I'm way over limit, and it's very late, so once more, and then I'm done for today.  Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@osu.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> > if there were no social movement to go with "Marxism as a school of philosophy" ("historical materialism"), it would die as a theory relevant in the real world, and "historical materialism" would indeed fully become merely an object of cultural studies or a Campy Found Object (that it already is probably in the minds of a number of non-Marxist LBO-talkers). That's a real problem. I don't mean with my view, I mean, it's a real problem, a problem found in reality. I comment on it in my paper that's posted at Kelly's website.  > The burden of proof is on those who make predictions -- in this case, yourself: "This is not going to change." Were I to say, "Marxism will be an essential part of a vibrant left-wing social movement on the offensive worldwide in X years," or even simply, "Socialism shall eventually triumph," yes, the burden of proof would be on me, but that is not the case here. No, I don't think so. When someone is advocating a view that's been given a century and a half of vigorous effort, and is no practically nowhere, the burden of proof is on her. Anyway, in rejecting my view, you're implicitly saying that Marxism is an essential part of a vibrant left wing movement in something like the foreseeable future, someting that makes it worth devoting your life to the effort despite considerable risks and sacrifices.    > Besides, there may not be even much of "choice" involved here. I may sometimes "feel" as if I've "chosen" Marxism, but the sense of "choice" is illusory. More accurately, I just grew into it or it grew onto me, haphazardly. Well, I know  how that goes. There was a time I would have said the same. > My (and probably Miles') generation's experience is, in contrast, that of being born at the bottom and climbing up tooth and nail, with no illusion. I've never personally "lived" Marxism as an essential element of a mass movement on the rise, so, for me, no loss is involved -- only a painstaking advance from zero. You're not that much youinger than me, Yoshie. > A paradigm change doesn't happen in the absence of a new paradigm to replace the old. The day I will cease to regard Marxism as my political project will be the day I will have already "chosen" some other project, whether I will realize it or not immediately. I have looked at other theories and projects that exist now (in various states of vigor and decay) -- anarchism, Islamism, social democracy, liberation theology, social ecology, participatory economics, etc. -- and none looks to me as good as what a repaired and renovated Marxism can offer. As you know, I discuss this in my paper too. > Why should a future Marxism be necessarily recognizable to me? Wouldn't it be un-Marxist/un-historical-materialist to expect it to be? Indeed it would. But why expect it to be Marxism? What is this Marxism, if it's utter unrecognizable? > Today, I look at Venezuela with Chavez and Bolivarians, for instance, and see Marxism alive and kicking. Marxists and Marxism as a social theory exist in the Bolivarian movement, Historical materialism correctly predicts anticapitalsit struggles will continue. Why that shows that Marxism as a movement has enduring vitality I do not see. > Even some old icons are sometimes given new lives and meanings. E.g., activists singing and playing "Bella Ciao" -- a song of Italian Partisans in the Resistance -- in Genoa in 2001: <FTP: bellaciao.mpg bellaciao genoa italy.indymedia.org>. Perhaps, but that's not a reason to cling to old skins and old meanings, much as it breaks my heart to say it. jks</BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>