Re: [Fwd: Re: 7 years old Iranian genius] (fwd)

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>

>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx> 05/02/99 12:21PM >>
As Wallace Stevens said, "sad men made angels of the sun."

Pardon me if I wax Zizekian for a moment, but there seems to be a desire
within all of us - who knows how historical or transhistorical it is? - for
some impossible, indescribable fulfillment. Sometimes this attaches itself
to political phenomena - a revolutionary ideal or nationalist violence -
and sometimes it attaches itself to religious or spiritual content. And
sometimes to commodities: as Zizek argues, the slogan "Coke is It" appeals
precisely to this longing for the impossibly fulfilling It. I think there's
something about this desire that's before or beyond symbolization, which is
why it can attach itself, often contradictorily, to earthly or
beyond-earthly symbols. Most materialists, Marxist or not, ignore or even
scorn this dimension of psycho-politics, and have a long record of failures
to show for their high-mindedness.

(((((((((((((((((

Chas.: I want to question to proposition that materialists and Marxists have a long record of failure. Materialists could include the British and French materialists of the 16 an 1700's, who had profound success in influencing the direction of European society. The enormous achievements of modern natural science are based on materialism. Then starting about 150 years ago with Engels and Marx , materialism has inspired millions as communists and socialists and 100's of millions workers and peasants to carryout revolutions that have radically changed the course of history, including iinitiating the first phase of socialist society.  The current downturn in winning socialism is a recent and still very short term failure, but in the overall historical record, materialism is a roaring success. Also, Doug's statement implies that some other way of thinking has resulted in great revolutionary success somehow , somewhere.  But I don't see any other philosophies succeeding; except , of course, the bourgeoisie are on a roll recently, but I don't see that as a "success" for most people, only a tiny, tiny minority of humanity.

I am not closeminded to new ideas for breaking out of the current very short term slump of materialism/Marxism. Nor would Engels and Marx be, as they always emphasized the need to develop thinking in accord with real developments.

On the other hand, maybe Doug can give us some examples of the revolutionary successes of those who subscribe to the theory of impossible, indescribable desire. I do not know of any significant successes based on that idea. That doesn't mean  it will not suggest some cogent adjustments of Marxism for today. But what is the evidence of success of this theory that would make us think it has something to offer materialism ?


AND

Beth Goldstein wrote:

>How can we, as Marxists, create, promolgate and maintain a sustained
>understanding of meaning which fosters a immanently humane, as opposed to
>a transcendentally 'divine' and immanently inhumane, world?

We gotta come up with better fantasies, to start with. Following my earlier
precedent of quoting Stevens, the death of utopia was a tragedy for the
revolutionary imagination. But the minute you start talking about
solidarity as having a fantastic elements, the materialists will jump all
over you.

Doug

((((((((((((((((((((

Chas.: Again, given this BRIEF downturn for materialism after centuries of success, yes, we need to rethink , imagine and even "fantasize" , brainstorm, to try to overcome the new trickbag the bourgeoisie have established. But the above implies that somebody else who is fantasizing, Stevens or Zizek maybe, have been succeeding or not failing in some sense. In what sense are they succeeding ? I see no existing social movement overthrowing the bourgeoisie or doing anything to change society for the better based on Stevens or Zizek approaches. Why would we turn to their approaches in order to get the movement going again ? I already know how to fantasize and imagine. I really have  no evidence that Wallace Stevens or Zizek have better imaginations than I do, so it is not clear to me that that is what I lack as a revolutionary. Where have Stevens or Zizek inspired revolution ? Why would we turn to them for what Marxists and materialists have lacked for the last ten or twenty years ?


Charles Brown