lause at SPAMworldnet.att.net
Sun Mar 25 22:47:57 MST 2001
Jeez, I didn't want to rant on this (and will try to avoid
it), but the most annoying thing about the PMers is their
combination of the most arrogant and self righteous
dogmatism right along their corporate funded and
dismissive approach to all socialist ideas. I think it's
essentially a kind of self coddling nihilism that
ultimately makes the holder as comfortable with
authoritarian solutions as not. The elite universities
started it and infected the rest of the academic community
Even worse is when that kind of stupidity is held up as an
example of radical scholarship. Sadly, this kind of self
confusion thoroughly prevailed on the H RADHIST list,
which had very few historians and almost no radicals when
it started last year.
They've also perfected the puerile art of derailing email
discussions. (You write in and say the sky is blue. "A"
responds that blue is an illusion and you are probably
implying something about redness. "B" then asks why you
would say the sky is red. Then the grad students of A and
B pile on to denoucne the presence on the list of anyone
racist, sexist and stupid enough to think the sky is
red.) The last time I seriously listened to one of them,
they explained how I should like Clinton, because he was a
New Dealer because...you guessed it, he wanted to make
deals that were new.
John Landon wrote:
> Postmodernism as an ism is one thing, but a postmodern
> period is quite another. A look at my web page at
> http;//eonix.8m.com/postmodern.htm might help to put
> the difference in perspective. Refuting
> postmodernists, unless it is interesting as a pasttime
> or formal debate against a mere fad, will not help
> with what causes the ism to occur. For the loss of
> energy is irreversible, making one ask, what to do?
> These were marxists, with an idea from Toynbee! Don't
> waste time worrying about it or fighting the real
> dialectic behind the ism. Roll with the punches and
> use dialectic as yes and no, to seek the reconciling
> One way, thus, to escape the dilemma is to see that
> postmodernism is really built into modernism. Hegel
> invented postmodernism, unless Kant invented it first,
> and the Communist Manifesto reconciles this
> 'postmodernism' with 'modernism', etc... The Romantic
> poets, Kant, Hegel, the challenges to the
> Enlightenment that were a part of the Enlightenment,
> all these and much else suggest that the issue is the
> original split in the dialectic of the Enlightenment.
> So postmodernism is an echo. Note that the generation
> of Hegel was already asking 'what happened to the
> Enlightenement'? Since then there have been many
> comebacks, and the same old critiques of reason by
> people who have forgotten Kant's original version.
> Thus instead of frowning, one might smile politely,
> and quietly slip away from 'postmodern-ism'. But the
> really deadly postmodernism is pointed to by people
> like Spengler, irregardless of his stupid and wrong
> theories. The end of a whole era of innovation and
> advance. Don't let it happen. A fad of confused
> marxists postmodernists, over the long term, is
> probably a benefit to marxists, like a tetanus shot
> against the soon to become inheritors of
> postmodernism, probably the pope making a comeback.
> The issue is one of historical direction. How reach
> socialism in this wasteland? Not to waste ammunition
> on marxist postmodernist picnics.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
More information about the Marxism