Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:32:45 +0000 From: MA&NG Jones <majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> Subject: M-I: Andrew Wayne Austin Andrew: Wotschek did not specifically say praxis is shit, but I will. Praxis is shit. Sorry to bang on old lad, but you have not responded to my earlier posts (a) excerpting Alfred Sohn-Rethel and (b) my post, copied below. Instead of flannelling on, please answer the spceific question: is S-R's indentification of the Kantian Transcendental Subject with the exchange-abtsraction inherent in commodity-exchange, correct OR NOT? -- Regards, Mark Jones majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~majones/index.htm >from my post of: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:53:31 +0000 " In a post this morning it was suggested that there existed a transcendental subject. It was also admitted that Marx did not believe this. I agree with Marx. There is no Abolute Idea. " Wayne, I also agree with Marx (for what it is worth) and so did Sohn- Rethel: his whole point was that Kant's 'Transcendental Subject' was fetishistic, was a product of the fantastic, reality-inverting world of commodity-fetishism. Pity if you throw out the baby with the bath- water. If you don't accept the point of S-R's critique of epistemology - that you cannot explain the results or categories of Newtonian science >from direct observation, because these results/categories are ipso facto transcendental, then how DO you explain the immanentism of Newtonian science? By recourse to positivism? The Diamat? What? I hate to make this sound like a viva, but if you do not grasp this point then you are still trapped a sociological conception of marxism and an idealistic conception not only of science but its subject. BTW, we can surely forget Althusser who admitted at the end that he had never actually read Capital himself. Wayne says: Note that even if the dialectic we hold subjectively is a reflection of an objective dialectic inherent in nature, we would still behold this dialectic subjectively. Who, in the endless iteration of beholding subjects this suggests, is the ultimate "we" doing the ultimate "beholding"? Bourgeois philosophy is a leaking ship: transcendentalism seeps in everywhere. Also in your formulations of the matter here and throughout your piece. That is why we need to acknolwedge the old bastard, the kantian TS, and give him a home at last, instead of letting him wander around like Hamlet's ghost (the proper home being the commodity-form and the fetishised forms of thought arising from it). Wayne said: Humans humanize their world through the labor process. The material life-process is social practice at its most foundational level. The labor process in interaction with nature materializes the known and knowable world. [you immediately ad: "Marx regarded it irrelevant to speak of nature independent of humans, because one cannot stand outside their humanity, even as the most extreme points of self-alienation." but infortunately this is what you do most of the time]. This takes talk of 'humanizing the world ' and 'material life-process' us straight back to Engels, the human hand, origins of labour etc; again it is to anthropomorphise labour, the very thing you are supposed to be warning us off. Where, actually, is commodity- exchange, the commodity-form and the exchange-abstraction in all this? If, as you seem to say, Marixsm unites method and result -- that he (Marx) eschews a priori laws and therefore methods of research: then how is it even possible to talk about 'the dialectic' without talking about Marx's specific investigation of the commodity-form? You surely cannot say, as yoiu go on to do, "The labor process in interaction with nature materializes the known and knowable world. " without negating the very thing you are trying to prove: namely that *for us* nature is not a priori, ie, we only *see* and more to the point, *construct* nature *socially*; once again, the fantasised *abstract- universal* of nature creeps into your thinking, and why? Because you have not purged it of its fantasised Transcendental Subject. You next quote Marx: "Man makes his life-activity itself the object of his will and his consciousness." Exactly that is the pooint: Marx never even allows some fantasised Nature into his discourse: it is not, for KM, "The labor process in interaction with nature [that] materializes the known and knowable world." but 'Man's life-activity [which is] itself the object'. Marx himself has been accused of anthropologising labour for exactly this kind of remark, but it seems clear to me anyway that Marx discriminates only methodologicaly between a domain which is knowable to us directly, ie objectively (the social world of labour) and a domain which is not thus knowable, which is therefore only knowable (in class-based, commodity producing, dualistic societies, which his was and ours still is) in a reified, fetishised, fantastic form, and which THEREFORE, for this (methodological) reason only, he excludes ab initio from his investigation. This is why Marx on society is (proletarian) science whereas Engels (and Marx) on nature is not, in my opinion. Engels and Marx may both have written about nature and natural science thinmgs that may often have been right, insightful and even profound, as well as often worng or irrelevant, but in any case what they wrote was NOT science, proletarian or otherwise. Since the whole purpose and object of Marx's critique of political economy was to show how the social world has been constructed historically out of the natural world (over disucssion of which his Trappist vow held), it follows that for Karl Marx all of natural science - physics, chemistry, biology - is radically fetishistic and will not exist under Communism BECAUSE under communism, society itself, qua reified labour and the social division of alienated labour, will also not exist. No TS. Therefore no immanent object. No society. Therefore no Nature. Marx's implied (but never more than sketched) critique of (bourgeois) natural science is therefore wholly destructive of all its pretensions, as Engels's was not and could not have been. Which is no insult to Engels. Your quotes are the best there are, but I'm not sure about how you use them! For instance: Marx: "The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man's species life [ie, the object of labour is NOT, according to KM, "interaction with nature [which] materializes the known and knowable world" as you have said only moments before, but the 'objectification of mankind's species life,', alone: this is either a cumbersome and convoluted way for Marx to say 'Nature' or is Marx exactly not saying 'Nature' but speaking instead only of knowledge of 'man's species life']: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality. and therefore he contemplates himself in a world he created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species life, his real species objectivity." Marx could not have been clearer (I can't think of a clearer way to put it, anyhow): labour, which is always social (as KM's criticisms of Robinson Crusoe-ades shows), ie, labour which produces society as its object THEREBY denies humankind its own objectivity, denies it the possibility of self-knowledge (those who make a political and theoretical fetish of 'labour', usually because of a glorifying of the industrial working class not merely as the gravedigger of capitalism but as the subsequent Builder of Communism, have not followed Marx's argument but instead make the mistake of absolutising this century's glorious, but failed, experiments in the construction of socialism, rather than learning the lessons of this failure). Your way of thinking reproduces this, IMO, erroneous view of Marxism line by line: "First, Marx is arguing that human beings say, imagine, and conceive laws, truth, facts, etc.. Laws, truth, and facts are not self-objectifying. [good, I agree, this is truly what Marx thinks]. They have a conceptual foundation that emerges from the real material life process of human beings [but that is exactly what KM *does not* think -- not real material life but real social life, etc -- you elide the distinction Marx made in the process of explicating it]." I do not propose to comment on your thoughts about Engels's alleged racism etc. You quote Avineri. Unfortunately or not I have lost my copy of this book. I know I had one, in the days when I used to subscribe to Verso book club. But as is already clear both from your own preceding analysis and from what I have just opined, Marx was not guilty of the pop-sociological philistinism Avineri attributes to him. [you cite]: "According to Marx, nature cannot be discussed as if it were severed >from human action, for nature as a potential object for human cognition has already been affected by previous human action or contact. Hence nature is never an opaque datum. The phrases 'humanized nature' and 'humanism equals naturalism' recur in Marx's writings, and 'naturalism' in his sense is virtually the opposite of what is generally implied by this term in traditional philosophical discussion. " I think this is all bullshit, frankly. The succeeding quotes from Avineri are less senseless but they surely belong in an outdated Marx primer, not here. Your own discussion of the issues is far better! I omit my comments on the rest of your argy-bargy with co-respondents, which mostly is just spleen venting and does not advance matters much. In the end Austin repeats what he has already made us familiar with as his view. Austin says: "Do I believe nature is a social construction? No. I believe that nature exists mind-independently. I believe that nature is prior to human being. I believe in physical reality." This is mere catechism. I defy anyone to find a similar set of unforced (and philosophically idealist) statements anywhere in Marx's writings. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005