Re: BHA: Marx

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marko, Marshall,

Oops! Here I go agreeing with you again, Marko; at any rate with your
basic position. I would argue that Marx critiqued capitalism from the
point of view of communism, i.e. from the point of view of a society in
which our 'existence' has been brought into line with our 'essence',
that is in which the full potentiality of our core universal human
nature has been realized and our fundamental needs met. See e.g. James
Daly's books. To say with Marx that the 'specific ether' of generalised
commodity production suffuses all else within capitalism is not to say
that it *determines* it such that a strong sociology of knowledge thesis
applies or that it makes social science impossible. The possibility of
such a society imo also provides the standpoint from which Bhaskar
critiques capitalism - the eudaimonistic society, in which 'the free
development of each is a condition of the free development of all' -
very appealing to an Anarchist too I should think.

Mervyn

Marko Beljac <beljac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>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.

--
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subscription forms:
http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---