Aesthetic Materialism

  In "The Eclipse of Reason," Max Horkheimer writes: "Having given up autonomy, reason has become an instrument." First I would have to believe that reason ever had autonomy - or to even know what autonomous reason would mean - before I could accept the premise that it has "given up" this autonomy. Horkheimer is smuggling a kind of idealism (quasi-Kantian) into his presuppositions. Reason has never been autonomous. As Hume said, reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions. Or, better yet, the material conditions of a society, in the final analysis, determine the ideological superstructure, including that society's reason. At best we might say that our goal is to create - for the first time - an autonomous reason. But that is well outside of the goal of Marxism. As Marx put it, reason has always existed, but not in rational form. The role of the critic is, through dialectic, to discover the rational kernel within the irrational - and ...

Whenever I speak to a Marxist, I feel like a Religious Studies researcher, or an anthropologist of religion, speaking to a Christian.   For me, not only is Marxism a religion - it's the religion.  It's the religion by which all other religions are measured.  Something is a religion if and only if, and to the extent that, it resembles Marxism.  (And that's not a bad thing.  I love religion .  And I also love communists .)  I see an unbroken line of tradition from the earliest Hebrew prophets - Amos, for instance - to contemporary communist movements.  From the beginning of this civilizational progression, Marxism was always in a process of becoming, of entelechy.  It always existed as potential; in Marx it reaches its entelechy or fulfillment - or at least until something else supersedes Marxism.  (I think Nietzsche attempted something like this, but he mostly failed.) The ancient Israelites, or the Akkadians or the Babylonians or t...

There's something fundamentally unserious about politicians.  When I think of the most important people of the 20th century: Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John von Neumann, Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, Franz Kafka, Samuel Beckett , etc., none of them are politicians.  I just don't think politicians matter that much.  I don't think they've ever accomplished anything particularly noteworthy - and that goes for both positive and negative accomplishments, although they certainly seem much more capable of negative accomplishments - wars, genocides, atrocities, etc. - than positive ones.  The art of being a politician seems to belong to the realm of entertainment and public relations.  (Zappa had that famous phrase, of which there are a few versions: "Politics is the entertainment wing of the military-industrial complex," or the one he explicitly advocated but did not claim to originate, "Politics is the entertainment wing of industry.")  To me, this...

The art of thinking dialectically means: not disappearing up your own asshole. It means not only seeing things from your own perspective.  Trying to stay in dialogue with people who don't see things the same way you do. You have to use language that someone who isn't playing the same game as you are could understand. People who find themselves arguing with someone (especially online) and thinking (or saying) "This idiot has no idea what he's talking about," and thus conclude that the argument is pointless, are missing the point.  Let's assume it's true.  You don't realize how precious that is - to meet someone who has no idea what you're talking about.  Now you're in contact with a truly outside perspective.  A rare opportunity.  Now dialectics can begin.  Unless you can say what you mean to someone who isn't in your culture and doesn't use your language, you yourself don't understand it at all.

    Start at the Beginning Previous Chapter: Day 1 Part 11 As you walk through the woods, there's a side road that splits off from the road you're on.  Next to it is a sign: "PRIVATE ROAD".   Sam points down that way.  "Up there.  That's where the prophet lives.  But this is where I stop.  I'm not going anywhere near there.  He's a bad man.  All the kids are scared of him." Gestas pipes up.  "Kid's got a point, Dismas. What are we even doing here?  This isn't any of our business." "If we have a chance to save Jesus, we have to take it." "I'm sorry," says Sam. "That's okay," you reply.  "Thanks for your help."  You and Gestas carry Jesus up the path.  Pretty soon you come to another sign: "NO VISITORS" Right in front of the sign is a great big bear!  It seems young.  It's munching happily on some berries.  The two of you try to sneak past it without bothering it, but ...

I have, in the past, identified as an anarchist.  Really, none of my opinions or positions on any major issues have changed since then.  But I think the label "anarchist" is misleading and unhelpful for a lot of people and so I usually avoid using this label (see my essay on the "Eminem strategy").  But for exactly the same reasons, I think it's mostly unhelpful to use terms like "communist" or "socialist".  If I need to sum up my political opinions, I can do so in a three word phrase: Own Your Job .  I've asserted before that I believe in worker ownership of the means of production.  But this is a bunch of jargon.  What does it mean?  What is the "means of production"?  Most people picture buildings, machines, and raw materials.  And that's true, in a way.  When Marx writes about the "sublation" (Aufheben) of private property, he distinguishes private property from personal property.  In a just social order, peopl...