From: "Jamie Morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar/Callinicos debate Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:28:24 +0100 Hi Richard can I cite this? Jamie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Moodey" <moodey001-AT-mail1.gannon.edu> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:30 PM Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar/Callinicos debate > Hi Rhada, > > Your post reminded me of Benjamin Barber's *The Conquest of > Politics* (1998: Princeton University Press). Here are a couple of > quotations: > > The journey from private opinion to political judgment does not follow a > road from prejudice to true knowlege; it proceeds from solitude to > sociability. To travel this road, the citizen must put her private views > to a test that is anything but epistemological; she must debate them with > her fellow citizens, run them through the courts, offer them as a program > for a political party, try them out in the press, reformulate them as a > legislative initiative, experiment with them in local, state, and federal > forums, and, in every other way possible, subject them to the civic > scrutiny and public activity of the community to which she belongs. (199) > This conception understands politics as being circumscribed by conditions > that impose a necessity for public action, and thus for reasonable public > choice, in the presence of conflict and in the absence of private or > independent grounds for judgment. While a philosophical question may take > the form "What is true and how do we know it to be so?" and a moral > question the form "What is right and how do I act in accord with the good?" > a political question takes the form: "What shall we do when something has > to be done that will affect us all and we wish to be reasonable, yet we > disagree on means and ends and are without independent grounds by which we > might arbitrate our differences?" This formulation makes clear that the > real political problem is one of action under conditions of uncertainty, > not one of truth or even justice in the abstract. . (206). > > Thank you for your post, > > Best regards, > > Dick Moodey > > > > > > > > At 02:06 PM 06/28/2003 +1200, you wrote: > >Hello Mervyn/Guenter/listers > > > >Although I am not one of the regular contributors to the discussions on this > >list, I feel impelled to throw in my two cents worth here, and I don't know > >the reason > > > >I agree that it is not just a question of 'theory' vs 'practice', and > >perhaps it is about two different approaches to both. The way I understand > >those approaches may be somewhat different from yours, however. My sense is > >that praxis and the theory associated with it, praxiology involves a > >different type of theorising from philosophy and sociology (social theory). > >The nature of the inquiry is very different. Philosophical > >inquiry/sociological investigations are about seeking explanations or > >answers to questions about the world, natural, social or > >internal'/psychological/emotional/spiritual, (whatever you wish to call it). > >The starting point for praxiological inquiry is "What is to be done?" Are we > >going "One step forward and two steps back" type of questions. The starting > >point for theory relating to praxis is never the nature of creation or the > >structure of the universe but a very specific context. The context could be > >as immediate as: the Hindu fundamentalist mobs are going to burn down Muslim > >shanties, what do we do? It could be a somewhat wider question: Hindu > >fundamentalists supported by the Bushes and Blairs of this world are > >exorcising the horrors of partition, we have seen that, we don't want it > >again. What can we do?. It could be wider than that, imperialism and > >colonisation has never done us much good - what can we do to ensure it will > >never return in newer avatars over and over again. However, big or small the > >circle of inquiry, the starting point for theory is oriented to action > >within a context. It is very different from philosophical inquiry that seeks > >explanation and understanding. When praxiology is informed by good > >philosophy and good social theory they produce the conceptual resources > >required for good praxiology that could lead to transformation of structural > >conditions that are capable of reproducing the 'good' and by that I mean > >create the conditions conducive to well being. Social theory may describe > >what that "well being" might be or how it might look. But it is not the same > >type of theory as "what is to be done in this context". When praxiology is > >not informed by good theory and philosophy (as in the case of the Hindu > >fundamentalists who might genuinely believe that what they are doing is for > >the greater good of society) those actions are not capable of bringing about > >the results they or anyone else desires, as they are not "conceptually > >rich". > > > >Much of Marxist literature inextricable mixes up the two types of theory. > >Marxist theory grew out of praxis and social and intellectual developments > >at a certain stage. And, in their more lucid moments, early 20th century > >revolutionaries recognised this. Lenin in Empiro criticism for eg explicitly > >states this when he argues there are three realms of struggle, the struggle > >in philosophy, economy and politics. He argues that the three types of > >struggles are distinct, different, yet interrelated and deeply > >interconnected. One cannot be derived from the other, which is what the > >'practice' vs theory dichotomy does. With reference to Plekhanov Lenin > >articulates this distinction very clearly: that P's philosophy was radical > >and good but politics is not "applied philosophy". However this distinction > >was never theorised or explicated in the struggles of the early 20th > >century. They surfaced implicitly in the controversies of the second and > >third international. Subsequent developments in Marxist theory conflated the > >three different types of theory. The variant of Marxism that developed in > >Euro-American nations in the post-war era, were much more blas about the > >conflation (and one could give sociological explanations for this). In our > >part of the world the conflation was much less, but in the wider scheme of > >international power relations, (and that rubs off on the political right as > >well as the left), those debates were marginalised in the mainstream debates > >on Marxist theory. > > > >And that brings me to the second point about party-politics etc. that is > >closely linked as I understand it, to the business about > >non-duality/duality, love as a philosophical category and transformative > >action etc etc. It seems to me that the value of CR lies precisely in that > >is helps de-conflate and de-congest analysis by allowing for a > >differentiated understanding of ontology, epistemology, etc etc and leave > >room for judgement and action without one become inconsistent with the > >other. As someone coming from practice to philosophy (and not the other way > >around) that seems to be its most "liberating" aspect. It becomes possible > >to subscribe to love and non-duality philosophically. However that > >non-duality becomes immediately a duality that allows me to say the > >fundamentalists about to burn down Muslims homes must be stopped, by using > >force if necessary. In the sixties and seventies, debates about > >'parliamentary path' vs 'armed struggle' struggled with some of these > >questions. The questions were prompted by the immediacy and realities of > >state repression (and you could not afford to ignore it if you wanted to > >live, full stop) and the inadequacy (and some might say irrelevance) of the > >debates and discussions in Marxist theory and philosophy for those engaged > >in struggle. > > > >I am not sure CR is necessarily antithetical to party politics or that > >political pacifism is a necessary ingredient of transformative politics in > >the face of violence and state repression. The question I am asking is can > >we not come to party politics enroute CR? Of course it will have to be a > >different kind of party and different kind of politics. But it does leave > >room for us to say we agree philosophically about the nature of world, > >society etc, but we are standing today at opposite ends and if we need to > >walk to the middle, we need to walk in opposite directions, we cannot arrive > >at the same place (wanted sources of determination) by insisting that we > >move in the same direction, when our places in the scheme of the structured > >reality is puts us in diametrically opposite positions. (AC and the SWP > >variant of politics has never understood this, but I don't want to go there) > > > >I am tempted to go about contextual thinking, Indian philosophy, the > >arguments between M.N Roy and Lenin and his idea of "radical humanism" etc > >etc. But as you can see this is growing into an article instead of a simple > >post on a list serve. So I will leave it there for the moment and go back to > >hibernating in cyberspace. > > > >Regards > > > >Radha > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> > >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > >Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:41 AM > >Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar/Callinicos debate > > > > > > > Hi Guenter, > > > > > > Your post raises some really important issues. I find myself in basic > > > agreement, but think it's not just a question of 'practice' vs 'theory', > > > but also of two different approaches to both. > > > > > > Your two versions are of course replicated within CR, as manifest e.g. > > > in 'imperfectibilisim' (Collier) vs 'perfectibilism' (Bhaskar) and where > > > we witness the seeming paradox that some of the people most resistant to > > > getting into DCR are CR Marxists. This would seem to include Callinicos > > > himself, as you imply. Most seem to agree with him that somewhere in DPF > > > Bhaskar 'runs off the rails' (without ever asking it seems what it would > > > mean for Bhaskar to have been on rails). > > > > > > The contrast can also be seen in terms of pardigms of enlightenment, a > > > subject I've raised here before. In his book *Deals and Ideals*, James > > > Daly delineates two basic approaches to enlightenment in the West, the > > > one market-oriented and dating back to the Sophists but coming to full > > > expression under capitalism, the other an earlier tradition of > > > dialectical and spiritual enlightenment drawing on non-market notions of > > > community and the good life, to which Hegel fundamentally belonged and > > > which Marx et al and now Bhaskar can be seen as fundamentally drawing > > > upon to sublate the bourgeois paradigm in a third paradigm retaining > > > its strong points. (This is of course a version, in philosophy, of the > > > 'primitive' communism/ class society/ communism schema of Marxism, which > > > itself is a secular version of the Eden/ Fall/ Redemption dialectic.) > > > > > > From the perspective of dialectical and spiritual enlightenment, 'trade > > > union Marxism' is, in theory as well as in practice, in many respects a > > > sub-plot of the main bourgeois story (intended descriptively rather than > > > pejoratively), operating within the terms of the bourgeois pardigm of > > > enlightenment. I.e. it tends to fight on the bourgeois's own terrain, as > > > you imply--building the party to 'take power' and running the risk, if > > > it ever succeeded, of reproducing the same old story of power2 or 'power > > > over'. I agree with John Holloway--also in the 'Hegelian Marxist' > > > tradition--in *Changing the World without Taking Power* that this > > > approach hasn't worked historically and isn't going to work. > > > > > > This it seems to me is a difference in 'philosophy' as well as in > > > practice. By the same token, I think you exaggerate the extent to which > > > 'Hegelian Marxism' is 'pure philosophy' with a lofty disregard for 'real > > > struggles', certainly as represented by Bhaskar. For one thing, such a > > > stark contrast, even allowing for the inverted commas, overlooks the > > > sense in which all theory is also practice. For another, Bhaskar's > > > dialectic is a dialectic of content as well as of form, which seeks to > > > grasp the historical process in thought and is elaborated inter alia via > > > immanent critique of the philosophical discourse of modernity, which is > > > of course profoundly bound up with the mode of production. (So while I > > > agree re the limitations of the recent discussion on 'identity' --mea > > > culpa at least in part--I can't agree that it was 'pure philosophy'). > > > Finally, the dialectic of freedom is premised on the possibility of the > > > kind of unity of theory and practice in practice you call for. The main > > > difference between Bhaskar and Callinicos here is that Bhaskar's 'party' > > > is the whole of humankind and he'll have no truck whatsoever with 'power > > > over'. (I agree re the theory of 'state capitalism', and it's relevant > > > that the main point Bhaskar makes re the Soviet system concerns the > > > failure to democratize the labour process). > > > > > > Mervyn > > > > > > > > > Gnter Minnerup <g.minnerup-AT-unsw.edu.au> writes > > > >> Wallace advises me that: > > > > > > > >> ********* > > > >> the Bhaskar-Callinicos PDF is now available on the JCR site from either > > > >> the Free PDFs or Current Issue page. Here's the direct URL of the file: > > > > > > > >I've been looking forward to reading that, and I was not disappointed: > > > >it has only provided further confirmation of something I've thought > > > >for a long time - that there are basically two versions of Marxism. > > > > > > > >I like to call them "trade union Marxism" and "Hegelian Marxism" - > > > >neither description to be taken too literally, basically they are > > > >intended to denote a Marxism which puts at its core an empirical > > > >social interest ("Marxism as the ideology of the working class"), and > > > >a Marxism which is essentially philosophical, a world view, in which - > > > >polemically formulated - the working class is the embodiment of the > > > >Hegelian world spirit. > > > > > > > >The beauty of the Callinicos-Bhaskar debate is that it can be read as > > > >a confrontation between two rather extreme examples of both. I don't > > > >mean that pejoratively at all, for reasons that I'll come back to. > > > >Without wanting to reopen old debates, the weakness of Callinicos' > > > >(and the SWP's) Marxism for me has always been their limited > > > >understanding of capitalism - very clear again in the debate when Alex > > > >talks about Das Kapital - which is highlighted in their ludicrous > > > >description of the Soviet Union as "(state) capitalist". That whole > > > >theory always rested essentially on one observation: that the ordinary > > > >workers were not in political power, hence it must be capitalist. > > > >There we have "trade union Marxism" in vitro. > > > > > > > >On the other side, "Hegelian Marxism" has a tendency to regard real > > > >struggles with a lofty detachment and to get disorientated in its own > > > >terminological fog. Again, I must stress that I don't mean this in any > > > >way as an insult: I'd place myself in the latter rather than the > > > >former category (partly because, with my impeccable working class > > > >roots, I didn't have to overcompensate for a bourgeois background as > > > >so many "trade union Marxists" clearly do), and found myself more in > > > >agreement with Bhaskar than with Callinicos the more I read on. But > > > >there is undeniably a problem there - which Callinicos is not slow to > > > >identify - in that "pure philosophy" has its own limitations, > > > >perfectly illustrated, in my view, by the recent discussion of > > > >"identity" on this list. > > > > > > > >What's the point of this message? Apart from a bit of enjoyable > > > >stirring, it's to draw attention to what I think is a real problem in > > > >Marxism. The reason I did not intend the above characterisations to be > > > >pejorative is that I think that the tension between "trade union > > > >Marxism" and "Hegelian Marxism" is an objective one, and I am not > > > >going to come up with a smug "solution". It is, when all is said and > > > >done, the tension between theory and practice. Callinicos, in the end, > > > >sees himself as a representative of his party. I have no problem with > > > >that (though I have quite a few with his particular party), it is > > > >absolutely correct for Marxist intellectuals to interrogate philosophy > > > >for its practical utility and consequences. But then again, Bhaskar is > > > >right to drive the philosophical game as > > > >far as he can, and not to be afraid of what might appear "idealistic" > > > >avenues. I don't think he's a philosophical idealist, but "pure > > > >philosophy" has its own implications: it may be committed to > > > >materialism but is always vulnerable to idealist temptations. > > > > > > > >I could go on and on, and probably have gone on for too long in an > > > >email discussion list anyway. But I can't drop it without indicating > > > >where I think the problem (and hence its potential solutions) is > > > >located: neither in "pure" philosophy and theory, nor in purely > > > >instrumental ("build the party") practice. Nothing wrong with either, > > > >but the tensions, I think, stem from the social conditions under which > > > >both theory and practice are produced, exerting strong pressure > > > >towards their separation when they should be a (dialectial, of course) > > > >unity. > > > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Gnter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005