Log in

View Full Version : Shrugging off Your Idols



Dean
15th March 2006, 17:48
I once discussed the term 'Marxism' with Noam Chomsky, and he replied with the following:

"What I don't like about it is the personalization. Interesting ideas are virtually always a collective enterprise. Early Marx, for example, draws very extensively from the Enlightenment and Romantic thought of the period. No criticism. It's just gives the wrong impression to personalize these things, I think."

Also, Marx did claim that he was not a "marxist" and Lenin famously stated that the individual should not be lauded; it is the collective that acts to change things.

That said, is it not apparent that arguing over Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Guevara, Castro, etc. in regards to their character is somewhat asinine? Is it not more important, and indeed imperitive, that we recognize these flawed for what they were - people - and further recognize that we ought to learn from their mistakes instead of covering them up?

In the bible, Jesus protects the Harlot with the words "let him who has no sins cast the first stone." This states a striking message about humanity, that is that we are all dynamic and with flaws. Ghandi, for instance, supported Hitler at times. Most of our Idols are facades put up by their state at the time or sometimes later, and we should recognize that they may have done some awful things as well as the great deeds they did.

which doctor
15th March 2006, 23:39
How did you get the chance to discuss Marxism with Noam Chomsky?

Entrails Konfetti
16th March 2006, 00:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:51 PM
Also, Marx did claim that he was not a "marxist"
Karl said this when he was asked about some group who called themselves Marxists, this group did stuff contrary to what Marx wrote, and so he said "if thats what Marxism is then I'm not a Marxist".

Stupid college professor.

redstar2000
16th March 2006, 01:55
Originally posted by Chomsky+--> (Chomsky)What I don't like about it is the personalization. Interesting ideas are virtually always a collective enterprise. Early Marx, for example, draws very extensively from the Enlightenment and Romantic thought of the period. No criticism. It just gives the wrong impression to personalize these things, I think.[/b]

That's not a criticism of Marxism...it's just a casual remark that someone might make in a bar.

Would Chomsky reject evolution because it's often popularly known as "Darwinism"?

In my opinion, the Leninists have so traduced the name of Marx by linking their anti-Marxist paradigm with his name that it might be useful to substitute historical materialism for "Marxism".

The important thing, as Marx himself would have been the first to say, is the ideas, not the name.


Dean
That said, is it not apparent that arguing over Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Guevara, Castro, etc. in regards to their character is somewhat asinine?

It certainly is...and is anti-Marxist as well. Whenever that stuff comes up, the unspoken sub-text is that "great men determine what happens...for better or worse."

The role of the masses is to pick "the right great man" to follow.

You see that here especially among the fans of Trotsky and Mao. :(

Asking people to "stop doing that" has an effect...but it's slow to emerge. A lot of people come into the "left" who are rebellious enough when it comes to bourgeois "Leaders"...but because they see those "leaders" as villains and they wish to find heroes to replace them.

They don't really grasp that capitalists do not behave the way they do because of "personal villainy"...the economic laws of the capitalist system compel capitalists to behave the way they do.

To be sure, many capitalists "enjoy" the feelings that they get when they behave badly...but it would not matter if they cried their eyes out in grief and repentance.

The search for "virtuous heroes" in history is always fruitless...in the long run. We all put our pants on one leg at a time...and we all fuck up. Someone who thinks that "their hero" was "perfect" is doomed to either disillusionment or life-long ignorance.

One of the strengths of "Marxism" is precisely that it dispenses with ideas of "heroism" and "villainy" as significant determinants of human history.

The truth of the matter is that we "ordinary folk" can change the world!

We don't need "messiahs" or "redeemers" or any of the crap that goes with all that.

Assuming Marx was right, of course. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif