Re: [OPE-L] Lenin vs. Bhandarist shopkeeper Marxism and Proyectite philistinism

From: paul cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Thu Jul 05 2007 - 15:20:06 EDT

I can sympathise with your point jurrian, but it would be an idea to cool it

________________ Original message ________________
Subject:        [OPE-L] Lenin vs. Bhandarist shopkeeper Marxism and Proyectite philistinism
Author: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@TISCALI.NL>
Date:           05th July 2007 8:54:9 

Facts are stubborn things, runs the English saying. It comes to mind, in particular, when a certain author waxes enthusiastic about the greatness of the "nationality principle" in its different implications and relationships. What is more, in most cases the "principle" is applied Just as aptly, and is just as much in place, as the exclamation "many happy returns of the day" by a certain folk-tale character at the sight of a funeral. Precise facts, indisputable facts-they are especially abhorrent to this type of author, but are especially necessary if we want to form a proper understanding of this complicated, difficult and often deliberately confused question. But how to gather the facts? How to establish their connection and interdependence? 

The most widely used, and most fallacious, method in the realm of social phenomena is to tear out individual minor facts and juggle with examples. Selecting chance examples presents no difficulty at all, but is of no value, or of purely negative value, for in each individual case everything hinges on the historically concrete situation. Facts, if we take them in their entirety, in their interconnection, are not only stubborn things, but undoubtedly proof-bearing things. Minor facts, if taken out of their entirety, out of their interconnection, if they are arbitrarily selected and torn out of context, are merely things for juggling, or even worse. For instance, when an author who was once a serious author and wishes to be regarded as such now too takes the fact of the Mongolian yoke and presents it as an example that explains certain events in twentieth-century Europe, can this be considered merely juggling, or would it not be more correct to consider it political chicanery? The Mongolian yoke is a fact of history, and one doubtlessly connected with the national question, just as in twentieth-century Europe we observe a number of facts likewise doubtlessly connected with this question. But you will find few people-of the type the French describe as "national clowns"-who would venture, while claiming to be serious, to use this fact of the Mongolian yoke as an illustration of events in twentieth-century Europe. 

The inference is clear: we must seek to build a reliable foundation of precise and indisputable facts that can be confronted to any of the "general" or "example-based" arguments now so grossly misused in certain countries. And if it is to be a real foundation, we must take not individual facts, but the sum total of facts, without a single exception, relating to the question under discussion. Otherwise there will be the inevitable, and fully justified, suspicion that the facts were selected or compiled arbitrarily, that instead of historical  phenomena being presented in objective interconnection and interdependence and treated as a whole, we are presenting a "subjective" concoction to justify what might prove to be a dirty business. This does happen ... and more often than one might think. 

Proceeding from these considerations, we have decided to begin with statistics, fully aware of course that statistics are deeply antipathetic to certain readers, who prefer "flattering deception" to "base truths", and to certain authors, who are prone to smuggle in political contraband under cover of "general" disquisitions about internationalism, cosmopolitanism, nationalism, patriotism, etc.

BTW Rakesh, why don't you buy a fat joint and smoke it, chill out, maybe then you will make better sense!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT