Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Reich and Marx - Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:22:48 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:22:48 -0500
From: zzippy@cris.com (Christopher T. Phillips)
Message-Id: <199603140109.UAA16599@darius.cris.com>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Reich and Marx
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>> Reich's paraphrasing of the Marxist definition of Capitalism
>> is very accurate, I agree. I was not implying that he was unfamiliar
>> with Marxist theory. And I've never said that one must be an economist
>> in order to "speak the truth" about the economy. However, I do take
>> issue with Marxist definitions of Capitalism, and the villanisation of
>> the application of Capitalistic principles, especially when Marxism has
>> yet to be applied sucessfully as an economic system.
>> Unfortunately there was only one freely-elected Marxist that I
>> know of, perhaps I am mistaken, but I beleive it was Presedent Allende
>> of Chile. Unfortunately it appears that the U.S. Government assisted
>> military dictators to overthrow and murder Allende. Not an unfamiliar
>> theme, I'm afraid.
>> I simply disagree with the Marxist dogma which villifies
>> person or persons that organise people so they can be be steadily
>> employed, and depicting them as being little more than exploiters
>> of labor, deseving to be prosecuted for wrongdoing. This is, in
>> my opinion, seriously flawed.
>> That's really all I have to say about it. I am not critiquing
>> Reich <at the moment>, after all, he was a product of his time just
>> as we are of ours. But I do not feel compelled to blindly accept every
>> statement Reich ever made as gospel either. He had his shortcomings
>> too. <gasp!> After all, he was born human into a superstitious soceity
>> just as we are.
>>
>>
>> Thank You
>>
>> C. T. Phillips
>> <zzippy@concentric.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>
>It would be helpful, for purposes of discussion, for you to give an
>argument _why_ you think that Marx's definition of a capitalist is wrong,
>rather than just asserting it.
Please read what I've bothered to write before making such a
statement. I have stated why I think the Marxist definition of Capitalism
is naive and distorted.
As I stated above: "I simply disagree with the Marxist dogma which villifies
>> person or persons that organise people so they can be be steadily
>> employed, and depicting them as being little more than exploiters
>> of labor, deseving to be prosecuted for wrongdoing. This is, in
>> my opinion, seriously flawed."
I've noticed that when an INDIVIDUAL excercises the skill of
organisation
he becomes labeled a Capitalist, and is accused of all sorts of horrific crimes
against humanity. Why is it that the same scounderels that assert this most
feverently ignore the fact that it's OK for a government agency to provide
the same services, usually horribly inefficiently, and with noteable political
favoritism and indescretion. Oh, sorry, sounds like I've inadvertently described
Socialism !
>To say that "Marxism never worked" is not a real criticism of Marxism.
Indeed? Well, maby someday it will...
>Marxism is a science of understanding society.
I think calling Marxism a science is a bit strange. Economic Philosophy
maby.
Marx pointed out
>the internal contradictions of capitalism which will eventually cause its
>demise, to be replaced by a new system.
What "Internal Conflicts"? What "new system"?
>He did not draw any blueprints for
>what that new system would be, other than the fact that the proletariat would
>be in power.
Convient.
The "proletariat" has been in power, wiping the face of the earth
with bloodshed and misery and 'revolution'.
>On a more general note, it seems strange to me that because countries like
>the USSR and East Germany called themselves "socialist" and have since fallen,
>we conclude that socialism or Marxism is a proven failure.
YOU may have concluded this, I, however did not say OR imply this.
(1) They were not
>socialist countries. They were state capitalisms. (2) East Germany also
>called itself a democratic country. Why don't we conclude that with the
>fall of the wall, that democracy has also failed?
Because you know very well that East Germany was certainly NOT
a Democracy, Just as The Soviet Socialist Republic was about as 'Socialist'
as a ship of pirates.
One of the aspects of Orgonomy I find appealing is the concept of
Self Regulation. I see no future in Socialism for that reason. As far as
I am concerned, Socialism and Marxism allow the State way too much dominion
over the lives of individuals and are a pretty historically clear threat to
individual Liberty. I refute the value of ANY doctrine that demands the
subservience of the individual for the so-called 'greater-good' of soceity.
Seems to me that this subservience, this blind obediance, is a symptom. Of
exactly what, I'll leave you all to decide...
Thank-You
C. T. Phillips
<zzippy@concentric.net>
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com