Jim Morin for June 10, 2010

I thought that Bush and Boys took care of this, I mean they called him part of the “”Axis of Evil”, shook their fist at him, told him clean up his act or, well I can’t remember what they said they would do, but all of the Far Right and Conservative posters keep saying that Obama is too soft on terrorist, and should stop Iran from making nukes.

God I wish the GOP was back in power, they did such a great job during the Bush era, we had no problems, the World feared us, and everyone had a job.

” … during the Bush era, we had no problems, the World feared us, and everyone had a job.”

You have finally got something right.

And, Gaddafi gave up all of his nuclear matériel and ambitions - a few days after we invaded Iraq.

There’s Irony Here Re: History of BP (excuse my Wiki Ref):

“In May 1901, William Knox D’Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil, which he discovered in May 1908. This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was incorporated to exploit this. In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources. In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).” “…The AIOC became the British Petroleum Company in 1954.”

Wiki BP History

The “irony” is how BP came into being as well as US involvement. I realize this oil spill (blowout) is more than bad karma - but I bet the Iranians are laughing at our catastrophe.

^^ But of course the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown in a US sponsored coup in 1953. He had nationalized the oil industry, which had been controlled by BP.

ANancy,

NEO-SOCIALISM!!!!!!

^^^^Not “feared”, loathed.

“and everyone had a job.”

So much easier to say when you change the way unemployment is counted (it’s been changed back now).

Actually, I’m thinking about the 35% royalty Louisiana gets from BPs lease, and how they said “drill baby drill”, and how much Bobby Jindal is starting to look and sound like Mahmoud without a beard. Ah, we will REALLY be hearing from Bobby, now until 2012!

psssssssssssssst…..Ken……I reminded you a couple of comic strips back that George Bush is NO LONGER PRESIDENT!! Comeon….NOW you have been reminded….at least take a shot at someone in charge….you know..big business, special interests….comon…ANYONE to leave President ‘Change and Transparent’ Obama untouched fella!

^^Bush is no longer President**, true, but like the gift that keeps on giving, we are still suffering from his Presidency or lack there of…

Anyone who blames Obama for the national debt or the current BP mess is clearly not a student of recent American history. 70% of the debt is directly due to the Reagan/Bush/Shrub “Trickle Nowhere” tax cuts and the lax (non-existent) drilling safety regulations that led to the BP disaster are a direct result of Cheney’s secret, oil-industry-written-and-approved energy policy.

Just because Shrub has gone AWOL again doesn’t mean he didn’t leave a Texas-sized mess for the next guy to clean up.

14 down…

Why, you should be happy. Can’t have big bad government upset nice friendly private business, now, can we?

And just think, all the rightists were so insistent Obama is a marxist. Where is the ……. nationalization, I ask you?

“And just think, all the rightists were so insistent Obama is a marxist. Where is the ……. nationalization, I ask you?”

I am an expert on Marxism-Leninism, so I can smell one miles away, and 0bama reeks to high heavens.

There is still a little thing called The US Constitution that presents a bit of a problem to an outright ‘nationalization’ of private company in the traditional form, though he still managed to screw GM and Chrysler lenders / bondholders, while rewarding UAW …

In the short time that he has been the President, he has expanded the reach of the government, or caused to enact new laws to effect such, over ever increasing number of industries - automobiles, financial, health-care, college financing, and on and on … .

With respect to the BP, there are a couple of problems: 1, It is a foreign company; 2, The well is located in quasi-international waters … .

The only thing that surprised me about 0bama, is the speed and extent of his ideologically driven ‘transformation’ of America.

If you are an “expert” on Marxism-Lenninism, then you know they were neither true “communists” (little “c”) NOR were they “socialists”. Now, as to Reaganomics, you might think about Fascism, or Feudalism. Corporations owned the state, until they screwed up bad enough to require state support, then they came running like lemmings, well rats actually, to the cheese.

^^ I certainly am not an expert on Marxism, and I rarely get a chance to converse with someone who is, so I will take the opportunity to ask what you think of Lesek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism. I know it’s a little old now, but at one time it was highly regarded. Do you think it still holds its position as an interpretation of Marx and Marxism? Or is there something newer and better that you would recommend?

I have not read Leszek Kołakowski’s book, but from what I read about it, I would probably agree with much of it.

I studied M&L (was indoctrinated in) at a university in the then Communist Czechoslovakia, so I have developed my criticism of the ‘science’ by myself.

In fact, after coming to the US, and after I realizing how totally misunderstood the ‘science’ is, I thought about writing a book of my own …

Peter; if the BP mess is in quasi-international waters, like you say, then why blame Obama about it?

^^ Well, I hesitate to give advice to an expert, but I found Kolakowski’s book extremely interesting, and I learned a lot from it.

Moving on, do you have any comments on Althuser’s reinterpretation (in Reading Capital) of Marx in the context of mid-century French (“structuralist”) thought? And in particular, do you agree with those who think that there was a sharp break between the early “Hegelian” Marx and the later “Marxist” Marx, or do you stand with those who think that Marx was consistent throughout his career?

Peter; Don’t fall into the trap the great late John Paul 2 was too smart to fall in; blind admiration of capitalism just because you saw the evils of its nemesis. If a marsh isn’t a good placeto grow a plant, doesn’t mean desert will be automatically be the perfect place.

If Karl Marx was a live today, and lucidly thinking, he would not be a “Marxist”.

His original theorem, and as refined / revised over the years by him and his followers, have many floes, not the least of which was the Nietzsche - like dehumanization of humans - all but elimination of “AN INDIVIDUAL:”, but, as a practical matter, Marx and followers could not fathom the rapid conversion of the industrialized economies, from that of about 97% subsistence production to less than 5% subsistence based.

That dramatic shift provided greater opportunities for the individuals’ desires to be, well, an individual, rater than an ant toiling for the common good, as it were.

The audacity of people like 0bama is that they believe that it was the execution of the theories that was flawed, not the theories themselves. What they don’t get is that the brutality of the practicing regimes was NOT the part of, but rather a consequence of the imposition of the system. In other words, it turns out that people are not naturally disposed to exist as ants.

Mao discovered the problem early on, and thought that the only way to succeed with the ideology, was to first wiping the slate clean and than start anew, hence the ‘Cultural Revolution’.

^ Thanks for your reply. I think the experience of those who have lived in “socialist/communist” societies is very important. I’ve known quite a few people from Eastern Europe over the years, and I always listen to what they have to say with great interest. I was never much attracted to Leninism/Stalinism anyway, but the reports of those who lived under it confirmed my aversion to it.

But one of the questions that seems to arise often is the relationship between Marx’s own theories and the practice of communism in the Soviet Union and its satellites. I know some people have argued that Soviet Communism was not what Marx had in mind – that it was a betrayal of true Marxism. But others argue that Sovietism is just what Marxism has to become.

I have also heard people argue that a true “Marxist” revolution could not have occurred in the relatively non-industrialized Russia, and that some of the distortions of Marxist theory came about because Lenin was trying to impose socialism in an economy that was not ripe for it. This could well be an excuse, but it need to be examined.

I don’t know enough to be able to decide these questions. I would think that in order to decide, it would be essential to have a really good understanding of what Marx himself actually said. But as I read, I discover that there is a great deal of debate about how to interpret Marx. So I am hoping that you could give me some guidance here.

One of the questions that often seems to come up is the question I mentioned in my previous note – was there a sharp break between the early Marx – as represented, for example, in the Manuscripts of 1844 – and the later Marx – as represented, for example, in Capital. I was curious to know where you stand on that question, particularly in relation to Althuser’s arguments in Reading Capital. I have trouble following Althuser, who is not an easy read, so I would welcome your expert comments on what he has to say.

I am a little surprised by your statement that Marx and his followers could not fathom the rapid conversion of the industrialized economies. I don’t mean to say that they were good prophets – in fact I think they were lousy prophets – but my understanding was that they were reacting very much to the experiences of the working class as they saw it – for example, in Engels’ Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, which is a very powerful book. Or do you disagree?

peter – I hope I’m not pestering you, but I do admire expertise, and I try to take the opportunity to learn as much as I can when I get the chance to speak with an expert.

I would be interested to hear a little more about something you said in a previous message. You say about Marx:

“His original theorem, and as refined / revised over the years by him and his followers, have many floes [flaws?], not the least of which was the Nietzsche - like dehumanization of humans - all but elimination of “AN INDIVIDUAL:”….

But this is not quite consistent with Kolakowksi’s interpretation. He suggests that Marx was responding to the dehumanization produced by capitalism. Thus the idea of alienation. Here Kolakawsi is summarizing Marx’s view:

“We live in an age in which the dehumanization of man, that is to say the alienation between him and his own works, is growing to a climax which must end in a revolutionary upheaval; this will originate from the particular interest which has suffered the most from dehumanization, but its effect will be to restore humanity to all mankind.” (“Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I:p. 262)

“Exploitation consists in the worker selling his labour-power and thus divesting himself of his own essence; the labour process and its results become alien and hostile, a deprivation of humanity rather than a fulfillment.” (“Main Currents of Marxism”, Vol I, p. 264)

And there is much more to the same point. Now if Kolakowski were an apologist for Marx, one might dismiss such claims. But Kolakowski, as you know, is a critic of Marx and Marxism.

Since you are an expert in these matters, I wonder if you could explain what seems to be a fundamental difference of interpretion between you and Kolakawski.

Thanks in advance for your help in understanding these questions.