Another look at Lenin

Some quotes I found on Farasha Euker’s blog:

The men­tion of Freud’s hypoth­e­sis is designed to give the pam­phlet a sci­en­tific veneer, but it is so much bungling by an ama­teur. Freud’s the­ory has now become a fad. I mis­trust sex the­o­ries expounded in arti­cles, trea­tises, pam­phlets, etc. — in short, the the­o­ries dealt with in that spe­cific lit­er­a­ture which sprouts so lux­u­ri­antly on the dung heap of bour­geois soci­ety. I mis­trust those who are always absorbed in the sex prob­lems, the way an Indian saint is absorbed in the con­tem­pla­tion of his navel. It seems to me that this super­abun­dance of sex the­o­ries, which for the most part are mere hypothe­ses, and often quite arbi­trary ones, stems from a per­sonal need. It springs from the desire to jus­tify one’s own abnor­mal or exces­sive sex life before bour­geois moral­ity and to plead for tol­er­ance towards one­self. This veiled respect for bour­geois moral­ity is as repug­nant to me as root­ing about in all that bears on sex. No mat­ter how rebel­lious and rev­o­lu­tion­ary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analy­sis thor­oughly bour­geois. (Clara Zetkin, Rem­i­nis­cences of Lenin, p. 101)

You must be aware of the famous the­ory that in com­mu­nist soci­ety the sat­is­fac­tion of sex­ual desire, of love, will be as sim­ple and unim­por­tant as drink­ing a glass of water. The glass of water the­ory has made our young peo­ple mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water the­ory is com­pletely un-Marxist, and more­over, anti-social. In sex­ual life there is not only sim­ple nature to be con­sid­ered, but also cul­tural char­ac­ter­is­tics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be sat­is­fied. But will the nor­mal man in nor­mal cir­cum­stances lie down in the gut­ter and drink out of a pud­dle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most impor­tant of all. Drink­ing water is of course an indi­vid­ual affair. But in love two lives are con­cerned, and a third, a new life, arises. It is that which gives it its social inter­est, which gives rise to a duty towards the com­mu­nity. (Clara Zetkin, Rem­i­nis­cences of Lenin, p. 49)

Long time readers will know of my youthful career as a Trostskyist provocateur, and as I wrote three years ago now, I think Marxist thinking has ultimately helped me as a mature adult to be able to think of and analyze reality in terms of deep causes rather than superficial trends based on sloganeering. Even still, I am fond of the Marxist hermeneutic tool of discussing the “laws of motion” of how an idea, object, or person moves through space and time. It makes you “think on your feet” rather than stay in one place and “reify” an object as if it were already dead weight.

But Marxism ultimately proved disappointing because the real old authors, or rather the ones that didn’t slaughter too many people (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mandel, etc.) were too “old school” when it came to culture. They believed too much in reason and the power of culture to transform the human psyche. Indeed, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would teach his proletarian revolutionary workers Latin because he knew that it would teach them how to think. This is a far cry from what the “New Left” degenerated into: a bunch of loud-mouth, uncouth people obsessed with their bodily functions and personal “self-expression”.

Take the above quotes for example. Here is Lenin, the only Marxist who brought about a real, bonafide dictatorship of the proletariat according to Marxist orthodoxy, condemning Freud for being too obsessed with sex. Here is the ultimate revolutionary discussing sex in the context of “duty towards the community”. Would that the Christopher Wests’ and Karol Wojtylas’ of the world follow this atheist’s example in not trying to “sexualize reality“, making it the prism through which we see the mystery of Creation!

Alas, such common sense is not so common anymore, especially amongst the would-be Lenin’s of today. As I said three years ago, I admire my time as a Marxist not for how revolutionary it taught me to be, but rather how traditional. Vyperod!

On the abuse of ecclesiastical power

Or: Things that happen when clergymen get too enthusiastic

Pope Paul IV when he was a cardinal was in charge of the Roman Inquisition: one of his first acts as a pope was to increase the powers of this institution and the penalties associated with heresy: even some cardinals were charged with heresy and Cardinal Morone was imprisoned in Castel Sant’Angelo as a hidden Lutheran. The pope imposed on the Romans a very austere lifestyle, but allowed his nephew Carlo Carafa to profit from his position to enrich himself and, according to widespread rumours, to behave badly from a moral viewpoint. He forced the Jews of the Papal State to live in two ghettos in Rome and Ancona: he built walls around an area of Rione Sant’Angelo which was subject to floods: the Jews were not allowed to live elsewhere and during the day had to go about wearing a distinctive sign… Pope Paul IV died in August 1559: the Romans reacted to the news by setting fire to the Inquisition palace and by destroying all the coats of arms of the pope: his statue in Campidoglio was beheaded and the head was rolled down the cordonata.

Source

Frederic Rzewski’s The People United Will Never Be Defeated

Above: The composer himself plays his magnum opus.

Description (taken from the Classical Archives):

Few composers have integrated their political views with their compositional practice in as thorough a manner as Frederic Rzewski. In fact, much of his mature oeuvre is devoted to the idea of unifying political and musical language. Nowhere is this impulse more poignantly articulated than his hour-long set of piano variations from 1975, The People United Will Never Be Defeated.

The theme of the work is drawn from the popular Chilean revolutionary song El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido, which was composed by Sergio Ortega and performed by the group Quilapayun just months before the 1973 coup led by Pinochet. Rzewski works out the song’s textual message within the compositional structure of the piece, executing the musical metaphor with incredible rigor. The theme is subjected to 36 variations, which proceed in six sets of six; each set follows a similar structure of “stages,” which the composer enumerates as “simple events,” “rhythms,” “melodies,” “counterpoints,” and “harmonies.” The last variation of each set serves to combine elements from the previous five stages. The sets themselves are connected in the same way across a different axis: the first set is generally the simplest, the third the most lyrical, the fifth the most homophonic, even though within each of these sets the six stages apply on the level of the individual variations. The sixth set of variations, then, represents a busy intersection of structural trajectories, as each of its variations sums up the previous five variations at that position within each set—so, for example, the first variation in the sixth set combines elements from the first variations in all the previous sets, the third variation recalls all the other third variations, and so on. The final variation, then—the sixth of the sixth set—takes on exponential duties, as its recollections of the previous five variations, themselves recollective in nature, make up an elaborate reflection on the entire monumental work. At two points the piece is structurally disrupted but semantically enhanced as Rzewski weaves in quotations from two other tunes, the Italian revolutionary song Bandiera Rosa and Hanns Eisler’s Solidaritätslied. Despite its episodic and variational nature, the piece as a whole thus assumes a trajectory toward greater musical and semantic integration and unity, the wide diversity of sonorities and styles compositionally combining in a manner exactly analogous to the unity espoused Ortega’s revolutionary song.

On the relationship between Church and Power

The Emperor, who was full of faith, now took courage to enter holy church where he prayed neither in a standing, nor in a kneeling posture, but throwing himself upon the ground. He tore his hair, struck his forehead, and shed torrents of tears, as he implored forgiveness of God. Ambrose restored him to favor, but forbade him to come inside the altar rail, ordering his deacon to say “The priests alone, O Emperor, are permitted to enter within the barriers by the altar. Retire then, and remain with the rest of the laity. A purple robe makes Emperors, but not priests. . .” Theodosius meekly obeyed, praising Ambrose for his spirit, and saying “Ambrose alone deserves the title of “bishop.”

The scene above, taken from the incident of St. Ambrose rebuking Theodosius, makes for “great cinema”, especially for us who have instinctively come to see “sticking it to the man” as the greatest feat of heroism a person can perform. We can go even further back to the Gospels themselves, where St. John the Baptist was beheaded for refusing to overlook the personal failings of another despot. That prophetic impulse, that tremendous courage to stand up to those in power who fall short of their call to be virtuous rulers, may make us proud to be Catholics and Christians. It may deflect any accusation that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of Caesaropapism. The only problem is that such displays are the exception and not the norm, and many times this is not due to cowardice, but to prudence. Just as with its secular counterpart, ecclesiastical politics can often be the art of the possible, not of the ideal.

The other side of “otherness”

The racial politics of American folk healing and other notes

Anthony Cavender has a brief section in his book, Folk Medicine in Southern Appalachia on the role of African-Americans in the development of American folk healing. (I will do a broader post on the rest of the book later.) As usual, the American black was considered by the white populace of being a practitioner of witchcraft, and able to be manipulated by superstitions. (Gladys-Marie Fry shows some of this in her book, Night Riders in Black Folk History, which is on my reading list.) Even though the black populace was (and to an extent still is) very much Christian, white Christians always suspected them of not having given up their “pagan ways”, and the white press was always keen to talk about the “voodoo” and “hoodoo” of the black minority at every possible turn.

The Eyes of Escrava Anastacia

Race, Gender, and Religion in Brazil

For American students of Latin America, the idea of a “racial democracy” in Brazil has long been an intoxicating prospect, especially when compared to our own very polarized racial history. Indeed, it is a myth that the Brazilian intellegentsia has itself been pushing for over sixty years. The myth is basically that since there was far more miscegenation in Brazil than there was in the United States, there is far less racism. The fact that the racial hierarchy is more complex is seen as being indicative of a society where class and not race is important. It was only about twenty years ago that such ideas were challenged by black intellectuals. The reality on the ground turns out to be as ugly, if not uglier, than the American situation.

Why tyranny can be good for the soul

So anyway, I was in this taxi cab in Buenos Aires, crammed in with five other seminarians on a Sunday afternoon. On the radio, the Boca vs. River Plate game was blaring, and at one point, a news break was played during an intermission. Hugo Chavez was very much in the news back then (around 2002), and the direction of the conversation in the cab was steered towards politics. The taxi driver, in the midst of the country falling apart one more time*, said that he wished the dictators would just come back to restore order.

“At least it was safe to walk the streets at night back then.”

On Catholic punditry

Another good one from Lee Hamilton :

The Catholic critique in the modern world is the most meaningful, sincere and honest beacon of unadultered truth you will find in what is otherwise a mesmerizing and seductive cavern of lies, illusions and dead ends. This is why it’s not hard to spot when it’s being appropriated and corrupted for lesser purposes. When it’s used in this way, the real motivations become plain to the discerning eye: a visceral and unreasonable – nay, hysterical – loathing of people unlike themselves, and an incredibly entitled sense of affront at the simple everyday reality of being obliged to share public space and political discourse with those people. That’s why this particular segment often elects to disengage and spit acid from a distance. One can expect that this nascent backlash will become increasingly venomous with time, under the guise of bearing witness to the Faith, irrespective of how the new Administration seeks to temper its policies in order to forge a new middle ground, a new public commons where people of good will and transparent intentions can engage with each other.

As I have said, somewhat less eloquently, some people regard their religion as an instrument of their political ideology, and not the other way around. It becomes quite clear after a while when this is the case. When I lived in Latin America, I often felt that many of the Lefebvrist faithful down there used their adherence to Catholic traditionalism as a badge of honor expressing that they weren’t associated with the “Masonic Mass of the Communist hierarchy”. I often wondered if religion was really the issue at all. Not that I think it is as extreme here, but it looks like it’s getting there.

On the Moral Meltdown of the Catholic Right

Wherein I put on the mask of an empty soul

Some people believe in big government. Some people believe in small government. Some believe in no government. I believe in screwed-up government. It builds character, and it is precisely what we deserve.

According to some, today is a day we should wear black with the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency. It’s funny that many of these Catholic mourners did not wear black when our country began the unjust invasion of Iraq condemned by the Pope himself. One maverick Eastern rite even threatened excommunication against anyone who participated in that war. Yet no good Catholic Republican wanted to wear black then.

All of these mourners condemn Obama’s messianism and the rhetoric of naive hope for a new future. Where was this same sobriety when the current president thundered against the “axis of evil”, when the powers that be assumed the right to wage war on anyone who dislikes this glorious “city on a hill” known as America?

Politics is a cesspool of hyperbole, broken promises, and back-room deals. I really feel sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise. Americans are some of the only people in the world who expect good government. Everyone else expects their government to be lousy. The local politician may be able to deliver the goods on some things, but in the end you wouldn’t even trust him to baby sit your gold fish. That’s how it is, that’s how it’s always been. St. Paul doesn’t exhort obedience to secular authority because it’s easy, and Aquinas doesn’t give very limited conditions to overthrow tyrants because tyrants are nice people who are easy to follow.

I know, people will bring up the whole “abortion” thing. Well, I am all for criminalized abortion. The only difference is that I know exactly what that would mean. If women are at the point that they will kill their children in their own wombs without a second thought, what types of mothers would they be if they were obligated to have those babies? Maybe they will give them up for adoption, or maybe they will just abandon them. Who’s going to take care of them then? The problem with the pro-life movement in this country is that it is only passionate about babies, especially black and brown babies, for the first nine months of their existence. For the rest of their lives, it’s all about racial and cultural politics, free market capitalism, and jails (lots of jails) if all that doesn’t work out. So where is the simple answer? I was raised by a single mother who was in a rocky relationship. It never crossed her mind to abort any of us, even though she was poor, in a bad marriage, and at times homeless. That type of love and dedication is something you can’t legislate.

And if you are still bitter, and still think that we are on the brink of socialism, chaos, and the reign of the culture of death, keep in mind that if we are being chastised for our sins, they are not the sins that you are necessarily thinking of. This country was founded on the original sin of slavery, it grew by the injustice of Manifest Destiny that stole half of another country to make itself bigger, and it slaughtered the inhabitants that had lived there for thousands of years. So all of the abortion and immorality is just the chickens coming home to roost. To paraphrase Langston Hughes, America has not been America for many, many people. So if you are starting to feel the pinch, welcome to the club. Get comfortable, because it’s not going away any time soon.

Really random thoughts

With some help from Nicolás Gómez Dávila

I’m on lunch in lovely San Francisco. The sun is shining, but I don’t want to go outside. So I’ll write. Okay. I’ll write.

Finally, after a long political campaign, I will finally (finally!) come out with my political position:

Democratic parliaments are not places where debate occurs but where popular absolutism registers its edicts.

Intellectual vulgarity attracts voters like flies.

Love of the people is an aristocratic calling. The democrat only loves the people at election time.

The number of votes which elect a ruler is not a measure of his legitimacy but of his mediocrity.

Politics is the pastime of empty souls.

-Nicolás Gómez Dávila

FYI – I’m not voting.

The study of myths belongs to metaphysics, not to psychology.

Also by the above.

When metaphysics becomes mathematics, the modern mind starves to death.

-me

The Church used to absolve sinners; today it has the gall to absolve sins.

–Nicolás Gómez Dávila

So much for hermeneutic of continuity.

Of God one doesn’t speak with any precision or seriousness except in poetry.

A lot of people should really shut up then.

Many love humanity only in order to forget God with a clear conscience.

Insert, “many churchmen”.

Nations and individuals, with rare exceptions, comport themselves with decency only when circumstances permit no other choice.

There’s hope for us yet!

Thank you to Michael Gilleland’s site where I found these aphorisms.