RE: BHA: RE: Marx

["Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>]

Mervyn,

I'm not really in disagreement with anything you say here. Maybe I stated my
position a bit too extremely. Perhaps I should have said, in addition to all
else, dogmatic belief in the correctness of one's own beliefs has
historically played a role in some awful episodes of terror.

	MF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 5:27 AM
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: BHA: RE: Marx
>
>
> Hi Marshall,
>
> >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.
>
> This looks like one of the dogmas of postmodernism's own Grand
> Narrative, not a Marxist position. I doubt that revolutionary terror can
> be analysed very penetratingly in terms of belief in the possession of
> absolute knowledge (certainly not by a historical materialist), though
> that is an aspect of it, any more than the dynamics of American
> imperialism, also involving absolutist beliefs and the slaughter of
> millions, and currently making a grab for global 'full spectrum
> dominance'. When all is said and done, as Bhaskar long ago pointed out
> (and as Chomsky holds too), when it comes to emancipation the oppressed
> have an interest in truth and the oppressors in their continuing
> ignorance and delusion. That the oppressed can (fallibly) come to
> understand a good deal of the truth of their situation - this is what
> needs emphasising rather than the intonation of epistemic relativism,
> sliding into social constructionism which can only serve the interest of
> the hegemon (for it valorises the status quo and denegates change: you
> can't really be sure, so best err on the side of caution; leave boldness
> to the oppressor, he might well know best after all.) Further, I would
> say that this is Bhaskar's own emphasis: notwithstanding 'epistemic
> relativism', emancipatory truth can (fallibly) be attained;
> notwithstanding 'limits' to naturalism, (non-positivist) scientific
> knowledge of society is possible.
>
> Mervyn
>
> Marshall Feldman <marsh@xxxxxxx> writes
> >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
> >
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---