Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:38:27 -0600 From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR Probably all my brief posts should have "Footnote" or "Tangential Observation" added in front of the Subject. In this case, the footnote (or digression or parenthetical remark) focused on the sources of that attempt ("attempt to describe reality"). That is, I don't believe Marx's 'marxist' thought _began_ with wanting understanding for the sake of change. I believe, rather, that he found himself in the midst of trying to bring about change, and in a 'first stage' reflection on that effort note that it had brought about a fuller understanding of the reality he was trying to change, _part_ of that fuller understanding being the recognition of how even that greater knowledge (stemming from practice) was unequal to the practice that generated it. Take it as a casual observation rather than a major response to the core of your post or this thred in general. It is not wholly unconnected to the last line on spirituality. Quite frankly, I think that when men & women find themselves actively engaged in a mass movement of some substance, they tend (even if they are deeply religious in their general theory) to tacitly let the question of "spirituality" drop by the wayside; when the going gets rough and solidarity becomes a forlorn idea rather than a living practice, the urge for spirituality revives. Humans were pretty smart & pretty cooperative for several 10s of millenia before they developed language. And most religions over the millenia have been pretty mechanical affairs. I don't see much desire or need for "spirituality" in Homer, nor in most Athenians of the 5th century. Carrol jamie morgan wrote: > > I'm not sure how your coments relate to what I sdaid - which was that Marx's > interest was in capitalism as a mode of production - one that was not to be > found outside Europe and the US at the time - and that many Marxist inspired > movements outside this context have been problematic > In reference to: Jamie Morgan: Marxism was an attempt to describe reality in order to transform it - it was a description of an industrialised society at a particular time and place - are you surprised that it did not fit the two thirds world for which it was simply not designed, or is this itself a rhetorical device? Cox: I think this is off just a bit. Marxism was first of all the recognition that until one was _already_ engaged in changing reality one could not explain it. While the Eleventh Thesis doubtless contains a pragmatic element (get busy just don't sit there) it is better used, I believe, as a summary of marxist epistemology. Spirituality seems to me to be merely spoilt solidarity. - Carrol --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005