Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:26:38 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: RE: Marx


Hi Marshall,

>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.

This looks like one of the dogmas of postmodernism's own Grand
Narrative, not a Marxist position. I doubt that revolutionary terror can
be analysed very penetratingly in terms of belief in the possession of
absolute knowledge (certainly not by a historical materialist), though
that is an aspect of it, any more than the dynamics of American
imperialism, also involving absolutist beliefs and the slaughter of
millions, and currently making a grab for global 'full spectrum
dominance'. When all is said and done, as Bhaskar long ago pointed out
(and as Chomsky holds too), when it comes to emancipation the oppressed
have an interest in truth and the oppressors in their continuing
ignorance and delusion. That the oppressed can (fallibly) come to
understand a good deal of the truth of their situation - this is what
needs emphasising rather than the intonation of epistemic relativism,
sliding into social constructionism which can only serve the interest of
the hegemon (for it valorises the status quo and denegates change: you
can't really be sure, so best err on the side of caution; leave boldness
to the oppressor, he might well know best after all.) Further, I would
say that this is Bhaskar's own emphasis: notwithstanding 'epistemic
relativism', emancipatory truth can (fallibly) be attained;
notwithstanding 'limits' to naturalism, (non-positivist) scientific
knowledge of society is possible.

Mervyn

Marshall Feldman <marsh-AT-uri.edu> writes
>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
>


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---