only way out of the mess the continent is in. I suppose Mandela would be
>one of those.
>
>'Progress imposes not only new possibilities for the future, but new
restrictions.'
>(Weiner)
>
>Brian
>

I think You're right. Besides of that the new theory of R. Lucas jr.
says that every try of a state into an economy must lead to some
disturbances but will never be helpful.

>Outside a few anti-intellectual idiots in ACT and the Business
>Roundtable, and the propaganda of the Prime Minister�s Department, it is
>difficult to find anyone who thinks that we are living in the best of
>all possible worlds.
plf13@pophost.canterbury.ac.nz
snip

oh.... god... hey, guys Incase you have did not notice, the theory does not
work !   why, because in every group of well intentioned people, there is
always some barstard who gets greedy and takes advantage of everyone else..
human nature means socialism can never be anything but a nice theory
discussed by pusedo-intellectuals...

In article <62khop$33$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Bob Bryan" <bobbryan@thewritstuff.com.au> says:
>

>It's also well known that Mandela repeatedly turned down earlier offers of
>release from prison because he feared assassination by the commos aligned
>with the ANC.

"it is well known" is not good enough. Who knows it, how and where? Possibly
he feared assassination - how has that come to light tho?  And can anyone
say with any authority or proof that those who might be thinking of 
assassinating him were doing it because they thought he was an obstacle 
to Communism?
>
>You can't deny the atrocities by past and present leaders in Ethiopia,
>Sudan, Mozambique et al, the majority of whom aligned themselves with
>socialist policy and the evil empire.

This is utter nonsense. In Egypt and Ethiopia, even while the Russians
were putting in aid, the governments there were persecuting genuine
Marxists. In other places, like Mozambique and Angola, socialist 
post-colonial struggles were being subverted by the efforts of the
international extreme right, the US 'CIA' and White South Africa. In
the case of the Belgium Congo, the right wing elements in Europe were
involved in the destruction of socialist reformer Lumumba, and the
rise of Mobutu, a puppet of foreigners who want nothing more from
the Congo but to rip out its valuable minerals etc., and move on.

'Let us put the ideas of our mind, just as we put things of the
laboratory, to the test of experience.' (Locke)

Brian
>

On 20 Oct 1997, Jason Stokes wrote:

> Nonsense.  I've never even heard of the New Right propoganda against
> socialism, I formed this opinion of it independently through my extensive
> contact with people in the Resistance campus socialist group.  Socialists
> have been taught not to think, it's as simple as that.  Suppressing your
> reasion is the only way that allows you to argue with any integrity that
> racism is solely a product of capitalist modes of production.
> 
Ahh, so someone else has discovered that "Resistance is FUTILE"

On 22 Oct 1997 23:19:12 GMT, Alan Luchetti
<luchetti@DEL_CAPStalent.com.au> wrote:

>Maciej Skrobisz <mskr@novci2.ae.poznan.pl> wrote:
>
>>I think You're right. Besides of that the new theory of R. Lucas jr.
>>says that every try of a state into an economy must lead to some
>>disturbances but will never be helpful.
>
>Japan would disagree -- and has the economic success to prove the 
>validity of its disagreement.

	Yeah, I guess that's why they've been in recession for 5
years, a government budget out of control in deficit, a PM desperately
trying to free up Japanese industry (ie remove the much vaunted
inter-connectedness between firms which is no longer helping them), a
huge trade surplus (which is as bad as a huge trade deficit) and a
massively screwed up financial sector ($600bn in bad loans anyone?)
beset with corruption. Methinks you read too many 1980 Japan booster
books. Yes, Japan is certainly a shining example of economic success.
Glad my future isn't invested in Sumitomo Bank.
--
Troy Heywood
E-mail at troyh@cobweb.com.au

Visit my web page at http://www.cobweb.com.au/~troyh
I'm pro-free trade, pro-deregulation, pro-enterprise bargaining,
pro-foreign investment, pro-minimal government, pro-free speech,
pro-atheist and mighty proud of it.