I assuming the "not" in the fourth line from the end of
Jim's letter is a misprint, but overall it is a good question.
Perhaps the answer in part is that we may want a positive perspective
but not a positivist one.
These moral questions between people are even more tricky than the
conflicts between different rights, which as Marx points out, can only
be solved by force.
Already I submit, we have to posit not just the coming of socialism
(the lower phase of communism) but also the higher phase of communism,
in which the power of the state withdraws increasingly from some of
these moral dilemmas.
The battles of bourgeois right, using expensive lawyers, are
characteristic of capitalist society.
They privilege the rich, who can afford these battles. Though
occasionally now there are also class actions on behalf of collective
rights. Over the decades this might help tame firearms capitalism and
big tobacco.
But really the conflicts for Schiavo's parents and her partner are
ones that need understanding and reconciliation, as well as, yes a
decision on whether a tube is removed or re-inserted. It is the wider
emotional and social context that gets trampled on and ignored in
battles of bourgeois right through highly paid legal surrogates
fighters.
This is my long winded way of asserting that under a communist
non-violent society there will still be contradictions, and the clash
as well as the unity of opposites. There will remain very difficult
decisions. It will often *not* feel like a utopia.
There probably are *no* simple positive visions, except perhaps that
respect for each individual working person, the free development of
each, is perhaps the free development of all.
Who is offering bereavement counselling and reconciliation to those
around Terri Schiavo? It is not just the coming death but the death
that occurred a long time ago of the person they loved, but who cannot
be buried. Who, apart from his priest, can give Jeb Bush permission
*not* to have to say he only wishes he had the power to take the
decision himself, just because he is a Roman Catholic and has to fear
the Christian Right. No wonder he looked "emotional" on CNN this
afternoon. Much as dislike him, I do not think his distress was
entirely feigned.
I don't know if this takes it any further. Although there are no easy
answers I sense Jim is right to say that the left has to have a moral
as well as an economic and a political perspective.
Chris Burford
London
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/05 2:12 PM >>>
Michael H's response was useful, but I was thinking more generally.
If the Left wants to revive, it needs a clear moral
perspective -- and a clear method of moral framing.
Sure, we can lambaste the establishment and its
system for hypocrisy and the like. But what is our
positive vision? Marx didn't help much here, because
his emphasis (perhaps rightly at the time) was almost
entirely a critique of capitalism.
In olden days, socialists were often utopians, often
bringing in religious ideas. Later, the USSR (or other
places) was the model to be trumpeted. That's gone.
Even people who see Cuba or Chavez as great don't
see these models as ideal for the US and other rich
countries. What can we say now, beyond not hating
capitalism and other systems of oppression (patriarchy,
ethnic supremacy, etc.) and resisting its depredations?
I know that this is abstract...
Jim Devine
<<<<<>>>>>
no disagreement with above, think it is imperative that left not
only
consider possibilities and develop ideas but that it actually create
'prefigurative practices & institutions' (in gramscian sense), some
of
which exist to varying degrees (and which, i would point out the
populist right has done good bit of and quite successfully, origins
of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has
generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...
i'm personally hopeful (a little anyway) about efforts being made in
direction of 'social unionism' (for lack of better term)
in which unions, community orgs, social justice (including religious
ones) groups are working together - with a little success - quite
small
steps obviously - in some places with 'living wage'... michael
hoover
