re:state-war

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This message is blessedly shorter.

Ricardo D writes:
>... a key contending issue here  - including the war issue - is: who
absorbs who? Do we incorporate Weber into Marx or vice versa? <

I don't see Marx as absorbing Weber, since I think it's important to
separate Marx and his writings (which cannot absorb Weber) from Marxian
political economy (which can). However, that's a very small point. More
importantly, I think that MPE can learn from Weber, as long as it rejects
his philosophical idealism (not to mention a lot of his politics).

RD:>Now, if the overarching theme in W is rationalism (or more specifically
rational capitalism), he also tries to explain other things like the
origins of the rational-bureaucratic state, which he sees as part of this
rationalization...<

I would argue (if I had the time & patience) that the kind of "rationalism"
promoted by capitalism is different from other kinds of rationalism
(feudal, classical, socialist, etc.) I think one thing to do is start
treating "rationalism" more as a dependent variable and not some
extra-historical force. I bet Max W. can be interpreted as agreeing with this.

RD: >Trotsky was still operating under the assumption that w.europe was the
classic case and that everything else is a deviation from that "natural"
path....The more you stress the peculiar features the further away you are
from a general theory like historical materialism.<

No -- it's not moving "away from a general theory." Rather, it's either
correcting (completing) the abstract theory or it's moving from the
abstract theory to the specific cases, which differ from the abstract
theory because of the peculiarities of those cases. Trotsky was involved in
both (as was Marx). On the first, he emphasized the uneven (and combined)
development of capitalism, something that Marx did not stress or develop.

RD:>The inescapable fact for marxists is that without Lenin no October
Revolution.<

Lenin shaped the nature of the Rev, no doubt about it, just as Napoleon had
a big impact on the recasting of Europe after the French Revolution (as I
said). But Lenin was was highly constrained by (1) the Russian situation of
the time, (2) the organization he led. Like all "great individuals," Lenin
was also a product of his time. You'll note that he changed his opinions a
lot as "material conditions" changed. The Lenin of WHAT IS TO BE DONE? or
TWO TACTICS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is quite different from that of STATE AND
REVOLUTION. (My anarchist friends accuse him of being an opportunist.) This
suggests that even though "Great Individuals" shouldn't be ignored, the
"Great Individual" theory of history should be dropped.

If Lenin had died before 1917, it's also quite possible that some other
great individual would have arisen to pick up the torch. Krupskaya?

JD: >> ... Brenner was not reducing all issues to class relations. He was
dealing specifically with the issue of how land-tenure changed in the
period after 1300 or so in W. Europe.<<

RD: >If anyone prioritizes class relations it is Brenner! ... <

_Of course_ Brenner "prioritizes" class relations (partly because their
role had been largely ignored by previous scholars on this question). I
didn't say otherwise. But that's not the same thing as "reducing all issues
to class relations." This is nothing but semantics ("I'm a patriot, you're
a nationalist, he's a chauvinist" becomes "I think class relations are
important, you prioritize them, she is a class-relations determinist")
which means that there's nothing really to discuss.

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.