> >You take these disciplines as immutable facts.
>
>Au contraire. They are contingent variable bureaucratic (in)conveniences.
>
>Tahir: With no epistemological consequences whatsoever?
What do you mean? I mean, I was trained in part political science, do I
think that this has any epistemological conssequences vis a vis Kelly, who
was trained in sociology, I doubt it. It jsut means we read some different
books, can't imagine that has ainteresting epistemological consequences.
ANyway, can't you ever say, sorry, I misunderstood, I was wrong, or don't
they teach that to kids nowadays? Maybe it's not revolutionary?
>
>Tahir: So as an outsider with some kind of unexplained attachment to
>marxism (so to speak), what is your favourite variety of Marxism?
You are so proprietary! I don't think this is an inside-outside thing. Where's Charles, is he inside? You and I agree about 98% on the USSR, and he's on the other side of that. So what's "inside" here? My attachment to Marx is no more inexplicable than mya ttachment to Hegel or Rousseau or Weber or lots of other people whose work I respect without feeling obliged to adopt an ism. Fact of the matter is I don't see the point anymore, and it avoids unncessary debate about whether something is "really" Marxist, as opposed tow hether it is true or useful.
Who do I like? Analytical Marxists (Cohen, Roemer, Elster), Hegelian Marxism (Lukacs, Gramsci, Korsch), Walter Benjamin, Rosa Luxemburg, and of course the old man himself.
>
> >The decisions to trash the left opposition worldwide and in the SU itself
> >were not some sort of automatic consequence of Marx's thought,
>
>And did I say they were?
>
>Tahir: Actually you should go back and read what you said about the
>"conservativism" of marxism - you supported this with evidence from the SU
>and China. So you were making some other point then?
Yeah, that Marxism is always revolutionary. I wasn't saying that it is Bad, etc.
>> >Tahir: I think it is re-emerging, as the title of Barrot's 1970s piece
>>had
> >it: The Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement.
>
>1970s! 1970s! Tahir, wake up, this is 2002!
>
>Tahir: Sorry, the significance of this exhortation eludes me. I was just
>making the point that thinkers like Barrot had written off the SU and
>leninism years ago and had stuck to a very sound vision of the real thing.
>So guys like you who still throw the SU in the face of marxists have a bit
>of catching up to do.
You apparently mistake me for one of the people who thinks Marxism is refuted by the failures and collapse of the USSR. I do not. What I do think is that as a self-identified mass movenent that calls its Marxist, Marxsim is over, and has (so fars we can tell) permanently lost the ability inspire its intended constiturency, the working class. That does not mean that a substantial part of the substantive propositions of historical materialism are false; I think they are in the main true,a nd explain,a momng other things, the collapse of the USSR.
I said:
> >As to the second point, you tell me what it is to be revolutionary. The
> >workers and peasants soviets are not going to march on Washington, raise
> >the
> >red flag over the capital.
> >
> >Tahir: This has started happening already in symbolic and not-so-symbolic
> >forms too. The images I saw of Genoa, for example, were of a sea of
> >literally hundreds of thousands of people with red . . . >
>I assume you mean Genoa, Italy and not Genoa, Michigan, where a red flag of
>any sortw ould not get you mass support.
>
>Tahir: Give 'em time, give 'em time
How long?
>
>Well, I'm a liberal democrat, so a statist by your notions.
>
>Tahir: Yup.
Even worse, I believe in constitutional democracy, representative government, competitive elections, an independent judiciary, extensive civil liberties, all kinds of reactionary nonsense.
>
>Tahir: Do you have a bit of a problem focusing on the thread of the
>discussion? Bit of a short attention span then? (it comes with age you
>know)
Did anyone ever tell you that you are fucking jerk? I don't mean this in a hostile way, but if you don't do something about it now, it's gonna cause you problems in years dealings with others.
> What I said was that the term 'communist' was being reclaimed in the public domain by very different sorts of communist than the bureaucratic rightwing variety. The significance of Hart and Negri (I didn't think I would have to spell this out) is that they use the c-word with pride in a best selling book.
I guess I think it matters tht the book is a meringue, lot of air; and taht the message is pretty harmless. It;s sort of like Cornell West calling himself a Marxist, how cute. In the old days the term had an aura of menace, there was the intellectual weight of a mighty tradition and a lot of workers, and of course sevearl powerful states and revolutionary movements. Now it;s sort of a fashion statement, likeweraing a Che shirt. I am sorry you can't see that, but it's what Hardt & Negri's use and success shows.
> >
> >Well, since I'm a practicing lawyer and not a professor,
> >
> >Tahir: Now THAT makes sense!
> >
>
>What's this, a lawyer joke?
>
>Tahir: A bit sensitive, are you?
Oddly enough, I'm proud of my honorable profession. Apparently you think I'm a sellout ina suit (and yes I do wear a suit) ashamed and embarassed by your bright revolutionary purity. Not so. I even like wearing a suit. What do you do for a living btw, you a student?
>No it's not a joke - you have the pedantic air of a lawyer,
Don't know many lawyers, do you?
>and this also fits well with your respect for institutions such as the
>state itself and the various paraphenalia of liberal democracy,
Actually most lawyers are pretty cynical about this stuffr, we see it too close up.
>not to mention your need to credential your arguments with reference to
>your publications list.
Well, since I ahvea ctually worked out some the points we discussed in detail, it's more efficient to refer people to where I have rather than to try to type it out again anad again. Besides, those pubs represehnt what we pedants call accomplishments, what have you got?
>>Marx was trained in law.
>
>Tahir: He dropped it while still at university and switched to philosophy
>instead.
Which he also dropped.
>Could you honestly imagine the adult Marx as a lawyer?
Depends on the kind of lawyer. I can see him as Kunstler or Kinoy. Not as an Ashcroft or a big corporate defense guy. (Though Kusnlerdida lot of corporate defense.)
>That would be up there with imagining Bush as a homosexual, smack-addicted
>grunge fanatic.
Well, we know he was cokehead . . . .
jks
>
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com