Who are 'Ruthless Criticism'? What are their perspectives?
Kevin Keating
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, marcus <marcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: marcus <marcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AUT] critque of Holloway's power critique
To: "Autonomia, Operaismo, and Class Composition" <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 10:07 AM
mpunkt is one of the gegenstandpunkt sect.
jacques roux schrieb:
> Quite impressive detective work, Angelus! Unfortunately, you are
incorrect.
>
> The article is an excerpt from a longer piece by a German blogger named
MPunkt, “Zur Kritik des Weltanschauungsmarxismus - In seinen alten und neuen
Verlaufsformen” which also deals with Joachim Hirsch, Hardt and Negri, and
the “value critics” (It is also based on arguments by your guy, Michael
Heinrich). It is
available at:
http://mpunkt.blogsport.de/images/neomarxismus.pdf
>
> MPunkt’s essay does indeed have paginated citations to the German
translation. These were left out because the book is available in English for
free on the InterNet and web pages don’t have pagination (plus the translator
is lazy). And, yes, the translation is inelegant, but it is an effort to
communicate the meaning of the criticism.
>
> This type of criticism is what is called “immanent,” that is, it shows
the self-contradictions in an argument. If an argument is internally
inconsistent, then it cannot be true. In which case, criticism of the substance
should be “secondary” because it would be superfluous. Your example of the
respiratory system is silly because the respiratory system is part of the body
and does not originate “from it.” If you want to understand the respiratory
system you have to follow a
process of abstraction. Similarly, in reality the
state and capital are bound together and inseparable. But if you want to
*explain* the relationship between the two, then you need take them apart in
thought. If you explain the state from capital, you have not explained the
state in its own terms, but have made a huge presupposition. If you just say,
more dialectically, “the state is the reason for capitalism and capitalism is
the reason for the state,” you have not really said anything at all.
>
> Gegenstandpunkt cannot be a sect because its only precept is that one
tries to think objectively about the world. It is not an organization but a
journal put together by a lot of people who agree to work on it and think
collectively. People can judge for themselves by checking out:
> http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html
> But alas, you have changed the subject from the criticism to the
critic!
>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:59:10 -0700> From:
fuerdenkommunismus@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [AUT] critque of Holloway's
power critique> To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Even if it's
not stated anywhere, this article> transparently the product either of
somebody> associated with the German quarterly
"Gegenstandpunkt"> or their American Bay Area group of
followers,> "Ruthless Criticism."> > The tell-tale signs are
everywhere: > > - the stilted English that reads like a exaggeratedly>
transliteral reproduction of a German original (for> all I know, it might
have been originally written in> English, which would be even more hilarious
since that> means that American GSPlers are learning to write like> their
German role models)> > - the main critique of the person or school of
thought> being criticized always rests upon the
allegation of> some sort
of logical inconsistencies in argumentation> (substantive critique always
seems secondary)> > - the assertion that so-and-so claims t
his or that but> without offering any extensive citation or page>
numbers> > - a reverse functionalism that sees all manifestations> of
social life as ultimately being derived from the> imperatives of the state
(which is why it's so> deliciously ironic that the author(s)
accuse(s)> Holloway of functionalism)> > - Cheap attempts to set up
logical "gotchas" like this> one: "If the state is necessary
for the continuous> reproduction of capitalist social relations, it
cannot> be explained how it could ever generally originate> from these
social relations." > > So following that logic, if my respiratory
system is> necessary for the continued reproduction of my body,> it
cannot be explained how it
could ever have> originated from my body?>
> The GSP is worth reading on occasion, but their> attempts to engage
with thinkers outside of their sect> are usually this shallow. The most
recent issue also> has a sleazy, disingenuous hit job on Michael>
Heinrich.> > I swear, they must have a
cadre school where they all> learn to write like that. :-)> > >
> > > _______________________________________________> aut-op-sy
mailing list> aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aut-op-sy> aut-op-sy
> _________________________________________________________________
> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you.
>
http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
> aut-op-sy mailing list
> aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aut-op-sy
> aut-op-sy
_______________________________________________
aut-op-sy mailing list
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aut-op-sy
aut-op-sy |