Bakunin, Marx, and Bourdieu on History and Class..

[chimx]

Been recently looking through a few works by the above mentioned authors, and would like to see a discussion around their vision of class, and how that plays into the construction of human history. We all know the Marxist conception:


In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Source: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)

It is interesting that Bakunin agrees with this sentiment a great deal. He explains the distinction between the Materialist and Idealist school:


German Communists [i.e. Marxists] . . . want to see in all human history, in the most idealistic manifestations of the collective well as the individual life of humanity, in all the intellectual, moral, religious, metaphysical, scientific, artistic, political, juridical, and social developments which have been produced in the past and continue to be produced in the present, nothing but the reflections or the necessary after-effects of the development of economic facts. Whilst the Idealists maintain that ideas dominate and produce facts, the Communists, in agreement besides with scientific Materialism say, on the contrary, that facts give birth to ideas and that these latter are never anything else but the ideal expression of accomplished facts and that among all the facts, economic and material facts, the pre-eminent facts, constitute the essential basis, the principal foundation of which all the other facts, intellectual and moral, political and social, are nothing more than the inevitable derivatives.
Source: Marxism, Freedom and the State (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8IaG7xcIFyoJ:mia.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch02.htm+marxists.org+bakunin+%22moral,+religious, +metaphysical%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a)

However, elsewhere Bakunin will assert that "This principle is profoundly true if considered from a relative point of view; but if taken absolutely, as the only basis and first source of all other principles, it becomes completely wrong."[1] Alternatively, Bakunin believes that human dignity in peoples comes from "the instinct of freedom, in the hatred of oppression, and by the force of revoluting against everything that has the character of exploitation and domination in the world."[2] That is to say, it is the "instinct of freedom" that is the essence of human dignity, and the consequencial revolt is the primary moving factor of history.[3] This notion quite distinctly seperates him from the German school.

I'm interested in this idea of human dignity, as it is mirrored in the sentiment of Pierre Bourdieu, who seems that social class is fundamentally decided by the distribution of material and social/cultural capital, not by the possession of assets or production means: the dominant class is "an autonomous space whose structure is defined by the distribution of economic and cultural capital among its members.[4] Thus, class struggle has the goal of seizing this capital from the dominant class. For Bourdieu also, dignity is the key to capital, and the distribution of dignity is an inherent element in social class.

I ask this, because I am interested in your take on class, class conflict, and their historical implications. Throughout much of modern history, the most violent occurences of class conflict seem to match the sentiments of Bourdieu and Bakunin over Marx, and does a significantly better job of dealing with the petit bourgeoisie. Lyons' weaver insurrection of 1831 is one example or Paris, Marseille, Lyons, etc. in 1871 is certainly the most famous. For me I am reminded of the Kwangju insurrection of 1980. According to Choi Jungwoon: "As long as human dignity was confirmed objective in [Kwangju's] absolute community, individual possession that marked social status had no meaning. Naturally, there was no class since every individual's supreme dignity was recognized [through their struggle]."[5]

What are your takes on it. Do you see the Marxist concept as lacking due to the subjugating nature the role of the individual plays? To quote Marx's classic line from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

Or would you prefer to walk a line between the materialism and idealism of Bakunin: "We, who are Materialists and Determinists, just as much as Marx himself, we also recognize the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. We recognize, indeed, the necessity, the inevitable character of all events that happen, but we do not bow before them indifferently and above all we are very careful about praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrant opposition to the supreme end of history to the thoroughly human ideal that is to be found under more or less obvious forms, in the instincts, the aspirations of the people and under all the religious symbols of all epochs, because it is inherent in the human race, the most social of all the races of animals on earth."

1. Sophismes historiques de l'Ecole doctrinaire des communistes allemands, Oeuvres (Paris, 1908), Vol. 3, pp. 9-18.

2. Bakunin, L'Empire Knouto-Germanique et la Revolution sociale, in Michel Bakounine, Oeuvres, edited by James Guillaume (Paris, 1907), Vol. 2, p 455.

3. Eric Voegelin, "Bakunin's Confession" in The Journal of Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1. (Feb. 1946).

4. See Distinction by Bourdeiu

5. Choi Jungwoon, The Gwangju Uprisng: The Pivotal Democratic Movement That Changed the History of Modern Korea.

[Springmeester]

I think Bakunin was wrong.

It is true that people long for freedom, but freedom is an abstract and changing concept. For example, in the late-feudal era the prospects of a capitalist system would apeal like the ultimate freedom to the opressed. However once in the new soceity new antagonisms would surface. We are still dealing with those antagonisms that rise from a class-society. Because the world has changed, because there are new antagonisms we long for a different kind of freedom: we want to abolish economic opression by the capitalist class which will express itself in a true proletarian democracy, not the bourgeois democracy of representatives.

It is true that men longs for freedom but the concept of freedom changes and thats why you shouldn't see it as something static or even simple as instinct.

I think this is one of the most essential differences between the communist current and the anarchist current. The communists always base themselves on science, while anarchism bases itself on ethics.

[Epoche]

That is to say, it is the "instinct of freedom" that is the essence of human dignity, and the consequencial revolt is the primary moving factor of history.

You know what I think. All "instinct" to fight in human nature is grounded in the conditioning caused through several generations of primitive men existing amongst one another, or in the general vicinity, of different races. The first ways to identify one's own kind was visually, and before language evolved, identity type existed for immense periods-- skin color and anatomy distinguished people. The tendency to be hostile to another "tribe" was natural and encouraged.

Perhaps this "instinct," if you call it that, hasn't completely become irrelevent yet and men are still thinking that there is more to human conflict than racialism. I'm affraid not, unless one race has supernatural origins the others do not, all races are existentially "equal" in the sense that their ends are the same.

Yes, I believe the natural tendency of a human being in his own group is to be mutually cooperative. I think this remained normal until different races interacted, then there was trouble. The same is true for class types; one is generally hostile toward an opposing or competing class.

Solved. Man is a moral creature who would rather chill than fight. Epicurus was right.

Who was it that postulated the idea of a threatening alien race acting to unite all human races together? Such a thing may be the only way to ever rid man of his racial prejudices. Until then, because morals are not objective, there is only a will to political power and may the best system win. I would prefer that a Nationalism not ever exist because I like Latino women, and would hate to pass up the opportunity due to a contract I have with my own race. Perhaps, then, several Nationalisms can exist together, each consisting of its own race, and the only interaction with another race would be through trade....or when I wanted to have a Latino mistress for the night.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:47 pm
I think Bakunin was wrong.

It is true that people long for freedom, but freedom is an abstract and changing concept. For example, in the late-feudal era the prospects of a capitalist system would apeal like the ultimate freedom to the opressed. However once in the new soceity new antagonisms would surface. We are still dealing with those antagonisms that rise from a class-society. Because the world has changed, because there are new antagonisms we long for a different kind of freedom: we want to abolish economic opression by the capitalist class which will express itself in a true proletarian democracy, not the bourgeois democracy of representatives.

It is true that men longs for freedom but the concept of freedom changes and thats why you shouldn't see it as something static or even simple as instinct.

I think this is one of the most essential differences between the communist current and the anarchist current. The communists always base themselves on science, while anarchism bases itself on ethics.
i don't think it is quite as black and white as that. while marx certainly subjugates the nuances of his superstructure to that of production relations, bakunin certainly describes himself as a materialist in the above passage. the difference is that the "instinct of freedom" should drive struggle, inspite of production relations. the consequences are that the natural struggle towards these ends, for the obtainment of human dignity, can transcend marx's famed historical epochs.

So bakunin certainly agrees with marx. He just finds that struggle should persist despite this agreement. Whereas Bourdieu feels it necessary to completely rethink the nature of class society, that we derive class not from production relations, but from cultural and economic capital and assets. struggle exists through the personal "dignification" of the lower class. While I don't know if I agree with this take, it certainly tends to explain struggle beyond typical bourgeois vs. proletariat grounds, and as human history has shown, human struggle is often much more complicated that the marxian vision of class relationships.

[Hit The North]

I agree with Shift here. The "instinct of freedom" is a romantic notion and unscientific. Firstly, as Shift points out, the concept of freedom is not some static notion which is biologically defined but a cultural construct which is historically contingent. Secondly, even if we could arrive at a universal definition of 'freedom', there is no evidence to suggest that it exists at the level of instinct.

As for Bourdieu, his concepts of social and cultural capital are really just attenuations of Weber's notion of status. Both provide good descriptions of social division at the superstructural level and neither necessarily contradict the Marxist notion of relationship to the means of production as being the fundamental source of class at the infrastructural level.

What to say about Epoche's rather tangential and strange intervention?

Is your racism so embedded that you mistake it for an instinct or do you just ascribe this theory of causation to lesser mortals?

Either way, your historical scenario has no more scientific evidence than Bakunin's 'instinct of freedom' but is surely far less romantic (not necessarily a good thing!).

[chimx]

I agree it isn't static, but that doesn't inherently discount it. while we continue to redefine the notion of freedom, depending on our corresponding historical epoch, there is an underlaying similarity, in that struggle manifests itself in such a way that one class seeks to reclaim its dignity from the dominating class. this can be said to be the underlying truth to Bakunin's romantic message, which is why I included Bourdieu.

The irony of this, is, of course, that this pits Bakunin and Lenin in much a similar camp than that of Marx--that is, revolting despite lacking the material conditions for real class struggle, or as Bakunin puts it, the refusal to bow before that which is contradictory to the "end of history".

As far as the historical examples, perhaps I didn't elaborate on that well enough. The Revolutionary Left, even beyond their internet forum ;), have often simply glanced over the fact that the most significant revolutionary forces in history have not been of an exclusively proletarian nature. Class struggle, regardless of material conditions, has expanded beyond simple proletarian vs the bourgeoisie. The luddites fought to re-seize their dignity from the industrialization of Europe, quite similar to the artisan revolts in Frances in the early 1830s. The petit-bourgeois dominated in the Paris Commune, yet classes liquefied when faced with a common external exploitative enemy. The same is true for Kwangju, in that again classes became meaningless, and an absolute community formed. George Katsiaficas called it the Kwangju Commune in a romantic gesture alluding to the Paris Commune. Again, classes evaporated, and class struggle ceased being derived production relations, but rather the seizure of dignity and cultural capital from an oppressive external force.

It is interesting that many of you point out that this is the reason you favor communism, whereas for me, this is certainly the very reason why I prefer anarchism. I am more interested in anarchy as a necessary tension (dialectic?) within any anti-capitalism movement to attack power institutions which seek to form and seize cultural capital. I see vast amounts of merit in materialism, and like Bakunin, I do opt to call myself a materialist, but I also seek a broader understanding of that nature of class struggle. Bakunin does this for me. Call it romantic, I call it not only realistic, but a necessity.

[Hit The North]

Chimx


I agree it isn't static, but that doesn't inherently discount it. while we continue to redefine the notion of freedom, depending on our corresponding historical epoch, there is an underlaying similarity, in that struggle manifests itself in such a way that one class seeks to reclaim its dignity from the dominating class. this can be said to be the underlying truth to Bakunin's romantic message, which is why I included Bourdieu.

I'm not discounting 'dignity' as an aim of struggle, but I'd suggest it is an ideological manifestation of the struggle. The real struggle is over those things which dignity rests on, i.e. material resources. If dignity is freedom from want and oppression this can only be secured through our political emancipation and maintained through the equitable control and distribution of resources.

Nevertheless, an appeal to a general human dignity can be a highly motivational call during struggle, although I'm not sure this is what Bourdieu is getting at - although Bakunin was obviously and rightly aware of its propaganda value.


The irony of this, is, of course, that this pits Bakunin and Lenin in much a similar camp than that of Marx--that is, revolting despite lacking the material conditions for real class struggle, or as Bakunin puts it, the refusal to bow before that which is contradictory to the "end of history".


Not so. Bakunin's romantic revolt against reason was the cause of his real excursions into voluntarism. For Lenin it was his analysis of imperialism which led to his apparent voluntarism. ;)

I have no qualms with your historical examples but mostly what I see there is class struggle (the first two defensive) based on real economic tensions but taking various ideological form. The liquefying or evaporation of class which you remark on is symptomatic of the early days of all revolutions as a coalition of classes form the vanguard against the old order. Nevertheless, had, for instance, the Paris Commune survived it would have by necessity had to deepen its proletarian character. The old petite bourgeois leadership (as far as it existed) would have had to be 'liquefied' or liquidated.


I am more interested in anarchy as a necessary tension (dialectic?) within any anti-capitalism movement to attack power institutions which seek to form and seize cultural capital.

Can we seize cultural capital? We can contest ruling class ideas, but ideas cannot be requisitioned and placed in banks like real capital. Moreover, in Bourdieu's notion of (economic, political, cultural and social) 'fields' there isn't the absence of different types of capital but different relations between them: cultural capital (knowledge and disposition) obviously dominates within the cultural field but economic, social and political capital have their place and exert their influence. These relations are dynamic and prone to change. Look at the penetration of economic capital into the field of culture where art is commodified and sport is big business.

I'd argue that Bourdieu's notion of different forms of capital only really make sense if they are underpinned with a materialist conception of social class rooted in productive relations and mired in exploitation. And given that Bourdieu began as a Marxist and was re-engaging with it in his final years, I think he'd agree.


I see vast amounts of merit in materialism, and like Bakunin, I do opt to call myself a materialist, but I also seek a broader understanding of that nature of class struggle. Bakunin does this for me. Call it romantic, I call it not only realistic, but a necessity.

I'm not sure if Bakunin really appreciated Marx's notion of materialism or whether he mistook it for the mechanical materialism of the Enlightenment. The classic quote you reprint from the 18th Brumaire demonstrates that Marx saw human activity as central to changing the world (but operating in the realm of necessity not absolute freedom); and elsewhere he is cognizant of the role of ideas in motivating that action. Otherwise, why write the Communist Manifesto?

I'm glad you derive energy and fire from Bakunin's legacy. For me it's spelled out in Gramsci's line about 'optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect.' Our engagement should be ferocious but our analysis should always be scientific.

[chimx]

'm not discounting 'dignity' as an aim of struggle, but I'd suggest it is an ideological manifestation of the struggle. The real struggle is over those things which dignity rests on, i.e. material resources. If dignity is freedom from want and oppression this can only be secured through our political emancipation and maintained through the equitable control and distribution of resources.

Ultimately I agree, but isn't that a rationalization for struggle? While dignity may be rested upon material resources, does struggle unfold from the rationalization of material concerns, or from the desire to reclaim dignity?

Getting back to the Paris Commune, it wasn't the material conditions which resulted directly in the erection of barricades, but rather the decision by Versailles to allow Prussian troops to symbolically occupy the city. Later, Theirs would add insult to injury by confiscating the National Guards' canons. Directly, it was Paris' reclamation of dignity--their communards' instinctual eros--that saw the creation of the Commune. This is why the Commune went beyond simple class conflict and why the petit bourgeoisie were apt participants.


Can we seize cultural capital?

No, of course not. What I said was poorly worded. Rather, as an anarchist, I am wary of those that seek to dominate organic institutions of "dignification" through their exploitation of capital, be it cultural, social, or economic. The most obvious example being the undermining of Russian soviets.

And as far as the Bakunin vs. Lenin comment, lets leave that semantical debate of intent for another thread. ;)


The classic quote you reprint from the 18th Brumaire demonstrates that Marx saw human activity as central to changing the world (but operating in the realm of necessity not absolute freedom); and elsewhere he is cognizant of the role of ideas in motivating that action. Otherwise, why write the Communist Manifesto?

I agree. To quote Marx again: "In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production."

Whether or not Bakunin grasped the intricacies of Marx's brand of "determinism", I am not sure. His biggest criticism of the man was that he lacked an emotive connection to class struggle, which he worried would devolve to an authoritarian praxis, thus usurping any proletarian revolt of its dignity.

[Epoche]

I haven't read the authors mentioned though I found the quote and wanted to comment on it in my own special way. Here it is the same idea I was responding to bit spoken in a different way:


The "instinct of freedom" is a romantic notion and unscientific. Firstly, as Shift points out, the concept of freedom is not some static notion which is biologically defined but a cultural construct which is historically contingent.

My point is that if there is a tendency for an organism to practice a habit, which we would call "instinct," since "habit" is historically contingent and not something that an organism evolves teleologically to "follow the rules of," as if the instinct preceded the evolution of the organism, we would have to consider only the most essential ethical habits that all organisms share; its cooperative habits.

From this bare essential "axiom" we can conclude that the human organism has a "biological instinct" in its practice of ethics and morals. The system is constructed around the family unit of a human species. The moral contract between family members exists so that the family unit is successful....and of course in darwinian terms the family values that do not facilitate the success of the unit are lost through selection.

What necessary morals that do exist, exist as what is necessary for cooperation. Circular yes but the survival of the family unit in the similiar conditions that it was exposed to for who knows how many years is the result of a habitual moral practice in the unit.

What changed everything was the invention of the caste system. When a group consisted of several family units, new roles were invented with making the group more efficient, in mind. When argriculture and primitive industry evolved, things became even more complicated.

The important thing to remember is that the shift in the ethical structures of the group only occured when their economic circumstances changed significantly. The instinct of "freedom", then, is not a metaphysical issue nor even a philosophical one. It means only the opportunity to exist without violence in a group. Freedom from pain is the extent of the importance of freedom. Everything else, such as "rights," are founded on the moral "system" which is a matter of politics, not "biological instinct." Unless you want to stretch the envelope. We can do that too and call it a package deal. You just need some good heideggerian ontology and we can make morals "phenomenological". Hell, we could even call them "objective" if we found a set of a priori structures for consciousness.....the rest is cake.

Nonetheless I stand by my claim that morals are first organized around ethnicity and then around class. The class system is only dangerously complex in a system that is not communistic. And I am not racist. I do have great contempt for certain cultures, which are generally emphasized by specific races, and as such I find it justifiable to have contempt for the race that partakes in such culture. But this is not racism. It is a contingency that culture X is practiced by race Y, and it would be a contingency if they did not.

Specifically, I am talking about the african-american. It just so happens that they are engaged in a culture that I think is the single most intellectually degenerative medium for a mass produced consumerism; the music and the clothing industry combined is the greatest influence on teenagers from thirteen to eighteen (then they finally grow out of it), and it is the discourse in such a medium that results in terrible intellectual malnutrition.

So I think that in order to get rid of that danger, a race might need to be rehibilitated; for one year all black people will have to act like white people, by the names of Jeffrey and Susan, will not be allowed a phat ride, can listen to no hiphop, and must shop at wal-mart for clothing.

In one years time, I can cause a fifty percent increase in statistical intelligence for teenagers in those age ranges. Then, when the white kids are smarter and no longer trying to be like Puff Daddy, we can let the black people back in and they can continue with their...[cough]...culture.

Peace.

I'm out.

[Hit The North]

Epoche:


And I am not racist.

Well, I'm willing to hear you out...


I do have great contempt for certain cultures, which are generally emphasized by specific races, and as such I find it justifiable to have contempt for the race that partakes in such culture. But this is not racism. It is a contingency that culture X is practiced by race Y, and it would be a contingency if they did not.


Uh oh... :(


Specifically, I am talking about the african-american. It just so happens that they are engaged in a culture that I think is the single most intellectually degenerative medium for a mass produced consumerism; the music and the clothing industry combined is the greatest influence on teenagers from thirteen to eighteen (then they finally grow out of it), and it is the discourse in such a medium that results in terrible intellectual malnutrition.

OMG! Did you just say that out loud??? :blink:


So I think that in order to get rid of that danger, a race might need to be rehibilitated; for one year all black people will have to act like white people, by the names of Jeffrey and Susan, will not be allowed a phat ride, can listen to no hiphop, and must shop at wal-mart for clothing.

Now you're just being silly... Aren't you?


Peace.

I doubt that.


I'm out.

Yes, you've just outed yourself :wacko: . Must be a relief though.

[Epoche]

Well then, we have arrived at something profound I think. What is the end of one's convictions and what are the beginnings of those convictions put into action: if I am techincally a "racist" and would support the idea of a specific race not exisiting, when do these sentiments becomes judgemental? Would I need to "support" a nationalist theory and be willing to take up arms in a nationalist movement? I would suspect. Here it is important to notice the difference between philosophy and action.

I do not believe I would be willing to involve myself in a nationalist agenda. In other words, I would dodge the draft. On the other hand, and I do not want you people to get angry with me here....but there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with racism. Racism can be counter-productive to certain things, such as communism, which rightly upholds the scientific authority in establishing the definition of "human" and the classifications of race. Communism is the ideal, but this ideal and anything which works against it isn't "right" or "wrong" ethically because ethics are matters of evaluation and values have nothing to do with material conditions, which are the things considered in the scientific definition of the species.

Marxism is philosophy free proper. An alternative to communism, such as nationalism or capitalism, for that matter, is not "wrong."

We must forget trying to make official the marxist ideology through a search of "objective morals" that are a priori to the conclusions of science such that, as a Hegelean might put it, "good" ethics are arrived at in epistemology by a phenomenological examination of "noumenal" essences; for Hegel the synthesis was a teleological result of two contradictory parts, therefore it is an "a priori" structure to existence, according to Hegel. But, it is entirely contingent that there ever be a moral conflict and two opposing parties arguing about the issue...so, it is also contingent that there comes a solution. The agreement, which is for Hegel the synthesis, is not arrived at through an epistemological inquiry of "morals" but rather the actual empirical result of the activity itself. Even assuming that noumenal "truths" exist that can be accessed in epistemology, they are still only consequential and empirical. There are acts on one hand and language on another.

So nothing can be morally "wrong".....only consequentially either ideal or not ideal.

I would rather there be no racism. I would rather eveyone get their shit together.

[chimx]

Wow. Just wow. This is probably the most epic discussion derailment I have ever seen. Turning a discussion on class and dignity and shifting it into racist propaganda.

Everybody knows this, but I'll say it again just in case. Race is a social construct that has no biological basis. The reason for a "race" to exhibit certain cultural tendency's is a byproduct of previous cultural racism and marginalization, but to lump an entire ethnicity into one group of hip-hop loving hoodlums, well that's just hateful.

How in the world have you avoided restriction and/or a banning?

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 06:00 pm
It certainly tends to explain struggle beyond typical bourgeois vs. proletariat grounds, and as human history has shown, human struggle is often much more complicated that the marxian vision of class relationships.
Yes, it is true that many struggles throughout modern history have not manifested themselves, in any immediate sense, as a fight between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marxism, in its better moments, does not attempt to invalidate a struggle just because it is inconsistent with a conventional image of class warfare. However, Bakunin’s “instinct of freedom” may not be a particularly useful corrective to more ultra-orthodox, dogmatic forms of Marxism. The idea, because it attempts to describe human nature or essence in a universal and transhistorical way, is much too vague and abstract to be of use. If I determine that people have an “instinct of freedom”, and I see a struggle currently underway, what exactly am I supposed to do with Bakunin’s concept? What does it tell us about the actual moments of resistance – in their specificity and particularity -- that we encounter in political movements, everyday life, and so on? In Marxism, there is at least a clearer link between theory and practice.

Moreover, the valence of those concepts underlying the debates between Marx and Bakunin – economic determinism, the primacy of the economic mode of production over the superstructure, human nature, “instinct”, “dignity” – changes during different historical periods. The fifties saw an ossified communist movement with ossified thinking, in which the most hackneyed economic determinism played a key role. Many political movements brewing during that time -- such as second-wave feminism -- were not able to draw much use from a theoretical tradition which systematically denied the importance of concepts outside of class -- such as gender or biological sex -- and which could not substantively understand their relation to capitalism. So, those new struggles and ideas ultimately developed in such a way that blinded them to the impact of class and the capitalist system on their own “sphere” – such as the status of women. Those movements made a huge impact from the sixties forward, but appear by this point to have done everything that they could do, given their limitations: of course, the lack of an integrated, anti-capitalist analysis is a big part of those limitations and contradictions.

That is one reason why I don’t think that jettisoning or demoting Marxism is at all wise during the current period. Unlike, say, the fifties, the problem right now is generally not a lack of recognition of the different struggles, not specifically organized around class, that are a part of the landscape. The problem is that many of those struggles lack any perspective on the central, constitutive force in our world, capitalism. So I would question a move from Marxist concepts to ones like “dignity” or “instinct”.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 10:29 pm
Nonetheless I stand by my claim that morals are first organized around ethnicity and then around class. The class system is only dangerously complex in a system that is not communistic. And I am not racist. I do have great contempt for certain cultures, which are generally emphasized by specific races, and as such I find it justifiable to have contempt for the race that partakes in such culture. But this is not racism. It is a contingency that culture X is practiced by race Y, and it would be a contingency if they did not.

Specifically, I am talking about the african-american. It just so happens that they are engaged in a culture that I think is the single most intellectually degenerative medium for a mass produced consumerism; the music and the clothing industry combined is the greatest influence on teenagers from thirteen to eighteen (then they finally grow out of it), and it is the discourse in such a medium that results in terrible intellectual malnutrition.

So I think that in order to get rid of that danger, a race might need to be rehibilitated; for one year all black people will have to act like white people, by the names of Jeffrey and Susan, will not be allowed a phat ride, can listen to no hiphop, and must shop at wal-mart for clothing.

In one years time, I can cause a fifty percent increase in statistical intelligence for teenagers in those age ranges. Then, when the white kids are smarter and no longer trying to be like Puff Daddy, we can let the black people back in and they can continue with their...[cough]...culture.

Peace.

I'm out.
http://lbegley.googlepages.com/banhammer.jpg