This seems a fairly extreme response to some common place observations:
"Such phrases are always totally unprincipled."
First, the primary focus began with intellectual rightwiners with my observation was that in common they have a number of fixed beliefs frozen in a particular juvenile way, as if they never reached a point where they could be disposed of (said in the context of growing-up). In this I meant something precise, not universal.
"The only way you can know that an idea is fixed is to examine the private motives of the person who expresses it"
Well not so, as indepth discussion with any rightwing intellect will soon uncover. At various points their whole world turns on a number of prejudices that they are quite unable to examine. I know nothing of their motives but at stake is their entire world-view and their only defence at such times is emotional attack. If you can peer into the heart of darkness and tell me their motivation I would be most pleased, as this malignant form of mind is a complete mystery to me.
Peter K, replied that something of the sought could apply to leftwingers, which is not what I originally had in mind but could easily be extended in this direction, but not in the same way. It was to this snippet you replied.
Obviously I have come in half-way into something else and more is being read into these replies then was intended. But I will take up your challenge, of course we all have some forms of fixed beliefs, we could hardly function without them (fire is hot is a pretty good one), railing against "fixed beliefs" is obviously an inane thing to do, but it is not something I believe I was doing in the first place, the criticism is misplaced.
Leaving this aside, let us get precise and precise about utopianism of what remains of our movement. There are a number of critical areas where ahistorical, abstract and logically incoherent ideas crystalise.
1)An ahistorical concept of capitalism frozen in the 19th century, where market chaos is seen to be THE contradiction.
2) A blindness to the implications of capital's own socialisation especially in terms of the state, which politically locks all debates into a form that is no longer applicable (revolutionary versus reformism).
3)A concept of Imperialism which ignores capital's further socialisation and has been elevated into a moral phrase attributed to anything done by states and not liked (while anti-imperialism is attributed to anything done by "liked" states).
4) A cosmopolitian internationalism which simply ignores the problem of the nation state within internationalism and makes all state problems an expression of Imperialism.
5) The overwhening importance of "ideological" struggle as an end in itself.
6)A concept of socialism which marries communism to schemes and expresses itself in a catcheism (all of which can be reversed): a) No private property = no bourgeois b) No Market = no capital/labour relation c) Planning = a magical cure
These in combination (as they are rarely separate) represent something of a problem which is niether banal or trite, saying they are a result of fixed ideas is saying very little I agree, but they can all be called fixed as they would not be so "useful" if subject to self-criticism.
What are the motives for this? I dare say they are the results of radical petit bourgeois influence now in absurd prominance because the radical petit bourgeois have no role to play in historical development (having already transformed themselves into a managerial sub class of a socialisied bourgeoisie). It is the remaining ideological expression of a alliance between the radical petit bourgeoisie and the working class, where the latter has decamped because the former occupies by the ground but is unwilling to fight.
If you carefully read the six points above you will see they all interconnect. 1 underpins 2, 3 underpins 4, 1,2,3,4 are co-joined in 5 and the whole lot makes socialism 6 which, when at home, is simply an expression of Saint Simon's socialism - or rule by technocrats.
Fixed ideas in general are not a problem, but the ones do force themselves on our attention.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:27:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Lenin today
Greg Schofield wrote:
>
> I suppose the distinctions are a matter of degree, we certainly have them on the left, but far from universally so.
>
> Fixated beliefs have to be associated with youth where they play an important part in the process of maturation. Do old leftists become conservative?
Focusing on fixed beliefs as something that can be discussed in the abstract is a really foolish fixed belief. I would imagine that an overwhelming proportion of the fixed beliefs are shared by an overwhelming proportion of humanity. To label a belief a "fixed belief" and then sit back smugly, cross your hands, and fancy you have said something is simply offensive.
Is it true? Is it relevant? Does it apply in the particular context? If it's true, who the fuck cares whether it's fixed or not. And if it's false, being free and unfixed does not correct its falseness. All statements about fixed ideas represent a stupid attempt at mindreading. The only way you can know that an idea is fixed is to examine the private motives of the person who expresses it.
Such phrases are always totally unprincipled.
Carrol
____________________ Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all
Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________