philosophy and relativism - it is a dangerous philosophy

[peaccenicked]

Philosophy and Relativism

by Tom Stoneham

Perhaps the most prevalent -ism around the world today is Relativism. Most people I meet who endorse some form of relativism have not really thought their position through fully. In this short essay, I try to explain the true nature of relativism.

I believe that strawberry ice-cream is better than chocolate ice-cream. If you probed me on this 'belief', it would quickly become apparent that I am not really making a claim about the objective nature of different types of ice-cream, but merely expressing my preferences. Having established this, there would be little or no point in arguing with me, because I could always resort to saying: 'That is just how I am, I prefer strawberry'. Suppose instead that I had begun with the claim that I prefer strawberry ice-cream because it is less fattening. You might then present me with evidence that chocolate ice-cream does not in fact contain more calories than strawberry. If, when confronted with this evidence, I said 'That is just how I am, I think strawberry is less fattening', something would have gone wrong. Given the evidence, I ought not to think that strawberry ice-cream is less fattening.

At this point in the dialogue a philosopher might step in, perhaps one speaking with a French accent, and ask: by what standards of right and wrong is it wrong for me to think that strawberry ice-cream is less fattening? One possible answer to this question is that there are universal, objective, standards of rationality, which dictate what one may or may not believe when confronted with any given evidence. Unfortunately, this answer has some notorious problems, to which our attention has been drawn by Wittgenstein and Quine, amongst others. What these philosophers pointed out was that whether certain evidence forces you to a particular conclusion, such as that strawberry and chocolate ice-cream are equally fattening, depends in part upon the meaning of words. It is because 'fattening' means what it does and not something else, that evidence about calories is relevant to whether one thing is more fattening than another. But words get their meanings from us, so how can their meanings create objective standards which proscribe certain ways of thinking as irrational? As Humpty-Dumpty said to Alice:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less.'

Having persuaded us that there is a problem here, the philosopher with a French accent boldly proclaims that there are no independent standards by which it is wrong for me to persist in thinking that strawberry ice-cream is less fattening than chocolate. No one can ever be in a position to tell someone else that evidence about calorific content is relevant to which type of ice-cream is more fattening, but not to which tastes better because no one is the arbiter of what someone else's words mean.

This claim has two startling consequences. One is that it reduces my apparent claims about the world outside me to claims about myself, for now my belief that strawberry ice-cream is less fattening, is intellectually on a par with my belief that it is nicer: if challenged on either belief I can resort to the 'But that is just how I am ...' strategy. No one can contradict me, they can just differ from me. But if we never in fact disagree about an independent reality but only ever express our subjective differences, then our French-accented philosopher can treat all discourse as a 'text' and ignore what it appears or purports to be about.

The second effect is irrationalism: if there are no standards of rationality, then there is no need for me to justify my claims or relate them to the evidence and the arguments. Someone who makes such a claim has made themselves immune to criticism. If you offer a reason to believe in standards of rationality, however good your arguments, the irrationalist can simply shrug his shoulders and ignore you. So we have the absurd situation in which radical cognitive relativism is endorsed on totally arational grounds (it is sexy, it is thought to be profound and politically correct, it is the only way to get published or to get jobs etc.), but cannot be attacked because, by its own standards, those grounds are perfectly acceptable.

The alert reader will have spotted that there must be a middle ground between objective, universal standards of rationality and none at all. As the Oxford philosopher Michael Dummett himself put the point:

The paradoxical character of language lies in the fact that while its practice must be subject to standards of correctness, there is no ultimate authority to impose those standards from without.

The suggestion, then, is that there can be standards of correctness which are not completely objective, and yet are sufficiently objective to provide constraints on what one ought to do and think (given certain evidence etc.). Spelling out such a middle ground is big business in analytic philosophy. Any theory which is to steer safely between Scylla and Charybdis will in all likelihood be very complex and subtle, and thus be vulnerable to technical and detailed criticism. Until some degree of consensus is reached on how best to deal with the problem, on which are promising ideas and which not, it is impossible to give a clear, non-technical answer. At least, it is impossible to give one which would not be immediately rejected as an oversimplification by one's colleagues. Taking the risk here, the basic idea is that Humpty Dumpty is wrong, for if I am to say anything at all to you, I must accept the possibility of being corrected about the meanings of my words. This does not mean that that there is some objective meaning set in stone, but only that my words do not mean whatever I choose them to mean, for that is not enough to give them any meaning at all. (For those who are interested, the most accessible attempt I know is The Philosophy of Language by Alex Miller.)

Unfortunately, to the radical relativists, any such third way will be totally unpersuasive, since it grants the premise on which they base their relativism.

So it seems that we are left in an extraordinary situation. When thought through properly, relativism is profoundly unattractive, but because it validates irrationality, it is proof against philosophical arguments. Richard Dawkins has famously compared religion to a computer virus. It would seem that cognitive relativism is also a virus of the mind: it exploits a weakness (the non-objectivity of meaning), propagates fast, has unpleasant effects and is hard to shift.

If you know someone who has unfortunately caught this virus, here is a thought which might help:

Not only is their relativism immune to rational criticism, but so is everything they believe. It follows then, that if relativism were generally accepted, the only way to get anyone to change their behaviour would be through force, bribery or coercion. While being non-judgemental may seem initially attractive, removing the possibility of showing that someone is mistaken leaves bullies and exploiters with a permanent advantage

[Cryptix]

Im new to this place and this is the first thing i've read and found it strange yet even more strangely true! For a 15 year old with narrow minded parents I believe that I understand many things other 15 year olds don't and that short essay was enlightening and interesting,Thanx!

[El Che]

This is complete rubbish.

"that whether certain evidence forces you to a particular conclusion, such as that strawberry and chocolate ice-cream are equally fattening, depends in part upon the meaning of words. It is because 'fattening' means what it does and not something else, that evidence about calories is relevant to whether one thing is more fattening than another."

So? this theory goes around in cricles. Yes words are exterior and are not exact, absolute in their defenitions but point is made. That is to say they are acurate enough to be usefull and vaild instruments in which to express and arrive at conclusions. What is philosophy if not the "science" that uses rantionality and (by consequence) languege, to arrive at conclusions. Words are valid defenitions because the absolute (expression of ones thoughts or meanings) is unobtainable.

Now if we look even further we find an even more distrubing and flagerante contradiction.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less.'"

Frist of all the most obvious incorrection is this: the words humpty dumpty uses are external, they are not "his" words. So how can they express the objective fact of humpty`s state of mind (for example) to the absolute acuracy. Is it true just because he says it is? what if he lies? rubbish. Secondly, an example to "prove" that this theory has not legs: if humpty says "i am happy" one day and then says "i am happy" some other day of his life, then he would have to be in exactly the same mental state in both instances. Enfasis on exactly, because it is impossible for anyone to be in the exactly the same mental state twice. But this again is irrelevante because the only thing that matters is that he says he is so he is....

ok I am god. There what now? I can fly. Prove me wrong.

U cant prove me wrong because when u use the word fly then its does not mean exactly the same as when i use it, this is true but it is also... well... childish.

[peaccenicked]

". Taking the risk here, the basic idea is that Humpty Dumpty is wrong, for if I am to say anything at all to you, I must accept the possibility of being corrected about the meanings of my words. This does not mean that that there is some objective meaning set in stone, but only that my words do not mean whatever I choose them to mean, for that is not enough to give them any meaning at all. (For those who are interested, the most accessible attempt I know is The Philosophy of Language by Alex Miller.)"
Yes the article goes on to agree with your point on humpty dumpty.
People say to me its 'all relative'
I say 'relative to what'
Relative to 'me' is a childish option but so is greed.
relative to nothing is nihilism
relative to the absolute is dialectical

[vox]

Welcome, folks, to the abject idiocy of deconstuctionism.

Given enough rope, any deconstructionist worth his salt will bring up the "void" in language, and, I say, it's utter bullshit. As Foucault said about Derrida, "He's the kind of philospher who gives bullshit a bad name," and I suggest the Derrida is the certain philospher with the French accent.

Notice, comrades, how the author niftly changes the argument, just like our right-wing friends, to suit his own puropse. Our French friend says, "...by what standards of right and wrong is it wrong for me to think that strawberry ice-cream is less fattening?"

Here is the first mistake, for the argument is not about flavor, but type.

Then, of course, we're presented with the double-knotted half-trick double negative: "No one can ever be in a position to tell someone else that evidence about calorific content is relevant to which type of ice-cream is more fattening, but not to which tastes better because no one is the arbiter of what someone else's words mean."

Presented as a rebuttal, the sentence, if one reads closely, says nothing at all, at all, at all. No one can do one thing, it says, but not to do this, it also says! It is in this consumption of its own text the deconstructionism makes its playground.

It's a good parlour trick, but as philosophy, and even moreso as literary theory, it rots on the vine.

The latter conjecture that things must be "relative to the absolute," in in being so are somehow the "dialectic," is, I think, just as false, for the dialectic does not rely upon some "absolute," for that is the province of religion!

Indeed, the dialectic deals with human interaction, not with some real or imagined "Oblective's" interaction.

How terribly silly.

vox

[peaccenicked]

The relationship of absolute to relative runs through all
of dialectics. The relevence to god is ideological and has a real relationship to man how ever distorted that relationship is. here Vox is using its connection to religion as a throw away line.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:37 pm on Feb. 9, 2002)

[vox]

"The relationship of absolute to relative runs through all
of dialectics."

But you, dear friend, NEED the Absolute!

Whereas I, in my existential glory, do not need any Absolute! I fear that you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew.

Nowhere did you mention your defense of Derrida, of course, much like IP never mentions his defense of Rand.

If these are half-understood concepts, that's fine, and I've no problem with that. But if you're going to spill deconstrunctionist vomit on the board, and then, absurdly, demand that an Absolute is somehow present, expect more of the same.

Indeed, I'd be interested to know how you reconcile the Absolute with Materialism, for Absolute Idealism holds no sway with Marxism.

Even a dog like Lenin could see that.

vox

[peaccenicked]

From hegel essay on net I found
"Hegel's aim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the Absolute, or Absolute Spirit. According to Hegel, the task of philosophy is to chart the development of Absolute Spirit. This involves (1) making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute; (2) demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and human history; and (3) explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute, that is, showing the end or purpose toward which the Absolute is directed. "
quote from article on marx I found on the net
"Karl Marx

Marx adopted Hegel’s notions of evolution through history, and the idea of the dialectic. Marx saw himself as furthering these notions, by separating them from Hegel’s idealism. In an effort to be more empirically based, Marx replaced Absolute spirit with human material desire, and reinterpreted Hegel’s dialectic. "
Who needs Derrida to prove your philosophical insights have no essential substance.
Now I can hear the wods I 'idealist ' and the notion that iam reverting back to hegel but that woud be to look at only the appearance of marx's transformation.
The absolute appears in man's material desire for knowledge.
To be even clearer on this I shall quote Lenin
"Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscrutantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge."





(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:29 pm on Feb. 9, 2002)

[vox]

"Now I can hear the wods I 'idealist ' and the notion that iam reverting back to hegel but that woud be to look at only the appearance of marx's transformation."

Alas. It's a sentence without meaning. A structure that does not rest upon structure. More fairy dust.

I find it unfortunate that you, with your obvious exposure to more profound philosophers, quote Lenin, who, sadly, did not understand that a curve cannot be made straight.

I daresay, I have to wonder about the "transformation" to which you refer. Are you with Althusser about the epistemoligical break?

vox

[El Che]

hegel is metaphisical.

Marx is objective, empirical.

Lenin is dumb.

[peaccenicked]

It is possible to say that the whole of human knowledge is in growth..It grows, and it grows and it has a potential. This potential is absolute, it is limitless. There is no need for god in this.
Why do you look for religion everywhere. Please stop trying to prove that I am anything but an atheist.
you know what they say about throwing dirt

[vox]

"This potential is absolute, it is limitless."

So, something is both "absolute" and "limitless," huh?

But doesn't absoluteness require a definition? Of course it does. If it is Absolute, it is unchanging, and if it is Unchanging, it has parameters, and if it has parameters, it has LIMITS.

What is limitless, my friend, is humanity, for only in HUMAN INTERACTION and SOCIAL RELATIONS do we find the scope which you seek, but there is, of course, no ansolute to be found in humanity. This is our glory and our burden.

Perhaps you can suppose to find an "essential" "substance" in the natural world, but remember, comrade, that WE are part of the natural world, too, and if you define ONE as an absolute, you define ALL absolutely.

vox

[TheDerminator]

It is a pity that none of you have made a rationalisation of Hegel's work on Logic. You see, it is simply not good enough to say Hegel is an idealist metaphyscian and leave it at that. Marx certainly did not. His dialectical method was a rationalisation of the Logic, but then you obviously know extremely little about dialectical methodology. It is a bit philistine in the extreme to call Lenin "dumb" He was the clearest thinker from the orthodox Marxist tradition after Engels. Lenin made theoretical errors as did Karl Marx, but atleast in his Philosophical NotebooksLenin had a conception of the absolute within the relative and the relative within absolute, something Dammet and Co,
haven't the foggiest idea about. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
One example of the absolute within the relative relates to the finite within the infinite. Thus far you have probably though all time is relative, but believe me there is nothing more absolute than the fact that there is an infinite continuum. Do not believe me. Think it out! The finite fact is absolute within its own limitations. Nope, I do not expect you to understand this straight away, but the limitations of the fact relates to the relativity of the fact in relation to other facts. The fact itself is an absolute within this qualifying statement; for example if you follow the example of Empedocles and jump into a live volcanoe, there is an absolute fact you are going to die. Death is a pretty absolute fact relating to every living thing, within the relative, ofcourse. However, as soon as you say "everything is relative" the trouble is there are no absolutes within the relative and thus the fact that the nazi scum committed genocide on millions of people becomes a matter of opinion. Sorry, I don't thinkso. Well, truth be told I am not sorry.
As for the relative within the absolute. One example would indeed be the finite within the infinite, but that is only one example, and by far the most common example relates to universals, particulars, and singulars. If you are not familiar with the contributions to philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, you might well be forgiven for not knowing the relationships between these three concepts. However, Engels does relate to them in his Dialectics of Nature, so there can be no doubts that both Marx and Engels had conception of them.
Every word that you do not know the meaning of and look up in a dictionary is an a universal. There are no exceptions. It is just the identifying word at this stage, because you do not know its meaning. However, attached every word is a meaning, and if a dictionary were to be accurate, the very first meaning it would give you would be its universal meaning.
For instance, every use of the word "time" relates to some duration or period, thus this meaning covers every particular and every singular. The particular relates to the general laws and structure of a thing or indeed a concept. Thus for time we can attach to the particular theories on time, and when you exclaim "Time!" in the singular form either you are telling people that the time is up, and you want them to get lost, or you are rudely asking for the time, because you are in a hurry. Every universal idenitifier in absolute no matter the word, every universal meaning is an absolute meaning. Yep, the whole lot.
The absolute contains the relative, the particulars, and the singulars, but it is not as simple as that because as said above the relative contains the absolute. Get it? Nope, not a contradiction. It means if science was not quasi-science, due to its subjective empirical approach it could assemble the known absolute facts, and these we can differentiate from, what is open theory. Science that builds out from the absolute knowledge of determinant scientific laws, is objective science.
I know, I know you noticed that bit about concepts and the particular. Concepts, having a structure and laws, surely not. But maybe, just maybe..You see there are some pretty big concepts out there and two examples are "God" and "Freedom," and I have written a treatise called Heresies on God and Freedom, but back to laws and structure. You see, that is what a methodology is, it is a relationship between concepts, that provides fundamental laws, and ofcourse, it has to contain some kind of rational structure.
For example, the empirical method is only abstracting particular laws (which are some times wrongly referred to as universal laws) from the observation of singular phenomena, thus it is just an inversion of the old Socratic method, which compares the singulars to the particular laws. Without the differentiation between the two concepts we could have had no scientific development, because there would have been no methodology.
An interesting point is made in that it is considered that there is no starting point for objective thought. This has been true for all the thousand of years since the human race stepped onto this planet. Nor can you say Marx left such a methodology. Marx intended to write down his method on a few pages, but never got around to it, but even if he did the problem herein, is that the method that Marx used is only applicable to ontological relationships which deal with the forms of being within economic relations. It is for Marx his ontological method. No use for concepts such as 'God' and 'Freedom'. However, in my treatise, an objective methodology capable of analysing any subject is elucidated, and it is a hell of a lot better than the empirical method. It proves definitively and thus absolutely that there is no God, and it is the biggest news on the internet or anywhere else. There are absolutes and there are absolutes, and that also goes for ethical judgements. Some absolutes are more important than others, and by the way the "irrationalism" is contained within the relativist subjective approach, because without it, there would be no so-called crisis in science. Derminated.[/URL]


(Edited by TheDerminator at 12:08 pm on Feb. 10, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Thanks bro, but the understanding here has to be tackled. The objective absolute is the history present and future of the universe. No matter how long you look at that, comrade, does not change as a place of external reference.
In regards to the potential of human knowledge, which is limitless. What on earth is changeable here.
You attack of an essential substance to avoid the problem as I have stated in another thread there is no predicate which is universal. There is only universalty to the laws of nature and dialectics.
You keep on positing your own mistaken idea of essentialism as mine.
You are using the same method as IP who insisted Socialism was Stalinism.
You are incapable at looking at my arguments in the dialectical framework I have provided. Why because you do not understand dialectics as the recognition of the unity of opposites in nature and if you did, It would be abundantly clear to you that the relative and the absolute are opposites one represents the finite the other the infinite. These are the senses
that humans use,
infinitely funny old chap.
thus confounding your original smearing of essentialism.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:51 am on Feb. 10, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:15 pm on Feb. 10, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Dear bro, you are the one who does not understand the relationship between the opposites, and your poverty stems from possessing only an orthodox Marxist interpretation of so-called "dialectics".
The profound error in your thinking is that you see only the "unity of the opposites". The polarisation of the opposites, is an equally valid so-called dialectical conception. The whole point of these "dialectics" was supposed to provide an all-sided analysis.
If you have no conception of the polarisation of the opposites, you really are extremely clueless about the concept of the absolute. Your whole tone was a bit off to say the least, so do not dish out what you cannot take.
You see you defeat your own logic, the moment you accept that some things are absolute. This absoluteness contains a polarity which is not relative to its opposite. For example, lets take your favourite orthodox Marxist subject, essentialism. Now, I am of the view that some of the appearance is essential appearance, and you might be wise enough not to argue against this point, because as Lenin noted it relates to the "ABC of Marxism". However, there is the completely inessential activity in the superstructure, and say for instance, I decide to wear brown socks, instead of purple socks. This decision is completely inessential to the wheels of history.
Now, say we return to the input of Karl Marx. Whatever people think of his theory and I think he got some stuff right and some stuff wrong, it has to be admitted that in the development of human history, Marx has played an essential role in the developmnent of philosophy, and I daresay we agree this is an objective fact.
Now, if you are not a complete relativist, you have to see the colour of my socks is absolutely inessential, and the role of Karl Marx absolutely essential. Thus instead of the unity of the opposites, we have an example of the polarisation, of the opposites, which is not the same as the unity of the opposites, because there are absolute polar opposites. How the hell can you call it unity when there is complete opposition?
Your logic is deeply flawed and with essentalism, you are flogging a dead horse. I read your piece on Engels, and it is just a continuation of your previous stuff, so why the new topic? Essentially it is complete reductionism. derminated.

[peaccenicked]

You confuse your opposites. It is not difficult to do, infact that is the hardest part of dialectics. Thes things have to be thought through with gret rigour but even then mistakes can be made.
The colour of a sock is an accidental feature of a sock
on less it is part of a uniform then the colour is necessary to it. A sock id not inessential it keeps peoples feet warm unlike marx who spread himself about rather thinly but lets not get into that. i
am neither a relativist nor an absolutist . Even the term essentialist is only existant because atomism and positivism are a prevalent currency. The colour of your socks has a very important place in the wheels of history. Who makes the dye? how much do they get paid. Are they unionised. What would happen if no one wore purple socks any more.
If you read the debate it is about what essentialism is
Vox says it is about an elusive essentialist substance and you ipso facto concur. I am trying to show what
means and this is from a marxist glossary..THIS IS THAT
ESSENTIALISM IS THE EXPLORATION OF EVERMORE DEEPENING MEANINGS OF WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER.
BEING EXPLORED
IT IS NOT A CLAIM ABOUT ESSENCE AS SUCH
Now is that clear. Vox, El che. Derminator.
pull up your socks.

[TheDerminator]

You are still deep error. You have not noticed the bigger argument. The essential within historical development is the infrastructure plus, the essential superstructure. The colour of my socks are inessential to the development of the superstructure. The subject is the development of history, not my fucking socks, and I know the difference between what is essential to a sock and what is not. You are insulting my intelligence.
The subject is history.
derminated.

[peaccenicked]

Still not reading.
..THIS IS THAT
ESSENTIALISM IS THE EXPLORATION OF EVERMORE DEEPENING MEANINGS OF WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER.
BEING EXPLORED
IT IS NOT A CLAIM ABOUT ESSENCE AS SUCH

The suject is human history.
You are mixing up meanings
essence as form
esssential as a priority
relative importance to subject matter
does not contain any relationship to the appearance
and essence opposition. This opposition of qualities only confirms essentialism.
ie the movement of appearence to essence
within the realm of comprehension.

[El Che]

rotfl

[vox]

I notice that, at the foundation, there is a great blurring of the empirical and the metaphysical, the true and the supposed. It is this kind of thinking that leads one to say that E=MC squared is a sexed, that is gendered, equation. I suggest that many here consult Sokal's Fashionable Nonsense forthwith!

The tendency to equate empirical fact with relative moralism is sad, to say the least, but very, very common. No matter how it's dressed up, it's still the same non sequitur.

Worse yet is the reliance upon outdated notions, for we do not live in some pre-industrial society, but, for most of us, in Late Catpitalist society.

I, too, can drop names, but I fear that recent posts here have broken from reality, and unless the authors wish to embrace solipsism, I believe that it's a break we can live without (the double meaning here truly implicit).

vox

[peaccenicked]

what empirical fact the colour of socks
the moral of the colour socks does not exist.
It was the derminator who said thet were inessential.
I merely objected but maybe you are not referring to me in which case excuse me.

[honest intellectual]

But society tries to blur the line and convince you to take opinions as facts. For example, if I say the Holocaust was wrong, that's pretty much accepted as a fact. But we don't see it as what it truly is: an opinion.

[The Iron Heel]

Vox, before you call Lenin a dog, and El Che before you call him dumb, please review his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. A philosophical opinion is hardly worth anything when ones simply throw around anecdotes, without any substance whatsoever.

And Vox, you may believe that the truth lay in some relativistic existetialist idealism (dare I say, ultimately, solipsism), but if you argue that dialectical materialism is outdated and not fit for our time, it might (read: definitely will) benefit you to review Reason In Revolt : Marxism and Modern Science (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp), unless of course you already read it (hah!), hopefully there's a glimmer of a chance you will keep an open mind in this respect to perhaps even briefly review it, somehow I highly doubt it. I reviewed existentualism (albeit years ago) to know why I think that school of thought is utterly flawed, but you, it seems, have not done the same with dialectical materialism, since it strikes me that your reasons for rejecting it are based on a highly distorted understanding of it.

[vox]

'Allo, Pig Iron,

See? I'm like Bush, but I give you a nickname if I don't like you. Hee! I'm funny like that, I am.

I may be interested in the book, and thanks for the link. However, without having read the book, I'm fearful of believing in the cross-discipline work of the sciences.

Your suggestion that I am an Idealist is, of course, laughable, for nothing I've said, and certainly nothing you have quoted, could lead one to believe that.

Given the disparaging nature of your post, I suggest that this is simply a personal attack, based on nothing. I buttresss this with the fact that you didn't provide anything, nothing at all, for your simple conjecture that I was some kind of solopsist.

Perhaps conjecture can work wonders in your mind, but once you make it public, you need to prove it, son.

vox

[The Iron Heel]

Yes, I see, very original, and civil too. Lenin is a dog and I am a pig. But albeit for me to be as repetitive (at least in regards to farm animals or copy&pastes), I will attempt to be slightly more pleasant though.

To reiterate briefly, existentialism is a form of idealism. I call you an idealist for a reason, because I have seen you associate yourself with that school of thought. If you would like me to explain why I find existentialism to be an idealistic philosophy, and to even border solipsism, I'll be happy to elaborate. Of course, I will expect you to act in a civil manner, without calling Lenin a dog, me a pig, or Marx a horse (hasn't happened yet in regards to Marx, but just to be safe).

Hence, it is not a personal attack, it is based upon your own philosophical affiliation, as you yourself have worded it.

And calling Lenin a dog, without any basis ("based on nothing", if I may quote you), is one reason for me to wonder why you are so vehement in regards to the disparaging nature of my post, and that it is, in fact, based on nothing. Hmm.

And then you end your post by copying the exact same line as in the Stalin thread. And again, the irony here is clearly transparent to me. Conjecture can indeed work wonders in the mind.

But then again, there's very little hope you will read this post in an attempt to grasp my own frame of reference, or even to try to correct me and persuade me, if you do genuinly believe I am in error here. No. I have the feeling that if you will address anything said by me henceforth, it will be simply to demean me, probably with the aid of your friend, and a hell of a lot of conjecture. Your opening insults plainly hint what sort of mentality you have carved for this ‘discussion’. But by all means, prove me otherwise!

[vox]

"If you would like me to explain why I find existentialism to be an idealistic philosophy, and to even border solipsism, I'll be happy to elaborate."

I'd like that very much. I doubt that you can do it, but you said that I only need to ask and you'd be happy to elaborate, right?

So I'm asking.

Fact is, you didn't answer anything, only accused me of Idealism, a charge that I deny (and you've already been asked to show the Idealism in a Materialist philosophy).

You use my quotes out of context, like any good right-winger, and I have to wonder if you aren't a right-winger in disguise. I suggest, from what I've seen recently, that you are.

You seem to want to make a very big deal about what my "friends" say, which is a very convenient way for you to sidetrack any issue. Fact is, I've yelled at pretty much everyone here, at one time or another. I've certainly yelled at Kamo. Your vulgar, and meager, attempt to distract doesn't quite work, Pig Iron. Perhaps with someone else, but not with me, nor with anyone who happens to support me at this stage.

Fact is, you've done nothing here but attack me. You haven't even tried to answer. You wish me to read your post on your terms ("there's very little hope you will read this post in an attempt to grasp my own frame of reference") but you do nothing to further your own cause. It's just more accusation on your part.

Which is a pity. People here are smart enough to see through that, wherher they like me or not.

I've stated my position clearly.

Can you do the same?

vox

[TheDerminator]

The Iron Heel, you are letting Vox a bit off the hook, calling you Pig Iron is a personal attack on you, it is saying you are crude and pig ignorant, not very comradely stuff that.
It is not very nice being voxinated hee hee.
Lenin a dog? That is complete pig ignorance, that is complete crude reductionism of the contribution of Lenin.
Lenin came up with the "ABC of Marxism" that the political has primacy over the economic, something only hinted at in The Communist Manifesto, and even in Engel's famous letter to Bloch.
It was the biggest turning point in orthodox Marxism after Marx himself, achieved by Lenin, not Althusser.
Try voxinating me hee hee
derminated.

[vox]

Perhaps Dermie likes simplistic Marxism, the kind extolled by Lenin and Engels.

I do not, and I'm on record here, and elsewhere, as saying that those who support such a simplistic and deterministic Marxism are both silly and dangerous.

Perhpaps Dermie would like to respond to my post about Stalin's justification for the USSR, and his justification for calling himself a Marxist, which he clearly was not.

vox

[TheDerminator]

Vox
Read your stuff on Stalin and the economy.
You still miss the big picture.
Even though Lenin, thought he was creating a socialist economy, and likewise Stalin, it was still primitive socialism, but you should not confuse political Stalinism and political socialism with the economic issue.
If you had read my posts you would know that I do not believe in any isms other than socialism, I call "capitalism" the bourgeios epoch, because the bastards created the economic Frankenstein.
All other isms are selfist "isms" and that is all you are a selfist. Not my word Vox, you can find it very easily with a google search.
Scared to call a spade a spade Vox?
Lenin's position of the "ABC of Marxism" was more advanced than that of Marx, and in the letter to Bloch, Engel's is atleast hinting at that advanced position.
Why not call a spade a spade Vox the simplistic primitive socialism comes from the master himself. Do not blame Lenin and Engels for the crude understanding of the socialist alternative blame Marx.
The difference between Engel's, Lenin and you?
They did not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and you flushed it down the toilet as shit!
I started on this thread answering you, so that is fair dinkums as far as I am concerned.
derminated.

[vox]

I've always presensted myself here, and I don't back down from it now, as a reconstructed Marxist.

The determinism of Lenin and Engels is refuted in Marx a hundred fold. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I seek to save the baby from drowning in the mechanistic waters of Lenin and Engels.

Engels, having to deal with the political reality of his time, and stuck with the dire duty of countering his anarchist and socialist opponents, can be forgiven his sloppiness. Lenin garners no such compassion with me.

Indeed, I'm profoundly disturbed that so many here maintain that Lenin's Democratic Centralism has anything at all to do with Marxism. Rather, it sounds like the fumbling intellectualism of fascists.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Lenin's democratic centralism, shocked perhaps you can explain what is wrong with the formulation. From Partisan.
"Marx wrote that 'It seems absolutely essential to me for the party to ...subject its own past activity to criticism and thus learn to act better'. Lenin wrote that 'the principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided by the party’."

[The Iron Heel]

Vox, you have shown no civility. I would be happy to elaborate why I believe existentualism equates idealism, why it is reactionary and right-wing, unlike dialectical materialism, but it will defeat the point.

Your sophistry and pompous intellectualism notwithstanding, I put a condition for our continued discourse. That you would refrain from uncivil behaviour, such as calling me a pig, or right wing, or whatnot. You failed to demonstrate your willingness to have an intellectual discussion with me. But I still leave you an opening. Address me with civility and I will be happy to engage in a philosphical discussion with you. But as I suspected (& note that I voiced those suspicions), you are simply not interested.

It strikes me as ironic though, that you would call me right-wing. You preach existentualism over dialectical materialism, social democracy over Marxism, and I'm the right-winger. Again, vox, personal attacks and no substance, yet you would like me to provide you with substance in return, only so you could continue ad nusium. Truly a feeble attempt, but again, prove me wrong (you failed once, but 2nd time may be the charm), and conduct yourself with civility.

[vox]

Iron Heel,

First off, I'm not a very civil person. I apologize if I hurt your tender feelings, but I can't help but notice that you've not said anything about existentualism (sic) at all, anywhere, though you said, in no uncertain terms, that you be happy to educate me about it.

Again, I ask you, please and with all due civility, show me the errors of my ways, kind sir!

Also, please respond to my refutation of the charge Idealism, though you may answer it in the bit about existentualism (sic).

Either way, I'd be pleased.

The thing is, Iron Heel, you seem to be hiding behind gentility rather than answering anything I've said at all. You seem to have moved from arrogant intellectualism, which doesn't bother me in the least, to dandyism, which is simply comical and tiresome.

So, with all civility, dear sir, please pretend we're in a cafe and I've asked you to expand upon your charges of Idealism. Perhaps then you'll say something worthwhile.

vox

[TheDerminator]

Glad you know you are unpleasant Vox
Your response to me is all sound and fury signifiying nothing.
What exactly was the book written by Marx on Engels, was it called anti-Engel's where is the disclaimer?
None such disclaimer of Engels exists in the writings of Marx.
The opposition only exists in your head.
Your self-construction is a bit of a small Frankenstein in itself, and you may not agree with Stalin, but I dare say he would have congratulated you on being an intellectual bully. There is a difference between being brutally honest with your intelligence, and being just brutal with your intelligence, and you do not know the difference.
Your self-constructed Marxism is selfist eclectic egocentric socialist theory without an ounce of the spirit of socialism, because the spirit of socialism is treating even "fellow travellers" with a bit of respect as human beings even if you feel the ideas cannot be respected.
I have met your type before, all theory and no spirit, I would rather hang around with a cappie, than meet someone who ought to know better, and who is just fucking rude.
You cannot pit Marx against Engels with a sleight of hand, they were both essentialists as was Lenin, they were all in favour of the dictatorship of the ploretariat, and Marx did not rule out revolutions far from it.
Examples, show the examples, do not spout hot air, show examples of how Marx refuted Engels. Rise to the challenge! Show us the error of our ways, oh great selfist Vox.
derminated

[vox]

Well Derminator, your as much a **** as me, yes?

Indeed, you rave on and on about me, for I am, of course, the most glorious and wonderful thing to happen to this forum (snicker) but you say very little.

I will refer you to Chapter Two of The Twilight of Capitalism by Michael Harrington, entitled "Marxism Misunderstands Itself."

You will there find the contradictions of Engels, and Lenin and Stalin, according to Marx. Also, you may refer to my previous post about Stalin, a terrible Marxist and a terrible person.

vox

[TheDerminator]

Vox. You still do not get the difference between being a **** and being a ****, and I doubt you ever will because it was all in the above post, and I am not repeating it.
I say very little and you throw up a book, vomit.
You ought to know your stuff, and be able to argue the case in a few paragraphs.
I will try find a copy of this stuff, but I cannot believe everything you read, you know. You can always start a new topic to explain the mindset of this guru. I am interested, but do not expect me take your word on it, because you know whatever is in this book, if it does not comprehend the ABC of Marxism, it is going to be a woeful book.
I disagree that Stalin is a Marxist, Marx was the only real Marxist, and to call Stalin a Marxist is an insult on the memory of Karl Marx.
derminated.

[vox]

Again, Derminated, please use complete sentences, and please try to make them sensible. You say:

"You still do not get the difference between being a **** and being a ****, and I doubt you ever will because it was all in the above post, and I am not repeating it."

See how that reads like nonsense? Indeed. You really need to work on sentence structure, friend. I'm happy to help you. After all, I was an English major.

Beyond your very poor grammar, however, I have to wonder at the idea that you've never heard of Michael Harrington. He was a very popular writer, and very big in the Leftist movement. That you've not heard of him smacks of academic prejudice, for the precious academics, so secure in their Ivory Towers, hated Harrington, which is common and typical and obvious, much in the way Deconstructionism is!

In closing, please use complete sentences when addressing me, or anyone, for that matter, and try to expand your base beyond Hegel and Althusser.

Cheerio,

vox (so darn polite!)

[TheDerminator]

Vox, I thought you could maybe read between the lines a bit, I forgot about how mechanical theorists can be, the point is that you can be brutal honest without being a complete ****, in your manner, the point is that form is attached inseperably to content, and whatever, the value of your content, the form is fucking atrocious in its bludgeon. I can bludgeon too, but it maybe just my subjective opinion, but it seems to me that there is a difference in the form.
I mean "Pig-iron" seems to me just a little bit crummy, and it is a pity you do not see its crumminess.
As for Harrington, I must admit the leftist non-movement leaves me cold, and what is popular with the mainstream left in terms of ideology, is not always too enlightening. I recall reading a lot of the books on nationalism, about ten years ago, and thought the analysis left a lot to be desired.
As far as I know Harrington is not as well known as an Althusser, or a Jamieson, leftwing theory has moved on, but so has mine, and I still think it is poor that you do not know your stuff well enough to give one argument that substantiates that Marx and Engels were diametrically opposed.
As for my English, come on, if you gave a lecture on English to everyone who used bad grammar in this forum, you would have no time for the theory!
I have exapanded well beyond Hegel and Althusser, but I am not an ecletic like yourself, I know what socialist theory should be built upon, and your deconstructionalism is a poor substitute against my objective methodology.
Amateur night at the proms.
derminated.

[The Iron Heel]

LOL vox, you sure are a card. Offend my tender feelings? Heh, perhaps teeheehee. But I will add that apologizing only to add yet another insult and no substance is a routine for you.

As for educating you about existentualism, as I said, I'd be glad to do that so long as you're civil. Now, you may quote any chacracter flaw that you think can explain your negative self-rightcious attitude, but I'm sorry. People pay me to educate them, it is my profession, and I don't mind doing it for free here, so long as it is wanted. You have demonstarted yet again that all you are concerned with is the ego of one vox. Which is fine, it's your life, but not expect me to 'educate' you in return for lack of civility. You had two chances to do so, and you blew it for the 2nd time, vox.

So, if you would like to know why I find existentualism reactionary, I'm afraid you're on your own (save for the unlikely event you will adjust your negative attitude slightly). So I'll reiterate, you may now continue (as you have, as you will) to preach social democracy over Marxism, and existentualism over dialectical materialism, and to call me a right-winger.

I gather you're affiliated with the comftorebly-instituionalist revisionist academic (so-called) Marxist social-democracy, but you are neither terribly sophisticated in elucidating your own position, nor do you seem inclined towards any discussions per se. Just the insults which by themslevs do a poor job in covering your ignorance in this respect. Your loss, I guess.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 2:47 am on Feb. 25, 2002)

[vox]

Iron Heel wrote:

"As for educating you about existentualism (sic), as I said, I'd be glad to do that so long as you're civil."

I will be civil, Iron Heel. However, I have to wonder about you "educating" me in a philosophy the name of which you cannot spell. That was the joke, Iron Heel. I'm sorry that you missed it.

"Now, you may quote any chacracter flaw that you think can explain your negative self-rightcious (sic) attitude, but I'm sorry. People pay me to educate them, it is my profession, and I don't mind doing it for free here, so long as it is wanted."

Oh, indeed, Iron Heel, I do very much want you educate me for free. I'm honored that you would. However, I've no way of verifying your claim that people pay you to educate them, I only have your words here. So far, your words are not spelled correctly. I'm assuming that you are not an English teacher. Is this correct?

"So, if you would like to know why I find existentualism (sic) reactionary, I'm afraid you're on your own (save for the unlikely event you will adjust your negative attitude slightly)."

I have, indeed, adjusted my attitude. Indeed, I'm anxious to hear your thought on Sartre! I spent years with the bloke, so to speak, and it's always nice to hear from a friend, right?

If you don't mind, I'd like to start with your ideas about essentialism regarding peacenicked posts, from an existential point of view, of course. Thanks in advance.

"I gather you're affiliated with the comftorebly-instituionalist revisionist academic (so-called) Marxist social-democracy, but you are neither terribly sophisticated in elucidating your own position, nor do you seem inclined towards any discussions per se."

Actually, I'm a fierce critic of academia, and had you read other posts of mine, you, Iron Heel, intellect that you are, would probably have surmised that. However, I cannot blame a person for not reading through old posts, so let me say here that, although you accuse me of it (without any back up documentation) I'm a critic of deconstructionism. I've always maintained this position and I don't think you will find a contrary word in any of my posts.

It's very nice of you to offer to educate me, Iron Heel, and I appreciate it. Please do so, for perhaps you will have something more to offer then blind accusations and silliness, yes?

I'm looking forward to your reply.

TheDerminator,

I'm sorry that you can't separate form from substance. That seems to be a flaw most don't share, and I can't honestly say that I understand it. Perhaps you could try harder?

TheDerminator writes:

"As for Harrington, I must admit the leftist non-movement leaves me cold, and what is popular with the mainstream left in terms of ideology, is not always too enlightening."

Actually, he's not too popular, and many of his books have gone out of print, though they are available at reasonable prices. Personally, I don't think you really know anything about Harrington at all, and that's fine.

You say that you think he "is not as well known as an Althusser, or a Jamieson" but you leave out that he wrote The Other America, which was very big factor in the War on Poverty.

Are you from the USA, TheDerminator? Certainly you've heard of the Great Society, right? You're hyper-academic alternatives to Harrington might lead one to think that you are a college Marxist. Are you?

Here's a short essay (http://www.geocities.com/redencyclopedia/bios/harrington.htm) on Harrington. No need to thank me. You could, however, take this opportunity to badmouth Eugene Debs.

If you read Marx and Engels side by side, you will see a break. This is not unexpected of course, for Engels was charged with writing diatribes against the enemies of Marx, and in diatribes one can be sloppy, as you have shown here.

In a philosophic manuscript, however, one takes more care. What Marx have you read? Or, perhaps, you're that very precious variety of academic (like someone who would know Althusser over a best-selling author like Harrington) and you've not actually read Marx at all, but only other people writing about Marx? Is this the case?

In the end, I'll say, like Iron Heel, if you treat me civilly, I'll show you the errors of your way! (Actually, folks, that's bullshit. In a week or so, I'll be in here, just like always, riding the fucker with facts, but don't tell him that!)

So if you could repeat your objections to Harrington? Please?

Thanks much,

vox

[raisedfist69]

i think i am one of about 10 13-year-olds in the world who understood that. Man, i am weird:-) But hey, itpresented me with a new point of view, and i thank you for the great essay.

[The Iron Heel]

Iron Heel wrote:

"As for educating you about existentualism (sic), as I said, I'd be glad to do that so long as you're civil."

I will be civil, Iron Heel. However, I have to wonder about you "educating" me in a philosophy the name of which you cannot spell. That was the joke, Iron Heel. I'm sorry that you missed it.

-- I've learned English 6 years ago, I now teach at the university level. But you have chosen to be uncivil for the 3rd time. You must be very proud, Herr Vox.

"Now, you may quote any chacracter flaw that you think can explain your negative self-rightcious (sic) attitude, but I'm sorry. People pay me to educate them, it is my profession, and I don't mind doing it for free here, so long as it is wanted."

Oh, indeed, Iron Heel, I do very much want you educate me for free. I'm honored that you would. However, I've no way of verifying your claim that people pay you to educate them, I only have your words here. So far, your words are not spelled correctly. I'm assuming that you are not an English teacher. Is this correct?

-- History. And there are plenty of people in the online community who met me and could varify who I am. But that's not the point. You chose to insult me again based on the most supreficial discrapencies -- Great Job!

"So, if you would like to know why I find existentualism (sic) reactionary, I'm afraid you're on your own (save for the unlikely event you will adjust your negative attitude slightly)."

I have, indeed, adjusted my attitude. Indeed, I'm anxious to hear your thought on Sartre! I spent years with the bloke, so to speak, and it's always nice to hear from a friend, right?

-- Wrong.

If you don't mind, I'd like to start with your ideas about essentialism regarding peacenicked posts, from an existential point of view, of course. Thanks in advance.

Sorry, no. If you can't be civil, you get nothing.

"I gather you're affiliated with the comftorebly-instituionalist revisionist academic (so-called) Marxist social-democracy, but you are neither terribly sophisticated in elucidating your own position, nor do you seem inclined towards any discussions per se."

Actually, I'm a fierce critic of academia, and had you read other posts of mine, you, Iron Heel, intellect that you are, would probably have surmised that. However, I cannot blame a person for not reading through old posts, so let me say here that, although you accuse me of it (without any back up documentation) I'm a critic of deconstructionism. I've always maintained this position and I don't think you will find a contrary word in any of my posts.

-- Because you're a critic of deconstrcution and a so-called self-professed critic of academia, this changes something? No, it changes nothing, what you've stated remains. My thoughts on this remain unchanged.

It's very nice of you to offer to educate me, Iron Heel, and I appreciate it. Please do so, for perhaps you will have something more to offer then blind accusations and silliness, yes?

-- Too late, sorry. And I have done this, but you have elected insults and some (little) substance again & again. And you expect me to continue writing well-thought-out posts (I see another insults coming, take that as rhetorical question).

I'm looking forward to your reply.

-- I'm sure you are. There it is.

[peaccenicked]

Vox finds it so easy to be untruthful but that is the way of intellectual bullies. I have no truck with deconstructionism. If Vox sees two remotely connected ideas in this case "meaning" . He puts an lumps them together under the idea he can discredit.
This is not a tactic of normal debate, this is the perpetuation of intellectual fraud, by a charlatan and a shyster who is trying to smuggle bourgeois liberalism and post modern atomism into the body politic of Marxism through the back door. To anyone sufficiently trained in philosophy or well read in its currents and controverses. Vox is blatant. I will continue to expose his
shenanigans as he will undoubtedly sink to new depths of calumny. It is predictable of a cornered guttersnipe.

[The Iron Heel]

Well said, well said. If Vox actually decides to spare us his habitual trivial insults, not to mention make his attempt to sell us Sarte as a model for Marxists (liberal intellectualism indeed) based on anything, he would have a foot to stand on.

Okay, a couple of words on Sarte. Sarte, much like Hegel, denied dialectics of nature. Vox, of course, may retort to say that this is Engles' idealism, yet we know that Marx read & helped edit ANTI-DÜHRING (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877-ad/) , so surely he would have objected to these notions had he thought this did not conform to 'dialectical thinking'. My problems with Sarte certainly do not end there, but Vox's future behaviour will determine the prospects (if any) of elaboration on my part.

Now, Vox may choose to look over Reason in Revolt which expands greatly upon previous dialectics of nature, he may choose to explain why Sarte was a true Marxist, or he may continue with half-ass offers for debate amidst uncivil insults. Three times have I offered him a civil discussion (i.e. the only discussion I'm willing to have), and three times he failed and had to resort to bullying, not even intellectual, quite juvenile, in fact. So, we're at strike three. *Let's see what happens. That's right, I am (once again) offering you to start our discourse anew (in terms of civility only), vox. Last chance.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 9:30 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

[vox]

Sweet and Dear and Truly wonderful Iron Heel,

I am So Vey Sorry that you were insulted!!!! I wish to make amends.

We can start these amends here: "If you would like me to explain why I find existentialism to be an idealistic philosophy, and to even border solipsism, I'll be happy to elaborate."

Okay, elaborate.

Here's the thing: most people don't view it like that. Most people see existentialism as the antithesis of Idealism. Maybe you're more profound than everyone who has come previously.

Please explain it to me.

vox

[The Iron Heel]

You really feel you need to adopt that patronizing tone?

That's unfortunate. As for some of my reasons see my post right above this. I mentioned that I don't find existentualism to be dielactical. I also mentioned that part of the reason has to do with existentialists' denial of the dialectics of nature. I offered you Reason In Revolt as a modern basis for which. Once you address this point, I will proceed to cover other areas in respect to my contention with existentualism. You have to do some work to, Herr vox.

And I also urge you to employ a more objective tone, you don't really need to come across as being offensive. This is (supposed to be) an intellectual discussion, please keep this in mind.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 7:56 pm on Mar. 14, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

"Most people see existentialism as the anti thesis to
idealism." Vox

This not an argument, even if it was true, it is not an argument. The majority is not always right, remember
the 'flat earth'. A learned intellectual would explain his use of the terms and then show why thet oppose one another. A conscientious student would pose questions
that clarify the matter.
I am staying out of the intellectual debate until, I see that it is not merely an excuse for Vox to play nasty games.

[vox]

Pish, Iron Heel,

You promised an explanation and now you back out????

Hey, if you can't do it, that' okay. Just admit it and all is forgiven. You promised something and then you make it contingent upon me jumping threough a hoop?!?!?

It doesn't wash, Herr Heel.

The simple truth is you promised and now you're bakcing out, contingent upon not you, but me.

I don't think you can answer, personally. The proof of that is in your previous response.

Perhaps you're too delicate?

vox

[peaccenicked]

What sort of sick person opens a thread
with'' Pish''?
There is no debate just a big verbal bully flashing his
utter philistinism in a rude manner.

[The Iron Heel]

Herr vox, irrespective of my motives or my fragile emotional state (heh), my answer has already been provided twice. You must read more closely.

[vox]

"This is not a tactic of normal debate, this is the perpetuation of intellectual fraud, by a charlatan and a shyster who is trying to smuggle bourgeois liberalism and post modern atomism into the body politic of Marxism through the back door."

I don't believe I've ever defended postmodernism. If I have, please point it out for me. Rather, I'm consistently critical of postmodernism.

You say I'm untruthful, but where is the truth in your statement?

vox

[peaccenicked]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=141 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=141)

[vox]

peacenicked,

I looked at your link, but I didn't see any posts by me there at all. You've directly accused me of smuggling in postmodernism (not, I'm assuming, postmodernism according to Jameson) and I've asked for a bit of proof. I'm still asking.

vox

[peaccenicked]

In the philisophical zig zag of post-modernism, which
takes its cue from various philosophers including Neitsche, and post structuralists including Althusser, whose conception of overdetermination is as I have painted it at its source,is part and parcel of atomistic critique of Marx.
I believe you have championed one of his ideas. (over determination) on numerous posts.
It may be that you have different conception of it.
I am reading Ricky Martin's ''On your Marx'' and I am at a loss where he gets his entirely different definition from. Nevertheless,
in the context Althussers uses it here, he tries to amplify the role of accident and exceptions in history, contrary to Marx who traces the path of historical necessity in class development. The question of consciousness is uncertain to me. I would be very suprised if you knew what you were doing here at this level. I am sure are capable enough person to realise that post Marxism as
such has been very much a reaction to that in Marx which gives a coherent outlook on class society.
Althusser was a member of the French Communist Party and dressed himself up as a Marxist.
I think in the struggle against 'crude economic determinism' which has poetical charm. Poetics is actually my area of personal study and Jamesion and his attitude amounts to a celebration of the ahistorical fragmentation mailaise of post modernism; starts with infinite determinations. The irreducible. However the whole act of description is necessarily reductive.
Even a sentence as simple as 'A dog has hair' only tells you one side of the dogs existence. All language is reductionist and in this context,for instance, an explanation of poetry as a product of political economy,
has resonance in the idea of alienation. Yet the poem is not only this, it is also a continuation of a theme of literature as developed from the oral and early literary traditions,
of life, love death, birth etc.
It seems to the idea of economic reductionism merely leaves a topic at a particular level, perhaps for a specific reason. The eclectic use of say here 'alienation' as the circumstances of the creation of a poem. If this is taken to be all a poem can be then this is surely a philosophical mistake. It is also a product of the development of themes, a departure from previous style perhaps, a marketable product, a peice of writing etc Here the whole is reduced to one side.)
I rarely come accross economic reductionism, it is mostly a charge given without context, or a charge taken out of context or something used to throw at Engels, who
did not think mechanically about things at all.
It seems to me that much of the struggle to bring Marx upto date is one of misrepresentinging him. This cloaked in Marxist blarb can be very misleading. I have one friend who says Althusser did his head in for five years.

[vox]

I stand by what I've previously written, but I think saying that a belief in overdetermination, as opposed to economism, necessarily extends to an embrace of ahistorical fragmentation goes a bridge too far.

I cite the position of women in society, a position that, I maintain, cannot be explained by simple economism but is overdetermined by a variety of factors. Indeed, it's difficult to find a truly Marxist Feminism and it begs the question of whether of not gender hierarchies can be explained by class contradiction and class struggle alone. (Giminez may disagree.) Even further, I suggest that whether the patriarchy lacks historicity or not is beside the point.

If we have an unskilled Haitian lesbian immigrant to the US, how is oppression quantified? Economism would have us say that, ultimately, her greatest oppression is as a worker, not as a minority, not as a lesbian, not as an immigrant. I think that this sets up a very dangerous situation, a hierarchy of oppression, that is unstable at best. Rather, I suggest that her oppression is overdetermined--she is oppressed by all these factors at once. Are we to say that it is the economic that determines consciousness, then? Of course not.

If you wish to believe that I'm a champion of the postmodern, that's your business, of course, and you're welcome to it. However, if you wish to counter anything I say, please do so coherently. When you write, "I think in the struggle against 'crude economic determinism' which has poetical charm," I don't know what it means and the rest of the paragraph suffers for it. Some of what you wrote sounds vaguely deconstructionist, but that's not really the issue at hand.

vox

[peaccenicked]

The issue on hand, I fear is ''identity politics''
The following is another cut and paste from the internet marxist glossary of terms.
Identity Politics

"Identity politics is the political terrain in which various social groups engage in a “struggle for recognition” within bourgeois society, each seeking recognition for the special interests of a specific social group. Identity politics dominated radical politics during the last few decades of the 20th century, and constituted a turn away from attempts to change governments or win political power. Identity politics focused on how their particular group were “represented” in media and language, how their group were affected by various institutional practices and so on.

Historical Development: Identity politics had its origins in the development of the labour process in the U.S. in particular and the developed capitalist countries generally, which made the super-exploitation of sections of the working class untenable, and increased the potential for the socialisation of women’s labour and other relations which was incompatible with traditional forms of oppression. The growth of professional sections of the working class and “knowledge industries”, on top of the successes of a series of social movements, created both the opportunity and means for the promotion of sectional interests in lieu of class interests.

Identity politics arose out of and as a negation of the mass social movements and struggles following the Second World War — for example the National Liberation Movements, followed by the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S..

The National Liberation Movement was a mass movement which took the form of struggles against imperialism and frequently merged with the workers movement internationally and was closely connected with Socialism.

The National Liberation Movement was a major impetus for the Civil Rights Movement beginning in the U.S., which borrowed much of its rhetoric and inspiration from the National Liberation struggles of Black people in Africa and elsewhere.

In its turn, the Women’s Liberation Movement, which began in the US and other developed capitalist countries, took its inspiration from these struggles. Although the Women’s Liberation Movement included large-scale struggles against institutions which supported patriarchy and for change to laws such as equal pay legislation, this movement introduced for the first time elements of “personal politics”, i.e., political struggle on the plane of interpersonal relations.

Thus, the social movements of the post-war period which emphasised the common interests of masses of people in opposition to an external enemy, began to pass over to politics which emphasised difference, and by the compounding of multiple difference, identity, and the enemy became more and more indefinable: although everyone seemed to belong to one oppressed minority or another (you might be an educated white American, but if you were gay, female or disabled for example, then you could engage in a struggle against the special oppression you were suffering in that respect). All such struggles against the multiplicity of oppressions were and remain of course progressive, but the overall effect is also de-mobilising.

Having its origin in the individualism inherent in bourgeois social relations, Identity Politics began to develop within these movements, transforming collective struggles against state and institutional forms of oppression into struggles of recognition for Blacks, Women, Gays, young people, and so on. From the standpoint of Identity Politics, Socialism is just another strand of Identity Politics, namely the struggle of the working class, but for Identity Politics, identity is self-identity, so Socialism is reduced to the struggle for recognition of those who define themselves as workers, and commonly as straight, white, male, blue collar workers. From this standpoint Socialism appears simply as the assertion of the privileging of one group over others.

The struggle for recognition of People With AIDS was possibly the last struggle of Identity Politics to reach a level approaching a mass movement. The principle philosophical spokesperson for this movement was Michel Foucault, and a principal outcome of Foucault’s analysis is that oppression operates through a network of interpersonal relations, in which the identity of people is socially constructed, rather than great institutions, such as the state, being seen as the source of oppression.

The inherent logic within Identity Politics leads to smaller and smaller sections of society being thrown into struggle with less and less opportunity for legitimate call upon the solidarity of others. Consequently, the need for finding some basis of commonality in interest and struggle began to assert itself in the nineties. Further, the ugly consequences of Identity Politics began to exhibit themselves in the disintegratory nationalist struggles in Yugoslavia and in the former colonies, and together with religious fundamentalism all combined to bring Identity Politics to a blind alley by the end of the century.

Nevertheless, the period of Identity Politics completes the bourgeois revolution, in exposing all those forms of oppression that are not essential to the rule of capital; in particular, Identity Politics shows, in case after case, how social consciousness and the various forms of oppression found in bourgeois society are “social constructs” rather than immutable relations given in human nature, and how new forms of social consciousness and new social relations, which overcome the oppressive relations, can be forged in struggle.

The “Anti-Capitalist Movement” of the beginning of this millennium marks the opening of a new political terrain, alliance politics, in which various groups and movements seek alliances to resolve social problems, but unlike the movements which had preceded the period of Identity Politics, identify segments of civil society as the site of struggle rather than engaging in a struggle for state power."
The question that strikes me Is does your interpretation of 'overdetermination'
belong solely to the atomistic field of identity politics ?
It seems solely concerned with pointing out exceptional circumstances, contrasting oppressions, and muddling the struggle for State power. ie the task of postmodernism.
Another question, This is more personal but when you say'You stand by what you have written' and demand people to stand by what they have written.
Are you saying no one should learn, I cannot see this as a matter of pride, perhaps stubborness. I am asking you how do you see this philosophically?
It seems to me like a form of harassment and self harassment.





(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:13 am on Mar. 25, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:06 pm on Mar. 25, 2002)

[vox]

The piece you pasted was not bad and, depite of bit of sneering in it, had at least one good insight. However, I don't think that it really addressed the issue at hand, for identity politics was a reaction against various types of oppression, not the cause of the oppression, and, if I'm not mistaken, it's the oppression itself, rather than the reaction to the oppression, about which I wrote. Perhaps this was unclear, so I hope that this makes it clearer. Regardless, the question of the overdetermination of various kinds of social inequality wasn't addressed, I think, only the reaction to it (in an historical context.)

I thought I made it clear that the point was economism fails in many instances. I disagree that they are "exceptional circumstances" at all and I have to wonder just how you came to that conclusion. Indeed, oppression regarding gender, race, sexual orientation, etc are not exceptional but the rule and cannot be so easily marginalized.

As to your last question, I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote, I'll leave it to you to say whether you did so purposefully. I was speaking in regards to the situation at hand, that is, about the question of postmodernism. It was not meant as, and I surely didn't think it would be taken as, a general maxim removed from its proper setting (decontextualized.) As I said, I'll leave it up to you to provide a reason for doing this, for it seems rather odd to me.

vox

[peaccenicked]

I am only seeking clarity on these points at the moment.
This is how I understand economism. From the same glossary.
"Economism

1. In Russian Social-Democracy (early twentieth century): The newspaper Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought) (1897-1902) and the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers' Cause) (1899-1902) were organs of the "economists."

In 1899 there appeared Credo, a manifesto of the "economists," which was drawn up by E.D. Kuskova. When Lenin, then in exile, received a copy of Credo, he wrote A Protest by Russian Social Democrats, in which he sharply criticized the programme of the economists. The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the economists were against the importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, and instead asserted that socialist ideology could arise out of the spontaneous movement. Since they were against instilling working class values in workers, Lenin explained, they then were in fact preaching for the continuation of instilling bourgeois values in workers.

Lenin's Iskra played a major part in polemics against "economism." By his book, What Is to be Done?, which appeared in March 1902, V. I. Lenin brought about a concrete ideological rout of "economism." "

I gather you see economism as economic reductionism or the narrowing of the struggle to wages and conditions.
If I am using your meaning I would have to agree some what but I have never seen causes of oppression reduced to the economic in any Marxist or Leninist literature. I have seen them sourced in the central class contradiction which is social.
Perhaps we could clear up this matter. I am sure it would make future interpretations easier.

[vox]

Economism: the belief that the economic mode of production absolutely determines a society's social, political and intellectual life. That was taken from another online glossary, and its the definition that I had in mind. One could also call it vulgar Marxism, a phrase that's been around for a while.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"It should be noted that Marxism does not assume that the workers are enlightened or that workers will naturally recognize their common exploitation and ignore race differences to fight in solidarity. This interpretation of Marxism is called "vulgar" Marxism, and for good reason; the very concept of spontaneous cooperation is both unrealistic and irrational. In fact, Marxism, especially after Lenin requires a conscious political "project" to further the aims of the workers. In America this would mean a definitive "racial project" to depropagandize workers and challenge the racial hegemony. Solidarity and unity of the working class is essential to Marxism. Many self proclaimed Marxist organizations have essentialized race, and typically in a dogmatic and "vulgar" critique. Once again, however, one should aim one's attention at O&M's remark on page 30 where they throw out all "dogmatic" theories. Race is a primary concern for any progress in America, but class is the penultimate tool for a real challenge to capitalism and its abusive system. "
This is how I understand ''vulgar marxism''





Author's name omitted by request


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[vox]

" Leninist Marxism began to gain prominence in the literary world at the first Soviet Writer's Congress in 1934. It was at this meeting that liberal views were outlawed and experimentation in literature was banned based on the writings of Lenin. Because Lenin believed that literature should be an instrument of the political cause of the left, a direct cause and effect relationship between literature and economics was assumed and straight realism or 'social realism' was imposed. Leninist Marxism has also been called 'vulgar Marxism' and embodies the determinist view that literature is the passive product of socio-economic forces."

"The defining feature of Marxist approaches to the history of science is that the history of scientific ideas, of research priorities, of concepts of nature and of the parameters of discoveries are all rooted in historical forces which are, in the last instance, socio-economic. There are variations in how literally this is taken and various Marxist-inspired and Marxist-related positions define the interrelations among science and other historical forces more or less loosely. There is a continuum of positions. The most orthodox provides one-to-one correlations between the socio-economic base and the intellectual superstructure. This is referred to as economism or vulgar Marxism."

This is my understanding of it, and the way I've seen it most commonly used.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"What did Lenin stand for that makes him the target of such concerted attack?

A clear and concise presentation of Lenin's main thought is provided in George Lukacs' little book Lenin: A study in the unity of his thought, published in 1924. In a 1967 postscript to this book, Lukacs warned his readers to approach Lenin's work "in the spirit of Lenin". This meant being careful to understand Lenin's writings, arguments and actions in historical context and always to take into account new conditions when trying to apply them. If you do this, wrote Lukacs, Lenin's work, " especially the method of what he said and did, can still retain a contemporaneity under very changed circumstances".

Lenin's contribution to Marxism, Lukacs explained, was not only to reclaim it from the "vulgar Marxists" and the reformists, but also to develop, concretise and mature the method itself. Lenin brought the theory of Marx and Engels closer to the daily battles of the working class, the agent of socialist revolution.'' unauthored.
Here from James
"By surveying the trends in Marxist thought, your task as a revolutionary becomes clear. From the initial reading of Marx, it would seem that your task is easy - the proletariat will naturally become restless and militant, and the only thing you have to do is adapt your tactics to fit the national situation. This leaves the choice between violence and non-violence open to contingent factors of history and geography. The decline of worker's movements and communist parties within democratic systems suggests that there is more to simply trying to 'change the system from inside'. The modern work on ideology, following Lenin, Gramsci and Lukacs, shows that by operating within the system defined by the ruling class, you subject yourself to their ideology. The simple reformism of the Second International did not place enough emphasis on the ideological battle. The key to winning the class struggle, therefore, is to overcome the ideological dominance of the capitalist class.''

It does seem there is a wide gulf here in interpretation.
'One to one correspondance'? That is shockingly crude.
I did not know it was possible to 'think' like that.
But it has nothing to do with Lenin. Vulgar Leninism, yes.
The struggle against the dominance of capitalist ideology
requires partisans. People who will fight.
From capital volume 1
"They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.''
These conditions of 'narrowness' effect the whole of mankind. If you want to call that economic determinism.
Then go ahead, that does not change the truth.