Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 16:56:14 EST From: tgs-AT-cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu Subject: RE: Marxism, Enlightenment & Romanticism <Alex,> <You wrote,> What's wrong with being "marginal"? Long live the marginal milieu! <There's nothing wrong with it in the moral sense. Revolution always springs from the marginalized--even within the working class. But what I have a problem with is permanent marginality. This is a big deal today with post- structuralism--I don't see it. If you accept permanent marginality, then the most you can get away with politically is to try to make the mainstream feel that they are or should be marginal too--a sisyphean task> (There was a review of the Madonna movie, Desperately Seeking Susan, a few years ago, in Telos, where the reviewer was sort of making moral celebrations about how wonderful it was to be amoral and marginal, forever, and that the mov ie was saying this. I didn't see this either--especially the wonderful ending, when the moviehouse becomes kind of quiet refuge from the storm, and both couples, both of whome look as if they're pretty serious about each other now are getting it on--one in the projection room, the other down in the seats. How modernist can you get? But I guess I'm hopelessly ROMANTIC--it comes from having Marshall Berman as my advisor> <There's a romanticism of liberation, and then there's a prurient romaniticism of permanent marginality, I guess is what I'm saying. I'm definitely for the former, not the latter> It's true that Marx, Reich, and other revolutionaries had the Edenic vision of primitive communism very much in mind, and therein lies a romantic strain that stands in contradictory tension with the efforts of the Enlightenment toward pure rationality. (For me, BTW, romanticism is not a dirty word, as it seems to be to marxists, who tend to see it in narrow terms solely as the reactionary expression of a historically doomed feudal class to the "progress" of early capitalism.) Historical Romanticism itself was riven by contradictions--it could be either revolutionary or reactionary. But I think the Romantics were on to something in their deep distrust of industrialism, positivistic rationality, and progressivism. They were right to question the French revolutionaries' absolutist quest to deify Reason (Robespierre even wanted to make a new religion out of Humanity). <As I said before, I just think that you're ignoring the radical side of the Enlightenment "rationality" itself. And again, which Romantics? There was Schelling--who was a proto-Nazi, as far as I'm concerned. And then there were far more rational romantics--Goethe, Schiller, etc. Again, is it exactly Romanticism vs. Enlightenment, or Rational and liberatory romaniticism vs. irrationalism? I'm certainly not saying that the former always had right on its side. You're right to reject an automatic, linear Progress. But even there, that was certain Enlightenmnet thinkers, not others.> < Can you seriously say even that pre-French Revolutionary Positivism believed in automatic Progress? Hardly. Thinkers like Tom Paine wanted to turn the world upside down to live by right reason; they were hardly interested in waiting for "Progress" to take care of them. This kind of smug fatalism set in later, after the French Revolution, when positivism became conservative and anti-Revolutionary> Although Marx had a lot of the Romantic in him, his followers for the most part did not. From the start, 2nd International Marx-ism became a positivistic *ideology* in which the Dialectic was identified with linear progress and teleological closure--a continuation of Christianity in a sense, albeit in materialist form. The Russian marxists followed the German Social Democrats on this. Plekhanov, for example, is a real High Enlightenment Westernizer, and Lenin was his epigone. To know what I mean when I refer to marxism's fetishism of Science and Reason, just look at Lenin's polemical work of 1908, _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, <OK, hold it right there. The diamat of the 2nd and 3rd internationals was really stupid, and was a capitulation to both 2nd wave positivism and social darwinism (vis. the peasants. See my article in ATC #32) But that is certainly not the only form of Marxism available. You seem to be aware of that: the problem is that you turn it into a personal eccentricity of Marx himself. Like that theatre house in "Desperately Seeking Susan," there are whole rooms to explore, nay to grope, of Marxism which are anti-positivistic and romantic. If you blatant neo-Schelllingites, you've got the Frankfurt School!> which insists on a 100% objective epistemology based on the natural sciences and a 'copy-cat,' *tabula rasa* theory of consciousness. No room for subjective imagination, no zone of unknowability here: everything can be explained by positive science with its 'objective' standards. (Interestingly, this work was written to discipline and defeat the Nietzschean tendency in the Bolshevik party, grouped around Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, and Gorki. Now, *that* would make an interesting topic for discussion.) <It certainly would. Since I know next to nothing and am fascinated, why not say on. I certainly won't stop you!> Basing a revolutionary doctrine today on science, you would have to come to grips with chaos theory. <Aw, why? Even if there is chaos at the molecular level, how does that effect society and sociology? Is all chaos at this level? Pretty 2nd wave postivistic, to think that our social science has to goose-step to what the latest trend in the physical sciences has to say!> You would have to abandon concepts of linearity and Progress, and you won't be able to dismiss chaos as an expression of the decadence of the bourgeois intelligentsia, or whatever. Sure, there's still a dialectic, but not as it was conceived in the 19th century. It could be defined (perhaps) as order spontaneously emerging out of chaos, and vice versa. Angels turn into devils and back again in the fractal blink of an eye, and not necessarily in the direction of the End of History. See what I mean? Revolution (how about insurrection? I actually like that term better) is a matter of the heart as well as the mind, and cannot be embodied in an organization, particularly not the Labor party that Tom espouses. <sounds like a shibboleth. Certainly it needs heart: but why can't we have a hearty party? I'm all for making all the comrades do Reichian work and tai chi, if that's what it takes!> And especially not if, as I suspect, that party would be modeled after the Labour parties in Britain and Australia. See how revolutionary they are.... <This is a party with a social-democratic leadership. the quest is to give it a revolutionary leadership. Why is that impossible?> --Alex Trotter (Tom) ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005