Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Marx on the cult of personality

POST REPLY
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 04 Mar 2014, 12:39
When he writes “...such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules”

Does that mean he is opposed to the cult of personality as he equates it with a “superstitious belief” and wants every reference to it to be eliminated from the rules.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... _11_10.htm
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 26 Mar 2014, 07:01
What would he have thought of all his letters being translated and published for us to comb through, I wonder?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Mar 2014, 15:45
That's clearly a problem, privacy should be respected as Snowden would say. Even Marx's privacy.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 26 Mar 2014, 23:15
Marx knew very well that he was a huge authority, he was aware of it and acted responsibly regarding that fact, but he behaved as an authority like a cadre should. By condemning a superstitious belief in authority, he didn't say that there should be no authority. Yami should reflect on that fact.

Also I don't think Marx would give a shit about us reading his letters. Teaching us is more important than being exposed as an antisemitic homophobe, he'd acknowledge this. I think Marx would be flattered about the way Marxists treat him. He'd hate the statues and busts though.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Mar 2014, 07:00
I think that once an author is dead, much can be gleamed from his writings, even private ones. A better understanding is to take precedence over qualms about privacy, especially if they are in the public discourse. We can't compile everything everyone has ever said (even doing this for one person is impossible), so obviously, people will focus on those who "deserve it".

There is the obvious danger of an author function fetishism, but we're Marxists. We can deal with that (right?).

Like somebody else has written:
Quote:
And even today, when our imaginations are dominated by the apocalyptic fantasy of the individual as an additional cog in an inhuman machine, there survives a subject fetishism that considers that very subjectivity as sufficient factor to explain social products. Possibly this has to do with a certain hermeneutical complacency (slightly Platonic) that declares that in all social product, be it a political work or a text, there is a true intention, which is the author’s intention, be it an individual author or a collective author in form of a sector or class or any group. Therefore, one must not go to the work, instead it is sufficient to see what the author “wants to say,” and what are his pathological motives. Therefore, philosophy no longer has its object in texts, but searches it in “what is real” in the body itself to become a pathology, a study of the body and its emanations (and disorders), and in a second term in a psychopathology. From a retrospective look to its history, a significant metonymy is appreciable, through which the philosophers have imperceptivity passed from the forum to the autopsy. Philosophy itself, apparent product of the free communication of ideas in the Athens forum, is revealed in texts on Plato as the philosophizing of a teacher to be discovered and dissected: from the description of his ailing body and family life, to the ghastly scene of his death in Phaedon.


This would be the wrong approach, an autopsy of hidden "motives" in a persons biography to arrive at what "they really said". Obviously, this plays a part, but the point is to look at the "text itself", which already comes burdened with all of our readings of it; more text invites more readings.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Sep 2014, 21:27
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 29 Sep 2014, 11:14
The discussion is about Hoxha's revisionism, not about Mao's revisionism (provided that Mao is a revisionist). I used this work of Hoxha not because he criticizes Mao (I don't care about that), but because he exposes his own views and his own interpretation of marxism.
zoha
Soviet cogitations: 670
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Jan 2015, 08:17
zohaa3492 wrote:
The discussion is about Hoxha's revisionism, not about Mao's revisionism (provided that Mao is a revisionist). I used this work of Hoxha not because he criticizes Mao (I don't care about that), but because he exposes his own views and his own interpretation of marxism.
Where'd this post come from?
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2015, 21:51
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Mar 2015, 22:06
I don't think Marx would give a shit about us reading his letters. Teaching us is more important than being exposed as an antisemitic homophobe, he'd acknowledge this. I think Marx would be flattered about the way Marxists treat him. He'd hate the statues and busts though.
**SignaturE**
Soviet cogitations: 670
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2015, 16:46
curieroy wrote:
antisemitic homophobe.
He was not an anti-semite, and the person who is accused of homophobia (insofar as he actually wrote anything about homosexuals) was Engels, not Marx. Not that Marx and Engels differed significantly in their views on the world, just saying.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Mar 2015, 22:40
And let's be honest neither one was advocating beating any queer you find to death, as their contemporaries of course would.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.