[Marxism] Re: Who shares responsibility for imperialism?
Jack F. Vogel
jfv at trane.bluesong.net
Sat Jun 26 11:42:41 MDT 2004
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:13:19PM -0400, joel kovel wrote:
> However, I reject the identity theory of the major bourgeois parties. This
> is only Marxist in the vulgar sense of the term, which argues reductively by
> replacing concrete analysis wth reified categories. It's as if Gramsci never
> existed, calling us to look at the real fabric of things rather than relying
> on reflex invocation of economistic "laws." Certainly this would include
> incorporating the social bases of parties and their legitimation strategies
> rather than resorting over and over again to their ruling class loyalities
Funny how philosophical "sophisitication" always gets called in
to make the simple hard...
I dont call them identical... "blue car" "white car"... of course they
arent IDENTICAL, but you think its 'vulgar' to realize they are both
Fords, is that 'reification'?
We dont need Gramsci, Lukacs, Althusser, and ten other marxist philosophers
to distract us from identifying both party's here as capitalist, and
seeing the electoral shell game for the distraction it is.
> If Nader were offering a real alternative, I would say it's worth the risk.
> But I don't see that he does....
> There is neither radical Green nor radical socialist content to Naderism.
No one here is supporting Nader because of the 'purity' of his
politics. He is a petty bourgeois candidate, BUT he stands for
a rejection of the above-mentioned shell game, and much of his
platform IS opposition to the ruling class interests. And with
the addition of Camejo you certainly are wrong about there being
neither radical Green or socialist content...
Talking about 'real alternatives' and 'risk' make it sound like you still
buy the fundamental importance of the shell game itself. The whole
point is to break that illusion and to build "real" politics, real
struggle. Not this 'spectacle' that keeps us mezmerized :)
More information about the Marxism