Durant wrote:
> REH
>
> > Never having lived in Marxist Communism I am sure that is true however:
> >
>
> Here we go again... Ray, nobody yet lived in Marxist Communism,
> what's more, not one of the pseudo-socialist countries/ex-leaders claimed
> that their countries were Marxist Communist. Not even Castro
> or Baby Kim. (snip)
Eva,
Thanks for all of the work. You were very articulate and I enjoyed the read. If your
premise is correct then the rest of that post is unnecessary. There are those in
every
movement who state that the original premise has been betrayed. I think the Free
Marketeers would say the same about their ideas. They certainly would argue with you
about
genuine Capitalism ever being tried in the world.
I am aware of the specifics of what you were speaking but it was not the subject of my
questions. I would contend that the teacher (apart from a school which is a kind of
"education of scale") IS responsible for the success of their product. They are also
responsible for the failure. If they do not wish to be known as such, then they
should not
accept the job of teaching that particular student. Or should forgo writing the book.
I
certainly do hold the founders of the various schools of religious, political and
economic
thought responsible for the chaos expressed in their names. I contend that without
the
original seed, the genetics stop there. Responsibility is, in my culture, one of the
primal ideas. That is why we burn anything that has not been sold or given away by the
dead.
If you wish to go the route of Marx as founding the idea that "economics is the bottom
of
all human life and interactions" then I would have another, actually harsher set of
questions since I consider it a statement not grounded in all of the facts of human
civilization. In short, it is 19th century "romantic idealized thought." Thought
from a
time that had no idea of the foolishness implications inherent in their arguments.
As I
pointed out with the Hammerklavier fugue, even in the system of 18th and 19th century
harmonic theory, there is the issue of time. When the system has been achieved it is
replaced by another with different rules. In the 19th century they believed in A
system, A
morality, A religion, A universal theory of economics (their own), A Universal Art
based
upon European principles.
The absurdity of this should be apparent to anyone who has studied the various
languages of
the world. But from Johnson's Dictionary up through Marx's era it was the common
belief
that Latin grammar was the basis of all advanced languages. This lasted until modern
psycho-linguists had to admit that it didn't fit English all that well either. Like
the
Sioux skull to the Phrenologists.
But you can't keep claiming that the theory is OK when it keeps coming up with failed
applications based upon excuses. I find idealism a useful tool but only a tool. It
has to
be balanced with truthfulness. What do you know? Truth and Beauty. Why don't we
try
that for awhile? When you think about truthful practice plus an evolving, humane,
respectful idealism, most civilizations work.
I would suggest, as I have to libertarian members of this list and others, that the
best way
to prove your point is to form a community of like minded people willing to work
within the
discipline of your principles. Show with your intelligence, humanity, culture and
prosperity the value of your principles and their implications.
Otherwise I would place all of these writings that we have discussed along with the
"Republic" and Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonia" as fantasy writing. Although they have
been
tried, adjusting them to the real human condition has been a failure. Even the
beautiful
houses of Frank Lloyd Wright became a dull landscape in Usonia. Personally I would
prefer
New York's urban clutter to any of the ugly inhumanity that I have seen in Greenbelt or
Columbia Maryland or in the attempts to create the worker's paradise.
Year's ago I read the Bible and worked in Churches for awhile (13 years) building
artistic
music programs. After a while I had to admit that the book was being betrayed by the
people. Were the people wrong? No, I found later in Synagogues, the context for the
book
and the people that it came from. That taught me that religion, like art, is
time/space
specific. It springs from a context and meets the needs of a group. Often the context
changes within a few years and the book, although filled with beauty and wisdom, is no
longer applicable to the new situation.
My people were both Democratic and Communitarian. They succeeded because they were
family,
but the outside world tore them apart. Life tore us apart. I've heard the same said
about Bologna. Italy is beautiful and Bologna is unique. But the Libertarian can
always
find someone in Little Italy in New York who escaped the "terrible lack of freedom" in
Bologna while others are freed to do their real work by the Communist government in
Bologna. (But maybe it wasn't Marxist either.) Eventually it will have past its
time
and then something else will take its place.
To me, what you have described and what I remember from my studies of Marxist thought,
is
like "land" and yet time and culture are like water. You can't push water, all you
can do
is live with it and be subtle in its ways. The problem with both Marxist thought,
as I
understand it, and Free Market Capitalism, is that they tend to need big applications
or
they have no possibility of working. Is this your understanding of it?
Thanks again for the effort and clarity.
As for the self-employed. Tell me what your work is and we can think on the future of
it.
REH
