Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:09:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: hans despain <HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions (fwd)


Mark your questions are very broad, but not unreasonable.  There are a 
number of things that could be listed as constituting a commitment to a 
marxian vision of human emancipation (which seems to be your interest).  
But marxism is much larger than this, including  philosophical 
commitments about epistemology, philosophy of science, ontology, etc., also 
even more broadly a notion of human nature itself, or perhpas more 
narrowly a defination of capitalism, or a critique of political economy.  
This list could be extended greatly, and this is the problem that faces 
your broad questions.

What marxism seems to be interested in my analysis is (1) attempting to 
understand (social) reality; which Marx understood to be much more 
difficult then others believed then or even today.  But perhaps even more 
important (2) how to change this reality for the betterment of human 
beings themselves.  There does not exist simply answers to this type of 
inquery. 

If you want simply answers perhaps a libertarian list is what you would 
be more interested in.  One reason you might find people defensive is the 
tone you have taken, as someone else has pointed out (Rahul i 
believe) you do not seem to be completely honest with your interest or 
purpose.

Personally i find you suspect with respect to your sincerity to learn 
about marxism, when you find it offensive that someone might suggest that 
you read Marx himself.

Moreover, when you say:

Mark> "Dealing for the moment with the U.S. case, the obvious question 
Mark> seems to be: if you can't even organize a political party whose 
Mark> positions people are willing to vote for, how can you organize a 
Mark> revolution?  And how democratic is it likely to be in
Mark> the sense of being the kind of change that a majority of the public 
Mark> wants?  How practical and sturdy will it end up being, and if it's not
Mark> held together by the glue of popular consensus, the only other way 
Mark> it can be held together is by repression and force, in the form of 
Mark> hierarchical, authoritarian military and police bodies.  

You have simply missed some very basic premises of a marxian conception 
of social reality, that would be best to begin to understand by reading 
marxist literture.

For the basic question for Marxists, is not as you put it, but rather 
why the popular consensus is as it is.  That is why do people subscribe 
and defend a social structure and political leaders that do not have the 
interest of the vast majority of people, and their own interest, in mind.

Again you reveal your own commitment to universalizing a reality that is 
merely specific to the social emergence of capitalism, when you say:

Mark> If you ask me, any kind of revolutionary power struggle in this 
Mark> country is going to end up with a right-wing dictatorship, not a 
Mark> "dictatorship of the people" (whatever the hell that means).  The 
Mark> right is out there with money, with organization, with weapons, and 
Mark> with the expertise in and will toward violence, whereas so-called 
Mark> revolutionary leftists are more typically honing their bon mots on 
Mark> isolated little Internet mail  lists, attacking each other for real or 
Mark> imagined sectarian differences and anyone else who dares to make them 
Mark> think. 

Moreover, the last statement again seems to be counter to your expressed 
interest which of course is going to make anyone suspect to your hidden 
interest in your query.

Your comments about what might constitute democratic support seem very 
naive.  Do you really believe that the current political regime has 
democratic support???  Granted it has support of something that can be 
called public opinion, but my idea of democracy would be very different than 
the political structure that rules over the U.S. today.

Also i disagree with Rahul when he says the question of a violent or 
non-violent revolution "is a tactical one".  i would say it is a 
historical one.  i would like to believe marxism attempts to reveal a 
revolution will be violent unless we change our abuses of one another.  
Historical change has be quite violent, but human being behold a power 
and potential to avoid violence.  

But in any event, what exactly is your purpose, you stated you wanted to 
learn about Marxism, but than you have shun any recommendations to open a 
book.  Rather you seem to be here to teach us silly marxists a thing or 
two.  But this is a failure on your part to take your own social reality 
seriously.

> Well, can you help me to understand, then, exactly what "Marxists"
> all *do* have in common, and what separates them as Marxists from 
> other socialists?

i would want to say it has something to do with the social reality of 
capitalism, and some notion of human nature itself, including a faith in 
human potentiality.  

Mark you should really read Marx, at least in the mist of these 
questions, if you are at all serious about enaging in a productive 
discourse.  It is obivious you are an intelligent and articulate person, 
but people on this list do not lack intelligence.

Our social reality seems to be something you are quite content with, why 
are you here???  Why do you hid behind disinterested questions?

hans d.




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---