From: Hans Despain <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu>
Date:          Thu, 23 Feb 1995 22:27:48 GMT-700
Subject:       marx and bhaskar


Allin Cottrell, writes his "misgiving[s] about Bhaskar concerns his 
originality, or lack of.  What, in the end, is he saying that was not 
already said by Marx, Engels, Althusser?"

Wow, this is strong!  I'm not sure that very much of what Bhaskar 
says is actually explicitly said by anyone else.  Much may be 
implicit, but even this is often confussed.  Here again, I think I 
can find something important from Colletti.  In other words, it is 
because Marx never is explicit about his philosophy of science that 
we can only construct his method from a few brief mentions and his 
presentation.  Colletti suggestion of returning to Kant, can seem to 
stand on appearently firm ground becuase Marx never explicated what 
his methodology is, hence, maybe Kantian intuition can be 
acctractive in this light.  And, in fact Marx's method can even 
seem more eclectic then this.

It seems to me that Bhaskar is following Marx very close.  But, 
because Marx seems to being accepting some kind Kantian intuition, 
Bhaksar project is much more then what any of the above three were 
able to say.  Bhaskar continually seems to be asking the 
trancendental question 'if Marx's theory is correct (as it certainly 
seems to be) then what must the world and society be like.'  
Bhaskar's work seems a very important contribution, just explicating 
what is implicit in Marx is of great value, but Bhaskar certainly 
goes beyond this.  It seems to me that this extention of Marx comes 
even more clear in his *Dialectic*.

Bhaskar actually gives a very good, but implicit critique of 
Colletti's position.  And I for one believe that Bhaskar offers much 
more then a re-statement of Marx, Engles and Althusser.


Hans Despain
University of Utah
despain-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu


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

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