Re: WORKING CLASS SUBJECTIVITY, RICHARD WRIGHT, CLR JAMES

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ralph Dumain wrote:

> 2.  The question of subjectivity is one question to which we owe
> an enormous debt to the Hegelian tradition.  My own aversion to
> idealism kept me from exploring this tradition for the longest
> time, but there is no reason that materialists can't profit from
> and incorporate this tradition.  Marx himself did this, and also
> acknowledged the role of subjectivity, beginning with cognition,
> when he recognized that the idealist tradition dealt insightfully
> with the problem of cognition in ways the materialist tradition
> did not.

Yes, I think you are right, Ralph, to pose the question in terms of the
Hegelian influence on Marx (and Marxism). The one-sidedness of viewing
social processes as merely objective is inherently undialectical. If you
don't like Negri, you might want to read Lebowitz where the Hegelian
influence is stronger. Also, for a different perspective, see Geert
Reuten and Michael Williams _Value-Form and the State_ (London,
Routledge, 1989). Reuten-Williams are representatives of a heavily
Hegelian-Marxist school of thought, the value-form school. BTW, you would
probably also be interested in their discussion of Bhaskar in "Section 1."

3.  The problem of subjectivity is not just a matter for
fussy > intellectual snobs, though it is not hard to understand why they
> would make this terrain their own.  The question of subjectivity
> is at the heart of the ideological struggle against Stalinism,
> i.e. against knuckle-dragging knuckleheads like Shawgi Tell.

Putting aside the question of Shawgi, I have to agree with you as well
here. Indeed, the writings of C.L.R. James and Raya Dunayevskaya have to
be placed in the historical context of an ideological and political
struggle against Stalinism. Although Negri's theory, and the theory of
many others which dealt at the same time with the issue of working class
subjectivity is different, they share a common opposition to Stalinism
and "Marxist orthodoxy."

>  My
> model for the recognition of subjectivity is not Sartre but
> Richard Wright.  Wright was not a theorist in exactly the same
> sense as his buddies Sartre or C.L.R. James, but in his own
> empirical American way he was grappling with the same issues, with
> an even greater sense of urgency.  Wright also remarks in his
> novel THE OUTSIDER (1953) that he is out to preserve and protect
> the notion of subjectivity and thus fight Stalinism.  Needless to
> say, such conception of subjectivity is not a subjectivist one,
> floating in idealist air.  I think one will generally learn more
> about this issue by reading novelists than philosophers anyway,
> but still it is the task of philosophy to transcend specific
> contexts and formulate the problem in terms of abstract systematic
> concepts.

I would like to hear more about your perspectives on Wright. As for the
question of reading novelists vs. philosophers, I'm not so sure. There
is, of course, much that can be learned from both. However, novelists
lack the systematic nature of inquiry that is found in the best works of
philosophers. Here, I use the term philosophers in a more generic sense
than Marx used it in the _Thesis on Feuerbach_. Although, it is
*precisely* that issue which is, in capsule form, at issue. "Hitherto,
philosophers have ...."

 > 4.  For those who don't know, Phil Romano and the Facing  Reality >
group pertain to the work of C.L.R. James, labelled "Johnsonism"
> and the "Johnson-Forest Tendency" in the 1940s.  This group
> covered everything, from Hegel to the study of shopfloor
> activity.
>
Yes, I have heard about the emphasis on both theory and shopfloor
struggles in this tradition. Perhaps we could discuss some of the
experiences of this group more concretely.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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