Re: [Marxism] The criticism of religion [was: RE: Vnzla: reasons tobe optimistic]

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Haines Brown writes:
> 
> "If 'communism' is a different kind of social order, is it not
> obvious that it will take work/effort/struggle to achieve it?"
> 
> Well, yes, obviously, but there IS a difference between the skilled
> labor of a cabinet maker and that of the totally clueless wannabe
> randomly battering wood with a hammer.

And what distinction are you making? That mindless effort achieves
nothing?  Well that is obvious, but no one suggested anything to the
contrary. Surely you are not implying that the more skillful our
labor, the more we are being exploited; that would be absurd, and my
next point offers an example.

The main problem here is that the cabinet maker is probably
not a member of the working class (or at least he would not be in the
traditional meaning of that profession). Such a cabinet maker is a
member of the petite bourgeoisie; he does not sell his labor power; he
is not being exploited in any terms that are specific to capitalism.

> My objection was to this statement: "Whether we achieve it or not is
> of course all up to how hard we struggle."
> 
> That is NOT true. That is a voluntaristic notion. It all depends on
> where, when, and how your struggle. You can beat your head to a
> bloody pulp by banging it against the walls around some prison, but
> that will almost certainly NOT free any political prisoners.

But I did not say that; it is a quote from Gary. In any case, I
suspect you and Gary are not really in disagreement. Obviously there
are projects that are impossible, but among possible projects, the
only one that will not require at least some struggle is doing
nothing. Some projects will require more struggle, some less. Surely
we can assume that by "it", Gary meant possible projects, for
otherwise his statement would be absurd. Given this, he was not
defending volunteerism at all.

By "volunteerism" do we not usually mean a project that underestimates
difficulties? My pointing out that our projects require struggle in
fact contradicts volunteerism, for it implies that anything we wish to
achieve will not be easy.

> Or let's consider a hypothetical example. Say there were really a
> U.S.  antiwar movement, but it was fractured with three counterposed
> days within a couple of weeks for each other for national or
> nationally-coordinated protests. I believe the correct,
> revolutionary attitude to take to these protests against the
> imperialist war while the war is actually going on is to invite the
> comrades from pissel, double-double-you-pee and the
> see-pee/committees of constipation plus their nonprofiteer and other
> bourgeois friends to take their posters, leaflets, lists of
> endorsers, march permits, speakers platforms, microphones and sound
> systems and SHOVE THEM UP THEIR ASSES.
> 
> After that, they should dissolve, both their coalitions and their
> parties or committees, and demonstrate their sincerity to sin no
> more by either slitting their wrists or drinking some Jonestown
> kool-aid.

I've no idea what you are talking about in this hypothetical
scenario. There is an anti-war demo planned, but people can't agree on
the date? So the answer to this disagreement is to dissolve the
coalition and insult those who prefer a date other than your own
preference? Surely you are being ironic. What does this have to do
with the working class? What does it have to do with struggle?

> Speaking hypothetically of course, since there is no antiwar
> movement in the United States. Because no one would be so BRAIN-DEAD
> STUPID as to perpetrate such a criminal division at a time when the
> majority of the population is against the war and the ruling class
> itself, and its political circles, deeply divided as to what to do.
> 
> "Struggling" to create the most divisively fractured and sectarian
> antiwar movement possible is PRECISELY what shouldn't be done. That
> is why it is NOT "all up to how hard we struggle." We can struggle
> all the harder we want, and asinine opportunist sectarian IDIOCY is
> STILL opportunist sectarian idiocy.

Still no idea what you are talking about. Of course, it is possible to
struggle in order to divide a movement, but that's hardly relevant. It
is also possible to struggle to understand other positions, to learn
from them and change, to reach an accord and bring folks together,
etc. You seem to define "struggle" as a contest against others, as
being contrary to others, but that is not the meaning of the
word. Being contrary to others _may_ entail struggle, but it does not
define struggle.

I was using the word in the dictionary sense: to strive, to make a
great effort, to labor hard, such as a struggle to save one's life. In
my dictionary, while there is struggle against adversity, there's no
example that implies competition with other people. Competition would
certainly be one kind of struggle, but not because it is oppositional,
but because it requires an effort.

My point about class struggle was obviously that it entails much
effort, not that it is oppositional, which would be a tautology.

> And, no, you can't take one person, or a few people, or a few dozen
> people, and magically change this. You might not even be able to do
> it with a few hundred, or a few thousand.
> 
> It's not just a question of struggle, it is ALSO about demonstrating
> a capacity for intelligent thought above that of, say, an earthworm.

This raises an interesting issue. Especially since the work of
Descartes, ideas or products of thought have often been treated as
historical agents. However, we now know this presumption is entirely
unwarranted. Our ideas might _constrain_ our behavior, but they have
no _causal power_ of their own; an idea has no free energy to do work;
it can't struggle.

I believe there are dangers in a Cartesian dualism that wouild
separate the body (struggle) from the mind (intelligence). What you
really offer is the truism that our actions should be informed, but as
far as I know, no one suggested anything to the contrary.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM

         
        

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism