Re: Re: Re: structuralism

[ALI KADRI <akadri_00@xxxxxxxxx>]

A structural question: what role in history does a
citizen of the developed formations who is supposedly
progressive but pays taxes to the defence department
and other government agencies to clobber the poor at
home and abroad plays? Furthermore where to draw the
line between reformist and revolutionary politics if
the country to which the citizen belongs (the
structure) fully determines the indidual's role?

The gravest theoretical tenet to come out of
structuralism is the determinacy of structure. This
puts an end to the role of individual in history (an
Altrhusserian idea) or as others (modern and
postmodern sociologist) like to call it "the death of
agency." The immutability of capitalist relations and
their extension to all parts of the globe further
strengthens the premises supporting structuralism;
i.e. emphasis is laid on meaning in structure and on
social relations and not things per se. It is
worthwhile to note that Marx critique of Feurbach's
notion of man in the abstract independent of social
relations and to which he rebutted by defining man as
the reflection of concrete social relations tends to
meet fully the structuralist emphasis on the priority
of social relations. For that matter Marx system of
thought stresses the determinacy of social relations,
as does structuralism. Furthermore, I recall vaguely
Engels describing the path of history as a resultant
vector from a multitude of vectors of power in which
the political approaches the economic by the extent of
the crisis. So here is a system or structure that is
determinant. Thus structuralism is a very helpful
system of thought. Compared to the eclecticism of
today, one can say well at least it is a theory well
woven together. And like all theories it is
conditioned by the development of thought and the
prevalent social conditions. Its rise corresponds
historically to the rise of logical positivism, hence
the emphasis on the theoretical superiority and the
need to win the war of ideas in Althusser for
instance.  Of course, the shortcomings of
structuralism is in its rigidity and in many cases its
ahistorical approach to social science. But that does
not undermine the fact that there is a determinacy in
the global structure of capitalism: a centre and a
periphery.  This has tremendous bearing on praxis and
the implementation of social change. It matters
because it guides the relationship between reform and
revolution.
Thus in addressing the structuralism question, one
asks is the reform policy of social democracy capable
of bridging the interests of the national and
international working classes by emphasising the
interest of the national working classes.

--- Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >I don't see why we have to pay attention to
> _either_ the Incan conquest of
> other tribes
> >_or_ the Spanish conquest of the Incas. Why not
> both? both are examples of
> class society.
> >-- Jim Devine
>
> Because Incan class society was relatively benign,
> while Spanish colonial
> class society was genocidal.
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/