You know, Yoshie, part of fascism and a lot of the appeal of Nazism, the Blood and Earth stuff, was a reaction against capitalism. Nazism and Italian fascism was complex with a lot of futuristic, modernist, implicitly hypercapitalistic aspects as well, but they had a lot of anticapitalist, literally reactionary, imaginary nostalgic aspects too, yearning for a simpler, more communal, less individualistic time. This seems to be what rang Heidegger's bells about Nazism. My point is not endorse the Islam or Islamism = fascism equation, which I don't even think starts to get off the ground, and which I recognize as a neocon smear to justify a endless crusade. My point is rather than not every actually existing reaction to capitalism deserves our endorsement as opposed to our understanding. I don't know why you can't see that Iranian fundamentalism is repugnant to everything else you believe and cherish, but the analogy to fascism may help show that just because something on the actual, real world situation is is anticapitalist doesn't mean it's good. Likewise both Eugene Genovese, before he went over to the dark side, and Michael Lowy, both discussed romantic, reactionary anticapitalism in different contexts. none of them very nice.
--- Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> > Yoshie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marx and Schumpeter were talking about
> technological progress in the
> > >> *means of production* under capitalism with
> its *concomitant*
> > >> destruction of "capital values." The economic
> analysis of neither is
> > >> in the least concerned with their own
> subjective views of the
> > >> worthiness of particular consumption goods
> offered on the market. To
> > >> condemn capitalism because of the alleged
> "spuriousness" of those
> > >> use-values is to wallow in what both Marx and
> Schumpeter would
> > >> unhesitatingly call philistine sentimentality.
> > >
> > >What's wrong with judging the capitalist mode of
> production by
> > >standards, whether they are moral or political,
> religious or
> > >aesthetic, that are other than the standard of
> liberalism: "Freedom,
> > >Equality, Property, and Bentham"?
> >
> > What is "wrong" (anti-historical-materialist) is
> to judge an entire
> > epoch of human history, the capitalist mode of
> production, by
> > subjective rather than historical standards--and
> historical
> > standards are objective, imposed by history
> itself. The capitalist
> > mode of production is judged, can be judged, is
> being judged,
> > will be judged, only by its own inner standards.
> The judgment,
> > as foreseen by Marx, is that a mode of production
> whose inner
> > essence is the unlimited development of humanity's
> productive forces
> > was doomed by its specific inner contradictions to
> become a "barrier"
> > to the development of those productive forces so
> severe that its
> > tendencies to self-preservation would become--have
> indeed
> > become-threatening to the survival of
> civilization, perhaps of
> > human life itself.
>
> It is necessary to grasp the perspective of the
> market, the immanent
> standard of the capitalist mode of production, when
> it comes to
> _analysis_ of what makes capitalism what it is,
> unlike other modes of
> production. But that perspective is not what
> _moves_ people to act in
> such a way as to overcome this mode of production
> and establish a new
> one that better serves the interest of "the survival
> of civilization,
> perhaps of human life itself."
>
> As for inner contradictions of capitalism, they are
> certainly a
> barrier to human development, but they themselves do
> not automatically
> doom this mode of production.
>
> On 9/20/07, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > To be fair, Doug, Yoshie did specify the sort of
> > liberalism she had in mind, the sort who invoke
> > "Liberty, Equality, Property, and Bentham" (to
> justify
> > capitalism?)
>
> That's the dominant ideology, most in keeping with
> commodity
> fetishism, and, promoted by the powerful and
> accepted by many, it puts
> pressures on all less than or other than
> Anglo-American liberal states
> to conform to it. The recent French and Swedish
> elections are
> examples of such pressures inside the global North.
> Pressures are
> greater outside it.
>
> > No one would seriously suggest that capitalism
> could
> > be usefully evaluated from a medieval perspective
> > involving the divine right of kings. No one here
> would
> > think that fascist values would likely be an
> > especially illuminating way to appraise
> capitalism.
> > Few here would suggest that a Stalinist framework
> > would be helpful. Probably only you, Yoshie,
> > here,anyway, would say that an Islamist appraisal
> > would be useful for much more than understanding
> how
> > Islamists think. So you have to be specific about
> your
> > alternative and the reasons for adopting it as a
> point
> > of view and what purpose it would serve to do so.
>
> Before evaluating anything, one has to know what it
> is. What is the
> essence of capitalism and how do working people come
> to understand it,
> criticize it, and resist it?
>
> Most people in the world do not come to learn the
> logic of capitalism
> by reading Marx's Capital or any other book; nor do
> they understand it
> by experiencing wage labor, for experience of wage
> labor alone tends
> to give "Liberty, Equality, Property, and Bentham"
> an upper hand in
> the end, leading people to demand "A Fair Day's Wage
> for a Fair Day's
> Work!" except perhaps in moments of major economic
> crises like the
> Great Depression that are accompanied by political
> legitimation
> crises, rare events.
>
> And yet, major revolts and revolutions have happened
> many times in
> history. How and why? I think that, when working
> people are moved to
> resist the logic of capitalism, they do so because
> of subjective
> contradictions between the dominant structure of
> feeling generated by
> the capitalist mode of production -- "Liberty,
> Equality, Property, and
> Bentham" -- on one hand and a combination of
> residual and emergent
> structures of feeling on the other hand (to take
> Raymond Williams'
> terms).
>
> Doug says he is in favor of "the ruthless criticism
> of all that
> exists." The letter in which Marx advocated it is
> instructive. He
> wrote it at a time when "The internal difficulties
> seem to be almost
> greater than the external obstacles. For although no
> doubt exists on
> the question of 'Whence,' all the greater confusion
> prevails on the
> question of 'Whither.' Not only has a state of
> general anarchy set in
> among the reformers, but everyone will have to admit
> to himself that
> he has no exact idea what the future ought to be" --
> not unlike our
> time. What did he set out to do? "In that case we
> do not confront
> the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle:
> Here is the
> truth, kneel down before it! We develop new
> principles for the world
> out of the world's own principles. We do not say to
> the world: Cease
> your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you
> the true slogan of
> struggle. We merely show the world what it is really
> fighting for, and
> consciousness is something that it has to acquire,
> even if it does not
> want to." That is a perspective that we should
> bring to understanding
> Islam, the main ideology to which people have turned
> in the Middle
> East in resistance to the US-led multinational
> empire's attempt to
> make the logic of capitalism prevail everywhere, and
> other ideologies
> of struggle elsewhere.
>
> While understanding "the world's own principles"
> takes far more than
> understanding the small parts of them that are
> expressed in the ideas
> of intellectuals, one can't remain totally
> unfamiliar with them
> either. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam wrote that the
> "intellectual archives"
> and records of activism of "al-Afghani, Ridha,
> al-Husri, Aflaq,
> al-Banna, Shariati," and "the political philosophy
> of
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/