[Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam International
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Thu Jan 23 14:46:01 PST 2014
Greg, the contrast I made was between science and tradition as the
source of authority for knowledge. It is, as I said, not an absolute or
sharp distinction - science is largely tradition and tradition must
withstand the test of the viability of its lifestyle and change when
necessary. Nothing to do with structures and projects. I agree, both
science and the various traditional forms of praxis are projects.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Greg Thompson wrote:
> Sorry to jump in sideways here, but Andy, isn't your notion of
> "tradition" a bit too reified? That is, a bit too much like structure
> (which you aptly criticize)?
> Aren't traditions just the projects of a community of people?
>
> Changes in tradition don't change nearly as quickly as science (seldom
> will you see such changes that are shorter than a lifetime). But to
> say that traditions are not always up for the testing and failing in
> practice seems to ignore tens of thousands of years of human history
> in which precisely this process has been happening. Over and over and
> over again...
>
> The sacred may be "sacred" in theory/ideology, but that doesn't mean
> that it is unchangeable in practice.
>
> And to Paul, following Andy, I wonder if your approach leaves room for
> the transformation of tradition into the future, that is, allowing for
> it to change into something completely different altogether? Or is
> there some essence to tradition (e.g., of Haitian vodou) that must
> remain?
> (and I suspect that might get to Andy's question of process and
> processualism - processualists don't like essences...).
>
> And one last note, the communalism that you describe Paul, is a common
> feature of traditional cultures around the globe. Sharing resources
> for the common good might indeed be the hallmark of humanity (were it
> not for late industrial capitalism!). It is an admirable one. Yet,
> going forward, I have my doubts about it as a global politics b.c. it
> is almost always a bounded notion - i.e. the "community" is bounded.
> One shares in community with kin and ancestors or clan members, but
> one has no debt to outsiders. This seems like it would present some
> difficulties in terms of global politics. I think this is where Marx
> is sharpest - he proposed that in the future, we will come to
> recognize a community of humankind that has no such boundaries, such
> that you (we!) recognize a kinship to the Hmong woman suffering in
> southern China under local as well as global forms of oppression as
> well as the Inuit man doing the same in northern Alaska and as the
> child in Paraguay. I think Marx offers a way of imagining such a
> kinship of humanity - and he says that it turns out that it is
> capitalism that accomplishes this! Capitalism provides a means by
> which we Americans come into a kind intercourse with others around the
> globe. Granted most of us are blind to the hands the touched the
> clothes that lay against our skin right now as we speak.
>
> Quick object lesson, take a look at your shirt label and imagine the
> hands of the person who was sewing this garment. Suddenly the collapse
> of a garment factory in Bangladesh becomes a great deal more intimate
> than it ever could have been a hundred or so years ago. The person who
> made the very sweater that warms you could have died in that collapse.
>
> And this point of Marx's makes me quite a bit more agnostic about
> Wendell Barry's point about avoiding complicated technologies. I agree
> the we need to avoid dependence upon them. But why not hack it for
> your/our ends?
>
> But I ramble...
> -greg
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Paul, you make a true point, which perhaps I have overlooked. You
> make a distinction between an ethic and a praxis. By ethic I mean
> the deontology which specifies for you what is the right thing to
> do. By praxis I mean a unity of theory and practice which guides
> you as someone who seeks, in collaboration with others, some end.
> Now for me the two are identical, but it has taken a lot of work
> to get to a point where my praxis is equally ethical as
> scientific. There cannot be a sharp line between the two. But the
> distinction you make clarifies what you are saying. It is not
> necessary that someone is able to justify what they are doing by
> saying "... so that ..." I just do this because it is the right
> thing to do. That is fine.
>
> So you have embaced, not just Western Marxism, but a specific
> strand of Western Marxism which lays its emphasis on structure.
> This is not the only brand of Western Marxism.
> As David Preiss remarked, my comments were descriptive "not only
> of politics but also of citizenship." Making projects the key
> concept of my ethical and theoretical thinking is not only about
> how the world changes, but how it is. That is, I do not see the
> world made up of either srtuctures or individuals, but processes,
> in particular (us being human beings) *projects*. But if you
> embrace the anti-dialectical view that the world is individuals on
> one side and structures on the other, then it is blindingly
> obvious that if you were to ask which is the really determining
> factor, the really powerful one, it is obviously the social
> structures (ideologies, etc.). But why make this dichotomy in the
> first place? The answer is: to do science. The idea of structures
> gives one a powerful lens in which to describe and explain the
> world, in particular how is reproduces and maintains itself, how
> it "works." But the down side is that structures *cannot* explain
> how those structures (really) change, how they come to be broken.
> But you are a human being. When you put down your books and go
> into the world you act like a human being, not a machine. You try,
> you endeavour, you struggle. Because you are human.
>
> One last point. The difference between science (whether Marxist or
> positivist) and tradition is that while both change over time and
> both have tendencies within them which resist change, it is in the
> very essence of science that its theories are always up for
> testing and of failing the test of practice - nothing is sacred.
> This is not true of tradition. As you say, Marxism is a science,
> in the best sense of the word. What proved right last week may be
> thrown out next week if it fails the test of practice. Structural
> Marxism has failed.
> If anything unites the people on this list at all, it is an
> interest in CHAT - Cultural Historical Activity Theory. Although
> originating in the USSR it is not "Soviet Marxism." In fact it was
> brutally suppressed in the Soviet Union. Some people still take an
> "Activity" to be a system or a structure, but others, myself
> included, take it as a "project", that which challenges and
> changes structures. "Ontological" speaking, the world is not
> structures. That is just a way of seeing the world, as structures.
> As static and absolutely resistant to change. But you can see it
> differently, more humanly, as processes. The glass is half full.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> I am a product of an alternative structuring than that of the
> protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. I was raised
> in a small province of Haiti, Le borgne, by my grandparents
> who served the lwaes of my ancestors and country...i am a
> product of the haitian/african "vodou ethic and the spirit of
> communism" of that province. It is from that practical
> consciousness that my teaching and activism stems. The women,
> like blacks in america, of the 70s, 80s, 90s...did not change
> the world...they sought to participate in it as constituted by
> rich, white, protestant, heterosexual men...Prior to her death
> my grandmother, who could not read and write, "could not
> understand why women wanted to wear pant suits and act like
> men..."
>
> In my 3rd year in grad school my grandmother sat me down and said,
>
> "Poh (her nickname for me)...the universe blessed you with
> tremendous intelligence do not use it for personal wealth or
> to benefit yourself because there are countless people who
> sacrificed their own education so that you can have yours.
> Your life work belongs to their service and the poor you have
> left behind in haiti. .." she went on to say, "I know all the
> stuff the white people in the university have taught you have
> made you an atheist, but you are not white, you are
> haitian/african, you owe your freedom to no man, but to the
> lwaes of your ancestors who blessed you with your intelligence
> to serve them and the poor...never abandon them, pray daily,
> and always remember that the universe is and must be your
> frame of reference...no matter what the white people say"
> I am a Marxist in the western tradition because that is the
> only tradition I came across in the West that is in line with
> the African communal ethic my grandparents instilled in me.
> It is from my vodou ethic and the spirit of communism that i
> see the destruction wrought on by Western practical
> consciousness, and it is from that ethic that I seek to
> change the world.
> We must not fight and protest to recursively reorganize and
> reproduce and participate in a practical consciousness that is
> bent on raping the earth and it's resources, and exploiting
> and starving the masses of people while a few drive
> automobiles...that is absurd and insane!
>
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Blunden
> Date:01/22/2014 7:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam International
>
> Paul, I think Tom's points in his last email are spot on.
> I have been a wage worker all my life, and so far as I am
> concerned that
> is not "the same system" as slavery or subsistent farming. And
> that
> difference matters to me. Likewise, women who participated in the
> "second wave" feminist movement are doubtless disappointed
> that every
> woman who today enjoys the benefits of the rights won by
> feminists in
> the 70s, 80s and 90s do not always identify as a feminist, but
> they
> changed the world irreversibly and if the world is still
> unsatisfactory,
> that is just as things should be.
> There is no such thing as "structuralist action" and "humanist
> action."
> These terms are applicable to theories, and oftentimes theory
> does not
> correspond well to practice. Although you run a literacy
> project in your
> real life (so to speak) Paul, in your written contributions on
> this list
> you have been a consistent structuralist, and no-one could
> guess, from
> what you write, that outside the discussion of theory you actually
> struggle to make a difference. It is not comprehensible
> because nothing
> in what you say in theoretical discussions is consistent with
> making any
> effort to make the world a better place.
> Here is now it works (as I see it, modeled on Hegel's Logic).
> You see a
> problem. Others in similar a social position also see the
> problem and
> you begin to collaborate. (It is no longer a personal
> problem). You
> develop and act upon solutions, but mostly they fail. But
> eventually you
> hit upon some course of (collaborative) action which gets some
> momentum
> and seems to make a difference. (It is no longer subjective.)
> You all
> become self-conscious of this new project and name it. It
> develops its
> own self-concept, rules and norms of belief, action and
> meaning. (It is
> now a new concept entering into the existing culture, changing
> and being
> changed). After resisting it almost to the death, the existing
> culture
> responds by co-opting it (albeit in some modified form) and
> the project
> becomes mainstreamed. Whether this leads to a qualitative
> collapse of
> the former social formation and an entirely new identity, or
> simply a
> modification remains to be seen. It is not given in advance.
> But things
> have changed and things go on quite differently now. New
> problems arise
> and new solutions are possible. The total overthrow of all
> existing
> social conditions are events which are separated by centuries,
> but it is
> only by means of efforts to resolve particular problems
> manifested in a
> social formation that in the end the root cause in the
> foundations of
> the social formation itself are exposed and transformed. Every
> little
> step is a revolution. But you can't turn straight to the last
> chapter
> when you open the book. And if the hero has not triumphed by
> the end of
> the first chapter it would be a mistake to declare the whole
> chapter a
> waste of time. Yes?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I hear what you are saying...i would disagree with
> that...toussaint louverture
> > During the haitian revolution maintained haiti as a french
> plantation colony with wage-labor. To him that was a change
> from slave labor, but to Macaya and Sans Souci and the newly
> arrived africans on the island, who wanted to practice their
> vodou and have their own plot of land to grow their own crops
> and practice peasant farming as they did in Africa, it was the
> same system. In fact, Macaya and Sans Souci and many of the
> maroons on the island fought against toussaint, christophe,
> petion, etc. because they felt they had become white men by
> attempting to reproduce their ways under a different name.
> >
> > Similarly, the black american in order to convict the
> society of not identifying with their christian values and
> liberalism had to behave like liberal christians to highlight
> the hypocrisy and contradictions of the state...i very much
> doubt it had King protested to practice vodou and peasant
> farming america would have integrated blacks into its
> discourse...however, the latter position would have presented
> an alternative way of organizing and reproducing society
> against the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism of
> the American social structure.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom
> Richardson <tom.richardson3@googlemail.com
> <mailto:tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>>
> </div><div>Date:01/22/2014 5:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam
> International </div><div>
> > </div>Hello again Paul
> > Re-reading your reservation/explanation I can see that I
> have not answered
> > your assertion that no new structural concept was proposed.
> I think that
> > the thought behind my answer is that to bring about a
> functional change in
> > a concept whose behavioural demands are not actually met /
> practised is,
> > effectively to have posited a structural concept - or am I
> getting too
> > sophisticated (pejorative sense intended) here -
> > I'm not sure what the problem is, since change, of whatever
> sort, can only
> > come about either by the efforts of those within any given
> society
> > attempting to achieve an actual adherence to behaviour(s)
> that their
> > society posits as arising from its guiding principles, or by
> suggesting
> > that certain forms (social/economic/political or all of the
> above ) that
> > that society already has, could be more beneficial /
> productive / moral by
> > changing them in certain ways that are presently resisted by
> interest
> > groups within their society, even if those proposing such
> change are not
> > themselves practising or able to do so, under present
> conditions (hence the
> > necessity of Andy B.'s 'collaborative effort/actions in
> order to get to
> > where the change-wishers want to be); i.e the proposers are
> not themselves
> > able at the moment of proposing change to constitute a
> changed entity That
> > state of affairs seems unavoidable and so, not a question
> for analysis, to
> > me, but I have no philosophical training, despite some
> inclination
> > Enough already - I've gone on long enough
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 15:14, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> <pmocombe@mocombeian.com <mailto:pmocombe@mocombeian.com>>wrote:
> >
> > >> Tom,
> >>
> >> I would agree with your yes...but for me their actions were
> >> structural/humanist. That is, as adorno points out in
> identitarian
> >> logic...the thing (human) convicting the society of not
> identifying with
> >> itself....is identical with the thing it is convicting...so
> the black
> >> american leaders, like king, remained the thing they were
> against. They
> >> were americans simply convicting the society of not fully
> implementing its
> >> structural concepts...they were not asking for new
> structural concepts...
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >> President
> >> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Tom Richardson <tom.richardson3@googlemail.com
> <mailto:tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>>
> >> Date:01/22/2014 9:52 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam International
> >>
> >> Dear Paul
> >> At the risk of being facetious, and I am actually serious,
> the answer to
> >> all three questions must be yes. But you didn't ask me and
> I'm looking
> >> forward to Andy B.'s answer(s).
> >> Tom Richardson
> >> Middlesbrough UK
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22 January 2014 14:47, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> <pmocombe@mocombeian.com <mailto:pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> Within the logic of
> >>> "Men make their
> >>> own history, but they do not make it as they please; they
> do not make it
> >>> under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances
> existing
> >>> already, given and transmitted from the past", how is it
> people come to
> >>> change the world? Dialectically (negative)? Based on your
> logic, andy,
> >>> would you say that the leaders of the black american civil
> rights
> >>> >> movement
> >> >>> changed the world?... if so, was that a humanist act
> or a structural one?
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>> President
> >>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>
> >>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From:
> Andy Blunden <
> >>> ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> </div><div>Date:01/22/2014 8:50 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> >>> >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >> >>> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few
> | Oxfam
> >>> >> International
> >> >>> </div><div>
> >>> </div>Humanism and individualism (either methodological or
> ethical) are
> >>> >> two
> >> >>> quite different things. Humanism is an extremely
> broad category, and I
> >>> think that very broadly humanism on one side, and
> structuralism
> >>> (together with functionalism and poststructuralism) on the
> other is one
> >>> way of viewing the social theoretical and ethical matrix.
> I identify as
> >>> a humanist because I do *not* see people (individually or
> collectively)
> >>> as prisoners of structures and functions, "interpellated" and
> >>> "subjectified" by great social powers, but rather that
> "Men make their
> >>> own history, but they do not make it as they please; they
> do not make it
> >>> under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances
> existing
> >>> already, given and transmitted from the past". There is
> absolutely
> >>> nothing individalist about that position, but since agency
> is not an
> >>> illusion, it does pose the serious problem of how agency
> exists.
> >>> This is an important ethical and scientific question. If
> you stand on
> >>> the side of structuralism, you may be able to describe and
> even explain
> >>> how societies reproduce themselves, and how people betray
> each other,
> >>> make wars, waste their time in fruitless struggles, and in
> general show
> >>> themselves to be subjectified and interpellated, but it
> can never tell
> >>> you how a social formation at a certain point failed to
> reproduce itself
> >>> and was overthrow in favour of another, how people act in
> solidarity
> >>> with others, how people stop a war, how struggles turn out
> sometimes to
> >>> not be fruitless and in general how people change the world.
> >>> Science is always for a purpose.
> >>> Structuralism is for the purpose of interpreting the
> world; humanism is
> >>> for the purpose of both understanding and changing it.
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> >>> >>>> I have a problem with this notion of humanism
> being thrown around.
> >>>> How is your humanism any different from althusser's
> "humanism"?
> >>>> Althusser, for me, represents an aspect of our being in
> the world
> >>>> which highlights our unreflective acceptance of rules and
> ideas as the
> >>>> nature of our being in the world...Whereas the humanist
> claim Andy and
> >>>> rauno point to speaks to a sort of cartesian rational or
> >>>> self-conscious individual being. The latter two want to
> establish
> >>>> society based on such an individual, I.e., subject...whereas,
> >>>> althusser is suggesting that not only is there no such
> individual, but
> >>>> "there is no subject but by and for their subjection.."
> So it
> >>>> appears as though you humanists are attempting to do what
> capitalists
> >>>> have done, manufacture subjects...will your humanist
> subjects be
> >>>> better than the laborers and consumers of capitalism? In
> what sense?
> >>>> How will you reproduce them? How will they be defined?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>> President
> >>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>>> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>> From: Rauno Huttunen
> >>>> Date:01/22/2014 5:13 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam
> International
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am also a humanist but I still like to read Althusser.
> Althusser's
> >>>> theory of science and social theory are very interesting
> >>>> (generalization I-III, intransitive causality [generative
> causality?],
> >>>> ideological state apparatus etc.). With the help of
> Giddens is
> >>>> possible to make kind of humanistic interpretation on
> Althusser's
> >>>> social theory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Althusser's former student (many famous French thinker were
> >>>> Althusser's students; Foucault, Derrida, Bourdieu,
> Badiou, Debray...)
> >>>> Jacques Ranciere is also very interesting. He break away from
> >>>> Althusser's school in 1970th and started his own kind of
> humanistic
> >>>> critical social theory. In his book "The Nights of Labor:
> The Workers'
> >>>> Dream in Nineteenth-Century France" Ranciere claims that
> Althusserians
> >>>> really don't care about working class, their intentions,
> their
> >>>> feelings, their thought, their dreams etc.. Althusserians
> say that
> >>>> they represents the objective interests of working class
> but actually
> >>>> they are telling to working class how workers should
> think and feel.
> >>>> For Ranciere Alhusserianism is just another form of
> ruling elite's
> >>>> ideology; ruling class ideology is just replaced with
> Althusserian
> >>>> party ideology.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rauno Huttunen
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf Of Andy
> Blunden
> >>>> Sent: 22. tammikuuta 2014 4:34
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam
> International
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know how you claim to be an optimist, Paul. For
> my part, I am
> >>>> deeply hostile to Althusser's entire project.
> Structuralism is itself
> >>>> the paradigm of the ideology of modern capitalism. I am a
> humanist.
> >>>> >> "Who
> >> >>>> will take that self-conscious act?" you ask.
> Obviously the answer is
> >>>> that the agent will be a collaborative project, itself
> the product of
> >>>> many collaborative projects, and yes, organic
> intellectuals have a role
> >>>> to play it that project. But "a gramscian organic
> intellectual" is not
> >>>> >> a
> >> >>>> serious answer, as if it were a case of one person.
> But "The majority"
> >>>> (or intellectuals I presume you mean) is an empirical
> abstraction. So
> >>>> what? Who is counting? As if intellectual act as a unity
> according to
> >>>> majority votes of all intellectuals? Abstractions!
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> >>>> >>>>> But your position, andy, begs the question
> who will take that
> >>>>> self-conscious act...a gramscian organic intellectual?
> Where are
> >>>>> they? They are not in africa for instance...evo morales
> in latin
> >>>>> america? I am with althusser on this one. The majority
> have been
> >>>>> interpellated by and through ideological apparatuses
> that present
> >>>>> capitalism as the nature of reality as such. The masses
> think they
> >>>>> can all be and live like Mike (michael jordan), the atlanta
> >>>>> housewives, and basketball wives. They love capitalism
> more than the
> >>>>> capitalists....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>>> President
> >>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>>>> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>>> From: Andy Blunden
> >>>>> Date:01/21/2014 9:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam
> International
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which brings us back to what on Earth is meant by
> "mind," Paul, but
> >>>>> >> no,
> >> >>>>> it is not my understanding at all that capitalism
> exists irrespective
> >>>>> >>> of
> >>> >>>>> the armed bodies of men and their political
> off-shoots which protect
> >>>>> those relations. Unlike you though, Paul, I do not ascribe a
> >>>>> >>> personality
> >>> >>>>> to "the Earth," or "humanity," "the poor," or
> "us academics." What I
> >>>>> >> am
> >> >>>>> saying however is that the overthrow of capitalist
> social relations
> >>>>> >> and
> >> >>>>> thus the state which protects it, is a
> self-conscious act, a
> >>>>> collaborative project, not something which emerges
> mindlessly out of
> >>>>> >>> the
> >>> >>>>> social process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>> Bill,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You speak of capitalism as though it has a mind of its
> own, I.e.,
> >>>>>> >> the
> >> >>>>>> free market. No such thing as Karl polanyi
> demonstrates in "the
> >>>>>> great transformation...The state has kept capitalism
> alive and
> >>>>>> >> going
> >> >>>>>> amidst it's crises. The question becomes can we
> have a humanist
> >>>>>> capitalism somewhere between adam smith's "theory of moral
> >>>>>> >>> sentiments"
> >>> >>>>>> and his "wealth of nations." Revisionist
> Marxists such as Bernstein
> >>>>>> grappled with this question, and it continues to plague
> twenty
> >>>>>> >> first
> >> >>>>>> century socialists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>>>> President
> >>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>>>>> www.mocombeian.com <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>>>> From: Bill Kerr
> >>>>>> Date:01/21/2014 8:15 PM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>>>> To: Andy Blunden ,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few | Oxfam
> International
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My contention is that capitalism has these economic
> >>>>>> >> characteristics:
> >> >>>>>> 1) General increase in standard of living
> >>>>>> 2) Increasing gap b/w rich and poor
> >>>>>> 3) Instability: periodic economic crises
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you only talk about (2) without mentioning (1) then
> it is hard
> >>>>>> >> to
> >> >>>>> grasp
> >>>>> >>>>>> why people put up with capitalism. Bill
> and Melinda Gates just talk
> >>>>>> >>>>> about
> >>>>> >>>>>> (1) and ignore the other aspects. See
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >>
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579324530112590864
> >> >>>>>> If you can't stomach Bill and Melinda there are
> other version of
> >>>>>> >> this
> >> >>>>>> narrative. This video (Hans Rosling, GapMinder)
> is interesting:
> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The historical record suggests to me that provided (1) is
> >>>>>> >> maintained
> >> >>>>> then
> >>>>> >>>>>> people will continue to tolerate
> capitalism. Whether capitalism can
> >>>>>> maintain (1) depends on (3). The crisis of 2008 and the
> Occupy Wall
> >>>>>> >>>>> Street
> >>>>> >>>>>> movement suggested to me that it was
> time to do some serious study
> >>>>>> >> of
> >> >>>>>> Marx's unfinished project or alternatively other
> economic theories
> >>>>>> >>>>> such as
> >>>>> >>>>>> Post Keynesian (Hyman Minsky, Steve Keen
> et al) which recognise the
> >>>>>> inherent instability of capitalism. My tentative
> conclusion is that
> >>>>>> >>> we
> >>> >>>>>> just
> >>>>>> don't understand capitalism and it is very hard to
> understand. eg.
> >>>>>> >> if
> >> >>>>>> capitalists can muddle through the downturns by
> printing more money
> >>>>>> and the
> >>>>>> very serious economic downturns can be delayed by 70
> years (Great
> >>>>>> Depression to 2008) then that might be a formula for
> survival (?)
> >>>>>> >>>> Absurd
> >>>> >>>>>> simplification on my part.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>>> Which means, does it not Huw,
> propagating a counter-ethic, so to
> >>>>>>> >>>>> speak,
> >>>>> >>>>>>> since arguments against an ethic are
> just words, and the maxim is
> >>>>>>> >>>>> always
> >>>>> >>>>>>> "do as I do not as I say." But an ethic
> is meaningful, I believe
> >>>>>>> >>>> only
> >>>> >>>>>>> within some collaborative endeavour. My
> relationship to you is
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> meaningful
> >>>>>> >>>>>>> only in connection of what we do, as
> we, together. I believe that
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> "Do unto
> >>>>>> >>>>>>> others as you would have them do
> unto you," is fine as far as it
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> goes, but
> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is inadequate to this mtulicultural,
> fragmented world.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going back to reference to the
> bubble and social psychology, it
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> seems to
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> me that the "super rich" are to be
> pitied too. I am not sure
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> living in a
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> bubble is such a nice thing,
> especially given the immaturity
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> required to
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> sustain it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't think it is the super rich which are to be
> combatted,
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> rather it
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> is the inane notion that this is
> something to be admired or
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> desired. This,
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> it seems to me, is a more
> obtainable and more rewarding
> >>>>>>>> >> exercise.
> >> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 22 January 2014 00:07, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>> >> <mailto:
> >> >>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But your foundation is active in combatting
> inequality
> >>>>>>>> >> through
> >> >>>>>>>> literacy. "Every step of real movement is
> more important
> >>>>>>>> >> than
> >> >>> a
> >>> >>>>>>>> dozen programmes," as one very serious
> theorist said.
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_05_05.htm
> >> >>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At 38 I am differing to my elders on this
> one...albeit,
> >>>>>>>> >> I
> >> >>>>>>>> agree with Andy...too young to be
> pessimistic, but what
> >>>>>>>> >> I
> >> >>>>> have
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> seen happen to black america
> has really disappointed me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>>>>>> President
> >>>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
> <http://www.mocombeian.com> <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>>>> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>> Date:01/21/2014 6:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few |
> Oxfam
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> International
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> David, you are quite correct
> that agreement on
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> fundamentals of
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> theory is
> >>>>>>>> by no means necessary for collaboration
> (though on the
> >>>>>>>> >>> xmca
> >>> >>>>>>>> list this is
> >>>>>>>> feasible). In a sense, the very meaning of
> >>>>>>>> >>>> "collaboration" is
> >>>> >>>>>>>> that such
> >>>>>>>> disagreement on fundamentals is suspended.
> Nonetheless,
> >>>>>>>> >> in
> >> >>>>>>>> raising the
> >>>>>>>> proposal on this list your are inviting
> collaboration on
> >>>>>>>> formation of
> >>>>>>>> the concept of this project, and I have
> accepted the
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> invitation by
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> criticising your concept
> of the proposal. You have
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> propsed the
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> writing
> >>>>>>>> of an article countering the narrative of
> Ayn Rand that
> >>>>>>>> >>>> "the
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ultra-wealthy are the engines of
> advancement and
> >>>>>>>> >>> prosperity
> >>> >>>>>>>> and the
> >>>>>>>> saviors of society" and to argue instead
> that "the
> >>>>>>>> >> gradual
> >> >>>>>>>> shift in
> >>>>>>>> political control of the economy over the
> past 50 years
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> by the
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> ultra-wealthy has reached a
> kind of tipping point in
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> which the
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> gains in
> >>>>>>>> disparity are so dramatic as to overwhelm
> any sense of
> >>>>>>>> >>>> actual
> >>>> >>>>>>>> self-interest." My response is
> "Well, hello!" This is
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> hardly news,
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> David. This has been
> argued (correctly) for several
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> centuries. The
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> wealthy have always been a
> class of parasites; social
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> progress has
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> always been only in the
> teeth of opposition from all but
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> a few
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> of that
> >>>>>>>> class. I would argue that it is better to
> enter some
> >>>>>>>> >>> actual
> >>> >>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>> aimed against capitalism and ineqaulity and
> participate
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> argument
> >>>>>>>> about strategy and tactics. Being 68, after
> 50 years of
> >>>>>>>> >>>> such
> >>>> >>>>>>>> participation, I accept a
> somewhat arm's length
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> participation,
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> but the
> >>>>>>>> protagonists (wether real or imagined) are those
> >>>>>>>> >> actually
> >> >>>>>>>> engaged in
> >>>>>>>> that struggle in any formm about how best to
> further
> >>>>>>>> >> that
> >> >>>>>>>> struggle. Not
> >>>>>>>> the *generalities*, in my view. But I am
> pleased that
> >>>>>>>> >>>> you are
> >>>> >>>>>>>> taking up
> >>>>>>>> the battle and I wish you well. All I can do
> is offer my
> >>>>>>>> reflections on
> >>>>>>>> your object-concept, as others have and will.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
> >>>>>>>> >>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David H Kirshner wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >> It would appear ...
> >>>>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>>>> > Doesn't appear that way to me.
> >>>>>>>> > In fact, it's not clear to me, contrary to
> Andy and
> >>>>>>>> >>> Paul,
> >>> >>>>>>>> that in a practical endeavor one
> has to come to terms
> >>>>>>>> >> with
> >> >>>>>>>> foundational issues, at all.
> >>>>>>>> > The fact that social psychology may not
> have the
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> foundations
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> right doesn't imply that it
> has no insight to offer, or
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> that a
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> make-shift frame of reference
> can't provide a stable
> >>>>>>>> >>> enough
> >>> >>>>>>>> foundation to move people forward
> (collectively and
> >>>>>>>> individually). Indeed, isn't that the
> necessary way
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> forward in
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> any practical endeavor, given
> the absence of fully
> >>>>>>>> >>>> worked out
> >>>> >>>>>>>> foundational perspectives (and
> given the need to
> >>>>>>>> >>>> address the
> >>>> >>>>>>>> world as we find it, without the
> theorist's option of
> >>>>>>>> restricting the domain of inquiry within
> tractable
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> parameters)?
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> > David
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>> >>> Dr.
> >>> >>>>>>>> Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:12 AM
> >>>>>>>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity;
> >>>>>>>> >> ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >>>>>>>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few
> | Oxfam
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> International
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > Andy and david,
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > It would appear that any counter -
> narrative would
> >>>>>>>> >>>> have to
> >>>> >>>>>>>> be anti-dialectical and
> counter-hegemonic, I.e.,
> >>>>>>>> anti-individual, anti-capitalist,
> anti-humanity... Can
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> such a
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> counter - narrative come from
> a humanity, including us
> >>>>>>>> academics, subjectified to reproduce
> individual wealth,
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> upward
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> mobility, and status at the
> expense of the masses of
> >>>>>>>> >> poor
> >> >>>>>>>> around the world, paradoxically,
> seeking our bourgeois
> >>>>>>>> lifestyle? >
> >>>>>>>> > I ask because, it would appear that the
> earth,in
> >>>>>>>> >>> marxian
> >>> >>>>>>>> terms, as a class for itself, has
> been begging for
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> humanity to
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> change the way it recursively
> reorganize and reproduce
> >>>>>>>> >>> it's
> >>> >>>>>>>> being-in-it over the last 100
> years, but we consistently
> >>>>>>>> refuse. Instead, turning to dialectical
> measures,
> >>>>>>>> >>>> fracking,
> >>>> >>>>>>>> carbon credits, neoliberalism,
> etc., to attempt to
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> resolve our
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> problems and maintain the
> protestant ethic and the
> >>>>>>>> >>>> spirit of
> >>>> >>>>>>>> capitalism as an "enframing"
> (heidegger's term)
> >>>>>>>> >> ontology.
> >> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > I am not a pessimistic person, but it
> appears that in
> >>>>>>>> >>>> this
> >>>> >>>>>>>> case we are all dead we just do
> not know it yet.
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>>>>>>> > President
> >>>>>>>> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>>>>>>> > www.mocombeian.com
> <http://www.mocombeian.com> <http://www.mocombeian.com>
> >>>>>>>> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>>>> <http://www.readingroomcurriculum.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > <div>-------- Original message
> >>>>>>>> >> --------</div><div>From:
> >> >>>>>>>> David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> </div><div>Date:01/21/2014 2:50 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>>>>>> </div><div>To: ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>,"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >>>>>>>> >>>> Activity"
> >>>> >>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>> >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> >>>>>>>> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re:
> Working for the Few |
> >>>>>>>> >>>> Oxfam
> >>>> >>>>>>>> International </div><div>
> >>>>>>>> > </div>Andy,
> >>>>>>>> > I suppose social psychology's unitary and
> a-historical
> >>>>>>>> ascription of the human sense of material
> well-being as
> >>>>>>>> relative to other people (rather than as
> relative to
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> one's own
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> past) gets it wrong from the
> start. Still, I think it
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> provides
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> a way to understand the
> individual pursuit of wealth,
> >>>>>>>> >>>> carried
> >>>> >>>>>>>> to its limits, as anti-social
> and destructive; an
> >>>>>>>> >>> effective
> >>> >>>>>>>> counter-narrative to the
> libertarian ideal of the
> >>>>>>>> >>>> individual
> >>>> >>>>>>>> unfettered by societal
> constraints. We badly need a
> >>>>>>>> counter-narrative to regain some kind of
> political
> >>>>>>>> >>> leverage
> >>> >>>>>>>> for ordinary citizens.
> >>>>>>>> > If anyone would like to help pull that
> together in
> >>>>>>>> >>>> the form
> >>>> >>>>>>>> of a paper, please reply,
> on-line or off-.
> >>>>>>>> > Thanks.
> >>>>>>>> > David
> >>>>>>>> > dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>> >>> Andy
> >>> >>>>>>>> Blunden
> >>>>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:13 AM
> >>>>>>>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few
> | Oxfam
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> International
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > I certainly hope so, David, or at least, I
> hope to
> >>>>>>>> >>>> read and
> >>>> >>>>>>>> participate in acting out the
> opening chapter of that
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> narrative.
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > I do think that the "99%/1%" narrative was
> a project
> >>>>>>>> >>>> doomed
> >>>> >>>>>>>> to failure however, as it
> conceived of itself as a
> >>>>>>>> >> linear
> >> >>>>>>>> expansion which would somehow bypass
> social and
> >>>>>>>> >>> ideological
> >>> >>>>>>>> differences. It did not conceive of
> itselfr as a project
> >>>>>>>> >>> at
> >>> >>>>>>>> all. Just a mesage about the one
> true world which
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> everyone had
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> to come to. Truly magical
> realism. The plot lies
> >>>>>>>> >>>> implicit in
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the opening chapter, but it is
> always far from easy to
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> see how
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> the plot will unfold itself
> though the multiple
> >>>>>>>> >>> story-lines
> >>> >>>>>>>> entailed in this conundrum, Andy
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>> > *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>> >>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > David H Kirshner wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > >> The operative narrative, at least in
> the U.S.
> >>>>>>>> >>>> context,
> >>>> >>>>>>>> dictated by Ayn Rand, is that
> the ultra-wealthy are the
> >>>>>>>> engines of advancement and prosperity and
> the saviors of
> >>>>>>>> society. What is in their best interest is
> in all of
> >>>>>>>> >>>> our best
> >>>> >>>>>>>> interests. We very badly need a
> counter-narrative.
> >>>>>>>> >> Andy, is this practical project something
> that can be
> >>>>>>>> undertaken and completed in real-time as a
> theoretical
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> project?
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> David
> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>> >>> Andy
> >>> >>>>>>>> Blunden
> >>>>>>>> >> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:06 PM
> >>>>>>>> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the Few
> | Oxfam
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> International
> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >> David I have plenty of experience with
> desparate
> >>>>>>>> >>>> measures
> >>>> >>>>>>>> over teh
> >>>>>>>> >> past
> >>>>>>>> >> 50 years, and I have come very late to
> "the broader
> >>>>>>>> theoretical project." It is absolutely
> essential that
> >>>>>>>> >> the
> >> >>>>>>>> practical project and the theoretical
> project are one
> >>>>>>>> >>>> and the
> >>>> >>>>>>>> same.
> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >> Andy
> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ----------
> >>>>>>>> >> --
> >>>>>>>> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> >> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>> >> David H Kirshner wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> Andy,
> >>>>>>>> >>> Sometimes, in order to create a
> counter-narrative
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> that can
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> be effective in the here and
> now, one has to step
> >>>>>>>> >>>> outside of
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the broader theoretical project.
> I guess, for some, this
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> would
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> constitute a distraction from
> the real work, perhaps a
> >>>>>>>> violation of the true mission of that scholarly
> >>>>>>>> >>>> endeavor. For
> >>>> >>>>>>>> others, it might be a legitimate
> (even if imperfect)
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> effort to
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> apply what one has come to
> understand from the larger
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> project.
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> For others, still, perhaps
> simply a political activity
> >>>>>>>> undertaken with theoretical tools, but with
> little
> >>>>>>>> >> actual
> >> >>>>>>>> relation to the theoretical project.
> >>>>>>>> >>> Perhaps these are desperate measures
> that these
> >>>>>>>> >>>> desperate
> >>>> >>>>>>>> times call for.
> >>>>>>>> >>> David
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>> >>> Andy
> >>> >>>>>>>> Blunden
> >>>>>>>> >>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:29 PM
> >>>>>>>> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working for the
> Few | Oxfam
> >>>>>>>> International
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> Well, that's the project I have been
> collaborating
> >>>>>>>> >> in
> >> >>>>>>>> since I was a teenager, David, but it
> has its
> >>>>>>>> >> challenges,
> >> >>>>> too,
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> you know.
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> First off, these observations about social
> >>>>>>>> >>>> psychology and
> >>>> >>>>>>>> well-being:
> >>>>>>>> >>> The point is to have a unit of analysis
> and one
> >>>>>>>> >>>> which is
> >>>> >>>>>>>> as valid for making observations
> about psychology as it
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> is for
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> social theory. And in
> general, this is lacking for what
> >>>>>>>> >>>> goes
> >>>> >>>>>>>> by the name of "social
> psychology." People do not of
> >>>>>>>> >>> course
> >>> >>>>>>>> govern their behaviour by
> evidence-based investigations
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> likely results of their
> behaviour.
> >>>>>>>> >>> People don't set out to "grow a bigger
> economy" or
> >>>>>>>> >>>> "have
> >>>> >>>>>>>> more wealth than someone else".
> The thinking of an
> >>>>>>>> >>>> individual
> >>>> >>>>>>>> has to be understood (I would
> contend) within the
> >>>>>>>> >>>> contexts of
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the projects to which they are
> committed. That is the
> >>>>>>>> >>>> reason
> >>>> >>>>>>>> for the relativity in the
> enjoyment of wealth (which is
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> itself
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> of course relative). People
> make judgments according to
> >>>>>>>> >>> the
> >>> >>>>>>>> norms of the project in which they
> are participating,
> >>>>>>>> >> and
> >> >>>>> that
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> means semantic, theoretical
> and practical norms.
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Understanding
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> the psychology of political
> economy is as of one task
> >>>>>>>> >> with
> >> >>>>>>>> that of building a project to
> overthrow the existing
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> political
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> economic arrangements and
> build sustainable
> >>>>>>>> >> arrangements.
> >> >>>>> That
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> requires a multitude of
> projects all willikng and able
> >>>>>>>> >> to
> >> >>>>>>>> collaborate with one another.
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> That's what I think.
> >>>>>>>> >>> Andy
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ---------
> >>>>>>>> >>> -
> >>>>>>>> >>> --
> >>>>>>>> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>> >>> David H Kirshner wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I've been
> sketching out in
> >>>>>>>> >> my
> >> >>>>>>>> mind, but not yet had time to research
> and write, a
> >>>>>>>> >> paper
> >> >>>>>>>> tentatively titled:
> >>>>>>>> >>>> The Psychology of Greed: Why the
> Ultra-wealthy are
> >>>>>>>> Despoiling the
> >>>>>>>> >>>> Planet, Tanking the Economy, and
> Gutting our
> >>>>>>>> >>>> Culture In
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the Quest
> >>>>>>>> >>>> for More
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>> The premise is that the psychological
> metric of our
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> sense
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> of material well-being is not
> accumulation, relative to
> >>>>>>>> >>> our
> >>> >>>>>>>> own past wealth, but the
> comparative measure of our own
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> wealth
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> in relation to that of
> others. (I believe this is a
> >>>>>>>> well-established principle of social
> psychology.) So,
> >>>>>>>> >> for
> >> >>>>>>>> example, instead of trying to grow a
> bigger economy
> >>>>>>>> >> which
> >> >>>>>>>> requires a large and healthy
> middle-class (this is what
> >>>>>>>> >>>> would
> >>>> >>>>>>>> provide more actual wealth for
> the ultra-wealthy), they
> >>>>>>>> >>> are
> >>> >>>>>>>> eroding the middle-class as quickly
> as they can--a
> >>>>>>>> >>> strategy
> >>> >>>>>>>> that maximizes disparity.
> >>>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>> The major thesis (in the U.S. context)
> is that the
> >>>>>>>> gradual shift in political control of the
> economy over
> >>>>>>>> >> the
> >> >>>>>>>> past 50 years by the ultra-wealthy has
> reached a kind of
> >>>>>>>> tipping point in which the gains in
> disparity are so
> >>>>>>>> >>>> dramatic
> >>>> >>>>>>>> as to overwhelm any sense of
> actual self-interest.
> >>>>>>>> >>>> Hence, we
> >>>> >>>>>>>> see increasingly irrational and
> self-destructive
> >>>>>>>> >>>> behavior by
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the ultra-wealthy (e.g., the
> fraudulent housing bubble
> >>>>>>>> >>> that
> >>> >>>>>>>> created what U.S. economists refer
> to as The Great
> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Recession).
> >>>>> >>>>>>>> The conclusion, of course, is
> a call to action to take
> >>>>>>>> >>> back
> >>> >>>>>>>> control of our political systems so
> we can set more
> >>>>>>>> >>>> rational
> >>>> >>>>>>>> policies for the economy.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Visiting Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list