Re: Mysticism and Monopoly Capitalism.
Shawgi Tell (V600A8E6@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU)
Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:51:58 -0400
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Jay Kotliar wrote:
> While I think investigating the links between economic and religious
> formations presents intriguing possibilities-I think to reduce religous
> expression in Taiwan and elsewhere merely to a masking ideology is overly
> reductionist. While I think relgion plays a key role in economic perceptions
> and economic relations, I do think it is limiting to our understanding of
> religious phenomena to describe it solely in terms of economic formations.
> I know that in the materialist/anti-materialist debate it is proper
> ettiquette to chose sides: to either place economics at the center of
> everthing, or ignore it completely. Yet, here I standing in the middle of
> the road with the yellow lines and the dead armadillos. I think I hear
> engines reving up.
lENIN: There is no middle road!
True, one can be an idealist (a monistic trend), a materialist (another
monistic trend) or a dualist/pluralist. Pluralism/dualism is sustained
by a petty-bourgeois social base. It is akin to anarchism,
existentialism, pragmatism, adventurism, etc. Lenin - who went so far
as to call anarchism an "infantile disorder" - stated that all
intermediate trends or all third solutions to the fundamental question
of philosophy are doomed to ideological incoherence.
"Choosing" sides is not a matter of "ettiquette." It is a matter of
partisanship in philosophy and politics, and most certainly, the class
struggle. Remember, classlessness is a myth, just like American
University at Buffalo
Graduate school of Education