DIALECTICS, SAYER, BHASKAR, MURRAY -- REPLY TO DUMAIN

Hans Despain DESPAIN at econ.sbs.utah.edu
Wed Apr 12 13:08:29 MDT 1995


Sorry Ralph that you find my (mis-)understanding of Marx shallow, I
only do my best to understand those I read.  But, I don't know that
my responses nor my readings of others posts are any more "rushed"
then anyone else's.  Personally, I find that your attitude is quite
offensive and uncalled for.

With respect to *German Ideology*, you are quite correct to point out
that my thoughts are not expanded.  I was simply open to discuss
some issues here, if you think they are trival don't bother.  I
contend that Scientific Socialism (which seems to lack a humanistic
ethical commitment) finds its paradigm within Marx.  It has occered me
to be, especially in his *German Ideology*; a response to Stiner,
Feuerbach, and Bauer; that instead of grounding an alternative
(communism) in ethical humanism, developed from Feuerbach's notion of
human nature, which seems to be Marx's notion of Species Being, seems
abandoned in GI, for instead an insistence that communism is something
that is going to emerge historical, regardless of any ethical
commitment to its conception.  If this is trival so be it.  But then
I look at the crimes against humanity in Soviet Union, and elsewhere,
why is it that human life is not the priority for such regimes rather
then some specific economic ideal.  I think there is a problem here
which is far from trival.

I am *not* here suggesting two Marxs, but suggesting three ways to
interpret him.  Early, late, or as an (mostly) consistent whole.  It
is as a whole which should ground a premise for Socialism or a
humanistic Post-capitalism.

Ralph> Not a word of this argument makes sense to me, and furthermore,
Ralph> your concerns strike me as shallow as your reading of Marx.  I
Ralph> really don't want to be unkind, but after suffering through
Ralph> Dick Howard this evening, I am bothered by what you consider to
Ralph> be significant intellectual endeavor, though I don't doubt your
Ralph> sincerity.

Ralph you are unkind and this is simply uncalled for, if you would
like me to expand a thought I will, but this persoanl attack is
stupid.  Let your tone and attitude demonstrate a lack of significant
intellectual endeavor.

Ralph> Furthermore, the last sentence quoted above distorts the
Ralph> purportand content of _The German Ideology_, IMO.  You
Ralph> arbitrarily and impermissibly read your own anxieties into
Ralph> Marx.

Maybe so, I am trying to understand, I don't think you have very well
explained your own anxieties about my interpretations.  Nor does it
seem (since as you point out I have not explicited them) do you
understand my anxieties.

Ralph> Your thinking isvery sloppy in your assertions about
Ralph> grounding, and your (notMarx's) dualistic polarity of the
Ralph> historical necessity and the morality of the struggle for
Ralph> communism.  You are not doing any real intellectual work here
Ralph> no matter what you pretend, and I'm getting pissed off.

Sorry I have you all wound up, see if you can clam down.

Ralph> I don't get paid a nickel for any of the work I do in this
Ralph> and I don't have a PhD or even a Masters in the appropriate
Ralph> disciplines, but at least I have coughed up some references to
Ralph> and abstracts of substantial work on Marx.  I think I can
Ralph> differentiate intellectual substance from philosophical
Ralph> channel-surfing.

So what, the title we have or don't have should not have anything to
do with our discussions.  It seems especially you to be the one
so concerned with titles and employments.  I hope to differentiate
intellectual substance and from philosophical channel-surfing myself,
which is still different from personal attacks and name calling.

Ralph> I am losing my patience with the latter approach to Marx.
Ralph> And in general, I find you obtuse in your responses to the
Ralph> arguments of others on this list.  Is this because you are in a
Ralph> rush (as I often am), and you lack the time to read other
Ralph> people's posts carefully?

So be it, I try my best to expand my thoughts.  But this is actually
quite a silly complaint for a forum such as this.  We all are trading
ideas and concerns.  Some well thought out, others which occur to us
during reading a post.  I seriously doubt if you have attempted to
understand what is being said from me in my questions of Sayers.
Moreover, you brush off the questions as if I am too lazy to read it
myself.  Why not share your work, if you havn't the time fine,
you seemed to be in a position to defend or explain something
here.  If your not I certainly would not expect to offer or
further explicit anything.  Your attitude is a hostility that no one
on the list deserves, especially when the goal is to have a forum to
share ideas of social emancipation, understanding Marx and Marxists,
and Marxism in General.  If it is true that my understanding of Marx
is "shallow" what is the problem with trying to expand it?

Ralph your attitude shows a lack of maturity, an intolerence of
others ideas, and lack of disire to discuss ideas outside your
convictions.  It is quite ironic that the very person whom is so
willing to disregard so much literture as simple "BULLSHIT" calls my
responses obtuse.

Hans Despain
University of Utah
despain at econ.sbs.utah.edu


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list