[PEN-L:12212] Some sponsors ofJohnsHopkinsInstituteforPolicy Studies

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Rob Schaap <carob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/03/99 01:31AM >>>


Alright, few of us always make arguments everybody else always agree with.
But there have been many moments in our latest thread (and the moments pass
so quickly on so busy and passionate a list), when important points are
brought up and drowned out.  The 'mixed system' and its ultimate role in a
particular historical trajectory to capitalism or otherwise is a problem.
Emerging relations typical of capitalism are in themselves NO explanation of
what follows if similar nascent moments can be discerned in societies which
did not 'turn'.  A broader institutional analysis DOES seem indicated in
such cases.  To the argument that Portugal's relative terdiness (on the
criterian of propensity to become decisively capitalist) is put down to
'existing inequality of industrial development', the question of how those
inequalities came about DOES demand attention.  Whether one's explanation is
to take the linear cause and effect form or the complex mutual determination
form of the dialectic, these ARE important points.  Wojtek was right to make
them.

((((((((((((((((((

Charles: There was quite a lot said on this thread. I remember at one point 
commenting
on one of Wojtek's posts and saying there is nothing wrong with asking another 
"why"
question. But I don't think Wojtek was the only one to ask that question. I 
know I
certainly had thought of it before he asked it, so I didn't count it as 
something that
Wojtek introduced to the analysis. It is kind of obvious.

My general answer to it was, if you noticed, the law or tendency of evolutionary
potential. In other words, it was Europe or England's backwardness in previous 
periods
( reflected in their naming their own Medieval period as "dark", meaning of 
course bad
or underdeveloped compared to the Roman empire before and capitalism afterward) 
that
explains their special readiness to change in the next period. I tend to think 
that
wage-labor was a sort of discovery. Wage-labor relations had been around the 
edges of
societies for centuries. Somebody in the Dutch or English ruling class said 
"Hey , if
we make EVERYBODY a wage-laborer, we could do this. "  This was combined with a 
sort
of feeling of "what have we got to lose. The Arabs, Chinese, and West Africans 
have
been doing better than us for a while. Lets try it."

I don't have a problem saying that the Europeans discovered something new in 
this
period. But notice my explanation turns on them being a little behind the curve
(rather than ahead of it) and therefore more willing to experiment with new 
relations
of production than the others who were a little ahead of the curve and wanting 
to keep
things the way they were.

Also, and I haven't mentioned this before, I think the Judeo-Christian /One God
ideology (not the Protestant work ethic) may have fit with the project, though 
I can't
think through the logic fully. I know someplace Engels said that Christianity 
is the
perfect religious ideology for capitalism, but I haven't been able to find it 
lately.


((((((((


Rob:
And if the argument goes that no significant difference pertains between two
socio-political settings, then the fact that one made itself rich and comfy
whilst the other did not, DOES generate questions.  I don't know the answers

Charles: But my explanation does find  a difference between Europeans and other
socio-political settings.  They were sort of in last place and resolved to rise 
to
first place.

((((((((


Rob:
- this thread has been great for filling in great lumps of historical
knowledge high school really should have afforded me - but I do know an
important issue when someone else is kind enough to bring it up for me.

(((((((((((

>Charles: Please point to the post where I said he IS a racist. Following
the list rules I am always careful to say that what he says is racist. And
,be sure, a lot of what HE SAYS is racist.

Rob:
I wasn't attributing this to you, Chas.  And I'm afraid I can't be 'sure'
that any of it is racist.

Charles: Go ahead and  be unsure. But I am sure and will write surely about it. 
 I
mean , I am not going to become uncertain based on what someone who is unsure 
says.
And I don't feel like explaining it again right now.

(((((((((((((


Charles:
>And just to repeat an important point. The constant , widespread effort to
try to get me not to label racist statements as >racist is racist itself ,
of the typical racist type of today.

Rob
Well, I don't understand that stuff about 'scientifically verifiable' or
'objectively' racist statements.  Polysemy is a constant issue, and, as
Barkley said the other day, never more so than on a mailing list.

Charles: Is anything scientifically verifiable as far as you are concerned ? If 
not ,
then I'm not going to try and demonstrate it. What is objective to you ? 
Anything ?
If you give me an example of something that you think is objective, then I will 
make
the analogy with the statements. But I am not going to take the time if you 
don't
think anything is objective. There is plenty of empirical data on racism.  It's 
a
pretty big issue , well discussed in the movement.  A main position on the 
rightwing
here today is that racism no longer exists. We say, it does, and here are the 
facts.
To me putting forth the rightwing position on this is objectively racist. I'm 
sure of
it.

There is not a problem of multiple meanings or ambiguity, if that is what you 
are
talking about. Wojtek has stated variations of his position many times. It is 
pretty
clear what he is trying to say.  He is explicitly trying to oppose the type of
viewpoint I am expressing. Concepts like "playing the race card" are not 
ambiguous in
today's debates.

(((((((((((

Charles:
>As to whether you ARE a racist , I have said nothing.  But to the extent
you argree with Wojtek's arguments, you are >agreeing with racist arguments.
That is an objective and not emotional or whatever statement. Just as if I
had said "you >are agreeing with a bourgeois or anti-working class
statement".

Rob:
Then I simply objectively disagree with you as to the nature of the
statements.

Charles: I already know that. The reason I have to say my statement is 
objective is
that one of the most frequent responses on these lists to statements that 
something is
racist is to say that "racism" is not an objective category, it is a subjective
category of Black people or something.  I am just reiterating a rejection of 
that way
of thinking about racism.

Wojtek, as a prime example, often claims that statements that something is 
racist are
like utterances from members of a religious cult headed by moral entrepreneurs, 
i.e.
with no basis in the objective reality of society.

(((((((((


>Charles: This is typical slander of me and other classical Marxists: That
we are more murderous and intolerant of other views than "you" are.

Rob:
As it happens, I do think you are more intolerant.  That's fine.

Charles: I know you do, and I want to explicitly reject it. First, because you 
haven't
proven it. And secondly because it is the old , self-serving, false bourgeois 
liberal
claim that bourgeois democracy is superior to Marxist democracy. And, thirdly, 
because
you implicitly do it all of the time. I don't know why you think I am going to 
concede
to you that you are more democratic or tolerant than I. It's begging the 
question.
Asserting as a conclusion the issue in dispute in the argument. As if you could 
settle
a difference between us by fiat from your side.  Do you think I am asleep or 
something
?

Rob:
Murderousness does not need intolerance, and I don't think you're murderous
at all.

Charles: Your implication by your quip about cyber-Kronstadt is that my 
thinking more
readily than yours leads to murder as an expression of intolerance, a typical ,
bourgeois liberal slander of Leninism and Marxism. The ideology of the liberals 
who
arrogantly thusly assert their superior democracy, has resulted in more murder 
than
Leninism.


((((((((((((((((((

Rob:
But there are people in whose heads intolerance is a very dangerous
thing.  And I think intolerance does feed on all these scientific
certainties we hear about.  It is possible to agree with some of the
'infantile disorders' of the far left, some of the resolute pragmatism of
the bolshie, and some of the caution of the 'counter-revolutionary' menshie.
 Of course, this could never be if all three groups were 'scientifically'
correct.

Charles: Your skeptism and sarcasm about "scientific certainty" or 
"scientifically
correct" ideas reflects a hypocrisy in liberal ideology. When Wilson sent 
troops to
invade the newly born Soviet Union or Clinton bombed Yugoslavia their ACTIONS 
evinced
as much certainty and belief in the correctness of their ideas as anything 
Lenin or
Marx ever said or did. The difference between liberals and Marxists is not in
certainty, but in the honesty of expressing it.  All "science" means is that 
Marxists
strive to reach the certainty without reference to religion, whereas liberals 
mix
"science"and religion, they are intellectually opportunistic.

When it counts, the liberals and left-liberals who act in the contests in the 
real
world are as authoritarian as anybody.  Academics who never enter the fray of 
the real
world are not morally or politically or scientifically or truthseekingly 
superior by
their scholastism. If they were really going to do something they would have to 
act
quite certain of many things. Wilson was an academc before he got into action.

By the way, another false implication in the way that you and others discuss 
Marxist
certainty is that Marxists are certain about everything, or that they say they 
are
infallible.  The dialectic of trial and error doesn't mean that , although one 
knows
one can make an error, one does not for the moment of action, especially 
revolutionary
action, act with certainty, ready to change if there arises evidence of error.
))))))))))))))

Charles:
>This is a dastardly lie, Rob. You are not less murderous or less tending to
advocate use of violence than I am.
>Everytime you say it or imply it you are committing gross slander.
Leninists are not more prone to undemocractic
>methods or use of violence , authoritarianism or dogma than anti-Leninists.
liberals, freethinking lefties or however
>you want to label your tendency. What you are engaged in is dogmatic ,
slandering anti-Leninism, the dogma of the
>New York Times and Washington Post.

Rob:
Look, I don't want to go over all this again.  I shouldn't have mentioned
Kronstadt - 'twas a rhetorical self-indulgence (although I am no Leninist).
At work, I watch liberals disagreeing cordially and thrashing things out
constructively.  Amongst my fellow lefties, I see less of it.  That's all.

Charles: Of course you don't. You want to retain the advantage of the false 
stereotype
of Leninsts as more intolerant than liberals, that we are more dogmatic. You 
want the
advantage of this self-serving ,liberal DOGMA.

I'm around all kinds of Democrats (Democratic Party USA, Clinton and all).  My 
thought
is that "democratic CENTRALISM" is as American as the Democratic Party.  The 
idea that
the rank and file have power in the Democratic Party is ridiculous.

((((((((((

Charles
>My criticizing Wojtek is completly legitimate and  is no more authoritarian
than the criticisms you make on these lists or he makes on these lists. Your
effort to get me to stop criticizing Wojtek is censorship.

Rob:
I don't know why my occasionally frustrated disagreements with some of your
arguments are all that different from yours with some of Wojtek's.  So I
don't know why I'm a would-be censor and you're not.

Charles: To turn it around, nor am I less tolerant than you. You are not more 
tolerant
than I.  I don't ,by criticizing Wojtek, evince some "Kronstadt" tendency. If 
you can
say I am trying to "kronstadt" Wojtek, then I can say you are trying to censor 
me.
You are the one who raised the issue of my criticism of Wojtek implying some
"kronstadtism" in me. I didn't bring up tolerance or censorship . You did. But 
if you
bring it up, then I am going to throw it right back at you.

Specifically to the point , I never said anything about Wojtek being put off 
the list
or not being allowed to say what he does. All I did was criticize what he said. 
You
introduced (falsely) that I was implying that he shouldn't be able to speak. 
And you
did it based on the false, anti-Leninist, liberal stereotype.

((((((((((((((

Charles:
>What you are engaged in is cyber-Orwellianism. Orwell pretended to be the
enemy of Big Brother and authoritarianism >when he was an agent of Big
Brother and British authoritarianism. Liberals are not less authoritarian or
totalitarian
>than Marxists, and their claims to the contrary are the ultimately tricky
Big Brother.

Rob:
Liberalism is a set of appealing ideas doomed to constitute little more than
deceptive formalism whilst the means of production are beyond democratic
control.  And most liberals I know are nice people who, as I see it, limit
their aspirations too much for their species' good.  And I love George
Orwell.  I love what he wrote and I love how he wrote it (list excepted).
His experience with Stalinism in Spain (where, unlike us, he put himself in
harm's way for his soaring aspirations and his loathing of Big Brother) was
an ugly one - and, yeah, he was very much the romantic Englishman at times -
but I don't see myself in a position from which I can criticise what he did
for the establishment.  I'm not sure how useful he meant his list to be (a
lot of people weren't on the list - but, yeah, I don't like the idea of such
lists as personal trust and faith are big items), and I'm not sure his
actions didn't reflect an unpleasant decision he had to make between
competing ills - between two Big Brothers.  Given his harsh experience, his
decision might well have seemed quite tenable.  He wasn't making history in
conditions of his own choosing, after all.  I certainly don't want to judge
him - but, more importantly, I'm not sure I could if I did want to.

Charles: It was no picnic for Lenin , either.


CB