Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:18:41 -0700
From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar-AT-marx.econ.utah.edu>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Outside Observers for Class reading Capital




Despite Rahul's criticisms I stand by the paragraph I wrote yesterday:

   >(2) Modern schooling deprives the students of the cognitive tools to
   >understand society.  Methodological individualism, the fact-value
   >distinction, empiricism, the overemphasis on analytical thinking
   >versus dialectical thinking, etc., are barriers preventing their
   >understanding of the society they live in.  The same errors also
   >prevent their understanding of Marx's text, and this gives me an entry
   >point from which I hope to open their minds so that they will be
   >better able to learn from their own experiences.

And actually I do not think that you, Rahul, and I are very far apart.

If you agree that methodological individualism is "a severe impediment
to analysis and is taught in the schools and the general culture",
then there is no disagreement between us on this topic.  If you do not
trust that Marxists are able to present a better view, then I disagree here,
but let us first talk about what is wrong before discussing how to
fix it.

By "overemphasis of analytical versus dialectical thinking", I meant
just that: overemphasis.  They form a dialectical pair, both are
necessary.  I did not propose to shift from one to the other, as you
implied.  What I meant is that people are simply not taught to see
things as complexes of contradictory elements.  They have to handle
contradictions all the time, modern society gives them plenty of
opportinities for that, but they often are not aware of what the
contradictions are, they have no conceptions what it means to "handle"
a contradiction, they do not distinguish between different kinds of
contradictions.  Mao's distinction between contradictions among the
people and contradictions with the class enemy is a very simple
theoretical tool, but people generally do not have such tools
available.  Bhaskar's concept of de-onts, the reality of things that
are not, is missing in traditional Western Philosophy.  Modern
mainstream or even Postkeynesian economic theories of money are a good
example of what you get if you cannot think dialectically.


Regarding the fact-value distinction I maintain that facts contain
values.  When the doctor says that an organism is ill, this is a value
statement; not one which the doctor imposes on the world based on his
personal prferences, but one which is necessary to appropriately
describe reality.  When Marx says that capitalist society induces
illusions about itself in the heads of those living in it, this is a
value statement.  Societies should be liberating the individiduals
instead of blinding them.  This "should" lies in the nature of
societies, it does not come from the Ten Commandments of Marxism.
Religion is the other pole of modern science's expurgation of values out
of the facts, in secret complicity with it.


Regarding your point on empiricism, again we seem to agree on the
substantive issues, but you do not trust that I can explain it to
undergraduate students or high school students.



My thesis is that people are generally smart and sometimes they even
try to think, but in modern society they are hindered because they do
not learn the right categories.  The other half of my thesis is that
reading Marx will help them.  Don't underestimate Marxism.  It may
come across as simplistic, and my very brief remarks above will
probably reinforce this impression, but if explicated correctly it is
a very powerful body of thought.

Hans.





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