[PEN-L:32981] Re: Whitehead and Marx

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10/12/02 18:33 -0500, you wrote:

> > http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/processphilosophy/papers/Pomeroy.htm
>
> My claim is this: that there exists a striking similarity between a
> Whiteheadian ontology and the ontological presuppositions that necessarily
> ground Marx's claims regarding the source of capitalist surplus value and
> that, therefore, if one holds to a Whiteheadian process ontology, then one
> must simultaneously support Marx's critique of capitalism as it is
> presented in what has been named the Labor Theory of Value. There will be
> four moments to the defense of this claim. The first will consist of a
> characterization of economic activity in general as processive production;
> the second will outline and describe Whiteheadian ontology; the third will
> delineate the Marxian ontology hidden in the analysis of the mode of
> productive activity specific to capitalism; the last will consist of my
> conclusions.
>
> ---
>
> This is the first time I've seen somebody with leftist aspirations try to
> utilize Whitehead since David Harvey did it in "Justice, Nature and the
> Geography of Difference." Why this need exists to resuscitate late 19th
> century metaphysics is beyond me.
>
>
>
> Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

and there all can read:

> The Marxism list is a worldwide moderated forum for activists and scholars
> in the Marxist tradition who favor a non-sectarian and non-dogmatic
> approach. It puts a premium on independent thought and rigorous but civil
> debate.


Why not?

I have learned much from Louis Proyect's challenges over the years,
sometimes by agreeing with him, sometimes by disagreeing him on a more
systematic basis. I just hope that Michael does not start reemphasising a
rule that challenges are out of order.

 I find the injunction to be "nice " misses the dynamic about what is
going on. Often serious and creative conflict management theory is about
first accepting differences and then taking responsibility for what you are
going to do about them.

So let me welcome Louis's challenge on this thread title because challenge
it was, although with in the narrowly defined conventions of PEN-L .

But I feel there is a discrepancy between the implications behind the
challenge and the declared goals of the mail list which Louis Proyect
promotes. Do I express my differences adequately within the parliamentary
conventions of this list, which does not allow us to characterise the other
person's position. (Even though the first rule of conflict management
theory is accurately to identify your differences).

I knew nothing about Alfred North Whitehead until last night. And now
thanks to Ian and Louis, I know a bit.

I see from a Google search that according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy states

Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The
reality is the process."

I am not sure I want to know more, but that aspect at least seems to be
compatible with dialectical materialism.

Well nobody can be wrong about everything.

I do not see the rebuilding of a coherent marxist standpoint as drawing
together the names of a large number of interconnected people who are
reliably not liberals, or opportunists. (But Lenin would have). It is about
how all existing ideas only imperfectly reflect the actual dynamic material
reality. (Which Lenin would also have agreed with).

But perhaps I mischaracterise.


Chris Burford