[ show plain text ]
Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said, on 03/17/00 at 07:08 AM:
>By way of analogy: let's say that there are 1,000 Marxists of all
>varieties meeting together in a large auditorium. Someone makes a motion:
>"Marxists must oppose dogmatism and sectarianism".
>Do you think that there will be any 1 Marxist who will stand-up in the
>auditorium in opposition to the motion and in defense of sectarianism and
>dogmatism? I think not. Indeed, I think that the _most_ dogmatic and
>sectarian Marxists in the auditorium will be among the loudest voices in
>the auditorium to support the motion! This is because they _can not
>recognize themselves_ as dogmatists and/or sectarians. Just as surely,
>there are other Marxists who don't recognize the ways in which they
>downplay theoretically and/or ignore politically class struggle.
In my experience, there would always be opposition to such a motion in a
room of 1000 Marxists of all varieties. Because such a motion would not
be made abstractly but in the context of struggle. Some would pointedly
ask "why" just a motion is being proposed. And they would be correct to
do so (of course, the context leads to one's ultimate decision how to
vote, yes, no, abstain).
The whole subject of sectarianism has always baffled me a bit.
Anti-sectarianism is sort of like the holy grail and so it is throw up
against opponents rather willy-nilly and has the danger of putting down
those who go "against the current". In turn, the whole of the best
political strategy is so complex that even a voice of one person may be
the "correct" one (whatever "correct" means).
Later today (I hope) I'll have a remark on the general issue of
"definition".
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT