>
> Eva, I give up. I'm sorry if I was bad mannered. But you do seem to argue
> from an impenetrable ideology. Let me explain my point of view, perhaps
> equally impenetrable. Some years ago, I arrived at the conclusion that
> idealism and ideology are the worst things that have ever happened to
> humankind, even though I know that they go with the territory of being
> human.
>
> What has happened time and again in history is that great ideas have become
> religious or secular ideologies which have then become mantras and formulas,
> which have then been fanaticized, and have then become marching boots. Look
> at Christ becoming the Crusades, Calvin and the Inquisition; at Hegel and
> Marx becoming Stalin and the gulag; at Nietche becoming Hitler and the gas
> chambers. Because of the ever-present possibility of this sequence, I would
> be apprehensive about a motivated and mobilized working class which has
> achieved "consciousness" in accordance with some ideal or ideology. Would
> its members, like Mao's Red Guards, begin to turf the capitalists wherever
> they thought they found them?
>
So, what you propose is, that we
never ever analyse our history and think about
how to avoid past pittfalls and make
a plan for a better future?
All the past ideology failed, because all the movements
were taken over at some point - usually at the very
beginning - by non-democratic processes, that did
not allow the continuous re-examination of the aims,
tactics and strategy - which is the core of a democratic
movement.
You probably say there is no point in
such analysis, all human effort ends of
being animal-like hierarchival and
democracy is an unnatural phenomena...
... and I don't agree, does this amount to "inpenetrable
ideology"? Afterall, I only argue for democracy,
and even some capitalists seem to be in favour of that...
...allegedly.
once we manage
to be aware of the importance of maintaining
the democratic process, we can work out how best
to guard it from any deformation - we've seen it
often enough, surely you clever people can
come up with something -
> I do recognize that it is not idealism itself, but the distortion of
> idealism into iron-clad ideologies, that is the fault. Yet I would suggest
> that such distortion is more the rule than the exception. While I haven't
> lost sleep over it yet, I know that there are many millions of angry people
> around just waiting for the next great distortion and the next great
> crusade. If you could assure me that we could proceed to the ideal state
> owned and operated by the working class without persecution and bloodshed, I
> would buy it, but, knowing something of history and its ability to repeat
> itself, I might be pretty hard to convince.
>
I think only the development of
democracy can protect us from future bloodshed.
I've just seen some frightening docu
about the KKK and it's ilk in the US
having a major upswing. And one knows when
an ideology is problematic, not only
from the hate content, but also from
the hierarchical, militaristic character of
the organization.
(What was also shown, that they are able to
grow in the present climate of capitalist
"all for oneself" ideology with the
complementary emotional desolation.
They interviewed an ex-member of
one of these groups, and asked him why he joined.
He said these were the first bunch of people ever
to send him birthdaycards...)
> I recognize that people's lives are organized around work. But I would
> argue that, in doing their work, people in general have little in common
> other than having to get out of bed and having to go to a place of work.
> People who do a particular kind of work or who work in a particular
> establishment have common interests, and if these are not being satisfied,
> they should take collective action, but action through negotiation and a
> democratically derived system of laws, with strikes as an ultimate threat.
> There are many instances in which broadly based opposition to unjust laws or
> circumstances make sense, but the issues in question usually transcend the
> interests of a particular group or class. Poverty and homelessness, for
> example, require the attention of all members of society. But on all such
> issues, I would like to think that whatever action is taken would be aimed
> at solving the problem, not at restructuring us into conformity with some
> ideological dogma about how a society should function. We've surely had
> enough of that.
>
You miss the important point: there is a very obvious
and sufficient common denominator: we are forced to
work to earn a living, and the majority of
us has no say in the process at all, and a large
portion do not get even enough to live in dignity,
for their troubles. Our lives are dependent on the
tiny layer, that owns our means of productions;
building, land, machinary etc, and most unfortunately
makes the decision for our military/economist/environmentalist
strategists, and it doesn't look like a good survival plan at all;
the tendency is for more poverty/wars/crisis etc.
Should we still not have alternative plans or even ideologies?
Just sit back and perish?
Eva
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
