Gobachev's interview was disturbing to me on several levels, provoking an inner emoitonal response. His sense of alienation expressed in his ideological statements concerning morality - his morality, as he understands its rootedness in pastoral relations was pathetic to me. Not his professed love of nature, which I have no comment upon, but what seems to me to be a mystical connection with the land through hard labor and a sense of feeling oneself -or the nature one identifies as the self, on the basis of peasant economy. In the American context Gobachev's longing for a past that never existed is frightening similar to the portray George W, presents as a rancher and field hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I perceive and understand emotionally as a morbid fear of death . . . by nuclear, and the endless heart wringing about human survival is pathetic. Gorbachev was not in control of a vast state and neither is George W. Nor am I speaking of classes as some abstraction. Gorbachev was never driven by some abiding love of nature but real world politics internal to the Soviet State and in payment to bourgeois imperialism . . . for real. Who can imagine the individual consumed with a vision of death by nuclear when clearly this is bigger than all of us as individuals. I cannot even conceive of an individual driven by a motivation rooted in the survival of humanity. I do not exclude such a possibility but political people in and of themselves are a certain personality and character type. One may justify their actions by spewing forth all kinds of statements on the value of humanity but this is just ideology. Gorbachev is indeed pathetic. Melvin P. I never bought into Gorbachev for a second, though he doesn't appear to be the scumbag Yeltsin is. But there is something pathetic in Gorbachev's pronouncements, something I suspect is more systemic than just merely bribery. It's embodied in the curious dichotomy between familial peasant values and the Stalinist system through which ranks he rose. His sense of alienation from his own system, his loss of conviction in its value, returns him to the only existential value system that makes sense to him, familial peasant values. But how can orient one systemically in the socio-economic system engulfing the world? Gorbachev is really at a loss, the most powerless of men, from the ruler of a huge state and sphere of influence whose liquidation he signed off on. And this is what he's left with. I don't think this is a mere idiosyncracy--it's indicative of something larger. At 12:18 PM 3/28/2006 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> WHAT VALUES ARE important to you? > > I am glad that you ask about values. The twentieth century has been >one of the most tragic centuries, a century with a lot of bloodshed, >domination and destruction. It is the most paradoxical century. On the one >hand, we have made big breakthroughs in knowledge which has resulted in new >technologies. On the other hand, because of these technological >breakthroughs, for example, nuclear weapons, our very survival is in >jeopardy. We are witnessing a breakdown of the proper relationship between >humankind and the rest of nature. > > I believe that this situation has arisen because we have retreated >from the perennial values. I don't think that we need any new values. The >most important thing is to try to revive the universally known values from >which we have retreated. << > >Comment > >What a bourgeois apologists. For my money Gorbachev was recruited by the >intelligence agencies of imperialism long ago. His sense of right and >wrong does >not include 3 billion people on earth living off of about $1 a day. > >What a bourgeois apologists. > >Melvin P. >
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
