|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Mar 15, 2005 1:02:11 GMT -5
flyby wrote: I don't agree at all. Marx's concept was nothing like "class against class" -- he had a broad vision of alliances, and many different forces "playing their role."
He believed in broad connections with intellectual currents, with progressive bourgeois democrats, with peasant rebels. (His own vision of revolution was "a new Paris commune backed by a second edition of the German peasant wars" -- which is an interesting vision, especially if you grasp what both the Commune and the peasant wars were like.)Well, Marx lived in the era of bourgeois revolutions...and I expect this had great influence on what he thought it was possible to do in his own time.But his recipe for a "second edition of the German peasant wars" was a-historical. Remember that the German peasants during the first three decades of the 16th century were rebelling against serfdom...the French peasantry of the late 19th century were already independent landowners with nothing to gain (and much to lose) from a "new Paris Commune". Nevertheless, Marx's remark certainly anticipated Mao's protracted people's war...for the Chinese peasantry were in much the same kind of situation as the German peasants were four centuries earlier. flyby wrote: Proletarian revolution does not fundamentally mean that proletarians do it, but that the historic and sweeping interests and vision of the proletariat guide the direction of this revolution.Hegelian idealism...it's disconnected from the real world of conflicting class interests. If proletarians do not actually make a proletarian revolution, then why should that revolution concern itself with, much less reflect, the "historic and sweeping interests of the proletariat"? flyby wrote: This (to me) is a strange and very determinist view.Well, I am a "determinist"...at least in comparison with the Leninist paradigm. I don't think that "strength of will" can overcome material conditions except briefly and partially. flyby wrote: Who wants a revolution or a society where "celebrities" are declared suspect or problem-people, before things have even started, before they have even been approached?Who wants a revolution or a society with celebrities at all? What purpose would they serve? And if we "must" have them, why should they be entertainers? Why not people who've made an outstanding contribution to the real progress of the new society? Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that we should have a "joyless" society without entertainment, amusement, etc. That would be stupid. But cannot the working class create its own entertainment and amusement? Do we "need" a "star system" to distract people with? What's the point? flyby wrote: If our revolutionary movement is broad enough to bring over a Bruce Springsteen -- won't it be more likely to win than if it so narrow that a Springsteen is on the outside?A "Bruce Springsteen" would get you a lot of free publicity; fans of his music might be more likely to at least give passing consideration to communist ideas. But I'd rather have a New Jersey shop-steward...a man/woman who's already proven that they can win the respect of their co-workers and who will be listened to seriously when s/he talks about communism. And I'm still stuck on the question regarding the materialist basis of your assumption that winning over a "Bruce Springsteen" is possible. Why should someone with his money and status even be interested?flyby wrote: Can we carry out the socialist transformation of education, production, and culture (for example) if our most radical and proletarian revolution doesn't inspire, win over, influence and lead broad strata outside the most poor? Teachers, filmmakers, TV producers, book writers, novelists, painters?The non-celebrities in those groups may well "side with the working class" in substantial numbers; I just don't think those who were especially successful under capitalism are likely to do so. What would a "Bruce Springsteen" do without his servants?He'd have to clean his own toilet!!! flyby wrote: We can build this struggle in ways that repel middle forces, and isolate us from them.This is very vague...so I don't know how to respond. If you are suggesting that we dutifully praise any celebrity who says anything that's not overtly reactionary...well, go ahead, give it a try. If they should happen to hear of your praise, perhaps they'll choose you as "flatterer of the month", who knows? And who would care? flyby wrote: We can focus only on our hard core base of support, and plan to batter everyone else with a big stick if we get the chance....Well, you're the one who advocates "enlightened despotism", not me. In a "Paris Commune state", the only ones who'd have to worry about the "big stick" are those who pissed off a very substantial number of workers...and, frankly, their fate does not disturb my slumbers. Yeah, I know...I'm not only "determinist" but also rather "instrumentalist" as well. ![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Mar 15, 2005 20:50:32 GMT -5
I have a lot to say about this, but will hold back for a sec.
let me say two things:
1) I don't think artists and prominent intellectuals should be thought of as mere "celebrities" or just "entertainers."
Tony Kushner's work is not mainly "entertainment" -- his Angels in America (and many different kinds of art like that, and unlike that) is something higher than that. And is valuable.
The role of a Springsteen in the struggle is not mainly to "urge his fans to do something" -- his art as art has a powerful impact -- in many potential directions depending on how he understands contradictions.
You say "rather a shop steward in Jersey than Springsteen." But did you ever stop to think about the role of a Springsteen (and here I am talking about as an artist, not as merely or mainly as a political spokesperson) can be powerful in winning over shop stewards, awakening them to political life, getting them to think more broadly and deeply around contradictions of many kinds?
You don't want to talk about examples.... but do you really think there is no difference between an Alanis Morissette and a Kid Rock? Or that Clint Eastwoods powerful film (that touches on the issue of "right to life" so deeply) is just "entertainment" or that he is just a "corrupt celebrity."
2) On a minor point: I am arguing about how to avoid despotism after the revolution, that is the whole point.
You have said many times, in numerous forums, that Avakian upholds "enlightened despotism." This is mistaken, and I will assume it is just an honest (but strangely stubborn) misunderstanding on your part.
But my argument is precisely this: with your approach a victorious proletarian movement would be forced to engage in precisely a form of despotism toward large sections of hte masses (in the middle classes and among intellectuals). It is not just wacko MIM-lettes who lean that way, it is a powerful and damaging current within genuine communist movements too.
So my argument is precisely about how to avoid that, to make a socialism we would want to live in, that is vibrant and employs the energies and creativity of people broadly,
I think this is one of the most important issues discussed here on awip.... and I don't want to dominate the discussion. So i'm hoping others will jump in. And won't say any more for now.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Mar 15, 2005 22:53:46 GMT -5
A curiosity. flyby wrote: ...and I don't want to dominate the discussion.One of the genuinely marvelous (and not without revolutionary implications) things about the internet is that "dominating a discussion" is actually a physical impossibility.The hardware and software that connects us does not care if we are famous or not, or wealthy or not, if we possess "charisma" or not...it is totally uninterested in who we "are" or "what we look like" or any of that crap. If we touch certain keys in the right sequence, our ideas go forth -- and while there are ways that they can be blocked, they are rather clumsy and ultimately ineffectual. The reactionaries used to be able to seize our literature and burn our books with considerable success...but what can they do now?Further, no matter how "authoritative" any particular voice might be, anyone can jump in and say "that's crap!". If their evidence is good and their arguments are clear...they will be heard.flyby wrote: I don't think artists and prominent intellectuals should be thought of as mere "celebrities" or just "entertainers."Well, there's nothing "mere" (objectively) in being a celebrity...it's the "pinnacle of success" for anyone not born into the ruling class. But I'm not clear about who you're speaking of when you mention "prominent intellectuals". This is not France, after all, where intellectual ability may confer celebrity (if not wealth). Does Cornell West or Noam Chomsky make $150,000 a year? Britney Spears makes more than that in one "concert". Barry Bonds makes more than that in one at-bat.One problem in this discussion is that we often seem to be talking about different kinds of people. I never thought of guys like Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan or Stephen J. Gould as "part of the class enemy" -- if I had had the chance to speak with any of them personally while they were still alive, I would have tried very hard to get them to at least seriously consider the Marxist paradigm. On the other hand, the typical prominent "intellectual" in our society is a vulgar capitalist lackey...a hireling who will say anything for money. We could also "hire" them if we had the resources...but, in my opinion, it would just be pissing the money away. Generally speaking, when we speak of celebrities in America, we are talking about entertainers.flyby wrote: You say "rather a shop steward in Jersey than Springsteen." But did you ever stop to think about the role of a Springsteen (and here I am talking about as an artist, not as merely or mainly as a political spokesperson) can be powerful in winning over shop stewards, awakening them to political life, getting them to think more broadly and deeply around contradictions of many kinds?Well, that seems to me to be "a real stretch". When I was a kid getting radicalized, I listened to a lot of Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, Judy Collins, even Peter, Paul & Mary (and other "lesser lights")...and certainly appreciated the ways in which their music "resonated" (for want of a better word) with my new understanding of things. But I can't really say that it was listening to folk music in the early 60s that radicalized me. I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that anyone has ever been seriously radicalized by simply listening to and identifying with certain musical performers. flyby wrote: You don't want to talk about examples.... but do you really think there is no difference between an Alanis Morissette and a Kid Rock? Or that Clint Eastwood's powerful film (that touches on the issue of "right to life" so deeply) is just "entertainment" or that he is just a "corrupt celebrity."One difficulty that I face in discussing individual celebrities is that I've mostly lost interest in "pop culture" over the last few decades; the last semi-popular performer whose music I really appreciated was Pat Benatar...and that was back in the 80s. (!) So if the discussion became one of "this entertainer's work" is "really progressive" compared to "that entertainer's work"...well, I'm often at a complete loss for words. I can assert with some confidence that the groups Jefferson Airplane/Starship and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young were "out in front" (politically speaking as well as musically speaking) during the late 60s and the 70s. But, you see, that's really not saying very much. The "sound track" of a movement is not without interest...but no one would have gotten very far had all they done was listen to the music. Also, you used the phrase "corrupt celebrity" in a kind of "moralistic way" -- as if they became celebrities "because" they were/are "really rotten people". That's not really my point in this thread at all; celebrities may or may not be "personally rotten and corrupt"... it doesn't matter.What matters is their social role...what are they being paid to do?And here, I think, the answer is really clear. No matter how seemingly "critical" a celebrity may be of this or that aspect of social reality, the "message" is supposed to be another world is NOT possible.And 99.999% of the time, they are "on message". flyby wrote: You have said many times, in numerous forums, that Avakian upholds "enlightened despotism."His own words...in fact, you corrected me when I used the phrase "benevolent despotism". Avakian's vision of post-revolutionary society is one in which political power will be exclusively in the hands of the vanguard party and especially its leadership...with the promise that as the masses become more fit to rule themselves, political power will be granted to them in increasing portions. In his view, the transition to communism is one in which power is gradually decentralized... at the sole discretion of the party's leadership.flyby wrote: But my argument is precisely this: with your approach a victorious proletarian movement would be forced to engage in precisely a form of despotism toward large sections of the masses (in the middle classes and among intellectuals).All I can say here is that you could be right. The possibility of a post-revolutionary kulturkampf certainly exists. But what can we do? Even after our enemies are overthrown, their ideas will remain...and must be struggled against in some fashion. Look, for example, at how the Catholic Church continues to stubbornly and even bitterly resist the on-going secularization of European capitalism. They are not "going gently into that good night". It will take, in my opinion, an equally stubborn and bitter attitude on our part to finally defeat reactionary ideologies of all kinds. We will have far too much to lose to risk complacency about this. ![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Conghaileach on Mar 16, 2005 14:16:01 GMT -5
Also, I noticed in the context of the video that the voting seemed really added on, as if by concession and not as part of the video. it doesn't match the lyrics or the animation at all, its definately not the logical conclusion of it all. You're correct. The video was changed just before the elections in order to strike a chord with the electorate just before the election last year. The original video ended with the masses storming the Senate(?) building. I think it can be found online in a few places.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Mar 16, 2005 22:15:09 GMT -5
I don't want to beat you over the head with your approach to investigation. But.... On one hand you claim that it is unlikely that leading actors and artists would be inclined toward lending their artistic work and voice to struggle.... But then you admit that you haven't paid any attention to popular culture and don't even know anything about the people I'm mentioning. Redstar writes: "One difficulty that I face in discussing individual celebrities is that I've mostly lost interest in "pop culture" over the last few decades; the last semi-popular performer whose music I really appreciated was Pat Benatar...and that was back in the 80s. (!)"If you don't know anything about this sphere... then what are you basing your views on? Mao says "No investigation, no right to speak."My point: there is an epistemological difference here. The one we have been talking about. Are we fact based? or are we faith based? Do you really think you can hold a true insight to a matter you haven't investigated? For example, you vaguely remember that Vanessa Redgrave considers herself a trotskyist, but can't remember her name. You say you would try to introduce Stephen Gould "to the marxist paradigm." Obviously you are unfamiliar with the basics of his history and outlook. Gould comes from a CPUSA family, and considers himself trained in marxism on his daddy's knee. He came out of the same SDS 60s that you did, redstar, and was in "Science for the People" which you may know something about. He openly acknowledges that his theory of "punctuated equilibrium" in evolutionary theory is related to an application of dialectics. He used to write off and on for "Rethinking Marxism" -- a left journal. And in his final magnum opus on evolution (the book published after his death) he discussed in some detail this issue of dialectics/marxism and his theories. So what exactly are you going to acquaint hiim with? Don't you think you have to know something about the things you are talking about? You claim that successful artists and actors are unlikely to be radical, revolutionary and progressive.... So there are many artists and actors who are quite radical and progressive. And the reason I think so is because i have investigated. If you think you can contradict this, and yet announce you don't know anything aobut the poeple creating culture and their politics..... well, what theory of knowledge are you applying? Is god whispering truth into your ear? Does it drop from the sky into your brain? Where does it come from? Next point: The point of political work with artists is not mainly to approach them in an instrumentalist way -- i.e. to approach them narrowly in terms of what they can do for the immediate struggle. ("What have you done for me lately?") It is fine for artists to donate money, to speak out on political issues, and so on. It is good. But it is important for htem to make art, and for there to be a culture of resistance which plays a huge role in creating conditions for repolarization and revolution. If you want to "compare and contrast": Workers World Party views artists in a very narrow and instrumentalist way. Look at their obit to Ossie Davis, which is basically a checklist of his contributions to efforts they were involved in. www.workers.org/2005/us/ossiedavis_0217/index.htmlthis is an approach that has been very common "on the left" for a long time. The RW's obit and approach is clearly different on many levels (reflecting a different approach to art, and to people in general). rwor.org/a/1271/ossie-memory-life.htm--------------------------------------------- You went through the sixties, you yourself mention dylan, jefferson airplane, CCR and other radical forces. The counterculture was a powerful part of what made the radical force of those times. Redstar says: "But I'm not clear about who you're speaking of when you mention "prominent intellectuals"."I think of artists as a kind of intellectual. Directors like Coppola, a great actor like Streep or Nicolson, a graphic artist like Keith Haring. And then there are the intelletuals who produce theory and analysis and science. Some of whom become famous, some not. If you want to adopt the meaningless term "celebrity" and measure poeple by whether they have money -- that is your business. But I won't do it that way. Redstar writes: "This is not France, after all, where intellectual ability may confer celebrity (if not wealth). Does Cornell West or Noam Chomsky make $150,000 a year?"I don't pretend to know how much money chomsky makes. And I have no idea why it matters. I imagine that Gould would count as someone who had both fame and money -- and he was among the most radical for much of his life. Redstar writes: "Britney Spears makes more than that in one "concert". Barry Bonds makes more than that in one at-bat."What is the point? Spears makes more than Barry Bonds, but probably Jordan was in her ballpark. So what? Michael Jordan helped Spike Lee make Malcolm X (the movie). Does that matter or not? Perhaps you don't know about that. Do you care? redstar writes: "On the other hand, the typical prominent "intellectual" in our society is a vulgar capitalist lackey...a hireling who will say anything for money."Well who is tyupical? Some are hacks and some are not. Edward Said was a prominent intellectual. And was quite wonderful. George Wald got the nobel prize in biology, and spent his life fighting for progressive causes. Several leading physicists (some of whom were accklaimed, like Hans Bethe) spoke out against war. and so on. You dismiss all that. You invent something called "typical" intellectuals, (based on what?) and then dismiss them. Redstar writes: "Generally speaking, when we speak of celebrities in America, we are talking about entertainers."I think many of these people make art (inclusing music). Is Springsteen merely "an entertainer"? How about Laurie Anderson or the clash? Or Rage against the Machine (top band in america for a while)? In other words, you say "generally speaking" while admitting you know nothing about the reality. hmmm. Redstar writes: "But I can't really say that it was listening to folk music in the early 60s that radicalized me. I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that anyone has ever been seriously radicalized by simply listening to and identifying with certain musical performers."[ I can't disagree more -- both about the 60s and about the present. The counter culture and the music was a huge part of what made an upsurge possible and so broad in the 1960s. The influence of the culture often reached far beyond the politics, creating public opinion and drawing new forces close. And every revolution has its cultural revolution. (Or else it isn't very deep and powerful). Look at punk? or reggae? or the beginnings of rap with Public Enemy? I expect to see great things ahead -- especially if the most conscious political forces (i.e. the revolutoinaries) learn to lead without trivializing. It is a matter of line.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Mar 17, 2005 0:53:38 GMT -5
flyby wrote: I don't want to beat you over the head with your approach to investigation. But....
On one hand you claim that it is unlikely that leading actors and artists would be inclined toward lending their artistic work and voice to struggle....
But then you admit that you haven't paid any attention to popular culture and don't even know anything about the people I'm mentioning.I think that's an evasion...I thought we were talking about a social grouping -- celebrities -- and not this or that individual who may have said something vaguely "progressive" at one time or another. Look at it this way: if any of these people that you tout were seriously disruptive towards the existing system, do you really believe that they would still be celebrities? Do you think the capitalist class is so monumentally stupid that they are going to pay somebody tens of millions of dollars to get up in front of tens of millions of people and say "capitalism needs to be destroyed, root and branch!"? flyby wrote: Mao says "No investigation, no right to speak."Fortunately, Mao doesn't run the internet, does he? I have lived for more than six decades in the United States and been exposed to popular culture for most of that period...it is only in the last 20 years or so that I lost interest in it. Why? Because it's the same old shit repeated over and over again. When you actually look at its contents, you'll see nothing more than endless variations and re-cyclings of the same themes and, not surprisingly, the same ideology. So do not tell me that I "haven't investigated" some "new variation" of something I first heard in 1955! To be fair, I was vaguely aware that Gould's family were lefties but was not aware of the details that you provided...making me look "foolish" in suggesting that I would attempt to "win him over to the Marxist paradigm". But I have read a fair number of his collections of essays; and while I learned some interesting stuff, I can't say that I felt any additional impetus to rebel against capitalism from his content. Worse, he wrote one piece on science and religion that was actually pretty bad! Essentially, it consisted of a plea: "if you religion guys will leave us scientists alone, we scientists promise to leave you alone and not say anything critical about religion". I don't think much of the "Marxism" that he learned "on his daddy's knees". flyby wrote: So there are many artists and actors who are quite radical and progressive. And the reason I think so is because i have investigated.Is that the reason? Or is the reason that you think "many" of these people are "quite radical and progressive" is that you are using a special definition of "radical" and "progressive"? One that's "designed" for celebrities...and far less demanding than the one you normally use. Since you are a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist", I would surmise that your definitions of "radical" and "progressive" would be pretty rigorous. Vague reformist sentiments would not "cut much ice" with you... normally.But when it's a celebrity...? flyby wrote: The point of political work with artists is not mainly to approach them in an instrumentalist way -- i.e. to approach them narrowly in terms of what they can do for the immediate struggle. ("What have you done for me lately?")
It is fine for artists to donate money, to speak out on political issues, and so on. It is good.
But it is important for them to make art, and for there to be a culture of resistance which plays a huge role in creating conditions for repolarization and revolution.I agree with you that a "culture of resistance" is certainly useful and maybe even more than that. But I don't think that culture comes from celebrities...though some of its creators may become celebrities later on. In the early 60s, Dylan, Baez, etc. were not celebrities...in many respects, they were "kids like us". And we did not worship them as "pop icons", we imitated them...that is, we sang the songs that they wrote when we were at demonstrations, in a car on the road to some conference, at parties, etc. It was only later (after 1964 or 1965) that people got into the habit of simply listening to music rather than making it themselves. (Rock music requires a lot more technology than just a six-string guitar.) As to "working with artists"...well, perhaps you have some first-hand experience to draw on -- I certainly don't. I wouldn't know how to tell an artist to "write revolutionary songs" or "make revolutionary movies" or whatever. If I knew how to do that, I'd do it myself. But I'm really good at "picking up the message" and deciding what its political content is...and almost always, it's pretty bad. The bourgeoisie "pay the piper" and they almost inevitably "call the tune". This is especially true in the case of movie-making...which is an incredibly expensive art-form. flyby wrote: I think of artists as a kind of intellectual.Up to you. I can't make that stretch, myself. flyby wrote: And then there are the intellectuals who produce theory and analysis and science. Some of whom become famous, some not.Mostly not...and least not in the sense of real celebrities; i.e., entertainers. Einstein was probably the most famous 20th century intellectual figure...but his life was much closer to yours or mine than that of, say, Eminem. flyby wrote: If you want to adopt the meaningless term "celebrity" and measure people by whether they have money -- that is your business. But I won't do it that way.Sometimes, flyby, you really puzzle me! What kind of "Marxist" is indifferent to wealth?flyby wrote: Michael Jordan helped Spike Lee make Malcolm X (the movie). Does that matter or not? Perhaps you don't know about that. Do you care?Not a whole lot. If Mr. Jordan and Mr. Lee had asked my advice, I would have said forget about the movie. Make a compilation of Malcolm X's best (most radical) speeches, print up 10 million copes, and gave them away in the African-American communities. Not that they would have listened to me: Mr. Jordan was a basketball player who wanted to "do something good" and Mr. Lee was a movie-maker who needed financing. But I can see why you feel differently, since this has come up before. Recall the disagreement we had over Bob Avakian's ideas vs. Bob Avakian as a person. I maintained that if his ideas were good ones, then that's what should be publicized; while you maintained that it was equally important that Avakian become widely known as a "person" and a "leader". flyby wrote: Well, who is typical?Edward Said certainly wasn't typical, I quite agree with you there. But I think if you look at a list of contributors to any issue of, say, The New York Review of Books or the Atlantic Monthly or The Nation or The New Republic or the op-ed pages of The New York Times or the Washington Post...well, you'd get a list of names that turned up over and over again -- what passes for the "public intellectuals" in late American capitalism. And I think you'd have to agree that they're almost all hacks. flyby wrote: I think many of these people make art (including music).If you select out some portion of popular culture to honor with the prestigious term "art" -- well, that is clearly a matter of personal subjectivity. I won't argue that point; there is no disputing taste. I do know that they are not being paid to produce "art"...their job is to convince the masses that what we live in is all there is. The better they do that...the more millions they make. flyby wrote: The counter culture and the music was a huge part of what made an upsurge possible and so broad in the 1960s. The influence of the culture often reached far beyond the politics, creating public opinion and drawing new forces close.
And every revolution has its cultural revolution. (Or else it isn't very deep and powerful).All I can say to that is that it's a very idealist way of looking at what happened. ![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Mar 18, 2005 15:39:38 GMT -5
Let me start where we agree.... You wrote that Stephen Jay Gould '"wrote one piece on science and religion that was actually pretty bad! Essentially, it consisted of a plea: "if you religion guys will leave us scientists alone, we scientists promise to leave you alone and not say anything critical about religion". I don't think much of the "Marxism" that he learned "on his daddy's knees"."Without getting too deeply into it, his book on science and religion kinda misses some important point -- including that the Christian Fascists will NOT ALLOW "you to have your sphere while we have ours." They take those kinds of offerings and bite your hand off. And unfortunately, the "marxism" he learned from his daddy was the mechanical, determinist "marxism" of the CP of that day. And Gould thought that was what marxism was, and rejected marxism on that basis -- as his own scientific development led him to see the importance of accident and contingency in world events. I heard him speak, where he assumed "marxism" was what they taught in East Germany, and for that reason, he assumed that we all had to go somewhere else to get a real and scientific methodology. So that is too bad, and that is also a sign of our own weakness to put a different Marxism more firmly and unmistakably on the stage (including within science itself!) You say his essays didn't provoke you to revolt -- and I don't know how you view such things, but he fought on many levels for a scientific view (including of science), and for the teaching of evolution in the schools. You may not have been provoked much by him, but I always was! I learned a great deal about considering other viewpoionts, understanding that the discredited often have a point, looking into the material basis for incorrect ideas (and considering what we have to learn from that.) And to me, those issues are important to making revolution. And even when he raised views I (and we) don't agree with -- i think we have to approach such thinkers from a much more lofty plane == engage with them on their explorations, accept that we will agree at times and disagree over a long common journey. And genuinely seek to learn from what they are raising (not just dismiss or criticize) . That part of what the "elasticity" means in the "solid core with a lot of elasticity." Our process (as communists preparing the ground for revolution) is not just "fanning the flames of discontent" -- in some mechancial, repetitive, head down way. Revolution takes consciousness -- creative and scientific thinking. Or we won't get where we are trying to go. There is a passage in the Ossie Davis obit that i was reading, and I thought of you. it says: "At the service, actor Burt Reynolds, who grew up in the same town as Ossie and later co-starred with him on the TV series Evening Shade, said, "As I grew to love Ossie, he took the bad part of the South out of me."
RW writer Sunsara Taylor commented on her blog: "It says as much that Ossie could do this as it does that he would do this. He neither dismissed people narrowly, nor shut up and accepted the injustices which surrounded him." rwor.org/a/1271/ossie-memory-life.htmFrom many sides, this quote says a lot, about the potential of artists, about the role of art, about how we should view people. (And this whole story of Ossie Davis would be a good place to look, and think about the potential of art and artists in the process we are seeking to unleash.) ****** When I wrote wrote: "If you want to adopt the meaningless term "celebrity" and measure people by whether they have money -- that is your business. But I won't do it that way."Redstar answered: "Sometimes, flyby, you really puzzle me! What kind of "Marxist" is indifferent to wealth?"This actually gets at the heart of this. I don't think of revolution as the revenge of the poor against the less poor. I don't think of it as "rich against poor" -- or at least that is not the heart of it. I think of it as a movement of those who want a radically different world against those who defend this one. The proletarians need give rise to a backbone force in any real radical process -- but they only can be to the extent that they (or at least a section of them) are class conscious in the sense of being partisan revolutionary communists. But the revolution itself will draw in sweeping parts of humanity, from many spheres. And if it doesn't, how will we create a new society with education, culture, music, movies, science, athletics etc.? This is the "marxims embraces but does not replace..." point that our main man has been making. Further, the proletariat doesn't make revolution just to free itself. That's the whole point -- what Marx brought to all this, and what lies at the heart of marxism. What is unique about this revolution is that "the proletariat can only emanciapate itself by emancipating all of humanity." And that is why the struggle of the proletarians to rise up, once they become conscious of their position and what it will take, becomes entwined with the ending of national oppression, imperialism, patriarchy, classes themselves. The proletarian revolution is the opening stage for the liberation of all humanity. It is not (or at least we must fight to make sure it is not) just another angry and desperate uprising of the poor -- which has happened throughout recored history and inevitably subsided leaving oppression in place (even if sometimes in new forms). So to me this is not "class against class" -- and it is not the case that the middle classes do (or should) have reason to fear the proletarian revolution. They may not spontaneously gravitate towards it as a solution, they may hope that other easier roads will bring them (and the world) relief -- but socialism is in their interests too, and this can be brought home. And if we don't do that, "we won't do any good." Some people said after the LA rebellion: "It was wrong to burn your own neighborhoods, you shoulda gone and burned the rich neighborhoods, rodeo drive and Santamonica." This is exactly wrong. This would not have solved anything. What was (and is) needed is a connection between the resistance of the masses of people, and a lofty, liberating vision of a new society. Imagine if, in the middle of the LA rebellion, a force with real and deep roots aomong the masses, could have spoken to all of society and said "We want to rise up, we don't want to live and be treated like this, and we want to join with you to create a society where we are, all of us, unleashed to produce, struggle and create, to be truly liberated, and pass over all the hated oppression of this world, the dividion into oppressor and oppressed nation, the division into classes, the wide divide of mental and manual, the oppression of women by men.... join with us. help us make this dream real!" That is what is needed. And as we make it real, we will draw many different forces to us. From many parts of society. It will be a "proletarian revolution" in its goals, and its vision. It will need and have a core driving force from the bottom of society, putting their stamp on events. But it will not be a "revenge trip" -- "others have oppressed, now it is our turn." That is completely contrary to our cause, and the vision of our leader.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Mar 18, 2005 18:08:12 GMT -5
an intersting look at the ferment among artists: www.artistsnetwork.org/a question: someone in this thread said that they didn't think that culture had much role in radicalizing them in the 60s. To say the least: that is very different from my impression of what happened then. (And the whole point of BA holding "45's" on the cover of his recent memoirs is, of course, that he feels that music brought him into a whole other place!) But who has something to say on this? Does culture move you? Did punk or reggaie or other music bring you to another place? What role does "culture of resistance" have in sustaining you (in giving the advanced "air to breathe")? thoughts? experiences? a poem maybe?
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Mar 18, 2005 20:11:56 GMT -5
Well, I first started learning about radical politics, including communism, through Rage Against the Machine, so I would definitely say music "brought me to another place". But these days, most of the music I listen to is just apolitical death metal, so I wouldn't say the "culture of resistance" plays any role in "sustaining" me these days.
My question is, wouldn't trying to win people like Eminem or Springsteen over to revolution essentially be admitting that there is a progressive national bourgeoisie...in an imperialist nation?
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on Mar 18, 2005 20:51:23 GMT -5
expand on what you are saying?
what class do you think they are in? And what is the connecton to a "national bourgeoisie" in your analogy?
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Mar 18, 2005 21:36:10 GMT -5
flyby wrote: You say [Gould's] essays didn't provoke you to revolt -- and I don't know how you view such things, but he fought on many levels for a scientific view (including of science), and for the teaching of evolution in the schools.Indeed he did, as did others. And some are still fighting, as the struggle against Christian obscurantism is not one that's going to "just go away". What I missed and still miss in the writings of many scientists on this and other questions is the willingness to "offend religious sensibilities" in the interests of the truth. Particle physicist and Nobel laureate Steven L. Weinberg recently called religion "an insult to human dignity". Such plain speaking is refreshing...but, sadly, all too rare. flyby wrote: You may not have been provoked much by him, but I always was! I learned a great deal about considering other viewpoints, understanding that the discredited often have a point, looking into the material basis for incorrect ideas (and considering what we have to learn from that). And to me, those issues are important to making revolution.Yes, Gould "borrowed" from other historians the idea that you have to look at past "wrong" ideas in their historical context -- indeed, that may be the most "Marxist" element of his whole outlook on things. Pragmatically, however, I think we still end up looking at past events through the lens of "our own time" (and the historical and material conditions that have shaped that lens). When we ask ourselves "how did things develop as they did", we look at the past for the things that made us who we are and, by and large, ignore the things that "didn't work out". Had Gould been a full-time historian instead of a scientist who investigated the history of science, I could see him writing a "balanced" account of feudalism and discussing "why feudalism made sense"...because it did make sense in its time. This is a case where Marxism is clearly superior to "vulgar pragmatism" in "understanding the world". But when it comes to changing it, the statement that such-and-such a contemporary practice by the existing ruling class "is medieval" has an impact that a "balanced account" lacks. People don't like being associated with ideas or practices that are "medieval"...and are more likely to resist them. flyby wrote: And even when he raised views I (and we) don't agree with -- I think we have to approach such thinkers from a much more lofty plane -- engage with them on their explorations, accept that we will agree at times and disagree over a long common journey. And genuinely seek to learn from what they are raising (not just dismiss or criticize).Here we have departed far from the realm of celebrities. I am not unwilling to engage with the "best" of modern thinking...but I confess that I find little to engage with. I quite admire Jared Diamond's efforts to construct a materialist theory of history and believe a great deal of it could and should be incorporated into the Marxist corpus. And even though we disagreed about Thomas Kuhn, I still think his ideas about paradigms and how they come to be overthrown and replaced is a very "Marxist" insight. But the pickings are slim...in my very un-humble opinion. The capitalist social order seems to me to be intellectually stagnant for the most part...though, to be sure, there are new "intellectual fads" every year. With very rare exceptions, it's usually the "same old shit". flyby wrote: Our process (as communists preparing the ground for revolution) is not just "fanning the flames of discontent" -- in some mechanical, repetitive, head down way.
Revolution takes consciousness -- creative and scientific thinking. Or we won't get where we are trying to go.If you mean here that we must have a "positive vision" to go along with our hatred of class society, naturally I agree. If you mean we must teach (to the best of our abilities) working people to "think like communists", I agree enthusiastically. I just don't expect much help from the existing "intelligentsia" as a social group...though there will be some exceptions -- even outstanding ones. flyby wrote: I don't think of revolution as the revenge of the poor against the less poor. I don't think of it as "rich against poor" -- or at least that is not the heart of it.Well, anyone who said something like that would certainly be guilty of a vulgar over-simplification, to be sure. But I think that a lot of people are going to begin with that assumption in their process of radicalization. flyby wrote: But the revolution itself will draw in sweeping parts of humanity, from many spheres. And if it doesn't, how will we create a new society with education, culture, music, movies, science, athletics etc.?No argument on your general principle here. The argument is whether celebrities are likely to be a part of all that. I simply don't think they will...they lack any material basis for wanting anything much different than what we have now. flyby wrote: Further, the proletariat doesn't make revolution just to free itself. That's the whole point -- what Marx brought to all this, and what lies at the heart of Marxism.
What is unique about this revolution is that "the proletariat can only emancipate itself by emancipating all of humanity."No question about it! As a "sweeping overview" of the "big picture", that's exactly what I expect to happen...and what historians of the 24th or 25th century will duly record and analyze. But "the devil is in the details". The working class, in order to free itself and "all humanity" from class society must first free itself from all the versions of capitalist and other reactionary ideologies. In the midst of a successful and even triumphant proletarian revolution, there will still be millions of people who will hate us and everything we stand for...no matter how "sweetly" we talk to them or how "nicely" we treat them. The threat to their class privilege is one that is intolerable to them. I expect nearly all celebrities to be in that camp. flyby wrote: Some people said after the LA rebellion: "It was wrong to burn your own neighborhoods, you shoulda gone and burned the rich neighborhoods, Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica." This is exactly wrong. This would not have solved anything.Well, yes and no. An attack on Beverly Hills and its adjacent wealthy neighborhoods would not have led to a change in the class structure of the United States. But it would have been a better "strategy"...because it would have served to reflect the class nature of that uprising much more dramatically. I also think that in the short term such an attack (or series of attacks) would have drawn in more support from the masses (a lot of working people did think that burning down our own neighborhood was "crazy"); and possibly (though unlikely) resulted in more genuine assistance from a worried local ruling class after the rebellion was defeated. Targets matter...they "send a message". I looked at your link to the "artists & politics" site. It's a nice site...but it has no "big names" -- no celebrities. (It mentions some big names, but there are none that actually participate in it.) It reminds me a little, in fact, of the Weimar Republic...which had an enormous amount of "cultural ferment" from 1925 to 1932 -- and which was often thought to be very "revolutionary". Well, perhaps some of it was. But it didn't seem to weigh much in the "scales of history". ![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Mar 19, 2005 10:51:22 GMT -5
Flyby wrote: "what class do you think [people like Eminem or Springsteen] are in?"
I think of them as being part of the bourgeoisie. They do make millions of dollars, after all.
Flyby wrote: "And what is the connecton to a "national bourgeoisie" in your analogy?"
I always assumed the bourgeoisie in countries like Peru and Nepal could be potentially won over to revolution, but the same could not be said of imperialist countries. It has to do with the difference between new democratic and socialist revolution.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Mar 31, 2005 16:31:55 GMT -5
No response, Flyby? I joined this conversation because you said you didn't want to dominate it...but now it appears I've killed it with my confusing statements. ![:-[](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png) You asked me, Flyby, what class I think rich entertainers are in. But what I don't understand from reading your posts in this thread is, what class do you think they are in?
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on Apr 5, 2005 14:57:48 GMT -5
(sorry, i've been afk. Didn't mean to ignore. At the same time, these are not issues that only I can "answer" -- we should all do investigtion and express views, right?) Flyby wrote: "what class do you think [people like Eminem or Springsteen] are in?"1949 wrote: "I think of them as being part of the bourgeoisie. They do make millions of dollars, after all."That is not how I view it. First of all, in my view, class is not mainly or simply determined by wealth. (And, for example, not all milionaires are capitalists, more precisely.) here is one place to start: Lenin gave us a good three-part definition of classes when he outlined the following points. "Classes are large groups of people that differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically definite system of social production: 1) by their relationship to the means of production--whether they own and control the means to producing the necessities of life and wealth of society, such as the tools and instruments, including land and raw materials; 2) by their role in the social organization of labor and production--for example, some people do manual work, others do technical work, others do the work of administration and supervision; and 3) by the resulting share of social income and wealth that these groups obtain and by the ways that they obtain it."This comes from a useful essay on class analysis: A Revolutionary Approach to Class Analysisrwor.org/a/v22/1052-059/1055/ythpro.htmAs you can see, this approach does not ignore "share of social income and wealth" (it does not act as if wealth is no aspect of the whole) -- but it does not put that central. It also does not view class as a sociological label for individuals -- i.e. class analysis is a dynamic way of understanding society and the changes of society. It is not some shortcut way to understand individuals. (I.e. you can't determine which class a person belongs to, and therefore think you really know something profound about what they think, or will do in any given situation. In fact, reality is not so reductionist!) Second, if you think about what group of people in society Springsteen belongs to, or Eminem.... it is not fundamentally as a member of a capitalist owning ruling class (what marx called "capital personified"). These men are musicians, artists, songwriters and performers -- that is what they mainly do (and represent) in society. That is their relationship with society (in the main). And because these particular two musicians are quite "successful" -- they are also wealthy men (and that brings with a web of other social relations, since wealth is invested, and wealthy people also become small employers of agents, servants, drivers, bodyguards etc.) But the short answer to your question: No, i don't think Springsteen is in the bourgeoisie (inside the ruling class of the U.S.) at all. If you look at who rules the U.S., who the bourgeoisie is, it is a class very different from singers with a few million bucks. These are world class financiers, bankers and global owners of worldspanning productiopn and ownership units (corporations), who operate on a whole different scale (and in a whole different plane and social world) than folks like eminem and springsteen. Or to put it another way: There are many strata of people in a country like the u.s. who employ others. some are professional middle class (like successful surgeons and doctors with a maid, who may also have a million dollar income). Some are small capitalists (whose employment of others takes the form of extraction of surplus value.) some are larger capitalists-- all the way up to the monopoly capitalist ruling class that actually rules society and the world (in the ultimate sense) today. If you look at the strategy and class analysis of the RCP it is not "attack everyone with money and who employs another human being." The RCP envisions a "united front under proletarian leadership." And this is targetted (in a class sense) on those who most fundamentally rule. Mao said, "Unite all who can be united against the real enemy." And it was necessary to identify who, fundamentally and ultimately, is "the real enemy." In the RCP's Draft Programme, there is a section called "Who Are Our Friends, Who Are Our Enemies?"rwor.org/margorp/a-uf2.htm, which breaks down this analysis and approach. As part of that analysis it says: "The Bourgeoisie Is the Target of the Revolution and Must Be Overthrown
The ruling class of U.S. society is the bourgeoisie. This class owns and controls the principal means of production, dominates politics and the cultural and intellectual life of society, and enforces its rule through a dictatorship that combines repression with deception. The core of the U.S. bourgeoisie is made up of the monopoly capitalists."(this iexplains by the way, why the RCP doesn't call its strategy "UFAI" United Front Against Imperialism -- because it believes the "target" of the revolution needs to be broader than merely the monopoly capitalists (i.e. the imperialists) themselves, but that there is a larger "big bourgeoisie" that shoud be included. If you see this definition of the bourgeoisie, i think you can see that a thirty year old rapper with a few platinum albums is not part of that class (even if he has money for bling and an entourage.) The middle class in the U.S. is a very diverse and complex class (that I won't try to sum up here) -- but many artists, professionals, singers, filmmakers, actors etc. are mainly in that class. (some are poorer, and a few have enough money to be above that.) and it says: "Historically, sections of the petty bourgeoisie have acted as a social base for “law-and-order” and other reactionary movements. Left to their own, especially in times of social upheaval, sections are pulled to right-wing solutions in hopes of restoring stability and security and fortifying their privileges.
At the same time, there is the large number of “enlightened petty bourgeoisie” who historically have played important roles in radical and revolutionary upsurges, speaking out or acting against the savage injustices and inequalities and crimes of U.S. imperialism. However, while many in these strata want to fall on the progressive side of history, they are inclined towards illusions of reformism and pacifism in struggling against the system."This fact (that there are "enlightened petty bourgeoisie") who have an important role in the revolutionary process, is part of what we are debating here. since some people think that people who have "made it" must (in a mechanical and determinist and reductionist sense) be assumed to be on the wrong side. (As if people simply do what is in their own immediate interests, as if wealth automatically makes everyone a pig, as if there aren't a million reasons why a wealthy singer might not want radical change or struggle to stay on the side of the people.) I hope that gets at some of the issues you are raising, 1949. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Apr 5, 2005 17:20:14 GMT -5
I completely agree. Thank you for clarifying that.
|
|