Hi Paul and everybody--
I have one brief comment. Paul wrote,
--------Paul's quote--------
I don't think there is anything in the Marxist tradition that holds that "in
remote future, people's interests won't be antagonistic". People's
individual interests will most likely always be antagonistic some of the
time, complementary some of the time. The question is whether there will be
class antagonisms based on private ownership of social means of production
and the production of commodities.
--------end of Paul's quote-----------
As much I remember my Marxist-Leninist Soviet education back in Soviet
Union, socialism is a stage on non-antagonistic relationship among classes
and communism is classless society when people's interests can be aligned.
I'd like to know more about Marxist doctrine. Thanks,
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H. Dillon [mailto:illonph@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 12:58 PM
To: XMCA
Subject: Re: Oneness of dialectics
Eugene,
I don't think there is anything in the Marxist tradition that holds that
"in remote future, people's interests won't be antagonistic". People's
individual interests will most likely always be antagonistic some of the
time, complementary some of the time. The question is whether there will be
class antagonisms based on private ownership of social means of production
and the production of commodities.
As to "one humanity", I'd really be curious to know in more detail what
Ilyenkov said. In any event, the history of the past 100 years would lead
most to conclude world history is moving in this direction: integration of
the economy at the global level and instantaneous communications between any
point being pretty strong material foundations for such a develolpment.
Everywhere one looks one sees the development of a "world culture" of shared
tools and languages. At the same time globalization reduces even
national sovereinty (ie the supposed political representation of shared
cultural-historical tradiction) to the imperatives capitalist economic
system (ie fair competition??) and creates a basic single cultural type
toward which all are coerced to aspire: the consumer. At another level,
cyberculture contains the seeds of shared universal meanings in the very
technological basis of the normalization of languages and codes that allow
computers in Taiwan to "talk" to those in Tierra del Fuego through Japanese
satellites launched on French rockets built with German components. I think
these inherently global technologies are totally indispensable for the
global reproduction of the capitalist system (as was put in evidence by the
Y2K phenomena). The community that has brought this technology into
existence and the members of this community, those whose practical
activities maintain it, are necessarily already identifying their audience
as a universal, a global audience. They are thus is thus a concrete example
of a global human cultural system. It probably wouldn't be hard to show that
this community has a great many discourse genres in common. One thing is
absolutely certain however: they are the new economic elite, taking on the
US government with the support of perhaps 50% of the american public.
Personally I think that the process of globalization is destroying the
planet, people throughout the world suffer the depradations of globalism but
Americans have yet to feel it too strongly. But I am hopeful that the seeds
of that universal human culture will provide the basis for the coordination
of those exploited of that system to resist its depradations. The
resistance is happening all around, the question that concerns me is: What
is the theory of that resistance?
Paul H. Dillon
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT