Much to simply agree with there Van. Marxism makes itself contemporary through concerns with conditions. There is much to say for it as a research method. I agree that much religion remains and am inclined to think history does bear out some of the essential ideas - at least history away from Kings and Queens of England and Hollywood. What any change needs is understanding of human behaviour so as not to need what is effectively coercion rather than persuasion. We probably need to remember organisations can be very ephemeral as well as long-lasting.
On 10 Dec, 04:41, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 5:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My own feeling on this Vam is that organisation is that which > > structures the freedom for the organisation of oneself. > > Functionally, yes. But, like everything under the sun, there's more > ( good ) to it. > > For one, an organisation ( as an entity ) is larger and more abiding > than an individual. More individuals ( for the same mission ), across > generations, historical accumulation of learning ( at becoming more > and more better ) and capacity ( for doing more than before ) and > goodwill of the community, authoritative representation of common > interest and good in what is at times a god - forsaken democratic > polity ... It is a huge advance in institutional terms over the > individual. > > In structural terms, we lack nothing today in design expertise. Where > we fail, almost invariably, is in this understanding ( rather, > realisation ) that an organisation is larger than the individual and, > hence, the man at head can no longer be restricted or limited to > thinking in individual terms, for individual interests, whim and > fancy, idiosyncracy, etc. It calls for a ' rising up,' that seldom > takes place in truth. > > > The rest is probably that which I would ignore until it fades away. If > > there ever > > was a theory wanting to get us from here to there it was Marxism. Its > > brilliant 'plan' the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. > > That's where I believe it failed, in remaining entangled in emotions > even before the intellectual clarity could tie all loose ends and > visualise the whole thing in overarching value terms. It ended up > being divisive, instead of being unifying and inclusive. Admittedly, > it was not easy in those ( miserable ) times and entrenched ( feudal ) > structures. Philisophically, Marx had to still hark upon ' the call of > history,' and that ' history will prove us right !' Sounds more like > a man of religion. > > Personally, I hold Marx and his core concern in greatest regard. The > empathy he espoused will remain contemporary forever. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
