Doyle wrote:
> I don't agree with the point about not calling one self a Marxist. We
> name groups because human brains use names for good reason.<
I believe Sabri was sincere in saying that he is no Marxist. It was
just a statement of fact.
Dropping my obscure citing of the great Groucho, my point is that Karl
Marx did not want anything or anyone to be worshiped. He clearly did
not want to be an object of worship. Therefore, there is nothing
inherently wrong with insulting Marx. (No-one should care if someone
names his teddy bear "Karl Marx.") The problem occurs when the insults
are based on lies and/or misunderstandings. The problem is the lies
and misunderstandings, not the insults themselves.
> There is
> no convincing theory of how to identify sects, bad sects, good sects,
> etc. We use terms like ultra left or what have you in the loosest way
> without a realistic cognitive view of what groups or network structure
> is human society.
How about calling them "bad sects," "good sects," etc.? Much better,
be specific -- concrete -- about what's wrong with them. The problem
with the ISO, for example, is that they cling to an abstract theory of
revolution which ignores the role of imperialism in distorting and
concretely changing the appearance and operations of capitalism and
its laws of motion. (It's not that "socialism from below" is wrong as
much as the ISO's missing of the obvious fact that some countries and
ethnicities are "below.")
Maybe that specific critique is off target (in this context, I really
don't care) but the point is to be specific. Bandying about terms like
"ultra-left" as if they spoke for themselves and actually said
something specific about politics is a classic case of reification.
And falling for reification -- treating theories as if they were real
-- is one of the ISO's problems (as I understand that group). My
impression is that when Lenin coined the term ultra-left, he was very
specific about what he meant by it and what the implications of
ultra-left politics were. That's the way to go.
> .... Naming a group makes
> sense. Calling Chavez a Marxist is just fine. And so on.
If Chávez calls himself a Marxist, it's fine to call him that. But the
bourgeois media wields that term as a weapon, putting folks like
Chávez in little categorical boxes in order to evoke the many fears
that lurk as ideological hangovers from the Cold War and all the lies
about the USSR's "Marxism" -- along with a lot of the disgusting
truths about that ideology.
If the right uses Marxism as a weapon in this way, we should say "sure
I'm a Marxist!" and then move on. Returning to my theme, the term
"Marxist" isn't what's important. What's important is what Chávez
_does_ and says, what the movement he leads does and says. Is he
helping the people in Venezuela economically, socially, and
politically liberate themselves, now and for the foreseeable future?
> Can we get
> past this whole business of shying away from names as if that proved
> lessons are learned about rigidity, or sects, or groups. They are far
> from solved by eschewing names. Marx was wrong at times and his thing
> about he wasn't a Marxist is just humbug about naming.
His point was that he wasn't putting forth a gospel that should be
followed. He was also trying to separate himself from those who
invoked his name to defend their mechanistic analyses of the world.
I'm sure Freud said similar things about some of his self-described
followers.
--
Jim Devine / "The radios blare musak and newsak, diseases are cured every day /
the worst disease is to be unwanted, to be used up, and cast away." --
Peter Case ("Poor Old Tom").
