On ACM/RCM

[davidmci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David McInerney)]

I'm not going to say as much here as in my Althusser post. A few
points/questions:

1. Basically I agree with Jerry that any such claim that Marx new about RCT
and applied it before it had come into being as such as pure bullshit.  I
won't say any more about this -- I think that makes my position on reading
one's own position into the work of dead people who aren't here to say
otherwise clear.  It sounds too much like claims that "Philip of Macedon
was a great Greek nationalist", "William the Conqueror was a great English
king" etc for my taste!  I think the expression is "writing history
backwards" -- I am close?  I think there is something Justin could learn
from Foucault here.

2. The idea that Marxism does not imply a *philosophical position* is
bullshit too and does not follow logically from the materialist claim that
there can be no "Marxist philosophy".  Philosophical position --
materialism.  Political position -- that of the proletariat.  Without
these, no Marxism.  Agreed?

3. AM is very broad.  RCM is pretty narrow.  RCM is a subset of AM, but not
co-extensive with AM.  The basic position of AM is that there is no Marxist
philosophical position, and therefore we can use other philosophies to fill
the gap created by rejecting Stalinist DiaMat (DM).  Opposite to my point
2.  Agreed?

4.  What is the political position of AM?  If it is that of the
proletariat, then I think this stands in contradiction with its attitude to
my point 3.  RCT seems to me a rigorous theory *for exploiters*, rather
than a rigorous *theory of exploitation.*  Agreed?

5. If RCM cannot provide a rigorous theory of exploitation, than what other
AM tendency can?  Justin tells us that his is not an RCM.  Justin, what
sort of theory of exploitation do you uphold?

6. Carrol, I think Justin has a point in saying one can not lean to heavily
on AM's critics for a view on AM.  Perhaps you should read some AM?  But as
AM is so broad, you are right in thinking that you'll never get through it
all.  RCM is pretty narrow.  As I've said before, Bardhan's littel book on
India gives you the basics in four hours if you read the whole thing, but
you could skip chapters and still get the basics in an hour.  I think you
will find that it will only confirm your views of the Wood-Carling
encounter.  Or maybe not.  Justin, would you approve of this as a quick way
to get a grip on RCM (as opposed to AM)?

7.  On Uncle Lou's comment, I can only agree.  If I was going to be
converted to AM, it would have happened back in 1991-1992.  But I was
always too wary to be as enthusiastic about AM as Justin.  I don't think
there is a great possibility of mass-conversions to AM by list members.
That said, the ethic of clarity and rigour is admirable.  But it is not
enough.


Justin, I for one have enjoyed engaging with you on this topic.  But I have
run out of time to discuss this further, so I let these final comments
stand as they are.  Make of them what you will.


Mr. David McInerney,
Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences,
The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., AUSTRALIA  0200.
e-mail: davidmci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ph: (06) 249 2134; fax: (06) 249 3051




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------