>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 10/07/99 02:20AM >>>
Chaz wrote:
> Why do you keep thinkng of the notion of scientific discipline in
Marxism and connections between successive scientists as analogous to
religious dogma , such as your reference to the pope above ? <
a religious attitude toward knowledge (or science) asserts the possibility only of repetition of an already accomplished and whole doctrine, but that is neither what you are saying and nor what i was alluding to.
moreover, i did not insist on radical discontinuity, never have. i specifically asked: "is all we do "augment" and "develop", or is this also a process of critique and discontinuity, wrought by the force of changing circumstances, as much evident in the writings of (say) Marx and Lenin as between them?"
(((((((((((
Charles: No it is not all we do. Yes there is critique and discontinuity. Discontinuity is the quantity turning into quality, a quantum leap, in dialectical terms. This fundamental dialectic is quite active in science, including Marxism. My discussion and application of Marxism to capitalism 1999 is filled with referrences to discontinuities with Marxism in Marx and Engels' era and further discontinuities with Lenin's era ( as well as continuities) so it seems odd that you would ask me this question. My practice on this list has already demonstrated at length my answer to this question. You seem to only pay attention to my references to continuities.
**************** Angela:
read it again: it is a materialist supposition about the relation of these "scientists" to and in the world, and of the effects of the world on their science. and read your post again: you posed the relationship between marx, lenin and kautsky strictly as one of augmentation and development. this is papal, not because it is religious, but because it implies (falsely) that there is no discontinuity, no revision, etc.
Charles: No. You only read part of my posts. You see only references to continuity when they are replete with discontinuities. For example, I have explicitly pointed out that the world has "turned into its opposite" ( another way of expressing discontinuity dialectically, a qualitative change) with respect to one of Lenin's defining characteristics of imperialism: interimperialist rivalry. In fact, in the post to which you refer, my reference to Kautsky is to point this out. "Kautsky" and his "ultraimperialism" as a famous opponent of Lenin's , represents in my post a discontinuity (today) with Lenin's fierce interimperialist rivalry of 1920. As I have explained in a number of posts (including I think the one to which you refer as having no discontinuities with Leninism) , the events of the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Second Horrendous War of InterImperialist Rivalry (WWII), the Cold War against Socialism (requiring Interimperialist Unity rather than rivalry) has r! esulted in that rivalry turning into its opposite, unity. 1999 is characterized by the interimperialist unity that allows Kautsky's ultraimperialism to come to pass. So, my mention of Kautsky is exactly one of the discontinuity analyses that you are unable to see in my posts. The "only continuities" is in your mind, not in my posts.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
eg., by presenting the different popes as continuous, even though everyone in the church hierarchy knows full well that there are substantial and radical differences between each pope, the assertion of papal infallibility is (it is hoped) secured from worldly (popular) contestation. it's not a question of religiosity per se, but of locating final authority over interpretation and practice away from the 'followers' into some apparently mystical realm that no one else can access but we must nonetheless follow, repeat, etc. private knowledge of the discontinuity between succession is rendered into public assertions of fidelity, continuity and 'discipline'. not a religious doctrine so much as a cynical one.
(((((((((((((
Charles: All this poply continuity is in your mind, Bishop, not in my analysis. I have the proof in my copies of my posts. If you don't recognize a discontinuity between Kautsky and Lenin, then you don't know a discontinuity when you see one.
((((((((((((((((((
> Charles: Yes, quite. Why on earth would creation of a pool of cheapened
labour seem to disappear as an economic motive ? Only in your mind does it
seem to disappear. Of course, the imperialists are trying to create the
cheapest pool of labour in everything they do. Why would the war on
Yugoslavia be an exception ?<
you are not reading what i wrote. i wrote: "not quite, chaz. you tried to locate economic motives in the reductive sense of booty (ie., territorial grabs for resources), as did others who haven't to my knowledge called themselves marxists. within that framework, things like the creation of a pool of cheapened labour (ie., surplus value and class struggle) seemed to disappear as an 'economic motive'."
(((((((((((((
Charles: Yes I did and am reading what you wrote. You are wrong when you wrote and repeat above that "you (Charles) tried to locate economic motives in the reductive sense of booty (i.e. territorial grabs for resources". That is a false statement by you about my analysis of the imperialist war on Yugoslavia. I specifically said they are trying to get at the surplus value of the Yugoslavian workers. I specifically pointed to the fact that the military force being put in place would be able to drive down the wages of the Yugoslavian workers. Capital is not a thing. It is a relation. An exploitative relation between workers and capitalists. When imperialism exports capital ( See Lenin's _Imperialism_) it exports capitalist relations of production and specifically seeks to super-exploit its colonies and neo-colonies. The imperialist attack on Yugoslavia seeks to establish super-exploitative relations of production of Yugoslavian workers. You don't read my posts, so you should n! ot be prenouncing falsely about my analysis of that war. You project onto the version of my posts in your mind some error you delude about. That is idealism and religiious thinking , Bishop.
((((((((((((((((((
btw, that celebrated confidence of yours seems to evaporate into chest-beating 'me-tarzan-you-jane' anxiety pretty fast...
((((((((((((((
Charles: Don't kid yourself kiddo. I'm laughing at you. My confidence is fresh as a daisy. And as to Tarzan, I live in the city and I swing with Black women.
Again , you are projecting. That Tarzan/Jane and anxiiety stuff is in your mind and interpretation, not in my posts or my thoughts. Sounds like you are the one unsure and blustering.
(((((((((((((((((
> As a matter of fact since idealism reduces to the equivalent to religion,
it is your arguments that are more like those of a pope. Your arguments are
not more creative, less religioius, more open minded or whatever it is you
think they are than mine. > I repeat. Your arguments are more religious
than mine are. I am the atheist, materialist, creative, non-dogmatist,
scientist. You are not.<
you talking to me? you talking to me?
((((((((((((((((
Charles: No. I'm talking to Robert Dinero. What are you looking in the mirror, Alice in Wonderland ?
i'll go you a few rounds on Quake, anytime, anycyberplace...
((((((((((
Charles: I float like a butterfly and sting like a bee, virtually and actually.
CB