>ah, kelley, the radical left has to offer more than that.
ahh, woj, i know it does, that it ought to, and that it ain't that hard to do... i think i laid all of this out in my various postings, particularly when i quoted m's letter to arnold ruge. i was, tho, speaking specifically to the prominent posters on this list. it's not a new sentiment or argument here.
and many times people have claimed that morality, ethics, the good life aren't questions we ought to pursue. so it they were both particular and general, my comments.
> it may not semm politically correct,
well who gives a fig about that?!
> but the old man - with all his faith in progress - had
>a very classical, in fact aristotelian, concept of what a good society is.
that would be a teological notion of causality that bore a deep impact on marx. it's also what he gets attacked for.
>a good society is one that allows the full utilization of all human nature
>potential i.e. a system that does not limit what some people could have
>become under a different social order. this of it as a sort of pareto's
>optimum with a twist - that 'human potential' is defined accordning to some
>'natural law' independently of the actual content of one's consciousness.
i think the left has a vision of the good society, though i'd say it's painted in rather broad strokes. and, even if that vision is never fully articulated, it is *always* implicit in any critique. you can't critique something if you don't have some idea about what a better life might look like.
what the left all too often doesn't articulate particularly well is how to get from here to there. i quoted marx's letter to ruge about the tasks of critical theory: to engage in both critique at the theoretical level *and* the practical level by engaging actually existing social movements in order to advance them. now that doesn't mean one person necessarily does both, but it does mean that there's got to be some sort of collaboration between critiquing at the level of theory--and i would hope also *generating* theory--and those critiquing at the level of praxis. i know you know this, because that is what tourraine was up to.
in the US, then, it is necessary to take sides and to involve oneself in practical issues--the struggles and wishes of the age, as marx put it. this doesn't mean that we're resigning yourself to the status quo--as with brad de long. rather, it means that there's a view toward making manifest or realizing the radical potential of a particular public policy or social movement.
that's hard work, as you know. but worthwhile i think. i've worked with groups before to do this and actually can work. getting NIMBYs to see that their fight has to be global, getting war protestors to see that the war is about capitalism, working in a community (sorta like tourraine et al did) in order to create stronger civil society and to figure out, together, how to begin the work of creating a public sphere.
this is, ultimately, an epistemological/ontological/practical issue. embedded in marx theory was a clear explanation of how there is *always* some a kernal, if you will, of emancipatory potential in even the most thoroughly bourgeois institutions, and that includes the constitution.
but it's like everyone has read too much marcuse or something. dunno. but i sure felt a wee bit hopeless after reading One Dimensional Man.
>and its full potential . of course the l-r has such a theory too -
>the hobbesian homo homini lupus - but that is veiled under the guise of
>'common sense observations' (the ratfuckers are quite good at using that
>veil).
god wojtek, i swear we must be the same person or were trained at the same uni or read the same books.
thing is, in their ordinary lives people have plenty of examples upon which to build a different understanding of human nature because people *don't* behave like this all the time and there are some spheres, particularly the family, where behaving like this is seen as immoral. that's the trick, to get them to acknowledge that.
however, upon a brief reflection, it is the r-l concept of human
>that is more defensible - you define human potential as the 'highest point'
>achieved by some; i.e. what was good for one or some, should be good for
>all (kantian categorical imperative).
well huh. i've been having a discussion elsewhere about hegel kant and marx --working this issue out. so it's all too weird wojtek that you should bring this up. this is getting eeirie. we were trying to figure if marx overcomes the aporia of ethical suicide in kant. no conclusion yet, but i'll report back. well, i should say that *I* think i have the answer, but i'm still waiting for criticisms from my interlocutor.
>could be used to define what is good life - being able to thank goddess for
>having the luxury of being able to think beyond the mere task of survival
>(marxian fishing in the morning and writing poetry in the evening) - and a
>good society is the one that makes that ideal available to everyone, not
>just the select few living in suburabn gated communities.
which is all fine and dandy, but as you know there will still be lots of ethical dilemmas in such a world. i do not believe all the problems will go away once we have a communist mode of production. i do not want a utopia-- we will no longer be human without the daily struggle of making decisions, being responsible for our freedom and for one another, etc.... it shouldn't be easy. ever.
be hey, tell it to a cushion ya know. just babbling away. flapping my digits. pouding away at the keyboard and all that. wanking as my friend mr. static tells me.
oh and wanking=brit slang for masturbating, jerking off, etc. wankers=jerk-offs. less harshly i guess i'd say it's the equavilant of ratfuckers. though that seems kinda harsh too when you think about it. i mean, good god, the implications for the person you're hurling that label at! either he's a bit under-endowed or he has no qualms about cruelty to animals.
and say, if you're not laughing already, here's a story: i once tried to explain to a grad student from china what the word masturbation meant. i'd used the word to describe the qualities of a particular prof's lectures. ever tried that one?!! i mean there is *nothing* but slang and sign language to get the meaning across.
entertainingly yours, kelley