Date: 24 Nov 96 18:49:24 EST From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-CompuServe.COM> Subject: M-TH: Criticism and self-criticism There is a issue of *content* going on about whether in any meaningful sense value exists, and if so can it be presented in a way that is relevant to practice. The issue of *form*, is a groping towards some conventions of reasonable practice in criticism and self-criticsm. It is very interesting how these lists of would be marxists, of very different beliefs and backgrounds are having to re-invent communist conventions of criticism and self-criticism. You may suspect the other person of being the worst bastard in the world, or even of being a police spy, but gradually the experience of these exchanges is that even if you mistrust everybody, it is not usually in your interests to have too much of a reputation for launching personal attacks you cannot easily substantiate. It is not in your interests just to present general expressions of contempt. It is more in your interest to make criticism focussed and sustainable. It is also, *even with those you distrust the most* wise to present the criticism in such a way that if they are genuine, and they understand your point, they have an opportunity of changing. That way in fact you put more pressure on them to change rather than less. And preserve a reasonable working relationship. And what is interesting to me at this moment is that there is a drift in this direction which over the weeks and months is quite strong, without a single homily being read about how we should assume we are all comrades who must work together in a common cause, and behave in a "comradely" way to each other. At a time when a number of people are criticising Jerry for his personalised and contemptuous way of criticising Juan, Ralph has tabled a post making criticisms of the way I criticised Juan. Obviously I think my way is superior, but we will see in practice. I would like to respond to Ralph's challenge more fully, but I will probably not have time. His psychological sketch of me, is not a million miles from the mark. Nor is it spot on target. I want to emphasise that this is not making a diagnosis, because it is a serious charge to be misusing such a skill unethically. I have just been listening to a radio broadast about psychiatry with telelinks, but I certainly assume it is unethical, and even more basic, absurd to consider making a diagnosis over the internet. I would say Ralph's sketch is a class analysis, and an analysis of someone's cultural position, done with some psychological inight. What we agree on is that it is necessarily abstract particularly in a medium like this, where we cant even see each other. I think that is legitimate. It is better done with sympathy and compassion, but it is true we all meet with our personal, class and national experience behind us. And this may sometimes be relevant, in argument. This is not the first time I have tried to engage with Juan. I did so on M1 when he seemed to be making similar general criticisms of John Ernst as he appears to have outlined about Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman. I think it is most unlikely that he is putting these economists in the same category as Milton Friedman or Hayek but I think it is fair he should be challenged to explain what he meant. At the same time I support him, and Jerry on maintaining the importance of the marxian theory of value. [For the record I also think Jerry has a perfect right in a private, moderated, task-orientated list to decline admission to someone, whom, bearing in mind the aims and membership of the list, he may think probably will not contribute as hoped. Jerry's judgement may be wrong, but I do not see that Juan can complain about his right to such a judgement. It would be better if the argument switched from the Buenos Ares Jockey Club to how the Law of Value can be made to seem relevant, but Juan does not seem to think that can be done, without a concession of principle to bourgeois empiricism.] As for the psychological content of my post, well, if Ralph has not discovered what his delete button is for, and he doesn't like it, the answer is still in his hands. In particular I was responding to a post from Juan, that Ralph may not have seen, entitled, "Value, conscious action, and Chris' questions". In this, in reply to my question of to whom/for whom was he writing, Juan said, startlingly, towards the end of a post in which he used my name over a dozen times: "By the way, since Chris has been interested in walking at least to his crossroad with me, he has provided us with an obvious concrete answer for his question "for whom it is written?." Yes, Chris, it is written for you." I started my reply, to which, Ralph objected, "Dear Juan, This feels as much a psychological encounter as an analytical one." This was not a manipulative self-indulgence. Juan had also indicated he was particularly interested in psychological comments from me. I was interested in trying to get beyond the impasse in which this intelligent man, is not IMO effectively communicating, at least with me. Talking about my reactions seemed to me a way of checking my criticism that although he is championing a real (but elusive) entity, the law of value, the way in which he does so is unecessarily idealist. And what Ralph will also not know is that despite my prejudices against Althusser, I have been stimulated by some questions on the marxism-psych list closely to read him on ideology. Juan is also subscribed to that list, and so I was making a cross reference that I hoped he would find relevant. about the necessarily abstract way, so Althusser argues, we always see other subjects (individuals). That has been illustrated in the recent flare ups, and adds to the arguments that it is in the interests of the criticiser and well as the cricised, that there are some rough standards of good practice in criticism on these lists. Chris Burford London. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005