Sermon on the Mount

DMS dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Thu Feb 13 14:47:01 MST 2003


Louis,

Imagine my shock.  There I was on my best behavior, even using a perceived
breakdown in the web to modify a position to make it less accusatory when
what do I hear....?  The voice of the Moderator rushing again to the defense
of one his beloved comrades.

And then the whole litany of the past is resurrected, much as MK tried to do
so he could charge me with being out-of-line, insulting, etc. We call that
"baiting," madman baiting maybe, since MK introduced this discussion by
applauding a person arguing that all those in their right minds should
support an alternative form of imperial subjugation of Iraq.

I did not initiate the discussion of a progressive nationalism by imperial
countries.  He did.  He stated that the countries of Europe, and their
ruling classes were facing an obligation to create a progressive nationalism
to counter the US or submit to semi-colonial status a la Argentina.  And
just where is Nestor G and his flamethrower when you need him?

MK goes on to argue that we should stiffen Schroeders resolve,  protect
Fisher's neck, etc. as the solution to imperial designs.  No matter how much
scholarly language your friend uses, no matter what fancy plumage he uses on
this bird, when you look past the feathers, MK is arguing for an alliance
with a supposed enlightened, progressive national bourgeoisie in specific
imperial countries. He never disputes that.  He argues that position
consistently.  You know what, Louis?  Know what you get when you pull the
feathers off a peacock?  You get a chicken.

You may think MK is a fierce defender of class interests, and maybe he was.
But he hasn't displayed one bit of that in these discussions.  Show me if
you can his class analysis and his defense of the interest of the working
class.  Or do you consider UN occupation by French and German peacekeepers
defense of the workers' interests?

You thought Mark Jones is a great thinker and really understood the
approaching scarcity of oil and how that is driving the bourgeoisie into a
"resource war" in Iraq.  Do tell, how does Mark square that with his recent
assertion on this list that the US will not risk a war in Iraq?  Details,
details, details.  Having made a  study of the Hubbertists, let me  say this
about their supposed insights into the scarcity of oil.  In 1976, Hubbert
was proposing 1983-1986 as the peak and falloff  date for the production of
oil.  When that period came and went, Hubbert predicted 1995 as the peak and
falloff date.  1995 went and so did Hubbert (he was dead).  His follower, Mr
Ivanhoe, coordinator of the M. King Hubbert Center at the Colorado School of
Mines, stuck his neck out, picked up the torch and predicted 2000 as the
peak/falloff date for oil production.  And when that went?  2003.  So much
for the erudition, the scholarliness of the scarcity theorists.

I found your reference to Kant amusing and not unexpected.  I knew you
harbored a great affection for Kant, the purveyor of the grand, and moral,
notion that we can never know the thing in itself.  Compare that to Hegel's
formulation to know the potentialities of a thing is to know the thing in
itself.  I admit to not having read Kant since college so maybe I got it a
little wrong.  Hegel I still read.

I have launched no flames against your beloved friend.  I have simply
pointed out the potentialities that exist in his formulations, the potential
for propping up imperialism in one or another form.

If I am going to remain on this list, I certainly intend to respond to the
positions others take.  I intend to do that with the tools available to me.
I taught myself, as most of us have, Marx.  I believe I have provided ample
evidence of my abilitiy to analyze the social and economic actions of the
imperial order based on my knowledge of the methods and substance of
historical materialism.  If you find that threatening to the tranquility of
your list, then you of course have the ability to unsub me.  You can do that
if you wish. But don't present your loyalty to a friend as a moral
imperative, a category of ethics, and make false charges against those who
don't find such loyalty or morals relevant to the issues.

Thank You,
dms


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list