File spoon-archives/marxism-theory.archive/marxism-theory_1997/marxism-theory.9711, message 23


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:57:26 +0200 (EET)
From: j laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: Post-Marxism and Paleo-Marxism


One side-note to your discussion, if accepted...

Leo wrote:

"I approach this thread with some ambivalence. It started as my
attempt to explain what I meant when I said (via an introduction to
the list) that politics and theory were not reducible to each other,
that my politics were best described as radical democratic, and that
after a long engagement with the Marxist theoretical tradition, my
theoretical presuppositions could be best described as 'post-Marxist'.
[...] Politics is my passion; theory informs my politics, and is more
of an advocation than a passion. I have long since abandoned what I
think is a fundamentally sectarian faith in the power of "correct"
ideas to lead to "correct" politics to lead to "revolution". For a
tradition such as Marxism, which places great stake on its
'materialism', this obsession with "correct" ideas (expressed in the
fetish of the 'program') is the crudest of idealist practices. If my
theoretical ideas and perspective shed some light for some, fine; if
others find them less helpful, no great loss. I have become something
of a theoretical agnostic and pragmatist. What is important for me is
the capacity to develop common ground on political questions."

Justin answered (to latter part of paragraph above):

"OK, some Trotskyists have some such views. I don't and neither I
think does any other Marxist on this list. I do want to have "correct"
or anyway, true, ideas, although this is something I want quite
independently of Marxism. I think we all are better off with true
ideas than false ones and that true ideas are more likely to guide us
to whatever goals we have. I certainly do _not_ think that the correct
line will galvanize the working class and lead to revolution."

I think Leo clearly refers to (hopefully well known) difference
between political (and moral) philosophy on one hand, and social
philosophy and theory on the other. In marxist circles the emphasis
have usually been on the latter, which means that *discription* -
concerning, for example, social process, its central factors, its
structure - as accurate as possible has given priority and seen to be
essential to politics. The soviet idea of 'scientific socialism'
embodies this tendency probably the best (not sure about that).

Gramsci doesn't seem to fit easily to this tendency (when he, in
"Prison Notebooks", mocks sociology of his times and favours the
science of politics as an enterprise more convenient to political
use). His reliance is more on political philosophy as an effort to
*elaborate* different possible political strategies in a given
situation; their inherent problems as well as possibilities, possible
dead-ends as well as strengths etc. In short, pol. phil. as the most
important theoretical tool for political practice in order to
*evaluate* the present situation and future possibilities from the
viewpoint of politics.

Neither of these don't deny the other in principle, but for some
reason classics usually have had the tendency to give weight to one in
favour of the other. It seems to me that Leo favours political phil.
in this sense, while Justin is in favour of social phil. - and their
clash is due to fact that they haven't made it clear enough to each
others from what viewpoint they're considering the issues? At least
that's how I understand their basic differences.

Does this make any sense?

Jukka


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005