|
Marko,
Thanks
for the reference to Cleaver's book. I already own it.
I
don't understand why you think this interpretation of the Introduction
necessarily leads to inactivity. Marx also said something about people making
their own history but not under conditions of their own choosing. You seem to be
assuming that unless we can act and know independently of our
social-historical-geographical context, we'll necessarily do nothing. I
disagree.
My
question to you asked, most generally, whether you accept the possibility that
some aspect of society, X, whatever it might be, could "color" other aspects, Y,
especially knowledge. From what you wrote, I'm not sure if your answer was yes
or no.
As for
my own personal politics, I am very influenced by Chomsky's writing about
anarchism and therefore sympathetic to anarchism. However, in terms of
understanding the world rather than programs, I tend to lean towards Marxism,
although I try not to be dogmatic about it, so I take seriously various
critiques of Marxism, ranging from "friendly" radical ones (feminism,
post-modernism) to other less friendly but serious ones (notably some liberal
critiques). (Although sometimes with friends like these, who needs enemies?) The
one thing I think is really important is accepting both fallibalism and the fact
that my own understandings are directly related to my autobiography.
Consequently, I try to view my own beliefs with humility, which is sometimes
very hard because we're surrounded by so much obvious bullshit that people
who've never thought seriously about society just take for granted. I see a real
danger in holding one's knowledge as being "Truth" (with a capital T) as being
infallible or independent of social context. We saw this in the gulag and
Cambodia, when alleged Marxists' firm beliefs that their knowledge was true and
scientific was used to justify the slaughter of millions.
Cordially,
Marsh Feldman
Marshall,
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.
|