From: "jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: There Are Things Worse Than Eclecticism
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:37:58 +0100


Casey writes:

 You argument is with Doug, who stated that Foucault and Butler could add
> something by way of an analysis of 'micro-politics' to the Marxist
tradition.
> I was simply suggesting to him a book which attempted the project he was
> describing.

If Fouceault turns Doug on that's fine with me, but Fouceault opted out of
Marxism because of Marxism's alleged "deficiencies".  The question then is
whether you want to continue in the spirit of an intellectual tradition, or
start a new one, or debate about who has caught up with the real spirit or
the real tradition.  Or drown yourself in spirituality.  Actually I much
rather hear from Doug about the areas of concern on which he himself
written a book, that seems very valuable indeed.  But I don't propose to
dictate any discussion, this is just a cyberspace free for all, and if we
maintain a healthy atmosphere among us perhaps something really good comes
out of it.  

Casey writes:

 I would point out, however, that if  you rigorously employed your criteria
described above, virtually every major  figure in the Marxist tradition
after Marx and Engels would come under criticism for attempting to
'integrate, recuperate, etc.' non-Marxist elements into the Marxist
tradition. 

This is true, starting with Marx, who said about his work in political
economy that he had done very little that was really new except make a
handful of new
but crucial (revolutionary !) distinctions.  Synthesising is of the essence
of Marxism.  Then Marxists get into problems because who is allowed to do
the synthesising ? For instance, Mattick in Crisis and Crisis Theories
attacks Mandel because Mandel allegedly tries to integrate insights from
bourgeois economists into Marxism.  Of course Mandel is only doing what
Marx did, the question is whether the synthesis succeeds, and if it does
not succeed, why not.  And here I differ from Mattick probably.  Pretty
quickly then we will be discussing "true" Marxism or "true" socialism and
that sort of debate has a long history as Hal Draper shows in his books.
Some points seem obvious to me:

(1) Marxism is founded on the work of Marx who was a wissenschaftler
welcoming every new advancement in science and technology, but "above all a
revolutionary seeking to work for the liberation of the proletariat from
capitalism" (Engels - somebody might be able to give the exact quote from
the graveside speech).
(2) Marx didn't have such an exciting lovelife by modern standards, he was
rather messy, he smoked too many cigars and didn't have enough baths, and
he had piles.  (This is a  concession of mine to Fouceault).
(3) Marxism is both a doctrine or substantive, distinct theory (it has a
set of "hard core" hypotheses to use Imre Lakatos's terminology) and a
method. 
(4) Synthesis (theoretical development) is welcome, but (a) the purpose of
it must be kept in mind, and (b) the innovations that are made must be
consistent with - if not the letter - then at least the spirit of Marx.

When I was being ever so slight polemical about structuralism, it is
because I feel the structuralist graft doesn't really work, it doesn't
really stick, especially when Althusser start talking about history as a
process without a subject. I feel people like Frank Furedi are spot on when
they put the subject back in the centre of the historical stage. 
Incidentally perhaps as you know Althusser was rather unkind to say the
least with his own wife, and whereas there is in principle no necessary
connection with his malabstractions I get the peculiar feeling that there
was at least some connection. 

Casey writes:

Thank you, but I will stick with Gramsci, whose very power and interest
lies in precisely in his efforts to do so, from his use of Machievalli to
conceptualize the party as the Modern Prince to his dialogue with the
Italian Hegelian idealists.

That approach has a lot of merit, after all, Gramsci was a Marxist and a
revolutionary, and moreover he was justabout the only famous Western
Marxist with certified proletarian credentials.  But let us also bear in
mind that Gramsci wrote his Prison Notebooks in jail under fascist
supervision, and that he deliberately used a certain sort of language to
avoid the censors, which, thank goodness, we don't have to worry about too
much in cyberspace (unless you are a childporn freak which I am not).  I
think Machiavelli though is more James Heartfield's area and I will leave
Machiavelli to him knowing he is in good hands.
 
Casey writes:

> As for the claim that revolutionary Marxists and revolutionary Communists
 --
> an euphemism, I take it, for Lenin, Trotsky and their epigones -- being
the
> only source of interesting theory on the state, I find it of little value
to
> argue with such declarations of faith. Go back to the gospels if you
want,
> but don't be surprised if others do not share the faith. The fact of the
> matter is that many of those outside the Leninist faith, with both its
> Stalinist and Trotskyist churches, including Poulantzas, Foucault and
Butler,
> were and are political activists, and reflect upon their political
> experiences in their theory. Indeed, who knew the power of the fascist
state
> better than Gramsci?
> 
We could get into a dispute about what is revolutionary Marxism or what is
revolutionary communism. But that is a big debate and can I solve this
debate with a small remark on Thaxis ? I don't believe that.  And, to be
honest, I am reviewing my own opinions about that since I met many
individuals claiming to be  revolutionary Marxists who turned out to be
absolute ********.  (I am engaging in self-censorship here).  Yeah,
Poulantzas did get involved in activism and I regretted his death.  But I
still have a gripe about PCF policy in 1968, I felt there was something
deeply wrong there, and about all the implications of that.  Poulantzas
argues, in line with eurocommunism, that the state is the condensation of
class forces.  There is something in that idea, but I just believe he gets
it wrong.  Now if he had said the state is the condensation of bourgeois
class forces....

Casey writes:

> Lastly, I would be fascinated to know how much you have reflected upon
this
> Christian notion of suicide as a personal, moral failing which you tout.
Did
> you contemplate the idea that suicide could be an entirely rational
approach
> to a fatal, wasting disease, or that it might be a result of a mental
illness
> over which the individual had no control? What would either possibility
tell
> us about the theoretical work of the individual involved? 

I did try to commit suicide once.  At the critical moment when the knife
entered  my body, I thought of Marx, and I thought of Richard Bandler, and
then I thought "this doesn't make sense".  So I did not proceed, I patched
up the wound and went back to work, to work on a problem of statistical
classification (I was working as research statistician at that time). My
boss found out about it because I wasn't being punctual, and when he then
found out I had attempted  suicide in my lunchhour, he was shocked and said
"do you realise I have to take this upstairs and discuss it with management
?".  Concerning literature on suicide, I did work through Durkheim once but
I wonder whether I should really have done that.  Well at least Durkheim
did try to grapple with things out there in the real world, "social facts"
did exist for Durkheim.

Casey writes:

> are we to dismiss Marx's work because he had a child by the family maid,
and then passed her off as Engels' offspring? And what about the fact that
there was a family maid to begin with? 

I am not dismissing Marx's work, I am discussing it.  If Marx wanted to
pass off his natural illegetimate child as Engels's offspring that's fine
with me, heavens knows what would have happened to Fredy Demuth otherwise. 
If I am not mistaken the maid was there of her own volition, even though
the payment was lousy by standards.  As for myself, I have never had a maid
other than with my trousers down. 

This nonsense has no place in intelligent discussion of the theories
involved.
> 
Then why are we discussing Fouceault and micro issues and stuff like that ?

He starts to do the cha cha when band's playing rock 'n' roll
Casey you better move man, this is a only a one night stand> 

Over and out.
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---