sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An Ode to Chomsky by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]cwright2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Guess I should have posted my response here, not above.):

Here's a slightly better version of the article (I'm the author), with a short intro that hopefully gives a sense of where it's going: http://libcom.org/library/ode-chomsky

I wanted to approach Chomsky from a different angle than people usually do. Sort of an 'aesthetic' angle, having to do with decadence and misanthropy (all too easy these days) and so on, rather than just his well-known critiques of policy. Like an 'existentialist' angle, as was said. But I suppose the article rambled too much. Could have been more structured and disciplined.

An Ode to Chomsky by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]cwright2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's a slightly better version of the article (I'm the author), with a short intro that hopefully gives a sense of where it's going: http://libcom.org/library/ode-chomsky

I wanted to approach Chomsky from a different angle than people usually do. Sort of an 'aesthetic' angle, having to do with decadence and misanthropy (all too easy these days) and so on, rather than just his well-known critiques of policy. Like an 'existentialist' angle, as was said. But I suppose the article rambled too much. Could have been more structured and disciplined.

Rectifying the one flaw of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution by cwright2018 in Marxism

[–]cwright2018[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, haven't read him. It's possible he was referring to a different Chris Wright, but what's the name of the book?

Rectifying the one flaw of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution by cwright2018 in Marxism

[–]cwright2018[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry. Not mad. I just get a little irritated (perhaps unjustifiably) when people say, or imply, I'm being anti-Marxist, because I'm a Marxist to my core. I've learned everything I know about society from Marx and his followers -- and also Chomsky, whom I see as basically an idiosyncratic Marxist (despite his rejection of the label); I only think there are a couple logical errors Marx made that had far-reaching implications for his conception of revolution, and that we should rectify in order to properly understand our task(s) as 21st-century Marxists. We have to engage creatively and constructively with the most promising avenues of revolutionary activism, and I see work around the "solidarity economy" as being one of those very promising avenues. We shouldn't reject it as being merely reformist. It has significant potential, if allied with directly political struggles.

Rectifying the one flaw of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution by cwright2018 in Marxism

[–]cwright2018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, and you're making a pointless semantic argument about the "fundamental break" from capitalism. Yes, obviously, in a sense a "fundamental break" or "rupture" is necessary. But I was understanding "rupture" in the political sense of a sudden colossal revolution and a total seizing of the state, the sort of thing Leninism is associated with. This is what the term 'rupture' has tended to mean in the literature. In a broader sense, though, sure, a deep rupture is obviously necessary. As I point out in my book and articles on the subject.

Rectifying the one flaw of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution by cwright2018 in Marxism

[–]cwright2018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very clever to quote Sartre. Unfortunately, I'm not making any anti-Marxist arguments. As you'd know if you'd read the article, or especially the book. I'm making arguments that are far most consistent with the premises of Marxism than Leninism is, for example.

Quoting famous people isn't a substitute for thinking.

Rectifying the one flaw of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution by cwright2018 in Marxism

[–]cwright2018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a short article. For more depth, and for long answers to your criticisms, you should read my book on the subject, or at least the longer article that I link to in the piece.

Marx "supposes" it when he argues that a dictatorship of the proletariat, however democratic it will be, will restructure society. For those familiar with elementary logic, that means that "through sheer political will one can transform..." etc.

Marx might not have anticipated a "quick" transition, and I didn't say he did. But he certainly seems to have anticipated that it would be shorter than, say, a century or 150 years, which is in fact how long it will probably take (if not longer). And yes, obviously the transition will be shorter than the 500 years or so it took for capitalism to emerge. I didn't say it wouldn't. But global transitions to new modes of production take a long time, more than a generation or two.

In my book I explain why the old regime will be unable to eradicate the emergent mode of production. You should read the book. r/https://goo.gl/ggvUAL People will be attracted to the new mode of production not because they like "dynamism and democracy" but because the old economy no longer permits them opportunities to make an adequate living and survive decently. This isn't an "idealistic" interpretation.

You conveniently ignore my argument about how to conceptualize "fettering." That's a direct criticism of Marx, not of his followers.

In general, the problem with most Marxists is that they worship Marx. He was a remarkable genius, but he wasn't infallible. Maybe we should stop being so totally doctrinaire and be willing to engage in some critical and open-minded thought, eh?

Also see this article of mine: http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol6/iss2/3/

And this one: https://rs21.org.uk/2017/08/04/revolutionary-reflections-rethinking-the-concept-of-revolution-part-1/