In Reply to: Re: people not profits posted by Gideon Hallett on January 31, 1997 at 12:26:33:
You are quite right to say that Paris, Russia and Spain "failed
in their objectives" because of they didn't "survive and propagate".
However, such failures were not due to the tendency of "factions"
to develop, but rather other material circumstances such as lack
of organisation in the revolutions which spread, their isolation,
outside forces etc. You also say that "most of the attempts at
Marxist society have fallen victim to" the tendency of "factions
to develop". Can you give some examples where it was internal
divisiveness which caused revolutions or "attempts at Marxist
society" to fail. Along similar lines you write that "attempts
at Marxist society" have failed because of the tendency of
"a charismatic spokesperson" to take "more power than they
should". Again, can you give some examples? To prevent this
from happening, you say that you need to "abolish the hierarchy
altogether". But where does hierarchy come from and in what
material circumstances does it arise? Furthermore is hierarchy
always bad and can you think of situations where it may be in
the short-term, both necessary and desirable? Hierarchy and
power are not necessarily natural bedfellows.If "rule-based" means being guilty of applying "a standard code
without weighing up the situation", then Marxism could hardly be
accused of this. The fundamental point from which Marxist analyses
begin, is class society. And because the "history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles", that focus on
class relations remains. This is why society will only be changed
with a sufficient level of class struggle.If as you say that society is not made of a "bewildered herd" as
I thought you were inferring previously, but rather a lot of
"stressed-out slaves who don't think any further than their pay
packets", can you explain the difference? Is it as you seem to
suggest, the ignorance of the average person which prevents
society from being changed?"...world's population to double before 2050". It is the propensity
of environmentalists to focus on such issues as population which
deflects the blame from those ultimately responsible for the current
state of society. When the blame continues to be heaped on those
who have too many children, or immigration levels - something which
is presently happening in Australia - the order of the modern world
eludes scrutiny.
None.