>Charles Brown writes:
>>No self-consciousness will be able to create a state-power at all that
>>does not defend its selfconscious self with force and violence. The
>>trials
>>and errors of the first efforts to build socialism - the giant Commune of
>>the Soviet Union especially - have demonstrated that this is truer now
>>even
>>than in Marx's day, sadly. That idea is neither prejudiced,
>>superstitious,
>>mystical, or dominated by an irrational passion; rather it is materialist,
>>empirical, scientific, logical and associated with revolutionary elan won
>>in
>>world historic tragedy.
>Okay -- I have been trying to follow this thread and now I am lost. How is
>the idea that violence is necessary empirical and scientific when it
>(violence) hasn't worked yet?
I think what Charles is getting at here (although I'd wait for confirmation from him) is simply that: if there's to be a space where human beings can be(come) fully conscious as human beings, it has to be defended from those who'd prevent that space from opening up and growing, to their detriment.
>
>Wouldn't the opposite also be possible: that violence is not the way to go
>since it has failed so far? Or is it that not enough violence was used
>(the
>old "if you fail redouble your effort, don't rethink your approach)?
<shrug> Depends what you mean by "violence" and "failed". And whether or not the "failures" can be directly attributable to violence. Haiti and the US (the political and the socio-historical entities) were both born out of violence. Only one's "failed" (so far) by common standards, while the other's been wildly successful (so far).
How could one take political power away from a powerful group that's used to having it without there being some sort of violent reprisal? Or using violence to combat that reprisal. Or using violence in the first place?
That's not rhetoric: I'd like to know your opinion.
>
>I remember a few weeks back I was struggling with the concept of false
>consciousness. Could it be that belief/faith in violence is a manifestation
>of false consciousness in that violence appeals to/satiates the passions
>and
>not the rational mind?
<shrug> Don't know. The term "false consciousness" is pretty loaded. I guess it basically means the capacity to lie to oneself convincingly, even while flying in the face of "objective" reality. One could, I suppose, mistake passion for rationality. Human minds seem to be able to fuck themselves over quite nicely, so why not this way too?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines