Mike writes:
> I see the destruction of self as a masochistic, social psychological
tendency--a kind of self-immolation, if you will.
Why can't you see it as a liberation? If we immolate the self as it is presently constructed and substitute a more realistic understanding, why is that masochistic? Isn't maintaining a notion of self that facilitates exploitation the masochistic act?
> The destruction of self is an important aspect of political power,
domination by another
person or in the case of say, capitalist social relations, acquiensence to
the domination of the ruling capitalist class.
Yet it is the actuality of the self (as you conceive it) that permits exploitation and domination. Why support such a pathology?
> The destruction of political power and thus domination of one person by
another, should be a general principle of the movement toward greater
freedom.
Agreed.
> It is in the class interests of all individual wage-slaves to have in
mind the strategic goal of abolishing the wage system for this will result
in the overturning of capitalist class domination, reulsting in more freedom
and justice for all : one planet without gods or dominators--a democratic
association of producers where the conditions for the freedom of each are
the conditions for the freedom of all.
But don't class interests arise from self-interest? And if self-interest is toxic, then class interest is just toxicity squared. If you are concerned with freedom, why do you want to ensnare people in the slavery of self/class interests?
> Class interests don't negate the individual, they only negate narrow,
bourgeois self-interest where one person's freedom is based on another's
un-freedom.
Can you define the self in terms other than self-interest?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister