From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu>
Subject: BHA: RE: Marx
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:03:32 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Marko,

Thanks for the reference to Cleaver's book. I already own it.

I don't understand why you think this interpretation of the Introduction
necessarily leads to inactivity. Marx also said something about people
making their own history but not under conditions of their own choosing. You
seem to be assuming that unless we can act and know independently of our
social-historical-geographical context, we'll necessarily do nothing. I
disagree.

My question to you asked, most generally, whether you accept the possibility
that some aspect of society, X, whatever it might be, could "color" other
aspects, Y, especially knowledge. From what you wrote, I'm not sure if your
answer was yes or no.

As for my own personal politics, I am very influenced by Chomsky's writing
about anarchism and therefore sympathetic to anarchism. However, in terms of
understanding the world rather than programs, I tend to lean towards
Marxism, although I try not to be dogmatic about it, so I take seriously
various critiques of Marxism, ranging from "friendly" radical ones
(feminism, post-modernism) to other less friendly but serious ones (notably
some liberal critiques). (Although sometimes with friends like these, who
needs enemies?) The one thing I think is really important is accepting both
fallibalism and the fact that my own understandings are directly related to
my autobiography. Consequently, I try to view my own beliefs with humility,
which is sometimes very hard because we're surrounded by so much obvious
bullshit that people who've never thought seriously about society just take
for granted. I see a real danger in holding one's knowledge as being "Truth"
(with a capital T) as being infallible or independent of social context. We
saw this in the gulag and Cambodia, when alleged Marxists' firm beliefs that
their knowledge was true and scientific was used to justify the slaughter of
millions.

    Cordially,

    Marsh Feldman
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Marko Beljac
  Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:03 PM
  To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Subject: BHA: Marx


  Marshall,

        Let me put the matter another way. In a famous passage from the
Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx refers
metaphorically to the mode of production as giving off a light that colors
everything else in society (the superstructure). It seems to me that this
implies the mode of production, if nothing else, slants knowledge a certain
way, and in that sense all knowledge is socially constructed (or socially
colored, if you prefer). Now, do you reject this principle of Marxism? If
so, why and why would you jump to the opposite conclusion that scientific
knowledge is free from any and all such coloration (i.e., not only from the
mode of production, but also from anything else that's social and outside
knowledge other than its object)? If not, then how can you deny that
knowledge generally has at least an important component of social
construction in it?

        I do not believe that Marx meant what you attribute to him. Of
course you state that "it seems to me" so I am not suggesting that you are
putting words into Marx's mouth quite the contrary. If we judge Marx, like
any other person, by his deeds rather than his words then he most certainly
did not mean what you see as being the implication of historical
materialism. Marx was above all a revolutionary. If he really believed the
above then he would have sat on his backside waiting for the base to change
first and then the superstructure. But as a revolutionary he did no such
thing. I believe that if you carry through your logic you inevitably became
a sort of structural/determinist or vulgar Marxist a la Althusser and
Balibar. Ok that's a strand of Marxist thought.  Left Marxists would not
agree with the above. I have a number of friends who are Left Marxists (I am
an Anarchist as I say but have a great deal of sympathy for Left Marxism. I
am not as averse to historical materialism as some of my Anarchist
colleagues) and they would roundly reject your view of historical
materialism. Remember that Marx's passage, justly famous, remains just that
a passage. I don't know if you have seen it but the first chapter of Harry
Cleaver's "Reading Capital Politically", recommended to me by Left Marxists,
is the best survey of Marxist thought I have seen. If you have not seen it I
believe I have a copy on my computer that I could send you if you are
interested.

        Of course that you are a Marxist (I assume) with Tobin and I am an
Anarchist I think is unimportant. If we take another famous passage of Marx
and assert that "the point is to change it" our philosophical differences
should not be overstated. If I am wrong about my philosophical claims yet
Capitalism has been dented and bruised, hopefully overcome, I will die a
happy man!

        I also believe that you do not mean what you say. If you believe
that the base must rigidly slant knowledge, including scientific knowledge,
producing biases and coloration then Marx's critique and your critique of
Capitalism is also so slanted. Imagine you go up to a worker during a strike
and tell him about Marxist theory. He would quite rightly reply, "but what
you say is also biased by the Capitalist mode of production. I want to
overthrow Capitalism, I am not interested in hearing stuff that is biased or
colored by the Capitalist mode of production". He would have a point I
think.

        Marko.

HTML VERSION:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Marko Beljac
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:03 PM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: BHA: Marx

Marshall,

 

Let me put the matter another way. In a famous passage from the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx refers metaphorically to the mode of production as giving off a light that colors everything else in society (the superstructure). It seems to me that this implies the mode of production, if nothing else, slants knowledge a certain way, and in that sense all knowledge is socially constructed (or socially colored, if you prefer). Now, do you reject this principle of Marxism? If so, why and why would you jump to the opposite conclusion that scientific knowledge is free from any and all such coloration (i.e., not only from the mode of production, but also from anything else that's social and outside knowledge other than its object)? If not, then how can you deny that knowledge generally has at least an important component of social construction in it?

 

I do not believe that Marx meant what you attribute to him. Of course you state that "it seems to me" so I am not suggesting that you are putting words into Marx's mouth quite the contrary. If we judge Marx, like any other person, by his deeds rather than his words then he most certainly did not mean what you see as being the implication of historical materialism. Marx was above all a revolutionary. If he really believed the above then he would have sat on his backside waiting for the base to change first and then the superstructure. But as a revolutionary he did no such thing. I believe that if you carry through your logic you inevitably became a sort of structural/determinist or vulgar Marxist a la Althusser and Balibar. Ok that's a strand of Marxist thought.  Left Marxists would not agree with the above. I have a number of friends who are Left Marxists (I am an Anarchist as I say but have a great deal of sympathy for Left Marxism. I am not as averse to historical materialism as some of my Anarchist colleagues) and they would roundly reject your view of historical materialism. Remember that Marx's passage, justly famous, remains just that a passage. I don't know if you have seen it but the first chapter of Harry Cleaver's "Reading Capital Politically", recommended to me by Left Marxists, is the best survey of Marxist thought I have seen. If you have not seen it I believe I have a copy on my computer that I could send you if you are interested.

 

Of course that you are a Marxist (I assume) with Tobin and I am an Anarchist I think is unimportant. If we take another famous passage of Marx and assert that "the point is to change it" our philosophical differences should not be overstated. If I am wrong about my philosophical claims yet Capitalism has been dented and bruised, hopefully overcome, I will die a happy man!

 

I also believe that you do not mean what you say. If you believe that the base must rigidly slant knowledge, including scientific knowledge, producing biases and coloration then Marx's critique and your critique of Capitalism is also so slanted. Imagine you go up to a worker during a strike and tell him about Marxist theory. He would quite rightly reply, "but what you say is also biased by the Capitalist mode of production. I want to overthrow Capitalism, I am not interested in hearing stuff that is biased or colored by the Capitalist mode of production". He would have a point I think.

 

Marko.