Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:52:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Some Bourdieu and a pinch of RegSchool


On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Dave Bedggood wrote:

> 
> I would like Justin to answer the following questions:
> 
> (1) If you do not hold to Marx's theory of value, what basis is there for
> arguing exploitation under capitalism, and for overthrowing capitalism?

I have explained this at some length in my paper "What's Wrong With
Exploitation?" Nous 1995, which has been archived on one or another of
these Marxism lists. The very short answer is that capitalist exploitation
is indeed exploitation in general, appropriation of a surplus, and that by
itself suffices as a basis for overthrowing capitalism if there's a
nonexploitative alternative; moreover in a general sense it is
appropriation of surplus value, where that is an acknowledgement that
capitalists want the surplus not for itself butr as a source of profits,
whatever is the source of surplus and whatever is its measure. As a
matter of fact I think it's demonstrable that most of the value of thwe
surplus is due to labor, but the labor theory of value, on which all the
value is embodied  labor by definition and is properly measured in labor
time units is for reasons I have argued elsewhere extensively, indefensible.

> 
> (2) If you take away Marx's theory of value, what is left of "marxism"?
> 

A great deal. Historical materialism. Class analysis. Exploitation theory.
Theory of ideology and the state. A rather rich moral theory (alienation,
real freedom, etc.). That's why I'm still a Marxist.

> (3) Surely "thinking hard" is a very post-modern conception of social
> science. Don't you think that Marx developed an existing body of knowledge
> which made specific reference to certain regularities, namely labour and
> value, and extended these theories in an "illuminating way"?
> 

Actually "thinking hard" is an old-fashioned conception of social science,
probably with an empiricist flavor in my case. Pomos _hate_ hard thinking
and generally don't do it. As for Marx's use of value theory, while it
does embody a great deal of hard thinking, and is indeed illuminating in
certain ways, I think it cannot count as a body of knowledge in the
literal sense because it is false. 

> (4) Do you think the "failure of Western Bolshevism" refutes Bolshevism as
> such, "toy Bolshevism"  or Marx's theory of value?
> 
Certainly not Marx's theory of value, which fails on other grounds.

Certainly it refutes toy Bolshevism, an utterly barren enterprise
practiced in tiny political sects with no political importance or hope of
having any. In these grouplets small numbers of middle class radicals
amuse each other by talking an arcane language barely related to English,
and indeed largely translated from Russian debates of 1903-1940, with
which no working class person with any sense has any patience.
Occasionally they are helpful in organizing a demo or strike support if
they can break free of hermetic intra-party activities. 

Up through the 1970s Communist Parties in Western Europe, and in AMerica
the CPUSA in the 1930s and early 40s, were not toy Bolshevik sects in this
sense but genuine political forces with a working class base. They were
also Bolshevik only in name. 

I don't know anything about communism is Australia or New Zealand.

I don't know what Bolshevism "as such" is. In Lenin's day Bolshevism had a
certain plausibility and it arguably retained that plausibility for some
time into the 1930s. But at some point in between some date or another in
the 30s and some point in the 60s, it should have bcome evident that it
wasn't working, East or West, North or South. 

I say this as someone who was a committed member of a self-styled Bolshevik
organization (not the CPUSA but the CWP) in the 1980s. It was a good group
filled with wonderful comrades who did some good things, but it had
serious delusions. When it lost them, the group came apart. I am now in
Solidarity, a non-Bolshevik revolutionary socialist organization, which,
however, has some members who think of themselves as Bolsheviks and some,
like me, who do not.

>  (5) Do you think that competing "third way" theories such as you advocate,
> and which specified exploitation on some basis other than Marx's theory of
> value,  may have been confirmed by the "failure" of Bolshevism?

No. The connection either way is too tenuous for confirmation or
disconfirmation. The problems with value theory are rather deep logical
problems. The problem with Bolshevism is not a logical error but that it
was an historical bet that didn't pan out. It might have done, but things
didn't work out that way. Even if it had, that wouldn't have fixed the
logical problems with value theory. And if those problems could be fixed,
value theory would be a good theory even though Bolshevism failed.


--Justin




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