Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is it possible to rip art out of its political and cultural context and enjoy it for its aesthetics only? Can we listen to Wagner without acknowledging the racist and nationalist ideology that informed it and which it seeks to promulgate? Isn’t the purpose of art to communicate ideas and emotions? If the ideology that motivates some specific art work is reactionary shouldn’t we reject it however beautiful it might be?
‘So can a socialist appreciate the beautiful in art, literature and music of a religion whilst discarding its beliefs and historical iniquities, the facts of which s/he knows and will tell of.’
TM – But it’s not as simple as that – aesthetics can be used to subvert and pervert the political and moral values of the working class. The beautiful in art so often disguises an ugly ideology (Christianity, Fascism etc.) and is one of the most powerful propaganda tools available.
Furthermore, Christianity did not come from “the Dark Age hordes” the Romans despised. It was the Romans who were Christians and who set out to convert the “hordes.”
That was Gibbon’s point, it was the adoption of Christianity by the empire that helped destroy Rome from within. So do you agree or deny that contact with Muslim culture stimulated European Medieval development courtesy of their preservation of the knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome?
Of course, I know there are many, maybe most, Marxists – especially those arriving from Left groups and parties, who read very little apart from Marx and Engels, and never look into any research or knowledge realised after and since Marx’s death.
I would not consider such strange individuals as Marxists.
TM – I think it was rather more than just personal hygiene that was lost but also medical science, philosophy, astronomy, many technologies etc. Historians make the point that it was the cultural encounter with the Muslims during the crusades (Spain as well as the Levant) that enabled Medieval Culture in Northern Europe to begin to flourish culminating a few centuries later in the Renaissance. Phrases like: Medieval, Renaissance and The Dark Ages have become very unfashionable but I think it is important to emphasize that history does not always develop smoothly and progressively if only because this was one of the great erroneous criticisms of Marxism.
TM – Once again in your revisionist fervor you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody is claiming that we should ‘malign 1,000 years of human generations’ or that ‘these centuries were static and not vibrant’ but the loss of some material culture after the Roman withdrawal is undeniable. Many historians still support Gibbon’s contention that Christianity was one of the most reactionary ideologies that the world has ever suffered and that it helped to destroy Rome and inhibited cultural development in Northern Europe in contrast to Muslim culture etc. Cultural development is not smooth and progressive in all societies at all times as your statement ‘alive and moving’ would suggest.
The Saracens were shocked and amazed at the smell, habits, medical ignorance etc. of the European crusaders. Is this not a testament to the loss of material culture after the Roman withdrawal from Northern Europe in the 5th century that instigated the ‘Dark Age’ and continued into the Medieval period?
You’re both forgetting the ‘Dark Ages’ that took place between the Roman departure and the arrival of William the Bastard in this country. With such shadowy figures like King Arthur and Ragnar Lodbrok it is one of my favourites although now much maligned by modern historians.
rodshaw – I’ve always considered organised sports as the only legitimate place for competition so I wouldn’t expect the games themselves would change much. Of course there wouldn’t be any financial pressures to win – just bragging rights. Although when it comes to ‘international’ competition I don’t know how that would be organised in a world free of nation states.
L.B. -I’m interested in how you would seek to counter ‘dominant narratives’ like the one associating socialism with the Bolshevik revolution? I attempted to do this with reference to ‘authenticity’ some time ago and would be interested in your thoughts: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2013/2010s/no-1304-april-2013/authenticity/
LB – ‘If we try to apply our will on nature, a dialectic will, or some idealism- nature will counter that, and ignore our mere postulations- rolling right on as it has done’
Of course the dialectic is a human construct – just as the paradigms of science are. Its use is only viable if it explains observed phenomena successfully – which in the Marxian context it has done spectacularly.
LB – ‘The lesson for me is to maintain Marxism as Marxism and Socialism as Socialism- else it can morph into Leninism or an other type of state capitalism coupling the State with Capital ownership. Dominant narratives conjoining its countering ones. Socialist modes get consumed with State based Capitalist modes?’
The main problem with that perspective is that it was only possible for us to predict the failure of Bolshevism to create socialism was specifically due to our Marxian methodology. Marxism cannot ‘morph into Leninism’ as long as it is preserved as a method and not turned into an ideology as the Bolsheviks and Left attempt to do. Being a socialist without referencing Marx is rather like trying to be a physicist without a reference to Einstein – the Marxist genie is well out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back even if we should wish to do so.
MS – Just pointing out that many Leftists claim to be socialists and Marxists – doesn’t make it so, does it?
MS – ‘Most leftist groups are dialecticians. You must get in contact with them a little more to understand their world.’
Now your assertions have taken on a confidence concerning my political life experiences! I’ve been a socialist for 40 years and have debated with all varieties of the Left. You really have to learn to differentiate between those who make claims to be this or that and the reality that their claims might well be baseless. I have rarely encountered such a pompous individual as yourself.
ALB – There is nothing remotely ‘rational’ about the rise of Nazism – indeed that’s the whole point of Fascism. I’ve found my explanation, which you may remember from many years ago, of the Death Instinct’ here: http://wezselecta.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-instinct.html
