File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_2000/phillitcrit.0007, message 33


Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:19:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Louis F Caton <catonlf-AT-mail.auburn.edu>
Subject: PLC: Marxist conviction: a problem with Marx or conviction?



I've been enjoying the exchanges regarding Marxism.  So I thought that I'd
put in my very unsophisticated offering.  The notion that Marxists in
general are unbending ideologues does strike me (as it has others) as a
not very helpful generality. But, on the other hand, I have to admit that,
with my limited experience, I have faced the same problems that Troy
alludes to.  I'd like to think this anecdotal experience isn't widespread,
but perhaps it is.  

I see the problem more in line with the hazards or
trade-offs one encounters with a show of conviction and a strong belief in
principles.  The Marxists I know are _very_ earnest, serious, super
well-intentioned people.  But, unfortunately, not very flexible with their
ideas.  Still, is this a problem with Marxism or conviction itself?  

I could say
the same about any person who strongly believed something.  And what's
wrong with being forceful, even dogmatic, about significant principles?
Couldn't we critique most of our important social progress as having
developed out of hard-headed idealists with a cause?  Think of
the suffrage movement, civil rights, labor laws, war protesters, abortion
rights advocates, etc.
Or prominent political/philosophical leaders.  Weren't
Nelson Mandella, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Socrates all somewhat like
zealots who had a "calling" and would not compromise their principles?
Ok, this isn't exactly the same phenomenon, but it does seem similar.

How _is_ it different from someone who deeply believes Marxist principles
are right?  Sure, _Marxism_ may have failed, but that's just "vulgar"
Marx.  Shouldn't the ideas generating the philosophy still register as
uncompromising to a "true" believer?

I think that's
why in one of Troy's postings he perhaps inadvertently appeared too
_un_committed, too loosely ambiguous.  That impression is the down-side to
someone wanting _not_ to be thought of as dogmatic, someone who wants
(rightly) to be thought of as open, flexible, and inviting to new ideas.

To stretch this out a bit, isn't this the difference between the zealot
and the intellectual?  The first feels passionate and firm about a belief,
the other is often ineffectual and passive (not in all cases, of course)?

I realize this is all very simple-minded.  And yet it personally typifies
problems I have in wanting to believe in certain principles but wanting to
be open to all others.
  
How do the rest of the list-members manage such a dilemma?  My answer has
often been the "refuge for the scoundrel": the Romantic notion of
"both/and."  The fence-sitter.  I try to accept most
everything as having some sort of "truth-value."  As Eliot (who did have
such romantic leanings) wrote in his dissertation, reality is only a
convention.  _Everything_ is true for someone through some sort of
perspective.  OK, that doesn't sound very insightful but, damn it, it
registers with me. 




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005