[lbo-talk] barbaric (was Marxism and religion)

[James Heartfield]

John Thornton says capitalism is barbaric to its core. I think that is 
silly. If it is just a semantic distinction then ok. But I think barbaric 
does mean something. (It means civilised, in the sense of talking Greek, not 
"Bar-bar", originally). For socialists with a sense of progress, it meant 
slipping backwards, as in Luxemburg's slogan, socialism or barbarism (she 
meant that in the conditions just before WWI there could be no stabilisation 
of the market, only movement forwards or backwards into war.)

John sees everything in black and white. So he insists that capitalism is 
either one thing, or another thing. Civilised, or barbaric. That is why he 
has to create the other realm of 'in spite of capitalism' where all the 
positive advances of capitalist civilisation must be placed. But there is no 
'in spite of capitalism' that is not at the same time capitalism. Capitalism 
is contradictory. It is both barbaric, and civilised. That is why it is 
possible to transcend it.

Yoshie raises a good question when she says:

"What if capitalism creates objective conditions -- socialized forces
of production -- of its transcendence but, by doing so, destroys
subjective conditions -- thinking human beings capable of collective
action -- for it?"

Certainly it has preoccupied me. I wrote a book about it: 'The "Death of the 
Subject" Explained'.
(excerpt: 
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/heartfield-james.htm)
To my mind the failure of subjective agency is the more destructive factor 
in today's conditions. But there is nothing given for all time about that.

Dennis (and Doug) makes a good point on social mobility, that I agree with - 
but I only meant physical mobility is increasing.