To illustrate a point
I am no longer a Marxist, but believe in him. The problem is that Marxism makes me unselfish and communal and I need to be the opposite in this place if I am going to survive. So I can not call myself a Marxist, though I believe in him.
So I am a Libertarian, but am really a Marxist.
This is because, as everything has become commoditized and contradictory, I can adopt whatever I want to satisfy my identity needs. So in order to satisfy my identity needs, I am a libertarian and a marxist. The only problem is that someone may point out the contradictions and then my identity will be contradictory. But, in keep with transvestities or transsexuals, who retain their hairy chests yet have vaginas, I am still allowed to be whatever I want, even if they are contradictory. I will act like a libertarian, but deep down trick myself into thinking I am a Marxist.
The ridiculousness of this stage of history.
So I am a Libertarian, but am really a Marxist.
This is because, as everything has become commoditized and contradictory, I can adopt whatever I want to satisfy my identity needs. So in order to satisfy my identity needs, I am a libertarian and a marxist. The only problem is that someone may point out the contradictions and then my identity will be contradictory. But, in keep with transvestities or transsexuals, who retain their hairy chests yet have vaginas, I am still allowed to be whatever I want, even if they are contradictory. I will act like a libertarian, but deep down trick myself into thinking I am a Marxist.
The ridiculousness of this stage of history.
posted by Anonymous at 2:25 PM
7 Comments:
Ben- I'm never sure if you're joking or serious when you write this stuff. But I will assume you're serious.
1. Why do communality and a lack of selfishness prevent you from "surviving"?
2. I think the fact that you keep talking about "him", i.e. Marx, really gives weight to the argument that Marxism is a religion. Its untestable hypothoses and idolization of a cranky old man who didn't support his own children further augment this point. Thus, a question for you and Sherief: Do you believe that Marxism is a religion?
3. What are "identity needs"?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
my response was probably shoddy, I'm gonna go do other stuff, I can't do the back and forth blocks of text business right now, I find the format unnderving at the present moment.
The problem with the fluidity of positions (Libertarian, but Marxist deep down, etc) is that it's practically impossible to do such a thing. Call me a materialist, but if you live a libertarian life, you're a libertarian, for all intents and purposes. Any mental processes that might tell you otherwise at the time of your actions constitute a process we call "fooling yourself." This does not mean that you can't *usually* be a libertarian, but then *occasionally* perform a Marxist action. I just can't accept the duality of positions at a unified moment. Glad to hear you're off the Karl kick, though.
I would say that accusing Marxism of being a religion and then using that as a condemnation of the whole system is an incoherent position. It *is* especially unsettling that a discourse like Marxism, which attempts to displace the "great men" theory of history, is often one of its worst perpetrators. It's fucked up that for decades Marx's words were sacrosanct and considered the final say on everything. Tampering was tantamount to treason. However, once you break free of this vulgar mistake, you're left with many useful forms of critique. But dogmatism can pop up anywhere.
The funny thing about Wash U intellectuals is that none of them (that I've met) sip exclusive wine and talk about Mahler's best work, or at least not all the time. The only lame intellectuals I can think of are maybe math majors. I don't actually know any but I presume this is where the big nerd-faces reside. Humanities students are fucking sex machines, daddy-o.
Fishstix-
I'm not saying there aren't snobs at Wash U. There are fucking gobs of them. If being "outside the mainstream" and considering certain things "base" are marks of snobbery, we're all guilty, every single person on this blog by virtue of being intellectuals. If snobbery means having a lot of money, and talking about it, and being overly materialistic, and holding on to ideals of certain aristocratic "refinement," then we're not so snobby. But the original point was about lame intellectuals, or pussy intellectuals, about whom I will reiterate that I know very few.
And plenty of people think Marxism is a religion, not just Austin. Why dismiss my comments?
The basis for Marxism being called a religion is the following: it asserts a number of unfalsifiable claims. Does that make it implicitly bad? No. It seems that almost every system of thought takes on a number of unfalsifiable claims.
The problem arises, I think, when you begin to use unfalsifiable claims as reasons to kill people or take their property. That's why marxism, christianity, and pastafarianism are inherently dangerous doctrines.
When you choose not to use force then, I think, you are no longer a marxist, christian, libertarian, christ-killer or whatever. You have become a liberal. When your first presumption is that people should generally be left alone to do their own thing, then you are a liberal. When you think that you have some sort of knowledge that others do not, you become a fundamentalist. That's when fucked up shit starts going down, and the reason that I wish that the Sheriff around here was reading George Bush's email instead of the other way around.
I want my Flying Spaghetti Monster and I want my family. You're all tainted...you're not PastafariANNNS-UHH!
Post a Comment
<< Home