Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| First God now Marx and with any luck Chomsky |
| 03.31.04 (3:13 am) [edit] |
|
Many a right wing critic has claimed that what happened since 1917 has proved Marx wrong. Marxism was tired and it was a miserable failure. On the flip side of things, there are those who say Marxism has never truly been put into practice. Marxism as practiced is simply a perversion. Both are wrong for the same reason. Marx's vision for a communist utopia was never adopted or perverted and there is a simple reason for this; he had no such vision. The young Marx did feel that Capitalism would come crashing down in 1848. In a letter to Marx, Engels even went so far as, half jokingly, recommend a cousin as minister of Agriculture. To this end, the polemical Communist Manifesto contained 10 briefly spelled out “generally applicable” things that would help birth communism in the “most advanced countries”. However, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the 30 year old Marx dedicated his life to detailing Capitalisms “inner contradictions”. He died doing so. He fished but one of proposed 6 Volumes of Capital. Volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from what Marx left behind. He never got around to laying out a comprehensive plan for birthing Communism, nor did he feel the need to. By the end of his life, he was content that one way or another it would become a reality; his “Science” told him it was to be so. (Marx became ever more open to the possibility that Communism would come about through peaceful and democratic means. On a different front, in 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto Marx even granted the possibility that a country need not be thoroughly capitalist to transform itself into a communist state. The country he had in mind was Russia and this is the, much ignored, proviso he added. “Now, the question is this: can the Russian Obshchina, through greatly undermined, yet a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”) As to what a communist society would be like, despite his musing as a 25 year old that under Communism one would be able fish in the morning and read Plato in the afternoon, the elder Marx steadfastly refused to foretell what “the cook shops of the future” looked like. What truly bugs me about this fruitless debate is that while the two sides, neither of whom know anything about Marx, were arguing, Marx died. The New York’s Observer’s Ron Rosenbaum provides a perfect example about the comic nature of such a debate. “Goodbye to all that. The phrase occurred to me when I heard the sad news that Christopher Hitchens was leaving The Nation. Sad more for The Nation, a magazine I’ve read on and off since high school, now deprived of an important dissenting voice amidst lockstep Left opinion. Mr. Hitchens was valuable to The Nation, to the Left as a whole, I argued back on Jan. 14 in these pages, because he challenged "the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as ‘Islamo-fascists’—theocra tic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." He was leaving in part, he said, because he’d grown tired of trying to make this case in a venue that had become what he called "an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden." The Nation still has assets of course: the incomparable polymath literary critic, John Leonard; the fierce polemical intelligence of Katha Pollit, which I admire however much I might disagree with her; some serious investigative reporters. And recently Jack Newfield, who long ago co-authored an important book on the populist tradition—still a faint hope for a non-Marxist Left in America. But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy. And it’s important that potential constituents of that opposition, like Nation readers, be exposed to a brilliant dissenter like Christopher Hitchens.” While, Rosenbaum is right about the Left’s myopic focus on the US and Israel (where was the New Left when Rwanda and the Congo needed them?), he has things between Hitchens and the rest of the Nation staff ass backwards. Indeed, although, Hitchens was once a Trotskyist, I am willing to bet a week’s wage that few of Naomi Klein and company have never heard of Feuerbach, skimmed through Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or waded through all three Volumes of Capital. Marx is simply not read let alone understood by the 30 something Left. Their champion is Chomsky. Just as an aside, Chomsky is not only the most cited author alive, he is, according to the Chicago Tribune, one of the most cited intellectual luminaries of all eras. Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud. Now, it is hard for any serious thinker to take Chomsky seriously anymore. He is way past his expiry date. http://canadawide.blogspot.co... Scroll down to The Fruits of Chomsky’s Mind Need First to be Checked for Worms and then Washed. The problem is that Chomsky is very much the spokesperson of his intellectual generation and that the new generation of leftist intellectuals has swallowed the message of the baby boomers whole. Namely, their anarchistic lack of faith in the morality of the state or its actors is such that they feel that the ability of the state to wage war should be taken away. Any action, however, inadvertently, beneficial furthers an inherently undemocratic power structure. What buttresses this belief is the highly ethnocentric belief that what enemies America has and by extention the West has are, more or less, entirely of their own creation and that the key to not making any new ones is to so tie down its government it will not be able to act in politically realist manner. |
| 0 Comments |