<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yiv2957752184"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473876016813_2689"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473876016813_2688"><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2806">An "exceedingly interesting passage" indeed. The Ann Coulter types charge that liberals "hate" America. Count me in on that indictment, at least on alternate days. I despise a nation that allows the super rich to pay 0 to 10 to 15 percent in taxes (all the while hiding half or more of their wealth in some overseas tax haven), while assessing ordinary middle-class earners at a much higher rate. Yet, we're constantly admonished to genuflect at that "unitary term," "American." How many times have we heard the Lmibaugh's attack "divisive" liberals, when we are all, each of us, only "Americans."</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span>Hillary is touting the "Buffet Rule" on her website, but I don't hear much about it in her speeches.</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473876016813_3461">FDR wanted to restrict everybody's income to no more than $25,000 dollars during WWII. Sounds like something from another galaxy a million light years away.</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv2957752184yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473875043127_2681"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473876016813_3497">Ed </span></div> <div class="yiv2957752184qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473876016813_3062"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div><div class="yiv2957752184yqt4251966601" id="yiv2957752184yqt49206"></div></div></div></div><div class=".yiv2957752184yahoo_quoted"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:46 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox@ilstu.edu> wrote:<br clear="none"></font></div> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"> <div class="yiv2957752184y_msg_container">Thanks for this. That is precisely the passage I vaguely had in mind, but<br clear="none">remembered it from the Grammar rather than the Rhetoric. (I have only<br clear="none">peripheral vision, so I can't check the texts themselves. If I could see I'd<br clear="none">probably be able to find the passage by flipping through looking for<br clear="none">underlining.)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is an exceedingly interesting passage.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Carrol<br clear="none"><div class="yiv2957752184yqt3385533283" id="yiv2957752184yqtfd15280"><br clear="none">-----Original Message-----<br clear="none">From: KB [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:kb-bounces@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:kb-bounces@kbjournal.org">kb-bounces@kbjournal.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jim Moore<br clear="none">Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:14 AM<br clear="none">To: <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:kb@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:kb@kbjournal.org">kb@kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none">Subject: Re: [KB] Burke & the Division of Labor<br clear="none"><br clear="none">There's a lot about division of labor in RM near the indexed portion "man <br clear="none"><br clear="none">under communism."<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">"Dialectically, the Marxist analysis would apparently begin with a principle<br clear="none">of <br clear="none"><br clear="none">division where idealism begins with a principle of merger. And, as regards<br clear="none">the<br clear="none"><br clear="none">purposes of rhetoric, it admonishes us to look for its 'mystification' at<br clear="none">any <br clear="none"><br clear="none">point where the social divisiveness caused by property and the division of <br clear="none"><br clear="none">labor is obscured by unitary terms (as with terms whereby a state, designed<br clear="none"><br clear="none">to protect a certain structure of ownership, is made to seem equally <br clear="none"><br clear="none">representative of both propertied and propertyless classes). Indeed, we<br clear="none"><br clear="none">find the stress upon private property as a rhetorical motive so convincing,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">that we question whether communism is possible under the conditions<br clear="none"><br clear="none">of extreme specialization (division of labor) required by modern industry.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">_The German Ideology_ explicitly pictures man under communism, shifting<br clear="none"><br clear="none">from job to job like a Jack-of-all-trades, as the mood strikes him (hunting<br clear="none">in<br clear="none"><br clear="none">the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening, and<br clear="none"><br clear="none">criticizing after dinner, "without ever becoming hunter, fisherman shepherd<br clear="none"><br clear="none">or critic"). Given the highly specialized nature of modern technology,<br clear="none">which<br clear="none"><br clear="none">requires of its operators an almost Puritanic severity of application, if so<br clear="none"><br clear="none">dilettantelike a way of life as Marx describes is the sign of a true<br clear="none">communist<br clear="none"><br clear="none">society, then every step in the evolution of Soviet Russian industry would <br clear="none"><br clear="none">seem likely to take it farther from a world free of the cleavage that arises<br clear="none"><br clear="none">with the division of labor (and with the separation of property that goes <br clear="none"><br clear="none">with it, and the disparate states of consciousness that go with that)."<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">A Rhetoric of Motives p. 108-109<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Jim<br clear="none"><br clear="none">________________________________<br clear="none"><br clear="none">From: KB <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:kb-bounces@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:kb-bounces@kbjournal.org">kb-bounces@kbjournal.org</a>> on behalf of David Erland Isaksen<br clear="none"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:daviderland@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:daviderland@gmail.com">daviderland@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">Sent: September 12, 2016 9:46:11 PM<br clear="none">To: <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:wessr@oregonstate.edu" target="_blank" href="mailto:wessr@oregonstate.edu">wessr@oregonstate.edu</a><br clear="none">Cc: <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:kb@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:kb@kbjournal.org">kb@kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none">Subject: Re: [KB] Burke & the Division of Labor <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">He does state though, as Cox mentioned, that there will always be some<br clear="none">division of labor. Even in a Communist utopia. That quote is from A Rhetoric<br clear="none">of Motives.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Sep 13, 2016 3:17 AM, <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:wessr@oregonstate.edu" target="_blank" href="mailto:wessr@oregonstate.edu">wessr@oregonstate.edu</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"> I don't think Burke ever "rejected" Marxism. Instead, I think he<br clear="none">tended to see himself incorporating Marxism into his own system (Marxists<br clear="none">would no doubt object to the incorporation but that is a different story).<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> At the end of his response to Jameson, for example, Burke insists on<br clear="none">starting with symbol-using rather than class struggle, but adds that the<br clear="none">study of the symbol-using animal "can welcome the topic of class struggle as<br clear="none">a notable contribution" (Critical Inquiry 5.2 [1978]: 416).<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> An example would be the argument in Rhetoric of Motives that<br clear="none">symbol-using animals are "classifying" animals before they are "class"<br clear="none">animals (282-83). "Class" in the Marxist sense is one mode of classifying<br clear="none">but not the only one. "Classifying" is prior.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> The things he took from Marx were things he thought could be applied<br clear="none">to a critique of the current state of things. I don't think he limited Marx<br clear="none">to a prediction about the future.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> That being said, he did see the Marxist narrative of history as a<br clear="none">particularly good example of how an "ultimate" terminology works as<br clear="none">persuasion (RM 189-97). The Marxist "ultimate" terminology turns a mere<br clear="none">worker into the proletariat, an agent of history. He is not defending this<br clear="none">narrative in this section, but he is using it as a model.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> Bob<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> Quoting Carrol Cox <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu" target="_blank" href="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu">cbcox@ilstu.edu</a>>:<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"> It's been over 50 years since I did most of my intensive<br clear="none">study of Burke,<br clear="none"> though I continued frequently to browse in the Grammar & the<br clear="none">...Literary<br clear="none"> Form until my eyes failed me nearly 10 years ago. I also<br clear="none">read carefully his<br clear="none"> exchange in CI with Jameson at the time of its publication.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> If I remember correctly, the core of Burke's rejection of<br clear="none">Marx was his<br clear="none"> (Burke's) belief of the inevitability of the division of<br clear="none">labor. If that is<br clear="none"> so, his objection to Marx was grounded in his premise that<br clear="none">"Marxism" was<br clear="none"> essentially a recipe for a future society rather than a<br clear="none">critique of<br clear="none"> contemporary society. Again, if I remember correctly, Burke<br clear="none">in the Grammar<br clear="none"> did speculate on making a worker the _owner_ of his job.<br clear="none">That had to be<br clear="none"> premised on the permanence of capitalist social relations,<br clear="none">combined with at<br clear="none"> least a speculative belief that either (a) wage workers<br clear="none">could achieve the<br clear="none"> political and social power to seize possession of their jobs<br clear="none">(permanent<br clear="none"> tenure for all employees, public & private) _or_ (b) that<br clear="none">capitalists could<br clear="none"> be persuaded (through a correct rhetoric) to grant wage<br clear="none">workers such tenure<br clear="none"> voluntarily. His use of the trope "the human barnyard" might<br clear="none">point to the<br clear="none"> latter hope.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> Carrol<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> _______________________________________________<br clear="none"> KB mailing list<br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org">KB@kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a>> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"> _______________________________________________<br clear="none"> KB mailing list<br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org">KB@kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a>> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">KB mailing list<br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:KB@kbjournal.org">KB@kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org">http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org</a><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>