Re: "Punctual Equilibrium", or "evolutionary stuff"

["Charles K. MacKay" <ckmackay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, OK -- I confess and surrendur, rather than mine my shelves again.
Ollman is the only published person who comes to mind who holds even the
weak version of it. But I've been hearing it from comrades toiling among
the toiling masses since at least 1964.
The practical effect is that if we think The Revolution is historically
inevitable, we can fart around; if we have to do it, that requires a far
higher degree of concentration. To paraphrase St. Ignatius Loyola:
"Think as if everything depended on History; work as if everything
depended on you."

John R. Ernst wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> Let's name names.  Who are these vulgar Marxists who still hold
> fast to the teleological view?  I am beginning to think it's becoming
> a bit vulgar to condemn that which seems to be merely virtually
> vulgar.
>
> John
>
>
> P.S.   Soviet speeches????
>
>
>
> Sat, 13 Jan 1996 "Charles K. MacKay" <ckmackay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>
> >Marx, of course, never said The Revolution would come by next Tuesday.
> >The closest defense of a teleological view that "...The Revolution gotta
> >come sometime" is in Bertell Ollman's _Alientation: Marx's View of Man
> >etc._ in which he argues that Marx had to have thought that the nature
> >of the proletariat under capitalism was such that *** one *** possible,
> >and indeed, likely, response, was The Revolution. A "weak" teleological
> >interpretation would hold that the proletariat has this state at some
> >point in history which may pass without a revolutionary response; a
> >"strong" teleological view would hold that the only direction for change
> >from the current state for the proletariat is a revolutionary one, and
> >Marx seems to come very close to saying this in the Manifesto, which is,
> >as has so often been noted on this list, propaganda. Usually the
> >teleological view are found in "vulgar" Marxist tracts or official
> >Soviet speeches, but it is _an_ interpreation of Marx that is tempting,
> >seems to be the obvious one on a superficial reading of some texts, and
> >is not _obviously_ wrong at first glance.
> >
> >John R. Ernst wrote:
> >>
> >> Charles,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your post, reproduced below.  There is
> >> only one part about which I'd like to know more.
> >>
> >> Who are these people who hold telelogical views
> >> relative to the coming revolution (smile)?  I often
> >> hear the postition denounced but I have never
> >> heard anyone defend it.   Let me say that I, too,
> >> am against it and am in search of the oppostion.
> >> //snip//
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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