[Marxism] World proletarianisation/Help Mr. Jurrian.

["Jurriaan Bendien" <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Melvin,

You:

What do we actually eat in the imperial centers? What do we eat in
America? Is there a way to determine the energy imput used to produce all
the
wrong foods we consume?

Me:

There's quite a lot of info on it on the Net. But the gist of it is that the
private profit motive, or the motive for private self-enrichment creates the
wrong priorities for human society as a whole, and also creates human beings
lacking balanced development, who have the wrong priorities, from the point
of view of the overall effects of their actions (I'm probably as good a case
of that as any). I quite like the title of an article Ernest Mandel
published on it once in Spain: "the more food there is, the more people are
hungry". That sums it up quite nicely. Michael Perelman's book on it is also
very pertinent. I thought about the question in 1968-69 when I was 10 years
old, but obviously I didn't have Michael's ability. There are probably as
many people in the world today that suffer from overeating and diet related
disorders, as there are going hungry.

You:

My point is that you have the ability to present an objective picture of
what
we are talking about on the basis of data.

Me:

Maybe an ability, but I don't think that means very much in itself. I didn't
get round to what I call scholarship.  In fact, the biggest disappointment
in my life was the discovery, that people who claim to be scientific and
objective can be extraordinarily prejudiced and biased, and fail to
communicate in a way that actually creates greater objectivity and improves
scientific understanding. Then you get motivated to think about why that is,
and realise how naive you've been about the ways in which science and power
might clash.

You:

It dawned on me that the reason very few women contribute to Marxmanil is
because we do not talk about things they are interested in. The occasional
article on abortion rights appear, but apparently women have solved this
question
for themselves and could give less than a damn about what we as
"Marxists/men"
think.

Me:

I'm still working on that question, I have gained my hunches over the years,
but I cannot say a lot about it, except to say,

(1) that I cannot spend my whole life talking about things, just so as to be
attractive to women, or because I happen to want oral sex etc.
(2) if you start to feel that you have to live your whole life to please
women, it becomes oppressive.
(3) the liberating potential of sexual activity is that it can eliminate
false moralisms you might have, so that you can focus better and more
practically on what it is that you actually have to do to create more
satisfactory human relationships rather than being obsesssed with how they
should be, or with the fact that are are not what they should be.

I think the challenge is really to find a way to relate, such that "men can
be men" and "women can be women", without making any concessions to class,
sexist, ageist and racial prejudices. In which case, the emancipatory tasks
are to:

(1) examine self-critically what prejudices you might have yourself - which
might be extraordinarily difficult to admit, because of a gap between your
self-concept and the real experience you have;
(2) get more experience of how women really are, in different phases of
life, nevermind the fantasies you might have about them;
(3) realise that women aren't "sugar and spice and all things nice" all the
time, they can clobber you too, so that you have to be able to defend
yourself against female incursion in male territory as well.

A better question to ask really, is what women themselves would be
interested in, or what motivates them.

I think basically women are interested in Marxism etc. only insofar as it is
organically interwoven with daily life, and achieves some kind of harmony
between the different facets of human awareness: the subconscious, the
consciously subjective, the intersubjective, the objective, the
reality-transforming awareness and the transcendent. Marxists are often very
"cerebral" people, and that can get in the way of what appeals to women.

Frankly, these days I often get confused about what the real difference
between men and women is, I thought I knew, but often I don't, maybe you
never do completely, but that's just to say, I got clobbered at a certain
point in my life, got very hurt, and lost my personal balance. You can know
a lot about the why's and wherefore's of things, without being able to live
accordingly, put that into practice. You can also make too much of gender
differences. As a rule, the more frustrations you have, the more you think
about it, but thinking about it might not solve anything, taking action or
just letting things be usually resolves things.

Personally, I am in favour of full social and civic equality between men and
women, but in trying to operate that, you have to be aware that women are
different in important respects, and if you do not understand the
difference, then "full social and civic equality" just might not mean very
much, you might just be naive. Apart from that, women are no different from
men, insofar as there are angels and bitches, and the same woman can be
angelic and bitchy as well.

But I still love many women, personally, from all walks of life, even if I
don't show it.

I cannot write a lot now, because I have to focus on other things, and do
more, rather than write more. I can usually knock off about two short
articles a day, if I was more at peace with myself, I could more, but we all
have to do some things in life we might not like to do, but they have to be
done, and writing isn't everything you know. You can sort of have this urge
to express yourself, but maybe you do it in the wrong medium.

Comradely

Jurriaan





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism