Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:15:56 +0000 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism Marsh/James Agreed very illuminating, I especially enjoyed the reference to the 'totalitarian past' and the complete avoidance of addressing the present. steve James Daly wrote: >Hi Marsh >Thanks for the illuminating reference, with its further references to >Milton Friedman et al. The lack of a sense of irony about the >original "modest proposal" is unbelievable. So is the unconsciously >ironic *deference* to the new constitution makers -- presumably the >Cuban people is meant, but in reality, if it were to happen, it would >be Bush and his successors. > >******************************************** > >"We submit in this article a modest proposal concerning how and how >much private property rights ought to be protected in a post-Castro >Cuban constitution. It is a modest proposal because we address it, in >a spirit of cooperation and deference, to those who will have the >historic function of creating a new political and economic system for >Cuba." > >********************** > >James > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:51 PM >Subject: RE: BHA: Democracy is capitalism > > > > >>Hi, >> >>You might want to look at >>http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/Research_Studies/GaribaldiDRAFT.doc. >> >>The Miami Cuban right equates private ownership of the means of >> >> >production > > >>with "democracy." >> >>Marsh Feldman >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU >>>[mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of >>> >>> >James Daly > > >>>Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:47 PM >>>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU >>>Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism >>> >>> >>>Hi Steve, Howard, DJ, Dick, Mervyn >>> >>>Sorry not to have got back sooner. >>> >>>Steve, I was responding to your extracts from Fuller as well as >>> >>> >your > > >>>own statements. I'm all for a philosophy of science critique of >>> >>> >Kuhn, > > >>>but equally for one of Popper. >>> >>>I can't see any harm in a Hippocratic-style oath for scientists, >>> >>> >but I > > >>>just haven't thought about it, which is why I didn't bring it up. >>> >>>The references to Popper as a social democrat seemed to be an >>> >>> >argument > > >>>against the possibility of his being a cold warrior. >>> >>>The statement that "Democracy is capitalism" was meant to be >>>provocative, but for a very good reason: it is true in practice. >>> >>> >When > > >>>Bush says he is bringing democracy to Iraq, he means >>> >>> >privatisation, > > >>>neoliberalism. The essence of socialism is found in Marx's attack >>> >>> >on > > >>>the Young Hegelians who exalted the bourgeois political struggle >>> >>> >for > > >>>the rights of man as worthy of human dignity, and despised >>> >>> >workers' > > >>>socio-economic struggles as mere stomach filling. Marx pointed out >>>that the dominant "right of man" was the bourgeois right to >>> >>> >private > > >>>ownership of the means of production, wherewith to exploit the >>>working-class. In "On the Jewish Question" he attacked the >>> >>> >bourgeois > > >>>manipulation of their con-trick separation of "state" and >>> >>> >"market", > > >>>and argued that humanism would mean reuniting the political and >>> >>> >the > > >>>economic as our "forces propres". >>> >>>I have written at some length on this in an article "Marx, Love >>> >>> >and > > >>>Enlightenment", which has been brought up-to-date and can be seen >>> >>> >at > > >>>this URL. >>> >>>http://groups.msn.com/JamesDalyandFriends/documents.msnw >>> >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> >>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> >>>Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:52 AM >>>Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>James >>>> >>>>Said "democracy is capitalism" - this is nonsense. Even Alain >>>> >>>> >Badiou > > >>>>does not make such a draconian statement - he puts forward the >>>>acceptable and arguable position the parlimentary politics as >>>> >>>> >>>practised >>> >>> >>>>today merely functions to make things work better by "turning >>>> >>>> >the > > >>>>spectacle of the economy into the object of apathetic, thought >>>> >>>> >>>obviously >>> >>> >>>>unstable public consensus." Badious's position is intelligent >>>> >>>> >and > > >>>>sensible and does not deny that 'democracy' has a place, just >>>> >>>> >>>radically >>> >>> >>>>critiques the way that the institutions function in our social >>>> >>>> >>>systems. >>> >>> >>>>Whereas James denies that democracy has any place in a radical >>>>understanding of society. [How nice to be so avant-garde...] >>>> >>>>Science should be more democratic and accountable - of course it >>>> >>>> >>>isn't, >>> >>> >>>>perhaps that's why it consistently fails to live up to our >>>>expectations... (When I was a teenager I was told that human >>>> >>>> >beings > > >>>>would have reached Mars by now - instead they produce better >>>> >>>> >>>lipsticks >>> >>> >>>>and robot dogs for Sony...) >>>> >>>>regards >>>>steve >>>> >>>>James Daly wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi Steve >>>>> >>>>>"a social-democrat like Popper could hardly be expected to >>>>> >>>>> >agree > > >>>with >>> >>> >>>>>Marx and Hegel" -- in fact they were prepared to annihilate the >>>>> >>>>> >>>planet >>> >>> >>>>>to to defend capitalism and save the world from communism. >>>>> >>>>> >Perhaps > > >>>he >>> >>> >>>>>should have called for social democrats "to adopt a version of >>>>> >>>>> >the > > >>>>>Hippocratic Oath to restrain their propensity for harm." >>>>> >>>>>One example of Popper's dishonest "scholarship" is his >>>>> >>>>> >misquoting > > >>>Marx >>> >>> >>>>>on a crucial issue as saying he wished to discover the "laws of >>>>>society", whereas Marx said "the laws of modern society", i.e. >>>>>capitalism. >>>>> >>>>>One can be a Cold Warrior without being paid for it, but >>>>> >>>>> >acquiring > > >>>the >>> >>> >>>>>status of a Cold War manual certainly helps a book's sales, as >>>>> >>>>> >it > > >>>did >>> >>> >>>>>Isaiah Berlin's. >>>>> >>>>>" '... to make science game-like and democratic as possible...' >>>>> >>>>> >". > > >>>>>Science is not game like or democratic: games theory is just >>>>> >>>>> >>>bourgeois >>> >>> >>>>>ideology; "democracy" is capitalism. >>>>> >>>>>"Popper's version of science is essentially dialectical...". >>>>> >>>>> >Popper > > >>>>>was always ferociously anti-dialectical, and his denial of >>>>> >>>>> >being a > > >>>>>positivist turned mainly on the philosophically minor grounds >>>>> >>>>> >of > > >>>being >>> >>> >>>>>a falsificationist instead of a verificationist, though in >>>>> >>>>> >addition > > >>>he >>> >>> >>>>>also implausibly said metaphysical statements could become >>>>> >>>>> >testable > > >>>>>hypotheses. >>>>> >>>>>"... pitting one hypothesis/theory against another over a >>>>> >>>>> >disputed > > >>>>>issue. This goes back to Athens, the model being Socrates model >>>>> >>>>> >of > > >>>>>questioning, constructed in the 18th/19th [this should >>>>> >>>>> >presumably > > >>>be >>> >>> >>>>>12th/13th] centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly >>>>>disputation' ". This is a frequently repeated but unconvincing >>>>>ontogenesis of dialectic, which I think began with Plato's >>>>> >>>>> >>>Parmenidean >>> >>> >>>>>and Heraclides inheritance, and his practice of hierarchical >>>>>classification. >>>>> >>>>>All the best >>>>> >>>>>James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> >>>>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:36 AM >>>>>Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and >>>>> >>>>> >other > > >>>>>fun stuff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Mervyn >>>>>> >>>>>>Within the philosophy of science perhaps the biggest argument >>>>>> >>>>>> >of > > >>>the >>> >>> >>>>>>century is between Kuhn notable 'The structure of`scientific >>>>>>revolutions' and Popper - like most people on the left I >>>>>> >>>>>> >also > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>assumed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>that the below rationale was broadly correct - Fuller has done >>>>>> >>>>>> >a > > >>>>>>remarkably good job of throwing this presumption into >>>>>> >>>>>> >question. > > >>>>>>I am not concerned to defend Popper regarding the Open Society >>>>>> >>>>>> >or > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Poverty of Historicism, after all a social-democrat like >>>>>> >>>>>> >Popper > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>could >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>hardly be expected to agree with Marx and Hegel, rather the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>interest I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>have is in Fuller's attempt to recover the philosophy of >>>>>> >>>>>> >'science' > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>'knowledge' from the predominance of the relativist Kuhn's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>paradigm >>> >>> >>>>>>shifts, 'where knowledge is adequate to its objects'. The >>>>>> >>>>>> >argument > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>goes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>that Popper '...took seriously both that science aspires to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>universal >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>knowledge and that scientists - our representatives in this >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>project >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>are >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>inherently flawed and biased agents. The result was to make >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>science >>> >>> >>>>>>game-like and democratic as possible...' But to clarify this >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Popper's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>version of science is essentially dialectical pitting one >>>>>>hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed issue. This >>>>>> >>>>>> >goes > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>back >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>to Athens, the model being Socrates model of questioning, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>constructed in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>the 18th/19th centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly >>>>>>disputation', from this derives the German dialectical >>>>>> >>>>>> >tradition > > >>>and >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>course Hegel and Marx. An example of this dispute in a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>non-science >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>area >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>is the Popper/Adorno dispute over positivism which when looked >>>>>> >>>>>> >at > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>shows >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>perhaps rather typically that they are remarkably similar... >>>>>> >>>>>> >both > > >>>>>>anti-positivists, both dialectical thinkers, one a marxist the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>other >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>social-democratic liberal. >>>>>> >>>>>>A single issue it seems to me throws the outright rejection >>>>>> >>>>>> >into > > >>>>>>question: "At the height of the Vietnam War, Karl Popper >>>>>> >>>>>> >called > > >>>for >>> >>> >>>>>>scientists to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath to >>>>>> >>>>>> >restrain > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>their >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>propensity for harm." >>>>>> >>>>>>regards >>>>>>sdv >>>>>> >>>>>>Mervyn Hartwig wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't know about Kuhn, but anybody of intellectual >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >integrity > > >>>with >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>reasonable familiarity with Hegel and Marx who reads The Open >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>Society >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>and its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism could scarcely >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>doubt >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Popper was a cold war warrior. He is not only sly, he is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>dishonest, >>> >>> >>>>>>>deliberately suppressing key words and omitting context in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >quotes > > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>suit his cold warrior distortions and travesties. His >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>characteristic >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>method is to set up a scarecrow and demolish it as if it were >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >the > > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>real >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>thing. To spring to his defence on this issue in the current >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>context can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>only mean to defend the totalitarian commercialism (Collier) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >that > > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>Popper >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>himself promoted and which is now being imposed on the world >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >by > > >>>all >>> >>> >>>>>>>force necessary. (The very skies over London have been >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >emptied > > >>>for >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>god of totalitarian commercialism to arrive as I type >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >this...) > > >>>>>>>Mervyn >>>>>>> >>>>>>>steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk writes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The fifties cold warrior labelling of Popper has been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >challenged > > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>in very >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>interesting ways by Steve Fuller just recently in his book >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >Kuhn > > >>>vs >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>Popper. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>As Fuller points out it is Kuhn who is in the pay of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >coldwar > > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>warriors... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>(this is not to disagree or comment on the thrust of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >below - > > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>merely to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>spring to the defence of popper...) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>regards >>>>>>>>sdv >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi Carroll >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Your punchline was strong -- that the purpose of reading >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>Plato's >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>Republic was to understand The Enemy. But, only one? Why >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >is > > >>>his >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>name >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>on Lenin's tomb? Your approach calls to mind the Fifties >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >cold > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>warrior >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Sir Karl Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, after >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >which > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>George >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Soros named his foundation. Slyly, Sir Karl manages to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >suggest > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Plato's target is workers who must be kept in their place, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>whereas his >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>real target (see the Gorgias) is the unscrupulous >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >Nietzschean > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>rich who >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>want to exploit and rule. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is nearly always forgotten that the society of Plato's >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >first > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>choice >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>is a communist one, and that the rest of the argument is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >about > > >>>a >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>second-best society. And even the second-best society is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >not a > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>class >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>society in Marx's sense, in that the philosopher rulers do >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >not > > >>>>>>>>>appropriate the surplus, but live a frugal life. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I suppose the jury is out on whether Plato meant by >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >"gennaion > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>pseudos" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Big or Noble Lie, or both, but the myth of noble and base >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>metals >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>in the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>soul is an answer to the problem of legitimising the rule >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >of > > >>>>>>>>>reason, and defending it against the power of wealth. Lenin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >had > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>same problem. It's quite a problem! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- >>>>>>This message may have contained attachments which were >>>>>> >>>>>> >removed. > > >>>>>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. >>>>>> >>>>>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >>>>>>multipart/alternative >>>>>> text/plain (text body -- kept) >>>>>> text/html >>>>>>--- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- >>>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed. >>>> >>>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. >>>> >>>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >>>>multipart/alternative >>>> text/plain (text body -- kept) >>>> text/html >>>>--- >>>> >>>> >>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >>> >>> >>> >> >> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- >> >> >> > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005