>Yes, but aren't you forgetting something? The old man also held that
>we live under a mode of production that is based upon alienated
>rather than self-fulfilling activity. We are suspended between the
>poles of possessing rather than enjoying and consuming passively
>rather than creating. This dilemma can't be solved primarily on an
>individual basis, i.e. through a choice of lifesyle. It requires a
>collective i.e. revolutionary political solution, which may just
>involve a little self-sacrifice, and perhaps a conflict between the
>necessities of such action and individual enjoyment and success. The
>old man, whose radicalism cost him an academic appointment when he
>was a young man, who lived much of his life in semi-slums with
>creditors beating down his door, who had beg and borrow constantly
>to stay afloat, was painfully aware of the problem.
No shit. Really?
I mean how clear do you have to make stuff? Do I have to open every post with a catechistic recitation of first principles? This is the kind of thing that gives Marxism a bad name.
Doug
------------------------------
Sometimes first principles need reciting. I recited them here because I'm not quite sure what your point was in defending cushiness attacking so-called leftist asceticism. There have been ascetic currents on the left, from the French Revolution to certain strands of feminism that equate sexism with hetero- sex. Most leftists I know, however, aren't given to sleeping on beds of nails, and are somewhat less pleasure-averse than most. But there are quite a few on the left who want to proclaim themselves radicals and pursue prosperpous middle-class careers at the same time. They are uncomfortable with Marxism because it reminds them that these two things may not be altogether compatible. One of their favorite tactics is to set up and knock down straw men. Many pomos are given to unburdening themselves of Marxism by attacking a vulgar caricature of it. I think part of is their desire for a less demanding leftism. Who, exactly, are you defending the pleasure principle against? And are you asserting a general principle about human beings or affirming certain individual life choices in the here and now? You are by no means clear on these things, and it is the ambiguity that bothers me.