Let me put the
matter another way. In a famous passage from the Introduction to
the Critique of Political Economy, Marx refers metaphorically to
the mode of production as giving off a light that colors everything else
in society (the superstructure). It seems to me that this implies the mode
of production, if nothing else, slants knowledge a certain way, and in
that sense all knowledge is socially constructed (or socially colored, if
you prefer). Now, do you reject this principle of Marxism? If so, why and
why would you jump to the opposite conclusion that scientific knowledge is
free from any and all such coloration (i.e., not only from the mode of
production, but also from anything else that's social and outside
knowledge other than its object)? If not, then how can you deny that
knowledge generally has at least an important component of social
construction in it?
I do not believe that Marx meant
what you attribute to him. Of course you state that "it seems to me"
so I am not suggesting that you are putting words into Marx's mouth quite
the contrary. If we judge Marx, like any other person, by his deeds rather
than his words then he most certainly did not mean what you see as being
the implication of historical materialism. Marx was above all a
revolutionary. If he really believed the above then he would have sat on
his backside waiting for the base to change first and then the
superstructure. But as a revolutionary he did no such thing. I believe
that if you carry through your logic you inevitably became a sort of
structural/determinist or vulgar Marxist a la Althusser and Balibar. Ok
that's a strand of Marxist thought. Left Marxists would not agree
with the above. I have a number of friends who are Left Marxists (I
am an Anarchist as I say but have a great deal of sympathy for Left
Marxism. I am not as averse to historical materialism as some of my
Anarchist colleagues) and they would roundly reject your view of
historical materialism. Remember that Marx's passage, justly famous,
remains just that a passage. I don't know if you have seen it but the
first chapter of Harry Cleaver's "Reading Capital Politically",
recommended to me by Left Marxists, is the best survey of Marxist thought
I have seen. If you have not seen it I believe I have a copy on my
computer that I could send you if you are
interested.
Of course that you are a Marxist (I
assume) with Tobin and I am an Anarchist I think is unimportant. If we
take another famous passage of Marx and assert that "the point is to
change it" our philosophical differences should not be overstated. If
I am wrong about my philosophical claims yet Capitalism has been
dented and bruised, hopefully overcome, I will die a happy
man!
I also believe that you do not mean
what you say. If you believe that the base must rigidly slant knowledge,
including scientific knowledge, producing biases and coloration then
Marx's critique and your critique of Capitalism is also so slanted.
Imagine you go up to a worker during a strike and tell him about Marxist
theory. He would quite rightly reply, "but what you say is also biased by
the Capitalist mode of production. I want to overthrow Capitalism, I am
not interested in hearing stuff that is biased or colored by the
Capitalist mode of production". He would have a point I
think.
Marko.