Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 21:52:28 -0400
From: "colin s. cavell" <cscpo-AT-polsci.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Normativity and stats (was Marxism and academia)



Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Andy Daitsman <ADAITS-AT-macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Normativity and stats (was Marxism and academia)

Andy Daitsman writes:
 
>Which brings us back to questions of epistemology: how do we know the universe
>around us?  How closely does our knowledge of reality approximate reality
>itself?  Lurking behind these questions, for a revolutionary at least, is the
>most important one: how can we hope to change reality if we don't know what it
>is that we are changing?
> 
>I guess Colin and Louis have that question answered to their complete
>and total satisfaction...
 
Andy,

   Questions of epistemology and ontology are indeed essential, and less you
jump to any further erroneous conclusions about my beliefs, I will state
clearly for you that reality is not an unproblematic phenomenon.  But, so as to
inform readers as to where your particular ire arises from, let me reprint
some of your initial comments responding to Louis Proyect's comment, followed
by my observation, to which you responded to me in private demanding some
explanation, to which I responded that such a discussion might only be
beneficial if it were posted to the list.


<<<On Tue, 16 Aug 1994 at 09:00 -0500 (CDT)
<<<Andy Daitsman <ADAITS-AT-macc.wisc.edu>
<<<wrote:

>>Louis Proyect writes:
 
>My main beef is with what Perry Anderson calls "Western Marxism". This
>trend includes the Frankfurt school, Althusser, Sartre, Lukacs et al.
>This is a sanitized version of Marxism which is apparently quite
>acceptable in the academic world. This form of Marxism has very little to
>do with Marx's original goal: the abolition of capitalism.

>>Louis,
>>
>>I humbly suggest that you are missing the point...   
>> 
>>Misfortune continues in this tale.  The Marxist dialectic predicted certain
>>historical outcomes, such as the ultimate proletarianization of the entire
>>workforce, a final crisis in capitalism, and a world revolution of the
>>proletariat over the bourgeoisie.  Of these three predictions, perhaps the
>>first has been fulfilled, but even that did not happen in anywhere near the
>>way in which Marx predicted it...
>>
>>As far as revolutions, well, real existing socialism has already collapsed,
>>hasn't it?...
>> 
>>In other words, too close a reliance on original or orthodox Marxism
>>means using an outmoded and outdated discourse to try to understand a society
>>that no longer exists.
>>
>>See ya,
>>Andy

<<<Louis,
<<<   I believe Andy has proven your point.
<<<
<<<                                                      Regards,
<<<    	   
<<<            		                              colin s. cavell


Andy,

You apparently disagree that Louis's point, couched in Anderson's
observations, was proven by your remarks.  Your inability to see what I saw is
exactly why I decided to wait until you made reference to this disagreement on
the marxism conference, for it appears that our ontological and perhaps 
epistemological referents are incommensurable.

But as regards your current assertion that I, along with Louis, have answered
the question of what is real to our "complete and total satisfaction," let me
state, for the record, that I made no such claim.  However, Andy, YOU did make
certain statements about reality and asserted them quite unproblematically
such that 1) Louis "misses the point" [for myself, I don't know if by this you
are asserting that what really is at stake in this discussion is a) how we 
discourse about the failure of socialism? or b) how problematic it is to know 
what reality is? or c) how upset some academics get when their revolutionary 
credentials are challenged?, etc.), 2) with regard to Marx's prediction of 
the proletarianization of the entire workforce, it did not "happen in anywhere
near the way in which Marx had predicted it," 3) "real existing socialism has 
already collapsed" (although you do, presumably as an afterthought, ask for 
confirmation of this "fact"), and 4)relying on "original or orthodox Marxism 
means using an outmoded or outdated discourse to try to understand a society 
that no longer exists."  Note also that we could divide this last claim into 
two statements of fact, if we wanted to question whether your assertion 
implied that the same motivational forces at work in the 19th century have 
ceased or been altered in some manner.

So, you see, Andy, it is you who appears to see certain aspects of reality
unproblematically.  I only juxtaposed your words to those of Louis' and made
an observation.  I did not claim it to be the reality; indeed, I prefaced it
with the statement:  "I believe...."

                                                   Regards,

                                               colin s. cavell



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin S. Cavell				"This union [of workers] is helped
Department of Political Science		on by the improved means of 
Thompson Tower				communication that are created by
University of Massachusetts		Modern Industry, and that place
Amherst, MA  01003			the workers of different localities
Internet:  cscpo-AT-polsci.umass.edu	in contact with one another."
Voice:  (413) 546-3408 (H)		-- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
        (413) 545-3683 (W)                   "The Communist Manifesto"
============================================================================

 










     ------------------