Re: [OPE-L] John H on capitalist and anti-capitalist conceptions of time

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 08:14:24 EST

> "Rage"?  If a person experiences rage against something/someone I
> wouldn't think it ipso facto makes the target the correct target.

Paul Z,

Of course.   I can't imagine that John H or anarchists disagree.

But, to clarify,  I'm not sure how John world phrase it, but most
anarchists would say that the rage (rather than being directed against
someone) is "rage against the system".  For class struggle anarchists,
that means rage against capital and the state.

> Surely we cannot just say, 'anything goes'.

Of course.

> In sum, rage is not so easy to understand.

Sure.  But, let us also recognize that in any class struggle rage is
experienced by participants.  How can there be a radicalization without
rage?  How can there be a revolution without rage?  Yet, I think a
point that John and many others would make is that Love is also
a key component of social and class struggles.  That is, love and
rage have to be understood together as part of the revolutionary

> I've never read about 'good' rage and 'bad' rage, but surely not all rage
> is progressive, not even rage within the working class.

Of course.  No one suggested otherwise.

It might be interesting to ask why anarchists seem to be more likely
to talk about love and rage (emotions) in the revolutionary movement
than Marxists.   Perhaps this is a consequence of the belief by Marxists
that they are "scientific socialists".  In viewing politics/struggle  as a
"science",   have some Marxists created an ideal image of the
scientist/revolutionary socialist as someone who is entirely logical?  I.e.
do some advocate  "Spok Marxism"? (the  reference, in case anyone
doesn't know, is to the fictional 'Star Trek' character).

While many Marxists blush at the words 'love' and 'rage' (especially
the former), some character traits have been asserted as being
necessary for revolutionaries.  For instance,  Lenin thought that
ruthlessness was a virtue for revolutionaries!  Now that would make
an anarchist blush!  It should also make Leninists blush.

Luxemburg emphasized more of a spontaneous element in the
revolutionary process than had Lenin and the Bolsheviks.  Surely,
rage must be a necessary component in such a (semi-)
spontaneous process, right?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 30 2005 - 00:00:02 EST