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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005