>
> From: "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com>
> Date: 2007/06/09 Sat AM 03:19:11 GMT
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bush and Foucault
Sorry -- just caught up with this thread. It parallels a thread on Nietzsche (which unfortunately now carries the subject line "Re : PARAGRAPHS PLEASE").
I agree with Charles Brown:
Ressentiment seems to be directly concerned with class struggle, but from the standpoint and in favor of the ruling classes over the ruled classes, a sort of direct anatagonism with Marxism. That's why I say N. seems like an anti-Marx, not a complement to Marx.
I also agree with W.D.:
That said_ the CW movement is very much a political movement rooted in morality and a "left" interpretation of the gospels: their political action is motivated by strong moral convictions rather than a desire to empower the working class. Basically, the CWs take very seriously the Catholic doctrine that poverty is a sacred condition -- you should serve the poor and live amongst them, embrace 'voluntary poverty,' etc.
I would extend the criticism to liberation theology: "the option for the poor" is not almsgiving, but it is also not international socialism either. But that comes from a particular tradition, not from morality in general (another tradition sees success in business as a sign of election). I cannot agree that:
Okay, how can this [ Nietzschean?] view at all be reconciled with an egalitarian, anti-capitalist political project? I think the answer lies in that the left seems to be divided between those who view politics as a _moral_ struggle versus those who view politics as a _power_ struggle: The moral folks see their own moral superiority as their primary advantage, and they're driven by essentially moral considerations: they're the ones who want "justice" for workers, minorities, women, etc.. Compare this stance with that of the power folks, for whom "justice" is irrelevant -- they'll make their own justice damnit: they don't need a moral imperative or any other ethereal justification to seize the means of production -- they'll do it because they _want_ to. Fuck "justice"! For the power folks, politics needn't be personal, your adversaries don't have to be rotten people -- its okay to respect your adversaries -- you just have to beat them.
This reminds me of Allen Wood's "immoralist" Marx, interpreting Marx's urging of "despotic inroads" on the rights of property as conceding morality and justice to the bourgeoisie and just mounting a thuggish attack. I see no dichotomy between seeking justice (for all humanity) and seizing power.
J.D.
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam