[Marxism] Being a communist in 2012
ritns028 at newschool.edu
Mon Feb 13 20:12:05 MST 2012
You Draw this concept of "Being" as a distinctly Heideggarian one, but
alas, your analysis is sadly out of date. It has been over 70 years since
Bataille and Blanchot merged Heidegger and Marx and 50-60 since Marcuse was
even more successful in bringing a Heideggerian lens to Marxist thought.
Despite the myriad of misteps and problems of the article, the
conceptualizing of "Being" in the existential sense of experiential being -
the being of the experience of communism, or the being of experience of
liberated revolutionist - is, in fact a determinate and negationist sort of
experience that challenges the capitalist order and promotes the
development of new modalities of bringing organized disorder into the
byways of capitalist material and bourgeois ideological hegemony.
If communism is no longer of political relevance because it is no longer
attached to the idea of a particular state, then perhaps it is the idea of
the sovereign function of the organization of society that is out of date
and not the fundamental tenets of a social organization that may be
experienced as emancipatory.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Sun Eagle wrote:
>> With all due respect, this quote is taken out of context. Zabala is
>> arguing that communism is no longer of any political relevance, and to take
>> it up as a political cause is worse than futile
>> "It is precisely in its great weakness as a political force that
>> communism can be recuperated as an authentic alternative to capitalism. But
>> the fact that it has virtually disappeared from Western politics, that is,
>> as an electoral programme, does not imply it is not valuable as a social
>> motivation or alternative." Excuse me? "Social motivation"? This is the
>> language of Maslov, not Marx.
>> 'Being a communist in 2012 is not a political choice, but rather an
>> existential matter.
> Nattering on about the sad state of "Being," Prof. Zabala sounds
> infinitely closer to Heidegger and his comrades than to Trotsky and his.
> But he surely would blush at the comparison to a Nazi.
> Anyway, I wonder what the Zabalan/Heideggerian answer is to the
> question--which alternative[*] describes "Being," and which "Not Being?":
> To be, or not to be? that is the question
> Whether 'tis nobler
> In the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
> To take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them. To
> Shane Mage
> "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
> that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention
> [*]Of course, the "alternatives"--"being" and "not-being"-- are false,
> reflecting the stupid but virtually universal misreading of Hamlet's
> soliloquy as contemplation of suicide. No one can understand Hamlet
> without recognizing the *unspoken* word that starts the question:
> [T'is] to be, or not to be?
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.**utah.edu<Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu>
> Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.**
More information about the Marxism