--- "B." <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carl Remick wrote:
"The content of the century is not a parable of good and evil (which is, of course, a generalized form of Christian myth) but the long and tortuous efforts to overcome and overthrow capitalism-imperialism. "
As "B" points out, this sentence is itself a great example of sectarian "good versus evil" thinking. It's the equivalent of saying this century has been the long and tortuous effort of the Chicago Cubs to reach the World Series. (True from a Cubs fan's point of view, but not the general public's)
The true historical struggle of the (last) century has been the determined effort of capitalism-imperialism to stamp out any challenge to its rule, especially from states which proclaimed their goal to be an egalitarian form of government. If you like, you can add "the determined but ultimately unsuccessful effort" of capitalism to extend its rule, but that is still to be determined.
BobW
>
> "Particularly refreshing is the conclusion, viz.:
> 'Hannah Arendt argues that the content of the
> century
> is the assault launched by totalitarianism against
> freedom. This overarching metaphysical description
> is
> characteristic of bourgeois ideology in that it
> completely ignores the central social and economic
> crisis of our time. [...] The content of the
> century
> is not a parable of good and evil (which is, of
> course, a generalized form of Christian myth) but
> the
> long and tortuous efforts to overcome and overthrow
> capitalism-imperialism. Humanity is still faced, to
> this very day, with the choice between socialism and
> barbarism.'"
>
>
>
> [B.]:
>
> Okay, so on the one hand it's lazy reductionism --
> and, even worse, "characteristic of bourgeois
> ideology" [!! - ha] (them's fightin' words in some
> parts!) to reduce the 20th century to this kind of
> Manichean (or, Christian, as the author prefers)
> "totalitarianism versus freedom" schema Arendt
> paints,
> according to the author.
>
> And yet Remick quotes, in contradistinction to this,
> we are also "still faced ... with the choice between
> socialism and barbarism."
>
> ... Which is not lazy, Manichean reductionism.
>
> Huh.
>
> Corey Robin, in his great recent book on fear, used
> Arendt to great employ, referencing her book
> _Totalitarianism_; I went out and finally read it as
> a
> result, and was actually greatly impressed by some
> of
> her insights.
>
> What I took from her work, and from Robin's
> interpretation of it, was that -- just as anarchists
> have been saying for many decades -- there is a real
> struggle between the forces of authoritarianism, be
> they cloaked in the red flag of communism (which has
> often really been, as even Chomsky has argued, a
> kind
> of state capitalism w/ the state as the sole
> capitalist overlord instead of a multitude of
> capitalists in the West) or cloaked in the swastika
> --
> something I think is fair to say is totalitarianism
> in
> either case, as Arendt says. They're variants of the
> same problem -- which is illegitimate, unjust
> authority. Capitalism is one extremely pernicious
> form
> of illegitimate authoritarian rule, and of course
> that
> dragon needs to be slain. Maybe Arendt didn't go far
> enough in applying her totalitarian logic to Western
> capitalism; but the example of Nazi fascism is still
> authoritarian in extremis and useful in and of
> itself,
> even if she didn't go as far in her conclusions as
> hardcore Marxists might have liked.
>
> Social reality is complex, and things are more
> complicated than even 1000 pages of heavily
> footnoted
> text could ever properly explain -- but there's
> still
> something to Arendt's contention about
> totalitarianism
> vs. freedom, as lazily reductionist or whatever that
> may seem. Freedom, however, should not mean the
> shabby, false freedom of bourgeois 'democracy, of
> course. But I'm not sure that detracts from Arendt's
> insights into the very vile nature of how a really
> totalitarian society like Nazi Germany's operated.
>
> Of course, it would be hard to speak ina nything but
> oversimplifying, reductionist language, esp. on an
> email list where emails are routinely skipped over
> if
> they appear to be over 5k or so. Sound bytes are are
> poor at capturing reality faithfully. It's nice and
> elegant when they can.
>
> -B.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>