This is a good, thought-provoking and poignant piece. Raises more questions for me. I'll ask one of them then continue reading.
You say:
"Personally, I believe that Marx was controlled opposition from day one, and that Marxism came into existence to serve the purpose of subverting the socialist movement and leading it into a dead end."
My impression has been a bit different. I perceived rather that it was socialism that took advantage of naturalist ideas such as those of Rouseau; that socialism itself was, rather than controlled opposition, a model for the overthrow of monarchical imperialism so that it could be replaced entirely by capitalistic monopoly of the very few disguised in the garb of "the people." For example, Moses Hess, Marx's guide and mentor, was a socialist (and a communist), and also a ruthless Frankist. Prior to Hess, we already have the formation of the highly-stratified, hierarchical Frankist Illuminati, already experts in subversion and deceptions in the name of "equality, freedom and fraternity", yet among who there could only be a semblance of the former two and a perverse version of the latter.
It has been also pointed out that it the Jesuit "collectives" among the American Indians, such as in Paraguay, were early forms and templates for communism; where the priests were the technicians/directors (dictators) and needless to say benefactors of the collectivity of the workers. Though Adam Weishaupt allegedly rejected the Jesuits who had raised him, he borrowed a lot from their strategies and ideas.
Thus, I don't see socialism being a pure, grassroots movement even from early times. However, if I am missing part of the story I would like to know. I'm not an expert on socialist history for sure.
Would you consider writing something about what you consider valuable about the Marxist tradition?
Personally I agree with Marx's diagnosis of the problem, but I think that the solutions he proposed were incredibly stupid (namely the abolition of the family and the creation of a central bank with a monopoly as the basis for a future free society).
The wishes of the individual - a man's desire to fuck his neighbour's wife, for instance - often come into conflict with what it ultimately best for all parties involved.
Anarchist societies are governed by taboos, as opposed to laws, and it is the job of the culture to make sure members of a given society understand what is and what isn't allowed.
Personally, I believe that such a thing as objective morality is possible, and I call that natural law.
To what extent should a mythology concern itself with the needs of the individual and to what extent should it address the needs of the community? It must do both.
What the individual desires does need to be balanced against what is good for the community... and rights need to be balanced with responsibilities.
These are tricky questions, and I feel like we should probably go right back to Voltaire, Rousseau, Proudhon, etc when considering these questions, because I don't think that many advancements were made in political science in the 20th century.
Marx never does tell the workers how they should conduct their personal lives because he figures that's up to them, and their own communities. It has nothing to do with his critique of capitalism, as you clearly know. It's pretty clear not all of Marx's ideological successors had such a democratic view of social mores, though.
I look forward to your next installment. It seems I'm more of an anarchist than I thought I was.
Whew! You don't think small, do you? Every society needs a mythos, a collection of stories and commonly held beliefs, that help bind it together and keep it functioning. Beyond that for the moment, you may have to wait on a series of posts I'm thinking of--what socialism, or maybe anarchism for that matter, would look like in America.
This is a good, thought-provoking and poignant piece. Raises more questions for me. I'll ask one of them then continue reading.
You say:
"Personally, I believe that Marx was controlled opposition from day one, and that Marxism came into existence to serve the purpose of subverting the socialist movement and leading it into a dead end."
My impression has been a bit different. I perceived rather that it was socialism that took advantage of naturalist ideas such as those of Rouseau; that socialism itself was, rather than controlled opposition, a model for the overthrow of monarchical imperialism so that it could be replaced entirely by capitalistic monopoly of the very few disguised in the garb of "the people." For example, Moses Hess, Marx's guide and mentor, was a socialist (and a communist), and also a ruthless Frankist. Prior to Hess, we already have the formation of the highly-stratified, hierarchical Frankist Illuminati, already experts in subversion and deceptions in the name of "equality, freedom and fraternity", yet among who there could only be a semblance of the former two and a perverse version of the latter.
It has been also pointed out that it the Jesuit "collectives" among the American Indians, such as in Paraguay, were early forms and templates for communism; where the priests were the technicians/directors (dictators) and needless to say benefactors of the collectivity of the workers. Though Adam Weishaupt allegedly rejected the Jesuits who had raised him, he borrowed a lot from their strategies and ideas.
Thus, I don't see socialism being a pure, grassroots movement even from early times. However, if I am missing part of the story I would like to know. I'm not an expert on socialist history for sure.
I love this framework and the project!
That whole killing your former friends schtick is a thing to watch out for for sure though!
I do however have a soft spot in my heart for Uncle Karl, none the less.
Can't wait for the Anarchist Mythos!! That will probably be real helpful to me.
Would you consider writing something about what you consider valuable about the Marxist tradition?
Personally I agree with Marx's diagnosis of the problem, but I think that the solutions he proposed were incredibly stupid (namely the abolition of the family and the creation of a central bank with a monopoly as the basis for a future free society).
Thanks for asking. I'll definitely think about that. In agreement that the diagnosis is better than the prescription.
A world story needs to impart traditions that serve both the individual and the whole, not one at the expense of the other, like a sharing economy?
This is, I think, the core of the matter.
The wishes of the individual - a man's desire to fuck his neighbour's wife, for instance - often come into conflict with what it ultimately best for all parties involved.
Anarchist societies are governed by taboos, as opposed to laws, and it is the job of the culture to make sure members of a given society understand what is and what isn't allowed.
Personally, I believe that such a thing as objective morality is possible, and I call that natural law.
To what extent should a mythology concern itself with the needs of the individual and to what extent should it address the needs of the community? It must do both.
What the individual desires does need to be balanced against what is good for the community... and rights need to be balanced with responsibilities.
These are tricky questions, and I feel like we should probably go right back to Voltaire, Rousseau, Proudhon, etc when considering these questions, because I don't think that many advancements were made in political science in the 20th century.
So, an observation. Anarchists are about the only people I hear talking about natural law today. Go Anarchists!
Marx never does tell the workers how they should conduct their personal lives because he figures that's up to them, and their own communities. It has nothing to do with his critique of capitalism, as you clearly know. It's pretty clear not all of Marx's ideological successors had such a democratic view of social mores, though.
I look forward to your next installment. It seems I'm more of an anarchist than I thought I was.
That's what I like to hear! It raises the question of what the purpose of a mythology should be. What do you think it should be?
Whew! You don't think small, do you? Every society needs a mythos, a collection of stories and commonly held beliefs, that help bind it together and keep it functioning. Beyond that for the moment, you may have to wait on a series of posts I'm thinking of--what socialism, or maybe anarchism for that matter, would look like in America.
There are Individuals and Society, but,
not Communism and society...
As for "We are a pretty fucking awesome species.
if you hadnt noticed."
I'm sure the Palestinians had noticed...
Name another species that can juggle 14 balls.