Marx himself was jewish, but he considered himself an atheist. He saw religion as the "opiate of the people", it was the drug the higher powers could use to keep the masses in line. In this life people have to follow the rules, from God and their lords. If they do, in the next life they will be rewarded with absolute salvation. Simple enough, it keeps people hooked up to the status quo.
However I find it ironic that so many Marxists follow Marx as if he himself were a God. He isn't. His ideas may have been 'revolutionary', but by no means does it mean that we should follow him every step of the way...
There are so many more writers to be read, not only Marxists. If we want a system that is inclusive, we have to be ready to accept ideas from other cultures and other movements. This will create a true democracy, it will create a system that people will feel identified with, no matter if Chinese or San.
It's quite basic, people won't jump into a boat if it only seems to be heading to chaos. Many people see Marxism as an idealistic system. People ask why a doctor would want to earn the same wage as a rubbish-man. Let me say two things, if it weren't for cleaners, we'd probably be all dead; the plague would have passed on again and the toll couldn't be smaller this time round. My second point is that this isn't about money. Marxism calls for a society where money isn't needed. We'd all do things for good will. Albeit, to get there we'd have to take steps. Marixism is an ideal system, of course it is! But it is a real alternative only if we know what it is. As I said before, people wouldn't gamble for a system that seemed somewhat unclear. David Harvey did a talk in Marxism in the UK a couple of years ago. He says that we can start the movement at any point in time, however we must constantly evolve, improve in order to reach the goal we want to reach. This is the idea of a revolution. We have to debunk the current system, but we cannot wait to see something spring up from the flowerbeds, I guess we have to dig the prize first and keep on digging until we've found it. Capitalism as a system constantly evolves: technologically, socially, culturally; it sets into us a bit more. As it sets in though, we become trapped and jobless or without a sufficient education, or maybe too much of one.
In order to reach this system of peace in which we all have a place to learn and express ourselves, David Harvey says we need ideas. Thinking about ideas after a revolution would lead us to communist Russia, or a stalemate like we are seeing in Tunisia. Has there been any advancement there, or will there be a new form of repression? Any future stuctures for a new system have to be created and tested beforehand, this way we'll know what we are aiming for. If we don't have everything configured, we won't get the enthusiatic support to back it and we will probably end up in a system much the same as the one we've got now. He says "the bourgeoisie does things that [open] up possibilities", a crisis is one of these things. He defines a crisis as "the irrational rationalizer of an irrational state". The state is one of oppression and a crisis is a rationalizer because it opens up those possibilities: workers get laid off and frustrated, this is irrational as they were made by the system, one that is irrational because it is unfair yet we live by it. There is the possiblity, not slim, that workers will "lose [...] their chains".
For last, in this long rant of mine in which I seem somewhat mad obsessed and both, religion has a place in this society. Marx is wrong. I don't believe in God, but those who do have been building temples and shrines possibly since humanity's dawn. Religion gives people hope, stories and a shared culture. While this society will be much better, tragedies will always happen. We either need hope or rationality to get through these, no offence intended. I see religion as a seeking for a perfect self, a notion from Fauerbach, isn't it human to want to be perfect?
No comments:
Post a Comment