[PEN-L:6150] A note of thanks to all

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

>I believe that we should be nice to Max (since he has posted interesting
>material on other matters), but I think _everyone_ should try to be logical
>and/or factual in their arguments. This stricture applies to Max, too.
>
>Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &

I honestly don't understand why people have been "debating" Max for the
past few weeks, since the arguments have tended to repeat themselves.
Mostly what I have seen recently are posts of a philosophical or ethical
nature that inherently are not subject to counterarguments. We know of
other such topics: abortion rights, the perfectability of man, corporal
punishment in high school, whether Rebbe Schneerson of the Lubavitcher
Hasidim was the messiah, etc. People in a debate can make a strong case
when they assemble facts to bolster their arguments. For example, if I am
in a debate about the nature of WWII, I would offer incriminating facts
about US commercial and ideological support for the Nazis prior to 1941, or
evidence of top-secret government justification for intervention on the
basis of economic self-interest.

The idea is to present the facts to a jury, who would be members of this
mailing-list, and then make final arguments. None of this is taking place,
however. What is going on is that the facts have become secondary as people
on either sides try to appeal to "reason". When you are dealing with a hot
topic like abortion or war, such appeals are lost, especially on those
people who have become foetus-fetishists or apologists for war.

Michael is probably a bit concerned about how PEN-L has been swamped by an
"off-topic" matter, but I would suggest that the lack of an economic
analysis of why Nato is at war is symptomatic of a malaise in academic
Marxism or "progressive" economics. For those of you who are not
subscribers to Monthly Review, I strongly urge you to pick up the latest
copy which is a 50th anniversary issue. It contains lengthy interviews with
the editors, who are 90 years old (Paul Sweezy), 87 years old (Harry
Magdoff) and 57 years old (Ellen Meiksins Wood) respectively. Paul and
Harry are trained economists with impeccable credentials.

The point that they make, however, is that economics can not be detached
from history. Sweezy states that the main purpose of economics should be to
explain how history, the class struggle and economic institutions
intersect. Not only is this consistent with the original vision of Karl
Marx, it seems particularly urgent today as questions about Nato's purposes
seem unanswered. For example, today's NY Times reports that Congress voted
against a ground war, with most of the nay votes coming from Republicans.
What does this say about the politics of this country? Are the Republicans
emerging as an isolationist current in the old-line America First vein?
What are the perceived economic interests of the ruling circles around
Clinton? These are the sorts of questions Michel Chussodovsky and the late
Sean Gervasi were addressing. Some of that discussion took place when the
war first broke out, but unfortunately we have gotten a bit sidetracked
answering Max on ethical and philosophical grounds.

There are some very knowledgable people on this list, from Paul Phillips to
Doug Henwood to Barkeley Rosser to Jim Devine. Only 6 months or so ago,
there was a big discussion about the nature of the financial crisis, with
Doug taking a relatively optimistic position on one hand and Jim Devine a
pessimistic position on the other. The fact that this discussion has been
so disjoined from the current discussion disturbs me. After all, the final
paragraph of Sean Gervasi's 1996 paper staked out a position that economic
factors were driving the conflict in the Balkans. If PEN-L is to serve a
higher purpose, it seems that it should be along the lines of clarifying
these sorts of questions.

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)