In a way, I believe in the exact opposite of what Georges Sorel believed.  Not that Sorel was a stupid person - far from it.  He was smart, and interesting, and worth reading.  (I also don't agree with the people who blame fascism on Sorel.  Yes, you can "trace ideas back" to him - but so long as you are "tracing ideas back," you are engaging in an idealist theory of history, not a materialist one.  And you're forgetting that history is often dialectical, so that authoritarian ideas can arise from anti-authoritarian ones - and vice-versa.)  Sorel was correct that modern people believe in "myths".  But my own position happens to be the opposite of Sorel's.

Sorel thought that the concept of the general strike was a myth, a myth that workers could organize around, whereas real political change came from politicians ruthlessly using violence to achieve their ends.  

Here's why I'm skeptical: does the general strike work as a myth?  Look through history at the kinds of myths that humans have believed in.  Do they resemble the general strike?  Not really.  Myths tend to be heroic, and to involve a lot of violence. Zeus fighting against the Titans, Athena fighting against Typhon, Hercules against the Hydra, Rama fighting against Ravana, Durga fighting Mahishasura, Gilgamesh fighting Humababa, David fighting Goliath, Mario fighting Bowser, etc., etc., etc..  Compared with these epic battles, the concept of a strike seems a bit prosaic and uninspiring.

(I mean, just walk around and talk to people today.  How many people that you meet actually believe in the myth of the general strike?  Not many - probably not any.  It just doesn't work as a myth.  It doesn't have "legs" as they say in show business.) 

If anything, the truth is the reverse of what Sorel thought.  People like to believe in, and organize around, their heroes: Lenin, Christ, etc..  Whereas real change is brought about by humdrum old labor organization. 

So, if you like to believe in Lenin, or Jesus Christ, for that matter, that's fine!  If it makes you feel good, if it comforts you, or inspires you, if it makes you feel like you are part of some kind of cosmic-mythical wholeness, by all means, go ahead.  Likewise, if you're waiting for Maitreya, or for the return of the occulted Imam, that's fine, too.  So long as you don't delude yourself into thinking that this magically absolves you of the necessity of organizing, here and now.  As long as you do the work, the practice, you can believe whatever you want.  Be free.  Have fun.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
  CURTIS YARVIN IS A POSTMODERNIST  "They Hate Us For Our Freedom"   Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all thes...
Read more

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... ) ...
Read more

Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Free Will

Image
  "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" What does it mean to have "solved" a philosophical problem?  This is, in itself, a philosophical problem.  I don't feel comfortable saying I've solved any philosophical problems, but what if I propose a notion of having "minimally solved" a problem - that is, not necessary coming up with the right answer, let alone an answer that will end the debate for everyone, but coming up with the general shape or framework (perhaps missing some important specifics) of an answer that satisfies me , at least to the point where the problem doesn't endlessly torture me and keep me up at night?  If, by "solved," we mean "minimally solved," then I think I have solved the problem that is usually called the debate between "free will" and "determinism".  Not that my answer is particularly original.  Actually, not I, but modern neuroscience solved this puzzle.  And all I mean is tha...
Read more