Re: dialectics, etc.

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ricardo Duchesne:
>
>These are just two sides of the same coin: if is is an "inner essence
>we could never name", liberating it means producing a whole new
>subject. And "the production of subjects" is nothing new; it was
>tried, with very grievous consequences, by the Soviets. Che's "New
>Man" was a similar attempt. A more extreme example is Pol
>Pot's experiment, which should
>end all such talk about "producing" humans, "total innovations".
>

I have sort of gotten used to deleting both Shawgi Tell and Duchesne's
posts unread, since they are both so predictable. But since today is a slow
day at work--near the holidays--I thought I'd see what's goin' on.

I can't believe that somebody would try to write about Cuba and Cambodia in
the same sentence in this way. This is reductionism to the nth degree.

Could you imagine somebody who was an "expert" in the history of bourgeois
revolutions writing in the same way?

"There was a bloody revolt against the British aristocracy led by Oliver
Cromwell. The results, as everybody knows, were disastrous. Next came the
French Revolution which showed how innocent people can die when
"enlightment" philosophy gets out of hand. Haiti too. Did I mention Italy?
Garibaldi was totally intolerant, as was Bolivar in Latin America. How can
anybody challenge the notion that philosophical rationalism leads to
genocide and car commercials 16 times per hour during football games."

Louis Proyect