Language again.
- This topic has 34 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Agreed that “most people” are resigned—albeit grudgingly—to tolerating their subjugation to capital.
Social experience convinces “most people” that subjugation is eternal, natural and inevitable.”
***
To be resigned to subjugation implies that one is conscious of subjugation. In this part of the world, most workers do not see themselves as members of the working class, and they would sneer at you for calling them subjugated.
When and if revolution comes, it won’t be by Marxist intellectuals. It won’t be by people reading Marx and Engels, and it won’t be by people knowing what idealism and materialism mean, or even by having heard of us.
It will be a socialist revolution, but won’t call itself that, because most workers won’t ever equate the word socialism with what they’ll be doing. They’ll just be doing it.
Nor by self-styled aesthetes who enjoy fine books and who think that the rest of the working class are thickos.
True.
And i’m precisely one of the intellectuals who are practically useless and are
never listened to. So woe betide me if I thought socialist awareness depended on me putting my views across.
Thankfully, I believe it doesn’t, or there would be no hope.Perhaps i’m playing devil’s advocate here in the hope of us looking at the communication barriers we face, and our insistence that Marxist historical materialism be studied and understood.
You yourself told me once that socialism can be achieved by those who have never read a single book.
You also agreed with me that people can arrive at our conclusions without knowing of our existence, and that this is regularly happening.
Your words gave me hope.” Nor by self-styled aesthetes who enjoy fine books ”
***
That counts out William Morris then. And all those who love literature and art. And all who hoped socialism would be marked by beautiful creations, a beautiful environment, and elevate the human mind.
So much for the hopes of yore, and so much for The Soul of Man under Socialism, as Wilde put it.
We rely on those brought up on X-box Armageddon 3. Good luck in the brave new world of gadgetry socialism.
I was about to say “fair enough” but unfortunately in the meantime you reverted to type !
But it is true that you don’t need to be able to read to want socialism. All that is required is an understanding that capitalism can’t be made to work in your interest and that socialism is the only way out.
It is also true that, because objectively socialism is the only way out, this will occur to people from their own experience and that they will seek to spread this conclusion.
Today, when we are so few and our task is to win the battle of ideas against those who defend capitalism or see no alternative to it, we socialists need to have a deeper understanding of why capitalism cannot be made to work in the interest of the excluded majority.
He’s reverting to type again.
It’s all very well being snooty about X-boxes but the late comrade Ron Cook used to argue that computer games were popular because it gave those who played them a sense of control that was lacking in their everyday life. If he was right, the underlining motivation is the same that will motivate the movement for socialism — except of course that socialism will give people actual control, not just a feeling of control.
Fair enough.
But do you see a place for bibliophiles in socialism? Will there be printed books for those who like them, and will old manuscripts still be preserved if they have nothing to do with the history of socialist thought?
Will old languages still be studied and ancient, medieval, Renaissance and Baroque works still be printed and translated?
Or will everything be on electronic screens whilst tangible works of literature and art are left to decay?
I ask only for your personal opinion, because I am aware that you do not know, and neither do I?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.