<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">
<p>An interesting discussion considering North Korea's latest attempt at "atomic ownership," especially since they now have to plead to the international community for flood relief after their latest nuclear weapons "trespass". Burke's Marxist/capitalist dichotomy
seems all the more relevant.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>David<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="Signature">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<div> </div>
<div>***************************</div>
<div> </div>
<div>David J. Tietge, Ph.D.</div>
<div>Associate Professor of English</div>
<div><font face="times new roman">Director of First-Year Composition<br>
</font></div>
<div>Monmouth University<br>
(732) 571-3603<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> KB <kb-bounces@kbjournal.org> on behalf of Jim Moore <jimmijcat@hotmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 12, 2016 8:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> kb@kbjournal.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [KB] Burke & the Division of Labor</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>I'm not an expert, but I was taught that Burke rejected</p>
<p>"scientific" socialism, especially in the context of the presence of</p>
<p>atomic weapons in the two-superpowers era. The _Rhetoric of</p>
<p>Motives_ has a relevant section called "Dual Possibilities of Science"</p>
<p>(32-35), which examines the slipperiness of the concept of "ownership"</p>
<p>with regard to research into atomic energy post-1945: "Thus the</p>
<p>_socialist_ delegate [Gromyko] was arguing for the _restriction_ of ownership</p>
<p>to national boundaries, while the world's greatest _capitalist_ </p>
<p>country argued for ownership by a _universal_ body. _On its face_,</p>
<p>the capitalist proposal seems much nearer to the ideal socialist</p>
<p>solution than the position of the Soviet Union is.'</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"However, the history of corporate management in the United States,</p>
<p>and of political parties everywhere, gives ample evidence of all </p>
<p>the devices whereby _actual control_ of a property differs from </p>
<p>_nominal ownership_ of it." (page 33 in RM--all emphases belong to Burke).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Jim</p>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> KB <kb-bounces@kbjournal.org> on behalf of Carrol Cox <cbcox@ilstu.edu><br>
<b>Sent:</b> September 10, 2016 5:33:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> kb@kbjournal.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [KB] Burke & the Division of Labor</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="PlainText">It's been over 50 years since I did most of my intensive study of Burke,<br>
though I continued frequently to browse in the Grammar & the ...Literary<br>
Form until my eyes failed me nearly 10 years ago. I also read carefully his<br>
exchange in CI with Jameson at the time of its publication.<br>
<br>
If I remember correctly, the core of Burke's rejection of Marx was his<br>
(Burke's) belief of the inevitability of the division of labor. If that is<br>
so, his objection to Marx was grounded in his premise that "Marxism" was<br>
essentially a recipe for a future society rather than a critique of<br>
contemporary society. Again, if I remember correctly, Burke in the Grammar<br>
did speculate on making a worker the _owner_ of his job. That had to be<br>
premised on the permanence of capitalist social relations, combined with at<br>
least a speculative belief that either (a) wage workers could achieve the<br>
political and social power to seize possession of their jobs (permanent<br>
tenure for all employees, public & private) _or_ (b) that capitalists could<br>
be persuaded (through a correct rhetoric) to grant wage workers such tenure<br>
voluntarily. His use of the trope "the human barnyard" might point to the<br>
latter hope.<br>
<br>
Carrol<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
KB mailing list<br>
KB@kbjournal.org<br>
<a id="LPlnk614379" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>