On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^
> 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.
>
============
So presumption is just a way of redescribing a dogma. And you’ve presented no evidence that a dogma de-vulgarizes any propositions that may build a narrative with an explanation. So your attempt to evade the issue by shifting the burden on me not only fails but is subject to reflexivity; the burden is now on you to show that your attempt to shift the burden to me absolves you of your original burden and can make a burden on me stick.
So please, can you provide us with some evidence of just who the so-called monopoly oil capitalists [Russian? French? Chinese? British? US?] are that Bush-Cheney served and whether 11 years on they’ve been well served by by the last two administrations given the flow of oil from what was/is Iraq?
> ^^^^^^^
> 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.
>
> E.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> 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.
==========
You aren’t the only participant in the thread; what makes you think my statements were addressed to you personally?
I don’t need reminders from you regarding anti-intellectualism in the USA and elsewhere, thanks. Perhaps it is you who needs a friendly reminder of the pitfalls of reductionism and monocausalism implicit in the post I first responded to?
E.