^^^^^^^^ CB: In dialectical de-vularization, the presumption is that all capitalists are vulgarly self-interested. Even bourgeois political economy and neo-classicals take selfishness as a premise. So, the burden is on you in this case. The bourgeoisie put their private , individual property interest _way_ before that of their class brothers. In fact, in some ways they are in fiercer competition with other capitalists than their workers. One capitalist always kills many, and all that.
^^^^^^^ I do agree with CC on one issue; the binary of stupid/smart does not work well when counternarratizing the geo-eco-politics of warfare.
^^^^^^^ CB: All through his term I rejected the narrative of Bush as stupid. Check the archives on this list. He plays the role of dolt upon the successful example of Reagan. "Aww shucks ", " boys will be boys" , American cultural bullshit, appealing to a large segment of American white males, know nothings and all that. There's a big American anti-intellectual tradition. _______
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> My statement "Bush served only the monopoly oil capitalists, not the
>> whole class." is better termed "vulgar materialism". However, there
>> are many actual vulgar materialist facts in history. This is one of
> Well, the burden is on you to establish the truth of the claim via
> dialectical de-vulgarization, then. I'll remain skeptical until then.
> I do agree with CC on one issue; the binary of stupid/smart does not
> work well when counternarratizing the geo-eco-politics of warfare.