On 12/1/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote:
> > ways of working together and institutions are very important stuff,
> > but it's also good to have the ever-changing world view has some
> > tendency to converge to some sort of unity.
I don't see how Yoshie's comment below responds to what I said above
in any wa.
I didn't understand what you meant by "theme." A "theme," to me,
suggests an instrumental approach, like coming up with a campaign
theme. That's necessary, but it has to come after the world view and
institutions, without which a campaign can't be waged.
Nonetheless, she wrote:
> The Marxist tradition once had a world view, a world view (more
> specifically a philosophy of history) of inevitable dialectical
> progress, from pre-capitalism, to capitalism, to socialism, the world
> view that the Marxist tradition borrowed in part from Christianity and
> in part from liberalism. It no longer does, though it remains useful
> as it supplies a theoretical framework and analytical tools.
NB: this wasn't Marx's view as much as it was the Marxism of the 2nd
and 3rd internationals.
Yes. The Second and Third Internationals, however, are also the time
when Marxists and socialist movements made a practical difference in
the world, whose remaining achievements -- e.g., the defeat of
fascism, eradication of many feudal practices in a number of
developing nations, establishment of industrial unions and social
welfare programs in developed nations, legal equality between races,
genders, and so on -- we continue to enjoy. So the paradox is this:
Marxists accomplished a lot more when they had a scientifically
incorrect world view; the loss of the scientifically incorrect world
view made Marxist theory better, but at the same time as (though
certainly not due only to) the loss of the incorrect world view and
the failure to come up with a new and better world view, Marxist
practice began to decline, now it has dwindled to the point of
nothingness in the USA.
> A school
> of thought can be built around a theoretical framework and analytical
> tools, but a social movement cannot be.
why is that? Is it because cross-class movements are required?
A world view gives emotional cohesion to a social movement and
sustains the morale of activists.
> A social movement, especially
> one with an ambition to present an alternative to capitalist
> modernity, needs a world view, a world view that inspires people to
> have faith in the work they must do in the face of adversity.
doesn't Marxism have the potential to do that, especially if it sheds
a lot of the old crap (Stalinism, Trotskyism, social democracy,
third-worldism, etc.)?
I believe so. Hints are scattered among the writings of unorthodox
Marxitsts, like Gramsci, Benjamin, Brecht, Bloch, Mariategui, and so
on, as well as the best thoughts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc.
Those can provide the backbone of a new world view, which should be
open to non-Marxist influences from religion, feminism, queer theory,
environmentalism, etc.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
