as to some of the issues Hugh raises in discussing the eight appendices

[John Raymaker]

Hugh, The eight appendices in our text touch on important issues addressed in our text but which would have been a departure-distraction from some of the arguments we raise in the text. The question for the type of discussion you suggest  is how many persons on this site have read our text and are prepared to discuss relevant issues of global justice of the type pope Francis and now pope Leo XIV have insisted are critical  to serve as an alternative to coercive ways of dealing with injustice practiced in Marxist-ideology led governments such as in China and Vietnam.

Lonergan's economics that touch on the phases of the productive process and the phases in a "pure cycle" are relevant to resolving issues of global poverty caused by the economic dominance of rich nations. 

In our appendix C we touch on how Sam Altman, CEO of  Open Ai, an artificial intelligence research project  co-founded with Elon Musk, might be adequate or not in resolving such issues by e. g. promoting what Lonergan calls the Redistributive Function. Pierre and I would appreciate any relevant critique as to how some progress might be realized in the "turtle-pace" rhythm you often allude to. The underlying prolem is to what extent CEO's could and would address issues based on maximizing profits. Can profits based on, or at least influenced by justice and a sustainable fair wage for all be realized?  John

[Hugh Williams]

John,

Could we agree that a core group would have to have your text in hand,

say at least three beside the authors ....

while others could be looking in on the discussion and exchanges

and contributing on occasion when inspired.

So is it fair to ask for 'a show of hands' on this ...?

beginning with those who have the text at hand ....

thanks

Hugh

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/816278436.3856237.1769275749224%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Hugh Williams]

Also John, if 'we' should be able to critically and constructively examine AIRR's argument

with a time limited specifically structured focus on the appendices, I for one would

hope that those few more or less participating would both have the capacity

and the freedom to also critique liberal ideology in some of its various historical forms.

Is it not especially important to have some grip on the neo-fascist reality that has finally emerged in the US Empire

and its present leadership? We should remember that even in terms of the general thrust

of your good  AIRR text's arguments, a major if not the central intellectual dialectic was and is - 'liberal thesis engaging marxist antithesis

in search for some viable synthesis'. This, as I understand it, is what is needed and what is sought.

It is not about liberalism somehow winning out over marxism. Adherents of either ideology, conscious or not,

have important and even painful things to learn from one another.

I believe Phil McShane was moving in this direction or was at least open towards the prospect of this complex 'synthesis'.

As a Canadian, I can say quite plainly that the present threat to our sovereignty as a nation

is not from states under the influence of marxist ideology but from the neo-fascist developments in the US 

caused by an acute crisis in an economic system which is thoroughly capitalist. It is in marxist analysis or marxist informed

analysis where these disturbing and tragic developments have been traced out in a convincing historical perspective for some time.

(See for example Monthly Review Vol.77, no.7, December 2025 issue in tribute to Robert McChesney's life and work.)

And finally, the issue as I see it in the face of these real challenges and opportunities is what relevant intellectual contribution

the Christian tradition can and will make, with Lonergan's thought and its deep roots in this tradition 

being perhaps the most thoroughly developed theory about an economic alternative.

However, it is thinking that must work through the historical dialectic that some of us have been hovering around for some time 

and if the tradition's proponents and students are for the most part, for what ever reason, unable and/or unwilling to do this, 

I expect these offerings will be passed over, while the real truth they may contain will find other forms of expression .....

Hugh    

On 2026-01-24 1:29 p.m., 'John Raymaker' via Lonergan_L wrote:

[Doug Mounce]

In regards to Hugh's interest in Marx and the US Empire I thought a discussion between Richard Wolff and Glenn Diesen made sense.  Wolff's basic idea was that the "Empire" is sucking its colonies dry in a short-term response to China's continual growth.  

~/

https://staff.washington.edu/mounce/

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/6bdc6215-84bd-4207-933a-1308d3d80b4c%40nbnet.nb.ca.