INTELLECTUALS, reason & al.

[David Wiltsee]

dear frankfurters,

i have just tuned in here and have followed the list for a while--with the
intention of listening to what was being said before giving my two cents
worth.  but i feel that i must put these plans aside and come to the
defence of jonathan broad, since, it would seem he has just done what i
intended to do, and having done so, inspired some rather vicious attacks.  
i find the hostility with which you treat each other somewhat disturbing,
especially in light of the fact that he is a newcomer to this list.  i find
it a very disheartening sign of the times to find such animosity between
fellow leftists.  why the hostility, ralph?  why the attacks upon
jonathan's personal integrity and character?  as far as argumentation is
concerned, it is your repeated use of this tactic (itself, a logical
fallacy) that seems "childish, and lazy"!!!  i realize that his comment
about your self-aggrandizement was somewhat provocative, but your response
does not indicate any lack of judgement in this respect on his part--rather
it seems to prove his point.  

now i certainly do not want to instigate any more hostility, and i realize
that i am no arbiter (nor do i want to be one).  my purpose here, really,
is to try to restore some scholarly civility to this "philosophical"
discussion list.  frankly, i find it somewhat surprising to find such an
animosity towards intellectuals on such a list--especially one devoted to
adorno, et al.!!!  i did not expect a list devoted to the frankfurt school
to be so characteristic of a vulgar marxism--by which i mean the
indiscriminant use of terms and catagories which one has perhaps heard in
some rhetoric here and there while having very little idea where these
terms come from or what they mean; certainly i don't expect everyone on
this list to have spent as much time reading marx (or even adorno, for that
matter) as i have--not everyone is currently researching a phd
dissertation, i'm sure!--and, so i was expecting there to be some general
level of disparity between participants as a result of different levels of
education and familiarity with the material.  but such disparities should
not be chastised--there must be a certain level of tolerance of differences
in order for the learning process to occur, and, more generally, for one to
communicate with another (especially if one wants to win them over to their
point of view).

i have been a silent member of the foucault list for quite sometime while
my friend (and fellow radical economist) has been a member of one of the
marxist lists--and, he often complains about the hostility on that list--in
contrast, while the foucault list has many members that do not have the
first clue what foucault is about, it is, for the most part, civil.  why
does "marxism" carry this hostility around on its back?  why the hostility,
fear and sense of betrayal towards other (non- or a-)"marxian" leftists? 
surely, marx did not forsee his deification and demonification in this
century.  let's treat marx as well as later marxists (such as adorno,
marcuse, or dobb) as intellectuals only, and emancipate radical philosophy
from the burdens placed upon its back by a quasi-religous-zealotry parading
around in marx's clothing--(ie, "marxists" using his terminology to mask
another form of facism).  C.S. Pierce i think was right when he said that
it is only religious belief that is upheld in such a tenacious and dogmatic
fashion--only it can inspire such hostility.  so lets dispense with the
petty polemics, and conduct this academic (and, yes, "intellectual") list
in a manner that is appropriate for science and philosophy.  

as far as the other strains of discussion go... a few brief comments (since
they both seem to be particularly "up my alley").  

1.	banking is necessatated in a monetary economy--as even the most cursory
read of marx's capital will show (or even a cursory read of an "orthodox
economist's" textbook).  alienation is brought about by the market which
veils the true social interconnectedness of  the human relations involved
in production (and exchange)--money is, then, in marx's view, i think,
alienated labor, itself.  at least insofar as it represents the
objectification  of that interconnectedness into a commodity (a
social-relation) that fuctions in capitalism as the universal commodity
(or, social relation).  an economy without a banking industry would by
necessity then be a barter-economy--at least at some level since to avoid
the alienation of its citizens the society must interact directly with one
another and cannot use a means of exchange (an object functioning as money)
to replace that social-relation that marx saw as being so essential to his
humanist (utopian?!?) vision for humanity--communism.  

2.	hip-hop (limiting my discussion to adorno) would have been roundly
condemned by his aesthetic theory.  however, his theory seems week on a
number of points and i think (as someone else has already noted) has vastly
misunderstood american music--particularly jazz.  but i do think that he
was fundamentally right about what he percieved the american
counter-culture to be in the sixties: a resistence of dispondency&dispair
rather than one of emancipation&liberation--one more likely to produce
proclivities for bodily mutilation and sedation which is itself
characteristic of an _increased_ isolation and alienation.  and that this
goes doubly for today: witness hip-hop, grunge, metal, and alternative
music!!!

yours,

djw///.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David J. Wiltsee
Dept. of Economics
University of Utah
david.wiltsee@m.cc.utah.edu
WILTSEE@econ.sbs.utah.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no human being on earth capable of declaing with certitude
who he is.  No one knows what he has come into this world to do, 
what his acts correspond to, his sentiments, his ideas, or what his real 
name is, his enduring Name int he register of Light...
					--Jorge Luis Borges
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ps...jonathan, where did you get this quote?
> 
> 	"My God," he murmurs.  "The hands of the years show always the
> 	same hour."--Edmond Jabes