And yes, I am a historical materialist in the sense that I think that economic and class relationships have explanatory primary in accounting for historical events.
I don't understand what relation you imagine that theory has to Kantianism or liberalism.
I am not a Kantian, although I have been a student of Kant's philosophy, and did make some attempt to help your discussion avoid some errors regarding his ideas. Both Kant's epistemology & metaphysics and his ethics are, as far as I cam tell, wholly consistent with historical materialism, really they are apples and oranges, but since I'm not a Kantian I don't have a dog in that fight.
I am a political liberal. That is a view about the proper role and structure of government and about the place of ultimate values in that government. This is relevant to but consistent with historical materialism -- nothing in saying that representive governent by universal sufferage with extensive civil and political liberties is the best form of government when it is possible precludes the explanatory predominance of the economy, and HM helps explain when it is possible. Likewise the view that politics inevitably involves irreconcilable disgreement about ultimate values, so these should not be the basis of political argument, is supported by HM for divided societies and not inconsistent with it in a hypothetical classless society.
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen
> No go, Charles. Your explanation is, as my daughter
> would say, random. The question is, why was there a
> big witch craze, specifically a sudden jump, in
> Europe
> in the period of roughly 1550-1670 -- that is what
> is
> being discussed.
>
>
> ^^^
> CB: That is part of what is being discussed. We are
> discussing a number of
> issues. We are also discussing why there is such an
> institution as belief in
> witchcraft at all. The materialist explanation for
> that is what I am
> addresing.
>
> Also, there doesn't have to be a vulgar materialist
> explanation for the
> sudden jump in that period. There can be, but from
> the materialist
> standpoint, every aspect of reality need not be
> determined by the material
> base or infra-structure. See Engels' letter to
> whathisname on this.
>
> Nonetheless there might be a materialist explanation
> for the leap. So, I
> don't say don't look for one. But there's already a
> materialist explanation
> here.
>
> Are you a materialist ? I thought you were Kantian
> liberal on materialism.
>
> ^^^
>
>
> Your analogy actually makes the
> point: the jump in lynchings in 1866-1930 has an
> obvious materialist explanation.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: There may be vulgar materialist explanations at
> this level, but there
> doesn't _have to be_ a cardinal or ordinal
> correlation of the superstructure
> and the infrastructure on every jot and tittle of
> historic changes and
> motions. The materialist explanation is sufficient
> at the level of male
> supremacist institution like "we believe in witches
> because women are prone
> to consort with the Devil, hisself"
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Also, unlike the general structural background
> factor
> with lynchings of maintaining white domination, the
> link to male suprematicist ideology is way too loose
> with the witch craze.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Sez you. We disagree.
>
> ^^^
>
> Lynchings were _admittedly_
> intended to keep African Americans "in their place."
> And the civil war and recomstruction had put
> absolute
> white supremacy in question.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: The materialist explanation is that that place
> is divided from the white
> workers.
>
> ^^^^
>
> Absolute male supremacy was not contested by
> anything
> so dramatic (or indeed I think contested at all) in
> Europe in the period in question, so there was no
> threat to quash.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Male supremacy is a standing institution in
> Europe from way back, and
> witchhunts as an expression of that institution,
> geez, look at that
> wikipedia article 425 AD.
>
> There have to be institutions which maintain the
> supremacy, state protected
> institutions. The oppression of women is enforced by
> the state continuously,
> not just from time to time. There's always a threat
> to quash, always
> resistance going on, struggle .
>
> Like Carrol says Marx answered the question , what
> is ? struggle.
>
> Women have been struggling against there oppression
> continuously since its
> origin. So, there is always a threat at some level,
> and male supremacist
> ruling class only retains rule by being aware of
> this.
>
> ^^^^
>
> And no one as far as I know admitted
> that witch burnings were intended to keep women
> down,
> that's not essential, but you need some more stuff
> in
> the middle than: predominantly male persecutors and
> predominantly female victims.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: Predominantly female victims gets me a _de
> facto_ case. All male
> persecutors.
>
> Also, this is part of the male supremacist state of
> society at the time. You
> are wrong. The facts all facts that establish that
> this is a male
> supremacist society in general, like all male
> officials, bolster the claim
> that the specific witchhunt is an specific instance
> of the expression of
> male supremacy. Also, that there are any witchhunts
> at all, whether more or
> less than last "season's witchunt" is an expression
> of the male supremacist
> ideology. Causeded by male supremacist ideology.
>
> ^^^^
>
>
> Otherwise all you have
> is a hand wave towards an explanation, not an
> explanation per se. The two points mentioned may be
> linked: it may be that women _happened_ to be
> predominantly the victims because they were
> powerless,
> rather than because they were women, even though
> they
> were powerless because they were women.
>
> ^^^^
>
> CB;
>
> If the women were powerless because they were women
> ( i.e. powerless because
> of the male supremacist ideology), and they were
> victimized because they
> were powerless, then by some sort of transitivity,
> they were victimized
> because they were women, because of male supremacy.
>
> I rest my case .
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com