[PREV - MARXIST_REVIVAL]    [TOP]

ATOMS_AND_YVES

                                             November 15, 2011

From a Yves Smith post on October 22, 2011,
"Marx Versus Capitalism Versus You":
                                                       http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/marx-versus-capitalism-versus-you.html
   "I do not agree with Kunkel that Marxism
   may come into its own. To me, it is just
   the flip side of the same appalling
   coin. Marxism has its roots in German
   idealism (Hegel) which I think we safely
   blame for fascism as well. Its horrors
   were no accident."

   "Both Marxism and capitalist theory are deeply
   materialistic; which inevitably rules out the
   human (matter cannot explain humanness, it is       Any description of
   just matter). So no surprise that each propose      humanity that denied
   some kind of tide of history argument as being      it's material reality
   inevitable (deregulation and 'free' markets in      wouldn't be worth much.
   the case of capitalism)."
                                                           MONKEY_KITCHEN
   "Both are quasi scientific, and so at
   once intellectually hollow and subject to
   the kind of scientific materialism that
   easily leads to letting machines rule
   over people.  Both use unfalsifiable
   arguments; typically circular arguments
   in the case of capitalist economic            (This only vaguely sounds
   theory, and dialectics in the case of         like Marx to me... I suspect
   Marxism that result in contradictions         a Marxist would have some
   like the claim that there is only the         objections.  But then they
   bourgeois and proletariat (a claim that       always do.)
   defeats itself as soon as anything
   changes, given that there are only two
   possibilities)."

                             The logic here is peculiar
                             "there is only the bourgeois
                             and proletariat" isn't a
                             self-contradicting claim in
                             any sense.  I would just call
                             it a claim later proven wrong.

                                               And since the claim was
                                               essentially falsified
                                               that would indicate that
                                               it was falsifiable.

                                               Though (1) you could probably
                                               save face by juggling
                                               definitions to preserve
Yves Smith, despite her detailed               the claim. (2) you could
knowledge of financial chicanery               argue that the rise of
seems like she buys into some                  the middle class was just
very naive genralities:                        a minor, temporary phenomena
                                               that we're doing our best
   Materialism vs. humanity;                   to fix now.
   Machines    vs. Humans

   Myself, I would say the trouble is not
   "materialism", but the drive toward
   over-simplfication, the need to feel
   you know precisely what's going on and     I don't think this is
   how things work...                         just philosophic
                                              quibbling, on my part.
     The fanatic mystic is just as
     dangerous as the fanatic materialist.



--------
[NEXT - WHITTAKER]