[Marxism] Theory of Violence
daniel.evans920 at ntlworld.com
daniel.evans920 at ntlworld.com
Sun Aug 26 07:34:25 MDT 2007
That last one was unreadable. Why does it scroll all the
way across the screen? I've put return breaks at the end of
each line this time. Sorry.
Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts on
this. I am glad you think the syllogism is valid. I think
it has been a long time coming.
You talk of the state being superstructural and I am not
sure where you are locating the government. I am not sure
the state is superstructural. I think it is the military
instrument of the ruling class and definitely uses
violence as well as force. For me the base is the class
struggle and the superstructure is the ideological
reflection of it, the consciousness of it, so I would
probably locate the government there moulding the state to
the ever-changing interests of the ruling class but
sometimes being deflected a little from its course by the
struggle of the workers. The ruling ideas are the ideas
of the ruling class as we know (they have got all the
money) but you seem to have the government down as neutral.
I am not sure why you say that only units of a certain size
can engage in politics. Didn’t the feminists used to
say the personal is political and isn’t the patriarch usually the `harmony-preserving institution in the family?
I think you can have politics in archaic pre-state
societies, especially in times of hardship, in fact I think
you can have politics in monkey troops.
As far as your wife’s violent assault is concerned,
politically she may believe that leaving dirty dishes round
the house for her to clear up is not fair and having
explained that to you a thousand times she may have felt
the need to resort to violence to get that point across. I
would have to study the concrete circumstances to be sure.
Needless to say, resorting to violence is a dangerous step
as, like war, it has its own logic which can easily get
away from its initiator.
The observation that violence is the continuation of
politics by other means I did point out is not a moral
argument and does not mean that violence is wrong in any
situation. I’m merely trying to identify what it is.
>Besides my question about your syllogism itself, I'm uncomfortable
>seeing a syllogism being used as a substitute for social analysis. In
>other words, a syllogism cannot yield a social "theory", and formal
>logic can't be applied to such emergent processes as human
>society. We can't generate truths simply by manipulating words or
>by playing with logic. This, I believe, is a fundamental Marxist
I can’t imagine Marxism objecting to the drawing of conclusions. Of course, as soon as a conclusion is drawn,
especially in social sciences, it immediately becomes
historical in a sense and the question becomes where the
politics come from in the here and now. Marxism has the
best answers to this question but having established the
fact of the conclusion, Marxism’s job is surely made
just that little bit easier. The dialectic is that we
could never have come to this now seemingly obvious and
long over due conclusion without Marxism in the first place.
The idea that violence is the continuation of politics
surely cuts through a lot of obscurantist nonsense about
violence being the product of human nature or evil or
mental illness etc. just as Clausewitz clarified the nature
I sense a moral objection as opposed to a reasoned one
Haines and I am certainly very grateful for your thoughts.
What do you think?
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
More information about the Marxism