<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<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 face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><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 href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>