[Marxism] Re: Marxism Digest, Vol 24, Issue 22

Red Witche red_witche at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 8 09:52:52 MDT 2005



I would just like to comment on your view of objects (
if that's ok!) I would suggest to you that you read
Melanie Klein and other object relations theorists in
regards to human development. As children from an
early age we objectify naturally the figures of
parents or carers. Most often this is the mother.
Nancy Chodorow criticised the rearing of children by
mothers alone for this reason, and suggested men take
more of a part in rearing children. Due to the lack of
men's involvement in child care this leads to a
tendency to over objectify women.

So we all objectify each other to some degree, it is
an inevitable part of our nature. To see each other as
subjects rather than solely as objects relating to
ourselves is something we learn to do as we grow up.
Very young children do not as yet have this ability,
and the fact that our society lacks it overall shows
that we have some growing up and evolving to do. hence
socialism would be a more mature stage of human
development than capitalism.

Best Regards

Liz
 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:02:50 +0200
> From: Julius Wilm <jwilm at ruc.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] why did Marx reject moral?
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <4346AA3A.6020700 at ruc.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
> format=flowed
> 
> Dear James.
> 
> I can not follow your argument, that because the
> a/immoral Marxist 
> outlook has not attracted the masses, they hence(?)
> never will. In fact, 
> I cannot see how visions for the future which base
> themselves on the 
> present outlook of the masses, could see anything
> but conservatism ahead.
> 
> Neither do I understand, why you find this approach
> Machiavellian and 
> associate it with “broken eggs” that supposedly are
> the losses under the 
> preparation of a communist omelette. If I understand
> the approach right, 
> (and I am not so clear about where all the arguments
> are from) it bases 
> itself on an interpretation of the arguments against
> Stirner in the 
> “German Ideology”, which pretty much say, the need
> for a will to the 
> general interest (and its embodiment in laws, the
> state and morality) 
> only is necessary under the conditions of a
> competitive society, where 
> the survival of each member not only depends on
> success in the 
> competition but also the “conditions of life which
> as they develop are 
> common to many individuals, and the continuance of
> which they, (
) have 
> to maintain against others and, at the same time, to
> maintain that they 
> hold good for everybody.” (348)
> In Communism, according to this theory, interests
> could be organized so 
> they would not contradict each other. This is
> possible, because the 
> production of wealth would be organized socially,
> and the very brutal 
> and limited outlook of bourgeois individuals
> overcome. (Marx and Engels 
> claim among other things that the world of their
> victim Stirner would 
> end behind the Hamburg Gate.)
> To write that “people might still treat each other
> as objects” might 
> sound to you as a provocation. (Adorno sometimes
> also tried to squeeze 
> the critique of bourgeois society together in the
> statement that “people 
> treat each other as objects.”) But if the “treatment
> as object” really 
> is brutal at all, does very much depend on whether
> the individuals who 
> treat each other this way, pursue aims that are
> incompatible and a part 
> therefore suffers under this relationship. For
> instance does a (working) 
> love relationship satisfy desires of both its
> participants, and one 
> could hence say that its participants treat each
> other as objects. Would 
> it not only be reasonable for one part to break of a
> this relationship, 
> if the other part no longer satisfied any interests
> or desires?
> This does of cause presuppose more reasonable
> relations than we have 
> them today (where a father who leaves his family
> simultaneously might 
> deprive it of its source of income) and individuals
> who pursue their 
> self-interests in an enlighted way.
> 
> I’m not sure if this works, but I would yet have to
> hear arguments 
> against this from your side.
> That you do not see any need to distinguish your
> reading of Marx and 
> what you describe as his moral from such
> state-doctrines as Che 
> Guevara’s “don’t expect anything but sacrifices from
> socialism”, I find 
> at least troubling. Don’t you think this call was
> meant to entail 
> acceptance of the “broken eggs” that the Cuban
> revolution (for all its 
> good sides) produced?
> 
> Comradely,
> Julius
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> 
> 
> End of Marxism Digest, Vol 24, Issue 22
> ***************************************
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/




More information about the Marxism mailing list