Re: [Marxism] My 'pal' Warren [was: A word of cauition (was: KeyObamaBacker...)]

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

S. Artesian is really straining to invent differences where none exist or
where at most they involve individual style, word choices and the like.

Thus we have:  <<it is absolutely apparent, and not just to me, that Bustelo
holds Mr. Buffett as somehow an "honest" capitalist, and that somehow that
"honesty" makes Buffett somehow-- I don't know what, somehow more worthy of
the benefit of the doubt?  more worthy of a fair and impartial trial?  more
worthy of  who knows what?  I don't.>>

Despite the use of "quotation marks," my description of Warren Buffett as
"honest" was published EXCLUSIVELY in S Artesian's imagination. I did not
and would not say that. My point was instead that unlike Maddoff, Buffett
has not been accused or convicted of violating the capitalists' own laws and
defrauding people and betraying their trust under *those* laws and norms. It
seemed to me that S Artesian's statements implied either that he had been or
had done the same things as Maddoff even if he had not been charged. 

S Artesian continues, <<Secondly, he has doubts about my accuracy?  Yeah, he
had doubts about it when I pointed out how Charles Brown was on the Obama
Obama Obama band wagon, when the article on the "orientation" to the Obama
presidency was posted, how in fact Charles has referred to Obama-- not here,
you'll have to ask him why-- but elsewhere as "one of us."  I kid you not.>>

Unfortunately, I can't respond to this, as I don't have the first clue what
controversy S. Artesian is referring to. A search in my "sent items" folder
shows I twice engaged with Charles Brown about a year ago, once on the
general subject of racism and white supremacy and once in a post about the
torrent file to download an HD version of the movie "Reds." Undoubtedly my
failure to remember must be due to forgetfulness on my part and the weird
circumstance that my posts on the subject of Charles Brown did not mention
the name of Charles Brown. Undoubtedly S Artesian will now seize on this
opportunity to quote chapter and verse documenting the controversy, showing
that he is the reliable rapporteur and I am not. Go ahead. Make my day.

Then we have this: 

"I do not denounce capitalism as being unfair, unjust, criminal, thievery,
etc.  It is capitalism.  I don't think fairness or justice or legality have
a thing to do with it, just as I don't think our struggle is for a fair
capitalism as opposed to an unfair capitalism; a just capitalism, as opposed
to an unjust capitalism;  a legal, scrupulous, puritanical capitalism vs. an
unscrupulous, criminal, corrupt capitalism.   It's class, not moral fiber
that drives this system." 

S Artesian apparently is entirely opposed to challenging capitalism on the
basis that it is so unfair and unjust as to be criminal. Fine, no one is
forcing him to express himself in those terms. But this makes me wonder why
he brings up confessed and convicted criminal Madoff in relation to Buffett.
After all, that is why I commented that saying capitalism is a criminal
system is a different kind of statement from saying that Buffett is
personally a criminal in the same sense that Maddoff is, i.e., violated the
capitalists' own laws for conducting business. 

In essence, I was suggesting that S Artesian was confusing two different
things, what is unjust or criminal from the point of view of the bourgeois
criminal code versus what is unjust or criminal from where working and
oppressed people sit.

Alas, that is PRECISELY the *class* distinction that somehow eluded S
Artesian and so he demands I STOP all this confusing talk about morality and
criminality and talk about class INSTEAD.

And I will confess that S Artesian may well have a point, because as soon as
the concepts of class, fairness and criminality coincide in his mind in a
single thought, confusion arises there also, and he lashes out at those who
would try to hoodwink working people with stories about a "fair" capitalism.
a "just" capitalism, a "legal, scrupulous" capitalism. And he concludes
"It's class, not moral fiber that drives this system."

Except that no one was arguing there *was* such a thing as a "fair," "just"
or "moral" capitalism, on the contrary, I had stated that capitalism was in
and of itself unfair and unjust and criminal, mistakenly believing that on
this list everyone would understand such characterizations to be from the
viewpoint of working and oppressed people, especially because I was saying
it was a mistake to confuse THAT with what is unfair, unjust and criminal
under the bourgeois business norms and legal code. 

And finally he adds, sarcasm oozing from every crack between two characters
on his keyboard, "Right, question,  my accuracy-- right General Re did not
..." and so on. 

As should have been clear even before, it isn't *just* a matter of
"accuracy," but clarity of thought, depth of understanding and analytical
insight. 

Thus, when I objected to his placing an equal signs between Madoff and
Buffet, because it is ONE thing to say capitalism as a SYSTEM is criminal,
another to say that this specific capitalist broke *the bourgeoisie's own*
laws, in other words, stressing the *difference* between a bourgeois-legal
framework and a proletarian one in talking about fairness, justice and
criminality, he shoots back, let's not talk about morals or criminality,
let's talk about class. 

Of course that is exactly what I was doing but S. Artesian seems
constitutionally unable to see such things. So he adds *his own* ultraleft
twist to it, COUNTERPOSING the concepts of truth, fairness, justice and so
on TO class. He thus imputes a completely amoral and cynical outlook to the
movements of working people and the oppressed, saying such concepts have
nothing to do with the struggles of the exploited and oppressed, when he
SHOULD HAVE joined me in counterposing proletarian concepts of fairness,
justice, criminality and so on to the bourgeois ones.

This was, of course, entirely my fault for not remembering that certain
people on this list suffer from the childhood disease of ultraleftism and
thus training wheels need to be provided in every post. Thus, in
counterposing that idea that capitalism is a criminal system to the idea
that Buffett is a criminal under bourgeois law, I needed to say in very
simple words that the former is the point of view of working and oppressed
people. Madoff's offense was to take people's money to be invested and
pocketing it instead. The working class complaint is, at bottom, that the
capitalists pay for ONE thing --our capacity to work for X amount of time--
and wind up owning something entirely different, the product of that labor.
And they get away with it by owning the means of production.

THAT is what makes me very nervous about taking S. Artesian's word for
anything. 

Joaquin


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu