Re: A question for Alan was Re: carrol and lou on religion

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan Maki wrote:

> Marx also spent a lot of time being prosecuted by the authorities for his
> activities... somehow he managed a schedule in which education, organization
> and action made up his work schedule...

After he once settled in London Marx had very little trouble with the
authorities, and as far as I can recall, he was never arrested while
he was working on his doctoral dissertation. It is true that it is almost
impossible to ever barely understand Marxist theory let alone
contribute to it unless one has been involved in political acivism of
various sorts. One needs to have felt in practice the enormous
potential energy and malice not only of the bourgeois state but
of so-called civil society. My guess is that most on this list have
been so involved or they wouldn't be on this list to begin with. I
also don't see why someone should play the part of the Roman
plebians demanding that the Tribune show his scars before
receiving their approbation. Who do you think you are, anyway.

Perhaps a joke that went the rounds of the CIA during the
Vietnam War will help achieve perspective. The joke was
that they should parachute mimeograph machines and paper
into NLF areas, and the "Viet Cong" would spend so much
time running off leaflets that they would forget to fight.

One problem perhaps with maillists is that we have been
to busy in "maillist practice" to sit back and do some thinking
about what maillists can and cannot do. We have not been
theoretical enough, and our practice suffers from it.

As far as ideas leading direct to practice, I suggest you
read Marx's *Theories of Surplus Value* and explore the
question of why Marx should have thought writing that
work so important. That question itself may be a theoretical
question of some importance: i.e., if we understand why
Marx wrote it that may be  equally important) with the
contents of the book itself.

And we may never know the worth of this list. Perhaps
independently of anything we actually arrive at the list now
(or its archives in the future) may trigger thought in someone
that will be of immense importance. And maybe not. Have
you read the posts dealing with contingency?

> I would be willing to bet that had
> Marx had access to the internet he would have spent more time amongst
> workers organizing. Marx wasn't targeted by the authorities for the time he
> spent in the library.

But it was the time he spent in the library that posed and still
poses a mortal danger to capitalism.

>
> All I am saying is that it seems to me not too many of the discussions on
> this site lead to activity... or am I missing something here?

You seem to expect a maillist to embody the whole life of the
subscribers to it. I would not at all be surprised but what a
goodly sprinkling of the lurkers are people involved deeply
in political activity who subscribe to this list for entertainment.
Is there anything wrong with communists having some pleasure
in life?

Carrol

>
> Comradely,
>
> Alan Maki
>
> >From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: A question for Alan was Re: carol and lou on religion
> >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:42:44 +1000
> >
> >Hi Alan,
> >
> >Try this question on for size.
> >
> >"How can this guy can spend so much time in the library while peasants and
> >workers are starving to death etc?"
> >
> >regards
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >At 01:03  28/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I find it very difficult to understand how "marxists" can spend so much
> >>time on some of these topics while Leonard Peltier languishes in prison
> >>and workers in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada face one of the most difficult
> >>strikes in North America..... did anyone ever read in marx anything about
> >>"action"?
> >>
> >>Alan Maki
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: " George Snedeker" <snedeker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Subject: carol and lou on religion
> >>>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:01:49 -0500
> >>>
> >>>I think it was Cornel West who argued that Marxism had nothing to say
> >>>about
> >>>the question of death. this is why he thought we still needed religion to
> >>>answer human needs for metaphysical questions. carol's and Lou's posts
> >>>bring
> >>>this question to mind. personally, I don't think Marxism need answer all
> >>>of
> >>>the questions in the universe. I have always thought religion  was more
> >>>of a
> >>>problem than a solution to any human form of suffering. enter Freud
> >>>replacing Durkheim. I mean what is it that leads us to run to the
> >>>supernatural for help during hard times? is this need conditioned by
> >>>modes
> >>>of production, or is it a basic human weakness? there is a relationship
> >>>here
> >>>between the personal and the social. Marx might say that the personal is
> >>>a
> >>>moment of the social since you can not have a personal without a social.
> >>>even Durkheim knew this quite well.
> >>>
> >>>I have a friend, a good atheist, who when her brother was under going
> >>>open
> >>>heart surgery prayed for him. she told me that this was because she might
> >>>be
> >>>wrong and why should he suffer?
> >>>George Snedeker
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com