boddhisatva foucault at
Sat Jan 7 04:46:35 MST 1995

		To whom....,

	Mr. Beasley-Murray's question echoes a very active line of my
thinking.   I think, briefly, that Marxists are trying to solve too much.
While ALL Marxist analysis is useful and important, not all of it need be
"contained" in the revolution itself.   I say this ready (as always) to
contradict myself later, more or less.

	I cannot see how any feasible design for the revolution can help but
include "syndicalist" ventures.  Syndicalism makes people nervous.  It makes
me nervous.  Further nervousness is provided me by my realization that some
of these "syndicats" will organize on the basis of race, gender, and
ethnicity issues.  People organizing around these issues (perhaps less so for
gender) can get very "non-inclusive", sometimes with bats.

	If the government is to be socialist as well, there is a problem.
Socialists frown on chauvinisms, as they are the coin of false consciousness.
 However, syndicats (I stopped using quotes - too tired) require tolerance,
in that revolutionary chauvinisms are almost a certainty.  Thus it will fall
to socialists to reign in the vanguard from the seat of government.
No rationale even the least bit Soviet will be tolerated, when it
comes to reigning in - there can be no selectivity.  Further,
government's power to reign in at all must be reduced for any
revolution to get off the ground (and for people to trust it).

	Thus it will fall to the socialist government to adopt a legal
ethics that is not much different from the present one in terms of
social censure - practically.  It will fall to the "party", to take the
hills of the moral high ground (if Col. North can use the metaphor, so
can I.)  So, ethicists can breathe a sigh (now thick with the scent of
Rolaids, no doubt) of relief on that score.  They will have to become,
perhaps, pastors [revolution theology anyone ?] of the secular order,
while their socialist brothers IN government gnash teeth, wring hands,
and hold tongues.

	It strikes me that it is, perhaps, no dialectical accident
that the Left is so disparate.  A democracy of ideologies is in place
a priori.

	I think we will be the first church with an establishment
clause.  [no, thanks, that wine turned out to be pretty filling]



More information about the Marxism mailing list