Ted Winslow wrote:
>
>
> How does this vision of human authenticity differ from the vision set
> out in the passages from Zizek I recently quoted or from the
> identification of Marxian politics with "struggle" disconnected from
> any consideration of what struggle is for, from any consideration of
> "cookbooks for the future"?
>
I quoted Marx on struggle in a restricted context, an answer to the question "Who Decides?" I did not, of course, specify that it _had_ to be _violent_ struggle, and I believe there are some games in which the winner of one round has first serve or whatever in the next round. Engels thought one sort of struggle at least was essential to happiness: among the desirable features of a good society he listed books to provoke argument. Like contradictions, struggle can be antagonistic or non-antagonistic.
But since a point is being made of the exchange between Marx & the reporter, let us look at the original context of that too. First, the question and answer were outside the framework of the interview; the interview was completed, and the question was an afterthought, almost a joke, on the part of the reporter. Moreover, the question was wholly nonspecific, "What is?" Not, "How does one explain history?" or "How do we reach socialism?" or "How are working hours decided?" To the last question Marx had given a very precise answer, it happens, in his most carefully written text, C v.I. Where rights are equal, force determines. I would be interested if anyone on this list (including anti-marxists) would wish to challenge that. The question was ontological, asking what was in the most abstract sense.
And (perhaps surprisingly) Marx neither refused to answer nor gave a quick formula of any kind. He could have said "That would take too long to answer" or "I don't know." Or he could have answered immediately in a few rambling sentences. But he chose first, a long silence, followed by (apparently with deliberation and even force) that one word. The phrases "internal relations" and "process" would seem to be possible glosses on the answer.
It would be a hairshirt marxism indeed if grounded in the rejection competitive sports, political persuasion (an important but not sole form of political struggle), or literary debate. I will be interested in hearing Doug's defense of his condemnation of sports.
Carrol
> Ted
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk