Stop Me Before I Vote Again

one of our big bad anarcho nihilists here is fond of the sports fan analogy

left observers are fans really okay
they're to the last comrade
" boo birds "
looking fore grounds to mock bait hiss
cry with joyous "i told u so"'s

but none the less fanticos in the cheapest seats of all
the far left bleechers
un shaded un upholstered un numbered
and in the last analysis
utterly obstructed of view

but the fire within keepeth burning
these are die hards
and thou a wee few they can type up quite a blizzard of words over such matters
as the partition of libya
will it be de facto or ....de jure ???

what dewlleth in the over soul of the rebels
are they cia decoys or morphing
in the furnace of struggle into
honorary proles

ole lu lu himself seems to operate like
part junior high civics scold
part over cooked under marinated
headless former sectarian roast of prig
and of course
100 %
prissy flash lighted swinging
aisle usher gumshoe
his job sight
one of those long gone
manhattan
24 hour news reel theatres
in quiet moments i suspect
he dreams he's a zen master

Lou actually started the discussion I was reacting to, with a post sniffing at "anti-anti-Qaddafi Leftists" -- meaning, as far as I could tell, Lefties who are suspicious or downright dismissive of the Libyan insurgency. Somehow this morphed into an argument about Uncle's intentions -- probably because the unspoken subtext was "Intervention: Fer It Or Agin' It?".

Lou announced, in his usual coming-attractions tone, that he will be dealing with Lefties For NATO Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar in a forthcoming piece, being forged as we speak, no doubt, in Lou's Olympian smithy. I am quite looking forward to it.

Whence this compulsion? Is it some confusion with, or envy of, natural science, among people who mostly don't do natural science and thus overestimate its capacity for explaining things?

Often looks that way to me but maybe that's because I got that BoolShyte degree in a Hard Science and therefore am well aware of its limitations.

The concept of "Science" as an amorphous cosmic force for Explaining Everything carries the weight of True Religion among many who label themselves with that Leftist tag... and typically ironically while denigrating Cracker Christians in the very same breath.

Personally, I rely on J.V. Stalin's epic, "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism".

http://thinkpress.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/protesta-copia.jpg

From BELÉN FERNÁNDEZ at Pulse Media:
The bubble on the left reads: “Go away!! We don’t want you here”; the bubble on the right reads: “Who wants to stay here anyway? We want go France and Germany… this is worse than Kabul! (Background photo of Oria from wikipedia.it)

With due respect, Michael, why do you visit these lists that bother you so much? And what is so admirable about dismissing the whole thing as another imperialist operation (which it turns out, it isn't) and trying to understand who the rebels are in Libya? What is the source of your Olympian wisdom that knows these things in advance?

And while I'm at it, OP's condescending attitude toward Richard Seymour, a genuine leftist, intellectual and activist as well, is a rather shocking self-confession.

above sentence should have read "dismissing the whole thing as another imperialist operation VERSUS trying to understand . . ."

I'm sure that I'm projecting here - would that I were worthy - but it seems to me that the issue of which you speak has its origins in the desire to shed light on something from a perspective no one had thought of, displaying one's power of intellect in the process, boosting one's ego and making life for that brief moment worth living. And we cannot discount the importance of bolstering one's worldview.

what goes on inside the WH-executive office building ??

inquiring marxist social engineers
out here in left land wanna know but ...

well remoteness is no obstacle to "real" sciences

nuclear engineers can over come it

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Ahhhh, Carnak. I remember him well. I still miss the All-Seeing, All-Knowing, All-Omniscient One. If he were still among us, he'd have this shit sorted out in no time.

For example:

A: Dictators.
Q: What did Ferdinand Marcos do on Saturday nights before he met Imelda?

Thanks. You've been wonderful. I'm here all week.

Pigs rooting for truffles, is what it is.

They ain't ever gonna lift a hand to change shit, so they sniff around for reasons, and Reason.

Or, in other animalia metaphorica, like dogs pissing on trees cuz they ain't ever gonna hunt.

op writes on 04.02 @ 18:55:
left observers are fans really okay
they're to the last comrade
" boo birds "
looking fore grounds to mock bait hiss
cry with joyous "i told u so"'s

but none the less fanticos in the cheapest seats of all
the far left bleechers
un shaded un upholstered un numbered
and in the last analysis
utterly obstructed of view

Not all of us, Kerouac.

Having been born/raised/living in Washington, this here anarcho-nihilist has a lifetime season ticket about five rows up on the third-base line. Motherfucker was out by a mile. Hey, beer guy! Over here, man!

A: Dictators.
Q: What did Ferdinand Marcos do on Saturday nights before he met Imelda?

May Lou Proyect's spinster sister cough up a yak hairball.

I don't think there is any big mystery here about why the various factions of the left are behaving as they are.

The pretext for this war looks less obviously artificial than its predecessors by virtue of the ostensible impending massacre and that the Libyan uprising looked like the real deal. Leftists have been riding a wave of optimism about the Arab spring and Libya made them anxious. Though most have come down against the intervention, a fair number have done so ambivalently, not least because some leftists that are more hard line than the usual suspects are supporting it or taking a watch and see approach.

If they are reading tea leaves it is most likely because the want some kind of confirmation that Uncle really was doing what Uncle does this time around so they can feel less conflicted in their position.

I don't think it's anything more mysterious than that. Leftists who assume that everyone around them is stupid or acting in bad faith tend to make poor advocates/opponents of any position, btw. I find the discourse on this question generally really lame on all sides, at least in terms of making a case. Some of its entertaining, I guess.

"Leftists who assume that everyone around them is stupid or acting in bad faith tend to make poor advocates/opponents of any position,"

i like that it gets to the heart
of a lot of listee gibber!!!
and worse i'd conjecture the very force vitale behind most posters there

on the other hand ...

" I find the discourse on this question generally really lame on all sides, at least in terms of making a case. Some of its entertaining, I guess."

the first compound comment here
in a very long time that
caused me to say to my self

"forgive it ...let it pass..even the use
of our xer generation's
ultimo curse word:
lame ...

in the end

'we are all just limited people
with not too much to give '

isn't that the lyric ????

"OP's condescending attitude toward Richard Seymour, a genuine leftist, intellectual and activist as well"

no not condescending just allergic

a sneezer

he's a trot after all

and a trot arrogating the tomb
of the over abused bolshy papa
as a trade mark

better he operate under the swinging board

" leon's commode "

http://ucanhealth.com/graph/m34654.jpg

sorry sen
that's just how us paines are made
targets change but reactions remain the same

why my great uncle
Spinetree Paine
hate the new dealers so much
he'd refuse even a roosevelt dime
as change
"keep it !!" he'd say
always polite about it ...but firm

Fortunately, global dismissal of any and all arguments made by any and all Trots is not the same thing as "assum(ing) that everyone around them is stupid or acting in bad faith."

tralala writes on 04.03 @12:06:
I don't think there is any big mystery here about why the various factions of the left are behaving as they are.

The pretext for this war looks less obviously artificial than its predecessors by virtue of the ostensible impending massacre and that the Libyan uprising looked like the real deal...

I have to confess that when the No-Fly Zone™ was proposed, for the teensiest split second I was thinking, "alriiiigghhtt!" -- until I remembered who was going to be administering it, and remembered the 1990s Iraq No-Fly Zone™ and Clinton's attendant massive aerial bombardment, at which point I immediately recovered my senses and though "oh, sweet fuckin' Jeezus, here we go again." The cries among the Liberals for somebody to "do something" also brought back a lot of memories of Kosovo/Serbia '99, in which Clinton and Albright did indeed "do something", to the disgustingly lusty cheers of the Liberals. (See also "Greetings From Afghanistan".)

Leftists have been riding a wave of optimism about the Arab spring and Libya made them anxious. Though most have come down against the intervention, a fair number have done so ambivalently...

I think anyone on The Left™ who has a goddamn' lick of sense and who remembers what Clinton did in Jugoslavia should be opposing this intervention without any trace of ambivalence. Remember who's doing the intervening, The Left™, and remember what they're responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what they're bankrolling in Palestine and Bahrain. What galls me even more than cruise-missile Liberals cheering on Obama's new war are Lefties who oppose it with ambivalence. This should be a no-brainer, guys, c'mon.

If they are reading tea leaves it is most likely because the want some kind of confirmation that Uncle really was doing what Uncle does this time around so they can feel less conflicted in their position...

See above. Just remember the Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan. No confirmation needed; history should teach The Left™ that Uncle will always do what muthafuckin' Uncle does.

Leftists who assume that everyone around them is stupid or acting in bad faith tend to make poor advocates/opponents of any position, btw...

Y'ever think that I assume that pretty much everyone around me is stone-cold stupid or acting in bad faith because since at least 1980, this country has become more and more awash in bad faith and stone-cold stupidity? Nothing personal, gang, but I've reached a point where I have to pretty much assume bad faith and stupidity unless I'm shown otherwise, just for my own protection.

advice to a shave tail
from a trotful polonius
at little lu lu's
'cup a struggle ' cafe

"Your problem comrade
is that you spend way to much time
worrying about the base
and far to little
focusing on that section
of the superstructure
responsible for
State Department briefings"

Op - Lulu: "roast of prig" - copyright held by you? Damn fine - ko with one punch.

Anyone know what is the source of the threat against Benghazi civilians? Is this another case of Ahmadinejad's threat to 'wipe Israel off the map' or Tomas Borge's threat of 'revolution without borders', both thoroughly debunked, but to no avail?

By debunked I mean shown not to bear the dire interpretation of the US MSM commentariat which occasioned great clucking and wing flapping on the floors and in the rafters of the Capitol's chicken coops.

BTW this post and its immediate predecessor seem to make a rather odd couple. Will there be some grand illuminating synthesis coming soon be lead all to a higher plane of understanding?

Boink,

Depends on who did the translation. If it was MEMRI, you can bet on it.

Boink -- I don't see where the contradiction is. Can you clarify?

Maybe I misunderstand, but one article is called What makes these people tick? and the other could have been called Why do these people insist on ticking?. The people are different people, to be sure, but they all appear to be behaving like people always behave.

Ms. P seems to be a "lucky penny" (or "unlucky" depending on one's POV) that landed "heads" n times in a row... one of thousands of American Studies types filtered out from her fellows by essentially random processes into an outstanding humane imperialist. Could of happened to anybody.

The lefty list participants are doing what everybody does. It's their baseball. Who's going to win the NCAA basketball title next Monday? etc.

New topic: what has become of Snarky Dropshot?

Different topics, I thought. One was a rumination on the thought processes and psychology of an individual -- admittedly, a not very individual individual; decidedly a familiar type. The other was about people's need to write a Secret History -- on the political level -- without any access to inside information. The former we can sometimes do with some success, because people can be very self-revealing if you're paying attention; the latter just makes us look silly.

You think perhaps the Dialectic has something to do with the lefty urge to discover that Secret History™?

The whole project's an attempt to flush out the meaning of history, based on incidences which never account for all that's unseen.

The shitty Dialectic cannot even account for the impact of termites and ants on human civilization. It has no love for the inhuman, and the unhuman.

It's too humanist. That's the problem with we lefty types. We take the Human Type and assume a universality it doesn't possess.

I don't know. I find being a lefty without the DM is actually often fun. It's not a Great Work, y'know...

It's too humanist. That's the problem with we lefty types. We take the Human Type and assume a universality it doesn't possess.

Which is why CF Oxtrot always said it's not about right vs left... and why he said he wasn't a Marxist.

Most human beings aren't Marxist, not even the ones who call themselves such. Exception made maybe for Noam Chomsky who embodies Marxism perfectly, enriching himself greatly at the State's tit while also criticizing Capitalism and Its Workings.

--Karl the non-Marx

Uh-oh.

I'm a great believer in the dialectic. Quite unlike the Secret History, it's visible right out there, as soon as your attention is called to it.

And I take severe umbrage at people attackin' Karl Marx around here. You don't have to be a believer to walk into this here church, but take your hat off and show a little respect.

Marx (tip whom I also tip my hat) is really quite ambiguous about the dialectical process, as a way of examining history. "Historical materialism" shows up in his work a whole lot more than the non-existent "dialectical materialism" so favored of failed revolutionists, despots and Italian prisoners.

But, I was referring to the mystical stupidity conjured up by Lenin, Trotsky, etc - hence the cap on the D.

The Dialectic is a way for people to pretend they're in possession of the rubric of history itself, and to worship at idol of agency accompanied by the strong faith that history is an entirely human process, to boot.

But, the constant use of it, its failure as a predictive tool, and its inapplicability as a historical model sure do seem to explain why lefties so often go full hog for the Secret History you mention above.

Marx was delightfully savage about Hegel's dialectic, even playfully vicious in describing it as something with which to toy like a child ("to coquette, IIRC).

That commends him, immensely.

historical materialism is dialectical; dialectical materialism contains historical materialism and vice versa - they contain one another, the combination can help compose a philosophy of internal relations, of change, of motion, of history which is also the future.
[contradictions are not symetric]

Marx did not do philosophy, juan. Marx, of all people, was anti-philosophic.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice

An argument that Gaddafi's words were misinterpreted by the Obama administration.

"the mystical stupidity conjured up by Lenin"

crow:
i wouldn't offer that up to st peter
if he asks u what bright thoughts
u've produced over the course of your life

------------------------

"contradictions are not symetric"

i like that juan

----------------
btw
i doubt either karl
or his bald russian disciple
or old hegel himself for that matter
have much to notice
in the thumb nail critique
of the full spectrum dialectic
presented above
by one of this sites senior nihhilists

exhibit A
"Marx ... is really quite ambiguous about the dialectical process, as a way of examining history"

exhibit B:

"Marx did not do philosophy,... Marx, of all people, was anti-philosophic"

exhibit C :

"The Dialectic is a way for people to pretend they're in possession of the rubric of history itself "

gibberish A :

"The Dialectic is a way for people ...
to worship at the idol of agency
accompanied by the strong faith
that history
is an entirely human process..."

------------------------

steel trap argument A :

"...lefties ..go full hog for the Secret History "

because

they constantly use the dialectic

but
the dialectic fails " as a predictive tool "

because the dialectic
is inapplicable ".. as a historical model "

------------------------------

"Marx was delightfully savage about Hegel's dialectic,"
okay

" even playfully vicious in describing it as something with which to toy like a child ("to coquette, IIRC). "
utterly off the beam

re read this passage comrade
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. "

so far so good

but attendez vous

"The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” "

the titan of trier is turning comrade brace yourself

"I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. "

the rest read at your leisure
but here it is

"In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire. "

indeed the word used is coquette
but
its clearly karl "showing" his hegel
but only in part and only to bait
the post hegelian anti hegelian
nit wits of the era

btw
does a mighty thinker produce
only " toys "

Op,

I didn't write a bait comment. I'm bored by the thought of drudging this sad debate up all over again.

Hermeticism is hermeticism no matter how you dress it up.

Master Ockham applies, here. It can all be explained with the hermeticism. So why use it?

crow
i appreciate you are not just tossing molotovs here
and i'm glad
you always have more to offer then that if you put out some

but now your bored ??
now you
go for the razor ???

i hope i can con myself i'm pulling it off that easily
next time i find myself
wanting to escape a position
i have come to consider over exposed

btw the razor here u go for
isn't ockham's
its more like the barber of fleet street's

slicing off needless elaborations
needlessly complex formulations
leaving the bare minimum coherent sufficient "model"
isn't even the project ...is it ??

the project or at least the sub project i thought we were on
was the relationship between
history and the dialectic
and moving on to specifically marx's dialectic
with poor old hegel tossed in as a human sacrifice...just for fun

the points we were going over
are not pedantic ones ..right ??

nor quite obviously is this a matter
of two competing flavors of hermaticism
of the dialectical variety

hermetic his dialectic is not
at least not in marx's own mind
or mine

to the point:

marx i would contend
was completely non anbiguous about
the connections between hegel's dialect
and history
in fact collision of the two
in his own head
that forced marx to perform his topsy turvy

unless ambiguous to you simply means
i didn't fully understand him
or i didn't want to box him up
along with lenin
as just another mystical leftist
stupified stupifier
then i think we have room for more then just a sad recap or an old debate between equally exhausted contestants

OP,

I cannot put this anymore simply: all can be explained without the insistence on a too neat Dialectic. But, events have to be pigeonholed into it, for those who place their faith in it.

That does not speak to its value.

The Dialectic - and I am speaking specifically to that which was developed by Marx's heirs, especially among the Leninists and Trots - does not predict, does not explain, does not model. (I do not refer to an otherwise dialectical dialogue between persons.)

It doesn't compute. No matter how many times revolutionists use it, they fail. No matter how often they try to squirrel out the so-called lessons of history, wielding it as a tool, they end up irrelevant. Or worse. As a discredit to revolution. It only serves to console those who have failed. And that, I find, is distinctly off putting.

It is, as I see it, of the same value as any other scholastic venture, and far less entertaining. At least in counting the number of angel faces crammed onto pinhead, one might be amused by the imagery of it.

The language of the Dialectic is even further a means of alienating professional leftists from the people they purport to represent. It's reserved to those people who are educated in rich men's schools and employed in pointillist debates and discussions which invariably exclude actually workmen and workwomen.

I have never in all my years as an agitator, leftist, worker - or even boss - ever heard it used by those who do the actual work.

When my staff was debating unionization - and with my disastrous encouragement - it played no part.

It is only used by the extraordinarily minuscule minority of people who think themselves the vanguard of a socialist tomorrow. Or by dirty philosophers who don't know to get real jobs. Or by the sons of privilege who fancy themselves the dagger wielders to break daddy's bank.

And that does not commend it.

on a "scholastic venture"

lenin ??
clarificatio

" predict'
as in tomorrows weather or climate change

"model"
as in mechanistic as if analogues

like those delightful 18 th century solar system devices

as in
use of differential equations for market dynamics

what sort of model

explanation can be post facto reconstructions so that only requires imgenuity and careful data selection
to fit an apriori rubric
if the ribric is general enough eh ??

dialectic is a method not a result don't you agree??
and in the quote above marx suggest a bit of what that method was for him

first the dialectic is both a method of preesentaion and one of inquiry
and they may formally contradict each other
as suggested here:

"the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry."
as to the part you i think wish to make the whole ie the inquiry

"(it).. has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. "
described here i take to be a nother aspectual label
for presentation

now comes the point where you take presentaion to be the whole of the dialectical method
and find contrivance because
"If this is done successfully..(ie the inquiry)... if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror.."

get ready mate

".. then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. "

with an open mind this ought to give you a way back into the dialectic
btw not only of marx but of lenn

trotsky never claimed much strength
as dilligent the plod plod plod
grinder that one must be top conduct
a dialectical inquiry
his mind however was quite apt
at the stylistic florishes'
of a dialectical presentation
i submit lenin wax a ccae nearly of the opposite
if you bother to read him in detail

"I have never in all my years as an agitator, leftist, worker - or even boss - ever heard it used by those who do the actual work.'
again from the above passage

"The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society ..."
ie its dialectic
"...impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis.."

if not by name known by them
then in substance most assuredly "experienced " by them
if not with a certain specific awareness
at a minimum once
blown about by it in practice
with a deep sense of a mysterious power
that sends them praying for relief
to the jolly god of steady unidirectional
market currents and trade winds

flashing about with dialectical "modes of expression"
is indeed counter productive
when writing "broadly"
as we maoites used to call it

there are nice batteries of terms to use if one tries hard enough

i know its a source of great fun to me always has been
almost as much fun as crazy quilty the cult jargon itself among the cults votaries

one becomes two even among comrades eh ??

"I have never in all my years as an agitator, leftist, worker - or even boss - ever heard it used by those who do the actual work."

Study a bit about the Ejercito Guerrillro de los Pobres [EGP - Guerrilla Army of the Poor] and the theoretic/strategic attempts to take account of different modes of production and culture.

this juan spent most of his working life trying to deal w/'hard sciences' such as chem and engineering - if anything these tended to interfere - but not so much as hegel's 'logic' [hansen thought the 'phenomenolgy' initially better but a stalinist prof stepped in the way - but so what decades ago].

There are many, many intelligent people in the fields and allyways who are and will never be known for their various expertise - I'm thinking of a composer/singer in the carcel in guate for one and a k'akiquel mayan who farmed according to the old calendar for another, or a venezuelan who'd worked cruise ships but.. or a guy in belize who would trans-gulf sail in a 21 footer or a mechanic I know. and on and... or even myself prior to having a prop through the skull and arms. things can sneak right up on you - there really are black swans.