K
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 24/5/00 1:54 pm, Carrol Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>> . For example, only 4 years ago Joel Kovel wrote a lengthy piece in
>> CNS that argued that Marxism is weak on ecological questions because it
>> lacks a spiritual dimension.
>
> I always have thought that the Unconscious was the Holy Ghost in 19th-c
> positivist disguise. That old reactionary jerk T.S. Eliot had an appropriate
> comment on such things in his reaction to Arnoldian attempts to make
> literature a substsitute for religion. I don't remember how he worded it,
> but the core idea was that if you rejected religion, then get on with it
> and don't moon about looking for substitutes. Spirituality is a more or
> less corrupted form of human social solidarity. Among the atomized
> individuals of capitalist society spirituality becomes absolutely
> corrupt.
>
> Carrol
There's a well-rounded conception of humanity for you. Tell that to the
American Indians.
And just how do you have spirituality, defined as a "corrupted form of human
social solidarity", among the "atomized individuals of capitalist society"?
Isn't the point that, given atomization, there is no
spirituality/solidarity whatsoever?
Are you trying to prove Kovel's point?
Meanwhile, Lou: can we not distinguish Marx from Marxism here (as Marx did)
and acknowledge at least the potential compatibility of Kovel and Foster's
positions, given that Foster is interpreting Marx, as opposed to Marxism,
which, by your reading, is the object of Kovel's criticism?
Michael K.
