Subject: RE: BHA: Democracy is capitalism
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:51:27 -0500


Hi,

You might want to look at
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/Research_Studies/GaribaldiDRAFT.doc.

The Miami Cuban right equates private ownership of the means of production
with "democracy."

	Marsh Feldman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of James Daly
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism
>
>
> Hi Steve, Howard, DJ, Dick, Mervyn
>
> Sorry not to have got back sooner.
>
> Steve, I was responding to your extracts from Fuller as well as your
> own statements. I'm all for a philosophy of science critique of Kuhn,
> but equally for one of Popper.
>
> I can't see any harm in a Hippocratic-style oath for scientists, but I
> just haven't thought about it, which is why I didn't bring it up.
>
> The references to Popper as a social democrat seemed to be an argument
> against the possibility of his being a cold warrior.
>
> The statement that "Democracy is capitalism" was meant to be
> provocative, but for a very good reason: it is true in practice. When
> Bush says he is bringing democracy to Iraq, he means privatisation,
> neoliberalism. The essence of socialism is found in Marx's attack on
> the Young Hegelians who exalted the bourgeois political struggle for
> the rights of man as worthy of human dignity, and despised workers'
> socio-economic struggles as mere stomach filling. Marx pointed out
> that the dominant "right of man" was the bourgeois right to private
> ownership of the means of production, wherewith to exploit the
> working-class. In "On the Jewish Question" he attacked the bourgeois
> manipulation of their con-trick separation of "state" and "market",
> and argued that humanism would mean reuniting the political and the
> economic as our "forces propres".
>
> I have written at some length on this in an article "Marx, Love and
> Enlightenment", which has been brought up-to-date and can be seen at
> this URL.
>
> http://groups.msn.com/JamesDalyandFriends/documents.msnw
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism
>
>
> > James
> >
> > Said "democracy is capitalism" - this is nonsense. Even Alain Badiou
> > does not make such a draconian statement - he puts forward the
> > acceptable and arguable position the parlimentary politics as
> practised
> > today merely functions to make things work better by "turning the
> > spectacle of the economy into the object of apathetic, thought
> obviously
> > unstable public consensus." Badious's position is intelligent and
> > sensible and does not deny that 'democracy' has a  place, just
> radically
> > critiques the way that the institutions function in our social
> systems.
> > Whereas James denies that democracy has any place in a radical
> > understanding of society. [How nice to be so avant-garde...]
> >
> > Science should be more democratic and accountable - of course it
> isn't,
> > perhaps that's why it consistently fails to live up to our
> > expectations... (When I was a teenager I was told that human beings
> > would have reached Mars by now - instead they produce better
> lipsticks
> > and robot dogs for Sony...)
> >
> > regards
> > steve
> >
> > James Daly wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Steve
> > >
> > >"a social-democrat like Popper could hardly be expected to agree
> with
> > >Marx and Hegel" -- in fact they were prepared to annihilate the
> planet
> > >to to defend capitalism and save the world from communism. Perhaps
> he
> > >should have called for social democrats "to adopt a version of the
> > >Hippocratic Oath to restrain their propensity for harm."
> > >
> > >One example of Popper's dishonest "scholarship" is his misquoting
> Marx
> > >on a crucial issue as saying he wished to discover the "laws of
> > >society", whereas Marx said "the laws of modern society", i.e.
> > >capitalism.
> > >
> > >One can be a Cold Warrior without being paid for it, but acquiring
> the
> > >status of a Cold War manual certainly helps a book's sales, as it
> did
> > >Isaiah Berlin's.
> > >
> > >" '... to make science game-like and democratic as possible...' ".
> > >Science is not game like or democratic: games theory is just
> bourgeois
> > >ideology; "democracy" is capitalism.
> > >
> > >"Popper's version of science is essentially dialectical...". Popper
> > >was always ferociously anti-dialectical, and his denial of being a
> > >positivist turned mainly on the philosophically minor grounds of
> being
> > >a falsificationist instead of a verificationist, though in addition
> he
> > >also implausibly said metaphysical statements could become testable
> > >hypotheses.
> > >
> > >"... pitting one hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed
> > >issue. This goes back to Athens, the model being Socrates model of
> > >questioning, constructed in the 18th/19th [this should presumably
> be
> > >12th/13th] centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
> > >disputation' ". This is a frequently repeated but unconvincing
> > >ontogenesis of dialectic, which I think began with Plato's
> Parmenidean
> > >and Heraclides inheritance, and his practice of hierarchical
> > >classification.
> > >
> > >All the best
> > >
> > >James
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> > >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:36 AM
> > >Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and other
> > >fun stuff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Mervyn
> > >>
> > >>Within the philosophy of science perhaps the biggest argument of
> the
> > >>century is between Kuhn notable 'The structure of`scientific
> > >>revolutions' and Popper -  like most  people on the left I also
> > >>
> > >>
> > >assumed
> > >
> > >
> > >>that the below rationale was broadly correct - Fuller has done a
> > >>remarkably good job of throwing this presumption into question.
> > >>
> > >>I am not concerned to defend Popper regarding the Open Society or
> > >>
> > >>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > >>Poverty of Historicism, after all a social-democrat like Popper
> > >>
> > >>
> > >could
> > >
> > >
> > >>hardly be expected to agree with Marx and Hegel,  rather the
> > >>
> > >>
> > >interest I
> > >
> > >
> > >>have is in Fuller's attempt to recover the philosophy of 'science'
> > >>
> > >>
> > >and
> > >
> > >
> > >>'knowledge' from the predominance of the relativist Kuhn's
> paradigm
> > >>shifts, 'where knowledge is adequate to its objects'. The argument
> > >>
> > >>
> > >goes
> > >
> > >
> > >>that Popper '...took seriously both that science aspires to
> > >>
> > >>
> > >universal
> > >
> > >
> > >>knowledge and that scientists - our representatives in this
> project
> > >>
> > >>
> > >are
> > >
> > >
> > >>inherently flawed and biased agents. The result was to make
> science
> > >>game-like and democratic as possible...' But to clarify this
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Popper's
> > >
> > >
> > >>version of science is essentially dialectical pitting one
> > >>hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed issue. This goes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >back
> > >
> > >
> > >>to Athens, the model being Socrates model of questioning,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >constructed in
> > >
> > >
> > >>the 18th/19th centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
> > >>disputation', from this derives the German dialectical tradition
> and
> > >>
> > >>
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > >>course Hegel and Marx.  An example of this dispute in a
> non-science
> > >>
> > >>
> > >area
> > >
> > >
> > >>is the Popper/Adorno dispute over positivism which when looked at
> > >>
> > >>
> > >shows
> > >
> > >
> > >>perhaps rather typically that they are remarkably similar... both
> > >>anti-positivists, both dialectical thinkers, one a marxist the
> other
> > >>
> > >>
> > >a
> > >
> > >
> > >>social-democratic liberal.
> > >>
> > >>A single issue it seems to me throws the outright rejection into
> > >>question:  "At the height of the Vietnam War, Karl Popper called
> for
> > >>scientists to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath to restrain
> > >>
> > >>
> > >their
> > >
> > >
> > >>propensity for harm."
> > >>
> > >>regards
> > >>sdv
> > >>
> > >>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I don't know about Kuhn, but anybody of intellectual integrity
> with
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >a
> > >
> > >
> > >>>reasonable familiarity with Hegel and Marx who reads The Open
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >Society
> > >
> > >
> > >>>and its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism could scarcely
> doubt
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >that
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Popper was a cold war warrior. He is not only sly, he is
> dishonest,
> > >>>deliberately suppressing key words and omitting context in quotes
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >to
> > >
> > >
> > >>>suit his cold warrior distortions and travesties. His
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >characteristic
> > >
> > >
> > >>>method is to set up a scarecrow and demolish it as if it were the
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >real
> > >
> > >
> > >>>thing. To spring to his defence on this issue in the current
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >context can
> > >
> > >
> > >>>only mean to defend the totalitarian commercialism (Collier) that
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >Popper
> > >
> > >
> > >>>himself promoted and which is now being imposed on the world by
> all
> > >>>force necessary. (The very skies over London have been emptied
> for
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > >>>god of totalitarian commercialism to arrive as I type this...)
> > >>>
> > >>>Mervyn
> > >>>
> > >>>steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk writes
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>James
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The fifties cold warrior labelling of Popper has been challenged
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >in very
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>interesting ways by Steve Fuller just recently in his book Kuhn
> vs
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >Popper.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>As Fuller points out it is Kuhn who is in the pay of the coldwar
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >warriors...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>(this is not to disagree or comment on the thrust of the below -
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >merely to
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>spring to the defence of popper...)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>regards
> > >>>>sdv
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Hi Carroll
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Your punchline was strong -- that the purpose of reading
> Plato's
> > >>>>>Republic was to understand The Enemy.  But, only one? Why is
> his
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >name
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>on Lenin's tomb?  Your approach calls to mind the Fifties cold
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >warrior
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>Sir Karl Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, after which
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >George
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>Soros named his foundation. Slyly, Sir Karl manages to suggest
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >that
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>Plato's target is workers who must be kept in their place,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >whereas his
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>real target (see the Gorgias) is the unscrupulous Nietzschean
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >rich who
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>want to exploit and rule.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>It is nearly always forgotten that the society of Plato's first
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >choice
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>is a communist one, and that the rest of the argument is about
> a
> > >>>>>second-best society. And even the second-best society is not a
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >class
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>society in Marx's sense, in that the philosopher rulers do not
> > >>>>>appropriate the surplus, but live a frugal life.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>I suppose the jury is out on whether Plato meant by "gennaion
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >pseudos"
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>Big or Noble Lie, or both, but the myth of noble and base
> metals
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >in the
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>soul is an answer to the problem of legitimising the rule of
> > >>>>>reason, and defending it against the power of wealth. Lenin had
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>same problem. It's quite a problem!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>James
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>--
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
> > >>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> > >>
> > >>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > >>multipart/alternative
> > >>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > >>  text/html
> > >>---
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
> > This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> >
> > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
> >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >   text/html
> > ---
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---