Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:36:44 -0500 From: "Charles Brown" <charlesb-AT-CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> Subject: Re: SV: M-TH: A vulgar marxist here Bob, Did you get this , or did your crash prevent it . Charles B. >>> "Charles Brown" <charlesb-AT-CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> 03/18 10:40 AM >>> >>> "Bob Malecki" <malecki-AT-mail.bip.net> 03/17 11:47 PM >>> Charles gleefully writes! By vulgar marxism I mean a constructive critic of fancy marxism and its left-liberal cousins. My general attitude is to extract the rational kernel from the modern and post-modern left neo and paleo liberals from Hegel to post-Foucaultists. So, I like the kernel of truth metaphor used in the list discussion in the last day. As to the true universal Doug asked Yoshie for, I would build it. not on a new idea, but Marx and Feuerbach's species-being. All of the workers and other people represented by other social movements are human species-beingsAlthough biiology only limits us human beings because we have culture (super-natures and natures ) this contradiction between biology and culture is still where it is at in generating universals or big generals. Being determines consciousness is still a focal rule of thumb (guide to action) for building a universal, real common interests among huge numbers of people, the masses. My first post-Marx development of species-being is to derive women's libertion organically from historical materialism's premises, as Marx and Engels derive workers' liberation from those species-being historical premises. It is a correction of classical Marxism, but based on Marxsim's own premises. In ways its too vulgar for pomos and fancy marxists. However, the pomos and their old cousins, Frankfurt school, Gramsci, exitentialists, et al. all the fancy marxists have taught us something: being determines consciousness discontinuously, intermittmently, rarely. Through most of the actual time of history, consciousness and being are reciprocally determining. Only rarely, in revolutions, primarily and ultimately does being utterly determine consciousness. Today, that means that the direct naked appeal to the working class' class self-interest is inadequate in itself-necessary but not sufficient in the formal logical sense -to inspire revolution. That appeal cannot be dropped - the vast majority are working class, wage laborers - but must be complemented with appeals to other consciousness, other consciousness determined by being (gender, for example) and consciousness that is determined more by consciousness. Overall one wants to change the world based on interpreting it, changing it through practical-critical activity, a unity of theory and practice still. All Power to the People as a whole. Charles Brown, your new comrade Hi Charles, Welcome to the list! So what's new? Are you saying that all these movements did not exist since before the October Revolution in Russia? And our "Marxists" on this list have now added a great discovery to Marxist theory by including women and other social groups into the historical struggle for socialism. Well being a bit conservative on this point. I still would say that it is ONLY the working class that has the social power to actually create the conditions to end women's oppression and racism and only through its worker vanguard and the Lenist party.. Warm regards Bob Malecki Hi Bob ! No I am not saying that . as you say, "all these movements did not exist since before the October Revolution in Russia ". Maybe you didn't read what I gleefully wrote and you reprinted and sent to me, because there's nothing in there about "all these movement did not exist since before the October Revolution in Russia " explicitly. So , if you see it implied,why don't you say this concept in what you wrote implies that "all these movements did not exist since before the October Revolution in Russia ". Your "conservativism" is relative. The October Revolution was new to those struggling against white supremacy around the world, but it was welcome. Let's take W.E.B. Dubois and the Black American freedom movement, freedom from slavery and racism. He welcomed his new ally 1917 and joined the Communist Party in 1961. That was social and socialist movement after 1917, if that's what you are asking. Your "conservativism" is correctly relative. The revolutionary should be absolute and the conservative side relative, and I say that with glee because your question is unclear and I'm guessing an answer at your vagueness. You say "it is only the working class that has the social power to actuall create the conditions to end women's oppression and racism..." But creating the conditions is not sufficient. We must actually end women's oppression and racism. Just so. I agree workers' liberation is necessary but not sufficient to end women's oppression and racism. Smile when you answer that, partner. C.B. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005