Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:12:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Davidson <cdavidson-AT-igc.apc.org> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: A Revolutionary Class You've got it exactly right, Adam. Marx counterposed science to ideology, not "bourgeois ideology" vs "proletarian ideology" or "bourgeois science" vs "proletarian science." I think he would find our dogmatists ludicrous. At 12:57 PM 10/21/96 GMT, Adam Rose wrote: > >Rob Schaap writes: >> >> Dr Bedggood's point is well taken. Let's go back a generation, to Lukacs - >> for it is in his idealist construal I sense some of Habermas's inspiration. >> I'm using Gareth Jones's critique of Lukacs's H&CC here. >> >> For Lukacs, 'all truth is relative to the standpoint of individual classes >> (and) a universal subjectivity can only be objective'. >> > >Hmm. Marx claimed to be scientific, not just "from the point of view >of the proleteriat" , but scientific, period. I think this claim is >correct, and I think this stems from the peculiliar position of >the working class under capitalism : it is completely cut off from the >means of production. At the same time, capitalism, because it continuously >revolutionises the means of production and therefore the means of mental >production ( Bob Dylan's "God on their side" is the best expostion >of this, IMO ! ) , gives workers the opportunity to see through >ruling ideology in a way not open to previous revolutionary classes. >Also, capitalism pushes forward the integration of the means of production >and therefore by necessity communication ( eg Marx's discussion of railways >in the Communist Manifesto ). All this makes the view of the world from the >standpoint of the proletariat also an "objective" one, in the sense >that it is possible to approach things free of ideology. > > >> Now Jones, a materialist Marxist (I don't know if many on this list would >> accept that there are 'idealist Marxists'?) worries about this because the >> generation of meaning by the class subject is Lukacs's historical focus, >> not the material allocation of social roles imposed by the mode of >> production. >> >> Here's where I get confused. I interpret Adam, Andy and Hugh (sorry if I >> misrepresent any of you) as agreeing that what's needed is a moment of >> identity between proletarian as object and as subject. That's what I >> reckon too. That's what I thought Lukacs was saying, wasn't it (on page >> 142 of the 1971 Merlin edition of H&CC)? > >That's what I thought Luckas was saying when I read H&CC a long time ago. > >However, I would argue that it is possible to arrive at a true understanding >before the day of the socialist revolution. In fact, it bloody well better >be possible, otherwise how can we prepare in advance for the revolution ? >And if we don't prepare in advance, the revolution will inevitably be defeated, >and so, in Luckas' terms, we'll never achieve "a moment of identity between >proletarian as object and as subject" - so we'll be stuffed for ever. > >Hence the importance of the argument that it is possible for a minority >of workers to become fully class conscious before a revolution, which >I outlined above. > >But, this truth doesn't drop from the sky, or tablets of stone. Truth >is a practical concept, tested in practise. This way of understanding >truth avoids an elitist conception of theory, IMO, since it is exists >in a dialectical relationship with practise, rather than falling from >the sky onto the chosen people. Hence the argument of whether the USSR >was socialist is not simply or even primarily about Russia : the main >reason why a discussion about Russia is important is that a false view >of the USSR has led many parties and individuals in the West up the >garden path in their everyday run of the mill practise. > >> Now, Habermas. . . > >I think it's unfair to Luckas to hold him responsible for Habermas. >Luckas was after all a practical revolutionary, who was struggling >to find a philosophical way out of the static, vulgar version of >2nd international Marxism, in order to make a revolution, as did >Lenin and Gramsci ( interestingly, Gramsci arrived at Marx not from Hegel >but from Croce, about whom I know nothing other than his name and that he >wrote during the Italian bourgeois revolution, while Hegel wrote during >the German bourgeois revolution ) at the same time for the same reasons. >Habermas in contrast used theory as a flight from practise. > >Adam. > > > >Adam Rose >SWP >Manchester >UK > > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > Keep On Keepin' On --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005