From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 08:20:16 EDT
> "Too much of the history of Marxism has been shaped by Marxists who have > taken certain figures as authoritative." > The problem you have here is that this circumstance is intrinsic to > Marxism, a school of thought or political movement which takes at least > Marx as its authority, which which therefore potentially faces all the > problems which you face when you regard any particular people > as "authorities". That is, it is intrinsic to Marxism that you will have > disputes about authority and authorativeness. > The way this problem is solved by thinking people, is that you stop > referring to Marxism (whatever that may be taken to mean) but simply > refer to socialism or communism, and to socialists and communists, or > that you simply drop the labels altogether, insofar as they are liable > to be misunderstood anyway and thus get in the way of the substance of > what you are trying to do. Hi Jurriaan: Even though I continue to refer to myself as a Marxist, I agree with the points you make above. There are alternative ways , however, to deal with (I won't say "solve") the problem "by thinking people", e.g. they can make it clear they they embrace an anti-authoritarian vision of Marxism, irrespective of whatever Marx's perspective was or was not. More importantly, they can through their *praxis* (and that includes their engagement with Marxists on theoretical and political questions) that they do not take Marx *or anyone else* as an authority who should be deferred to and/or defended. > I do not agree that "it is the _isolation_ of many Marxians from wider > political struggles and from the working class (as well as non-Marxian > scholars) which helps to breed dogmatism", because the potential for > dogmatism is, I think, intrinsic to any creed based on an authority, > which, being an authority, precisely cannot be questioned, at least not > in a fundamental way - otherwise the authority would not be an > authority. But I do agree that thought developed in a context remote > from the practical situation to which it refers can become warped, > including warped by dogma. That was precisely Marx's original critique > of the "ideologists" - they manufactured ideas from "thought-material" > without any awareness of the real context that gave rise to the ideas. We seem to be saying the same thing on this point: note that I wrote that "it is the isolation of many Marxians from wider political struggles and from the working-class (as well as non-Marxian scholars) which *HELPS* to breed dogmatism" (emphasis added so you can better understand my point). In other words, it helps to create an environment in which dogmatism is more likely to flourish: by way of analogy, isolation is like placing Marxists in a Petri dish in an incubator in which whatever dangerous bacteria which already exist are more likely to flourish within individual plates. However, I do recognize a danger which you refer to near the end of your post: i.e. simply because a theorist is isolated in some practical way from the working class and/or political struggles should not *by itself* be used as a rationale to dismiss whatever that person says or writes. There is a danger here that we know about from practical experience and has resulted in extremis in atrocities: e.g. relocating of intellectuals from cities to rural areas in China for "reeducation" - and even worse in Kampuchea! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT