Re: histomat

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harry's comment was bounced by the pen-l server, but I think you can get
what he said from below.

Harry writes": > Can you be more specific about the "non-determinist
interpretations" [of historical materialism or "HM"] you refer to above? ...<

As you might guess, I'd cite Mike Lebowitz's work as an example. There's
also a lot of  work that uses concepts like forces & relations of
production and even base & superstructure in an informal way, while using
Thompson-type "bottom-up" social history. I wrote a paper awhile back
trying to make theoretical sense out of all this, but alas it's on the back
burner.

>... I think the point about "a set of questions" vs a "set of answers" is
an interesting one. From what I've seen in even the most rigid, e.g.,
Stalinist, versions of histomat, the problem WAS the "set of questions". As
in any other theory, the "set of questions" is inseperable from the rest of
theory. Why ask these questions rather than those questions? Theory guides.
My objection to retro-application of Marxist concepts to pre-capitalist
societies can be forumalated in these terms: you wind up asking the wrong
questions and being blind to other possiblities. <

Rather than trying to defend the distinction between questions & answers,
it's probably better to restate it. The point is to avoid dogmatism. Marx
did this, as when his studies of Russia suggested that the unilineal model
of historical development that he sketched in 1859 was wrong.

You are absolutely right that it's wrong to take concepts specific to
capitalism (like the normality of growth of the forces of production) and
apply them unthinkingly to pre-capitalist societies.

>... the very concept of "production" in the abstract, like "labor" in the
abstract, emerged within the context of capitalism as a notion capable of
grasping the commonality of a diverse array of human activities reorganized
to generate commodities, profits, and social control....<

I agree with all of what you way here, including the elided part. It seems
to me that applying the concept of "labor" to pre-capitalist systems isn't
wrong as much as the assumption that "labor" and "leisure" are everywhere
and always completely separate, dichotomous. That assumption reflects
experience living under capitalism but doesn't apply in a lot of other
contexts. This is the kind of thing that Marx wrote about in the 1844
MANUSCRIPTS.

My original point was that how critical one is of "historical materialism"
depends on one's definition of that phrase. I would include all or almost
all of Marx's writings as being in part of HM.

But I see no point in wasting time on definitions.