Kark Marx and America

Peter N. Kirstein Blog Archive Kark Marx and America An excerpt:

"If one were sympathetic to Marxism and believed in the majesty of his writings, would that constitute anti-Americanism or a radical perspective? Should that trigger, to be a little sardonic, a National Security Agency warrantless wiretap to insure non-involvement in planned operations against the U. S.?"

Debate, Relate, & Pontificate

Debate, Relate, & Pontificate a great new blog!

A place that hopes to do the things stated in the title over a plethora of issues, topics, non-issues, and non-topics.
"I hope that the simplistic and naive streotypes of Marxism do not influence you to a negative pretext. I am NOT a Marxist or Neo-Marxist (no that it would be so evil), and what I am reflecting on is from a social theory perspective, not one of political activism (although thats not a bad thing)."

Not a bad thing at all!

Radical globalist ideology has possessed the occupant of the Oval Office and is bringing about the revolution Communism never could.

Radical globalist ideology has possessed the occupant of the Oval Office and is bringing about the revolution Communism never could.

Here is another article on the possible connections of the Neo-liberal triumph and Marxist theory!

Globalised revolution

Globalised revolution14Jan06Socialist Worker: "The worldwide spread of neo-liberalism means any future revolution must be international, argues political theorist Adam K Webb"

I seem to recall reading that somewhere...

How counterculture became consumer culture.

William Voegeli reviews of Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter.


"It's bad enough that the countercultural rebels are wasting their time and energies on "dramatic gestures that are devoid of any progressive political or economic consequences and that detract from the urgent task of building a more just society."

"What's worse, say Heath and Potter, is that the would-be progressives imagine their posturing is undermining capitalism, and all the while it is just strengthening it. Nation of Rebels argues that "the cultural contradictions of capitalism," described by Daniel Bell in 1975, have all been resolved—in capitalism's favor. Following Thomas Frank in The Conquest of Cool (1997) and David Brooks in Bobos in Paradise (2000), Heath and Potter claim that the counterculture—bohemianism on steroids—has rendered the practice of capitalism vastly more profitable, without making the results of capitalism even slightly more admirable."

The review gives a rather harsh assesment to the failures of communism, but makes it point regarding the rise of our consumerist society from the bowels of the counter-revolution of the 1960's.

I have just sat down with State and Revolution again and Lennin's discussion in the opening paragraphs about thow moderates emasculate the revolutionary side of Marxism parralled with this review interestingly.

I was just thinking how we on the left need to embrace a revolutionary understanding of Marx, but we must be wary of a critique "so vast and all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine what could possibly count as 'fixing things."

Part of the problem here is the psychological make-up of the activists and leftists that usually offer up such proposals. This personality insists on seeing the world or object
"be it homo sapiens or a mere representation of an organism, as valued only to the degree that the object contains some measure of the inner Essence or greater Good. Doing a good deed, for example, may provide intrinsic satisfaction which is only secondary to the greater good of striking a blow against Man's Inhumanity to Mankind."

Voegeli goes on to ask the essntial question regarding leftist personality flaws "is an ameliorative Left possible?If liberals' self-marginalizing narcissism is an accidental quality, one that can be cut away to leave behind a stronger determination to enact a better reform agenda, their efforts might succeed. If it's an essential attribute that can't be removed without killing the patient, then the task is hopeless.

Let's hope our task is not hopeless, but at some point I will discuss the personlity traits of revolutionaries.

Lecture Three: The origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done? Part 1

Lecture Three: The origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done? Part 1: "This is the first part of the lecture �The Origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done?� delivered by World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board Chairman David North at the Socialist Equality Party/WSWS summer school held August 14 to August 20, 2005 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The lecture will be posted in seven installments."

Foundations-notes from the Grudrisse. Foreword II

The manuscripts consist of two main chapters: on money and capital; and two more fragments on Bastiat and Carey.

In 1859, Marx chose to drop the Introduction and write a new one. [This will be considered later.]

Chapter on Money

Money comes to signify a whole set of social relations (not just mere paper or gold.) "Capital," too comes to signify a set of social relations based on opposite laws impelled onwards and undermined by the inner tensions. Explanation to follow in detail.

At first the chapter on Capital is difficult to follow, in part due to digressions and repeated assertions. Also as a result of cross purposes. Marx wrote that he intended to advance a systematic account, as well as a get out a pamphlet on "the ongoing economic crisis."

Details of Chapter:

The beginning addresses a bank reform by the Proudhonianist, Dairimon. After a drain of gold from France which produces a scarcity of money, interest rates go up. The people can't borrow. Solution? Go off gold standard which bring interest rates to zero, follows the Proudhonist slogan "Free Credit." Marx then points to the differences between money and credit and points out the "ordinariness" of Dairimon's requests.

The second phase of the Proudhoninists' plan brings Marx to his major theoretical questions. Their plan is to replace the money system with a labour time system.

Marx agrees with labour-time proponents that the value of any commodity is determined by the labour time it cost to produce. True on average only. Money serves the function of averaging out to a common standard or measure.

{I will continue to update this section but for now my fingers grow weary. So You will not see new dates but an extension of this entry . I still have 10 pages on section 2 to go.}